test content
Logo
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc
Is "F" the right registry suffix for Leeta's Mirror Enterprise?
xastirx
Member Posts: 71 Arc User
Anyway, i got to thinking, when using the badlands battlezone to kill a few birds with one blast of buckshot.
With all the alpha canon that DS9 adds about the mirror universe, I am no longer certain that the suffix "F" is correct for Admiral Leeta's Mirror Enterprise.
I mean, we know that after his encounter with Prime Timeline Kirk, Mirror Spock went on a campaign to demiliterize the Terran Empire. Thing is, no specific year is given.
So there is no way to know for certain if ISS Enterprise A, B, C, D, or E ever existed in that timeline. However, we can eliminate D and E from the mix since during the first encounter with the MU on DS9, Prime Enterprise D was still in service. And by this point the Empire was no more.
We also know from Enterprise episode Mirror Darkly, that the counterpart ships rarely ever have their respective events coincide with each other even though all 23rd century trek (discovery and TOS) would have us think they do. Consider how in that era, the Buran was at priors world in both universes and they were both destroyed a short time apart from each other. And the 1701 was at the same planet in both universes at the same time.
Also, even if Enterprises A B and C existed there is no guarantee that B and C were the same classes as the prime timeline. Remember, they got the Connie design about 100 years early.
Since the process of their own ship evolution was essentially stolen from them, they never got to discover the design on their own.
No guarantee they would though since it seems that things that do coincide in both universes was because of coinciding people. Meaning that the mirror connie would never have been developed naturally if the person who would have designed it were to TRIBBLE off the Emperor and be killed before making that contribution to starfleet.
Also, once you got into the discovery era ships, you could say that they only existed because they had the Defiant database that would have had the specs of all ships made between the eras of ENT and TOS, and so all those coinciding ship designs existed for that reason.
And you could also say that because the Defiant was lost AFTER Discovery disappeared and all her data was classfied at the highest levels and was removed from local starship databases, that would explain why ISS Discovery had no spore drive technology. Yes they had that Mycelial Reactor but that was an original design by mirror stamets.
Anyway, short version: I don't think Admiral Leeta's Enterprise should be designated "F" since there is definite proof in alpha canon that the enterprise D and E never were built. And it is likely that depending on when the Empire was de-militerized, there might not have been an enterprise B or C either. So if anything, Leeta's Odyssey class Enterprise should most likely have the registry of B or C.
The only way it could potentially work is if after the Empire got started again, they picked up where they left off. which for enterprise registries would not make sense. Since this would be a new starfleet made from scratch with stolen Federation design plans. But lets assume they used the old fleet records to start where they left off where ship registry numbers were concerned to create the illusion that they never went away completely.
They would have to construct and lose 4 ships named Enterprise from the end of DS9 and the start of STO.
With all the alpha canon that DS9 adds about the mirror universe, I am no longer certain that the suffix "F" is correct for Admiral Leeta's Mirror Enterprise.
I mean, we know that after his encounter with Prime Timeline Kirk, Mirror Spock went on a campaign to demiliterize the Terran Empire. Thing is, no specific year is given.
So there is no way to know for certain if ISS Enterprise A, B, C, D, or E ever existed in that timeline. However, we can eliminate D and E from the mix since during the first encounter with the MU on DS9, Prime Enterprise D was still in service. And by this point the Empire was no more.
We also know from Enterprise episode Mirror Darkly, that the counterpart ships rarely ever have their respective events coincide with each other even though all 23rd century trek (discovery and TOS) would have us think they do. Consider how in that era, the Buran was at priors world in both universes and they were both destroyed a short time apart from each other. And the 1701 was at the same planet in both universes at the same time.
Also, even if Enterprises A B and C existed there is no guarantee that B and C were the same classes as the prime timeline. Remember, they got the Connie design about 100 years early.
Since the process of their own ship evolution was essentially stolen from them, they never got to discover the design on their own.
No guarantee they would though since it seems that things that do coincide in both universes was because of coinciding people. Meaning that the mirror connie would never have been developed naturally if the person who would have designed it were to TRIBBLE off the Emperor and be killed before making that contribution to starfleet.
Also, once you got into the discovery era ships, you could say that they only existed because they had the Defiant database that would have had the specs of all ships made between the eras of ENT and TOS, and so all those coinciding ship designs existed for that reason.
And you could also say that because the Defiant was lost AFTER Discovery disappeared and all her data was classfied at the highest levels and was removed from local starship databases, that would explain why ISS Discovery had no spore drive technology. Yes they had that Mycelial Reactor but that was an original design by mirror stamets.
Anyway, short version: I don't think Admiral Leeta's Enterprise should be designated "F" since there is definite proof in alpha canon that the enterprise D and E never were built. And it is likely that depending on when the Empire was de-militerized, there might not have been an enterprise B or C either. So if anything, Leeta's Odyssey class Enterprise should most likely have the registry of B or C.
The only way it could potentially work is if after the Empire got started again, they picked up where they left off. which for enterprise registries would not make sense. Since this would be a new starfleet made from scratch with stolen Federation design plans. But lets assume they used the old fleet records to start where they left off where ship registry numbers were concerned to create the illusion that they never went away completely.
They would have to construct and lose 4 ships named Enterprise from the end of DS9 and the start of STO.
Post edited by baddmoonrizin on
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Such as making it seem as though starfleet has fewer ships than they really do which is why most ships of the Akira, Sabre, and other lines have 5-digit registries in the 60k's where as the USS Galaxy herself, a ship from about 15 years earlier has a registry of NX-70637. Also, before that tactic was used, the Defiant, the first of starfleets warship family, has a number of 74205 and Voyager which was built about 6 months later was 74656. Also dispensation has also been given to some captains to take a registry that has some significance to the captain in question, such as a loved one's birth day or anniversary. As for the numbers being a war time tactic, its sort of a reverse form of the Maquis tactic of making it seem that they have more ships than they really did by altering their warp signature every time they came back from a raid. Starfleet does the reverse with its registries to make it seem as though their warships are older than their peacetime vessels. This might lead enemy empires to underestimate starfleet's warships. That is until an Akira with a registry that indicates she is older than the galaxy class unleashes a death salvo of dozens of quantum torpedoes in all directions.
A great example is the USS Defiant. The second Defiant class one. She had the same number as the original. NX-74205, instead of NCC-74205-A or whatever would have been the next sequential number, or even keeping the Sao Paulo's original number. This is a perfect example of writers doing what they want and making an in universe excuse. In this instance, they used the original number because they did not want to make all new combat footage for the battle of cardassia. They wanted to reuse as much as possible. Because of that, said footage has that original number. So, to avoid the backlash from the nerdier fans who would notice that the ship's number changed between shots, they gave the explanation that to put the troops minds at ease at hearing the "rumors" of the Defiant's destruction, they gave the new Defiant the old ship's number verbatim. This was so that those who saw her in the fleet would think that the Defiant was either never destroyed in the second battle of Chin'Toka, or that she was disabled and recovered.
Refarding the NCC numbers - I think it's on record that they are completely random. Many theories, but ultimately just random. Some numbers have a real life meaning/tribute, others are just rolled dice.
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
The best interpretation you could imagine is that some names while reused, are not given a -A because they aren't accomplished/celebrated enough to get it, and/or perhaps because their name is being reused but for a ship of a different role. For example, a hypothetical USS Voyager NCC 84 transport ship isn't going to get the recognition of its lineage carried into the NCC 74656. They would also be totally different roles, unlike the Enterprises, and/or the original never earned any status to be carried forward.
IRL, there are 3 carriers in the US Navy named Enterprise, CV 6, CVN 65, and the yet to be built CVN 80 while the numbering is all one continuous line from CV-1 the USS Langley. Of course, the US Navy does not do the -A thing, but Starfleet could continue the reuse practice the USN does and only do -A for accomplished ships.
That can explain the Defiant where we know 3 canon Starfleet ships with that name, but no -A (Granted that decision for the Sao Paulo was for budget issues with the CGI, and it should have been Defiant -A.) The first known Defiant was lost to the mirror universe, so it doesn't have much of a heritage to continue on. Thus when the DS9 Defiant is seen, there's no storied history to continue (and of course Enterprise filmed after DS9.)
PWE ARC Drone says: "Your STO forum community as you have known it is ended...Display names are irrelevant...Any further sense of community is irrelevant...Resistance is futile...You will be assimilated..."
There is no canon explanation on what NCC stands for in the registry. There's a lot of differing opinions and even a lot of fan theories, but for my part... its just a unique ID number associated with that particular ship. So if you see on a tactical display NCC-1701, you know that 1701 is Enterprise.
All we really do know is that NCC is generally for production models, NX is for experimentals (usually class prototypes), NAR... not a clue...
Anyway, this whole thing was just a random thought i had that i thought might spark some debate among trek fans. Not, REGISTRY NUMBERS ARE LIKE POINTS ON WHOSE LINE IS IT ANYWAY!!!! THEY DON'T MATTER!
Anyway, the reason i think that they do, sometimes anyway, is that depending on who is writing what, it seems at times as though they do try to make them go sequentially. Take for example when ships of a prominent class are shown.
And before someone mentiones that Connie with a 16xx registry, that number was given by the vulcan science academy when they acquired the ship from starfleet for their own use.
We know the galaxy was first of her class and had the number of 70637. Most galaxy class ships have registries that have 70xxx or 71xxx numbers. Most ships of the Defiant and Intrepid classes have numbers in the 74,000's. The Titan even, which was commissioned later on enough that starfleet could have reasonably built 6000 or so more ships had a number of 80102 with the Luna herself being likely 80101 or 80100 with 80101 being some random other ship that started construction between the times of the Luna and Titan.
Are you gonna tell her she can't?
Oh I've done that a few times already... with a Quantum Torpedo.
TOS S2 - "The Doomsday Machine" U.S.S. Constellation (Starship/Constitution Class) NCC-1017 - and yes, everyone knows the production reason for that - it was an 'off the shelf' AMT model kit and had limited numbering options and with TV resolution what it was in 1968 - they were concerned that had they done 1710 - some viewers might confuse it for the 1701 Enterprise) - but yeah, IN UNIVERSE 1017 is a canon registry number for a Starship/Constitution Class ship; so that blows the different starting sequences explanation out the airlock.
PWE ARC Drone says: "Your STO forum community as you have known it is ended...Display names are irrelevant...Any further sense of community is irrelevant...Resistance is futile...You will be assimilated..."
Meanwhile the Enterprise was Spock's ship, and unlike our Spock the goatee'd version is widely credited with ruining everything for the Empire.
But that's neither here nor there as far as the game's concerned and I'm willing to accept that. Leeta commands the ISS Enterprise F because it's the counterpart to Shon's USS Enterprise F, simple as that.
Admiral Dananra Lekall - R.R.W. Teverresh, Deihu-class Warbird
General J'Kar son of K'tsulan - I.K.S. Dlahath, Vo'devwl-class Carrier
Between what you were saying, and how someone else referred to how Georgiou said that the Shenzhou was already old when Burnham came aboard for the first time, there is also something else to consider. Well two things. Discovery and Glenn might not have been "newer" than the 1701 Enterprise. Discovery and Glenn were refit and rebuilt around Stamets and Strall's new drive technology. It's possible that Discoery is even older than the Shenzhou, or construction into the initial look of the Crossfield class started before the Shenzhou, but the latter being a much smaller ship, left dry dock first. Another thing, it is established canon that before pike commanded the Enterprise, she was commanded by Robert April for her first stab at being away from port for 5 years. We also do not know for certain how long Pike had been in command by the time he commanded the Discovery. Assuming that Pike had been in command for just over than 1 year by Discovery S2, that means that by the klingon war's start(the one that T'Kuvma started) the Enterprise had already changed hands and was already 6 years old. We know the Defiant (NCC-1764) was already in service.
Now before someone says something about those prisoners remarks about how the Discovery just rolled off the assembly line, there was not even any scratches on the shuttle bay's deck plates. Like I said before, Discovery and Glenn were refitted and completely rebuilt to accomodate the spore drive technology. Starfleet usually wont commission an entire new class of ship that will test some new technology unless it is absolutely needed. The Excelsior is an obvious exception, that can be explained in universe as starfleet was already looking to replace the aging constitution with a ship that did not have her flaws and the boys at the Academy likely approached the SCE with their theories on transwarp drive and SCE likely thought: this might work. With the spore drive, i do not believe starfleet put as much stock in a tech that sounds as "magical" as it did given that the idea was that such tech would, outside a war application of being able to teleport around enemies and basically instant transmission itself to any hotspot, but outside of war could be used to teleport an entire ship to even the most distant galaxy in an instant, likely said, here, we cant build 2 new ships for this from scratch right now, lets just refit and repurpose these two vessels.
As for ships that have registries that make them look older than ships that came before them, as the Akira's number in the stricted sense would indicate the USS galaxy was the 10,000th ship to be built after it, it really boils down to who is writing what and their OCD with detail. The ones who wrote everything pertaining to the Galaxy class, Defiant Class and Intrepid Classes were obviously very OCD about it to the point that no Galaxy class ship has a registry that precedes 70637. Ships with legacy registries don't count in that assertion btw. Now take the Yamato for example. First appearance, Riker read off her hull number as 1305-E. But in Contagion, when the yamato was destroyed, multiple computer displays read her registry as NCC-71807. The Challenger is NCC-71099 (oddly enough that number first appeared in a shatner novel, then it appeared on screen when La Forge was her captain. You can kinda make it out in one of the shots, so it is Alpha Canon). and the Venture is 71854.This is an indicator that most of the Galaxy class starships that were launched in the 2360's were all beginning construction right around the same time.
Then there is the Defiant class. The Defiant started with 74205. The valiant was 74210. And the Sao Paulo was 75663(before becoming the new defiant.)
And with the Intrepid, you got the Intrepid 74600, Voyager 74656. Sadly we never see the Bellerophon's registry on screen, however since it was put in the show by the same ship writers that think that all the warships that came after Defiant had 60K's registries, it probably fell victim to that since they didnt typically let writers from one show work on the others when they were running at the same time.
So short version, where it pertains to the prime timeline, registries seem to matter 50% of the time, when the more Detail OCD ship artists are working on a line of ships and not matter the other 50% when the people doing the writing are all "lets draw numbers from a fish bowl and go with what comes out".
But as it pertains specifically to the title of this thread, if the Mirror Enterprise is as important to their story as the Prime Timeline Enterprise is to its timeline, is it really the ISS Enterprise F if there was no uh, Scotty help me out here.
Scotty: "no bloody A....B....C...D....or-r-r E."