Okay so in DS9 the Defiant has the Registration of NX-74205. NX meaning it's the first of it's class. Then it's regular registration.
Later in DS9 once the Defiant was destroyed they meant to have the second Defiant have an "A" on the Registry but the cost of changing it in stock footage was too much. Strangely unlike the Enterprise the Registry number changed too and the S
U.S.S. Sao Paolo was renamed in Defiant and registry changes as special compensation
so no prefix A or any other letter.
just copy paste from old Defiant
U.S.S. Sao Paolo was renamed in Defiant and registry changes as special compensation
so no prefix A or any other letter.
just copy paste from old Defiant
Althought the plaque of the USS Sao Paulo gives NCC-75633 as the registry the NX-74205 is still there on external shots due to cost concerns. When they switched to CG they used the same stuff so it wouldn't change.
Ron Moore has stated that the new ship was the Defiant-A but because of the cost it didn't happen but he considers the new ship to be "A".
So at STO we're at C. Your idea means ignoring the A for the second one (which isn't canon strictly for cost reasons though the creators wanted it to be and consider it to be).
If we do that (which is reasonable but I prefer to think of the second one as A) then in the 30 years the second letterless one along with the A and B were destroyed. That's 3!
Maybe they skipped a few letters to remember the second letterless one and the connie... But that's unprovable in any way.
I was under the impression that the letter suffix and reused NCC number was a privilege reserved for the Enterprise because of what that ship meant to Starfleet and the Federation. I thought that's why the Defiant's registry number didn't cross over when the Sao Paolo was renamed.
If I'm wrong, I'll gladly reform my thinking to what's canon.
Please cite your sources when it comes to statements such as "Later in DS9 once the Defiant was destroyed they meant to have the second Defiant have an "A" on the Registry but the cost of changing it in stock footage was too much."
and
"Okay so in DS9 the Defiant has the Registration of NX-74205. NX meaning it's the first of it's class. Then it's regular registration."
Do not cite wikipages as your source, not even memory alpha, I want cold hard proof.
As for NX prefix, it wasn't given to the first ship of that class, but was sometimes given to experimental vessels, such as the USS Excelsior during early testing. When the Excelsior was awarded full operational status, the registry was changed from "NX-2000" to "NCC-2000".
The above is paraphrased from the "Star Trek Encyclopedia" by Michael Okuda, Denise Okuda and Debbie Mirek.
Registry numbers in Star Trek, especially later, are notoriously inconsistant (see the Prometheus article for an especially egregious example), and no "system" for how starships are registered that his been mentioned on screen. It's generally thought that ships get their registries in the order they're commissioned, but without confirmation, even that's speculation. However, there are at least three constants regarding Starfleet registries:
The prefix NCC represent a registered starship, while NX represents starships generally considered prototypes. The NX series seen in Enterprise is an exception (the familiar arrangement perhaps adopted later in Starfleet history) and, in theory, most ships labeled NX are eventually changed over to NCC when they enter active service, as per the USS Excelsior (the DS9 Defiant being a notable exception).
With the exception of the Enterprise, no two ships carry the same registry number, even those that carry the name of a predeccessor. As far as I can tell, they don't even carry part of the old registry of their predecessor.
In relation to number 2, the Enterprise is the only ship that carries a letter suffix after its registry (the Yamato being a noted mistake in that regard). The in-universe reason for the Enterprise being the only Federation starship with this distinction is sketchy at best. I have also noted that the Enterprise is the only ship in with the registry number combination "1701," which leads me to believe that registry numbers that end in that combination (i.e. 21701, 61701, etc) are held off for the Enterprise.
So generally speaking, as far as "canon" is concerned, only the Enterprise is given the the distinction of carrying the same registry number as her Constitution-class predecessor (with appropriate suffix), while everyone else is given a brand spanking new registry. As far as the second DS9 Defiant, outside of obvious stock footage, I see no reason why that Defiant would not carry the registry NCC-75633. True, Sisko was given dispensation to rename the ship from Sao Paulo; I don't recall him getting permission to change the registry (and cause a major administrative headache in the process).
USS Defiant - NCC 1764 (Constitution Class) did not carry over it's registry to the USS Defiant - NCC 75633 (Defiant Class) ship. This is repeatedly present in numerous future starship registries where two ships carried the same name.
I'm not writing a report so I'm honestly not going to bother with super specific "work cited" stuff. Those were always the thing I hated doing the most in my classes...
And we all already know what NX means. Why make THAT the discussion? :rolleyes:
Usually the first ship of a class had NX (sometimes in soft canon that would be changed to NCC once it stopped being considered experimental which would make sense since we see other first ships us NCC). Yes, the first ship is often the experimental one. :P
You see it on ships like the Defiant and Prometheus. Blablabla... sources not cited (oh noes!).
Now that we all agree on that lets get back to the Defiant. I think in game it should be "A". At the highest "B" if the second Defiant of the Defiant-class was destroyed.
Usually I'm all for canon but I like pretending the second Defiant was registered properly since it was just an expense thing...
Usually the first ship of a class had NX (sometimes in soft canon that would be changed to NCC once it stopped being considered experimental which would make sense since we see other first ships us NCC). Yes, the first ship is often the experimental one. :P
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 ). 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).
Now that we all agree on that lets get back to the Defiant. I think in game it should be "A". At the highest "B" if the second Defiant of the Defiant-class was destroyed.
I think the registries in game are pretty screwed as well. The USS Kirk, at least according to the STO Wiki, is said to have the registry of NCC-2000-D. Personally, given the precedence in the series, any ship with a number-letter suffix combination like this should be named after the ship that originally carried it - in this case, the old Excelsior. Probably nitpicking on my part, but there it is.
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 ). 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
-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
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).
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.
It still perplexes me how, in universe at least, the Enterprise earned the distinction of being the only Federation starship to have suffixes added to its registry, in addition to becoming "the flagship of the fleet." Other starships undoubtedly had equally distinguishing careers as the Enterprise; after all, you don't name a ship after one with a bad recond (usually). What was it that made the Enterprise "special?" Real world reason was, of course, "Beacuse Gene Roddenberry said so."
As for your photoshop, Parallax, I'd go for the NCC-75633.
Something occured to me when I logged off last night about the Sao Paulo/Defiant-A, and I'd have to watch "The Dogs of War" and "What You Leave Behind" again to be sure. However, I don't recall the crew ever referring to the ship as as either the Sao Paulo or Defiant in dialogue after her introduction, despite the fact the Sisko was given permission to rename the ship. As I said, I'll have to watch the last two eps of DS9 to confirm my suspicions.
Comments
so no prefix A or any other letter.
just copy paste from old Defiant
Althought the plaque of the USS Sao Paulo gives NCC-75633 as the registry the NX-74205 is still there on external shots due to cost concerns. When they switched to CG they used the same stuff so it wouldn't change.
Ron Moore has stated that the new ship was the Defiant-A but because of the cost it didn't happen but he considers the new ship to be "A".
So at STO we're at C. Your idea means ignoring the A for the second one (which isn't canon strictly for cost reasons though the creators wanted it to be and consider it to be).
If we do that (which is reasonable but I prefer to think of the second one as A) then in the 30 years the second letterless one along with the A and B were destroyed. That's 3!
Maybe they skipped a few letters to remember the second letterless one and the connie... But that's unprovable in any way.
The Defiant in TOS was a constitution class ship. The Defiant in DS9 was a defiant class ship.
The Prometheus in DS9 was a nebula class ship. The Prometheus in VOY was a prometheus class ship.
Ron Moore was right. It should have been Defiant-A.
If I'm wrong, I'll gladly reform my thinking to what's canon.
and
"Okay so in DS9 the Defiant has the Registration of NX-74205. NX meaning it's the first of it's class. Then it's regular registration."
Do not cite wikipages as your source, not even memory alpha, I want cold hard proof.
As for NX prefix, it wasn't given to the first ship of that class, but was sometimes given to experimental vessels, such as the USS Excelsior during early testing. When the Excelsior was awarded full operational status, the registry was changed from "NX-2000" to "NCC-2000".
The above is paraphrased from the "Star Trek Encyclopedia" by Michael Okuda, Denise Okuda and Debbie Mirek.
So generally speaking, as far as "canon" is concerned, only the Enterprise is given the the distinction of carrying the same registry number as her Constitution-class predecessor (with appropriate suffix), while everyone else is given a brand spanking new registry. As far as the second DS9 Defiant, outside of obvious stock footage, I see no reason why that Defiant would not carry the registry NCC-75633. True, Sisko was given dispensation to rename the ship from Sao Paulo; I don't recall him getting permission to change the registry (and cause a major administrative headache in the process).
USS Defiant - NCC 1764 (Constitution Class) did not carry over it's registry to the USS Defiant - NCC 75633 (Defiant Class) ship. This is repeatedly present in numerous future starship registries where two ships carried the same name.
And we all already know what NX means. Why make THAT the discussion? :rolleyes:
Usually the first ship of a class had NX (sometimes in soft canon that would be changed to NCC once it stopped being considered experimental which would make sense since we see other first ships us NCC). Yes, the first ship is often the experimental one. :P
You see it on ships like the Defiant and Prometheus. Blablabla... sources not cited (oh noes!).
Now that we all agree on that lets get back to the Defiant. I think in game it should be "A". At the highest "B" if the second Defiant of the Defiant-class was destroyed.
Usually I'm all for canon but I like pretending the second Defiant was registered properly since it was just an expense thing...
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
I think the registries in game are pretty screwed as well. The USS Kirk, at least according to the STO Wiki, is said to have the registry of NCC-2000-D. Personally, given the precedence in the series, any ship with a number-letter suffix combination like this should be named after the ship that originally carried it - in this case, the old Excelsior. Probably nitpicking on my part, but there it is.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
-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
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.
:rolleyes:
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.
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.
It still perplexes me how, in universe at least, the Enterprise earned the distinction of being the only Federation starship to have suffixes added to its registry, in addition to becoming "the flagship of the fleet." Other starships undoubtedly had equally distinguishing careers as the Enterprise; after all, you don't name a ship after one with a bad recond (usually). What was it that made the Enterprise "special?" Real world reason was, of course, "Beacuse Gene Roddenberry said so."
As for your photoshop, Parallax, I'd go for the NCC-75633.