EW FullUSS Kelvin Picture

[ancient]

That ship is fugly. And why is the registry NCC-0514? Wouldn't it make more sense to make it NCC-514? Jeez, that's a stupid registry number.

Perhaps Starfleet was forward-thinking enough to realize that they soon would have ships with 4-digit registries, so they added a zero as a place-holder (of course they weren't forward-thinking enough since by the 24th century they would need to add more digits).

In my line of work I use this idea everyday...numbers I use have 4 digits no matter if it's a or 0001 or 9999. Having a placeholder for all four digits makes things much more orderly (especially in lists).

Agreed. This is pretty standard practice actually, for everyone from the Navy to the Police. Also, when putting numbered data into a computer, it prevents the computer from mixing up the order by going 'alphabetically'.

ex: The computer will do this, going by '1' as the lowest digit.
1
10
11
12
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

Vs.

01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
11
12

When doing projects on the computer where there are dozens of files, for example, this makes finding things way easier.

 

[EJD1984]

I've just noticed a possible new design astetic with the Kelvin (and possibility the Enterprise as well).

There doesn't appear to be any windows along the saucer's edge.

Though in the closeup of the Kelvin attack, there seems to be a few small windows on the deck(s) just below the bridge.

 

[M'Sharak]

Am I the only one that thinks this looks like one of Forbin's kitbashes?

* crickets *

What?

Q2UnME

I'm with you on that one...LOL, one of the first things I thought when I saw it...

Of course, I think only you and I are the only one to get the reference in this board!!

Sure about that?

 

[nil_jones]

heres a really high res picture of the Kelvin

(Although I stand ready to get flamed heavy for this) I'm fairly confident the upper section is the secondary hull (hence making the blue circle the deflector). The blue color notwithstanding, this high res appears to me that the upper section is more like a pod (okay, bad description, but I'm thinking something much shorter than a long nacelle-type cylinder).

I'm hazarding a guess that we're looking at something akin to a Saladin class with a stubby secondary hull mounted dorsally.

I'm fine with the single nacelle, never had an issue with that. I almost took umbrage with the leading '0' on the registry, but if was really going to let something like that get to me then my head would be way too far up my ass.

 

[shapeshifter]

OMFG! Someone somewhere once stated they thought that upper pod thingy appears to be out of center alignment with the Saucer section, I see that now in the high res. Is it fricking "vectoring"???

 

[JuanBolio]

OMFG! Someone somewhere once stated they thought that upper pod thingy appears to be out of center alignment with the Saucer section, I see that now in the high res. Is it fricking "vectoring"???

I don't think so... the apparent difference is so small and the picture so shadowy I think its just a trick of perspective. If the nacelle were to rotate, the entire base of the pylon probably wouldn't be the rotation point.

 

[nil_jones]

OMFG! Someone somewhere once stated they thought that upper pod thingy appears to be out of center alignment with the Saucer section, I see that now in the high res. Is it fricking "vectoring"???

I think the off-centered-ness is a perspective trick, although it makes more sense to 'vector' a deflector dish/long range sensor dish than a warp nacelle.

On a side note, the pylon for that (potential) secondary hull looks very similar to the neck on Gabe Koerner's speculative Enterprise. Very similar....

 

[JuanBolio]

OMFG! Someone somewhere once stated they thought that upper pod thingy appears to be out of center alignment with the Saucer section, I see that now in the high res. Is it fricking "vectoring"???

I think the off-centered-ness is a perspective trick, although it makes more sense to 'vector' a deflector dish/long range sensor dish than a warp nacelle.

On a side note, the pylon for that (potential) secondary hull looks very similar to the neck on Gabe Koerner's speculative Enterprise. Very similar....

Well, we can only see the forward edge.

Still, I hear Gabe has disappeared from the net in recent months, and the bridge dome design and ramscoop cowlings from the teaser look VERY familiar. I wonder if Gabe had a hand in designing the new ships, and J.J. Abrams is keeping him locked in his basement until the ship is revealed.

 

[Stag]

Am I the only one that thinks this looks like one of Forbin's kitbashes?

* crickets *

What?

Q2UnME

I'm with you on that one...LOL, one of the first things I thought when I saw it...

Of course, I think only you and I are the only one to get the reference in this board!!

Sure about that?

Nope...shoulda said thread instead of board

 

[Stag]

OMFG! Someone somewhere once stated they thought that upper pod thingy appears to be out of center alignment with the Saucer section, I see that now in the high res. Is it fricking "vectoring"???

Well something else to think about -- what if it is the deflector - it seems to be turned to face the same axis as the incoming missles/torpedos.

 

[Unicron]

Perhaps Starfleet was forward-thinking enough to realize that they soon would have ships with 4-digit registries, so they added a zero as a place-holder (of course they weren't forward-thinking enough since by the 24th century they would need to add more digits).

In my line of work I use this idea everyday...numbers I use have 4 digits no matter if it's a or 0001 or 9999. Having a placeholder for all four digits makes things much more orderly (especially in lists).

I don't really see the point of having a zero as a placeholder, because you don't need one for every type of numerical ordering system. Trek's registry system has been screwy for years anyway, but I see no reason why you wouldn't just use a 500 series number.

 

[Stag]

Perhaps Starfleet was forward-thinking enough to realize that they soon would have ships with 4-digit registries, so they added a zero as a place-holder (of course they weren't forward-thinking enough since by the 24th century they would need to add more digits).

In my line of work I use this idea everyday...numbers I use have 4 digits no matter if it's a or 0001 or 9999. Having a placeholder for all four digits makes things much more orderly (especially in lists).

I don't really see the point of having a zero as a placeholder, because you don't need one for every type of numerical ordering system. Trek's registry system has been screwy for years anyway, but I see no reason why you wouldn't just use a 500 series number.

Now that's the kind of thinking that created the Y2K problem ...

 

[Sector 7]

Am I the only one that thinks this looks like one of Forbin's kitbashes?

* crickets *

What?

Q2UnME

I'm with you on that one...LOL, one of the first things I thought when I saw it...

Of course, I think only you and I are the only one to get the reference in this board!!

Then, sir, thou thinkest in error! I have and always shall be a fan of Forbin's kitbashes.

 

[Devon]

Perhaps Starfleet was forward-thinking enough to realize that they soon would have ships with 4-digit registries, so they added a zero as a place-holder (of course they weren't forward-thinking enough since by the 24th century they would need to add more digits).

In my line of work I use this idea everyday...numbers I use have 4 digits no matter if it's a or 0001 or 9999. Having a placeholder for all four digits makes things much more orderly (especially in lists).

I don't really see the point of having a zero as a placeholder, because you don't need one for every type of numerical ordering system. Trek's registry system has been screwy for years anyway, but I see no reason why you wouldn't just use a 500 series number.

Personally, I don't see what the big deal is. It is what it is, starts with a zero, so it starts with a zero! Nothing dumb about that I don't think (I know you didn't say it was, just saying.)

 

[ALF]

What? No sombrero mockups yet?? Come on you guys. Get on point!

 

[Timo]

This is pretty standard practice actually, for everyone from the Navy to the Police.

Except that the Navy doesn't believe in those zeroes. The USN guided missile frigates started with FFG-1, not with FFG-01 or FFG-001, even though it was obvious that hundreds would eventually be constructed.

And it's not Starfleet practice in the other movies or shows, either. Which is why it's a bit odd for TPTB to have chosen it. Perhaps they expect the audience to spot the vital "Hey, her registry is lower than that of the hero ship! This must be an older vessel!" thing more easily if the zero is there?

Timo Saloniemi

 

[ancient]

Well, there was the NX-01, NX-02, etc. It seems like a minor point. Is there really any difference?

Another example of simplifying the computerized future, are telephone numbers.

We don't start with (using the fake tv phone convention):
555-1
and work up to
555-9999
because even though we could, and just have a dial button (like most cells) there is a certain convention that dictates that all numbers have the same number of numbers. Either way is good though.

EDIT:

numbers have the same number of numbers

Say this five times fast.

 

[ST-One]

This is pretty standard practice actually, for everyone from the Navy to the Police.

Except that the Navy doesn't believe in those zeroes. The USN guided missile frigates started with FFG-1, not with FFG-01 or FFG-001, even though it was obvious that hundreds would eventually be constructed.

And it's not Starfleet practice in the other movies or shows, either. Which is why it's a bit odd for TPTB to have chosen it. Perhaps they expect the audience to spot the vital "Hey, her registry is lower than that of the hero ship! This must be an older vessel!" thing more easily if the zero is there?

Timo Saloniemi

Fanboys!

 

[Stag]

Honestly, does it really make a difference? There are bigger nits to pick if you ask me...see the bridge pics??

Maybe the construction contract was number '05' ship built in sequence, number '14'.

 

[The Wormhole]

The registry of the Kelvin makes no sense whatsoever, especially when you consider that there have been Starfleet ships with three digit registries. Look no further than Star Trek III, the registry of the USS Grissom was NCC-638, not NCC-0638, despite the fact that Starfleet already had plenty of starships with four digit registries. So why the hell does the Kelvin have a four digit number starting with zero, when a precedent for three digit registries has already been set?