posted
This just popped into my mind and I don't know if this idea has been put forth.
Okay, since every thing else in Starfleet is loosly based on the USN way of doing things. (i.e. the rank system.) Why not the registrations?? OK. In the USN, all the type of ships types ( carriers, destroyers ect.) Like the USS Nimitz CVN-68 the 68 means that the Nimitz is the 68th carrier built...Not the 68th of her class.
Well what if Starfleet said that when a new cruiser class came out it would start at NCC-XX50--NCC-XXX50 or something like that...and that would be the same for every new cruiser class. And that ship numbers would be given to each hull laid down or planned/purposed. So this might explain all the problems we see.
Hell, even the producers(Okuda ect.) don't have a system for this...their just shaking their heads at how much they have screwed up the system.
I know we can't find this anywhere in the cannon's but it should be this way...SHIT, they can't even decide on ship types...there are a freakin two ideas out there...
posted
Well in the Navy we have a saying "Thats the way the Navy wants it" So Im going to say to you "Thats the way Starfleet wants it"
-------------------- "Who cares if we bomb a few hospitals, it just means we got them a second time" Warrant Officer Robert Clift, CVN-71 OEF
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
Shik
Starship database: completed; History of Starfleet: done; website: probably never
Member # 343
posted
quote:Originally posted by Mark Nguyen: {Nabeshin} NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!! {/Nabeshin}
Sadly, I understand this.
-------------------- "The French have a saying: 'mise en place'—keep everything in its fucking place!"
Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
Here is my feeling toward all the registries. From 1-about 5600 is all built in class order with same type of registry like 600-650 as one class (this includes the Constitution witch older ship were retro-fitted into Constitution class but still there is other ships in this class from 1700 to 1717 or something but names not given) once around 5600 or so, the registry�s changed to meet the new ship classes and the system is changed that the Registry�s don�t follow the class like the old ones (lets make some examples. The enterprise A was launched on 8442.5 the excelsior was 8205.5 the Sutherland was 44820.5 the Brittain was 22519.5 the defiant was 47538.5 voyager was 48038.5 Enterprise b was 9715.5 USS Prometheus 50749.5 the USS Sao Paulo NCC-75633 was 52889.3? USS Tsiolkovsky 40291.7 USS Valiant NCC-74210 was 49456.5? The Original enterprise was in 2245 while the excelsior was 2285 the stargazer was in 2290 the constellation was in 2279 the pasture was 58928 or so they say and the Hathaway was on 2286 )like the ambassador class(look at the build date for some of the ships and they just don�t match in my book for the older ships.(you mean to tell me that you guys believe they built only 300 ships in 40 years? 1701-2000 than in a hundred years later they built 70000 that does not make since to me )
[ September 10, 2002, 20:52: Message edited by: Akira62497 ]
-------------------- Christopher [email protected] SR20Egg
Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
capped
I WAS IN THE FUTURE, IT WAS TOO LATE TO RSVP
Member # 709
posted
i'm not sure i understand any of that. try to construct simpler sentences. and spellcheck. i'm not trying to insult you but the spelling and grammar is so bad that i actually have no idea what you said.
by the way, older ships being made into Constitution-class? Bullshit. Using the most complicated explanation is the worst way to logically solve a problem. I'll call it Fanboy's Razor.
I think the registries arent as chronological as people might think. When the Constitutions were built in the early 2240s, some yards were using 9xx-10xx registries, some were using 16xx and 17xx registries. basically, there had been 1700 numbers assigned by that point, but there hadnt been 1700 ships built since some of the yards were still using older numbers because they made less ships per year than other busier yards like San Fran.
This explanation allows the Constitutions to be built as a class, not as some bullshit concept of pasting together ancient hulls to make new ships, it hardly seems logical that there were so many dated saucers built to that specification, and whatnot. it seems a tremendous and bizarre waste of resources and time to rearrange existing ships in ways contrary to their original design. (even the connie refit was only a refurbishing of new panels on the old frame, not a rearrangement of them shoving new nacelles in wierd new places)
This explanation also allows for later oddities such as the Excelsior coming out after the establishment of other 21xx registries like the Entente, and the 6xx Oberths being newer than the 9xx-17xx Constitutions, and the 5xxxx Prometheus, etc,etc blah blah
most importantly, this system disguises the true number of ships in Starfleet, which leaves it open to the writer's intentions. since Star Trek was designed to be a character show and not a technical universe, so the writer needs to be allowed to have a huge fleet or a small one, depending on the plot they want to put the character through. the system was deliberately designed to be oh-so non-specific, so that the Enterprise could have a fleet around it for fun VFX sometimes, but other times be the only ship in the quadrant.
and by TNG era Starfleet could grow very much faster.. we know that vessels capable of serving as starships are getting smaller and smaller.. if they built 1,000 runabouts they would eclipse the number of NCCs they used in the whole first century of the Federation. even small ships like the scout or the little Defiant (little?!), basically any ship thats self sufficient for long travel gets an NCC, that applies to more ships in the TNG era.
-------------------- "Are you worried that your thoughts are not quite.. clear?"
Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
capped
I WAS IN THE FUTURE, IT WAS TOO LATE TO RSVP
Member # 709
posted
i cant believe i responded to such a n00b thread anyway. this HAS been discussed to death.
Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
Mic also pretty much summed up my opinions on this much flogged dead horse. It's not hard to account for 70-some thousand ships since the Federation began if they began integrating previously non-listed ships into the fleet, such as small Utilities, Tankers, Tugs, Freighters and so forth.
Also, possibly, the ships of alien races that join the Federation. For instance, if the Bajorans entered the Federations, some of it's military defense forces would be incorporated into the 'Federation Fleet'. So, being assigned a registered number, this too would boost the ever expanding figures for registries.
-------------------- "To the Enterprise and the Stargazer. Old girlfriends we'll never meet again." - Scotty
posted
However, most non-Starfleet, Federation-used ships usually had registries with a NAR, NFT, NGL etc. prefix, not NCC. NCC is reserved only for Starfleet vessels.
Here's an interesting conundrum for chronological registry buffs like me: According to the dedication plaque for the U.S.S. Tsiolkovsky, the ship was launched on stardate 40291.7, roughly one year before the first season of TNG. However, the ship's registry is only NCC-53911! You would think that a ship launched in 2363 would have a registry as high as 70000, but it doesn't.
Of course, this was only the second episode of TNG, and registries, stardates, and even TNG's calendar year were not set at this time, so I choose to ignore the plaque totally.
-------------------- "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
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
