RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 140,067
Posts: 5,432,117
Members: 24,926
Currently online: 555
Newest member: wod_freak

TrekToday headlines

The Red Shirt Diaries #8
By: T'Bonz on Oct 20

IDW Publishing January Comics
By: T'Bonz on Oct 20

Retro Review: Chrysalis
By: Michelle on Oct 18

The Next Generation Season Seven Blu-ray Details
By: T'Bonz on Oct 17

CBS Launches Streaming Service
By: T'Bonz on Oct 17

Yelchin In New Indie Thriller
By: T'Bonz on Oct 17

Saldana In The Book of Life
By: T'Bonz on Oct 17

Cracked’s New Sci-Fi Satire
By: T'Bonz on Oct 16

Beltran Introduces Shakespeare To Theater Group
By: T'Bonz on Oct 16

Burton To Be Honored at Facets Boo! Bash
By: T'Bonz on Oct 16


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 > Star Trek Movies > Star Trek Movies XI+

Star Trek Movies XI+ Discuss J.J. Abrams' rebooted Star Trek here.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old March 18 2014, 05:46 AM   #1
British Khan
Ensign
 
Question about Enterprise registry number

I was wondering since this Enterprise in the Abrams TL was a built few years later it probably should have a different registry number. But it doesn't. What would be a possible in universe explanation for this?
British Khan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 18 2014, 07:06 AM   #2
drt
Commander
 
Re: Question about Enterprise registry number

The registry number can be assigned years in advance, and not dependent on the actual build date.

I'd suppose the plan was to build 1701 sooner, but after Nero's incursion, she went back to the drawing board for major upgrades, which delayed completion.
drt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 18 2014, 04:37 PM   #3
Kevman7987
Commander
 
Kevman7987's Avatar
 
Location: Erie, PA, USA
View Kevman7987's Twitter Profile
Re: Question about Enterprise registry number

drt wrote: View Post
The registry number can be assigned years in advance, and not dependent on the actual build date.

I'd suppose the plan was to build 1701 sooner, but after Nero's incursion, she went back to the drawing board for major upgrades, which delayed completion.
That was my thoughts on it too. The ship was launched in 2245 in the Prime Universe. It was probably on the same schedule in the AU, but after Nero's incursion, the ship was redesigned and jacked up. This resulted in the ship being built and launched later.

Now I have a mental image of a Starfleet engineer holding a blueprint of the classic Constitution design, checking his email, and balling up the blueprint sheets to throw them out while swearing.
__________________
"Don't do it, Meat!"
"Don't do it, Cheese!"
Kevman7987 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 18 2014, 04:50 PM   #4
Lance
Commodore
 
Lance's Avatar
 
Location: The Enterprise's Restroom
Re: Question about Enterprise registry number

^ Absolutely, that was my favored explanation as well. We might even take canonical evidence from the fact that (as far as we can tell) she's launched brand new under Christopher Pike's command in the AU, when it's generally accepted that she had existed prior to this by some years in the prime universe and was once commanded by Robert April before Pike took over.
Lance is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 20 2014, 02:50 PM   #5
OpenMaw
Commander
 
OpenMaw's Avatar
 
Location: Everett, Washington
Re: Question about Enterprise registry number

Also worth noting is the appearance of a prior Enterprise in the comic run, also 1701. Even if it's not canonical, it does give us an indication that the opposite happened. That, what we know as the original Constitution class was given some quick rethinking in the wake of the Kelvin attack and was built and launched ahead of time by eight or nine years.
__________________
"Paradise protests too much." SFDebris
OpenMaw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 20 2014, 02:57 PM   #6
The Wormhole
Admiral
 
The Wormhole's Avatar
 
Re: Question about Enterprise registry number

OpenMaw wrote: View Post
Also worth noting is the appearance of a prior Enterprise in the comic run, also 1701. Even if it's not canonical, it does give us an indication that the opposite happened. That, what we know as the original Constitution class was given some quick rethinking in the wake of the Kelvin attack and was built and launched ahead of time by eight or nine years.
I wouldn't look too far into the fact that the comics showed April's Enterprise with 1701 for its registry, or even the design of the ship. Knowing IDW, it was likely a mistake. After all, they have shown the Abrams Enterprise with TMP style nacelles and the registry NCC-1701-D to say nothing of how often we see 24th century LCARS computer displays. They've shown characters slapping the Starfleet insignia on their chests to communicate and have been so inconsistent with the appearance of one of their characters created for the comics to the point that in the recent comics she has different colour hair and skin.

IDW comics are not a reliable precedent for anything
__________________
"Internet message boards aren't as funny today as they were ten years ago. I've stopped reading new posts." -The Simpsons 20th anniversary special.
The Wormhole is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 20 2014, 03:09 PM   #7
Timo
Admiral
 
Re: Question about Enterprise registry number

Regarding Countdown to Darkness, I don't think there is any image of April's ship anywhere in that comic, not really. The ship shown twice when April gives his backstory is simply Kirk's own ship!

I mean, the writer and the artist may have intended for it to be April's, but they fail completely. The design is identical to Kirk's ship, within the limits of the comic's overall artistic detail at least. And nothing in the dialogue or imagery actually indicates that it would be April's rather than Kirk's.

Timo Saloniemi
Timo 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 03:15 AM.

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