Now problems: *The forward section seems to be a bit empty *the deflector seems to be a bit high
Keep it up! I love these things!
But it does seem to show the warp cores for the different sections. But I'm trying to figure out how those two micro sized warp cores in the middle section work together, or if one of them is auxillary.
------------------ A-"Dippidy Doo." Q-"What forms on your dippity early in the morning?"--Johnny Carson
[This message has been edited by Black Knight (edited September 28, 1999).]
Jim Phelps
watches Voyager AFTER 51030
Member # 102
posted
Yeah, you can't really tell what's in the ship. I see the landing legs, though. Good, 16 decks as confirmed by Rick Sternbach.
The warp core stuff was also explained by Rick Sternbach:
Subject: Re: Prometheus Warp Cores Date: Sun, 09 May 1999 20:01:41 -0700 From: Rick Sternbach Organization: RSS Newsgroups: startrek.expertforum.ricksternbach
Prometheus has to have separate warp reactors for each of the three sections. I am going to propose that the nose section core is on standby and not connected to the rest of the ship except by EPS power manifolds, but the two aft hull reactors are intimately coupled during connected flight and act as one core.
Rick
[This message has been edited by Boris (edited September 29, 1999).]
posted
If I compare the MSD to the CGI side view, the nacelles are in wrong positions, which can be explained by the MSD being not supposed to be an exact image of the ship's appearance. The shape of the main hull, however, is different too. Look at the bridge and the saucer underside. http://www.uni-siegen.de/~ihe/bs/startrek/schematics/prometheus.jpg
I wonder why the ship itself had that stupid, yet clearly visible, registry. The MSD one is far more appropriate. Did someone say that the ded plaque has the same registry as the MSD?
------------------ "Forgive me if I don't share your euphoria!" (Weyoun to Dukat, Tears of the Prophets) Dax's Ships of STAR TREK
The USS Prometheus as seen in VOY: "Message in a Bottle" was supposed to be a brand new prototype, yet, the clearly visible hull number was NX-59650, as if the ship were at least two decades old. This registry is completely out of range, even if it is taken into account that building a prototype takes considerably longer than a series production ship. There have been several theories about the Prometheus registry, one of the most promising being that the ship had been approved of and given a registry years before the project actually started. The ship was given its name probably in honor of the Nebula class USS Prometheus which almost definitely must have been destroyed, most likely in the Dominion War.
The situation has changed with the 3rd edition of the Star Trek Encyclopedia that depicts the MSD and dedication plaque, both images showing NCC-74913. While this registry perfectly suits a ship being new as of 2374, this number was never shown on screen, as opposed to NX-59650. Following a strict definition of canon, the latter number would be still the only correct one.
Both numbers might be included in one theory if we assume the registry has been changed some time after "Message in a Bottle". Maybe the old number was meant to conceal the real age of the ship, but, in this case it wouldn't have been a good idea to use the prefix "NX", representing an experimental ship. Moreover, the possible enemies of the Federation should have been aware this is one ship type they don't know and therefore highly likely a most recent one, rather than relying on the registry which is rather meant as a scheme for internal Starfleet use.
The First One
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed
Member # 35
posted
That makes it the highest registry we've ever seen, not bad for a ship that was obviously a prototype. � )
How about. . . the primary hull was taken off another vessel? A scrapped prototype. But back then they weren't designing ships with this shape of hull. . .
The First One
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed
Member # 35
posted
*blink* Odd, I have both those numbers in my ship list. . . stupid Excel sort feature. Still, my point remains: a good high number.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
What can we do with the NX-59650, if we assume the more pleasant number is correct? Close our eyes during the best scenes of "MiaB"?
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
I mentioned that the NX-74913 registry which you can barely see on the MSD is also in the dedication plaque in my post listing all the starships in the new encyclopedia.
Also sorry that the quality of the image isn't that great, the MSD in the Enc3 wasn't that big and my scanner blew it up some.
As for what's the canon registry... both, since the images of the MSD and dedication plaque (DP) come from what's been seen in the episode. When I wrote to Mike Okuda, who is responsible for the MSD and DP (IIRC) he said he didn't even know what happened. But that he also agrees that the NX-74913 is the more logical registry since in the episode the Prometheus is suppose to be a new and highly advanced starship, and NX-59650 makes it seem much older.
------------------ "The keyboard, how quaint." Federation Starship Datalink - Yet another site based on the popularity of starships.
[This message has been edited by Hobbes (edited September 29, 1999).]
The First One
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed
Member # 35
posted
The original registry remains one of their most spectacular balls-ups ever, and you can understand Mike's reluctance to perpetuate it. This is, really, even worse than the Yamato! At least there we could say "we SAW the proper registry onscreen, and only ever heard the E-suffix one spoken, and that was by Riker who's a moron." Here we'll have to look at that incorrect registry on the Prometheus' nose forever.
Y'know, it's a really clear registry too. No doubt about any of the numbers. I reckon they did it just to annoy people like us. . .
Printer-friendly view of this topic
