Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
Flare Sci-Fi Forums
»
Sci-Fi
»
Designs, Artwork, & Creativity
»
My list of retcons, as promised...
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message:
HTML is enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Phoenix: [QB] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Peregrinus: [qb] Thanks, Griff. I'm not trying to be arrogant. I'm mainly seeking to inform and propose alternatives to dogma. The very fact that a blocked out system in TOS and TMS gives way to the semi-chaotic system in TNG is what I've been getting at. My conclusions are only one possible rationalization, but (and this is the part that may seem arrogant) it's the best way I've seen to handle the observed canon incorporated with the BTS info we've all gathered. Greg Jein and Ms. Berman have a nice approach, but it has massive holes. FJ/SotSF, et al, have a well-known approach, also with massive holes. FASA expands (badly) on the Jein list, but it has massive holes. Okuda's system works nicely, except for the occasional communications breakdown/budgetary shortfall. I have utterly no problem with his system kicking in around or just before he took over such duties (c.2286 -- or Star Trek IV). In TOS, the only problematic registry is that of the [i]Constellation[/i]. And incidentally, we never saw the [i]Intrepid[/i]. It's just assumed she was [i]Constitution[/i]-class from the memos, FJ's ship list, etc. I have no problem with her being so.. I also have no problem with a convergence of Jeffries' system, Commodore Stone's gesture, and my conclusions leading me to say the [i]Intrepid[/i] was a [i]Miranda[/i] (unless the best reconstructionists we have on this board end up deciding that 1831 is in fact 1631, which I don't see...). I have no problem with abandoning my views if a more logical and consistent approach or conclusion is presented. Seek to disprove my hypotheses through contrary analyses, rather than personal beliefs. Personally, I [i]wanted[/i] to believe Starfleet started with one registry system when it was first founded (whenever that ends up being), but the evidence didn't lead me to that conclusion. And I'll warn you now, the "but that's the way things are" or "but Okuda's in charge now, and his system is the one they'll most likely use" arguments don't carry much weight with me. I'm hoping to change Mike's mind, too, one day. I fight dogma as strongly on this subject as I do any other. --Jonah P.S. Star Trek Battle-Bots... Now [i]that[/i] I would watch..... [/qb][/QUOTE]Fantastic - someone with the same approach as me. :) One thing I noticed last night: Everyone assumes that Starfleet assigns registry numbers in blocks of 100 (1600, then 1700, etc). However, for an organisation with not many ships this doesn't make a lot of sense - they are unlikely to build 100 of each class, aren't they? So I looked at the numbers and realised that a system with blocks of 50 works perfectly. Ships we know are Connies have numbers 956, 1657, 1700, 1701, and 1895. So, perhaps the original Connie-type (doesn't need to be called Constitution Class) was NCC-950, its sucessor (or perhaps built at the same time for a different role) was NCC-1000, then they built some more ships, then at NCC-1650 they launch another type, followed soon after by NCC-1700, and lastly by NCC-1875 (1800 to 1874 being used by Mirandas). The last class doesn't need to be so big as they know the Excelsior is coming soon. Under this system, Eagle NCC-956 is a first batch Connie, Constellation NCC-1017 a second batch, Potemkin NCC-1657, and 1664, 1672, 1685 and 1697 from CM are 1650 types, Enterprise NCC-1701, and 1703, 1709 and 1718 (also from CM) are Constitution NCC-1700 types, and Endeavour NCC-1895 is part of the NCC-1875 type. Republic NCC-1371 (part of the NCC-1350 Class) could be a Connie-type, but it could be something else. Intrepid NCC-1831 looks like a Miranda. NCC-1900 seems to be the Soyuz Class (Bozeman NCC-1941). [/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