Low registry? You mean, like, put a zero in front?
I even want negative numbers, and numbers with decimal points and fractions. Anything that generates a fanboy lather, I'm all for it.
Anyone besides me annoyed by the original NF Excalibur blowing up.
- Thread starter Hartzilla2007
- Start date
I even want negative numbers, and numbers with decimal points and fractions. Anything that generates a fanboy lather, I'm all for it.
Heck, I'm gonna abandon numbers altogether. I'm going to write a book featuring a starship whose registry is NCC-Orange.
Low registry? You mean, like, put a zero in front?
I even want negative numbers, and numbers with decimal points and fractions. Anything that generates a fanboy lather, I'm all for it.
Then surely you want irrational numbers. NCC-3.141592653589... for a start.
(Sorry for calling you Shirley.)
'Cos TOS novels abandoned numbers years ago.
Another registry issue (yeah, I know it's nitpicky, but I care about this stuff, dammit!
) is that PD gave the new Excalibur a registry of NCC-26517-A, which implies that the Galaxy class and the Ambassador class Excaliburs were the only ones, when there was at least a Constitution class Excalibur in TOS. If anything, the ship's reg should have been 26517-C, but it would have just been better if it were in the high 70000's without the suffix. IMHO, the Excalibur doesn't warrant the special reg that only the Enterprise gets.
) is that PD gave the new Excalibur a registry of NCC-26517-A, which implies that the Galaxy class and the Ambassador class Excaliburs were the only ones, when there was at least a Constitution class Excalibur in TOS. If anything, the ship's reg should have been 26517-C, but it would have just been better if it were in the high 70000's without the suffix. IMHO, the Excalibur doesn't warrant the special reg that only the Enterprise gets.
Last edited:
I agree, but it wouldn't have been NCC-26517-C had the Galaxy Excal been based on the Connie one, it should have been NCC-1664-B, with the Ambassador one being NCC-1664-A. But the original Galaxy production run was 71xxx for the Challenger, and the others were in the 718xx range.Another registry issue (yeah, I know it's nitpicky, but I care about this stuff, dammit!
I agree, but it wouldn't have been NCC-26517-C had the Galaxy Excal been based on the Connie one, it should have been NCC-1664-B, with the Ambassador one being NCC-1664-A. But the original Galaxy production run was 71xxx for the Challenger, and the others were in the 718xx range.Another registry issue (yeah, I know it's nitpicky, but I care about this stuff, dammit!
Well, just the fact that the Ambassador Excalibur's reg was 26517 instead of 1664-B was proof enough that the people in charge of assigning the numbers didn't want other ships to have the suffix that was solely reserved for the Enterprise.
My thought is that they started to relax the Enterprise-only stricture as registry numbers started getting longer and more cumbersome (which is actually the reason why the Relativity had a lettered registry. They tried a seven digit one, but it looked so long it became silly).
And the new Defiant will always be NCC-74205-A to me
And the new Defiant will always be NCC-74205-A to me
I agree, but it wouldn't have been NCC-26517-C had the Galaxy Excal been based on the Connie one, it should have been NCC-1664-B, with the Ambassador one being NCC-1664-A. But the original Galaxy production run was 71xxx for the Challenger, and the others were in the 718xx range.Another registry issue (yeah, I know it's nitpicky, but I care about this stuff, dammit!
Well, just the fact that the Ambassador Excalibur's reg was 26517 instead of 1664-B was proof enough that the people in charge of assigning the numbers didn't want other ships to have the suffix that was solely reserved for the Enterprise.
Agreed. The Enterprise is the only "canon" ship with a suffix registry. I say stick with that.
Similar threads
- Poll
