Date: Sun, 09 May 1999 20:01:41 -0700
From: Rick Sternbach
Organization: RSS
Newsgroups: startrek.expertforum.ricksternbach
Prometheus has to have separate warp reactors for each of the three sections. I am
going to propose that the nose section core is on standby and not connected to the
rest of the ship except by EPS power manifolds, but the two aft hull reactors are
intimately coupled during connected flight and act as one core.
Rick
[This message has been edited by Boris (edited September 29, 1999).]
Posted by Bernd (Member # 6) on :
If I compare the MSD to the CGI side view, the nacelles are in wrong positions, which can be explained by the MSD being not supposed to be an exact image of the ship's appearance. The shape of the main hull, however, is different too. Look at the bridge and the saucer underside.
http://www.uni-siegen.de/~ihe/bs/startrek/schematics/prometheus.jpg
------------------
Get your free signature at Ex Astris Scientia
Posted by Dax (Member # 191) on :
Thanks, Hobbes
I wonder why the ship itself had that stupid, yet clearly visible, registry. The MSD one is far more appropriate. Did someone say that the ded plaque has the same registry as the MSD?
------------------
"Forgive me if I don't share your euphoria!" (Weyoun to Dukat, Tears of the Prophets)
Dax's Ships of STAR TREK
Posted by Bernd (Member # 6) on :
New SWDAO:
Prometheus registry
The USS Prometheus as seen in VOY: "Message in a Bottle" was supposed to be a brand new prototype, yet, the clearly visible hull number was NX-59650, as if the ship were at least two decades old. This registry is completely out of range, even if it is taken into account that building a prototype takes considerably longer than a series production ship. There have been several theories about the Prometheus registry, one of the most promising being that the ship had been approved of and given a registry years before the project actually started. The ship was given its name probably in honor of the Nebula class USS Prometheus which almost definitely must have been destroyed, most likely in the Dominion War.
The situation has changed with the 3rd edition of the Star Trek Encyclopedia that depicts the MSD and dedication plaque, both images showing NCC-74913. While this registry perfectly suits a ship being new as of 2374, this number was never shown on screen, as opposed to NX-59650. Following a strict definition of canon, the latter number would be still the only correct one.
Both numbers might be included in one theory if we assume the registry has been changed some time after "Message in a Bottle". Maybe the old number was meant to conceal the real age of the ship, but, in this case it wouldn't have been a good idea to use the prefix "NX", representing an experimental ship. Moreover, the possible enemies of the Federation should have been aware this is one ship type they don't know and therefore highly likely a most recent one, rather than relying on the registry which is rather meant as a scheme for internal Starfleet use.
------------------
Get your free signature at Ex Astris Scientia
Posted by Bernd (Member # 6) on :
The plaque was mentioned at
startrek.expertforum.ricksternbach
Some got an E3 and a scanner?
------------------
Get your free signature at Ex Astris Scientia
Posted by Michael Dracon (Member # 4) on :
I posted it there
Is it NX-74913 or NCC-74913 ????
Posted by The First One (Member # 35) on :
That makes it the highest registry we've ever seen, not bad for a ship that was obviously a prototype. � )
How about. . . the primary hull was taken off another vessel? A scrapped prototype. But back then they weren't designing ships with this shape of hull. . .
Posted by Michael Dracon (Member # 4) on :
Uhm:
Insurrection scout: NCC-75227
USS Sao Paulo: NCC-75633
Posted by Bernd (Member # 6) on :
Oh, it seems Hobbes was faster to write the SWDAO.
------------------
Get your free signature at Ex Astris Scientia
Posted by The First One (Member # 35) on :
*blink* Odd, I have both those numbers in my ship list. . . stupid Excel sort feature. Still, my point remains: a good high number.
Posted by Bernd (Member # 6) on :
What can we do with the NX-59650, if we assume the more pleasant number is correct? Close our eyes during the best scenes of "MiaB"?
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 138) on :
I mentioned that the NX-74913 registry which you can barely see on the MSD is also in the dedication plaque in my post listing all the starships in the new encyclopedia.
Also sorry that the quality of the image isn't that great, the MSD in the Enc3 wasn't that big and my scanner blew it up some.
As for what's the canon registry... both, since the images of the MSD and dedication plaque (DP) come from what's been seen in the episode. When I wrote to Mike Okuda, who is responsible for the MSD and DP (IIRC) he said he didn't even know what happened. But that he also agrees that the NX-74913 is the more logical registry since in the episode the Prometheus is suppose to be a new and highly advanced starship, and NX-59650 makes it seem much older.
------------------
"The keyboard, how quaint."
Federation Starship Datalink - Yet another site based on the popularity of starships.
[This message has been edited by Hobbes (edited September 29, 1999).]
Posted by The First One (Member # 35) on :
The original registry remains one of their most spectacular balls-ups ever, and you can understand Mike's reluctance to perpetuate it. This is, really, even worse than the Yamato! At least there we could say "we SAW the proper registry onscreen, and only ever heard the E-suffix one spoken, and that was by Riker who's a moron." Here we'll have to look at that incorrect registry on the Prometheus' nose forever.
Y'know, it's a really clear registry too. No doubt about any of the numbers. I reckon they did it just to annoy people like us. . .
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 138) on :
Sorry, I know I said I scan the Dauntless MSD in the enc3, but I couldn't get a good scan with it. It's too small, and unless the image is a decent size, LCARS stuff like the MSD never show up good on it. I certainly wouldn't mind having a book of them though for all the well-known and even some of the not-so-well-known ships.
------------------
"The keyboard, how quaint."
Federation Starship Datalink - Yet another site based on the popularity of starships.
Posted by Michael Dracon (Member # 4) on :
Ah! The Yamato registry...
Here is another one of those errors.
I am voting for NX-74913 as being the correct number, and the error being the number on the hull!
To quote Steve Pugh at startrek.expertforum.ricksternbach:
quote:
This one is:
(a) Higher than the Nebula class USS Prometheus NCC-71201
(b) between the Intrepids 74656 and 74705 and the Sao Paulo NCC-75633
and scout craft NCC-75227. Which fits in perfectly for commissioning
dates.
Posted by Aethelwer (Member # 36) on :
I really doubt registries are assigned at comissioning, though (Ent-D/Phoenix, Bradbury/Sutherland, etc.).
------------------
Frank's Home Page
"I firmly believe that the entire Star Trek universe exists only to make sure we continue to appreciate Star Wars and Babylon 5." - Andy Ihnatko
Posted by Elim Garak (Member # 14) on :
If they're not assigned at commissioning, are they assigned later or prior?
------------------
Elim Garak: "Oh, it's just Garak. Plain, simple Garak. Now, good day to you, Doctor. I'm so glad to have made such an... interesting new friend today." (DS9: "Past Prologue")
Posted by Michael Dracon (Member # 4) on :
Prior would be the most logical.
Posted by Mikey T (Member # 144) on :
I was wondering if anyone here is going to try to fix the Prometheus MSD?
------------------
"All you people, can't you see, can't you see
How your love's affecting our reality
Everytime we're down
You can make it right
And that makes you larger than life"
-Backstreet Boys
Posted by Black Knight (Member # 134) on :
what do you mean?
------------------
A-"Dippidy Doo." Q-"What forms on your dippity early in the morning?"--Johnny Carson
Posted by Jim Phelps (Member # 102) on :
Fix as in...? Personally, the only context in which I would use the word fix would be to fix a fan-drawn schematic after seeing the real thing. If you mean the hull proportions, they can be altered to match the actual shape more closely, but the MSD is not "wrong" because of that. It's just that Starfleet cares less about proportions in displays of this kind.
The registry conflict also has a reason. What's the pattern? In two cases, we've seen hull registries in conflict with the dedication plaques: a U.S.S. Defiant NCC 74210, as well as a U.S.S. Sao Paulo NCC 74205. We know that the plaques are correct in this case, hence there must be a reason for Starfleet to be changing them on the outer hull. Once we figure out what this reason is, we can apply the same to the 59650 of the Prometheus.
Boris
[This message has been edited by Boris (edited October 03, 1999).]
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 138) on :
quote:
"...hence there must be a reason for Starfleet to be changing them on the outer hull."
Perhaps they hired DS9's special FX people has their hull painters.
------------------
"The keyboard, how quaint."
Federation Starship Datalink - Starship site of the new millennium.
Posted by Mikey T (Member # 144) on :
I think they did...
------------------
"All you people, can't you see, can't you see
How your love's affecting our reality
Everytime we're down
You can make it right
And that makes you larger than life"
-Backstreet Boys
Posted by Starbuck (Member # 153) on :
Er... Hobbes? I think yer link is broken, buddy...
------------------
WARNING: Storing semtex in the microwave
may be hazardous to your health!
Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3