posted
Higher registry doesn't automatically mean a newer ship. We know for a fact that the USS Bradbury w/ a registry of NX-72307 was already in service in 2366 (it was supposed to pick Wesley up in season 3's "Ménage à Troi"), while the Sutherland, w/ a lower registry of NCC-72015, was not launched until 2367 (according to its dedication plaque). However, registries most likely are chronological by the date the ships were assigned to be built. Just not the date of when they actually were built.
------------------ "Numerous painful experiences can be caused by having (and especially using) a large penis." -J. Ralf Lenz, president, Large Penis Support Group
posted
Also ships are of various sizes which mean different lengths of time for construction. The Bradbury could have been a smaller ship than the Sutherland which even though it has a higher rego means it could have been in service sooner.
------------------ 7 alarm clock: "Do not touch me." Dilbert: "Then how do I turn you off?" 7: "Believe me, I am plenty turned off."
[This message has been edited by PopMaze (edited May 19, 2000).]
posted
I was also thinking/hinting/saying that there might have been jumps in registry numbers... so that gaps of unused numbers occur... thus these numbers eg 43006->43017 might be available (and never used) so a new Prometheus class ship might be able to use these numbers... and that each new 'block' of ships that are started might start at a round number... like 75020 and there might be only 7 of these ships but in the mean time a new block of ships were started so instead of starting straight from 75027 they start at 75030 incase another 3 ships were okayed for production and there wasn't a mishap.
or yeah, the FC ships might have been older unseen ships refitted with new equipment - They could have been from the Cardassian Wars and then mothballed... then with the Destruction of the Odyssey they were hauled out again and fitted with new equipment.
Andrew
------------------ "Who wouldn't be the one you love Who wouldn't stand inside your love." - Stand Inside Your Love, The Smashing Pumpkins
peon: "Admiral, we need these work orders authorized..."
admiral: "Alright, let's see here... New starships to be built... What registry number are they up to?"
peon: "The next available number is 71339, sir."
admiral: "7-13-39? That's my ex-wife's birthdate... Let's skip that number. Hell, let's just skip everything up to 73476."
peon: "Why 73476, sir?"
admiral: "Hell if I know. I just picked it randomly..."
------------------ "Numerous painful experiences can be caused by having (and especially using) a large penis." -J. Ralf Lenz, president, Large Penis Support Group
posted
Maybe the DIDN'T skip the numbers it was just that there were PLANS to build say 20 starships in one 'batch' but they only ended up doing 15 so there were 5 numbers left over... in the mean time - new orders or batches of other classes were already assigned/being built - and that they 'secured' the next 20 numbers... then say a few years later - if they wanted to use the empty five numbers from the first batch... they could - if they wanted to. so its ROUGHLY in order - but there are gaps from unmade starships - where other ships could use those numbers... if they wanted.
This also helps explain the four digit numbers and even the Grissom having a three digit number - there is only 1000 three digit numbers to use - so after say The Undiscovered country all 3 digit numbers had been used... either from their first batches or from newer starships taking unused numbers... (from unmade/assigned ships.)
Andrew
------------------ "Who wouldn't be the one you love Who wouldn't stand inside your love." - Stand Inside Your Love, The Smashing Pumpkins
posted
I don't think Starfleet would go back and reuse a number like that. I would think that, once the number has been assigned as "such-and-such fleet yard will build a such-and-such-class ship w/ this number", it would either happen that way, or not at all.
------------------ "Numerous painful experiences can be caused by having (and especially using) a large penis." -J. Ralf Lenz, president, Large Penis Support Group
posted
So, are you meaning 'reuse' in that it has already been assigned to a particular starship?? I was just saying that it might have been 'reserved' to be used... but say after 10 years and a board of bureaucrats, only 10 out of 20 starships were actually made, the rest of the 10 registry numbers were only reserved, not used. So there are some gaps - that can be later used.
This might explain that even thought the Constitution was 1700??? or whatever - later batch of connies could take unused registries from earlier 1017 etc.
Andrew
------------------ "Who wouldn't be the one you love Who wouldn't stand inside your love." - Stand Inside Your Love, The Smashing Pumpkins
posted
Well, not actually "used", but, as you said "reserved". So, in this case, I feel that, if it's been reserved, it can't be used, except for the ship that it's been reserved for. If that ship isn't built, the registry isn't used.
If SF were "un-reserving" reg. numbers the way you suggest, there's no way in hell they'd be coming up on the heels of 80000, the way they are...
------------------ "Numerous painful experiences can be caused by having (and especially using) a large penis." -J. Ralf Lenz, president, Large Penis Support Group
posted
OK, maybe they did the unreserving in times before the 5 digits... but once they broke 5 digits - they just left the gaps... maybe when they are getting close to 6 digits - they'll fill in the gaps again?
Andrew
------------------ "chocolate cherries allamanda" - Datura, Tori Amos
The Sutherland wasn't necessarily launched in "Redemption". She could simply have been undergoing repairs which weren't quite completed when Data took command of the vessel. That would preserve the NCC order just fine.
posted
IIRC, the Sutherland's launch date is from its dedication plaque...
------------------ "Numerous painful experiences can be caused by having (and especially using) a large penis." -J. Ralf Lenz, president, Large Penis Support Group
Printer-friendly view of this topic
