posted
By MMoM - from the Expanded Ships list thread:
Re: Me suggesting the Prommie does indeed start with a 7xxxx.
quote: "Firstly, I am indeed going with NX-59650 for the Prometheus, as I always have. My reasons for this are essentially stated in the entry�s notes. I find it rather too difficult to ignore the highly-visible number, (Brattain issue aside) especially since every single official publication uses it. Even the Encyclopedia, written by Okuda and which displays the MSD and dedication plaque on which the NX-74913 number, lists the lower number in the main text. I know there will be many who disagree with this, but that�s how I�m leaving it---with the 59650 number in the main entry text and notes about the other, perhaps more �reasonable� number in the annotations.
Secondly, I understand your point about the First Contact vessels. I too have always maintained that they were most likely new vessel designs at the time of the movie. I have no intention of ret-conning their registries, though. I prefer to simply chalk it up to another unexplained �glitch� in the sequential/chronological registry scheme."
OK. I agree with everything there. The reason why I started a new thread - is that I had a brain-wave.
Question - the Enterprise is 1701-D - but it actually had a proper 7xxxx registry number didn't it?
NOW - theory what if a Starship Captain or a committee - whom-ever can assign a different name and/or registry to a ship (but underneath all that paint - the ship is really it's original designation - like the E-D is/was actually 7xxxx.
OK, this fits with firstly the Enterprise-D.
This fits with the Defiant-class Defiant/Sao Paulo. (The ship is/was REALLY the Sao Paulo - now it just has a new paint-job/registry for sentimental reasons. Thus in WWLB - there is still the old registry.)
This can explain the Prometheus - ACTUALLY originally was NX-74913 - but now everyone knows it as NX-59650 for some sentimental/acknowledgement/tributary reason. There might have been an NX-59650 Prometheus (or other name) that might have done fantastic things over her career. Or something - or the Admiral's wife was captain of that ship and he decided to give her a nice birthday present - or it was to decieve Romulans or WHAT-EVER. Yes the ship is now officially NX-59650 - it's original roll-out order number is NX-74912.
This can now apply to those 4 FC ships. 7xxxx generation - but with 'old registries' assigned/wished for them. (if things became confusing - there would be some underly signal from the starship saying it is NCC-59280 (NCC-74373)
etc.
This also fits the wierd Connie registries.
The original connie WAS 1700 and the Enterprise WAS 1701. (you'd have to be a Starfleet specialist insider to know all the original registries) but there are some that wanted to adopt old registries for some reason like the Constellation - maybe it was Decker's old ship's number NCC-1017? Maybe his Fathers? He could have put in a special request.
Where we see blocks of numbers and closely identifying ships - we can assume that they are their unchanged/original registries - where we have things say like 6 Akiras all 7xxx1,2,3,4,5,6 and the 4th is 64622 - then we can extrapolate that Command/whomever wanted to give that ship an old registry - for some unknown reason? Feng Shui reasons... who knows!!
This sufficiently covers all bases.
It's basically - we don't really know the system - you'd have to be an insider Starfleet specialist engineer - a Zackdorn somewhere probably knows all the registries and their histories - but we won't find out. So taking what we know and extrapolating - we get this. A near-continuous starship release registry - with some anomalies due to some particular whims of captains or admirals or some cultural/historical significance for member worlds!?!
Something akin to personalised numberplates!?!
Andrew
-------------------- "Bears. Beets. Battlestar Galactica." - Jim Halpert. (The Office)
posted
The Enterprises are a special case and hardly count. The other examples have already been explained as laziness/mistakes of the production crew. I'd prefer not to see production errors perpetuated or justified.
posted
But these errors will continue. If the production errors can be rationalized, it's better than ignoring them. In this case, they can. Non-US ships have pennant numbers that change with missions. Every Starfleet ship could've had many different numbers throughout its history.
Rick Sternbach thinks that the Intrepid hulls are actually labeled IC-101, IC-102, etc, which is probably the underlying system used just in case they needed to identify precise hull in question.
quote:Originally posted by Dax: The Enterprises are a special case and hardly count. The other examples have already been explained as laziness/mistakes of the production crew. I'd prefer not to see production errors perpetuated or justified.
OK! Cool - combine this with the idea that the Thunderchild, Budapest, Yeager etc. are just production errors and mistakes by the crew instead of making these classes so old (i.e. 5 and 6xxxx vintage) Why should the registries override the looks of those ships!?!
Andrew
-------------------- "Bears. Beets. Battlestar Galactica." - Jim Halpert. (The Office)
posted
I wouldn't suggest that the FC ships designs are old. I'd prefer to think that those four (and possibly others we haven't seen) were so revolutionary for their time, that the design was started during a time when they were issued 6xxxx registries. These ships may have had a longer design time than many other ships, and by the time they were launched, the numbers appeared woefully out of sequence with other more ordinary ships commissioned when these designs were ready for launch.
As for the Prometheus registry, we've seen the low number officially once (on the hull), and the high registry twice (plaque and MSD). Do we go with high tally wins??
We all accept that the Yamato is 71807, which you had to squint to see on TV, over the audible 1305-E registry Riker said. Production mistake....TPTB said so!
No, normally you accept the NCC that wasn't an error.
-------------------- "Never give up. And never, under any circumstances, no matter what - never face the facts." - Ruth Gordon
Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
I don't think that the Ent-D was originally given a higher number. I think that it was 1701-D from it's comissioning. At least, I dont' recall every reading anythign to the contrary. The Galaxy had a 71xxx number, and I believe the other Galaxies we've seen also had a 71xxx number... but if they knew the ship they were going to build was going to be named Enterprise, they probably knew that they were going to register her with the commemorative number.
posted
If one is a production error - then why can't the other.
AND if the Akiras, Norways and Sabres were around way-back-when they should have be more in the vein of the Nebulas and the New Orleans etc.
They are Sovereign/Defiant/Voyager era through and through. And no amount of 'refitting with sovereign escape pods' is going to change the overall shape and major structure etc.
The E-refit still looked like the E - it didn't look more like the... Daedelus or Ambassador.
Clearly these were meant to be NEW ships... why can't the be new ships. Clearly the Yamato wasn't supposed to be 1305-E - everyone else can accept that.
Brattain/Brittain CLEARLY seen.
NCC-63549 wasn't easily seen. I mean "Thunderchild" wasn't even written on the hull.
-------------------- "Bears. Beets. Battlestar Galactica." - Jim Halpert. (The Office)
posted
Andrew: I personally see no problem in assuming the FC ship designs are oldish. Most of us accept the Wolf359 ship designs as pre Galaxy and, for the most part, it's a similar situation. 6xxxx regos aren't even that old.
posted
I believe what Tim is trying to say (and which makes sense, really) is that he doesn't think Starfleet would work in a way that the Enterprises were the only case with suffixed registries. I mean, we have the example of the Relativity-G. Maybe other ships have suffixed registries as well. Now, let's lot get all crazy like the fandom Nichter dreadnoughts and add a -B to all ships refitted to those specs or anything.
-------------------- I haul cardboard and cardboard accessories
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
All I was saying is that the FC designs could've been considered a radically revolutionary design departure in the 2350's, and it took a long time, and updated materials along the way, to get them to their 2370's likeness.
Bad example I know, but look at the EPCOT Center concept car. The design is now decades old, and although modern cars are more rounded, the EPCOT car still has a futuristic look to it.
I'm suggesting Starfleet design engineers with preliminary Galaxy Class blueprints on their workstations are shown the Steamrunner design and laugh and scratch their heads saying "That design can never work."
posted
Once again, almost everybody is proceeding from the unquestionable assumption that there is one and only one registry number to every starship, and that they follow a strict system which is never off. If there are exceptions to this, they're production errors because it's impossible that Starfleet would make such a mistake.
Where do you get this from? Wishful thinking and Okuda's encyclopedia. Nothing like that was ever said onscreen. Nothing like that happens in the real world.
The primary source, which is the TV shows and the movies, suggest that the registry numbers very much resemble car license plates or pennant numbers. There is a definite system to them, but there are exceptions. If I wanted to label my car NX-74205, all the cops care about is that nobody else is using the registry number in their area of influence at this time (and maybe a few other details). Similarily, pennant numbers don't stay the same forever -- they're simply temporary identification marks.
Every time we label something that is perfectly fine in the real world an error, we diminish the show in favor of Okuda's Encyclopedia and wishful thinking. It's not analysis, it's fan-fiction.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
