posted
I doubt we'll get anything really useful for the Steamrunner and Saber... Nothing more than what was released four years ago, in any case. Some schematics, perhaps a production sketch or two, butn nothing new.
Mark <--- wants bridges for those two, dammit!
------------------ "Why build one, when you can build two at twice the price?"
posted
The issue that I have with the Star Trek: Magazine is that the articles are summary of information from the episodes and films. If I spend 10 dollars for a magazine, I want that magazine to be a super-duper magazine with information from the episodes and films being the basis, not the core, of the magazine. And I want to see additional information that will add to my understanding of the Star Trek universe.
For instance, the SS Raven. I would like to see the class information on this ship and her sister ships, the history of the ship, and the ship's place in the Star Trek universe. Contents would include: 1. Class history of the SS Raven type. Questions-When was the class commissioned? What are the specifications of the class? Who used the ships? etc. A select listing of ships in this class. 2. History of the ship. Questions-When was this ship commisioned? What were the former owners of the this ship? etc. 3. Place in Star Trek Self-explanatory These are a few select questions. I am sure others would have different or more questions.
posted
Are you kidding? The Magazine can't even get the information they're given right, and you want them to make things up? It'd be a real continuity nightmare then. They're obviously not fans, just some graphic designers and writers who have a license to steal.
They can't even get their website right. The last time I went there, they had missing pages and they were using a Verisign certificate from drinksworld.com, some kind of wine and spirits company. HUH??? And I bet they don't even sell Saurian brandy.
posted
Am I the only one who notices that it's odd the February 2001 issue of the Magazine is coming out in mid-December?
------------------ 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
Assuming that everyone else here buys monthly magazines, then yes.
------------------ "And Mojo was hurt and I would have kissed his little boo boo but then I realized he was a BAD monkey so I KICKED HIM IN HIS FACE!" -Bubbles
posted
I'm a novice here, so I may have missed something.
Anyways ...
Seems to me some time ago I read that the NCC designation stood for "Naval Construction Code". Then by extension, NAR might stand for "Naval Acquisition Registration". This would account for a lack of class ship, since the numbers would be assigned in order of purchase, as opposed to the block numbers assigned when Starfleet orders a group of ships of the same class to be built. They're basically "off the shelf", pre-built and retro-fitted to mission. Ships with the NAR designation would fall in the same catagory as British RFA or American USNS ships, auxiliaries working within the Starfleet authority but not actually part of the fleet.
No, seriously Theotime, welcome to Flare. Unfortunatly, in answer to what you've read, it was thought up my a lot of NON-CANON (you'll hear this word a lot here) groups that NCC stood for Naval Construction Contract or Code when there was very little proof that this was true. As far as the reality of the Trek Universe goes, there is no definition for the acronym NCC that we know of.
------------------ 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
Actually, Todd Allan Guenther's Ships of the Starfleet, (non-canon), lists NCC as standing for Naval Construction Contract or Navigational Contact Code, not Naval Construction Code. If you think about it, that doesn't even make much sense. When Matt Jeffries came up with NCC, he picked the letters relatively randomly. He knew NC was used in the Navy or Air Force for something, and just added an extra C to make it sound better. But anyway, you're right. There's never been a canon reference as to what it means, (although the non-canon stuff sounds pretty good to me!)
Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
Civilian aircraft, in the States, use the NC...
------------------ "One's ethics are determined by what we do when no one is looking" Nugget Star Trek: Gamma Quadrant Star Trek: Legacy Read them, rate them, got money, film them
"...and I remain on the far side of crazy, I remain the mortal enemy of man, no hundred dollar cure will save me..." WoV
posted
I believe that Roddenberry took the "NC" used for airplanes (he was a pilot at one point in his life) and added the extra "C" to it for the starship registries. I know I read this in a canon source, but it escapes me at the moment.
posted
His own plane, actually... I think I've seen a picture in a book of him standing next to it...
------------------ "People have the right to discriminate based on religion." "There is no "seperation of church and state" in the Constitution" -Omega, Jan 26 and 30, respectively
Still works, though, if only because the writers in the show (STTNG, STDS9, STV, etc...) keep having to reverse-engineer reasons and definitions in order to straighten out storylines. (doesn't always work, though) Eventually, they'll come up with a reason for NCC.
I didn't know about the aircraft connection. Did he originally base his series on the Air Force?
Printer-friendly view of this topic
