USS Sitak registry

Discussion in 'Trek Tech' started by CharlieZardoz, Aug 26, 2013.

  1. CharlieZardoz

    CharlieZardoz Lieutenant Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2013
    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/resources/TheXonWriteups/reliant-sitak-destroyed.jpg
     
  2. Timo

    Timo Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2003
    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/646/sitak_registry1.jpg
    http://flareupload.pleh.net/uploads/646/sitak_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
     
  3. Dukhat

    Dukhat Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2007
    Location:
    Baltimore, MD
    Timo, Flare Upload links don't work here.
     
  4. Timo

    Timo Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2003
    Ah, didn't notice as I of course already had the links in my buffer... :o

    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
     
  5. Dukhat

    Dukhat Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2007
    Location:
    Baltimore, MD
    Looks like 38591 to me.
     
  6. CharlieZardoz

    CharlieZardoz Lieutenant Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2013
    Borat! LOL ;)
     
  7. CharlieZardoz

    CharlieZardoz Lieutenant Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2013
    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.
     
  8. Dukhat

    Dukhat Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2007
    Location:
    Baltimore, MD
    I'm just saying what I think it says. I'm sure I'm probably wrong.

    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.
     
  9. CharlieZardoz

    CharlieZardoz Lieutenant Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2013
    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! :)
     
  10. Dukhat

    Dukhat Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2007
    Location:
    Baltimore, MD
    The ship's dedication plaque states the launch stardate.

    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.

    Thank you :)
     
  11. Timo

    Timo Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2003
    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
     
  12. yenny

    yenny Captain Captain

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2005
    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.
     
  13. CharlieZardoz

    CharlieZardoz Lieutenant Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2013
    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/#!topic/alt.tv.star-trek.ds9/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.
     
  14. yenny

    yenny Captain Captain

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2005
  15. Mr. Laser Beam

    Mr. Laser Beam Fleet Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    May 10, 2005
    Location:
    The visitor's bullpen
    USS Borat? Is very nice. Great success!

    (source: Cultural Learnings of Vulcan for Make Benefit Glorious Federation of Planets)
     
  16. Praetor

    Praetor Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2004
    Location:
    The fine line between continuity and fanwank.
    :rommie:

    Late seeing this, but well played, sir.
     

Share This Page