RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 141,414
Posts: 5,506,336
Members: 25,129
Currently online: 484
Newest member: krishna

TrekToday headlines

Retro Review: The Emperor’s New Cloak
By: Michelle on Dec 20

Star Trek Opera
By: T'Bonz on Dec 19

New Abrams Project
By: T'Bonz on Dec 18

IDW Publishing March 2015 Comics
By: T'Bonz on Dec 17

Paramount Star Trek 3 Expectations
By: T'Bonz on Dec 17

Star Trek #39 Sneak Peek
By: T'Bonz on Dec 16

Star Trek 3 Potential Director Shortlist
By: T'Bonz on Dec 16

Official Starships Collection Update
By: T'Bonz on Dec 15

Retro Review: Prodigal Daughter
By: Michelle on Dec 13

Sindicate Lager To Debut In The US Next Week
By: T'Bonz on Dec 12


Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.


Go Back   The Trek BBS > Misc. Star Trek > Trek Tech

Trek Tech Pass me the quantum flux regulator, will you?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old September 13 2012, 05:20 AM   #46
throwback
Captain
 
Re: USS Copernicus, NCC-640 or 623?

Dukhat,

Love the three-nacelled starship.

I don't think what we know of the ship's engineering helps us to know if the ship was older. We know that the ship had an atomic pile reactor. There was a real world analogy for this: the Chicago Pile-1. If we applied this analogy to this ship, we would have a starship powered by fission power. Do we have evidence that the Enterprise and her sister ships had another kind of reactor?

Article on Chicago Pile-1: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Pile-1
throwback is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 13 2012, 05:42 AM   #47
Dukhat
Commodore
 
Dukhat's Avatar
 
Location: Baltimore, MD
Re: USS Copernicus, NCC-640 or 623?

throwback wrote: View Post
I don't think what we know of the ship's engineering helps us to know if the ship was older. We know that the ship had an atomic pile reactor. There was a real world analogy for this: the Chicago Pile-1. If we applied this analogy to this ship, we would have a starship powered by fission power. Do we have evidence that the Enterprise and her sister ships had another kind of reactor?

Article on Chicago Pile-1: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Pile-1
Well, that's just speculation. We don't really know what an "atomic pile reactor" is or what it does, and we don't even know if the Enterprise had one too or not. As you said, it really doesn't help, unless someone stated that said device was only used on ships older than the Constitution class.
__________________
“Don’t believe everything you read on the internet.”
– Benjamin Franklin
Dukhat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 13 2012, 02:41 PM   #48
Timo
Admiral
 
Re: USS Copernicus, NCC-640 or 623?

Pardon me, where exactly does the TM provide an alternate interpretation for NCC-1017???
You seem to have misunderstood. The TM completely dumps the so-called Jeffries rule of starship numbering - that is the "alternate interpretation" I'm referring to. FJ's ship classes don't start out with -01, or even -00 in all cases. Nor is there any suggestion that ships of the same type (say, cruiser) but successive models would have different first two digits. Which always was a pretty weird idea, but I guess science fiction can be weird.

All Franz Joseph did was to ignore the official statements in The Making of Star Trek that refer to "Enterprise Starship Class".
Which is one of the better precedents the Manual set, as it bumped the pompous Paramounters down a peg or two - a position where they rightfully remain even today.

And by that I don't refer to Jeffries, who never pretended his work was in any way "official". He was just paid to imagine fantastic things, and he did. Some of those were keepers, some not. Sadly, not all people are quite at grips with this.

FWIW, that registry was a mistake. The ship's registry was fixed as 71807.
It's a bit difficult to consider the five-digit number as more authoritative than the four-digit-plus-suffix one, as the former is merely tiny numbers on an Okudagram, while the latter is clearly spoken words from the mouth of one of the main heroes...

I do wonder how they'll deal with this when the TNG bluraying project hits the second season!

Timo Saloniemi
Timo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 13 2012, 03:26 PM   #49
Dukhat
Commodore
 
Dukhat's Avatar
 
Location: Baltimore, MD
Re: USS Copernicus, NCC-640 or 623?

The 71807 registry was printed on the Yamato's saucer. It can be seen clearly when it explodes (at least in the HD trailer I saw for the 2nd season blurays.)

FWIW, I wish they had just let well enough alone and kept the 1305E registry. I believe they decided to change it because it didn't fit the normal registry schemes of other ships (notice there's no hyphen before the letter, implying that it was not in fact the sixth ship to bear the name, but just a different type of reg.)
__________________
“Don’t believe everything you read on the internet.”
– Benjamin Franklin
Dukhat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 13 2012, 03:44 PM   #50
Timo
Admiral
 
Re: USS Copernicus, NCC-640 or 623?

Well, we never actually see the registry written anywhere (and it probably wasn't). Riker says the E is preceded by a "dash", just as is standard for those ships that actually had their miniatures labeled.

Timo Saloniemi
Timo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 13 2012, 03:50 PM   #51
Dukhat
Commodore
 
Dukhat's Avatar
 
Location: Baltimore, MD
Re: USS Copernicus, NCC-640 or 623?

I suppose that would depend on if the HD treatment made the original reg clearer or changed it digitally. If it's the former, then the 71807 reg stands. If it's the latter, then I suppose it's up to the individual viewer to judge whether they approve of the change or not. Regardless, the reg was officially changed by the people in charge of the production at the time.

As for the hyphen, I believe that's how it was written in the script and in official publications like the Encyclopedia.
__________________
“Don’t believe everything you read on the internet.”
– Benjamin Franklin
Dukhat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 13 2012, 07:34 PM   #52
blssdwlf
Commodore
 
Re: USS Copernicus, NCC-640 or 623?

Timo wrote: View Post
Well, we never actually see the registry written anywhere (and it probably wasn't). Riker says the E is preceded by a "dash", just as is standard for those ships that actually had their miniatures labeled.

Timo Saloniemi
You mean this?
RIKER: It's a Federation ship. NCC one three zero five dash E. It's the Yamato, our sister ship.
Did they originally show the ship with NCC-1305-E and a later DVD version changed it to 71807?
blssdwlf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 14 2012, 12:09 AM   #53
Robert Comsol
Commodore
 
Robert Comsol's Avatar
 
Location: USS Berlin
Re: USS Copernicus, NCC-640 or 623?

Dukhat wrote: View Post
"There is no canon evidence that the Republic was an older ship. Just because her registry started with 13 means nothing. The Encyclopedia lists it as Constitution class, so until canon evidence surfaces that it is not, that's what it officially is. And comics aren't canon."
I see, so the Encyclopedia is canon (how many solar years were "Space Seed" and Star Trek II apart?), but the comics aren't and neither is a design by Rick Sternbach. Interesting.

Dukhat wrote: View Post
"Maybe that's because there was no "A" after the registry number?"
Just because they do it in the late 23rd Century doesn't automatically imply that's the way they did it in the early or mid 23rd Century. Just because they use four-digit-registries in the 23rd Century doesn't imply they couldn't use five-digit-registries in the 24th.

The whole "A" business originated with that Enterprise design sketch from Matt Jefferies where he added next to "17th Cruiser Design" "1st Moderize & Modification 1701A". So by the time of TOS (what we are talking about) the concept of adding an "A" was reserved only for modernized or modified vessels, not for vessels honoring the name of a previous one.
So Constellation couldn't be NCC-1017-A. Looks like Starfleet wouldn't use this scheme until the replacement of the Enterprise (compare USS Eagle NCC-958(-A) which appears to be a refit Constitution Class Starship)

Dukhat wrote: View Post
"FWIW, that registry was a mistake. The ship's registry was fixed as 71807."
I'm aware it was fixed, nevertheless the original registry hinted the existence of a previous and much older USS Yamato NCC-1305 which I considered to be a nice addition to the universe of Star Trek.

Bob
__________________
"The first duty of every Starfleet officer is to the truth" Jean-Luc Picard
"We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them."
Albert Einstein
Robert Comsol is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 14 2012, 12:28 AM   #54
Robert Comsol
Commodore
 
Robert Comsol's Avatar
 
Location: USS Berlin
Re: USS Copernicus, NCC-640 or 623?

Timo wrote: View Post
"You seem to have misunderstood. The TM completely dumps the so-called Jeffries rule of starship numbering - that is the "alternate interpretation" I'm referring to. FJ's ship classes don't start out with -01, or even -00 in all cases."
So we should follow the learner (Joseph) because the master (Jefferies) didn't know what he was doing?!?

Timo wrote: View Post
"Which is one of the better precedents the Manual set, as it bumped the pompous Paramounters down a peg or two - a position where they rightfully remain even today."
Excuse me, but the "pompous Paramounters" you are refering to are the creators of Star Trek! The term "Enterprise Starship Class" originates from the show's producers Bob Justman and Gene Roddenberry.

I suggest you visit the thread "NCC = Not Constitution Class?" where I quoted these original "Enterprise Starship Class" statements from The Making of Star Trek.

In my latest post there I also offered a solution how to rationalize the prefixes beginning with 16, now that these have been established by TOS-R.

Bob
__________________
"The first duty of every Starfleet officer is to the truth" Jean-Luc Picard
"We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them."
Albert Einstein
Robert Comsol is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 14 2012, 04:35 AM   #55
Dukhat
Commodore
 
Dukhat's Avatar
 
Location: Baltimore, MD
Re: USS Copernicus, NCC-640 or 623?

blssdwlf wrote: View Post
Timo wrote: View Post
Well, we never actually see the registry written anywhere (and it probably wasn't). Riker says the E is preceded by a "dash", just as is standard for those ships that actually had their miniatures labeled.

Timo Saloniemi
You mean this?
RIKER: It's a Federation ship. NCC one three zero five dash E. It's the Yamato, our sister ship.
Did they originally show the ship with NCC-1305-E and a later DVD version changed it to 71807?
I just watched the scene again and you're correct. Riker does indeed say "dash E." However, I'm pretty sure all scenes with the Yamato were just stock footage of the Enterprise, so the model wasn't actually labeled 1305-E.
__________________
“Don’t believe everything you read on the internet.”
– Benjamin Franklin
Dukhat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 14 2012, 07:03 AM   #56
Timo
Admiral
 
Re: USS Copernicus, NCC-640 or 623?

So we should follow the learner (Joseph) because the master (Jefferies) didn't know what he was doing?!?
Why should we "follow" either of them? As far as the registry business goes, after "NCC-1701" was done, they both only contributed to the backstage element of Star Trek, that which was never part of the TV show we saw.

If anything, Mr. Schnaubelt's registries are more enduring that Mr. Jeffries', as three or four of them were quoted in the first movie while only one Jeffries registry even made it on screen (unless he did the registries in "Court Martial", too, but I sort of doubt it). But neither of the gentlemen ever managed to influence the Trek universe with a "system" of registries.

the "pompous Paramounters" you are referring to are the creators of Star Trek!
Yup. The usual range of alcoholics, womanizers, wifebeaters and general assholes out for money, with an occasional nice guy or gal interspersed (but out for money nevertheless). That's Hollywood for ya. And yes, you are excused. But you are growing a bit tiresome.

However, I'm pretty sure all scenes with the Yamato were just stock footage of the Enterprise, so the model wasn't actually labeled 1305-E.
If the blu-ray enhancements stay as faithful to original footage as they have done so far, we are probably going to keep seeing the Yamato from angles where the name and registry aren't going to be visible no matter what. So that won't "solve" anything yet, I guess. A similar reworking of "Contagion" will have one revealing angle of the saucer, in the big explosion scene, but whether a name or a registry will be readable there remains to be seen. It's really up to how the computer readouts in "Contagion" are redone, then.

Or more probably up to how they were done in the first place. Picard's desktop computer in the teaser appears to have a backlit gel, which doesn't need any redoing as such. But the rest of the log, on Picard's desktop and the main viewer, is postproduction graphics that have to be done all anew anyway.

Timo Saloniemi
Timo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 14 2012, 12:25 PM   #57
blssdwlf
Commodore
 
Re: USS Copernicus, NCC-640 or 623?

Wouldn't changing Yamato's registry to something other than 1305-E require dubbing over Riker's dialogue?
blssdwlf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 14 2012, 01:11 PM   #58
Timo
Admiral
 
Re: USS Copernicus, NCC-640 or 623?

That, or editing out the line (or its registry-specifying final seconds) altogether. But it doesn't seem as if the blu-ray project would entail doing such extensive changes. Various small dialogue bloopers or continuity crises from the first few episodes have gone unaltered already, including small gaffes like Worf speaking of a dwarf star in "The Naked Now" when the star is still a red giant - and of course the issue that sparkled this very thread.

Timo Saloniemi
Timo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 14 2012, 06:59 PM   #59
Dukhat
Commodore
 
Dukhat's Avatar
 
Location: Baltimore, MD
Re: USS Copernicus, NCC-640 or 623?

Robert Comsol wrote: View Post
I see, so the Encyclopedia is canon (how many solar years were "Space Seed" and Star Trek II apart?), but the comics aren't and neither is a design by Rick Sternbach. Interesting.
No, the Encyclopedia is not canon. Canon is whatever is shown on the screen. The Encyclopedia is an officially licensed Trek publication, as are the comics. But the Encyclopedia was written by actual Trek production personnel, and the comic's weren't, so whatever info the 'pedia has is more official than a comic. And just to be clear, the Baton Rouge ship, while designed by Sternbach, was never meant by him to represent the Republic. That was just the artistic license of the comic artist.

Just because they do it in the late 23rd Century doesn't automatically imply that's the way they did it in the early or mid 23rd Century. Just because they use four-digit-registries in the 23rd Century doesn't imply they couldn't use five-digit-registries in the 24th.
That may be true, but there's more evidence that the opposite is the case. There are newer ships with the same name as an older ship that have completely different registry numbers, and there are ships with a letter suffix implying that there were previous ships with the same name. To my knowledge there has never been a newer ship with the same name as an older ship with the exact same registry number.

The whole "A" business originated with that Enterprise design sketch from Matt Jefferies where he added next to "17th Cruiser Design" "1st Moderize & Modification 1701A".
Get your facts straight. The "A" business, at least as far as delineating a newer ship with the same name as an older ship, originated at the end of Star Trek IV The Voyage Home, by that movie's producers. I sincerely doubt they were thinking anything about Matt Jeffries at the time.


I'm aware it was fixed, nevertheless the original registry hinted the existence of a previous and much older USS Yamato NCC-1305 which I considered to be a nice addition to the universe of Star Trek.
Yes, I considered it nice as well. But it's been superseded by a different registry, so there you go.
__________________
“Don’t believe everything you read on the internet.”
– Benjamin Franklin
Dukhat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 17 2012, 12:42 PM   #60
Mytran
Fleet Captain
 
Mytran's Avatar
 
Location: North Wales
Re: USS Copernicus, NCC-640 or 623?

Dukhat wrote: View Post
The whole "A" business originated with that Enterprise design sketch from Matt Jefferies where he added next to "17th Cruiser Design" "1st Moderize & Modification 1701A".
Get your facts straight. The "A" business, at least as far as delineating a newer ship with the same name as an older ship, originated at the end of Star Trek IV The Voyage Home, by that movie's producers. I sincerely doubt they were thinking anything about Matt Jeffries at the time.
I've also seen that original sketch by Jeffries - its in the Star Trek Sketchbook. 1701A is quite clear there.
Mytran is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:06 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.