Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
Flare Sci-Fi Forums
»
Star Trek
»
Starships & Technology
»
Starfleet refits and registries
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message:
HTML is enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by CaptainMike: [QB] I dont think we're going to make much more headway on the issue.. i prefer the 'registries are non-sequential, but vaguely chronological' theory that [i]Constitution[/i] 1700 and [i]Enterprise[/i] 1701 were the first ships in 2245, then subsequent ships built through different appropriations (perhaps at different yards) were given unused, older registries. Going by the old razor that the simplest explanation is the best explanation certainly eliminates the theories that there were other classes that had simlar saucers or stardrive hulls and were upgraded to [i]Constitution[/i]s (or the dubious explanation that like-appearing vessels were actually of different classes that just LOOKED the same :rolleyes: ).. besides, if the [i]Enterprise[/i] was considered old (needing that drastic refit at 25 years and being decommissioned at 40), how could we justify the [i]Constellation[/i] 1017 not only being 40-50 years old but also having been completely restructured? Possibly the yards that built [i]Eagle[/i] 956 and [i]Constellation[/i] simply had been appropriated to build vessels with older registries, ships that were later cancelled and the registries unused. So when the time came to build newer ships, the old numbers were next on the list to be taken. coming up with fantastical explanations is only confusing the issue more. And I have to say i still agree with Veers.. its spelled 'registries', not 'registaries' [/QB][/QUOTE]
Instant Graemlins
Instant UBB Code™
What is UBB Code™?
Options
Disable Graemlins in this post.
*** Click here to review this topic. ***
© 1999-2024 Charles Capps
Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3