posted
It's a shame that the registration number is so more fitting for a Nebula - and that the Nebula appeared first. Other than that, I'd say the case is closed .
posted
Mim has a good point... However, one piece of canon I will not accept is that 1305-E thing for the Yamato. Riker may have said it, but I think 71807 or whatever is more logical and more willing for me to accept.
posted
Well Monkey, the USS Melbourne name could be read on an Excelsior Class starship saucer, that's good enough for me. I'm well aware of the proto-Nebula Melbourne as well, but at no point could I actually read its name and/or registry on it. So its canon status is questionable.
You're right it is a paradoxical situation, but can we tell for sure that when Shelby identifies the gnarled and wrecked Melbourne in BoBW it is a Nebula class wreck... or an Excelsior?
For me I conclude that there was definitly an Excelsior Class USS Melbourne present at Wolf 359, and there was also a Nebula but whose name and registry are uncertain as they didn't appear clearly on screen, even if the actual studio model said Melbourne.
Veers, I accept the 1305-E thing. It was scripted and is hard to ignore. I haven't checked Contagion in a while, so is the amended NCC 71807 reg visibale on the Yamato saucer? If it isn't I'll stick with 1305-E. Also in the TNG Tech Manual (with many of the facts therein considered canon) it states that the Enterprise was one of few Federation ships that were honoured with a lettering sequence, ie Enterprise-A, B, C and so on. This suggests the possibility that there may be other ships in the fleet that have this feature.
-------------------- "To the Enterprise and the Stargazer. Old girlfriends we'll never meet again." - Scotty
posted
I haven't seen the episode lately either, but I believe you could see the registry when the ship blew up and the saucer came toward the viewscreen.
What reason is there why the U.S.S. Yamato could not simply have had it's registry changed from NCC-1305-E, to NCC-71807?
I think canonically (what with the U.S.S Nash NCC-2010-B and U.S.S. Dauntless NX-01-A) we have seen that the letter suffix cannot always be literally interpreted to mean that a ship is one of a series with that number.
So I don't see any reason why they can't BOTH be right.
-------------------- The flaws we find most objectionable in others are often those we recognize in ourselves.
posted
I think the only evidence for the Yamato's 71xxx registry is that it appears on Captain Varley's log entries and on the visual log of the Iconian probe. Other than that, you can't see the registry on the saucer because A) it's too small and B) it's getting burned off of the saucer.
There really isn't much reason to assume that a ship's registry couldn't be changed. Why it would be changed, though, would be a matter of debate. I think someone here once hypothesized that each Starfleet vessel gets its own unique registry number, but the decision to use a suffix in tribute to a previous ship of the same name is at the discretion of the commanding officer or Starfleet Command.
Sorry, I don't have much else to add to this debate.
-------------------- The philosopher's stone. Those who possess it are no longer bound by the laws of equivalent exchange in alchemy. They gain without sacrifice and create without equal exchange. We searched for it, and we found it.
posted
Yeah, why does everybody count the Dauntless as a Starfleet ship? It was made up by an alien from another quadrant! And quit with the 1305-E crap. Someone dig up the other five Yamatos and I'll beleive it.
posted
The fact that the Voyager crew accepted the Dauntless as a genuine Starfleet vessel signifies that it *could not* have been far from the real thing. Registry included. You don't think that if it was an unusual or 'wrong' registry number that they would have noticed?
And as I was trying to demonstrate, the fact that the Yamato had a reg of 1305-E doesn't necessarily mean that there were five others before it.
-MMoM
-------------------- The flaws we find most objectionable in others are often those we recognize in ourselves.
posted
But, er, you weren't demonstrating it. You said:
"I think canonically (what with the U.S.S Nash NCC-2010-B and U.S.S. Dauntless NX-01-A) we have seen that the letter suffix cannot always be literally interpreted to mean that a ship is one of a series with that number."
That's not an argument, anymore than saying "I think canonically (What with the USS Defiant NCC-74205) we have seen that the numbers cannot literally mean that there are monkeys on the ship."
And I still prefer my "Riker is an idiot, Picard didn't care, and everyone else was too polite to correct him" theory. Unless Riker is the smartest person in the universe.
-------------------- 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.
posted
I think what MMoM is saying is that a series of suffixed ships don't have to carry the same name - they only need to carry the same base rego number. This means that there wouldn't have to be 5 previous Yamato - only that there were 5 previous ships with the 1305 rego.
Well, except for Liam's beliefs, Riker is a pretty smart guy -- I mean, how many people applied for the XO post on the Enterprise? And only Riker got it. He's always been at least tactically intelligent -- I think "Peak Performance" mentioned how he used a planet's atmosphere to cloak his ship during a hostile engagement?
posted
But what's he basing it on? Do we know of any previous Nash's? Or NCC 2010's?
And don't start on the Dauntless. One, it wasn't real, and two, we've had several explanations for the registry already, such as:
The registry system only applies to Federation Starfleet vessels. The crew were idiots. Something happens to the Enterprise NX-01.
-------------------- 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.
.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
