posted
I think of it as the lack of communications between departments as someone mentioned before. Mike Okuda most likely put NX-74913 on the MSD and dedication plaque (DP) while the CGI art department made up their own registry not knowing the correct one made up by Mike Okuda.
------------------ Calvin: "I'm a man of few words." Hobbes: "Maybe if you read more, you'd have a larger vocabulary." Federation Starship Datalink - Now with a pop-up on every page...damn you Tripod!
posted
Obi: Okuda says that's what they printed on the Equinox' dedication plaque.
Now, regarding the Prometheus... I've just come up w/ a new theory. *glares at the people groaning in the back of the room* Anyway, I'm sure most of you are at least vaguely familiar w/ my theory about suffixed registries. Well, this is an addendum to that. Perhaps, when an NX ship is given a reused registry, the suffix is left off. After all, if there were an NX-1701-F, it couldn't very well be the seventh "NX-1701". Granted, the successive "NCC-1701-G" wouldn't be the eighth "NCC-1701" because of that NX thrown in, but it's possible that it's just one of those things SF decided to do. Anyway, perhaps the Prometheus' real registry number was 74913, its suffixed registry was 59650-B (or whatever letter), and the one printed on the hull was 59650 w/o the letter, because it was an NX.
Slightly convoluted, I know, but it fits pretty much everything. The only thing unexplained is why the plaque and computer displays wouldn't give the 59650 number, but that isn't terribly significant...
------------------ "Alright, so it's impossible. How long will it take?" -Commander Adams, Forbidden Planet
posted
Lately, I think there is more flexibility necessary to handle the various (mis-)labeling issues. I don't follow a strict defintion that on-screen rules over encyclopedia or hull number rules over dedication plaque. I rather consider what is the most likely registry or name for the real starship.
For instance:
"Zuhkov": This spelling makes no sense, although it is on the real miniature. The name is definitely Zhukov. The number could be wrong as well, why not assume NCC-26136 instead of NCC-62136?
Jenolan: This is the only spelling that makes sense. I'll stick to it.
Nash NCC-2010-B: Pure crap. Ignore it.
Brattain: Hey, I'm engaged in microelectronics, and if the ship is named for Walter Brattain, I'm likely to believe it.
Yamato: I wonder why there is so much discussion about this one. The NCC-1305-E was only an illusion.
Now the tough one (Prometheus): The number 59650 was very clearly visible, and the text in the encyclopedia confirms it. I know this number is hard to explain, but I will stick to it for now.
Endeavour: Why all the fuss about it? The ship was never seen on-screen, and there was only a hardly readable display of the number. The problem is obviously that the ship was already supposed to have another registry at the time, but there is no reason to believe that all Constitution registries are in the same range. Compared to the Constellation NCC-1017 problem this is really insignificant.
------------------ "When diplomacy fails, there's only one alternative - violence. Force must be applied without apology. It's the Starfleet way." A somewhat different Janeway in VOY: "Living Witness" Ex Astris Scientia
posted
With Nash, the visibility criterium is enough - even with a superbly accurate future digi-cyber-visor, one cannot see NCC-2010-B on the hull because the camera angle is wrong. So there is no more reason to believe in that registry than there is to believe that the Nash was propelled through space by a gigantic metal pole that was stuck to a gaping hole just below starboard waterline, and lighted with the help of an electric extension cord!
So "in-jokes" like that are really easy to eliminate. Things like Brittain or Jenolin are more difficult since people *will* be seeing the spelling when they watch the episodes, and will then think "This Bernd guy must be an idiot or a foreignar - he cant eaven spell the names right!"
The Fact Files don't ever feature any background information so everything written there is *supposed* to be canon Starfleet information. They have a very weird explanation for the spelling of the Brattain as "Brittain" (translated): "The ship had bad luck already when it was commissioned and the name on the hull was misspelled. Even Starfleet makes mistakes".
Jim Phelps
watches Voyager AFTER 51030
Member # 102
posted
Why is every illusionary starship given a suffix? You'd almost think that all the Enterprises are illusionary
Boris
------------------ "Wrong again. Although we want to be scientifically accurate, we've found that selection of [Photon Energy Plasma Scientifically Inaccurate as a major Star Trek format error] usually indicates a preoccupation with science and gadgetry over people and story."
---a Writers' Test from the Original Series Writer's Guide
Cartman
just made by the Presbyterian Church
Member # 256
posted
You know... all this registration /dedication placque speculation is really confusing me - I've forgotten how the system works in fact Suffice it to say that Okuda and his team have messed up more than once - these Prometheus/Noble/Olympic/Hope hassles are most probably just some more of their mistakes that they found out about too late.
(just thought I'd jump in)
------------------ "Cry havoc and let's slip the dogs of Evil"
posted
Having just seen where silence has lease again the other night - it may have been an 'illusionary' Yamato - but Riker reads the registry right off the hull... and then identifies the ship as the Yamato... It could have been the Galaxy - since we know that it was out there at the same time... yet they call the Yamato the Enterprise's sister ship - is the Galaxy ALSO the Enterprise's sister ship?
------------------ "Its a CLOCK!" - Sisko, "Dramatis Personae" DS9.
posted
Yes, I believe the USS Galaxy was also a Ent-D sister ship. To my knowledge all ships of the same class are sisters.
side note- It's interesting that in "Yesterday's Enterprise" Tasha says that the Ent-D was the first Galaxy-class ship built. What happened to the Yamato in the alternate timeline, eh?
------------------ "Forgive me if I don't share your euphoria!" (Weyoun to Dukat, Tears of the Prophets) Dax's Ships of STAR TREK
[This message has been edited by Dax (edited December 14, 1999).]
posted
Maybe the USS Galaxy was renamed to Enterprise in the alternate timeline. Or maybe Tasha simply meant that the Enterprise was the first production Galaxy-class (first after the prototype).
------------------ "Forgive me if I don't share your euphoria!" (Weyoun to Dukat, Tears of the Prophets) Dax's Ships of STAR TREK
Starbuck "Replicate some marmalade, Commander - helm control is toast!"
Member # 153
posted
Maybe in this timeline the ships were Enterprise-class? If the Federation were at war, there would be little or no need for science vessels, so one could speculate that the alternate Enterprise-D was more heavily armed, and the external resemblance was merely a coincidence. The name would probably be symbolic - the first major development in battleships since the heroic Enterprise-C, which was lost at Narendra III all those years ago...
------------------ "Replicate some marmalade, Commander - helm control is toast!"
posted
And honoring the E-C would also be a nice way to spit on the face of the Klingons, who in this timeline are claiming that the E-C dishonorably fled from the battle andallowed the Klingon colony to be destroyed.
Suffice it to say that Okuda and his team have messed up more than once - these Prometheus/Noble/Olympic/Hope hassles are most probably just some more of their mistakes that they found out about too late.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
