Go Back   Star Trek Online > Information and Discussion > Ten Forward
Login

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 11 NX not first of class
02-15-2011, 11:14 AM
NX = experimental
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 12
02-15-2011, 11:21 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Archanubis
More than soft canon - the Excelsior lost her NX prefix sometime between her introduction in Star Trek III and Sulu's command in Star Trek VI. There's no reason to believe that such a change isn't routine, aside from the fact that the Defiant in DS9 kept hers, even when Starfleet began rolling out other ships of her class (I call laziness on the part of the model makers :p). And as I said, the exception in this was the NX class from Star Trek: Enterprise, in which "NX" represented the ship class rather than a prefix. (When NCC came along, if it wasn't in use before/during the NX-class' service life, is debatable).
From the DS9 episode "The Search," we understand that the Defiant is an incomplete ship. I got the impression that it hadn't completed its shakedown cruise for a number of reasons, the two big ones being the lack of EPS power regulation and that Valiant was operating as a training vessel for red squad three years into the Defiant class' lifespan. Typically your front-line attack ships aren't reduced to training ops.

That said, O'brien was consistently applying fixes to the Defiant that, when also taking into consideration the Romulan cloaking device, would maintain the ship's status as "experimental."

The Sao Paolo being renamed and redesignated was for purely production value, so can we please, please, please, please, please stop arguing of our agreement of that fact.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 13
02-15-2011, 11:30 AM
I forgot the Excelsior did that.



So realistically the Defiant in STO should be...
NCC-74205-A

Should it have adopted the old number? Or kept Sao Paulo's number? The NX for sure doesn't seem to fit anymore... especially if it's ACTUALLY "C" which would mean several were destroyed between DS9 and STO.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 14
02-15-2011, 12:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SP3CTREnyc
From the DS9 episode "The Search," we understand that the Defiant is an incomplete ship. I got the impression that it hadn't completed its shakedown cruise for a number of reasons, the two big ones being the lack of EPS power regulation and that Valiant was operating as a training vessel for red squad three years into the Defiant class' lifespan. Typically your front-line attack ships aren't reduced to training ops.
Generally speaking, the Defiant, Valiant, and Sao Paulo/Defiant-A are the only ships of that class that are named on screen. There are several other unnamed Defiant-class vessels that appear in Deep Space Nine and Voyager. One or two other than Defiant are seen in "A Call to Arms", two are seen alongside an Akira in "Message in a Bottle" attacking the Prometheus and the trio of Romulan Warbirds, and at least one is seen at the end of "Endgame". So the class was being massed produced.

As for the Valiant being used as a training ship, in universe, it's entirely possible that that ship was chosen because 1) It was one of the most advanced starships in the fleet, and the cadets would need to know how all those new dohickeys worked when they graduated and 2) It was part of a class that was one of the smallest ships in physical size, justifying why there were only 20 some-odd cadets and a handfull of officers aboard. Just a theory.

Quote:
That said, O'brien was consistently applying fixes to the Defiant that, when also taking into consideration the Romulan cloaking device, would maintain the ship's status as "experimental."
Practically all of the engineers in Star Trek have been "applying fixes" to their ships in some form or another. I believe it was even used as a plot point in an episode of TNG, where the engineer that designed the Enterprise's engines came aboard for an inspection - and was absolutely horrified at the changes LaForge had made. So keeping the NX in that case doesn't make much sense.

As for the cloaking device; well, maybe, but I think it's a stretch, as it was always emphasised that the cloak was on loan from the Romulans - who could have always demanded Starfleet give it back at any time.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 15
02-15-2011, 01:27 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Archanubis
Practically all of the engineers in Star Trek have been "applying fixes" to their ships in some form or another. I believe it was even used as a plot point in an episode of TNG, where the engineer that designed the Enterprise's engines came aboard for an inspection - and was absolutely horrified at the changes LaForge had made. So keeping the NX in that case doesn't make much sense.

As for the cloaking device; well, maybe, but I think it's a stretch, as it was always emphasised that the cloak was on loan from the Romulans - who could have always demanded Starfleet give it back at any time.
To be fair the Defiant was originally considered somewhat of a failure and would almost tear itself apart so it was considerably more experimental and needed more fixes than the other ships we've seen.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 16
02-15-2011, 04:44 PM
Technically speaking, the Enterprise only kept it's original registry number through special order from starfleet operations due to it's highly distinguished service record of the vessel and it's crew.

There have been multiple ships to bear the same name over the course of several generations. To name a few examples: Saratoga, Lexington, Yorktown, Excalibur, Constellation

The Saratoga from ST: IV was a different ship and had a different registry from Sisko's Saratoga in Emissary.

When it comes to naming a new starship, the fact that there have been other ships to bear the name is not what's special. It takes a special dispensation from starfleet to keep an original registry number.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 17
02-15-2011, 05:27 PM
I've been reading up on it...

-The crew's intentions were to change the registry of the second Defiant to: "NX-74205-A"


-U.S.S. Sao Paulo: "NCC-75633"

-Sao Paulo AFTER being renamed Defiant STILL had the dedication plaque read: "NCC-75633"

-External CGI appearances continued to read "NX-74205" for budge reasons and the fact that they reused stock footage sometimes. Ron Moore stated that repainting and reshooting the footage was cost prohibitive but he considers the new Defiant to be "Defiant-A" or "NX-74205-A".

-When they made new footage they still used NX-74205 for consistency.

-Star Trek Online's Defiant has a Registry of "NCC-75633-C" meaning they went with the Sao Paulo's registry which makes little sense.



So basically... The Dedication Plaque still says the Sao Paulo's registry.
The on screen registry on the ship is the first Defiant's due to budge concerns so the ship effectively had two separate canon examples of it's registry.
Most sources just give it's registry as "NX-74205" with no "A".




The problems here with STO's version is that it makes no sense unless a TON of ships named Defiant were lost in those 30 years.
When the Registry carries over it carries over in FULL. Meaning it wouldn't keep the Sao Paulo's registry number and instead us the arguably "more" canon Defiant's registry.

NX changing to NCC is fine. However... C is probably too high. Assuming A was the second defiant that would mean A and B were all lost in those 30 years between the end of DS9 and STO. It's possible but unlikely.

IF it truly is "C" then I think it's Registry should change to "NCC-74205-C". It should ignore the Constitution-class ship as it's canon that it did.





Am I the only one who thinks this is all so messed up
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 18
02-15-2011, 05:41 PM
This whole thing came about because I'm doing a Photoshop project WITH the Defiant in it.

I don't know what to put for the Registry. I want to put "NX-74205-A" but there appears to be 2 separate, both seemingly incorrect, canon examples.

Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 19
02-15-2011, 05:53 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by USS Parallax
This whole thing came about because I'm doing a Photoshop project WITH the Defiant in it.

I don't know what to put for the Registry. I want to put "NX-74205-A" but there appears to be 2 separate, both seemingly incorrect, canon examples.

Could that mean that you're facing a paradox??

Ok, I'm just foolin'. Ummm, depending on the timeframe that you're currently working on, I'd say go with either 74205-A or 74205-C.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 20
02-15-2011, 06:12 PM
I'm either making it with STO's timeline or the second Defiant of the Defiant-class.

STO's Defiant is "NCC-75633-C". The second Defiant is "NX-74205" on screen, "NX-75633" on the dedication plaque and it's supposed to be "NX-74205-A" but the budget stopped that from happening.

I'd prefer "NX-74205-A" for the second Defiant (NCC by now probably). NCC-74205-C for the STO Defiant.
(still bothered by the A and B dying lol).

Both seem completely incorrect.
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

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 Off
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:29 PM.