Romulan mission...Edit

"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)

Prometheus in "Endgame"Edit

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


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 (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 (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)

Launch date Edit

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)
The date was recently changed to 2373, presumably using similar reasoning to what was stated above.. Does anyone know what exactly the rationale was for the 2374 date?--31dot 20:42, March 17, 2010 (UTC)

Speed Edit

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 (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 (talk).
For what's it's worth, it was my understanding that Prometheus was capable of a maximum warp of 9.99. I believe that is what I heard when I first watched the episode and its been misheard or misread as warp 9.9 ever since. Satyrquaze 15:50, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
There are two statements here, the Doctor states that: "We're at warp 9.9 heading straight for Romulan space", then the EMH Mk II chimes in with: "This vessel was designed to go faster than anything in the fleet so we'll never be rescued." At no point is it mentioned that warp 9.9 is the top speed of the Prometheus, only that it is the current speed she is traveling at. I believe we're inferring that warp 9.9 is the top speed of the ship because of what the second EMH is saying in relation to the Doctor. For example: I could easily say that my car is currently traveling at 100 mph, then my passenger replies that this car is designed to go faster than any other car before it, however the top speed of the vehicle is actually 155 mph. It is that last part of information that is being left out, no one in the episode mentions what the actual top speed of the Prometheus is. -- Amasov 06:09, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Prometheus II Edit

Is it not worth mentioning that the Prometheus-class USS Prometheus was at least the second starship to bear the name? Satyrquaze 16:18, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Why was it at least the second? Where's the first? -- sulfur 16:31, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

The Nebula-class USS Prometheus from the DS9 episode "Second Sight"? The preceding unsigned comment was added by Satyrquaze (talk • contribs).

Why is it not simply the second? To say "at least the second" is to say "there might have been another one" which is unsupported speculation. --TribbleFurSuit 23:06, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
So is saying that it is the second...aside from being the second we know of...therefore making it at least the second. --Alan 05:36, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
OK, if anything at all must be said about it, how about "not the first". --TribbleFurSuit 16:12, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

The site mentions quite openly about how many USS Enterprises there have been, how many USS Hoods, how many Defiants... why should Prometheus be any different? Satyrquaze 16:18, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, the Enterprise dedication plaques quite openly state which ship in the sequence it is. Otherwise, there shouldn't be a huge problem, like this, with naming predecessors/like named ships... --Alan 16:26, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
The USS Defiant (NX-74205) was one of at least three Federation starships to bear the name, and the prototype of the Defiant-class vessel. -from the USS Defiant page, and I know I didn't write it. Satyrquaze 19:00, February 19, 2010 (UTC)
I really don't see a problem with wording this in such a way that, there has been at least two ships to bear this name, but we (or the database, if you want to look at it from the POV), don't know for exact sure. I mean, I am opposed to speculation as the next person, but I simply don't see wording like that as speculation. As the above poster quoted, it's been done before.--Terran Officer 19:05, February 19, 2010 (UTC)

EMH Mk I restricted to sickbay and holodeck Edit

I think the reference to EMH Mk Is being able to roam holodecks should be removed from the introduction of this article. In the episode of Voyager where their EMH is first transferred to the holodeck, it is stated that he is integrated into the systems of sickbay. If Voyager's EMH is integrated into sickbay, it can safely be assumed that the others are also bound by this restriction unless modifications are made to change this. Those modifications are not standard to the program's default parameters so if this "artificial" extension of EMH Mk I's limitation is mentioned, also included should be the fact that all holograms are, if so desired, limited only by the functional range of a mobile emitter.

I hope the analogy is clear to at least one person, so they can make it clearer to everyone else. J Di 12:53, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Firstly: It doesn't say , nor imply, that an EMH MkI is "free to roam holodecks". Secondly: It's just not correct to say EMH I is restricted to sickbay, "integrated" or not. Also: it doesn't say here that an EMH I can transfer itself to a holodeck, if it desires. The implication of the statement in the article clearly is that the crew can transfer a EMH I to a holodeck, if they desire. Nothing is currently being said here which is inaccurate or even misleading. Your edit yielded inaccuracy. Nevertheless, I propose to replace the ambiguous "if desired" (by whom?) to the clear "if modified", which I think addresses your point. No need to bring mobile emitter into it. --TribbleFurSuit 15:33, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Referring to the mobile emitter makes my point. To say it is merely a modification implies both that making the necessary changes is an easy feat that necessitates only a single command to the computer and that it is a regular procedure carried out on starships across the fleet. If so modified, the EMH could be rigged to appear anywhere the environment permits, so, for the sake of impartiality, the article should either account for every possible modification that allows the EMH Mk I to operate in an environment other than the one in which it was meant to be used -- including the mobile emitter, or not mention these modifications. J Di 16:10, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Partiality? Not reading you. All we need to do is make the point about what the Prometheus provides for its EMH. As far as I can tell, it's not even about MkI vs. MkII, it's about the ship's holo-emitters.
(A) There's only one mobile emitter, so, it's a contingency that doesn't need to be accounted for, especially not in the article about the Prometheus.
(B) There's no evidence whatsoever that a modification to a holoprogram is necessary for it to operate via the mobile emitter, so we can't say anything about it when we're talking about modifications to the EMH MkI.
(C) There's no evidence that it's NOT "an easy feat that necessitates only a single command to the computer and that it is a regular procedure carried out on starships across the fleet". After Janeway said, "We'll have to modify your data stream protocols and imaging systems", Torres probably said, "Computer: Modify the EMH's data stream protocols and imaging systems for compatibility with holodeck 1, and transfer his program. Now." How easy or how hard it was to let EMH Mk. 1 into the holodeck has less than nothing to do with the Prometheus, or with this article.
(D) That statement shouldn't even be about modifying any EMH Mk I or about the capabilities of Mk II, because the restriction isn't in the program, but in the ship. If it's re-written that way, then this entire point should become moot. Would you care to give it a try? I got to walk the dog now. He's so darn cute... --TribbleFurSuit 20:12, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

It is about the Mark I vs. the Mark II because that's exactly the comparison that is made in the introduction of this article! What Torres probably said is irrelevant speculation. What Torres did say, on the other hand, was that the circuit modifications that would allow the EMH to use the holodeck would take three hours. I think the fact that three hours are required is enough evidence to suggest that it isn't as easy as simply saying "Computer: Eject the warp core" or "Computer: Coffee, black." I didn't say that any modifications were needed to allow a hologram to use a mobile emitter; the point I was trying to make there is that the mobile emitter that allow the EMH free roam are comparable to the circuit modifications that allow the EMH on the holodeck in that both are non-standard additions to otherwise standard holographic systems. As it stands, an unmodified EMH Mark I is only able to function in a sickbay and, whether that be due to a limitation of the program or the ship or both, that's it. J Di 21:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, my mistake, I missed the "three hours" part. Beside the point anyway. The fact that EMH Mk II was able to roam the Prometheus was nothing more than a McGuffin to allow the story to proceed. Who knows whether the ship has sickbay-type holo-emitters everywhere, or whether the EMH Mk II program possessed compatibility with non-sickbay holo-emitters? Not me, not you. They didn't explain, it, all the writers needed to do was establish that EMH Mk II could leave the sickbay because of some plausible but minimal explanation, and that in fact is all they did do.
With as little information as that, I still say to not make the Prometheus article's introduction be about the EMH's, because (A) it's not supposed to be about the EMH's, and (B) we don't know enough to say whether it is about them or not: You don't know that the holo-emitters on every deck of the Prometheus, which allow Mk II to roam, are the same as holodeck holo-emitters instead of being the same as sickbay holo-emitters, so, you don't know whether modification would be necessary for Mk I to roam Prometheus nor so for Mk II to enter Voyager's holodeck.
Again, by making the statement be about the ship instead of about the EMH's, including a type of EMH that wasn't even of the ship in the first place, we can eliminate this whole argument. Since I'm not sure exactly what it is you want written anymore (include mobile? exclude holodeck?) and since you didn't take up my offer to do any such re-write, I'll do it. --TribbleFurSuit 03:01, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Deflector dish Edit

Does anyone notice the similarities between the Prometheus's deflector dish and the Akaira-class deflector dish?( 06:09, August 28, 2016 (UTC))