RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 141,589
Posts: 5,515,464
Members: 25,159
Currently online: 593
Newest member: Horizons96

TrekToday headlines

Two New Starships Collection Ships
By: T'Bonz on Dec 26

Captain Kirk’s Boldest Missions
By: T'Bonz on Dec 25

Trek Paper Clips
By: T'Bonz on Dec 24

Sargent Passes
By: T'Bonz on Dec 23

QMx Trek Insignia Badges
By: T'Bonz on Dec 23

And The New Director Of Star Trek 3 Is…
By: T'Bonz on Dec 23

TV Alert: Pine On Tonight Show
By: T'Bonz on Dec 22

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


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 August 26 2013, 08:14 PM   #1
CharlieZardoz
Lieutenant
 
USS Sitak registry

Hi all! Was wondering what the general consensus was with all of you regarding the Sikak's registry number. Ive seen it listed as NCC-33921-31859 and 32591. While I'm aware that the scene it was shown on DS9 didn't show a registry the moment it was blown up to itty bits, was still wondering what all of you thought about this and if maybe a consensus could be reached

http://ufc465537.scificities.com/res...-destroyed.jpg
CharlieZardoz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 26 2013, 08:47 PM   #2
Timo
Admiral
 
Re: USS Sitak registry

Well, there was just enough of the registry visible to determine that it's of the NCC-3*9*1 format. Or at least 3 is the likeliest interpretation of the first number for various reasons, and the last one is obviously 1...

http://flareupload.pleh.net/uploads/..._registry1.jpg
http://flareupload.pleh.net/uploads/..._registry2.jpg

Since we see the great death scene several times, I'd pick three possible registries and accept all of them - the first might be USS Sitak, the second USS Borat, the third USS Eliat.

Timo Saloniemi
Timo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 26 2013, 09:31 PM   #3
Dukhat
Commodore
 
Dukhat's Avatar
 
Location: Baltimore, MD
Re: USS Sitak registry

Timo, Flare Upload links don't work here.
__________________
Dont believe everything you read on the internet.
Benjamin Franklin
Dukhat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 26 2013, 09:34 PM   #4
Timo
Admiral
 
Re: USS Sitak registry

Ah, didn't notice as I of course already had the links in my buffer...

Those exact 'grabs have to be obtained from somewhere else, then. But the easy way to them is to read the USS Sitak article at Memory Alpha: it points you to the Flare discussion.

Timo Saloniemi
Timo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 26 2013, 09:45 PM   #5
Dukhat
Commodore
 
Dukhat's Avatar
 
Location: Baltimore, MD
Re: USS Sitak registry

Looks like 38591 to me.
__________________
Dont believe everything you read on the internet.
Benjamin Franklin
Dukhat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 27 2013, 12:30 AM   #6
CharlieZardoz
Lieutenant
 
Re: USS Sitak registry

Borat! LOL
CharlieZardoz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 27 2013, 03:25 AM   #7
CharlieZardoz
Lieutenant
 
Re: USS Sitak registry

Dukhat wrote: View Post
Looks like 38591 to me.
I agree it does however I don't always trust what the numbers in the scene clips say since we know ships have had wrong (and subsequently corrected) registries before (Hood as Lakota Tian An Men as Reliant, etc). You think 38591 is still in keeping with the Miranda registry parameters? Not that we have any idea when the line ended.

Oh and Ive seen the images elsewhere as well.
CharlieZardoz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 27 2013, 05:32 PM   #8
Dukhat
Commodore
 
Dukhat's Avatar
 
Location: Baltimore, MD
Re: USS Sitak registry

I'm just saying what I think it says. I'm sure I'm probably wrong.

CharlieZardoz wrote: View Post
Not that we have any idea when the line ended.
Well we know that production continued until at least 2345, which was the Brattain's launch date. And that ship's registry number was chronologically lower than the 3XXXX Mirandas we see in DS9. If one thinks that registries are chronological, which I personally do not.
__________________
Dont believe everything you read on the internet.
Benjamin Franklin
Dukhat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 27 2013, 07:15 PM   #9
CharlieZardoz
Lieutenant
 
Re: USS Sitak registry

What source mentions 2345 if I may ask? There is certainly convincing evidence to suggest that they aren't chronological however I still feel that was the original intention (sort of like a stamp put for every new ship launched in order of completion, which makes the most sense really) but then the production staff kept changing things to keep the story going. I don't think when Night Terrors came out anyone had any idea the Dominion War would be a reality only a few years forward. BTW I did read your Chronological Timeline which I (mostly) agreed on. Good research there!
CharlieZardoz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 27 2013, 07:30 PM   #10
Dukhat
Commodore
 
Dukhat's Avatar
 
Location: Baltimore, MD
Re: USS Sitak registry

CharlieZardoz wrote: View Post
What source mentions 2345 if I may ask?
The ship's dedication plaque states the launch stardate.

There is certainly convincing evidence to suggest that they aren't chronological however I still feel that was the original intention (sort of like a stamp put for every new ship launched in order of completion, which makes the most sense really) but then the production staff kept changing things to keep the story going.
Oh yes, in 40+ years of Trek, there's going to be inconsistencies. That's why it annoys me when people say things like, "That's not what Roddenberry would have done," or "That's not what Matt Jefferies would have done," etc., as if things absolutely have to be the way it was developed way back in the '60's.

BTW I did read your Chronological Timeline which I (mostly) agreed on. Good research there!
Thank you
__________________
Dont believe everything you read on the internet.
Benjamin Franklin
Dukhat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 27 2013, 09:19 PM   #11
Timo
Admiral
 
Re: USS Sitak registry

One game we can play with odd launch dates is assume that "commissioning" refers to commissioning after a refit - which in the case of the Brattain would be in 2345, with the Tsiolkovsky around 2363, and so forth. Decommissioning a ship for the duration of a refit used to be standard practice not so long ago, after all. And the unique bridge of the Brattain might attest to a unique refit in the mid-2340s, as opposed to the more modern refit of the second Saratoga to the generic "DS9 style bridge" specs, or the older blue-green style spanning the E-B through E-C.

OTOH, stardate 22519.5 may be on a different system than the TNG dates - say, the one used in "Dark Page" for the early 24th century...

Timo Saloniemi
Timo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 27 2013, 11:43 PM   #12
yenny
Captain
 
Re: USS Sitak registry

The USS Sitak registry number is seen early. But I can't remember if was first time when we saw her or the second time when we saw her.

What I could make out when I had the tape back in the 90s of the USS Sitak registry number. It look to me as being NCC-39105.

Back then, I was seeing if I had the USS Majestic registry number correct. At first to me it look like NCC-32080. But a early view of the USS. Majestic show it being NCC-31060. While I was checking out the Majestic registry, I notion the Sitak registry number.
yenny is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 28 2013, 12:54 AM   #13
CharlieZardoz
Lieutenant
 
Re: USS Sitak registry

Yeah except that the Shir'kar's registry is 31905... which for all we know was a generic registry stamp on all Miranda class ships that eventually got officially linked via https://groups.google.com/forum/#!to...s9/d8hsdKFNf40

Also Star Trek Bridge Commander seems to make use of the 31859 number for the Sitak which fits well though I'm not sure what their source is.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hirfsdXxh-0

Dukat! Regarding your chronology I've been thinking that it could be entirely possible that a second line of Ambassador class ships were constructed in the 45,000-60,000 range right after the Excelsior/Miranda explosion. My only real evidence for this is the Niagara class ships Wellington 28473 and Princeton 59804 however I do suspect that its entirely possible that if the filming model had survived past the DS9 pilot and into CGI format we may have seen a few with a registry in the 50,000's. My opinion anyway

And yes I think Roddenberry had never saw the Federation as having so many ships and they did by DS9. I think in his head he felt there were maybe a few dozen or hundred at a time.
CharlieZardoz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 28 2013, 02:04 AM   #14
yenny
Captain
 
Re: USS Sitak registry

Here is a clip of the battle to retake Deep Space Nine. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VoIFUJxJwcQ
Maybe one of you that has a real video card might have a better chance of seeing the Sitak registry?
yenny is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 28 2013, 03:59 AM   #15
Ru ru, chu
Fleet Admiral
 
Ru ru, chu's Avatar
 
Location: Mr. Laser Beam is in the visitor's bullpen
View Ru ru, chu's Twitter Profile
Re: USS Sitak registry

Timo wrote: View Post
I'd pick three possible registries and accept all of them - the first might be USS Sitak, the second USS Borat, the third USS Eliat.
USS Borat? Is very nice. Great success!

(source: Cultural Learnings of Vulcan for Make Benefit Glorious Federation of Planets)
__________________
"A hot dog at the ballpark is better than a steak at the Ritz." - Humphrey Bogart
Ru ru, chu 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 04:31 PM.

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