posted
I have not read this book, but i'm presuming that itdeals with a starship Saratoga. I cant find the book anywhere to buy it so i was wondering if anyone knows which Saratoga it was.
-------------------- "Marge, trying is the first step towards failure!!" Homer
Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
Amasov Prime
lensfare-induced epileptic shock
Member # 742
posted
I read it. The crew of the original ship met at DS9, but they all wanted to go back to earth with the Defiant where the new Saratoga, 31911-A was ready for launch. BTW, it was a Miranda-class ship, too.
-------------------- "This is great. Usually it's just cardboard walls in a garage."
Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
Damn. Thanks. I was hoping that they would have made it a more modern ship. And i also hate it when they add the -A on the end. That means starfleet would have hade to dedicate all 39 ships lost at wolf 359 with the -A system, as they wouldn't do that to one and not the rest.
-------------------- "Marge, trying is the first step towards failure!!" Homer
Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
Luckily for us, Michael Jan Freidman's drivel is most decidedly non-canon.
However, there was a new Saratoga which docked at DS9 (off-screen, unfortunately), in some episode whose name I've forgotten. I'd like to assume this ship is an Akira or Nebula or whatever, instead of a brand-spanking new Miranda class.
[ July 10, 2002, 13:36: Message edited by: Dukhat ]
-------------------- "A film made in 2008 isn't going to look like a TV series from 1966 if it wants to make any money. As long as the characters act the same way, and the spirit of the story remains the same then it's "real" Star Trek. Everything else is window dressing." -StCoop
Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
The third Saratoga was mentioned in "Wrongs Darker Than Death or Night" (DS9).
And I'll tell you what I hate: People who think that the letter suffix applies ONLY to the Enterprises. That to me is inane. It would make a hell of a lot more sense for Starfleet to apply that system universally, rather than just generating a new registry number for every new ship with an old name.
-MMoM
-------------------- The flaws we find most objectionable in others are often those we recognize in ourselves.
Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
I think that the suffix system only applies to the Enterprises. I also think that all the Enterprises save Kirk's have been the Federation flagship...
Amasov Prime
lensfare-induced epileptic shock
Member # 742
posted
I don't have a problem with siffixes - unless of course you come up with some 1305-E crap. This is really unrealistic. But I wouldn't mind seeing an -A for some ships or even a -B. Something to show everyone that the previous ship has done something great. Like the ships at Wolf, for example. Of course, this would eliminate every opportunity to determine the ships age or whatever system some people came up with to explain registries.
-------------------- "This is great. Usually it's just cardboard walls in a garage."
Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
I wonder what the Enterprise-B did to make it "distinguished." Certainly not by having a sharp captain, that's for sure.
quote:I don't have a problem with siffixes - unless of course you come up with some 1305-E crap. This is really unrealistic.
How is this unrealistic? For all we know, there were six different vessels with the name Yamato serving from the very beginning of Starfleet to the 24th century. It's no more unrealistic than the Enterprise-E?
-------------------- "A film made in 2008 isn't going to look like a TV series from 1966 if it wants to make any money. As long as the characters act the same way, and the spirit of the story remains the same then it's "real" Star Trek. Everything else is window dressing." -StCoop
Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged
Amasov Prime
lensfare-induced epileptic shock
Member # 742
posted
I think it's unrealistic because we never saw or heard of the shatship Yamato before that episode. It seems every child knows the adventures of the starship(s) Enterprise, but suddenly there's another vessel that has to be as famous as the E. It would have been OK if it wasn't as high as -E. The whole suffix-system is something special. Why isn't Kirk's ship the NX-01-A, for example? Because Archer was less important for the Federation? Judging by what may happen in the next 6 years, this is doubtful. And later, why was Captain Garrett's ship not the USS Enterprise NCC-26456? Harriman was everything but famous or heroic. Assigning the -A to the new Defiant makes sense, but continuing this would be unrealistic, too. Limiting the ABC-thing to the Enterprise because her whole history is outstanding is one thing, but as soon as there are Yamato-E's and Venture-G's and Constitution-D's Enterprise would only be one ship among many others. And this would make the suffix-thing useless. That's the reason I think -A's are OK if the former ship has done something to deserve it, but going much further shouldn't be done.
-------------------- "This is great. Usually it's just cardboard walls in a garage."
Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
Shik
Starship database: completed; History of Starfleet: done; website: probably never
Member # 343
posted
A well-mentioned point, Alex, & one that's often lost on those who would sling around suffixes willy-nilly.
My point of contention with those who are proponents of the "more suffixes" brigade is that how does one decide what ships are "more worthy" than others? That is to say, if a new Saratoga is 31911-A, what does that say about the crew of Saratoga 1937? Why 74205-A (which I do not accept for myself, by the way) when the crew of Defiant 1764 was bravely lost as well?
I could see adding a suffix to the second ship & starting the lineage as such, like with Enterprise; that makes sense if one was to assume other ships with suffixes. If, say, the new Intrepid in TOS/the flix was 1631-A, or the Yorktown as 1717-A, that would make sense. But it seems they weren't.
And while I'm here, this is also why you won't ever see an "Enterprise-class" ship now--it'd be too annoying. Really, NX-1701-F? No, no one would accept that.
-------------------- "The French have a saying: 'mise en place'—keep everything in its fucking place!"
Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged
Amasov Prime
lensfare-induced epileptic shock
Member # 742
posted
I think the real problem that causes all the trouble is the name-recycling. One could assume that there are enough names out there for all the ships we saw on Trek so far. There's absolutely no need for 3 Saratogas or Intrepids or Lexingtons or whatever. If they recycle the name, they should either add a suffix everytime they do it or never. I think that's exactly what you say - there is no way to determine a 'more worthy' ship because as soon as you do it, you declare that other ship are 'less worthy' or useless.
There was a nice theory I discussed with a friend some time ago. (Actually, it was his theory, but that's something I can live with. ) Let's assume for a moment Yamato's NCC-1305-E was not an error. And neither was the 71xxx. What if every time they reuse a name the ship automatically earns an A or B or whatever letter comes next. The captain or staff can choose whether to use the old registry + suffix or the 'factory code'. You'll be the next Captain of the Hood, and they ask you if you want to use the registry 42xxx-A or the standard 76100. Most of them choose the latter, or maybe you can only take the offer if you commanded the last ship of this name, too, or starfleet tells you to if you can do it or not (this could be the case with the Defiant), or maybe the -A or -B is a special annotation on your dedication plaque, something like that. In other words, when Picard assumed command of the ship, he had to choose between NCC-1701-D and NCC-71801, for example. Of course, since the ship was the Enterprise, he didn't really have a choice.
-------------------- "This is great. Usually it's just cardboard walls in a garage."
Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
The real answer, of course, is that a good portion of the general public remembers NCC-1701, and the producers think they'd get confused if the registry changed every time the Enterprise was blown to hell.
The fact that each Enterprise should have a different registry doesn't matter in this context.
I assume that the special circumstances of the Enterprise registry aren't related to the ship being the flagship of the fleet either. In the context of the fiction, the Enterprise hasn't always been the flagship...I do believe the Excelsior held that title for awhile--at least for the majority of one movie. And when various Enterprises get blown up, the flagship (a fairly stupid concept when you have thousands upon thousands of vessals) would be something else.
I always thought the NCC-1701 code was there as a sort of good luck superstition...and nothing more.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
