Talk:USS Prometheus (Prometheus class)
From Memory Alpha, the free Star Trek reference.
Contents |
[edit] Romulan mission...
"The Prometheus was hijacked by Romulan agents working for the Tal Shiar."
Really? Aside from the Captain, no one seemed to know that they were headed for the Tal Shiar. There orders were to fly elsewhere. Perhaps the captain betrayed those orders. Redge 01:10, 25 Apr 2004 (CEST)
[edit] Prometheus in "Endgame"
For that matter, is there any proof that the Prometheus-class vessel seen in "Endgame" was the Prometheus herself? Undoubtedly after the successful field test in MiaB, others would have been built?? - MiChaos 01:21, 18 Nov 2004 (CET).
- I believe that, when queried on a message board (perhaps TrekBBS) that the 3D modelers admitted they had left most of the ships with unchanged registry numbers in "Endgame," meaning the model read its original registry and name.
- The Prometheus-class model was still labeled USS Prometheus from "MiaB," the Galaxy-class model was USS Challenger from "Timeless", the Nebula-class was probably the USS Bonchune (also from MiaB). -- Captain Mike K. Bartel
[edit] Registry
I think we should use the NX-74913 registry for the Prometheus. After all, the other registry, though clearly visibly, was just an FX error. – The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.178.60.233 (talk).
- I agree. The higher number is much more consistent with the number pattern (especially since the lower number is even lower than the one for the Nebula-class Prometheus). Yes, the lower one is just one of those goofs to be swept under the rug like Data's "class of '78" line. – The preceding unsigned comment was added by T smitts (talk • contribs) .
- It could also be that the experimental project had taken a really, really long time to go from concept to prototype. – The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.221.81.98 (talk).
- I was asked about this on one of the Melbourne pages but chose to answer here. I have not seen this episode (yeah, I'm sure that's a sin) but what I gather is that the ship was first seen with one number on its hull then later with another. Unless that's mistaken there's no real issue here. There is nothing in canon that states a ship's registry cannot be changed. USS Enterprise-A was both renamed and renumbered. Likely USS Enterprise-E as well. And it shouldn't be surprising that the interior references were changed before the exterior. The crew doesn't see the hull every day. If you want speculation as why two different NX numbers were on the hull, try this. First number belonged to a project that flat-lined. New project came along, merged with the old project to re-use the hull, gave the ship a new number. Didn't bother repainting the hull right away. (Who does that anyway? A spacedock? The newbie crew with cans of Space-o-Leum?) Speculation but so is a really long development time or that Starfleet gave it the wrong number or that registry numbers are inherently sequential. --StarFire209 18:25, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Launch date
According to the USS Prometheus dedication plaque, the ship was launched in 2373 (stardate 50749.5), not 2374.--Amtom 16:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
- Stardates are not something we can go on to pinpoint a date, even a year. I think the year of 2374 was figured in using dialogue from the episode (don't quote me on that). --From Andoria with Love 16:54, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Speed
According to The Star Trek Encyclopedia, the USS Prometheus has a maximum speed of Warp 9.9 while the USS Voyager has a maximum speed of Warp 9.975 (see the listing for the Intrepid-class starship). Wouldn't this make Voyager (or any other Intrepid-class vessel) faster than the Prometheus? – The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.3.61.192 (talk).
- This is something that I see come up often. I think the idea is (unless it's a writers error), that while the speed is technically lower, the ship, and vessels of the class itself is able to maintain it's maximum speed for longer periods of time. For example, if Voyager could only hold that speed for 12 hours, then had to slow to say, warp seven for repairs, compared to the Prometheus going 9.9 for 24 hours, it'd be faster then Voyager as it's able to keep it's max speed going for longer. Make any sense? --Terran Officer 17:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
- Not really - "the fastest" to me means that there's no other ship with a higher top speed than this, no matter how long this top speed can be maintained. If both the speeds of Prometheus and Voyager as well as the term "fastest ship" really are canon, than this discrepancy might be something worth a background note - but surely not for a speculative explanation in a prominent place such as the first article paragraph (as it is right now). I'm removing the following two sentences from the article right now:
- "Voyager had a maximum speed of warp 9.975 but it could only sustain that speed for so long. The Prometheus however had a maximum cruise speed of warp 9, meaning in the long run it was the fastest ship in Starfleet."
- Feel free to re-add in form of a background note if necessary. -- Cid Highwind 17:56, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, Voyager can go faster but if it stays at a cruising speed of warp 9 it should also be able to go for much longer without having to make repairs. It sounds like a plausible theory but I might be wrong. It may not be able to keep a cruising speed of warp nine for longer than the Prometheus, but if it can, then Voyager is faster either way. That does make sense, right? – The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.56.235.151 (talk).