Amasov Prime
lensfare-induced epileptic shock
Member # 742
posted
This may sound a bit stupid, but I surfed through the old (the really old threads and came across the starship Prometheus. And that made me think about the whole registry-debate. I did never accept the 59650 as the 'real' number. The reasons are obvious. They don't build a ship named Prometheus (and I assume - even if other ships get their names just before they are launched - that at least the Prototype, the project, gets a name.) while having another one in production. Even if it is mothballed.
But maybe that's the key. What do we have?
USS Melbourne. The ship was an Excelsior, no doubt, but the registry is the one from the Nebula (62xxx would be the highest Excelsior-registry ever). And we have a Nebula-variant, a prototype vessel. Same number, by the way. But most of all, same name.
We have Prometheus. Whatever the number is, there is no proof that the Nebula-Prometheus has been destroyed before the new ship entered service or recieved a name. Again, a standard vessel and a Prototype with the same name.
We have Endeavour. Allthough the part was re-written, the original script called for a new vessel, a prototype, Admiral Hayes flagship. And the com-chatter had a ship named Endeavour in the fleet, either the Nebula or the prototype. If the prototype never existed, fine; but if the ship did exist and participated in that battle, we have another one.
Finally, Yeager. Besides the Sabre-class ship, there the kitbash. Could be a prototype. Nothing worth hiding from the enemy in my opinion, but still it could be a prototype, the first one starfleet has (based on the speculation that the one we saw on DS9 was the only one they had.). And Sabre-class Yeager survived the Borg-battle 2372. Even if it was destroyed, the 65674 predates 2372/73, anyway.
What does it mean? We have eight ships with four different names. Maybe that's part of Starfleets security policy. I think it was Jackill's SRM that added some secret prototype vessels to another class, just by choosing sequentuial NCC's of that other class and assigning them to the prototype vessels. In the same way, sterfleet could have taken names of existing vessels, probably operating in the same area, to cover the existence of the prototypes.
At least this makes more sense than the 'who said there can't be two different things called xyz and we choose to honor each of them by naming a vessel'-theory.
-------------------- "This is great. Usually it's just cardboard walls in a garage."
Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
MadCat221
Ex-Member
posted
Or mabye the VFX folks got sloppy.
IP: Logged
Amasov Prime
lensfare-induced epileptic shock
Member # 742
posted
quote:Originally posted by MadCat221: Or mabye the VFX folks got sloppy.
AHHHHHAAAHHHH-HHHHHAAAAHH! YOU KILLED MY THREAD!!! NOOOOOOOOO.......
-------------------- "This is great. Usually it's just cardboard walls in a garage."
Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
CaptAlabin
Ex-Member
posted
Excelsior Class USS Melbourne and Nebula Class USS Melbourne. I always tended to go with that the Excelsior class ship was like a flying bomb, probably taken from an reserve fleet area or a junkyard.
Nebula Class USS Prometheus and Prometheus Class prototype. I have decided that the Nebula Class was destroyed in the war with the Klingons or at least a deed to warrant the naming of a new class after the ship.
The Nebula Class Endeavour and First Contact Endeavour, I consider the same vessel because I don't want another Nebbie to go down in flames.
The Sabre Class Yeager and the Yeager class Yeager. The Sabre Class was destroyed in the FC Battle. The second one I consider was a previously named vessel with that name being freed to another vessel. The name Yeager was put on it and Starfleet decided to build more type of the vessels for the war. The class was decided to be named after the renamed vessel.
Well that is what I consider in my canon Star Trek Universe.
Amasov Prime
lensfare-induced epileptic shock
Member # 742
posted
The flying-bomb-idea was a thing I applied to the Ambassador during the Dominion war. Since there were no new ships produced after the 26xxx-batch and the vessel itself doesn't seem to be in service any longer during the war, I tend to think they used some of those as kamikaze-fighters.
(On the other hand, and this is what I also said before, the Galaxy is overused during the war. So I tend to say the ships seen in the far background of some battles - SoA, for example - were actually Ambassadors or Niagaras or whatever looks similar to a Galaxy. I think 15 should be the maximum of Galaxys in service during the war. And I doubt they serve in the same fleet. That's my interpretation of canon Trek on another topic. )
On question: What about the identical Melbourne-registries? If the bomb was retired, why the high registry?
-------------------- "This is great. Usually it's just cardboard walls in a garage."
Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
CaptAlabin
Ex-Member
posted
I always that the rego of the Flying Bomb Melbourne was NCC-318XX or something of that matter. I cannot see an Excelsior with an registry in the 62XXX because of the newer builds of Galaxies planned, Nebbies being built, the FC ships (I dont care what people say, my theory is that regos are chronological or have an logical explanation of why some are out of place. I tend to think Starfleet is more modeled after the US Navy.) and New Orleans. The numerous Excelsiors and Mirandas that we do see are mothballed ships taken out of reserve and either renamed because to free up that name or hurriedly pressed into service with upgrades. This brings open that the Excelsior Class ship in Chrysalis DS9 was the Farragut that was taken out of reserve. Thats my two pennies.
IP: Logged
capped
I WAS IN THE FUTURE, IT WAS TOO LATE TO RSVP
Member # 709
posted
flying bomb = stupid
you couldnt see the Nebula-class at all, and even if we identify where it is, the name could never be visible, so theres no reason we need to complicate the situation by saying that there was ever such a thing as the Nebula-class Melbourne. Why is it so hard to just accept there was one Melbourne, it was a starship with a crew aboard, and it was destroyed.. that what I saw in the episode
-------------------- "Are you worried that your thoughts are not quite.. clear?"
Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
But there are pictures of the Nebula-Melbourne studio model were you can see the registry and the name. And if we accept the other names and regos from the Wolf 359 ships, we should do the same with the Nebula-Melbourne. Besides, I've never seen a clear screenshot of the Excelsior-Melbourne with the NCC readable.
quote:you couldnt see the Nebula-class at all
Huh? The wreckage appeared in BoBW and in the DS9 pilot.
[ March 31, 2002, 11:34: Message edited by: Spike ]
Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged
capped
I WAS IN THE FUTURE, IT WAS TOO LATE TO RSVP
Member # 709
posted
BUT we shouldnt accept background info that is obviously contradictory to something that made it on screen. And the Nebula's registry will never be readable.. it was just too small in the episodes to ever be clearly made out.. i didnt even know it was there or what it was until somebody pointed out it was there, so obviously its not considered to have 'high profile' visibility (i.e. it wasnt important to the story except as scenery) so why bother stressing over it?
its about as sensible as saying there were three ships named U.S.S. Enterprise NCC-1701-D in Operation: Return.. its something you obviously couldnt discern while watching the episode, so why pay it any heed?
[ March 31, 2002, 11:48: Message edited by: CaptainMike ]
-------------------- "Are you worried that your thoughts are not quite.. clear?"
Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
Amasov Prime
lensfare-induced epileptic shock
Member # 742
posted
And a model labeled Melbourne with the 62xxx-registry appeared in 'Future Imperfect'. Clearly visible. In was only the fault of the VFX-guys of DS9 who used the Excelsior as Melbourne because the model had more detail.
I also don't accept the theory that Hanson was aboard the Melbourne, the Excelsior-Melbourne. He was the commander of an Excelsior-class ship, seen at the beginning of BoBW. Maybe the registry was 42-something, visible on that screen in the observation lounge after he informed Riker about the fleet's status. But it was not 62-something.
Whether we believe there was an Excelsior-Melbourne or not, the Nebula was there without any doubt.
-------------------- "This is great. Usually it's just cardboard walls in a garage."
Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
CaptAlabin
Ex-Member
posted
Yes, we do see the Excelsior Class Melbourne get heavily damaged but the rego of the Nebula Class is different from the Excelsior Class. A flying bomb is an idea in a time when you are desperate. The English used fire ships against the Spanish Armada because of desperation. I can see a the Excelsior Class Melbourne being autopiloted to ram the Cube. Riker thought of doing the same thing in a time of desperation.
IP: Logged
quote:And a model labeled Melbourne with the 62xxx-registry appeared in 'Future Imperfect'. Clearly visible.
Well, the model was. But I wouldn't call the writing on it clear. And besides, who's to say it's a model of a real ship? Perhaps Barash's scanners were messed up?
quote:In was only the fault of the VFX-guys of DS9 who used the Excelsior as Melbourne because the model had more detail.
Fault? Buh? How is contradicting something we only know because Okuda told us in the Encylopedia in the name of making a better-looking VFX shot a fault?
-------------------- "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
capped
I WAS IN THE FUTURE, IT WAS TOO LATE TO RSVP
Member # 709
posted
Alabin, both the Nebula-Melbourne and the Excelsior-Melbourne had the same registry.. thats why its so distasteful to think they were both correctly labeled.. how would two different ships have the same registry and coexist?
And Barash did make mistakes in his holosimulation. Riker misremembering a hologram as a real person is a big mistake, as was the hologram of Data being unable to compute a course, so im sure there were other errors creeping in.
And yes i know of the flying bomb idea being a real tactic ('fire ships', etc..). Im sure that Starfleet might even have used it a few times. But its a pretty lame explanation, and gets tired when we drag it out every time we see an older ship we didnt expect to see. Sometimes its easier without trying to overexplain it, like just saying 'that ship was what it appeared to be'
-------------------- "Are you worried that your thoughts are not quite.. clear?"
Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
Amasov Prime
lensfare-induced epileptic shock
Member # 742
posted
quote:Originally posted by The_Tom: Fault? Buh? How is contradicting something we only know because Okuda told us in the Encylopedia in the name of making a better-looking VFX shot a fault?
If they didn't care for what Okuda and Miareki established, then why did they give the Excelsior-Melbourne the same registry as the Nebula? They could have easily said this is USS whatever NCC-whatever, why did they choose the Melbourne?
-------------------- "This is great. Usually it's just cardboard walls in a garage."
Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
CaptAlabin
Ex-Member
posted
Also, this is the idea of a flying bomb, I used for the Battle at Wolf 359. The idea maybe lame to you, but technobable will not always get the ship out of danger. The mood I thought that Best of Both Worlds was a desperation one and the stand at Wolf 359 was Earth's final one. They did have the same rego. Well I always that they Excelsior had the NCC-318XX registry.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
