And yet, as this video proves, the theory of a straightforward progression doesnt hold and is incorrect!

Unfortunately, there is absolutely nothing to indicate that any of that is true!

Then Google is wrong, using Beta Canon, like I said in the video to explain something that Canon has yet to explain! So your google search is meaningless!

Yeahhhhhh.... That's not how it works at all!

Thank you! And actually the Roman Numeral was added to the name, not the Reg Numbers! IE The Intrepid II

Seems you missed the entire point of the video! Its not about tactics, its about whether there is some pattern to the numbering!

​@@TriAngulumAudioStudios that is the pattern. That there is no pattern. I understand what the video is about. But we can fall back to navy logic thanks to Roddenberry and his influence on the show. There is no pattern because we used to number our tanks in order of creation. That let the Germans know how many tanks we had so they knew what they needed to counter.

No you clearly didnt, as the lack of pattern does not = a pattern. That's called Random, the absence of a pattern 🙄 And Roddenberry's Influence over Trek ended LONG ago, way before so many Reg Numbers were made!

@TriAngulumAudioStudios then I will sit back and wait for you to tell me why the registry numbers never match and are always random. It has nothing to do with the fact that starfleet was based around American naval vessels. It has no ties to or eludes to naval battles. Specially submarine combat. We didn't see the following series hold on to that theme long after Rodenberry lost influence. Nothing I've said hasn't been spoken of by creators throughout the years at all. I think in your effort to argue with me you missed the point of your video. You asked. I answered. You got your pattern.

Once again, the absence of a pattern is NOT a pattern Lol And the reason for a Random set of numbers is meaningless here as the WHOLE POINT OF THE VIDEO which you missed, is what PATTERN there could be, and what these specific numbers mean to the vessels! Im future please pay better attention and try opening your ears! It will save you from embarrassment! (THREAD CLOSED- No further comments will appear to prevent OP from continuing an non related argument that is just nonsense)

Again incorrect as the video already proves!

Then you thought wrong! :P

I thought the Constitution Class was the 17th model and I thought the Constitution was 00 and the Enterprise was 01.

Nope, as the video explains, you are incorrect!

You and me both! LOL

LOL amen!

Sorry, but that theory doesn't work at all!

The whole point of Trek is to male us think and TRY to figure things out though! And thank you very much 😁

Yes, you are incorrect! Vulcan, El Aurian, Yridian all have their own version of Registry numbers, and that's just naming a few! Even the Klingons, Romulans and Cardassians all have Reg Numbers!

@@TriAngulumAudioStudios I can understand fed members but I've never seen any Klingon romulan or cardassian registry numbers on screen or referenced on screen by the main cast members.

They are referenced many times on screen on various panel readouts from TNG on!

@@TriAngulumAudioStudios which episodes?

There are countless episodes but you can start with DS9's "Image in the Sand" and TNG's "The Wounded" Registry numbers for ships like the Klingon IKS Fek'lhr (454435), Romulan warbird Tomal (19386), and a Cardassian warship (324384950). So again, you're incorrect... And in future, if you don't want to actually be proven wrong, don't comment... Im not here to lie to you you know, and your comment suggested an open mind, when in actuality it was closed AF! Take care

First off, Registry Numbers do NOT form ranges, as this video, and simple research has proven... This comment is a clear example of the lack of factual basis for some Trek fans comments, seeing only what they WANT to believe... Second of all, in Trek, It's Entente (Ohn-Tahnt-Tay")NOT ("Ohn-Tahnt") in Trek as is clearly heard in Star Trek: The Motion Picture. Again simple research would have saved you endless hours of pet peeve dwelling! Your assumption, that it is "a name of French origins, referring to the Entente Cordial" is therefore incorrect, and certainly not substantiated in Canon or Beta Canon... In other words, your assumptions are not facts... In future please do better research!

well, that's...alright then.... the Trek registry numbers do generally fall into a range more often than not; often enough to it seem tantalizing that there might be some way to perfectly explain them, even though really there isn't. production and art designers like Mike Okuda tried to make it consistent, but there are enough outliers that i do ultimately agree with your point that it doesn't matter. but if your going to see a ship in the Disco season one era it's probably NCC-12xx of NCC-14xx, or a ship that was launched in the TNG era its going to be NCC-71xxx or higher, or a Miranda seen in the TNG era is NCC-31xxx. there are outliers (Discovery herself being an outlier, NCC-1031 just because Bryan Fuller loved Halloween so much). More often than not, but it really doesn't matter. that was what i was trying to say, i'm sorry if i didn't make that clear. I was more lamenting the jump to the 70,000s by the TNG era, i don't particularly like five digit registry numbers. and sure, in the indistinct comms chatter in ST:TMP some voice says "USS Entente" and even though it is spelled the same in Federation Standard as the French word for 'understanding' and the name of own of the major alliances of a historical Earth conflict, maybe the dreadnought is actually named for the Arcturian Megadonkey who once saved Starbase 47 from a cheese-based plague who pronounced it "In-Tent-Ay" and so the dreadnought proudly pronounces it the same way. maybe that was the intent for Entente? :) or maybe some voice artist just mispronounced it? Shatner infamously pronounced the piratical aliens "Oar-Ee-Ans" in the TAS episode "Pirates of Orion." maybe they were some splinter faction? has Lower Decks made a joke about that? your videos are a lot of fun, but maybe you should take your own advice and take things with a little bit of stardust.

No worries, Im not upset or angry, merely pointing out your mistakes... It is a false and defensive reaction to project emotions on to someone elses comment, the same type of incorrect assumption you made about the Entente... I take all my Trek work with a grain of stardust, but that doesnt mean Im going to allow someone to trickle nonsense, or use assumptions as fact! In future you might want to consider that and do actual research, before commenting! Take care!

You and me both!