As everyone who has seen ST:X or read spoilers know by now there's a listing of ship names and registeries. People here have posted the names, but to my knowledge no one managed to get the registeries.
So in order to get that information I went ahead and emailed Mike Okuda and Doug Drexler. Thankfully Doug replied and I can supply the list he gave me.
Hope that sheds some light on the subject. I know I'll add it to my ship list asap... which is back up I'm glad to say at www.StarshipDatalink.net the .com no longer works.
In my attempt to break it down...
USS Intrepid NCC-74600: Clearly the Intrepid-class prototype vessel. USS Valiant NCC-75418: Well at least it wasn't NCC-74210. No telling if this is also a Defiant-class vessel either. USS Galaxy NCC-70637: Still the same ship from "Tears of the Prophets" - DS9 that fought in the Dominion War. USS Aries NCC-45167: The same Renaissance-class starship 'Captain' Riker was offered command of in 2365. USS Nova NCC-73515: This creates a problem because the USS Equinox was NCC-72381 and the USS Rhode Island was NCC-72701. USS Hood NCC-42296: Still Riker's old Excelisor-class ship. USS Archer NCC-44278: It's registry suggests it could be an Excelsior-class ship.
[ January 08, 2003, 23:00: Message edited by: Hobbes ]
Posted by Dat (Member # 302) on :
Let's see, we finally have 74600 for Intrepid which had been floating around for quite some time as conjecture. Valiant 74210 was destroyed DS9's 6th season and the new one looks to have been commissioned a year later, so I'm guessing it was either a ship already under construction without a name, or was ordered and built within a year. Maybe another Defiant class Valiant? Nova's number is a little high if it's supposed to be the prototype, but it could be the prototype's replacement (which would be in the new Valiant's situation). A new Nova class Nova replacing the prototype? And for some reason I keep on picturing the Archer as belonging to the same class as the Centaur.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Of course, there's no possible way the Nova could be something other than Nova-class, eh?
Also, I'm curious in what way this thread is deemed to be inappropriate for the "Starships" Forum, given that its sole subject is, in fact, starships. I'm thinking relocation might be a good idea...
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
Looks like I was wrong about the Valiant and Archer's regs ending in 6s...
I don't know why so many people are striving to come up with some "explanation" for the Nova's registry. It's just the successor to the Nova-class prototype it was NEVER stated or implied in even the smallest way that it was supposed to be the class ship. In case you didn't notice, there were NO class names on that list. Get a clue, folks.
It should be noted that the Aries was misnamed as Aires on the actual display. You'd think they could have proof-read the thing...
Anyhoo, good work Hobbes! It's good to know the true numbers on the list.
-MMoM Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
quote:I don't know why so many people are striving to come up with some "explanation" for the Nova's registry. It's just the successor to the Nova-class prototype it was NEVER stated or implied in even the smallest way that it was supposed to be the class ship. In case you didn't notice, there were NO class names on that list. Get a clue, folks.
Beilieve it or not, Mim, but I'm actually in agreement with you for once. AFAIAC, if Starfleet can lose a new ship like the Defiant-class Valiant, and have another, even newer Valiant as a replacement within a year, then it's not much of a stretch to think that this U.S.S. Nova is a newer ship than the Nova "class" ship. I mean, there was a war going on not too long ago, with Starfleet losing more ships than in any other war to date. Hell, even Sisko got a new Defiant literally weeks after his old one was destroyed.
Of course, what would have been way cool is if we actually saw these ships in the movie. But alas, that was not to be.
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dat: And for some reason I keep on picturing the Archer as belonging to the same class as the Centaur.
Too bad the registry is too low for it to be an Akira-class ship! Posted by Shipbuilder (Member # 69) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim: Looks like I was wrong about the Valiant and Archer's regs ending in 6s...
I don't know why so many people are striving to come up with some "explanation" for the Nova's registry. It's just the successor to the Nova-class prototype it was NEVER stated or implied in even the smallest way that it was supposed to be the class ship. In case you didn't notice, there were NO class names on that list. Get a clue, folks.
-MMoM
I beg to differ. I think the Intrepid is most certainly the Intrepid class ship.
Posted by Eclipse (Member # 472) on :
quote:Originally posted by MinutiaeMan:
quote:Originally posted by Dat: And for some reason I keep on picturing the Archer as belonging to the same class as the Centaur.
Too bad the registry is too low for it to be an Akira-class ship!
Except that the Centaur wasn't an Akira class vessel. She was some kind of Excelsior variant, with a couple of Miranda-like bits tacked on for good measure.
Posted by Sarvek (Member # 910) on :
Thank you for the list of ships. I wish there were actual ships shown in the movie too. Paramount should have done that to make the movie more interesting. May be the Archer is a Centaur Class ship?
Posted by Mark Nguyen (Member # 469) on :
Or Excelsior. Or Renaissance. Or any of a dozen ship classes we've never seen. We'll likely never know.
Mark
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
quote:Originally posted by Shipbuilder:
quote:Originally posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim: Looks like I was wrong about the Valiant and Archer's regs ending in 6s...
I don't know why so many people are striving to come up with some "explanation" for the Nova's registry. It's just the successor to the Nova-class prototype it was NEVER stated or implied in even the smallest way that it was supposed to be the class ship. In case you didn't notice, there were NO class names on that list. Get a clue, folks.
-MMoM
I beg to differ. I think the Intrepid is most certainly the Intrepid class ship.
How is that in contradiction to what I said? No one is disputing that the Intrepid is a class ship. I was talking about the Nova, not the Intrepid. Posted by Shipbuilder (Member # 69) on :
MMOM because you said "there were NO class names on that list." I thought you were saying there were no ships which were the 1st of there class on the list. I see now you meant there were no class names to go along with the ship names...my mistake.
Back to the topic:
If folks have a signifcant beef with the Nova having a higher number than other ships of the class, then what do they consider the Galaxy Class Challenger's situation to be? I still think the registry numbers are for the most part chronological, we just have to accept a few things that don't match up.
Posted by Dat (Member # 302) on :
quote:then what do they consider the Galaxy Class Challenger's situation to be?
One of the six that were originally built to the spacefame stage, registered, and then put into storage until later.
Posted by Shipbuilder (Member # 69) on :
Had to go back and look at that..I was thinking the Challenger was 70199..but its 71099. That does bring up a good point though, something must've happened during the initial build that slipped the schedule to where she was relegated to be one of the six spares.
If the registries are roughly chronological, I wouldn't think you would start a ship and then decide to use it as a spare. Maybe it was more a homage to the real Shuttle Challenger than we think. OV-99 was initially built as a structural test article and was never intended to be a space-capable orbiter. When funds got tight, NASA decided to rework the structural frame into a usuable vehicle, since the loads applied didn't come close to exceeding any of the designed limits. Could be what happened here. Maybe it was a test article....wouldn't have to be an entire ship either...could be just framework sections that were later used as a final Galaxy Class ship.
Posted by The359 (Member # 37) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dat: Let's see, we finally have 74600 for Intrepid which had been floating around for quite some time as conjecture. Valiant 74210 was destroyed DS9's 6th season and the new one looks to have been commissioned a year later, so I'm guessing it was either a ship already under construction without a name, or was ordered and built within a year.
Ships aren't officially given names until they are commissioned. Therefore, while under construction, that ship would most likely just be known as "NCC-75418". After the destruction of the previous Valiant, they probably just decided to stick the name on another ship that would be completed soon. Therefore, this means it could be literally any class.
Same would apply if the Nova was a replacement for the previous Nova.
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
quote:Originally posted by Shipbuilder: Had to go back and look at that..I was thinking the Challenger was 70199..but its 71099. That does bring up a good point though, something must've happened during the initial build that slipped the schedule to where she was relegated to be one of the six spares.
If the registries are roughly chronological, I wouldn't think you would start a ship and then decide to use it as a spare. Maybe it was more a homage to the real Shuttle Challenger than we think. OV-99 was initially built as a structural test article and was never intended to be a space-capable orbiter. When funds got tight, NASA decided to rework the structural frame into a usuable vehicle, since the loads applied didn't come close to exceeding any of the designed limits. Could be what happened here. Maybe it was a test article....wouldn't have to be an entire ship either...could be just framework sections that were later used as a final Galaxy Class ship.
This could tie in well with the theory that the Nova was originally apart of the earlier stages of the Defiant project. Perhaps 3 prototype hulls were built for testing but were put into mothballs when it was decided that the Defiant should be a more compact single hulled design. Later when the design was taken on by the Nova-Class team, one of the three test hulls were completed (NCC-73515) it was dubbed the Nova and when it proved to be a sucess the other two hulls (NCC-72381 & NCC-72701) were also completed and commissioned as Nova-Class Starships.
Posted by Cpt. Kyle Amasov (Member # 742) on :
If we had seen the Nova, it would have been a Nova-class ship for sure, but since we never saw it, it could be anything. I don't think there's any reason to discuss this, either. Valiant was some sort of hero-ship, being blown away by a much larger Dominion mega-battleship it tried to destroy. To honor the victims, they decided to name another ship Valiant.
I wish we had seen more of this "Archer" though. What do you think is the ship's dedication? "Oh Boy!"? "Screwing continuity since 2151."? Or maybe "I'm quite scared of Klingots."? Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
quote:Originally posted by Eclipse:
quote:Originally posted by MinutiaeMan:
quote:Originally posted by Dat: And for some reason I keep on picturing the Archer as belonging to the same class as the Centaur.
Too bad the registry is too low for it to be an Akira-class ship!
Except that the Centaur wasn't an Akira class vessel. She was some kind of Excelsior variant, with a couple of Miranda-like bits tacked on for good measure.
I know that the Centaur wasn't an Akira-class!
My statement says that it's a shame that the Archer's registry number was too low for us to justify a conjectural designation as an Akira.
Posted by TheF0rce (Member # 533) on :
quote:Originally posted by Cpt. Kyle Amasov: I wish we had seen more of this "Archer" though. What do you think is the ship's dedication? "Oh Boy!"? "Screwing continuity since 2151."? Or maybe "I'm quite scared of Klingots."?
The dedication could have been that famous "gazelle speech" or some speech that opens up with "my dad once said..." or "there's an old Earth saying..."
Posted by J (Member # 608) on :
YoU aRe SO sTuPiD... dA ArChEr iS An aRChER ClaSS shIP.
....hehe... couldn't resist.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 138) on :
I guess you're right about moving my thread. I think I was checking if a list of registeries was post in another thread I forgot to go to Starships & Technology.
As I think I said before, I'm glad you find this info useful. I know I'm glad Doug Drexler took the time to answer my email regarding the registeries.
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
Hmmm... I can think of someone else the Archer could be named after: prisoner FF8282 .
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
In which case the Archer is a Prometheus-class vessel - contradictory registry, and pretending to be something it's not. 8)
Posted by Obi Juan (Member # 90) on :
quote:Originally posted by Vogon Poet: In which case the Archer is a Prometheus-class vessel - contradictory registry, and pretending to be something it's not. 8)
Wasn't the Prometheus' registry something in the 50s? They decided to start low and go backwards.
Posted by David Templar (Member # 580) on :
I'm not sure if it'd be wise to send a Nova class planetary surveyer into combat, with her limited defensive capability, even if she is with six other full size combatants. Based on the assumption that Starfleet Admirals aren't idiots who recklessly send little ships to their death, I'd have to throw my lot in with those who doesn't think that USS Nova is a Nova class starship.
Of course, there was an Oberth at Wolf 359, so what do I know?
Posted by Mark Nguyen (Member # 469) on :
In both cases, I believe they were present with a plan to use their scientific platforms to help crack the ubertech of the day. And in the case of the Bonestell, by that time the whole fleet was pooched, so she may have been on a suicide run, moving in close to retrieve the Sartoga's escape pods, or some other function that doesn't require firing phasers or torpedoes.
Mark
Posted by Spike (Member # 322) on :
quote:I'm not sure if it'd be wise to send a Nova class planetary surveyer into combat
You haven't seen "Endgame", have you?
Posted by Starship Millennium (Member # 822) on :
I agree with Spike... the new Nova could possibly have been the stronger Rhode Island variation we saw in "Endgame." Of course, Nemesis stated that the fleets were cobbled together rather quickly... it's also likely the Nova was out by itself on a survey mission, and joined up with the more powerful ships for protection (remember Riker's "strength in numbers" line?).
Either way, it doesn't seem too far-fetched. Three class ships in the same vicinity does, however, but since they decided to make one the Galaxy I really don't care. Posted by David Templar (Member # 580) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mark Nguyen: In both cases, I believe they were present with a plan to use their scientific platforms to help crack the ubertech of the day.
Planetary surveyer doesn't seem like a candidate for those types of missions, since they are planetary surveyers. They're too small and too role-specific for something like analyzing an ubertech warship on the run.
quote:Originally posted by Spike: You haven't seen "Endgame", have you?
I wish I haven't. Remind me, just how many years is "Endgame" in the future? How many years did Starfleet have to tinker with their super anti-Borg technology? For crying outloud, even a bloody shuttle withstood pounding from 2? 3? Klingon warships, imagine what a larger Starfleet vessel can do. Rhode Island might be an uber Nova, but she's at least 20 years away, in another timeline.
Personally, I'm not totally convinced by my own argument for USS Nova not being a Nova, but I thought I'd shoot holes in the counter arguments anyways, just to waste some time.
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
My same question still remains: Why does ANYONE think the Nova is a Nova? Why assume something that there is no evidence for and which hasn't even been suggested by ANYONE except people here on this board?
The only thing on that screen besides the name is a registry, and that registry does not suggest the ship as a Nova-class vessel in particular, so I ask again WHAT IS THE OBSESSION WITH CALLING THE SHIP A NOVA???
There's no more need for arguments as to why the ship could or couldn't be a Nova than there is a need for arguments as to why or why not Scotty could have been half-Betazoid! It's simply a non-issue. There was no class given for the ship in the movie, or by any backstage source. The most that can be said is that the ship is not the class prototype of the Nova-class. As to whether it was another Nova-class ship named after it? Sure, it could be. But it's ludicrous to claim that it is simply because it's not impossible. What are we doing here, writing fan fiction or discussing what we saw in the movie?
-MMoM Posted by Dax (Member # 191) on :
I agree with the Monkey here.
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
Me too. There is precedent for the name used by a former class ship being given to a new ship of another class (the Yeager thing).
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
quote:Originally posted by Vogon Poet: Me too. There is precedent for the name used by a former class ship being given to a new ship of another class (the Yeager thing).
Actually, Vogon, the term "Yeager-class" is strictly a fandom invention.
But I don't see how that has any bearing whatsoever on this Nova issue. Am I to understand that there is some sort of belief that the names of class ships cannot be re-used on later ships of different classes? Preposterous. Obviously, a class name could not be re-used for another class prototype, but for any other vessel? Of course it could. Where has it EVER been said or implied that the names of class vessels could not be re-used?
I didn't realize that that question had even come up. If that's the argument someone's using to say the Nova must be a Nova-class vessel, then that makes the entire debate that much more lame.
-MMoM Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by TheF0rce:
quote:Originally posted by Cpt. Kyle Amasov: I wish we had seen more of this "Archer" though. What do you think is the ship's dedication? "Oh Boy!"? "Screwing continuity since 2151."? Or maybe "I'm quite scared of Klingots."?
The dedication could have been that famous "gazelle speech" or some speech that opens up with "my dad once said..." or "there's an old Earth saying..."
How about "No more cheese for you...."
Posted by Boris (Member # 713) on :
We do know more about the Nova-class. Do not forget official and backstage sources. Only unofficial sources can be dismissed out of hand, because they're obviously fan-fiction which has to compete with my own fan-fiction. Does that hold true for the dedication plaque of the Equinox likewise, or even the TNGTM?
Okuda did say that the dedication plaque of the Equinox reads Noble-class, a name which also appears in some of the early sketches. Furthermore, the TNGTM is an official source stating that the Nova-class development project was intended as a Galaxy replacement project around 2367. Rick Sternbach furthermore confirms that the Equinox design was directly based on the pathfinder, not the Nova-class Galaxy Replacement Project. Why ignore these statements?
Here, we have official evidence suggesting that the Nova-class couldn't have been the original class name of the Equinox and Rhode Island. This was probably why some people came up with Noble-class in the first place. There is also the very strong possibility that the Rhode Island has a different class name, given the number of examples where what some people call variants are actually different classes.
If the Equinox was originally a ship of the Noble-class, it becomes perfectly clear why the Nova should have a higher registry number -- it was a later design into which the Equinox was refitted. What if the Rhode Island belongs to Noble-class, and the Equinox was merely refitted to Nova-class specs shortly before disappearing? Of course, the Rhode Island could easily be a third class, and the original Noble-class could've been extremely similar to the later Nova-class.
It's absolutely false to think that non-canon sources can be ignored or accepted at whim. Whim is subjective, meaning that you'd be writing fan fiction if you arbitrarily accepted or ignored something. Here, the official sources support the canon. Why ignore them?
Boris
[ January 12, 2003, 03:51: Message edited by: Boris ]
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
Boris, I actually think you've got a good idea here. But there's a difference between saying "Wow, that's a neat idea!" and "Wow, that's what the production guys must have been thinking when they made that display!"
You're correct in stating that your theory fits the facts. And I'm sure that there could be several variations of that theory that might fit the facts even better. But that's just the point: anyone can come up with an explanantion for why something is if you think about it long enough. In this case, you've thought of a neat way to reconcile a host of little tidbits that have been dropped by Sternbach, Okuda, etc. I like your thinking on this one. I know I was a little snappy before, but I see that your argument is at least somewhat logical (if also somewhat lateral) now. But I'm afraid it can't go any further than that. Your theory is still just your theory, and even if I agree with it or even if every single person on this board agreed with it unanimously, it remains a fan theory that really has no impact at all on an objective view of the onscreen facts.
Now, if we somehow found out who exactly made the display from Nemesis, and we talked to them asked about the Nova, and he/she told us that she intended the ship to be the class prototype but didn't notice the registry, then we might get somehwere. But, as it stands, I don't think we can just assume that. Nor do I think we can just assume that your theory is true.
I guess I've been kind of guilty of this kind of thing before myself. I even went so far as to put some things in my shiplist that probably don't rightfully belong there, such as the bit about the Bozeman being refitted to Miranda-class or the glitches in the Enterprise-A being attributable to age rather than hasty construction, because they happened to be theories that fell in line with my thinking. Oh well...
-MMoM Posted by Boris (Member # 713) on :
MMOM: It's rather defeatist to say that just because the producers don't always have the time or aren't willing to come up with theories that fit all the facts, we should be trying to second- guess their thinking and ignore the advantage we have -- the knowledge of full facts on any subject.
A few years ago, it was thought impossible to create a detailed map of the Star Trek galaxy. The writers and Okuda would never listen, that was the word. However, Christian Ruehl actually did it and what happened? Geoffrey Mandel didn't waste time turning the project into a book.
The DS9TM was done without fan input. Bernd decided to create the Starship Database. Rick Sternbach adopted a few data points into his article.
However, if no fan attempts to do anything of the above, the producers will have no source to draw from and will certainly continue to make up simplistic theories. They don't have the time, but unlike us, they do have the official license to create what they do not research.
Boris
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
Okay, I see your point. But let's just keep in mind what's speculation and what's not. I don't want to see any myths created that people somewhere down the road mistake for official stuff. (Like the whole Yeager-class thing, or the TVH Intrepid being a Miranda, etc.)
After a good night's rest, (I was pretty tired yeaterday) I realize that I kind of sounded like a Nazi. Sorry.
-MMoM Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
I think the simplest and most obvious reason why the registry number of the Nova, listed on this particular graphic is that it is a simple typo or mistake due to lack of research or bad handwriting. It wouldn't be the first error on this graphic, as Okuda himself has already noted there are several.
Given that there are two other known class prototypes on this list it appears as though it was the author's intention to also include the Nova-Class prototype. I seriously doubt that any thought was given in regards to this being ANOTHER U.S.S. Nova, either as a Nova-Class or indeed any other class.
If we can ignore such an obvious mistake as the misspelling or Ares along with a number of such mistakes made throughout the years then we can certainly ignore this one.
Of course we can't know for sure if it was indeed an error until it is confirmed by the artist but I think it's safe to say that it's a safe bet.
Oh and Mim: Try and stay calm, breathe a little more often. Posted by Dat (Member # 302) on :
While we know Aries to be a misspelling, the correct form does not have to be Ares. It still could be Aries as I've typed already... Aries being a Zodiac sign and not the mythological god.
Posted by Dax (Member # 191) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reverend: I think the simplest and most obvious reason why the registry number of the Nova, listed on this particular graphic is that it is a simple typo or mistake due to lack of research or bad handwriting. It wouldn't be the first error on this graphic, as Okuda himself has already noted there are several.
Given that there are two other known class prototypes on this list it appears as though it was the author's intention to also include the Nova-Class prototype. I seriously doubt that any thought was given in regards to this being ANOTHER U.S.S. Nova, either as a Nova-Class or indeed any other class.
I agree that the above is extremely likely the story behind this Nova. The question is whether we simply accept this typo/mistake rego or we come up with a fan-fic explanation for it.
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
Just to set the record straight for those who argue from the ultra-purist canon viewpoint: what is the extent of our canon knowledge of "Nova class"?
I know "Equinox" has two clear verbal references that both say "The Equinox is a Nova class ship". But that doesn't give us the spelling, so we could still wriggle out of it. Do we see the name in writing anywhere? A random Okudagram? The MSD?
And is the name uttered or seen anywhere outside "Equinox"?
For all we know, the Equinox indeed is a Noble class vessel, and Janeway just didn't feel like closing her lips all the way down on the "b". Or then she is "a novel class of ship"...
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
You are so stretching there, Timo. Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
So in other words, much as in the case of the Defiant in "Message in a Bottle" that couldn't possibly be THE Defiant, requiring us to think of another name starting with 'D-E-F-I,', we now have to think of a word that sounds like Nova?! And 'noble' just doesn't cut it as an alternative.
And, by the way, can someone please fill me in on why the Yeager isn't official anymore? Because I've always been under the impression that it was. Did I miss a meeting or something?
Perhaps the Equinox is actually Nova Scotia-class, and like the City of New Orleans-class, it got shortened. . . 8)
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Mabye the Equinox is really Nova and cream cheese on a onion bagel. It was just a mistake and only we of the insane starship community would catch it and rack our brains trying to make the registry number work. Grind you teeth and accept that they goofed.
...and the Yeager has to be canon: we have clear pics of the studio model and I already built mine in 2500th!!! Posted by SoundEffect (Member # 926) on :
quote:Originally posted by Vogon Poet: And, by the way, can someone please fill me in on why the Yeager isn't official anymore? Because I've always been under the impression that it was. Did I miss a meeting or something?
Yeah, me too! I thought we found out from one of the production crew that the Intrepid variant seen orbiting the station was a Yeager Class but had no idea of the name and only after that did we get the studio miniature pics that revealed the name of the model was USS Yeager.
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
Well, sort of. I think what happened was that some guy asked a production person on a newsgroup about what class the mystery ship was. This production person probably knew that the ship was labeled "U.S.S. Yeager" and just told the guy that it was a Yeager class ship. However, when we actually saw the studio model and its name up close, it was apparent that only the ship's name was Yeager, not the class.
Posted by SoundEffect (Member # 926) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dukhat: However, when we actually saw the studio model and its name up close, it was apparent that only the ship's name was Yeager, not the class.
That's not the conclusive part, though. If indeed it is the class ship, and has been through its shakedown and trial runs, then it would be an NCC number and no longer an NX. The same is true for the USS Excelsior NCC-2000 and USS Galaxy NCC-70637; we may be seeing the Yeager Class USS Yeager after the registry change.
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
but it's by no means definite.. it COULD be Yeager-class, but then again, the class COULD be any other name.. the only thing thats definite is that the name of the ship is known.
Posted by Galen (Member # 72) on :
Going to another ship listed in the group, I was watching "The Icarus Factor" the other day and the close-captioning called Riker's new command the Ares. I found a script online that also called it the Ares not the Aries.
Posted by newark (Member # 888) on :
I see this Nova not as the class ship for the Nova Class; rather, I see her as a replacement.
USS Ares could work. She could be named after the Ares series of manned Mars probes.
Posted by Spike (Member # 322) on :
IIRC the DVD subtitles of that episode called it "Aries".
Subtitles and script of "Second Chances" also called it "Aries".
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
And both the Starfleet Operations and Tachyon Detection Grid computer displays (not to mention the Encyclopedia, which claims the ship was named as an homage to 2001: A Space Odyssey, as well was for the astrologically significant constellation) spell it Aries.
And yes, the thing about the Yeager was that when whoever it was who spoke with the VFX guys spoke with the VFX guys and learned the designation for the ship was Yeager, that was interpreted as meaning the class of the ship, but then the model photos showed that it was in fact the actual name of the individual ship. So, as CaptainMike said, there's nothing PREVENTING the ship from being Yeager-class as well, but that part's not official. (The only official designation given for the ship in any source is the fairly lame "Intrepid-class Starship Variant" moniker in the DS9TM.)
-MMoM Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
Let's remember that originally, we hated the idea of a Yeager class because we knew that a Saber class vessel bore the name USS Yeager in "First Contact".
Now that we know the registry of the Intrepid-lookalike from DS9 (NCC-65whatever), and also the registry of the Saber class ship (NCC-61whatever), we would probably be best off saying that the Saber ship was lost and the DS9 ship named in her honor. It would still be strange that a new post-"FC" ship would get a 65000-range registry, though. But the DS9 ship could be a Yeager class vessel then, without enraging the people who don't like ships outside an established class to carry the class name. And any pre-"FC" appearance of the DS9 ship could be said to be by a sister ship and not by the Yeager.
If we don't accept this "logic", and rather want to keep TNG registries chronological, then we have to accept the simultaneous existence of two Yeagers, one of them possibly but not necessarily of Yeager class.
To preserve the strictest possible fanboy criteria (chronological regos, no two ships with the same name, no ships named after an operational class, yet both sets of backstage pics are "for real"), we'd have to say that the name of one of the ships was changed in mid-life. That is, the name of the DS9 ship. Which would be an odd thing to do to a class ship, thus undermining the theory of a Yeager class.
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
The Sabre one was 61947 - I don't sem to have the other one in my shiplist at all.
Posted by Dax (Member # 191) on :
65674.
Is that sig from Black Books?
Posted by SoundEffect (Member # 926) on :
I don't have a problem with some registries being out of sequence. I accept that the Saber Class Yeager was likely destroyed in the Borg battle, and that the other Yeager was built sometime later in honor of the first one. I accept that Prometheus can have a low registry for its time. I can even accept that the USS Nova could possibly have a slightly higher registry than a couple of the ships made after her.
We have no canon idea of how registries are assigned or decided upon. What is observed is that registry numbers usually, but not strictly, chronologically increase.
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
quote:Originally posted by Timo: ...no ships named after an operational class...
This is what I was asking/ranting about earlier. Where the HELL did this come from? Are you trying to tell me that if there was a U.S.S. Stevenson, class prototype of the Stevenson-class, that was destroyed, and then I wanted to name a newbuilt Dafoe-class vessel Stevenson after the destroyed ship, I couldn't do it? I don't follow that logic, or don't agree with it at any rate.
-MMoM Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by SoundEffect: We have no canon idea of how registries are assigned or decided upon. What is observed is that registry numbers usually, but not strictly, chronologically increase.
Finally some sense! There is no good reason why the Promethus had a lower registry than the Defiant or why the Nova has a lower registry than the Equinox..... My only guess is that the registry and name system may region specific: some shipyards in the federation may use a slightly diffrent numbering system for their NX classes, with some classified shipyards building new tech ships like prommie having their own system. The increased security might account for there being two starships named Yeager. One was the new Sabre class built in relative secrecy and the other was the "Yeager" one off kitbash ship that patrolls the Bajoran system. Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
I could see good reason why the Prometheus would have such a low registry number, since it's a ship that could have been in development for a long period of time. (Same deal with the Excelsior.)
But I couldn't see any good reason for a prototype to have a HIGHER registry than its class members. (Yes, FJ's system of numbering for the Connies is looking better and better to me! ) Although Boris' theory makes a measure of sense. I would still, however, advocate the simpler explanation that the NEM Nova is the successor to the Nova-class prototype.
-MMoM Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Actually the Nova and defiant could have still been testbeds for new systems/technology long after the ships were considered viable and safe for general production. The Nova could have been updated like the Rhode Island after several ships were built in the original configuration (like Equinox). This would account for a higher registry if the ship was re-numbered after final upgrades were made. I believe the Defiant still had her "NX" even after we saw several other Defiant class ships in "A Call to Arms". Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
Dax: Yes. 8)
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
we've all overlooked the fact that possibly Equinox falls into the same category as Constellation and Challenger, ships that have registries that predate their class prototype. doesnt bother me to leave it like that either, its less complicated than the last six pages or so.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
well, it sure beats the hell out of another Nemesis thread!
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
If you're talking about the Galaxy-class Challenger from "Timeless", that was NCC-71099 -- that fits the bill by coming after NCC-70637.
As for the Prometheus: my personal theory is that since the Prometheus had such special capabilities it was classified, and for whatever reason Starfleet Intelligence decided to paint the hull with a fake registry number (and name the ship after an existing ship, the Nebula-class Prometheus) in order to try to confuse any enemy spies.
Don't all of the official Trek Tech articles include comments about deliberate misinformation these days? Posted by Mark Nguyen (Member # 469) on :
Galaxy - 70637 Challenger - 71099
And for reference: Yamato - 71807 Odyssey - 71832 Venture - 71854
There isn't a problem with the registries here. The only problem is that we had previously thought we'd seen all of the original six Galaxies, and that the Enterprise was third. Given that neither supposition is cannonically true, there ain't nothing wrong.
Mark
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
o right.. i'm sorry.. the Galaxy I was thinknig about was the U.S.S. Ronald D. Moore.. which is a stretch by any means of canon
but the fact remains, that the registry system doesnt always stick to itself chronologically,and if it did, well, we'd have no way to explain any mistakes we saw (except possibly by admitting that it was all made up for a TV show)
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Ronald D. Moore?
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
It's an incredible stretch but perhaps the Ronald D Moore was originally a Nebula that was upgraded/converted/refit to a Galaxy.
Posted by J (Member # 608) on :
For the Challenger.. I believe in the story that the TNG TM gives, Galaxy, Yamato, then Enterprise-D were the first three ships completed. Challenger was the first of the ships that were taken to near completion then stopped. Why the Challenger was delayed to this point really can't be answered.
I still don't believe in the 5**** number from the Prometheus.
I still don't think there is any evidence to suggest that the Nova is the Nova NX, or even a Nova Class ship.
As for the Yeager, do we really know if it was the Yeager from on screen evidence? There are times when we just have to drop one reference for another... whether that be the bash or the Sabre. I don't mind two ships with the same name... I do mind taking the Bash's NCC as canon-- I feel that most of those ships were unnamed and unregistered for the most part anything painted on their hull was by the crew [the name] or for confusion [the NCC of an older ship was painted on the hull so that the Cards and Doms scratched their heads for a moment when they tried to research it in their databanks].
You guys really seem to be reading too much into VFX mistakes or in-jokes. I wouldn't concern myself too much with the DS9 bashes, Challenger is easily explained with the available evidence, Prometheus is a VFX mistake... shall we get over it now Posted by J (Member # 608) on :
PS: And we have no idea what class the Nova is.
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dax: It's an incredible stretch but perhaps the Ronald D Moore was originally a Nebula that was upgraded/converted/refit to a Galaxy.
Or maybe it was just, as Hutzel said, created specifically for the calendar and is not canon... Posted by Dat (Member # 302) on :
As I've said before, it's most likely that the Challenger was one of the original six that were built only to the spaceframe stage and stored elsewhere for later completion when they were needed (such as the Klingon and Dominion Wars or the Borg).
As for the Ronald D. Moore, if I were to add it to a shiplist as a real Starfleet ship I would say she began construction as a Nebula, but was halted in the spaceframe stage when Starfleet decided to convert her into a Galaxy class as one of the six unfinished ships. Construction resumed at around the same time when they started on NCC-71099 again. The other four ships were to follow... them being Magellan, Musashi, Sarek, and Sentinel. (And yes, I'm assuming those ships from my own opinions)
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
does it make everyone's brain hurt too much to think the Challenger could have been built after the Galaxy, Yamato and Enterprise and then assigned an earlier number because registries aren't completely sequential!?!? Just wondering. Posted by Spike (Member # 322) on :
Or the Challenger was built before those ships.
Posted by Dax (Member # 191) on :
There's absolutely no canon reason why the Challenger couldn't have been built before the Yamato. There's also no reason why the Ent-D couldn't have been before the Yamato.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
There's also no reason why they could'nt have been built at the same time! Nobody ever said that Starfleet needed to trickle out these new ships. It's likely that several of the original six Galaxy class ships were built at the same time after the USS Galaxy completed trials and the class was approved for production. Posted by J (Member # 608) on :
Don't take it that I meant the ships were done one at a time. They were all built at the same time, but they were finished quite a bit apart from each other.
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)