capped
I WAS IN THE FUTURE, IT WAS TOO LATE TO RSVP
Member # 709
posted
Ow.. my freakin ears. i didnt need to know about your crank at all
STARSHIP TECHNOLOGY DIGEST
DEEP SPACE NINE, STARDATE 53092.1 -- The Starfleet Construction and Planning Council made a brief announcement to the associated transit boards of the Bajor sector regarding starship registries. Apparently there has been some confusion in the weeks following the Dominion war in regard to navigational telemetry recorded from the U.S.S. Defiant. Captain Wa-Hando 3 Reshtiriyuk, of the Information Bureau on Starbase 113 made the following statement: "Confusion in weeks previous there has been registry of the Defiant in reference to. As know many of you do, Defiant U.S.S. NX-74205 destroyed by Breen three months ago was. Navigational clearances to beacons you use updated was, as Sao Paulo U.S.S. NCC-75633 assigned to sector was. Renamed Defiant the Sao Paulo was by Starfleet. However, registry which same should have remained changed was to NX-74205." Captain Hando 3 continued, specifiying that the odd move in changing the vessels markings and navigational beacon was necessitated by a Starfleet Intelligence program attmepting to determine Cardassian intelligence in the Bajoran sector. Apparently the ship was believed to be the original Defiant by some Dominion forces and they attacked accordingly toward weak spots in the ships deflector fields. However, this inefficiency in the prototype design was corrected in the Sao Paulo. The new Defiant's registry remained NCC-75633 in all Fleet registers, and the hull has since been relabeled when the vessel came under the jurisdiction of Commander Tiris Jast, executive officer of Deep Space Nine and Starfleet liaison to the Bajoran militia commander. J.Sisko, Federated Press
posted
Say, when the Sao Paulo renamed Defiant didn't it have its registry changed from NCC-75633 to NCC-74205-A? I read in a Star Trek mag that it had.
-------------------- If you cant convince them, confuse them.
Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
Ow. Yes, I did read your article, Captain Mike, I just didn't mention it. It was a good "revised edition." And as you wish, I will very soon (a few minutes) create that "historical database' thread Shik mentioned on this forum. You can go take a look. OK, now it's up and running. Check out 'Unseen Aritcles."
capped
I WAS IN THE FUTURE, IT WAS TOO LATE TO RSVP
Member # 709
posted
About the Defiant, the Sao Paulo's registry was 75633, but they decieded to rename it Defiant. Since just the name was changed and nothing about the construction, it should have become the U.S.S. Defiant NCC-75633 (Third vessel or so to bear the name). And it was supposed to be
Unfortunately they used a lot of stock footage in 'What You Leave Behind..' and it was quite clearly labeled NX-74205. Not NCC and no A. This really cant be, since even with inconsistencies weve seen, there is no rationale for having a ship with the same registry as the first, unless they added the -A suffix
And the staff has said that there would be no new -A suffixes anyway, and i think a five digit number followed by a suffix is a little unwieldy. So all subsequent starships by the same name as an original one would just have later numbers (i.e. USS Intrepid NCC-1631; NCC-38907, NCC-746somethin) Thats how the Defiant should say, we just need an explanation why the hull was labeled such in that one episode
(Id just as rather say it wasnt and pretend we couldnt read it!)
-------------------- "Are you worried that your thoughts are not quite.. clear?"
It takes at least 1 to fly. It's small enough to land on a small planetoid It's small enough for a runabout to chase after (with out being afraid of getting its arse kicked) It can LAND - i.e. those Fed Fighters don't look as if they can land... unless large pads come out from the bottom... look at the wings!
-------------------- "Bears. Beets. Battlestar Galactica." - Jim Halpert. (The Office)
posted
But aren't the Maquis raiders the same design as the Fed fighters? Since we only have really seen one type of Maquis vessel, the old Federation raiders, can't we assume that the Peregrine is the same class as the ships seen in "The Maquis," "Pre-emptive Strike," and "Caretaker?"
quote:Since we only have really seen one type of Maquis vessel, the old Federation raiders, can't we assume that the Peregrine is the same class as the ships seen in "The Maquis," "Pre-emptive Strike," and "Caretaker?"
<Frank>You're fired</Frank>
Briefly, and this probably belongs in Starships anyway, there have been four different Maquis starships, which the Flare Association of Correct-Thinkers (FACT) have dubbed B, C1, C2, and D.
B - think "Bajoran" or "Bird" -- reuse of the Bajoran Interceptor-type thingoes from the Circle Trilogy. Seen only in Maquis use in "Preemptive Strike"
C1/C2 - think "Chakotay" or "Caretaker" or "C-shaped wing" -- May have been one model redressed or two different models. Both look similar, but in the first appearance (Ro's ship in "Preemptive Strike") it's a small single-deck two-person ship (the C1), and then reappears as a multideck 85m ship in Caretaker (C2). This design makes a couple more appearances, most notably "For the Uniform."
D - think "Diamond shaped" or "Delta Wing" -- Original Maquis ship seen "The Maquis" and described as modified couriers. Appears in "Preemptive Strike", in the mirror universe, and finally returns as a CGI model for the DS9 war arc as the attack fighter.
None of these ships were openly called Peregrines, but F.A.C.T. generally leans towards D being the genuine article, a view reinforced by some of Sternbach's comments on his newsgroup.
-------------------- "I was surprised by the matter-of-factness of Kafka's narration, and the subtle humor present as a result." (Sizer 2005)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
