posted
Probably, but whether or not its called Santa Maria is another thing. I worked this name out by enhancing & tracing the image of the ship but that was almost a year ago & I'm not so sure now...but then again I never was. I look at it now & I think the second word is "Hope"
I hope this ship wasn't in any episode, because NCC-70564 is lower than the Galaxy's. I sent an email to Mojo. Let's see what he says about this ship.
[ July 20, 2001: Message edited by: Spike ]
-------------------- "Never give up. And never, under any circumstances, no matter what - never face the facts." - Ruth Gordon
Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
Yes. And having a registry number lower than the class-designation ship would be unprecedented, woudn't it?
-------------------- Yes, you're despicable, and... and picable... and... and you're definitely, definitely despicable. How a person can get so despicable in one lifetime is beyond me. It isn't as though I haven't met a lot of people. Goodness knows it isn't that. It isn't just that... it isn't... it's... it's despicable.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Well, yes. The only Federation Starfleet "NX" registries we know of are the Constellation, Excelsior, Ambassador, Galaxy, Danube, Bradbury, Defiant, and Prometheus. And, even at that, the only ones that are strictly canon are the Constellation, Excelsior, Defiant, Prometheus, and possibly Bradbury. As far as I know, there have never been any contradictions w/ those.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
I don't believe registries are sequential, so that's not the same sort of problem for me.
After all, we had numbers of NCC-2120 and NCC-3801 canonically confirmed in TMP and TWOK. Not to mention the little already-mentioned-many-times-over bit about the Constitution/Constellation mishap. Plus, we also had two U.S.S. Ahwahnees in the TNG timeframe, ant the second one had a registy about 200 digits lower than the first! There are plenty of other examples, but I think I've made my point...
-------------------- The flaws we find most objectionable in others are often those we recognize in ourselves.
quote:Originally posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim: What if it said 'Shiku Maru'?
Oh wait...that wouldn't work, would it?
I don't believe registries are sequential, so that's not the same sort of problem for me.
After all, we had numbers of NCC-2120 and NCC-3801 canonically confirmed in TMP and TWOK. Not to mention the little already-mentioned-many-times-over bit about the Constitution/Constellation mishap. Plus, we also had two U.S.S. Ahwahnees in the TNG timeframe, ant the second one had a registy about 200 digits lower than the first! There are plenty of other examples, but I think I've made my point...
Well firstly I belive they are sequencial, for the simple reason that for the vast majority, they are. Your taking the exception as proof to the rule. NCC-2xxx + regs in the 23rd century can be explaned (at a stretch) by saying that the excelsior was in developement for a very long time & retained the NX-2000 while other older ships were being built after it was started. the 2 Ahwahnees are easy to do away with, u can easily say that the second Ahwahnee was originally named something else & the name was changed & the ship given the the surviving crew of the first. just like the Yorktown. A similar explanation covers the constitution problem (to a point).
But this Galaxy registery is alot trickier to explane...
OnToMars
Now on to the making of films!
Member # 621
posted
Um, not to be impertinent or anything, but can't we just ignore it?
The reg is obviously hopelessly inconsistent and its impossible to get a definite name, its not from onscreen so it ain't canon. So...if it causes more trouble than its worth - fuck it.
Am I wrong?
-------------------- If God didn't want us to fly, he wouldn't have given us Bernoulli's Principle.
posted
Well, for the people like me who assign the status of "canon" to only the material seen on-screen, there really isn't anything to be concerned about. Unless this ship was actually sneaked into an episode, we can ignore it.
However, Monkey of Mim is of another group of people that assign "canon" status to all material authorized by Paramount. So for that group, this ship will pose a problem. So for them, I propose this solution in accepting the registry: this registry was originally assigned in a block of numbers issued to (for sake of argument) Nebula class starships. This particular number wasn't used, and when the Galaxy class building increased, this number was reassigned to a new Galaxy. This particularly works if you don't believe that registries are strictly chronological. But this solution poses a sticky problem of being lower than the USS Galaxy's.
posted
I always have a better idea. Its obvious really, a pocket of stellar gas affected a weather satelight and refracted the light from sirius....um....it was a criminal from the 29th century playing silly buggers with the time line, causing the Galaxy-class to be built earlier...a separated sauser section from a nebula (can they do that?) has been intigrated with a galaxy stardrive, just for kicks.
posted
You're right (I think) about that "Hope" part at the end of the Galaxy's name. What could it be? They must have wrote something on there. And, what was this calendar like? Was it like one of those monthly ones, with one picture a month, or a tear-off one, with a picture each day? If so, it must have had some sort of caption. Does anyone have it?
Printer-friendly view of this topic
