LE: One Constant Star by David R. George III Review Thread (Spoilers!)

[Spike730]

Re: LE: One Constant Star by David R. George III Review Thread (Spoile

Canonically, the Enterprise is the only ship that's been saddled with that idiotic practice.

Relativity NCV-474439-G and Dauntless NX-01A cross my mind.

I knew it would be hard to reach the epic level of Serpents Among the Ruins, but I didn't expect "One Constant Star" to be so underwhelming. For me it was too hard to stomach that Demora coincidentally found her long lost father. What are the odds? Also Harriman and his wife proclaiming their fairy tale love every step of the way was quite tiresome.

 

[DimesDan]

Re: LE: One Constant Star by David R. George III Review Thread (Spoile

Canonically, the Enterprise is the only ship that's been saddled with that idiotic practice.

Dauntless NX-01A

And that was a fake Starfleet starship.

 

[Markonian]

Re: LE: One Constant Star by David R. George III Review Thread (Spoile

Canonically, the Enterprise is the only ship that's been saddled with that idiotic practice.

Dauntless NX-01A

And that was a fake Starfleet starship.

Not anymore as of 2410.

 

[DimesDan]

Re: LE: One Constant Star by David R. George III Review Thread (Spoile

Dauntless NX-01A

And that was a fake Starfleet starship.

Not anymore as of 2410.

How so?

Not wanting to bring the canon gods down on me, but in the episode it featured in, it was a fake Starfleet starship and irregardless of where in the Expanded Trek Multiverse it reappears, it is still a fake Starfleet starship.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Re: LE: One Constant Star by David R. George III Review Thread (Spoile

I suspect that the 2410 may be a reference to ST Online, in which case it's still not canon.

 

[Stevil2001]

Re: LE: One Constant Star by David R. George III Review Thread (Spoile

The fake argument doesn't really excuse it, though (nor does it excuse the NCC-1305-E), as no one slapped their forehead and went, "Of course, NX-01A, that registry's impossible! The clues were before us the entire time!"

 

[Deranged Nasat]

Re: LE: One Constant Star by David R. George III Review Thread (Spoile

The fake argument doesn't really excuse it, though (nor does it excuse the NCC-1305-E), as no one slapped their forehead and went, "Of course, NX-01A, that registry's impossible! The clues were before us the entire time!"

One has to assume, I suppose, that the intent behind the fake registry is the suggestion that slipstream vessels are starting their own registry lineage distinct from warp vessels. Which doesn't make sense, of course, but that must have been the writers/Arturis' intention.

 

[Spike730]

Re: LE: One Constant Star by David R. George III Review Thread (Spoile

Fake or not, the Voyager crew took no issue with the registry.

 

[Christopher]

Re: LE: One Constant Star by David R. George III Review Thread (Spoile

Fake or not, the Voyager crew took no issue with the registry.

Which doesn't prove anything, since the characters don't actually exist and just do what the writers decide they should do. They're not exactly objective arbiters whose "opinions" can validate an idea.

 

[Enterprise1701]

Re: LE: One Constant Star by David R. George III Review Thread (Spoile

And that was a fake Starfleet starship.

Not anymore as of 2410.

How so?

Not wanting to bring the canon gods down on me, but in the episode it featured in, it was a fake Starfleet starship and irregardless of where in the Expanded Trek Multiverse it reappears, it is still a fake Starfleet starship.

What Markonian is referring to is that in Star Trek Online, Starfleet has built their own "Dauntless class experimental science vessels". It's now a playable starship class with a background story blurb though no NPC Dauntless class with a visible registry has yet appeared. Though that can't really be relied on since multiple NPC vessels of one class often have the same registry.

 

[DimesDan]

Re: LE: One Constant Star by David R. George III Review Thread (Spoile

Not anymore as of 2410.

How so?

Not wanting to bring the canon gods down on me, but in the episode it featured in, it was a fake Starfleet starship and irregardless of where in the Expanded Trek Multiverse it reappears, it is still a fake Starfleet starship.

What Markonian is referring to is that in Star Trek Online, Starfleet has built their own "Dauntless class experimental science vessels". It's now a playable starship class with a background story blurb though no NPC Dauntless class with a visible registry has yet appeared. Though that can't really be relied on since multiple NPC vessels of one class often have the same registry.

And what has this got to do with it being a fake Starfleet vessel in an episode of Voyager?

 

[Enterprise1701]

Re: LE: One Constant Star by David R. George III Review Thread (Spoile

How so?

Not wanting to bring the canon gods down on me, but in the episode it featured in, it was a fake Starfleet starship and irregardless of where in the Expanded Trek Multiverse it reappears, it is still a fake Starfleet starship.

What Markonian is referring to is that in Star Trek Online, Starfleet has built their own "Dauntless class experimental science vessels". It's now a playable starship class with a background story blurb though no NPC Dauntless class with a visible registry has yet appeared. Though that can't really be relied on since multiple NPC vessels of one class often have the same registry.

And what has this got to do with it being a fake Starfleet vessel in an episode of Voyager?

Everybody was saying how the "NX-01A" registry on the Dauntless in "Hope and Fear" didn't count as a "reuse" registry like "NCC-1701-D". Not in canon, anyway. I was explaining that Markonian was providing info from the Star Trek Online portion of non-canon.

 

[Markonian]

Re: LE: One Constant Star by David R. George III Review Thread (Spoile

Everybody was saying how the "NX-01A" registry on the Dauntless in "Hope and Fear" didn't count as a "reuse" registry like "NCC-1701-D". Not in canon, anyway. I was explaining that Markonian was providing info from the Star Trek Online portion of non-canon.

^ Exactly. I was making a sly joke and overlooked the canon aspect.

But we also had the NCC-1305-E and the NCC-2010-5. I can see why the "add letter to number" practice would be impractical in real live, but I prefer the legacy it builds. Plus, it might be a non-Human tradition that was incorporated into Starfleet.

In The Tears of Eridanus, the Andorians are in charge and number their ships from #1, giving us the IUES Enterprise I, for example.

 

[Stevil2001]

Re: LE: One Constant Star by David R. George III Review Thread (Spoile

I should note that I imagined the number "I" to be retroactive; there's not an Enterprise I until there's been an Enterprise II, just like how there's not a Pope Francis I until there's been a Francis II.

 

[Idran]

Re: LE: One Constant Star by David R. George III Review Thread (Spoile

But we also had the NCC-1305-E and the NCC-2010-5.

Christopher mentioned the Yamato earlier already; it originally had the NCC-1305-E registry when it appeared in Nagilium's illusion-thing, but when it appeared again later on that registry was retconned to NCC-71807, so it doesn't really count as an example.

As for the Nash, the registry for it wasn't visible until a picture of the model was printed in a magazine, so I don't know if it counts either. Illegible model or screen information that's only discovered through outside sources or later improvement in film resolution seems like it doesn't really count as on screen. I mean, I doubt the Enterprise-D's schematic really has a giant duck in it, or Clare Raymond's family was such a huge fan of a 400 year old comedy program that they went crazy with their naming traditions. It seems to me like it only counts when you're intended to see it. Otherwise, it's just free reign for the writers/set designers/what have you to goof around and put whatever.

 

[Markonian]

Re: LE: One Constant Star by David R. George III Review Thread (Spoile

It's Francis I in my household anyway.

Anyway, adding the "I" retroactively is a Human conceit. It does not necessarily go with Andorians. There was no hint at the loss of the Enterprise in the story, or the commissioning of another one.

I included the NCC-1305-E and NCC-2010-5 for the reason that Memory Alpha respects them as valid. We discount the duck but there's no reason to discount a starship registry because we don't like the pattern.

BTW, in STO you can add any of the 24 standard letters to the registry number of your Starfleet vessel. Shuttlecraft have registry numbers, too. The same rules apply (neat when you like to pretend your shuttles are numbered and take number-like letters or Roman numbers).

(I wonder whether there'll be an VSS Enterprise-A?)

 

[Stevil2001]

Re: LE: One Constant Star by David R. George III Review Thread (Spoile

It's Francis I in my household anyway.

Anyway, adding the "I" retroactively is a Human conceit. It does not necessarily go with Andorians. There was no hint at the loss of the Enterprise in the story, or the commissioning of another one.

Not to quibble too much, but on two separate occasions it's called "the old Enterprise."

 

[Christopher]

Re: LE: One Constant Star by David R. George III Review Thread (Spoile

I included the NCC-1305-E and NCC-2010-5 for the reason that Memory Alpha respects them as valid. We discount the duck but there's no reason to discount a starship registry because we don't like the pattern.

Memory Alpha is just a fan-edited reference source, and sometimes it takes inclusionism a little too far. It has a bunch of entries for textual in-jokes that were never meant to be taken remotely seriously, for instance gag element names from "Rascals" like "babaloo" and "cheeseium" and "daffyduckium." So what Memory Alpha considers noteworthy for inclusion is a really, really bad metric for what is "valid."

And again, the producers themselves chose to change the Yamato's registry, suggesting that they considered the "-E" version to be a mistake. Any work of series fiction is full of such revisions, and it's a nonsensical standard to favor the original, rough-draft or erroneous version over the later refinement or correction. As a rule, when there's a conflict, the version that comes later is the one we accept. Spock is a Vulcan rather than a Vulcanian. The Enterprise is a Federation Starfleet ship rather than a United Earth Space Probe Agency ship. Kirk's middle initial is T rather than R. So by the same logic, the Yamato's registry is NCC-71807 rather than NCC-1305-E.

 

[Enterprise1701]

Re: LE: One Constant Star by David R. George III Review Thread (Spoile

It's Francis I in my household anyway.

Anyway, adding the "I" retroactively is a Human conceit. It does not necessarily go with Andorians. There was no hint at the loss of the Enterprise in the story, or the commissioning of another one.

I included the NCC-1305-E and NCC-2010-5 for the reason that Memory Alpha respects them as valid. We discount the duck but there's no reason to discount a starship registry because we don't like the pattern.

BTW, in STO you can add any of the 24 standard letters to the registry number of your Starfleet vessel. Shuttlecraft have registry numbers, too. The same rules apply (neat when you like to pretend your shuttles are numbered and take number-like letters or Roman numbers).

(I wonder whether there'll be an VSS Enterprise-A?)

Isn't the original Excelsior class Excelsior along with Excelsior-D simultaneously visible as NPC ships in the game?

This reminds me, Christopher, why did you choose to give the U.S.S. Hypatia the registry "NCC-S415" in DTI: Forgotten History? What is the "S" for?

 

[Christopher]

Re: LE: One Constant Star by David R. George III Review Thread (Spoile

This reminds me, Christopher, why did you choose to give the U.S.S. Hypatia the registry "NCC-S415" in DTI: Forgotten History? What is the "S" for?

It belongs to the Capella class from Masao Okazaki's Starfleet Museum. The use of the "S" comes from there, and I assume it stands for "scout."

However, there is an onscreen precedent for that kind of letter modifier; in TAS: "The Pirates of Orion," the freighter Huron had the registry NCC-F1913.