posted
The NAR regos do seem to require some sort of a "batch" approach, or else they have to be considered nonchronological (which does not bode well for us who want to see the NCCs as at least roughly chronological). It's a nice idea that pre-Federation NARs are separate from post-Federation ones.
Perhaps NAR and NCC had some specific meanings in the old Earthfleet, and were adopted as "meaningless" prefices in the Federation fleet roughly along the lines the original NAR and NCC were assigned. NAR could have once stood for "New United Nations Astronomical Research ship" while NCC was, say, "NUN Cruiser" or "NUN Combat ship". In the 2160s, the former was chosen for all civilian vessels of Earth origin (even though later these assumed non-research roles and the meaning of the abbreviation was lost), and the latter for Earth Starfleet vessels (which all tended to be "cruisers" or "combat ships" at that point, and again historical developments caused the meaning to be lost).
Incidentally, are we sure the shuttle in ST6 was SD-103 or SD-1/03? Could it have been SB-1/03 instead? Some sources claim that the mushroom in Earth orbit is Starbase One, even though this makes little sense - why build the first/primary Starbase where you already have significant presence, and not on the Romulan front or something where you don't already have assorted dockyards and smaller stations and thus you *need* a dedicated Starbase there?
posted
OTOH, building a Starbase for the first time would be a lot easier in Earth orbit than on the edge of Federation space (or pre-Federation, if you like). They'd need somewhere to service (and in the beginning, perhaps build) ships, and Earth orbit seems the most sensible place.
------------------ "I am in one of those rare periods of life where I am convinced I am a sexy devil."- Simon "Sol System" Sizer
posted
NCD comes from the Toron Class Shuttle used by that super-tall Klingon in "Chain of Command". Her registry number was NCD-31775.
I also believe it was SD-1/03 and not SB-1/03.
------------------ Me: "Why don't you live in Hong Kong?" Rachel Roberts: "Hong Kong? Nah. Oh, but we can live in China! Yeah, China has great Chinese food!"
posted
The beef I have with SB-1 is that Earth orbit should already be full of decentralized spaceship-servicing facilites, so there would be no need to construct a centralized facility. Earth might get its starbase at some point, but other, more remote locations would probably have the first dibs for such a construction effort.
Then again, perhaps SBs weren't built in a chronological order (cf. SB 173 (?) coming online as late as in "Measure of a Man"), and the one in Earth's orbit got retroactively named SB 1.
Assuming, of course, that there is a starbase in Earth's orbit. So far, we have seen two constructs that looked like known starbases, but both (Spacedock of ST3 and Orbital Office of TMP) were significantly smaller than their Starbase equivalents. I'd be happier with saying that there are no starbases in Earth orbit, not even under a different name (like "Spacedock"). Instead, there's this big decentralized gaggle of facilities, none of which is a full starbase (in the sense that a typical floating dock has no crew provisions, and Spacedock One has no ship repair facilities).
posted
Spacedock is too small to be a Starbase? What are you using as your definition of starbase? The big mushroom ones? I know SD mus tbe smaller, but it's obviously the same design. A mini-me starbase (I know it's the same model, and there's scale issues with the Ent-A and Ent-D going through the doors, but still). Besides, I doubt the orbital Starbases in Kirk's day were TNG sized mushrooms. And in fact, starbases WEREN'T the big mushroom things until "11001001" anyway.
Then there's the Regula-I refit starbase from Measure of a Man.
And the loads of Starbases that seem to be planet based, especially in TOS.
And Deep Space Nine, which was occasionally called a Starbase.
So really, "Starbase" seems to refer to a base, that's in the stars. Or on a planet. Which is pretty much everything. Tsk, definition writers, eh?
------------------ "I am in one of those rare periods of life where I am convinced I am a sexy devil."- Simon "Sol System" Sizer
posted
Not exactly, because you don't call everything travelling between stars a "starship" either, otherwise you woul have to call shuttles "starship" too.
I think Starfleet does differ between starbases, outpost etc. etc. I don't think the Deep Space X stations are (formally) regarded as starbases, otherwise DS9 would be called "starbase xyz".
posted
I always thought that "Deep Space n." was just a designation for a Starbase that was out in the sticks. According to "Parallels" [TNG], at least one Deep Space starbase has the Regula-I starbase design.
Plus, Sisko has said "Federation Starbase Deep Space Nine" on more than one occasion.
------------------ "I am in one of those rare periods of life where I am convinced I am a sexy devil."- Simon "Sol System" Sizer
posted
Space station is just a generic term for any facility in space that doesn't move around. (At least, beyond orbiting something else.) Heck, we've had three space stations already. No starbases yet though, which has always struck me as being a more formal term.
Alpha Centauri
Usually seen somewhere in the Southern skies
Member # 338
posted
In response to an earlier post in this topic (by Fitz):
The RT- and BBI-series were not registries. They were class"names", just like the DY-series. At least, as far as I can tell.
And according to the DY-Series Comparison Chart (non-canon, anyway), DY-numbers were also used as registries, where DY-100 series ships would have had registries in the DY-1xx range, and DY-500 ships registries beginning with DY-5xx. Of course, the huge amount of new DY-serial numbers (DY-732, DY-500-B, etc.) introduced by the Ficus Sector ship chart invalidates this theory, but it's interesting, anyway.
Oh, and Sol, starbases are not per definition space stations. Starbases can be ground-based too.
------------------ Signature.
[This message has been edited by Alpha Centauri (edited December 16, 2000).]
quote:And according to the DY-Series Comparison Chart (non-canon, anyway),
And what in the name of all things voodoo is this Chart? Never heard of it, but it sounds very interesting. Is it a book? Or is it a picture? Is it on 'THE WEB'??
posted
Well, I just saw the mag issue with the Raven, and as I expected, it gave absolutely no information on the ship's class. It didn't even have the nice CGI side view that was in the previous issue's "Coming Up Next Issue" page. Would it be possible for someone to scan that side view, even if it is kinda small?
BTW, the next issue will have information on both the Steamrunner class and the Saber class. Apparently TPTB have decided it is "Saber" and not "Sabre."
------------------ "Although I do not know how World War III will be fought, I do know how World War IV will be fought - with rocks and clubs." -Albert Einstein
Printer-friendly view of this topic
