posted
Indeed. It's not currently customary to decommission a ship for the duration of a refit, but it USED to be the norm. Recommissioning might be commemorated in a new plaque even when the registry is retained.
Of course, the Tsiolkovski wasn't too extensively refitted, from what little we saw. If any of the other ships for which the plaques are known had undergone a major refit after the known launch date, and the SD on the plaque didn't agree with this, this theory would come crumbling down. But none of the prominent ships has undergone such a refit, AFAWK.
posted
Being exactly chronological is impossible... there will be times when the registry is reserved for a certain ship and that ship never comes about so that by the time that registry number is freed up to actually be used it has been passed for many years in the chronological order.
At the same time registry numbers are not given at a specific time. Some ships receive their registry number before they come off the production line [this is most likely the case with NX vessels]. Some ships will receive their numbers when they come off the line and go into flight tests. Other ships will receive their numbers when they finish and pass the flight tests. And yet others will receive the numbers at the last possible second, when they finally get commissioned.
Add into the above that some ships get delayed while other get fast tracked... it adds into the inability to strictly say all registries are chronological. But for the general point of the matter, if you really want to describe registry numbers you have to point out that they are roughly chronological--- if you can't agree with that you are blind to the evidence before you.
-------------------- Later, J _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ The Last Person to post in the late Voyager Forum. Bashing both Voyager, Enterprise, and "The Bun" in one glorious post.
posted
This does not strike me as being a problem, because by and large, pre-Farpoint stardates simply don't work. They're all over the map. More troubling to me would be the registry itself, implying a continuing construction of Oberths long after I would personally like to see them being constructed. But, there you are.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
I agree, with the same argument for the Mirandas & Excelsiors. I'm in the process of writing up an essay dealing with just such matters, but in a nutshell:
1. First Excelsior = NCC-2000. Last known Excelsior = NCC-62043. *huh?*
2. First known Miranda = NCC-1864. Last known Miranda = NCC-31911. *double "huh"?*
3. First Oberth = NCC-602. Last known Oberth = NCC-59318. *triple "huh"*
Compared to the Ambassador, for example: First Ambassador = NCC-10521. Last known Ambassador = NCC-26849.
I've just never understood why, if TPTB either reused the model of a movie era ship, or had the ship's registry on a display somewhere, why they chose to give them such ridiculously high registries.
-------------------- "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
I don't have a problem with the Mirandas though, and that high Excelsior number was a one-time anomaly.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
capped
I WAS IN THE FUTURE, IT WAS TOO LATE TO RSVP
Member # 709
posted
i can accept that they took out the blueprints and built a new series later. possibly even with significantly different internal technology witihn the same proven spaceframe, essentially a new ship in an old-style hull.
Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
I find the continued construction of a certain type of starship across several centuries very plausible. In fact, Starfleet's obsession with creating dozens of ship types that don't significantly differ from each other or from previous models is the anomalious factor here. It smacks of early 20th century, with its primitive short-lived technological solutions and relatively low costs of R&D. Compare this e.g. with the current trend in military aviation - the rate of introduction of new fighter types has dropped to near-zero when R&D costs and cost-per-plane skyrocket.
There's very little problem with the Oberths, since their role doesn't actually lend itself to aging. What was good for surveying a star system in 2260 would still be good for the job in 2852, assuming you haven't invented something that would *so radically* lower the costs of the survey that it would justify the capital expenses of creating a new surveyor design (or an alternate survey method).
A warship is subject to outdating, though. At least if the rate of military escalation is synchronized among the major adversaries. But the Trek galaxy could be largely asynchronized, making a Miranda a superpowerful dreadnought against most 24th century (or 29th century) adversaries.
So, I don't see the seeming longevity of certain ship types as a reason to disbelieve in chronological NCCs. In fact, I'd like to see even greater longevity - indications of technologies inherited from civilizations hundreds of millennia past. Those ship types that seem to be all across the galaxy could well be a few million years old in their basic design, a design that continues in production among a number of civilizations which aren't even aware of each other nowadays.
posted
Maybe each class had a specific registry, like the Excelsiors were all 2000s while the Oberths started in the 5-600s and the Galaxys started off in the 6-7000s. I dunno just a hunch
-------------------- "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
posted
That wouldbe plausable. Except for all the evidence that proves it wrong.
-------------------- 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
Don't you just hate it when the facts get in the way of a perfectly good theory?
I'm generally in favour of a chronological registry system; this fits on the whole, with only a few exceptions. To be honest, I would expect a few abberations in the scheme over the two centuries or so that Starfleet has existed; ships that were assigned hull numbers but were never completed and the numbers reassigned; hull numbers assigned in blocks to shipyards which build different ships at different rates etc. even an Admiral trying to use up any numbers which have been skipped for whatever reason. The wrong number accidentally painted on the hull (my favourite- ). Starfleet is not infallable.
-------------------- "I am an almost extinct breed, an old-fashioned gentleman, which means I can be a cast-iron son-of-a-bitch when it suits me." --Jubal Harshaw
Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
capped
I WAS IN THE FUTURE, IT WAS TOO LATE TO RSVP
Member # 709
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
). Starfleet is not infallable.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
