Crewman Wolff?Edit

i couldn't get more than a glimpse but a crewwoman aboard had the last name Wolff. her personnel file was to the right of Edison's in the closing montage where their records were being closed -- Captain MKB 23:15, July 22, 2016 (UTC)

Inconsisties Edit

While it is possible for the ship to have been commissioned in Starfleet after it's formation it is inconceivable that the ship wouldn't at that time have been retro-fitted with up-to-date transporters and weapons as the Enterprise had photonic torpedoes BEFORE the Franklin was lost and using the transporter for living tissue had become commonplace by the end of Enterprise's run. In addition to this it should have an NCC Registry if it was no longer experimental. And the warp 4 ship would have been part of the Warp 5 project and would never have been launched as a standalone operating starship as per Enterprise. Finally what would be included in "starship" class? Would the NX class vessels also be Starship class despite being newer designs? The makers of Beyond screwed up with the Franklin and no amount of mental gymnastics make it work as shown. This is a fatal flaw in a franchise like Trek and it bugged me for the rest of the movie. The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk).

The USS Defiant retained an NX designation even after the first one was destroyed, so that argument doesn't really hold water. It's also possible the Federation was more concerned with keeping its newer vessels up-to-date, and the Franklin may have been close to being decommissioned when it disappeared.  CaptFredricks talkcontr 16:51, July 25, 2016 (UTC)
I'm just going to quietly leave this here. [1]. -- sulfur (talk) 17:03, July 25, 2016 (UTC)
Maybe Scotty was purposefully misrepresenting the transporters as less advanced to make his efforts seem more impressive. Wouldn't be the first time. -- 17:59, July 25, 2016 (UTC)
Ignore Starship-class - both the Prime and JJverse NCC-1701 have the same designation even though we all know they're *really* 'Constitution'-class. Catiline63 (talk) 19:45, July 25, 2016 (UTC)

The NX designation for Defiant, while in reality explained by not creating new VFX shots for the new ship, can be covered in universe by stating they intended to obtain a replacement cloaking device and thus keep the Defiant as an experimental ship, using one ship to prove the validity of your statement when going in the other direction you have the Excelsior which clearly moved from NX-2000 to NCC-2000 when the transwarp experiment failed. It is "possible" they weren't concerned with keeping an old ship up to date but that is a poor rationalization and not very likely, given that Edison was a military commander it is unlikely he would have settled for sub-standard armaments, being close to being decommissioned doesn't mean much given it should have had those newer systems for quite some time by that point. The starship class argument is fine for the two Constitution class ships but you can't shoehorn a clearly unrelated vessel into the same class for the sake of convenience. Scotty lying about the transporters does fit the engineers M.O. but the transporters being old technology fits everything else stated about the Franklin during the course of the film. The article linked is a poorly thought out summary of the arguments presented here but still doesn't hold water, why decommission Enterprise while keeping an old, out of date, experimental MACO ship in service, it makes so kind of in universe sense and that is just the creators attempting to poorly rationalize a bad creative decision. It would only have taken a little work to make everything fit without these inconsistencies, they simply didn't bother. Oh and keeping the NX registry to honor the ship makes no sense, if you can change things on a whim for reasons like that why have the NX and NCC designations to begin with. I like the 2009 movie, Into Darkness was annoying and I enjoyed Beyond except for this annoying issue, I don't make a habit of picking these films apart but this was so simple to get right.The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk).

It bothered me slightly (almost as much as having to periodically look away from the screen to refocus my eyes from the camera blurs of light and motion sickness), but seriously, this wiki exists as a reference, it seems they could have used it when they made up the backstory for that ship. --Alan (talk) 22:01, July 26, 2016 (UTC)
The long and the short of it is that this the Kelvin Timeline is NOT a branch off of Prime after all, but is in fact a near but not entirely parallel timeline.Mindfire (talk) 02:23, September 25, 2016 (UTC)

Crash survivors Edit

The article includes the line:

"...the ship crash-landed on the planet Altamid, with only Captain Edison and two other members of the Franklin crew surviving."

This would be speculation, since Kirk jumped to the last entry which was made an unknown amount of time after the crash of the ship on the surface. It is possible that more crew members survived the crash but later died either due to injuries or the natural hazards of the world.

--Sings-With-Spirits (talk) 20:20, July 24, 2016 (UTC)

More Inconsistencies Edit

If Edison was the Captain of the Franklin when it crashed, he would have knowledge of its existence/location despite Jaylah having it hidden within a cloaking field.

It would also seem that Edison was more concerned with the technology that he had found than the technology that he had brought with him. Surely if Jaylah could perform most of the repairs herself, then Edison and the survivor's of the Franklin's crew could have done it in less time and rescued themselves. They could have even used the mining drones to excavate the Franklin and probably even hoist it back into orbit- there were enough of them, to be sure.

-- 22:17, July 24, 2016 (UTC)

The cloaking field may have served more to hide the fact that there was activity in, on, and around the crashed ship. It's also possible that Edison A) forgot the location of the ship, B) felt that anything left on the ship was worthless, C) felt it might have been buried/destroyed by a landslide or other event, and D) was not qualified as an engineer of any sort.
Regarding the repairs, it is possible that neither Edison or any of the survivors were qualified engineers; they simply did not know how to make repairs. Jaylah spent years fixing up the ship and was clearly a better engineer than Edison ever was (or wasn't); she also had access to materials from other crashed ships; he (apparently) did not. Near the end, she also had two certified modern engineers (Scotty and Chekov 2.0) who dealt with this sort of technology when they were in grade school and may have had access to materials from the wreck of Enterprise. It helps that these two genius-grade engineers are certified Miracle Workerstm
--Sings-With-Spirits (talk) 23:28, July 24, 2016 (UTC)

USS Frank Lin?Edit

On the ship's dedication plaque there seems to be more of a space between the K and the L than there is between any of the other letters of the name, hence giving it the appearance of saying Frank Lin rather than Franklin. Considering the director is called Lin, might this be an in-joke? Catiline63 (talk) 23:16, July 24, 2016 (UTC)

The article mentions this:
"The USS Franklin is named after director Justin Lin's father, Frank Lin. [2]"
--Sings-With-Spirits (talk) 23:32, July 24, 2016 (UTC)
Either a joke or a screw up. Seeing the film I didn't get a good look at the hull to see what it said. I think the uniforms said Franklin, though. 31dot (talk) 19:44, July 25, 2016 (UTC)
According to trekcore, the odd-looking space between the "k" and the "l" was due to damage to the ship. Also, the vessel's hull does say "Franklin", and the name is intended to be pronounced that way as opposed to "Frank Lin" (the former is even the way Justin Lin himself pronounces it). Consequently, I'm guessing it was written "Franklin" in the script and that "Frank Lin" on the plaque was probably an unscripted set detail. I'm just speculating, though. Maybe we could create a redirect from "USS Frank Lin" to this page(?) --Defiant (talk) 20:20, July 25, 2016 (UTC)

Warp 4? Edit

It's established in ENT that the NX-01 and all following NX models have a standard warp 5 engine. Why is this one suddenly designated as "the first warp 4"? The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk).

Because it's older...? -- sulfur (talk) 11:53, July 26, 2016 (UTC)


Why would an earlier ship have a higher registry number? NX-326 would suggest that the ship was launched decades after the NX-01 and NX-02. Major blunder on the part of the makers of this film.Vern4760 (talk) 17:11, August 2, 2016 (UTC)

Um... not really. There's no evidence that ship registries are necessarily chronological. Also, how do we know the Franklin didn't simply receive a new registry in light of its service for the newly formed Federation? --Defiant (talk) 17:53, August 2, 2016 (UTC)
There are several possibilities, all speculative; as pointed out, it might be that the Franklin got a new registry; this could be either the "NX" part (assuming that all ships of the NX program had other registry prefixes and were consolidated as NX afterwards), or it could be the "326" part (assuming that the ship's original registry was NX-Upsilon or something like that).
Franklin may have been built as a Warp 2 or 3 ship, following the registry convention of those classes, so it might have been something like "DY-326", the 326th hull of the DY program, OR it might be that at the time the number was assigned, the numbers meant something, like "3" means "warp 3 or higher", "2" means "destroyer class", and "6" means "sixth hull of this class".
It should be pointed out that Franklin is "Starship Class" (based on the bridge plaque), same as the Constitution class, while NX-01 Enterprise is "Spacecraft Number NX-01", so clearly, the "NX" can be interpreted as having a different meaning.
Frankly, the registry numbers of early Starfleet make no linear sense; there should be no logical reason for the first Warp-4 ship to be NX-326, while the first Warp 5 ship is NX-01. There is also no logical reason to have a "0" starting off a four-digit number, but it does. Note also that there are obviously ships in starfleet that predate "NX-01", so it should not be that big of a deal.
--Sings-With-Spirits (talk) 20:22, August 2, 2016 (UTC)
I have been reading at TrekBBS, which means I have not confirmed it yet, that there is an another registry shown for the Franklin in the biographical file for Edison. It is a four digit number starting with 7. Maybe someone can confirm this - I do not intend to see the film again soon. I will be seeing Suicide Squad this week.--Memphis77 (talk) 20:32, August 2, 2016 (UTC)
As Defiant states, there is no canon evidence that registry numbers are assigned chronologically. They have tended to progress upwards, but it has never been consistent. Note the difference in numbers between the USS Constellation and USS Enterprise, ships of the same class. Registry numbers are all over the place for the US Navy, for example. Often it is due to the construction of some ships being cancelled after it was started(or not started at all). 31dot (talk) 00:21, August 3, 2016 (UTC)

Starship Class? Edit

Would it be wise to call the Franklin a Starship Class vessel? The USS Enterpirse's plaque says the same thing.

As does the dedication plaque of the Franklin, so yeah, it is wise. :) --Defiant (talk) 02:23, August 6, 2016 (UTC)
The term Starship class seems to be used somewhat loosely and could also possibly indicate the type of vessel and not just the specific design. Also, ship classes in the US navy vary over time as well. 31dot (talk) 10:09, August 6, 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps it would be more accurate to call it "Class: Starship (Franklin type)". After all, the plaque on the Enterprise says "Starship Class", but is clearly listed in the wiki as "Constitution Class".
--Sings-With-Spirits (talk) 19:03, August 6, 2016 (UTC)
1) That wouldn't be appropriate, as the Franklin's dedication plaque says "Starship class", not "Class: Starship". 2) It's "Franklin", not "Franklyn". --Defiant (talk) 21:03, August 6, 2016 (UTC)
Sorry; "Franklyn" was a typo. I meant: "Class: Starship (Franklin type)". The Enterprise's plaque says: "Starship Class" too, but is it canonically of the Constitution Class. While speculative, it is clear that "Starship Class" is a classification of vessel (i.e. Shuttle, System Ship, Spacecraft [NX-01 Enterprise, for example], or Starship), not the actual class of the ship (i.e. Constitution, Miranda, Oberth, or Galaxy).
--Sings-With-Spirits (talk) 00:49, August 7, 2016 (UTC)

Lost in 2164? Edit

What reference in the film pegs the Franklin's disappearance to 2164 specifically as opposed to merely "the early 2160s"? I must have missed it.--Side Rat (talk) 20:58, August 8, 2016 (UTC)

Registry number NCC-7317 Edit

The number NCC-7317 was added as a registry number, with the reason given that it was seen in a log. I don't recall that in the film(maybe when it is home released we can get an image) but the hull, wall panel that Jaylah showed Scotty, and dedication plaque all give NX-326 as the number and are seen much more clearly. I suggest we wait until we get an image of it before adding it, in order to better judge context. Though I concede registry numbers have never been said to be assigned consecutively, it seems unlikely that a ship would be given such a high number given the much lower ones future ships got(including, apparently, the Discovery which has NCC-1031. 31dot (talk) 07:00, August 16, 2016 (UTC)

In the scene, where Uhura and Kirk read the personnel files and the log of Captain Edison, you can clearly read the NCC-7317 on the right side of the computer display. This number I have noticed in the movies instantly I saw this scene. --Mark McWire (talk) 10:24, August 16, 2016 (UTC)

If it was his personnel file, couldn't it be another ship that he served on(listed in his file)? That's why I suggest waiting for an image of what you are talking about, to better judge it. The NX number is much more clearly seen in several places. If it had changed, the hull and wall panel Scotty saw would have reflected it. 31dot (talk) 22:04, August 16, 2016 (UTC)

With the USS Prometheus we already have a precedent for ship with two visible registries. I think that 7317 was the initially intended number, like the NX-74913 for the Prometheus. In honor of Nimoy they then changed the registration number to NX-326, but forgott to change the number in the personnel log / personnel file. --Mark McWire (talk) 10:42, August 17, 2016 (UTC)

If you have proof the 7317 number was an error and/or production intent was to use the NX number, we don't have to go with the one said to be an error. With the Prometheus the right hand didn't know what the left hand was doing and both appeared on screen, so it's not clear which one was an error. I'm satisfied with a background note for now at least until we get an image of the log- though again, if we know 7317 was an error, we don't have to use it. 31dot (talk) 10:57, August 17, 2016 (UTC)

I would also point out that from what few Google search results I've gone through no one else is using 7317. 31dot (talk) 11:04, August 17, 2016 (UTC)

btw - The Google results show at least that some viewers noticed in the film this number. So I am not the only one, which has 7317 noticed. On the other hand, the number seems far too high for a spaceship of his time. But even that is not true. See SS Mariposa with NAR-7678. --Mark McWire (talk) 14:45, August 17, 2016 (UTC)
You really can't use the Mariposa as an example in this context, since 1) we don't know a lot about the NAR registry numbering scheme, and 2) the NAR registries have no real bearing on the USS (or any other) registry numbers. -- Renegade54 (talk) 16:28, August 17, 2016 (UTC)
I think, NAR, NCC and NX use the same pool of Numbers. The SS Vico use NAR-18834 while another Oberth class USS Yosemite use NCC-19002. So my basic idea was, that the USS Vico was formerly a starfleet ship with NCC-18834 and relabeled to SS Vico NAR-18834 for civil use. The SS Tsiolkovski NCC-53911 wasn't relabeled for some reason. The sharing of numbers could explain (internal) the relativ high numbers of some ships in the 23. and 24. century and the number explosion between TOS and TNG. --Mark McWire (talk) 03:05, August 18, 2016 (UTC)


From what I see, we have in support of either number:

  • NX-326
  1. Appears on the hull
  2. Appears on the dedication plaque
  3. Appears on the wall Jaylah shows Scotty
  4. Production intent to honor Leonard Nimoy with the number
  • NCC-7317
  1. Appears in a personnel file in some context

Taking what Mark states to its logical conclusion, this ship should have Frank Lin as an additional name, since it appears in the film(on the plaque). That's not what was intended, with either the name or the number. 31dot (talk) 17:22, August 17, 2016 (UTC)

The last time I went to the see the film, this is one of the items I wanted confirmed. So, I was paying particular close attention to the personnel file. I did not see this NCC-7317. I saw USS Franklin NX-326. It was in the middle right of the file, next to a silhouette of the ship. I am with 31dot with waiting until the film is released for home viewing.--Memphis77 (talk) 18:29, August 17, 2016 (UTC)
Maybe I did not expressed myself good enough. English is not my first language. I meant the personal Captain's Log. While Edison speaks, you can see this ominous number. I consider it's a production error. However, I would mention them still as canonical, because of the issue of the USS Prometheus --Mark McWire (talk) 03:05, August 18, 2016 (UTC)
We now have a clear view of Edison's biography. [3] As can be seen in this photo, the only registry is NX-326. There is no NCC-7317. So, I removed the sentence about this alternate registry. (Unfortunately, for those who like reading graphics, this film is sadly lacking in readable graphics. This is a good example, most of the graphic is beyond the ability of being read.)--Memphis77 (talk) 23:47, October 1, 2016 (UTC)
Not biography but log file, who he speeking. --Mark McWire (talk)
NCC-7317 does not appear at all. It's completely made up. - Archduk3 20:52, October 28, 2016 (UTC)
In the cinema version of this movie, you could see the NCC-7317 relative clearly. I should have taken a picture ... --Mark McWire (talk) 20:22, October 29, 2016 (UTC)

As already stated, there are many possible explanations for what you say you saw. The home video release (in the US, at least) is next week(and it can already be streamed). If anyone has streamed the film, I'm sure they will weigh in(maybe Archduk?) 31dot (talk) 23:10, October 29, 2016 (UTC)

I've just watched through the personal logs that Kirk, Jaylah, Uhura, and Chekov watch after the Franklin ends up in a pong on the Yorktown... There's no readily visible number while he's talking that I can see. -- sulfur (talk) 23:52, October 29, 2016 (UTC)
Here are screenshots of the three major screens visible in that sequence. -- sulfur (talk) 00:15, October 30, 2016 (UTC)

The NCC-7317 was only visible in some early movie versions in cinema, who had accidently used original production material instead of reedited material. Some screens was made before the decision to change the registry in NX-326 in honor to Nimoy. -- 17:54, October 30, 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately, your memory is not documentation; you need to bring verifiable evidence of this number. Until it can be confirmed, it is hearsay. --Sings-With-Spirits (talk) 19:54, October 30, 2016 (UTC)

The decision to use 326 was not made that late, as it appears on set pieces. 31dot (talk) 00:06, October 31, 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I too remember seeing that NCC-7317 registry very clearly in the cinema. No pictures unfortunately. --ANdRu (talk) 23:44, December 28, 2016 (UTC)

As already stated, that is not sufficient. I have the film on Bluray and didn't see such a number. If you have a picture of it, I await seeing it. 31dot (talk) 23:55, December 28, 2016 (UTC)

I would further add that the patch now in this article and seen in the film also has NX-326. With all this overwhelming evidence of what the number was intended to be I'm puzzled as to why there are people still pushing a number allegedly barely seen in a graphic, without evidence. 31dot (talk) 23:57, December 28, 2016 (UTC)

Not pushing anything, because I'm not rooting for the alternate registry. Just adding weight to the notion that NCC-7317 was real and not imagined, and that it was taken out by the film makers because it was obviously mistaken. It's fun trivia. --ANdRu (talk) 04:13, December 29, 2016 (UTC)

There's no evidence of any mistake with the number(an admission by staff, passage in a book, etc) nor is there even evidence this number was seen, and in what context. 31dot (talk) 09:07, December 29, 2016 (UTC)

NX numbering Edit

So if the USS Franklin came before Enterprise NX-01, why does it have a higher number (NX-326)? 22:55, November 6, 2016 (UTC)

It has never been established in canon that starships are numbered consecutively.(See USS Constellation and compare to the Enterprise) Perhaps within the Star Trek universe, the number had some sort of meaning to those building or designing the ship. In reality, the number was chosen to honor Leonard Nimoy as it was his birthday(3/26). 31dot (talk) 00:35, November 7, 2016 (UTC)
Another possibility is that Franklin had a different designation, either in the "letters" part (DQ instead of NX, for example), or in the entire number, with the registry being changed with the reorganization that came with the Federation Starfleet. --Sings-With-Spirits (talk) 14:47, November 7, 2016 (UTC)
Earth's pre-federation registry system seems to have used class-number. So NX-01 was the first ship of the NX class, and presumably NW-07 would be the 7th commissioned in the NW class, etc. Federation Starfleet has a unified registry, with or NCC (or NX for experimentals), as prefix. Presumably the Franklin received NX-326 from Federation Starfleet, since she's clearly not an NX-class. --BellerophonM (talk) 10:09, June 23, 2017 (UTC)
None of that, though, is canon. I would add that speculating about why the number is the way it is isn't the role of this page. 31dot (talk) 10:27, June 23, 2017 (UTC)

Ad blocker interference detected!

Wikia is a free-to-use site that makes money from advertising. We have a modified experience for viewers using ad blockers

Wikia is not accessible if you’ve made further modifications. Remove the custom ad blocker rule(s) and the page will load as expected.