This may sound a bit stupid, but I surfed through the old (the really old threads and came across the starship Prometheus. And that made me think about the whole registry-debate. I did never accept the 59650 as the 'real' number. The reasons are obvious. They don't build a ship named Prometheus (and I assume - even if other ships get their names just before they are launched - that at least the Prototype, the project, gets a name.) while having another one in production. Even if it is mothballed.
But maybe that's the key. What do we have?
USS Melbourne. The ship was an Excelsior, no doubt, but the registry is the one from the Nebula (62xxx would be the highest Excelsior-registry ever). And we have a Nebula-variant, a prototype vessel. Same number, by the way. But most of all, same name.
We have Prometheus. Whatever the number is, there is no proof that the Nebula-Prometheus has been destroyed before the new ship entered service or recieved a name. Again, a standard vessel and a Prototype with the same name.
We have Endeavour. Allthough the part was re-written, the original script called for a new vessel, a prototype, Admiral Hayes flagship. And the com-chatter had a ship named Endeavour in the fleet, either the Nebula or the prototype. If the prototype never existed, fine; but if the ship did exist and participated in that battle, we have another one.
Finally, Yeager. Besides the Sabre-class ship, there the kitbash. Could be a prototype. Nothing worth hiding from the enemy in my opinion, but still it could be a prototype, the first one starfleet has (based on the speculation that the one we saw on DS9 was the only one they had.). And Sabre-class Yeager survived the Borg-battle 2372. Even if it was destroyed, the 65674 predates 2372/73, anyway.
What does it mean? We have eight ships with four different names. Maybe that's part of Starfleets security policy. I think it was Jackill's SRM that added some secret prototype vessels to another class, just by choosing sequentuial NCC's of that other class and assigning them to the prototype vessels. In the same way, sterfleet could have taken names of existing vessels, probably operating in the same area, to cover the existence of the prototypes.
At least this makes more sense than the 'who said there can't be two different things called xyz and we choose to honor each of them by naming a vessel'-theory. Posted by MadCat221 (Member # 803) on :
Or mabye the VFX folks got sloppy.
Posted by Cpt. Kyle Amasov (Member # 742) on :
quote:Originally posted by MadCat221: Or mabye the VFX folks got sloppy.
AHHHHHAAAHHHH-HHHHHAAAAHH! YOU KILLED MY THREAD!!! NOOOOOOOOO.......
Posted by CaptAlabin (Member # 733) on :
Excelsior Class USS Melbourne and Nebula Class USS Melbourne. I always tended to go with that the Excelsior class ship was like a flying bomb, probably taken from an reserve fleet area or a junkyard.
Nebula Class USS Prometheus and Prometheus Class prototype. I have decided that the Nebula Class was destroyed in the war with the Klingons or at least a deed to warrant the naming of a new class after the ship.
The Nebula Class Endeavour and First Contact Endeavour, I consider the same vessel because I don't want another Nebbie to go down in flames.
The Sabre Class Yeager and the Yeager class Yeager. The Sabre Class was destroyed in the FC Battle. The second one I consider was a previously named vessel with that name being freed to another vessel. The name Yeager was put on it and Starfleet decided to build more type of the vessels for the war. The class was decided to be named after the renamed vessel.
Well that is what I consider in my canon Star Trek Universe.
[ March 31, 2002, 10:57: Message edited by: CaptAlabin ]
Posted by Cpt. Kyle Amasov (Member # 742) on :
The flying-bomb-idea was a thing I applied to the Ambassador during the Dominion war. Since there were no new ships produced after the 26xxx-batch and the vessel itself doesn't seem to be in service any longer during the war, I tend to think they used some of those as kamikaze-fighters.
(On the other hand, and this is what I also said before, the Galaxy is overused during the war. So I tend to say the ships seen in the far background of some battles - SoA, for example - were actually Ambassadors or Niagaras or whatever looks similar to a Galaxy. I think 15 should be the maximum of Galaxys in service during the war. And I doubt they serve in the same fleet. That's my interpretation of canon Trek on another topic. )
On question: What about the identical Melbourne-registries? If the bomb was retired, why the high registry?
Posted by CaptAlabin (Member # 733) on :
I always that the rego of the Flying Bomb Melbourne was NCC-318XX or something of that matter. I cannot see an Excelsior with an registry in the 62XXX because of the newer builds of Galaxies planned, Nebbies being built, the FC ships (I dont care what people say, my theory is that regos are chronological or have an logical explanation of why some are out of place. I tend to think Starfleet is more modeled after the US Navy.) and New Orleans. The numerous Excelsiors and Mirandas that we do see are mothballed ships taken out of reserve and either renamed because to free up that name or hurriedly pressed into service with upgrades. This brings open that the Excelsior Class ship in Chrysalis DS9 was the Farragut that was taken out of reserve. Thats my two pennies.
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
flying bomb = stupid
you couldnt see the Nebula-class at all, and even if we identify where it is, the name could never be visible, so theres no reason we need to complicate the situation by saying that there was ever such a thing as the Nebula-class Melbourne. Why is it so hard to just accept there was one Melbourne, it was a starship with a crew aboard, and it was destroyed.. that what I saw in the episode
Posted by Spike (Member # 322) on :
But there are pictures of the Nebula-Melbourne studio model were you can see the registry and the name. And if we accept the other names and regos from the Wolf 359 ships, we should do the same with the Nebula-Melbourne. Besides, I've never seen a clear screenshot of the Excelsior-Melbourne with the NCC readable.
quote:you couldnt see the Nebula-class at all
Huh? The wreckage appeared in BoBW and in the DS9 pilot.
[ March 31, 2002, 11:34: Message edited by: Spike ]
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
BUT we shouldnt accept background info that is obviously contradictory to something that made it on screen. And the Nebula's registry will never be readable.. it was just too small in the episodes to ever be clearly made out.. i didnt even know it was there or what it was until somebody pointed out it was there, so obviously its not considered to have 'high profile' visibility (i.e. it wasnt important to the story except as scenery) so why bother stressing over it?
its about as sensible as saying there were three ships named U.S.S. Enterprise NCC-1701-D in Operation: Return.. its something you obviously couldnt discern while watching the episode, so why pay it any heed?
[ March 31, 2002, 11:48: Message edited by: CaptainMike ]
Posted by Cpt. Kyle Amasov (Member # 742) on :
And a model labeled Melbourne with the 62xxx-registry appeared in 'Future Imperfect'. Clearly visible. In was only the fault of the VFX-guys of DS9 who used the Excelsior as Melbourne because the model had more detail.
I also don't accept the theory that Hanson was aboard the Melbourne, the Excelsior-Melbourne. He was the commander of an Excelsior-class ship, seen at the beginning of BoBW. Maybe the registry was 42-something, visible on that screen in the observation lounge after he informed Riker about the fleet's status. But it was not 62-something.
Whether we believe there was an Excelsior-Melbourne or not, the Nebula was there without any doubt.
Posted by CaptAlabin (Member # 733) on :
Yes, we do see the Excelsior Class Melbourne get heavily damaged but the rego of the Nebula Class is different from the Excelsior Class. A flying bomb is an idea in a time when you are desperate. The English used fire ships against the Spanish Armada because of desperation. I can see a the Excelsior Class Melbourne being autopiloted to ram the Cube. Riker thought of doing the same thing in a time of desperation.
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
quote:And a model labeled Melbourne with the 62xxx-registry appeared in 'Future Imperfect'. Clearly visible.
Well, the model was. But I wouldn't call the writing on it clear. And besides, who's to say it's a model of a real ship? Perhaps Barash's scanners were messed up?
quote:In was only the fault of the VFX-guys of DS9 who used the Excelsior as Melbourne because the model had more detail.
Fault? Buh? How is contradicting something we only know because Okuda told us in the Encylopedia in the name of making a better-looking VFX shot a fault?
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
Alabin, both the Nebula-Melbourne and the Excelsior-Melbourne had the same registry.. thats why its so distasteful to think they were both correctly labeled.. how would two different ships have the same registry and coexist?
And Barash did make mistakes in his holosimulation. Riker misremembering a hologram as a real person is a big mistake, as was the hologram of Data being unable to compute a course, so im sure there were other errors creeping in.
And yes i know of the flying bomb idea being a real tactic ('fire ships', etc..). Im sure that Starfleet might even have used it a few times. But its a pretty lame explanation, and gets tired when we drag it out every time we see an older ship we didnt expect to see. Sometimes its easier without trying to overexplain it, like just saying 'that ship was what it appeared to be'
Posted by Cpt. Kyle Amasov (Member # 742) on :
quote:Originally posted by The_Tom: Fault? Buh? How is contradicting something we only know because Okuda told us in the Encylopedia in the name of making a better-looking VFX shot a fault?
If they didn't care for what Okuda and Miareki established, then why did they give the Excelsior-Melbourne the same registry as the Nebula? They could have easily said this is USS whatever NCC-whatever, why did they choose the Melbourne?
Posted by CaptAlabin (Member # 733) on :
Also, this is the idea of a flying bomb, I used for the Battle at Wolf 359. The idea maybe lame to you, but technobable will not always get the ship out of danger. The mood I thought that Best of Both Worlds was a desperation one and the stand at Wolf 359 was Earth's final one. They did have the same rego. Well I always that they Excelsior had the NCC-318XX registry.
[ March 31, 2002, 12:25: Message edited by: CaptAlabin ]
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
well the first thing that pops into starfleets mind shouldnt be 'hey, lets empty out a ship and fly it at them packed with explosives' it should be a tactic which is used when such a tactic is sound. i doubt that would be very often.
in real wars technobabble doesnt save the day, standard tactical combat would.
quote:Well I always that they Excelsior had the NCC-318XX registry
I have no idea what the hell that means. You need some more words in that sentence.
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
quote:Originally posted by Cpt. Kyle Amasov:
quote:Originally posted by The_Tom: Fault? Buh? How is contradicting something we only know because Okuda told us in the Encylopedia in the name of making a better-looking VFX shot a fault?
If they didn't care for what Okuda and Miareki established, then why did they give the Excelsior-Melbourne the same registry as the Nebula? They could have easily said this is USS whatever NCC-whatever, why did they choose the Melbourne?
Because that's what the script asked for. This was a case where the writer (Piller) tried to make a nice bit of continuity and wrote in the ship into the script, and then in all likelihood weeks after the scene was all shot and done with the VFX pros said, wait, our Excelsior model will look better. Do you think the VFX guys should have phoned up Mike Piller to ask him to change the script and then possibly reloop lines of dialogue so as not to contradict a Trek factoid that was flat out invisible beforehand? Say yes and I'll smack you.
[ March 31, 2002, 15:22: Message edited by: The_Tom ]
Posted by Cpt. Kyle Amasov (Member # 742) on :
umm... yes.
(Okuda noticed the 1305-E while watching the episode and decided to change the number for the next appearance. Even if that's not quite the same, it shows that minor details can be taken into concideration for something like this, too. Lika a name/registry-change. And Melbourne was never mentioned in dialog. So no one would have noticed.)
Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
Well, first of all, Okuda had already set the Yamato's rego at 71807. It's a matter of clear record that he drafted a memo in response to the '1305-E' line in an early script of "Where Silence Has Lease", but never sent it because a later draft of the script dropped the line. And he didn't know the line had been put back in, and had the acetate cels for the bridge displays made for "Contagion", when he saw the aired version of "Where Silence Has Lease". Thus are YATIs born.
As for the Melbourne, I don't know where the '318xx' myth got started, but right here on my grainy, pre-cable recording of the first airing of "Emissary" I can see '620--' before the hull disintegrates. When we get the DVDs next year (I hope), it should be a bit clearer to everyone.
And I still don't know how to interpret the presence of the Nebula-Melbourne in both "BoBW" and "Emissary" in fairly prominent -- if not legible -- positions as anything other than the existence of a Nebula-class U.S.S. Melbourne, NCC-62043. *shrug* I've gotten good over the years at saying to myself "Oh, that's really supposed to be a ______" when they have to use one of their existing generic models for lack of either time or budget (or both) to make a proper one for what the ships is known/supposed to be...
--Jonah
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
Except the USS Melbourne in BoBW isn't legible. We only made a positive ID match of the ship to the model two or three years ago. Indeed, I'm pretty sure you could break into the Paramount vault, get out the original film negatives, stick them under a big honking microscrope, and the individual flecks of silver nitrate would be so coarse that you couldn't read a registry off the hull.
Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
Tom... I said it wasn't legible. And there are no "original film negatives". They record everything straight to videotape. Which means as HDTV becomes more prevalent, Star Trek reruns are really going to look shitty in comparison to other fare out there...
--Jonah
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
Maybe the VFX went straight-to-video, but I'm pretty sure that the live action is shot on 35mm and then immediately transferred to video, with the film then getting vaultified. Or so sayeth The Making of ST:DS9.
Posted by Matrix (Member # 376) on :
I agree with you Cpt. Amasov.
Posted by Cpt. Kyle Amasov (Member # 742) on :
Thanks.
On what? The Melbourne or the initial theory? Or both? Or something else? I'm cunfuesd, but thanks nontheless... Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
indeed i also remember from various 'behind the scenes' specials pertaining to TNG revealing it was always shot on film rather than tape, making it an oddity among most other network prime time fare
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
Is that two people I have to smack, then? Posted by Matrix (Member # 376) on :
The initial theory. The Yeager class seems to be a little on the... crappy side when it comes to a practical design. So I would guess its either a cobbled starship with existing parts or a prototype.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
)