X-304?

[TrustNo1]

>.< That must have hurt :'(

[Eireann]

Then why the hell does the Daedalus have DAEDALUS-02 painted on it's body?



Shouldn't it be the DAEDALUS-01? According to you, it should be.


Try this:

They made the Daedalus with the resources obtained from that episode. Why would Colonel Edwards say "we need enough naquadah to manufacture 303s" if they were in fact using that naquadah in order to build a prototype 304?


The fact that there has never been any mention of a Project: Daedalus, X-304, or BC-304 pretty much sums it up.


That should read "Read closely" since we can't hear you through the computer.


Nothing wrong there.


You're right, they have followed naming conventions in the past. The X-301 project, which was cancelled. The X-302 project, which was rolled into the F-302 program. And the X-303 rolled into the BC-303 program.

Was the X-301 a battle cruiser? Nope.
Was the X-302 a battle cruiser? Nope.
Is the F-302 a battle cruiser? Nope.
Was the X-303 a battle cruiser? Yep.
Is the BC-303 a battle cruiser? Yep.

So if the 301 and 302 were NOT battle cruisers, what makes you think that the X-304 will be?


Ad hominem? Oh Sokar, how the mighty have fallen...

Well done Jarnin. I dont think anyone could even think about arguing against that.

[tony]

very intresting

[skritsys]

First rule about arguing with a Gatehead...DON'T!
Second rule about arguing with a Gatehead...DON'T!
Third rule about arguing with a Gatehead...see rules 1 and 2.

[alaskannut]

First rule about arguing with a Gatehead...DON'T!
Second rule about arguing with a Gatehead...DON'T!
Third rule about arguing with a Gatehead...see rules 1 and 2.

Gatehead?

[general ben]

Lord Sokar you are being a little closed minded about this i think that u should read back throught all the post about the deady and then u can see that it is possible that it is a BC-303 not a 304 cause i don't think the military would make a 304 without an experimental craft so i think that it is a 303. remember that the X-302 had a hyperdrive in it and then the F-302 didn't so i think that it is safe to say that u can make changes to the experimental design to improve upon it for the actually model that u are gonna build.

[skritsys]

Gatehead: an SG version of a Trekk(ie/er). (in layman's terms)

[Three PhDs]

Lord Sokar you are being a little closed minded about this i think that u should read back throught all the post about the deady and then u can see that it is possible that it is a BC-303 not a 304 cause i don't think the military would make a 304 without an experimental craft so i think that it is a 303. remember that the X-302 had a hyperdrive in it and then the F-302 didn't so i think that it is safe to say that u can make changes to the experimental design to improve upon it for the actually model that u are gonna build.

I always thought his argument was that it wasn't a 303, not that it was a 304.

[Lord §okar]

Then why the hell does the Daedalus have DAEDALUS-02 painted on it's body?
No doubt for the same reason USS Los Angeles has 688 painted on its sail (it's the lead ship, too). Got an explanation for "Daedalus class ship" yet?

They made the Daedalus with the resources obtained from that episode. Why would Colonel Edwards say "we need enough naquadah to manufacture 303s" if they were in fact using that naquadah in order to build a prototype 304?
Proably because they changed their minds. At the start of Moebius was meant to look exactly like X-303.

The fact that there has never been any mention of a Project: Daedalus, X-304, or BC-304 pretty much sums it up.
Oh yea, the fact we've never heard of it is more than enough evidence.

Was the X-301 a battle cruiser? Nope.
Was the X-302 a battle cruiser? Nope.
Is the F-302 a battle cruiser? Nope.
Was the X-303 a battle cruiser? Yep.
Is the BC-303 a battle cruiser? Yep.

So if the 301 and 302 were NOT battle cruisers, what makes you think that the X-304 will be?
Erm, because 303 was a battle cruiser and Daedalus came after 303. In much the same way that 302 was a fighter and 303 came after 302, and 301 was a fighter and 302 came after 301. What kind of argument is this?

Ad hominem? Oh Sokar, how the mighty have fallen...
Nope. There would have to be an attack for it to be an ad hominem. Calling the kettle black is not an insult.

Then again, I suppose there is actually a chance that he truthfully doesn't think application of common nomenclature rules is a good idea, in which case that could be interpreted as an attack. I never really considered the possibility as it's tough to concieve of someone like that.

Now, have you got any other points for me, one's that will take more than one line of typing to refute?

>.< That must have hurt :'(
You're quite the sycophant, aren't you?

Well done Jarnin. I dont think anyone could even think about arguing against that.
*refrains from comment*

You dont even make counter points to my points in my last post
Because they're identical to the one before it as if you didn't see my last post.

First rule about arguing with a Gatehead...DON'T!
Second rule about arguing with a Gatehead...DON'T!
Third rule about arguing with a Gatehead...see rules 1 and 2.
Hehehe:

You: Here's what I believe to be infallible proof refuting your claims.
Me: Your points are flawed for these reasons. My claim stands.
You: LORD SOKAR IS OBSTINANT AND CLOSE MINDED. HE WON'T LISTEN TO REASON!!@!11OMGghyyui7
me: Er, WTF?

I always thought his argument was that it wasn't a 303, not that it was a 304.
It's always been that it's certainly not the 303 and it's likely to be the 304.

Lord Sokar you are being a little closed minded about this i think that u should read back throught all the post about the deady and then u can see that it is possible that it is a BC-303 not a 304 cause i don't think the military would make a 304 without an experimental craft
Answered that already.

Well thanks, glad to see not all people on this forum are like lord sokar. I dont mind having a arquement but insulting me not fair.
Sorry, I thought you were deliberately obfuscating.

EDIT:
He had this same argument on sg1archive, he slowly left the thread there Prometheus was the prototype, Daedelus is the finished result.
Holy hell, you're on the archive! I do vaguely remember a thread about this there. Heh, I thought the argument was won, certainly the opposition couldn't muster anything above this level. I might reprise that thread, do you remember which one it was?

DOUBLE EDIT: No to worry, I've found it.

[walterIsTheMan]

Hehe I think it's time to add my two cents to this. First of all, I'm surprised this thread was not closed by a mod right away, as this topic has been beaten to death. Several months ago we had a huge debate over this. This was basically what I said at the time:

The problem is TPTB have not been consistent. They should use the registry system for the Navy or the Air Force, but make up their mind as to which to use. While the Air Force does use X for experimental and F for production model fighters, they do not name each craft. The class will have a name, but not each individual aircraft. For example, an F-18 is a Hornet. ALL F-18's are Hornets. They don't each have their own name. On that token, if indeed the Daedalus is a production model BC based on the Prometheus prototype, then it should also be called a Prometheus. All BC-303's should be Promtheus' just like all the F-18's are Hornets.

What TPTB should have done is switched to the Naval system for the Prometheus. Then it could still be the prototype for the Daedalus, despite the design changes, and they could both still have their own names. But then the registry numbers would have had to be changed. This would be analagous to the USS Enterprise (the real one). It was the prototype for the nuclear carriers, and was it's own class, Enterprise-class. All subsequent nuclear carriers had the refined design of the USS Nimitz and were Nimitz-class. So the Prommie could have been Prometheus-class, then all subsequent battlecruisers could be Daedalus-class vessels.

One possible answer to this whole debate is that TPTB is using the registy of the Air Force but naming individual ships. We know for a fact that Daedalus is a refined design of Prommie, as Carter says this in "Moebius". In the Air Force modified designs keep the registry of the prototype but are lettered. So the Daedalus is most likely a BC-303A. Future battlecruisers if designed the same as Daedalus will also be BC-303A's. Any significant design changes without a complete redesign will likely be BC-303B, C, and so on.

This still does not explain why Daedalus was marked as 02 however. It is possible that TPTB realized their inconsistency and reverted to the naval system. Daedalus being BC-02, and Odyssey being BC-03, both being Daedalus-class vessels. Hopefully that is the real solution, as the Naval system is much more practical in this situation.

If TPTB do continue to use the AF registry, then the X-304 will likely be a completely new vessel, not a redesign of an old one.

Hope that helps resolved the arguments in here.

[Lord §okar]

I assumed the system would be an amalgam of the naval and air force ones, it is, after all, a ship built by an air force.

What TPTB should have done is switched to the Naval system for the Prometheus. Then it could still be the prototype for the Daedalus, despite the design changes, and they could both still have their own names. But then the registry numbers would have had to be changed. This would be analagous to the USS Enterprise (the real one). It was the prototype for the nuclear carriers, and was it's own class, Enterprise-class. All subsequent nuclear carriers had the refined design of the USS Nimitz and were Nimitz-class. So the Prommie could have been Prometheus-class, then all subsequent battlecruisers could be Daedalus-class vessels.
That is exactly what has happened because we know that Daedalus is based on Prometheus but we also know that it's a class unto itself, led by Daedalus.

This does not explain why Daedalus was marked as 02. It is possible that TPTB realized their inconsistency and reverted to the naval system. Daedalus being BC-02, and Odyssey being BC-03. Hopefully that is the real solution, as the Naval system is much more practical in this situation.
Naval numbering scheme. SSN-688 isn't the 688th boat in the class, it's the first. I would imagine that X-303 would be something like USSS-01 and Daedalus is USSS-02.

[walterIsTheMan]

Naval numbering scheme. SSN-688 isn't the 688th boat in the class, it's the first. I would imagine that X-303 would be something like USSS-01 and Daedalus is USSS-02.

Actually SSN-688 is a ship, not a boat. And what you said is bascially what I meant. Daedalus is the first in the Daedalus-class even though its 02. Hopefully TPTB will establish what letters they are using now, BC, USSS, or something else.

[Lord §okar]

Actually SSN-688 is a ship, not a boat
No, it's a boat. SSN-688 is the USS Los Angeles (lead of the Los Angeles class), a submarine.

Hopefully TPTB will establish what letters they are using now, BC, USSS, or something else.
What they've done so far has been fully consistent with the Naval scheme, in a twisted sort of way (since ship 01 belongs to an Air Force class name). The registry number of the USSS (that designation's a bit of likely speculation but it can stand in lieu of the real on no troubles at all) Daedalus is 02, like the registry number of the USS Los Angeles is 688. Prometheus is the same, it's a 303 class ship, though.

[walterIsTheMan]

Actually SSN-688 is a ship, not a boat
No, it's a boat. SSN-688 is the USS Los Angeles (lead of the Los Angeles class), a submarine.

I know its a sub, and its a ship. "USS LOS ANGELES (SSN 688), the fourth naval ship" - http://www.csp.navy.mil/css1/688.htm

"Nuclear powered submarines and other large submarines are classed as ships, but are customarily referred to by their crews as "boats"". - Wikipedia: Submarine

Submarines are called boats by many people, but are technically ships.

[Lord §okar]

My bad, apologies.