Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
Flare Sci-Fi Forums
»
Star Trek
»
Starships & Technology
»
T-Negative #27 (Yes, I *found* it!)
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message:
HTML is enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim: [QB] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Futurama Guy: [qb] I still think it is quite odd that such a large percentage of Star Fleets' core are all under repair at the same time at the same place....[/qb][/QUOTE]I thought we decided that it wasn't [i]necessarily[/i] a repair schedule but could be something else, like a mission readout or fleet operations overview. [QUOTE]Originally posted by The359: [qb]...If we move Eagle and Endeavour to their new numbers, then the registries are more closely grouped together...[/qb][/QUOTE]But I don't think this is warranted. What would it be based on, besides Jein's conjecture? It would be fine if there weren't the Operation Retrieve chart to contradict it. But that's just the issue. Besides, the [i]Eagle[/i]'s NCC-956 is the only one of those two that's a problem. The [i]Endeavour[/i] is NCC-1895, which just means it's a later build. NCC-1685 and NCC-1718 are just two additional unknown ships. [QUOTE]Originally posted by AndrewR: [qb]Also, I don't get what the problem is with the Connies - like what's the issue? Are people trying to rationalise 16xx's as Connies? or even the Constellation?[/qb][/QUOTE]The [i]problem[/i] is that it doesn't really make sense that nearly ALL of them should have registries lower than the class prototype, NCC-1700. -[b]MMoM[/b] :D [/QB][/QUOTE]
Instant Graemlins
Instant UBB Code™
What is UBB Code™?
Options
Disable Graemlins in this post.
*** Click here to review this topic. ***
© 1999-2024 Charles Capps
Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3