Topic: NX-01???? The registry number dance continues.
MIB
Ex-Member
posted
So acording to the registry the Enterprise will be an Enterprise class ship and that it will be the very first ship commisioned by starfleet? I thought the Dauntless class U.S.S. Dauntless held that title!!!! That and the new/old Enterprise looks more modern than the original Enterprise. It's not the shape, it's the surface detailing. I guess I expected a more clunky, industrial look to the new/old Enterprise.
I know. This is a pitiful complaint, but I'm kind of obsessive about these things.
posted
For Chrissakes, if we're gonna mix and match E-(-A) threads on both the Enterprise and Starships forums, can we at least make sure we're not duplicating entire topics nearly verbatim!
>
[ July 09, 2001: Message edited by: The_Tom ]
-------------------- "I was surprised by the matter-of-factness of Kafka's narration, and the subtle humor present as a result." (Sizer 2005)
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Ah, but Vogon Poet, if Starfleet began in 2161, then you've still got quite a small number of ships for over a hundred years...
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
A thousand ships over a hundred years ain't that bad. But the pre-Enterprise is the first expirimental Starfleet ship, and thus the first with a registry. But there are bound to be a lot of other ships. Ships without the Starfleet registries...
And about the Dauntless, here is my idea: If the Dauntless was official, it was to be the first ship of a radically new design. That is mainly in terms of propulsion. If that is so then Starfleet could have chosen to use NX-01 as registry (to keep it a total secret, or because it is the first of a totally new line of ship, or whatever...) But NX-01 is already used. So they take NX-01-A. A second problem is the name. The original NX-01 was called Enterprise. But that name was already in use, and because of its fame that name could not be changed. So they had to change the name to something else: Dauntless.
See? The Dauntless could have been official without any problems...
[ July 10, 2001: Message edited by: NightWing ]
-------------------- "And they had other stuff (...) like pictures of the Vulcan woman on Enterprise." "OOOOhhh! Uhm, I mean: Nerds!"
- Willow and Xander, Buffy the Vampire Slayer
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
That's my point, Matthew. Either they didn't make very many ships at all in those hundred years, or the start of the NCC-system wasn't right at the beginning of Starfleet and they used some other system originally.
posted
Firstly, Kirk's/April's/Pike's ship was the FIRST shape named Enterprise. But we thought this would be okay because the pre-E was to be before the Federation. But now we know that it will indeed be a Starfleet ship (NX-01 and operated by Starfleet) So what's up with that?! This whole damn thing sucks.
Secondly, if you look at the registry system, they employed a simple, chronological technique all the way up to the time of the Excelsior's, (NCC 2000 etc). But with in about 20 years there was a sudden jump to the NCC 11000 range. So quite obviously a brand new registry scheme was implemented at around this time; at the beginning of the 24th century, a system probably less chronologically oriented. This has always been the theory I've maintained.
-------------------- "To the Enterprise and the Stargazer. Old girlfriends we'll never meet again." - Scotty
quote:Originally posted by The Red Admiral: Secondly, if you look at the registry system, they employed a simple, chronological technique all the way up to the time of the Excelsior's, (NCC 2000 etc).
The Entente NCC-2120 was in service at the time of The Motion Picture, at least a good decade before the Excelsior NX-2000 was commissioned. And yet, strangely, the Hathaway NCC-2593 is commissioned the year after the Excelsior. Oh, by "simple, chronological technique," you meant "varying wildly with no discernable order." I see now.
quote: But with in about 20 years there was a sudden jump to the NCC 11000 range.
I guess I imagined the Magellan NCC-3069, Gettysburg NCC-3890, Fearless NCC-4598, LaSalle NCC-6203, Arcos NCC-6237, and Victory NCC-9754, showing a clear progressing up from NCC-2000 through NCC-11000.
-=Ryan McReynolds=-
[ July 10, 2001: Message edited by: Ryan McReynolds ]
quote:Firstly, Kirk's/April's/Pike's ship was the FIRST shape named Enterprise. But we thought this would be okay because the pre-E was to be before the Federation. But now we know that it will indeed be a Starfleet ship (NX-01 and operated by Starfleet) So what's up with that?! This whole damn thing sucks.
I'm getting tired of posting a possible explanation to this. I'd have a better time arguing the flaws in John Mill's theory of higher and lower pleasures to a brick wall than trying to explain that you are jumping to conclusions and not thinking about this logically.
quote:Secondly, if you look at the registry system, they employed a simple, chronological technique all the way up to the time of the Excelsior's, (NCC 2000 etc).
Wrong. By most accounts, the USS Constitution was NCC-1700. As such, it should be the class ship. Yet, there are apparently Constitution class ships with registries in the 16xx range. Plus, there's the Eagle in the 9xx range. How about the Grissom? The Grissom was an Oberth class ships that looked to herald from the same design era as the Excelsior. Yet, her registry was 638. That would seem to indicate that she was in service LONG before the original Enterprise. The simple chronological registry system you talk about was full of inconsistencies. It still is. Take the Prometheus class ship for instance.
posted
Not to mention that when the Excelsior was built (NX-2000) it would take time to build a prototype - far more time than it would to build a tried and tested design. So they gave the Excelsior a number while continuing to build others. Not really a problem with the registry numbers suddenly increasing. They (Starfleet) could have built a load of prototypes between 21** and 11000 and then scrapped them when they found that they couldn't build a better design or type of engine. Also, with the peace with the Klingons, Starfleet's fleet requirements would have changed slightly - requiring a rethink to the fleet.
Just a few thoughts . . .
-------------------- If you cant convince them, confuse them.
posted
Seigfried, Ryan, I was simply trying to point out that there are incontinuities with the registry system that point to the possibility of differing systems in the 23rd and 24th century.
I only pointed to the Excelsior as a marker. For if you use this new Enterprise at NX 01, and then acknowledge the Excelsior some 130 years later as 2000, how then do you account for a jump to 11000 in twenty or thrity years. This was the point I was making if only you would read it properly.
I then stated that perhaps a different system was then employed, or alternative method of processing registries. Don't go throwing Connie reg inconsistencies at me Seigfried, do you think I don't know this? They do follow a loose chronology, but they're of course not perfect I know that, but this was not the point I was trying to make.
-------------------- "To the Enterprise and the Stargazer. Old girlfriends we'll never meet again." - Scotty
OnToMars
Now on to the making of films!
Member # 621
posted
I thought of this in trying to attempt to explain the Connie inconsistencies:
Be warned - this can and sorta does intertwine with my apparently very unpopular theory that there can be ships that have the same name in service at the same time
What if registry numbers were recycled with ship names in the beginning? The Eagle/Constellation/others recycled their regos shortly before the policy was changed (shortly after or during the Constitution production run) to the 'current' scheme. Why was it changed? Shipyards were being built all over the place, not in immediate subspace range of each other and generally the whole naming thing was decentralized to the individual shipyards.
It explains the Constitutions and also the ST:III Grissom could have also been commissioned just before the policy was changed as among the first batch of Oberths. Thus, the Oberths don't have to be as ancient as the Grissom implies.
The downside however, is that it absolutley requires the 1701 to be the first Enterprise in Starfleet which has been blown to all hell now...
[ July 10, 2001: Message edited by: Stingray ]
-------------------- If God didn't want us to fly, he wouldn't have given us Bernoulli's Principle.
Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
This is why a lot of people adopt the idea that ship is given a registry number even before construction has begun. Since the Excelsior was a brand new ship it would take a lot longer to build than the Entente. And since I don't recall the Entente being seen, it could of been the size of a runabout thus even quicker to have built.
Is it possible that Starfleet changed it's registry scheme at the end of the 23rd century? Yes. They changed the warp scale, who knows what else. Prehaps they felt the need to update themselves. But as Ryan shows, it's not like there's a complete gap between 2,000 and 11,000.
As far as the Prometheus, I still think it was a simple CGI error. I know not everybody accepts NX-74913 as its registry like I do. Since both were on TV that makes both canon, accept whatever registry makes you happy. But I'm tired of seeing "Well look at the Prometheus! NX-59650!! That means registries don't have any chronological order!" Okuda himself said it was semi-chronological, because even he admits there's flaws in the scheme.
-------------------- I'm slightly annoyed at Hobbes' rather rude decision to be much more attractive than me though. That's just rude. - PsyLiam, Oct 27, 2005.
posted
Regarding the Entente/Excelsior thing... The Excelsior was a prototype. One would expect it to take longer to build. So, the order goes out in, say, 2269 to build NX-2000. A year later, the order goes out to build NCC-2120. The 2120 is just part of a mass-production assembly line, so it's done in a couple month and already flying around in 2271 during TMP. The Excelsior is being built from scratch, redesigned, &c., so it doesn't end up being finished 'til 2284. The registries are still chronological. It just takes a lot longer to build some ships.
As far as the NCC-1700 is concerned... Why does everyone insist on making things more complicated than they need to be? People theorize about reused registries, ships that were somehow converted from one class to another, and so on... The obvious answer is that the Constitution class ship had a registry lower than 956 (or at least lower than 1017, since we can't prove the Eagle was a Connie). This is so incredibly simple. Why doesn't anyone like the idea?
posted
I have always maintained that as improbable as it may seem to many, there is no chronological scheme to registry numbers. They are random and without order. We have Connies with regs of NCC-956 when the class prototype had NCC-1700. We have a U.S.S. Entente with a reg of NCC-2120 over a decade before the Excelsior with NX-2000. And even the A's and B's are suspect. We have a U.S.S. Relativity NCV-474439-G that's the seventh ship in her line, and we have a U.S.S. Nash whose registry is that of another ship with a 'B' tacked onto it.
This whole idea of the new/old Enterprise being the first Starfleet ship is utterly ridiculous. Apparently no one stopped to realize that we would have heard SOMETHING by now about an Enterprise that was the FIRST STARFLEET SHIP! Besides, it's been firmly established that the NCC-1701 was the very first Starfleet ship called Enterprise.
Everybody thought this was going to be okay because it was Pre-UFP and Pre-Starfleet. But of course, TPTB just couldn't leave well enough alone...
-------------------- The flaws we find most objectionable in others are often those we recognize in ourselves.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
