Flare Sci-Fi Forums: Prometheus, Nova/Noble Issues...

This is topic Prometheus, Nova/Noble Issues... in forum Starships & Technology at Flare Sci-Fi Forums.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://flare.solareclipse.net/ultimatebb.php/topic/6/496.html

Posted by Vacuum robot lady from Spaceballs (Member # 239) on :

Alright, we all know that the USS Prometheus was seen on screen with the registry NX-59650. We also know that on the Dedication Plaque it says NC-74913. Now, apparently this plaque # was partially visible in "MIAB". So therefore, we have an interesting situation. Not much unlike the whole Brittain/Brattain or the Jenol*n issues.

So what I'm getting to is this: We know that the model makers made a mistake with the Brittain model and was spelt with an 'I'. We know this to be wrong, and many of us accept Brattain as the correct spelling, as that's what they meant to put.

Another example is the Type-6 Shuttlecraft Feynman. The model/exterior was labelled Feyman. Now we know they meant Feynman, so that's what we use.

Now with regards to the Prometheus, couldn't we say that the registry actually is NX-74913? It fits better with everything about the ship, and is 100% more suitable that NX-59650.

Now, if that's the case, we must reconsider the Equinox. Janeway said "Nova", that's true. But maybe it's like the Constitution/Constellation thing in that one Episode of TNG. [The name escapes me right now] It could be Noble, it sure is close enough sounding to Nova to create some confusion.

[Note: The Equinox class name is less important to me than the Prometheus registry. I just thought I'd throw it out.]

Now, in the instances where there've been these type of conflicts in the past, we've studied them and taken the best laid path. We've set precedences, and it seems kind of akward that we don't use them here.

------------------
"I've never seen anything this beautiful in the entire galaxy. Alright, give me the bomb" -Ultra Magnus, Fight or Flee

[This message has been edited by Ultra Magnus (edited November 08, 1999).]

Posted by Aethelwer (Member # 36) on :

Well, which would be more recognisable to those who watch the show? NX-59650 or NX-74714? Nova or Noble? Brattain or Brittain?

------------------
Frank's Home Page
"We've got some new songs here that are not even on the MP3 thing. They're not available in any format, except of course the bootlegs that seem to proliferate all through our audience, as we watch people lip-synch along to songs that HAVEN'T BEEN RELEASED! DAMN YOU!" - John Linnell

Posted by Vacuum robot lady from Spaceballs (Member # 239) on :

Is that the question we must ask? Do viewer's care if the Intrepid is NCC-1835 or NCC-1635? Do they care what the Freedom Class looks like?

See, this is for neurotic people like you and me who care. I don't care wether the guy who watches the show for Seven's breasts knows what classes of ships were in the Qualor II Junkyard.

I don't think it's so much a question of Recognizability than one of Reliability.

------------------
"I've never seen anything this beautiful in the entire galaxy. Alright, give me the bomb" -Ultra Magnus, Fight or Flee

Posted by Aethelwer (Member # 36) on :

Well, with minor issues like the Freedom, there's more room to argue.

Posted by Vacuum robot lady from Spaceballs (Member # 239) on :

But there's more Reason to argue with this. It's a big thing, I suppose, and it's an 'either or' answer. Don't think of me as a fool, It's not that important to me, it's just an issue that needs to be settled.

------------------
"I've never seen anything this beautiful in the entire galaxy. Alright, give me the bomb" -Ultra Magnus, Fight or Flee

Posted by The First One (Member # 35) on :

*hands Ultra a dried frog pill* There, there. . . 8)

Posted by Vacuum robot lady from Spaceballs (Member # 239) on :

TFO: ???

------------------
"I've never seen anything this beautiful in the entire galaxy. Alright, give me the bomb" -Ultra Magnus, Fight or Flee

Posted by The First One (Member # 35) on :

Hmm, someone hasn't been reading his Pratchett. Centuwion, thwow him to the fwoor!

Posted by Vacuum robot lady from Spaceballs (Member # 239) on :

Hmm...Yes, Yes Indeed. *blinks*

------------------
"I've never seen anything this beautiful in the entire galaxy. Alright, give me the bomb" -Ultra Magnus, Fight or Flee

Posted by Jim Phelps (Member # 102) on :

The visibility factor -is- an issue here, since the level of seriousness goes down a lot below the visibility line. In-jokes in Okudagrams, senseless 4077 4747 numbers, etc.

Here is the question:

a) Should we derive our theories with an arbitrary visibility line in mind, thereby running the risk that the visibility may be increased by further enhances in digital technology, larger TV screens etc....

b) Should we ignore the visibility line altogether, and instead derive our theories based on what IS onscreen, rather than what can be SEEN onscreen.

One can do both, although b) is certainly much more difficult because of all the joking that goes around, senseless numbers, Admiral Gene Roddenberrys and Rick Sternbachs, and especially little mistakes such as these. One wonders whether we should take the time to rationalize this info at all. On the other hand, much of the invisible info actually makes sense - are we to consider it semi-canon?

And then again, a) will not always be easier. For instance, parts of the Defiant's MSD are visible, while others are not. Is the entire MSD canon, or is it just the deck outlines that are canon? How do I know whether the aft torpedo launcher has ever been seen (I'd have to browse through all the episodes and make sure that there is a camera pass which makes the torpedo launcher visible, and only then be able to prove its canonicity).

Boris

------------------
"Wrong again. Although we want to be scientifically accurate, we've found that selection of [Photon Energy Plasma Scientifically Inaccurate as a major Star Trek format error] usually indicates a preoccupation with science and gadgetry over people and story."

---a Writers' Test from the Original Series Writer's Guide

Posted by Elim Garak (Member # 14) on :

In "The Die is Cast", Sisko orders aft torpedoes fired, so the existance of one aft launcher is canon...

------------------
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 :

Dax ones said that they lost the aft torpedo launcher

------------------
Presenting the NX-59650. It can slice! It can dice! It can seperate into THREE parts!!
Now available with THREE FULL warpcores!
But wait! Buy now, and get a free number upgrade to NX-74913!

To order, call: 0800-PROMETHEUS

Posted by Wes (Member # 212) on :

It depends on what you go by. I personally think it would be easier for Starfleet to mess up on the plaque rather then the ship's hull. Also, if you belive the chnological registry theroy, 74 would fit in better then 59. But, it could be that the this was given a registry at the beggining of its development, then when it was launched, other ships' registry exceeded it because thier class was already developed.

Just some thoughts

------------------
Wes Button � [email protected]
TechFX Graphics � The United Federation Uplink � AxisIRC
------------------
Janeway: "Dimissed"
Neelix: [stands there dumbfounded] "b..but.."
Janeway: "That's Starfleet for get out"

Posted by Individual 5748 on :

Here's what I think:

About the Prometheus, I think that it is not a stretch to say that the registry is a result of the ship being in the drawing-board-phase a lot longer than anticipated. Perhaps multi-vector assault mode took a lot more designing and planning than what was originally anticipated by Starfleet Engineering. Also, the starship design people may have turned their attention to what were seen as more important projects like the Galaxy-class or Intrepid-class design -at the time-.

About the Equinox: It's Nova-class. As I said elsewhere, I think Noble-class should be put in the same category as the Hope/Olympic class stuff. Noble, like Hope, is simply a trivial detail that can be put in the oh-by-the-way-did-you-know category.

------------------
"Questions, comments, bring them to me. Problems, take them to Kinis."

Posted by TerraZ on :

Again, Canon insist that the number be NX-59650 since it was on the ship's hull. The dedication plaque wasn't clearly visible on screen which means it's not really official but only a spoken quote with the registry would close the debate. Same for the Equinox, it's Nova class since it was said on screen.

Personnaly however, I prefer to think the correct registry is NX-74913 since it fits chronologically and also because I don't really care about registry. That's just a matter of preference. Some will go to extreme lengths to justify both numbers and others don't give a d*mn (like me).

------------------
-If you ask me, I think continuity is highly overrated...
*Brannon Braga*

-Give me Good Trek or give me Death!
*Me*

-Where were you when the brains were handed out?
*Sonic the Hedgehog*

Posted by Obi Juan (Member # 90) on :

Forgive my ignorance, but where does "Noble" come from?

Posted by Hobbes (Member # 138) on :

I think of it as the lack of communications between departments as someone mentioned before. Mike Okuda most likely put NX-74913 on the MSD and dedication plaque (DP) while the CGI art department made up their own registry not knowing the correct one made up by Mike Okuda.

------------------
Calvin: "I'm a man of few words."
Hobbes: "Maybe if you read more, you'd have a larger vocabulary."
Federation Starship Datalink - Now with a pop-up on every page...damn you Tripod!

Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :

Obi: Okuda says that's what they printed on the Equinox' dedication plaque.

Now, regarding the Prometheus... I've just come up w/ a new theory. *glares at the people groaning in the back of the room* Anyway, I'm sure most of you are at least vaguely familiar w/ my theory about suffixed registries. Well, this is an addendum to that. Perhaps, when an NX ship is given a reused registry, the suffix is left off. After all, if there were an NX-1701-F, it couldn't very well be the seventh "NX-1701". Granted, the successive "NCC-1701-G" wouldn't be the eighth "NCC-1701" because of that NX thrown in, but it's possible that it's just one of those things SF decided to do. Anyway, perhaps the Prometheus' real registry number was 74913, its suffixed registry was 59650-B (or whatever letter), and the one printed on the hull was 59650 w/o the letter, because it was an NX.

Slightly convoluted, I know, but it fits pretty much everything. The only thing unexplained is why the plaque and computer displays wouldn't give the 59650 number, but that isn't terribly significant...

------------------
"Alright, so it's impossible. How long will it take?"
-Commander Adams, Forbidden Planet

Posted by Bernd (Member # 6) on :

Lately, I think there is more flexibility necessary to handle the various (mis-)labeling issues. I don't follow a strict defintion that on-screen rules over encyclopedia or hull number rules over dedication plaque. I rather consider what is the most likely registry or name for the real starship.

For instance:

"Zuhkov": This spelling makes no sense, although it is on the real miniature. The name is definitely Zhukov. The number could be wrong as well, why not assume NCC-26136 instead of NCC-62136?

Jenolan: This is the only spelling that makes sense. I'll stick to it.

Nash NCC-2010-B: Pure crap. Ignore it.

Brattain: Hey, I'm engaged in microelectronics, and if the ship is named for Walter Brattain, I'm likely to believe it.

Yamato: I wonder why there is so much discussion about this one. The NCC-1305-E was only an illusion.

Now the tough one (Prometheus): The number 59650 was very clearly visible, and the text in the encyclopedia confirms it. I know this number is hard to explain, but I will stick to it for now.

Endeavour: Why all the fuss about it? The ship was never seen on-screen, and there was only a hardly readable display of the number. The problem is obviously that the ship was already supposed to have another registry at the time, but there is no reason to believe that all Constitution registries are in the same range. Compared to the Constellation NCC-1017 problem this is really insignificant.

------------------
"When diplomacy fails, there's only one alternative - violence. Force must be applied without apology. It's the Starfleet way."
A somewhat different Janeway in VOY: "Living Witness"
Ex Astris Scientia

Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :

With Nash, the visibility criterium is enough - even with a superbly accurate future digi-cyber-visor, one cannot see NCC-2010-B on the hull because the camera angle is wrong. So there is no more reason to believe in that registry than there is to believe that the Nash was propelled through space by a gigantic metal pole that was stuck to a gaping hole just below starboard waterline, and lighted with the help of an electric extension cord!

So "in-jokes" like that are really easy to eliminate. Things like Brittain or Jenolin are more difficult since people *will* be seeing the spelling when they watch the episodes, and will then think "This Bernd guy must be an idiot or a foreignar - he cant eaven spell the names right!"

Timo Saloniemi

Posted by Bernd (Member # 6) on :

Genau, Herr Salamini

The Fact Files don't ever feature any background information so everything written there is *supposed* to be canon Starfleet information. They have a very weird explanation for the spelling of the Brattain as "Brittain" (translated): "The ship had bad luck already when it was commissioned and the name on the hull was misspelled. Even Starfleet makes mistakes".

Posted by Jim Phelps (Member # 102) on :

Why is every illusionary starship given a suffix? You'd almost think that all the Enterprises are illusionary

Boris

---a Writers' Test from the Original Series Writer's Guide

Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :

You know... all this registration /dedication placque speculation is really confusing me - I've forgotten how the system works in fact

Suffice it to say that Okuda and his team have messed up more than once - these Prometheus/Noble/Olympic/Hope hassles are most probably just some more of their mistakes that they found out about too late.

(just thought I'd jump in)

------------------
"Cry havoc and let's slip the dogs of Evil"

Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :

Having just seen where silence has lease again the other night - it may have been an 'illusionary' Yamato - but Riker reads the registry right off the hull... and then identifies the ship as the Yamato... It could have been the Galaxy - since we know that it was out there at the same time... yet they call the Yamato the Enterprise's sister ship - is the Galaxy ALSO the Enterprise's sister ship?

------------------
"Its a CLOCK!" - Sisko, "Dramatis Personae" DS9.

Posted by Dax (Member # 191) on :

Yes, I believe the USS Galaxy was also a Ent-D sister ship. To my knowledge all ships of the same class are sisters.

side note- It's interesting that in "Yesterday's Enterprise" Tasha says that the Ent-D was the first Galaxy-class ship built. What happened to the Yamato in the alternate timeline, eh?

------------------
"Forgive me if I don't share your euphoria!" (Weyoun to Dukat, Tears of the Prophets)
Dax's Ships of STAR TREK

[This message has been edited by Dax (edited December 14, 1999).]

Posted by Bernd (Member # 6) on :

What happened to the Galaxy in the alternate timeline?

Posted by Aethelwer (Member # 36) on :

Maybe the Galaxy and Yamato were destroyed during construction.

------------------
Frank's Home Page
"Ou tou kratountos h� polis nomizetai" - Creon

Posted by Dax (Member # 191) on :

Maybe the USS Galaxy was renamed to Enterprise in the alternate timeline. Or maybe Tasha simply meant that the Enterprise was the first production Galaxy-class (first after the prototype).

------------------
"Forgive me if I don't share your euphoria!" (Weyoun to Dukat, Tears of the Prophets)
Dax's Ships of STAR TREK

Posted by Starbuck (Member # 153) on :

Maybe in this timeline the ships were Enterprise-class? If the Federation were at war, there would be little or no need for science vessels, so one could speculate that the alternate Enterprise-D was more heavily armed, and the external resemblance was merely a coincidence.
The name would probably be symbolic - the first major development in battleships since the heroic Enterprise-C, which was lost at Narendra III all those years ago...

------------------
"Replicate some marmalade, Commander - helm control is toast!"

Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :

And honoring the E-C would also be a nice way to spit on the face of the Klingons, who in this timeline are claiming that the E-C dishonorably fled from the battle andallowed the Klingon colony to be destroyed.

Timo Saloniemi

Posted by Dax (Member # 191) on :

But Tasha still did call the alternate Ent-D Galaxy-class.

------------------
"Forgive me if I don't share your euphoria!" (Weyoun to Dukat, Tears of the Prophets)
Dax's Ships of STAR TREK