posted
While working on the Constitution II for UP3, I began pondering why the USS Endeavour featured such a high registry number. Then I remembers the mistake in the original Encyclopedia with the USS Intrepid, which was labeled as NCC-1831 is some sections, and 1631 is others. It was finally found that the real number was 1631. Then there is also the USS Yeager, which was labelled as 81947 is the picture and 61947 in the description. After this, I pondered, and pondered, and wondered if the USS Endeavour NCC-1895 might actually be NCC-1695? Do you people think the Endeavour might actually be 1695? It would better fit into the numbering scheme of the Constitutions.
Oh, nutz, I just realized I screwed up the topic. The topic should say 'USS Endeavour, 1895 or 1695'
------------------ "Can you pull in the leviathan with a fishhook or tie down his tongue with a rope? Can you put a cord through his nose or pierce his jaw with a hook? Will he keep begging you for mercy? Will he speak to you with gentle words? Will he make an agreement with you for you to take him as your slave for life? Can you make a pet of him like a bird or put him on a leash for your girls? Will traders barter for him? Will they divide him up among the merchants? Can you fill his hide with harpoons or his head with fishing spears. If you lay a hand on him, you will remember the struggle and never do it again!" -Job 41:1 - Job 41:8
[This message has been edited by The359 (edited November 07, 1999).]
And that's an interesting theory you have. I wonder precisely where they got the number...
------------------ Rimmer: "Holly, put a trace on Paranoia." Holly: "What's a trace?" Rimmer: "It's space jargon. It means 'find him'." Holly: "No it doesn't. You just made it up to sound cool." -Red Dwarf: "Confidence & Paranoia"
posted
If you look at my Constitution class registries page you'll see that the Endeavo(u)r is one of two ships (the other being the Eagle) that have four different registries in the four main registry schemes.
Heaven knows where NCC-1895 came from.
Myself, I'll stick with NCC-1716, and keep NCC-1895 for a Cyane class heavy frigate.
------------------ -->Identity Crisis<--
[This message has been edited by Identity Crisis (edited November 08, 1999).]
The First One
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed
Member # 35
posted
Well, as with all things FASA, the general response around here is "you can call it your left testicle for all we care." 8)
According to my list, there are 4 canon ships with 18xx registries: the Lantree, NCC-1837, the Emden, NCC-1856, the Reliant, NCC-1864, and the Endeavour, NCC-1895. And of course there used to be 5 with the Intrepid being corrected later. But just because there are two dozen other Constitutions in the 1600s and 1700s doesn't mean there can't be at least one in the 1800s.
After all, the Emden is likely to be either a Constitution or a Miranda. . . but never mind that.
If the registry is wrong, then the last known Constitution is the USS Defiant, NCC-1764. I can't believe that in the 20+ years between the latest possible date of her construction and the appearance of the first Excelsior-class that all they built were Mirandas, Soyuzes, and Constellations (assuming the NX-1974 of the latter class ship is correct; where did this number come from anyway?).
So, not enough information, IMO. And I don't like the idea of saying every figure you don't think sounds quite right must therefore be wrong.
[This message has been edited by The First One (edited November 08, 1999).]
posted
Well as far as your left testicle goes, maybe you should have read the page I pointed everyone at. If you had you would have realised that FASA used NCC-1777 not the NCC-1716 which I favour. But hey, we can't expect people to actually do any research before they mouth off can we?
NX-1974 for the Constellation comes from an Okudagram on the Enterprise bridge in ST VI.
------------------ -->Identity Crisis<--
[This message has been edited by Identity Crisis (edited November 08, 1999).]
posted
1. Well if that's the way your sloppy thinking goes at least we all know to ignore it from now on.
And would you care to explain in what way you are not a "nerdy fans trying to impose their views of the subject on everyone else"? That seems to be exactly what you're doing.
The nerdy fans you denegrate so much are people like Rick Sternbach and Greg Jein.
Would you please give examples of people in trekinical fandom trying to impose their views on other people? That's an attitude much more closely associated with the close-minded canonites and their "if it's not in the 'official' books then it doesn't count" bleatings.
FASA produced a very good set of TOS RPG rules and ship-to-ship combat rules. They are very much products of their time and compared to todays rules are very mechanics heavy. The background they produced was too militaristic for the Trek being produced at the time (ST IV, early TNG) and thay's why they fell out with Paramount. Some of the background has been disproved by later episodes and films, but then so has some of the speculation in the TNG TM and early editions of the Chronology and Encyclopedia.
Trekinical fandom has, by and large, got very little to do with FASA. FASA borrowed material from one book, the Spaceflight Chronology. Would you like me to post a quote from Mike Okuda saying how much he likes that book? For a long time trekinical fandom slagged FASA off, but these days people are more forgiving and tend to incorporate the best of FASA into a larger view that includes many, many different sources.
2. And you expect people to give a sh*t what you think?
3. You're in good company, the Encyclopedia (cam't remember which edition) makes that same mistake.
The First One
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed
Member # 35
posted
Ah, Stephen, Stephen, Stephen. . . you really do need to learn to relax a little now and then! None of this really means anything. But it would be nice to hear your own opinions now and then, instead of parroting what some other fan thought up 20 years ago. You obviously have a talent for this, so put it to good use. Let's hear something original!
But I digress.
I still don't think the available evidence justifies arbitrarily assuming the Endeavour's registry is wrong just because another ship of the same class with a similar registry turned out to be wrong. Now, there are several ways we could go with this:
1. Accept it for what it is. I don't know whether there's any on-screen evidence for this number. If there is, end of story.
2. Acknowledge it as a mistake. Okuda had to think of a number, and he chose the wrong one. But aren't there enough real big mistakes in the Encyclopaedias without going looking for small inconsequential - for that's what this is - ones?
3. Damn the Encyclopaedia for making another boo-boo, and add it to the list, and give the Endeavour its new number.
I'm hovering between 1 and 2 right now, if someone can convince me it's 3 then please do so. Because maybe this is the problem with the Encyclopedias - why should they try to get them exact when no matter how many massive howlers are eliminated, there will still be people worrying over every little niggling detail that doesn't quite fit? No wonder the Okudas don't want to do anymore. . .
posted
MY, this almost sounds like it belings in the Flameboard Forum!
Kids, if it were that important, I'd have said something about it.
------------------ 'In every country and in every age the priest has been hostile to Liberty; he is always in allegiance to the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection of his own." ---- Thomas Jefferson
posted
I saw someone posting a controversial assertion and asked him to justify it. He decided to start calling names. Shrugs.
If you want my opinions take a look at my web site. My opinion on this matter is that the Franz Joseph registry for the Endeavo(u)r is the most logical and attractive one.
The NCC-1895 does appear on screen. In ST VI in the Operation: Retrieve and on the Enterprise bridge mission assignment list Okudagram. Why Okuda used 1895 instead of 1718 from the Greg Jein list (which is what most of the Paramount registries is based on) is a mystery. I could easily live with 1718. 1895 just doesn't work for me, which is one of the reasons why I choose to ignore the Paramount Constitution class registries - even those that appeared, just about, on screen in ST VI.
One only has to look at the illogical fashion in which Greg Jein derived the registries to realise that they're suspect. Even the Encyclopedia admits this!
------------------ -->Identity Crisis<--
[This message has been edited by Identity Crisis (edited November 08, 1999).]
posted
Oh, to bring this back to the original question: if you'd like to scrap 1895 (and if you don't want to be radical/traditional by going to the 1716 from FJ scheme) then you can go back to the original Greg Jein scheme and use 1718. Which is what happened when the Intrepid changed back from 1831 to 1631.
For those too busy to look at my web site here's the relevant table:
The First One
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed
Member # 35
posted
So the ST:VI registry is the only one to appear onscreen? Then go with that. Did the Endeavour appear on TOS or not?
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
Printer-friendly view of this topic
