FANDOM


This is the talk page for Normandy SR-2/Archive1.
Please limit discussions to topics that go into improving the article.
If you wish to discuss matters not relevant to article upkeep, take it to the blogs, forums,
Discord chat, or discussions module.
Thank you.


More Explicit Spoiler WarningEdit

I feel as new comers to wikis in general and this wiki, will over look the spoiler at the top of the page. They can easily be given a link that moves pass the top spoiler. I feel that a warning before each spoiler is better, Unless the spoilers get removed all together. This section is more of the ship. The choices make as far as upgrades are covered in the final battle section. -- (Lone Hunter 03:00, February 22, 2010 (UTC))

One spoiler warning is enough. If someone's trying to read articles in depth before finishing the game, that's their problem. If they want specifically spoiler-free content, they can go read the codex entries. Tophvision 14:13, February 22, 2010 (UTC)

Source for Normandy? Edit

Nominated this for deletion b/c I have yet to see a source that definitively identifies this ship as the Normandy. The text on the side of the ship is too illegible. If a legit source can be provided, cool. If not it's getting the axe. SpartHawg948 02:25, October 28, 2009 (UTC)

Read Jdunn1's talk on your page, googled Thane and came up with these images, at the very least we would know that it is SR-2 and the first image makes it hard not to say it isn't called the Normandy. Normandy? Definitely SR-2.
I have seen the image I believe is being referred to [1], and as I have stated previously, it IS obvious that the ship is SR-2, but you CANNOT make out the name, not definitively past the first letter. Also, I don't need an advisement left here to check my talk page, wikia does that already. :P SpartHawg948 06:32, October 28, 2009 (UTC)
lol not "reed" but "red" would have been better had I put "I" before the word. I read Jdunn1's talk. :P--Xaero Dumort 07:31, October 28, 2009 (UTC)
Oh! Gotcha! :) SpartHawg948 10:56, October 28, 2009 (UTC)
The second image is not the SR-2 any way, its Pinnacle Station you can clearly see the Admiral and the ringed planet ░▒▓ Alex | Talk ▓▒░ 18:37, October 28, 2009 (UTC)
That image has now been deleted; we have a better Shepard-less image. And I don't know how it originally got misidentified. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. --Tullis 18:43, October 28, 2009 (UTC)

Again though, just want to make clear: The reason this is up for deletion is b/c there is no current legible/credible source to back up the claim that the name of the SR-2 is Normandy. If no evidence is forthcoming, this page will be getting axed, likely tomorrow. Once a good source is provided we can resurrect it. SpartHawg948 08:30, October 29, 2009 (UTC)

I have resized a screenshot in which thane stands in front of the SR-2 from what i can see it has Normandy written on the side, not sure whether to upload the image since it's off google images though. Mrspectre 02:22, October 30, 2009 (UTC)

Well, can't really count it as a source if it isn't either uploaded or linked to. Don't suppose it would happen to be the larger version of this? SpartHawg948 04:27, October 30, 2009 (UTC)
Normandy 2

Thats the one man if you cut that up and resize you will see it has Normandy written at the rear Mrspectre 08:52, October 30, 2009 (UTC)

All right. It takes a good deal of blowing up and it is still a little fuzzy, but I suppose it does beyond a reasonable doubt say Normandy on the side of the ship. SpartHawg948 12:20, October 30, 2009 (UTC)

Although we appear to have proven 'SR-2' is indeed named 'Normandy', we actually have no proof of where it fits in the story line for certain. Would it be worth revising the text to reflect this? Also this may qualify as a spoiler?--LeathamGrant 11:08, October 31, 2009 (UTC)



I'm just wondering where (if anywhere) it has been said that the Normandy SR-2 is a "larger and more advanced ship", I relise this can just be assumed but there is an outside chance that it may not be true... The SR-2 could be the same sizes as the original. We also do not know that Commander Shepard takes command of it through out the duration of ME-2, we see the Commander die in the SR-1 in one of the trailers, confirmed by a developer. This may be unlikely too but the SR-2 could just make a cameo in ME2 and will actually become the Commanders ship in ME3. We don't know anything yet (as far as I know) and I thought that speculation wasn't welcome, especially if it is presented as fact. ░▒▓ Alex | Talk ▓▒░ 20:14, October 31, 2009 (UTC)

Has anyone noticed the cerberus symbol on the foward "blade" could this mean that the normandy sr-2 was given to commander sheppard by the oganisation for his assignment

Indeed. This has been mentioned on the Cerberus page, although I suppose it could also be mentioned here too. SpartHawg948 23:01, November 7, 2009 (UTC)
If there is a Cerberus Symbol on the SR2 then there is a connection how ever minor it may be - (even if Cerberus just snuck on to the hull without shepard knowing to paint on there symboll; that is a connection).

Anyway, the fact the word "indicating" is used before, says that the connection could be minor - suggesting that it points toward the fact that Cerberus is connected with out going into any detail. If we want to use the word possible then we should remove the word indicating, or vice versa. ie have:

"indicating a connection between the group and this new vessel."

or

"meaning there is a possible connection between the group and this new vessel."

░▒▓ Alex | Talk ▓▒░ 14:35, November 15, 2009 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean when you say the word indicating say the connection could be minor, as opposed to points to. Indicate- "to be a sign of; betoken; evidence; show: ex- His hesitation really indicates his doubt about the venture" Straight from the dictionary. So to say it indicates possible Cerberus involvement just means the insignia is a sign of possible Cerberus involvement. Weird. Also, the reason I say possible is that (unlikely as it appears even to me) there IS still a chance that Cerberus is completely uninvolved and the symbol is just there for another reason. I don't really believe that, but it is factually accurate at this time, and as an admin that is my main concern. SpartHawg948 20:19, November 15, 2009 (UTC)
Even if Cerberus is totally uninvolved that fact that SSV Normandy SR-2 has the insignia of Cerberus means there IS a connection, In ME2 the builder of the ship could be a supporter of Cerberus and they thought the symbol would look good on the hull - the connection to Cerberus: the ships builder is a supporter. That is what I mean the connection could be minor, rather than the more likely major option - SR-2 being a Cerberus affiliated ship. One a major connection the other a minor connection. But since this is a quite pointless discussion as it wont be long before we know the truth and it bares little impact to the reader of the article - so i'm just gonna leave it be. ░▒▓ Alex | Talk ▓▒░ 21:19, November 15, 2009 (UTC)
And that's all I asked, is to leave it be till we know more details. Again, as I stated above, there could be reasons totally unrelated to Cerberus for the insignia to be there. Real-life example: Did you know that during World War Two, Finnish Air Force planes had swastikas painted on them? Now, going by your logic, the fact that A)The Finns were allied with the Germans and B)Their planes had swastikas on the side MUST mean that the Nazis had something to do with the Finnish planes, right? Wrong. The swastika was a traditional symbol used by the Finnish Air Force since 1918. It was a symbol of good luck. How do we know there isn't a similar situation here? We don't. All I ask is that we hold off judgment till we know more. Is that too much to ask? SpartHawg948 21:27, November 15, 2009 (UTC)
  • My point was that a connection didn't have to be directly in line with it. Your example is in complete reverse in support to my point. The Fins used the Swastica as there airforce symbol from 1918 - for as you said "good luck", this was years before the Nazi party adopted it as there symbol. They used it before the nazi's so there is no logic that could suggest that they were using it because they supported the Nazi's, this could be looked at in reverse (all though it is not), because the Nazi's became so commonly assosiated with the Swastika the Fins had to phase it out and adopt a symbol like the RAF's roundels. The Connection between the two: they were they were using the same symbol. The swastika is hundreds of years old and has been used by many different organisations that are connected only by there use of there symbol and very little/nothing else. As (in respoce to your final 2 points), our options of the subject do differ but both are correct, it does bare next to no difference to the reader which is there, as I did say I am perfectly prepared to just leave it be, and wait until we get something concrete to prove the connection. ░▒▓ Alex | Talk ▓▒░ 22:29, November 15, 2009 (UTC)
Also, something else I thought of right after I left home (isn't that how it always works?): Cerberus was originally an Alliance organization. For all we know, the symbol they use is a holdover from their Alliance days, in which case, the symbol on the Normandy could easily be explained as an Alliance symbol on an Alliance warship. Again, this is guesswork, but this, combined with my reasoning above, states my case as to why the article should remain as is till we know more. SpartHawg948 21:55, November 15, 2009 (UTC)
As you added your second comment as I was writing my response - yeah, hadn't though of that (something we both failed to remember/recognize sooner) - so yeah I do somewhat agree (although its unlikely) - although we already do know that Shepperd is working with Cerberus, but then again at this point in time we don't even know if Sheppard will take possession of the SR2 in ME2 or at all. What ever you may think, I am totally against writing speculation, and I do agree that the connection to Cerberus is completely circumstantial. And repeating my self for a 3rd time, I have no problem leaving it be until evidence proves it one way or another. ░▒▓ Alex | Talk ▓▒░ 22:29, November 15, 2009 (UTC)

I read in GI magazine that the developers said it was bigger so it could operate in deep space so I added that into the discription because it was said by the developerDerekproxy

Needs to be properly sourced. "I read in ___" is not properly sourced. Also, is there any reason you edited the Joker link by duplicating his name, then separating the two with | ? This is not only unnecessary, it's pretty inexplicable. SpartHawg948 05:59, January 14, 2010 (UTC)

I don't recall doing anything other then adding in THE SHIP IS BIGGER AND DESIGNED FOR DEEPSPACE OPERATIONSDerekproxy 17:33, January 14, 2010 (UTC)

According to the history, that was added and the internal lik the Joker was changed. You can check if you'd like. Maybe it was something that happened on it's own, something like that auto-formatting crap. All I know is, it wasn't like that before your edit, and the history shows it happening during the same edit you used to insert the text you listed. SpartHawg948 20:28, January 14, 2010 (UTC)

Designation Edit

Sure, I understand that no human ships lack a designation in the front, but we don't know what the Normandy SR2's designation is. I don't see why SSV is the default choice when clearly the ship is not Alliance (unless Cerberus and the Alliance made up). As of right now all we know about the ship's name is that it's the SR-2 and it's called the Normandy. Having the article title be pure speculation doesn't seem to fit it with past policy. JakePT 00:06, December 7, 2009 (UTC)

Cerberus originated as an Alliance black ops group, and still has high-ranking people in the Alliance. I'd be willing to bet that the SR-2 was secretly built by cooperation between both, and due to Cerberus' involvement got their insignia on it. Tophvision 00:23, December 7, 2009 (UTC)
You make a valid argument, Jake, and in the future this is how the process of moving a page (or at least proposing a move) needs to happen. I for one agree with your position on this, and now that it is being done properly, would tentatively support renaming the article till we know for sure. However, you can't just move articles willy-nilly without bringing it up like this first. So, we'll see if there is any difference of opinion and go from there. SpartHawg948 00:50, December 7, 2009 (UTC)
I am a little up in the air about it. The Normandy was a top-of-the-line, top-secret warship right? From that point of view, I doubt that anyone, other than the Alliance could build an SR2, and in that case it should be SSV. That being said, we aren't sure one way or another if the Alliance built it or not, so, in my eyes, it is speculation to assume its designation is SSV. We know it's called the Normandy SR2, but its designation is not concrete. From that point of view, I would say that the article should be titled Normandy SR2. Better to title the page using known, pure fact, than to use speculation. But, that's just me. What do you think? Effectofthemassvariety 04:02, December 7, 2009 (UTC)
You know, your last comment made me think of something. Basically, the SR-1 was the vessel's pennant number/hull classification number (or whatever the Alliance calls it), which is a designation given to warships by the service that uses them. In that case, doesn't SR-2 pretty much mean by default that the SR-2 Normandy is an Alliance vessel, and therefor an SSV? SpartHawg948 05:16, December 7, 2009 (UTC)
You're right. I can't believe I missed that, and in my own argument at that! In that case, I say that the article remained titled "SSV Normandy SR-2." I wouldn't consider it speculation per se, more like an educated guess. :) Effectofthemassvariety 06:50, December 7, 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, the more I think about it the more likely it seems, especially in light of the fact that, over at Talk:SSV Normandy one of the writers of Mass Effect does confirm that SR-1 is a hull designator (or, again, whatever the Alliance calls it). SpartHawg948 08:02, December 7, 2009 (UTC)
Also, I was reading that interview with Casey Hudson about the new Normandy, and he was saying that you can actually customize, and upgrade the Normandy, so maybe the Cerberus emblem is just an aesthetic that you can add. Actually, that sounds kind of stupid. Oh well, just thinkin out loud here. Effectofthemassvariety 00:41, December 8, 2009 (UTC)
Actually, the emblem is on the inside of the ship as well, so, i say that's not likely. Effectofthemassvariety 02:10, December 8, 2009 (UTC)
You never know, it could be a theme you buy for the ship, like the ones you get for your house/apartment in Fallout 3. :P SpartHawg948 02:24, December 8, 2009 (UTC)

Now that the game has been released and it's pretty clear that the SR-2 is not an Alliance vessel, it really shouldn't be located here at all.

Why doesn't someone change it? I know they say to discuss things like this, but no one seems to be discussing it. It's a big deal to just rename an article, but it should be done.Effectofthemassvariety 01:28, February 19, 2010 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure it's already been changed... unless I'm missing something. Matt 2108 01:29, February 19, 2010 (UTC)
No, you aren't missing anything. The change that Effectofthe... is requesting someone do was done five days ago. :P SpartHawg948 02:01, February 19, 2010 (UTC)
My apologies, I could've sworn the title was SSV... I must've been tired when I read it. Oops :/ --Effectofthemassvariety 06:33, February 22, 2010 (UTC)

Link within a link Edit

I may be alone in this, but it is my pet peeve when an article has a link to itself. Can't we just have the link on other pages, then have standard text in the article itself? I don't understand the need for it. I don't know, maybe it's just me. :P Effectofthemassvariety 04:09, December 7, 2009 (UTC)

Twice the size, Better adventure Edit

This link: [2] which is at least the gist of the Game Informer article says that the Normandy SR-2 is twice as big, and more interesting. It also names Joker as the pilot, and a female named Kelly Chambers as the Normandy's administrative assistant. It also says that there is going to be a Cook. Obviously, the crew accomadations seem to have improved greatly from its predecessor. It also seems like it's going to be a more lively, and ultimately more fun environment to play in. I didn't think it was possible, but I am more excited about ME2 than I ever have been. This game better deliver!! Oh, who am I kidding? We all know it will. ;) Effectofthemassvariety 07:00, December 9, 2009 (UTC)

Awesome. While the first Normandy was a very cool ship, I always felt it was a little cramped on the inside. Tophvision 19:07, December 9, 2009 (UTC)

I wonder if this makes the SR-2 something other then a frigate, its now too big to be a frigate but still too small to be a cruiser, or maybe it cant be classed since its one of a kind (im assuming) 85.225.160.165 13:33, January 23, 2010 (UTC)

Doctor Chakwas? Edit

Where is it said, anywhere that Doctor Chakwas is part of the SR-2's crew? Effectofthemassvariety 01:18, December 10, 2009 (UTC)

Remember the google doc of the game informer article? The one you put on my talk page? [3] Down at the very bottom. "Apparently the only people to survive the attack on the Normandy is Joker and Doctor Chakwas."During our demo, Only Jeff "Joker" Moreau and Doctor Chakwas still remain a part of Shepard's crew." SpartHawg948 03:33, December 10, 2009 (UTC)
Oops. Must've missed th... I mean... It, um, wasn't there when I read it initially. Yeah, that's why. :o Effectofthemassvariety 05:45, December 10, 2009 (UTC)

Squad/Crew Members Edit

Jake was asking about whether or not Miranda and I assume the like should be in the crew where as the ME squad members weren't. My opinion is yes because in ME2 the squad members are actually performing crew functions like research and development and more.--Xaero Dumort 07:14, December 10, 2009 (UTC)

Yeah that's why I singled out Miranda. In the Game Informer article Mordin and Jacob have clear crew roles, whereas Miranda seems to be just chilling in the crew quarters. My first thought would be to delete her until we know if she has an actual role on the ship. At the moment Tali, Samara, Zero, Thane and Grunt are missing from the crew list, even though they, like Miranda, are on board the ship, but they don't have a roll as crew members, just like the ME1 squad. Going by that I'd say keep her off until a crew role is determined. JakePT 07:50, December 10, 2009 (UTC)
My take on this is that No, they should not be added to the crew list just b/c they are squad members. If, on the other hand, they are confirmed to have a role in the functioning of the ship (Jacob Taylor and Mordin Solus) then yes. So basically, keep it the way it is. If they don't seem to have a function as part of the crew, they aren't part of the crew. Simple enough. SpartHawg948 08:10, December 10, 2009 (UTC)
I guess it all depends on how you like to look at it. Sure Thane, Samara, Grunt, Garrus, Jack and Tali doesn't have any official responsibilites onboard but they're still a part of Commander Shepards team. And he/she calls them his/her "crew" a number of times. If anything, most of them could be labeled as "Marines" or "Ground force Units" :P --Fiskn 04:12, February 1, 2010 (UTC)

Core Edit

Obviously there's an underlying importance in this part of the ship: it was first shown in the June issue of the Official Xbox Magazine, and now the most recent Game Informer. Developers conspicuously avoiding any relevant detail, etc. I'm sure alot of people think that Cerberus reverse engineered some Sovereign debris, including the guy that wrote the article in the Game Informer. Based on the secrecy around it, I guess I would tend to agree; I can't really think of anything else that it could be. What do you guys think? --LBCCCP 17:41, December 13, 2009 (UTC)

Well, like you, I tend to agree with the theory, especially when they're so secretive. --Effectofthemassvariety 20:08, December 17, 2009 (UTC)


Now that the game has been played, is there more information about this new core? Or is Cerberus too tight-lipped to tell the player that? I won't be able to actually play for a bit longer, but am extremely curious. Thanks! --129.133.141.252 18:36, January 29, 2010 (UTC)

Well the SR1 Normandy had the largest Eezo core of any (Alliance?) ship ever made. The SR2's core is clearly much larger, maybe 10-20 times as much. I think it is encased the way it is due to the increased radiation and larger electrical charge needed for a Mass Effect reaction. This would also account for the extra cooling. --ArmeniusLOD 03:36, February 4, 2010 (UTC)

EDI Edit

Anyone else notice, that EDI doesn't sound anything like VI. Anyone else think it's AI, or at least something damn near that. --LiudvikasT 10:44, December 25, 2009 (UTC)

Not really, as no indication of the sort has yet been given. And as for something "damn near" an AI, isn't that called a VI? :P SpartHawg948 18:09, December 25, 2009 (UTC)
Cerberus would be exactly the kind of organization to experiment with illegal AI research... but yeah, we won't know until the game comes out.--Matt 2108 18:21, December 25, 2009 (UTC)
Well it's subtle differences in her speech, she says something like "I trust him to keep me operational, he trusts me to keep him alive", if you ask me its a sign of self preservation, thats something VI wouldn't show. --LiudvikasT 19:19, December 25, 2009 (UTC)
That is true, although it does bear remembering that VIs can also appear self-aware, as the entry on VIs cautions that "Though they appear to be intelligent, they aren't actually self aware: it's just clever programming." So yes, signs of apparent self-awareness are something a VI would show IF programmed to. Regardless, there is no actual proof yet that EDI is an AI, so we'll just have to wait and see for now. SpartHawg948 20:49, December 25, 2009 (UTC)
Well I haven't seen VI in Mass effect 1, with such signs of apparent self-awareness. I hope EDI is AI, that would make a nice story.--LiudvikasT 21:23, December 25, 2009 (UTC)
Plus after Tricias role in BSG I could hardly think of her as something else than real self aware AI. --LiudvikasT 21:26, December 25, 2009 (UTC)
The codex's timeline refers to the Alliance actually having created a sentient AI, so it's possible that EDI is an AI. But yeah, we don't know at this point. Tophvision 00:00, January 22, 2010 (UTC)
Where is that in the Codex timeline? The only Codex timeline that I can recall is the Systems Alliance timeline, which doesn't mention any Alliance development of AIs (unless I overlooked it all four times I just went over it. Remember that in the events of Mass Effect: Revelation it was stated that the Alliance was researching AI (researching, implying that they hadn't perfected it) and that once they made this research known they faced sever economic sanctions. Again though, mainly just looking to a reference to this "codex timeline" statement that the Alliance developed a sentient AI. SpartHawg948 00:09, January 22, 2010 (UTC)
It's in the Codex entry for Gagarin Station: "Humanity's first stable AI, the Alliance-sponsored "Eliza", achieved sapience at Gagarin in 2172." --Stormwaltz 18:33, January 23, 2010 (UTC) 18:31, January 23, 2010 (UTC) (edit because Wikia randomly logged me out)

Could EDI be a subtle reference to Eddy the Shipboard Computer from the Douglas Adam's Hitchhiker's Guide novels? This might go in the Trivia area, but being a new member, I'm not sure whether I should create a whole new section on the page. Luenix 19:42, January 26, 2010 (UTC)

I think that EDI deserves a page of her own. She's more of a character than just a function of the new Normandy. Daisekihan 13:11, January 29, 2010 (UTC)

I'd call EDI a VI, but a very advanced one. She seems to be able to detect and analyze emotions in organic beings and adapt to the situation - she starts calling Joker "Jeff" after all. --Fiskn 04:17, February 1, 2010 (UTC)

It's clearly stated during the game multiple times that EDI is an AI, not a VI. She can react to you and answer any question or inquiry you have beyond the programming of a VI. --ArmeniusLOD 03:32, February 4, 2010 (UTC)


Might want to make a note (create a bug or trivia section?) that EDI mistakes Starboard and Port side of the ship when playing as a female Shepard. When entering the male restroom on the starboard side she will say "Shepard, the womens restroom is on the starboard side" when it is acctually on the port side, it might be that they got sloppy in recording it or they built sound-clips from smaller segments (replacing "mens" with "womens" and forgot to to change the side part of the monologue), the same thing happens when trying to enter the locked door to the port observation deck where samara will be, Edi will state that the starboard observationdeck is locked when it is in fact the Port observationdeck. It should be noted that I found the error in the xbox 360-version, it would be good if someone could see if it applies to the PC-version as well. 83.183.219.250 03:50, February 21, 2010 (UTC)

It isn't an error. The elevator on that deck does infact face the back of the ship, which I found odd. with the lift to your back, you see two sets of doors on the facing wall - the left is the crew quarters, and the right is life support where thane would be. If you go into either you will see they have windows viewing the core.
Likewise, Mordin's lab and the armory both have windows to the core too, and if you go into the core on engineering, you'll see those windows.
Again on deck 3, lift at your back, to the left which is now *starboard* is where samara would be... and the womens toilets, and to the right which is now *port*, the mens' room.

on decks 1,2,4 and 5, the lift doors open at the front. on deck 3, it's the back (but consider: The lift controls are at the back of the lift, which on deck 3, the back of the lift is facing forward, so hold on, it spins around for that one deck?!?) AlexMcpherson 11:03, February 21, 2010 (UTC)

If you notice, inside the elevator, above the the doorway shows what floor you're on, clearly painted. The back wall is different from the side walls, but is clearly the same as the walls out on the decks. It's very much possible that this elevator is very similar to the one on the first Normandy, in which it didn't have any front or back walls. 72.95.243.120 05:12, March 20, 2010 (UTC)

Fate Edit

So, what, now the SR2 is destroyed too? (Going off of the new trailer)--LBCCCP 23:42, January 21, 2010 (UTC)

I haven't seen any indication of that. Is there a specific section of the trailer you are referring to? SpartHawg948 23:43, January 21, 2010 (UTC)
Didn't see it being destroyed... just in battle with something. Though I would bet one of the worst ends might involve it getting destroyed. Matt 2108 23:47, January 21, 2010 (UTC)
Yup, just rewatched it, and they didn't really seem to show any indication of the SR2 being destroyed. There were some shots of the SR2 interspersed with shots of the SR1 being destroyed, and what may have been the SR2 taking some severe damage (although severely damaged and destroyed are two totally different things for a warship) but it's way too early to be discussing the ships fate. SpartHawg948 23:49, January 21, 2010 (UTC)

WARNING MINOR SPOILER Ive beat mass effect 2 and the normandy sr2 never gets destroyed.I really agree with moving edi to another her/it's own article every charecter deserves a(n) article.

Additional Crew Edit

By my count, there are a number of additional personnel on the SR2 not mentioned in the crew section; more specifically, 4 bridge personnel, 10 personnel in the CIC, and several more the belly of the ship - shouldn't these personnel be added? --Echo Four Delta 17:47, January 29, 2010 (UTC)

Just a thought, another possible crew member is the shuttle pilot. This could eaisily be just a known member of the crew that has other roles on board. However it would also make sense for the shuttle-bay to have a crew member assigned to it, and it would be that person who pilots the shuttle. That brings up the same problem of him/her never being seen. -- Looq 19:43, Feburary 18, 2010 (UTC)


The shuttle is piloted by a VI, i saw in some mission with a crashed ship in the subtitles: Shuttle VI: Sandstorms have limited visibilty by 90%


In that case, then why, on Jack's loyalty mission, at the end Sheppard knocks on the door to signal for the "pilot" to get ready? Surly a VI woudlnt respond to such an action. I'm not denying your claim, I remember that mission well, but maybe it has a pilot aswell? It would make sense, as there is a cockpit. -- Looq 00:23, Feburary 25, 2010 (UTC)

Decks Edit

Little nitpick but during the load-screen when Shepard leaves the ship via a shuttle during the latter part of the game, the shuttle / cargo bay is clearly a 5th Deck. The main article claims they are on deck 4.-- Looq 22:00, Febuary 1, 2010 (UTC)

Added in a fifth deck section. As you said, the loading screen clearly shows level 5 (the movie file is 'load_f13m' for the PC version...) UERD 22:28, February 1, 2010 (UTC)

I always thought that it launches from the cargo bay in Deck 4 (looking out the glass when you exit the elevator). --ArmeniusLOD 03:29, February 4, 2010 (UTC)
It's a seperate deck, but dont hangers usually have multiple levels? Deck 5 is the hanger level, with Deck 4 having an overlooking position. The console directly infront of the elevator, I would guess, is the hanger controls. AlexMcpherson 23:01, February 6, 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm sure those controls are for the hanger. As far as I have seen the hanger is just one large room, which means that when the hanger depressurises the operator would need to be in control from a safe area. The control pannel on deck 4 seems the most likely candidate for that role. -- Looq 19:46, Feburary 18, 2010 (UTC)
Not necessarily. For some reason, mass effect fields can function as barriers that keep air in. For example, when the Normandy is destroyed and most of the Command Deck is exposed to space, but there's still air on the bridge. Or the end scene, where there's definitely big gaping holes in the Normandy SR-2 exposed to space, but everyone is going about their business without full spacesuits. —Seburo 20:39, February 18, 2010 (UTC)
Indeed, but in that case, why have those control overlooking the hanger? If they arent for the hanger, they are just a set of controls in a corridor with seems a bit random. Unless they are auxillary controls, but if that is the case, where are the primary controls? I didn't see any in the hanger itself. I guess they could be with Joker. -- Looq 21:41, February 18, 2010 (UTC)
There's controls on the hanger deck itself, which are visible from the windows near the elevator or the cargo bay, or in the battle with Oculus. The controls on the deck 4 could be to operate cranes or some other heavylift machinery on the hanger deck. Easier to operate such things when looking down from above. The more probable use is operating the hanger doors. I am distrustful of using mass effect fields when a perfectly good bulkhead will do. But EDI hasn't said, so it's all speculation. —Seburo 22:58, February 18, 2010 (UTC)

My dad's a crane operator, Mobile self-erecting tower cranes. He finds it easier in 'chaotic enviroments' to use the remote and be his own banksman. This is true of pretty much every crane operator I've seen, both in documentaries saying that it's easier with the remote because they can see upclose the effect of a tiny adjustment in positioning of the rack/etc. Overhead Gantry cranes are typically used by remote (wireless or wired) from the operating floor.

That doesn't, however, prove your statement false in regards to D4-controlled, merely the reasoning for this deduction.

The cargo area would fit the description of 'chaotic enviroment', i.e. view could be obstructed by cargo, if they take on a lot. The floor also, having a lot of cargo.

My dad's okay with working from the cab when the lifts are going from-to areas that are relatively free of clutter. But that overhead position is still at an angle, and if your stood where the objects going, you'll know when to stop teleing in or out/moving side-to-side. If you're overhead at an angle, it's guess work. "Oh I think it's overhead there."

Hence Gantry-cranes typically being controlled from the floor, as there generally isn't room for a cab to be attached to the gantry itself. Being raised to know this stuff, I know what I'm talking about. AlexMcpherson 23:23, February 18, 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. I was just guessing. Nice to hear from someone who knows. —Seburo 02:34, February 19, 2010 (UTC)
On the subject of mass effect fields holding in air, I think they are kinetic barriers modulated to hold in gas. The barriers are seen multiple times in the games- at the SR-1's docking bay on the Citadel, protecting Joker in the decompressed CIC of the SR-1 at the beginning of ME2, and yes, at that hole for the SR-2. Tophvision 23:53, February 18, 2010 (UTC)
Just to expand on that. In the scene after the Reaper IFF is gained and Sheppard et al leaves on the shuttle, you get a pretty good view of the hanger doors and you can see past the threshold slightly into the hanger itself. There is clearly no Kinetic Barrier in operation. This could just be an oversight of course. Although it would make sense, as I can’t think of another reason for all those fans on the ground level if not to repressurise the hanger. -- Looq 00:50, February 25, 2010 (UTC)

Moving to Normandy SR-2 Edit

This should probably be moved to Normandy SR-2 now we have confirmation it's the ship's true name, no designation in front. : ) --Tullis 23:48, February 1, 2010 (UTC)

I agree. It's cerberus-built, and has their logo, and isn't an Earth Systems Alliance vessel, so I agree, it wouldn't have the SSV part. Maybe. AlexMcpherson 23:00, February 6, 2010 (UTC)
Also agreed. Boter 00:29, February 11, 2010 (UTC)

I also support this because SSV does mean "Systems Alliance Space Vehicle" and Cerberus isn't the Systems Aliance.

I agree also. It needs to be moved. Tophvision 02:25, February 11, 2010 (UTC)
Okay, so we all agree, what do we do now? -- (Lone Hunter 00:08, February 14, 2010 (UTC))
I disagree. Cerberus is basically a splinter faction of Systems Alliance. --SilentShadow 00:11, February 14, 2010 (UTC)
Cerberus is not a splinter faction of the Alliance... Shepard says the same thing at the beginning of the game and Jacob says in reply "That's the what the Alliance wants people to believe." Matt 2108 00:14, February 14, 2010 (UTC)
Cerberus was originally a fraction made by the Systems Alliance to guard the relay linking to the solar system, like the legendary three-headed dog that allegedly guarding the gates of hell. Over the years they've gained a bad reputation and are known to think that humans should rule the galaxy, but still as far as I'm concerned - they're a splinter faction. --SilentShadow 00:18, February 14, 2010 (UTC)
I think you're misinterpreting the Codex entry. The Cerberus entry says, "Immediately following the First Contact War, an anonymous extranet manifesto warned that an alien attempt at human genocide was inevitable. The manifesto called for an army — a Cerberus to guard against invasion through the Charon relay." An anonymous manifesto saying humans need to prevent aliens from coming in shows little that the Alliance actually created Cerberus to protect the Charon relay. Do you think the Protocols of the Elders of Zion is actually a plans by Jews to take over the world? What we know about Cerberus is that Admiral Kahoku found out that Cerberus was an Alliance black ops organization and that they had gone rogue, implying that they were committing actions, such as the rachni, husk, and thorian research, without the Alliance's sanction. Frankly, I don't think Kahoku's statement now fits with how Cerberus is portrayed as an ultra-humanist secret independent organization in Mass Effect 2, but the game makes it pretty clear that Cerberus in 2185 operates independently of the Alliance now and gets no help whatsoever from it.
In any case, in no way is Cerberus portrayed as a legitimate arm of the Alliance government. Only Alliance Navy warships get the prefix SSV, like how only United States Navy ships are USS or only Royal Navy ships are HMS. Non-comissioned non-Navy-operated ships get the prefix USNS, United States Naval Ship. Even if you think Cerberus is a part of the Alliance government, Normandy SR-2 is not an Alliance Navy warship. She wouldn't show up anywhere in an Alliance Navy TO&E. There are no Alliance Navy personnel aboard her. She is not under the command of or subordinate to any Alliance Navy officer. When Admiral Hackett sends the message about the location of the Normandy's crash site, it is phrased as a request, not as an order. Therefore, her name does not have the prefix SSV.—Seburo 04:35, February 14, 2010 (UTC)

Ship Upgrades/Dead Teammates Edit

It would be good to know which ship upgrades correspond to whose deaths, especially because there is apparently a random element as to exactly who dies (I hear it's one dead character for each upgrade you skip, but there are more than 3 possibilities as to exactly who dies). That would be good information. UERD 00:00, February 2, 2010 (UTC)

alright this is what i know if u get the multicore shielding and the hard armor(forgot what its called) on the way to the collector base 4 people can die but with these upgrades only 1 can and thats thane thats all i knowThe geth rule 17:37, February 25, 2010 (UTC)

Moving EDI Edit

Should the EDI section be moved to its own page? Its a pretty important character in the storyline. Matt 2108 01:27, February 3, 2010 (UTC)

I agree. She's a character, not simply a system of the Normandy. She should be listed with the Normandy's systems, but the majority of the information about her should be on a separate page. Tophvision 02:21, February 11, 2010 (UTC)
Ok, seriously, I think EDI should have her own page, and I'm willing to type up the page myself, but I don't want some admin coming in and saying "This isn't necessary" and deleting my work. Can I get some permission to make a page for EDI? Tophvision 23:58, February 28, 2010 (UTC)
Can I get some idea of what I'd be giving permission to before being asked for permission? Blanket requests for permission make me uncomfortable. It's always nice when the person asking has something drawn up already like, for example, the proposed new timeline. Because as it stands now, there are three paragraphs in the EDI section, but only two are actually about EDI. The largest of the three paragraphs is information about the Normandy, not about EDI "herself". So if there appears to be sufficient info (which I'm still not sold on, which is why I'd like to see a preliminary article first) then I have no problem with it. And for the record, admins don't just come in, say "this isn't necessary", and delete pages. A page gets nominated, is on the block for a week, and at the end of the week the decision is made. SpartHawg948 00:12, March 1, 2010 (UTC)
I just think she should have her own character page. She's as much a character as Joker, or the other named crewmembers of the SR-1 and SR-2. I'll sandbox a page in the next day or two so you can have a look at it. Tophvision 00:15, March 1, 2010 (UTC)
It is true that she is a character in her own right, but a character with very limited info. If there's enough to make a viable article though, I have no problem with one being created. I'm just not sure there is enough. But I'll be happy to take a look. SpartHawg948 00:57, March 1, 2010 (UTC)
Aye, she lacks a "backstory" like other characters, but she still has plenty of character traits and development during the story. If Crewman Hadley can get his own page, EDI should be able to. Tophvision 02:20, March 1, 2010 (UTC)

Images Edit

Just got this from one of the bink files. Thanixcannon


Classification Edit

Being twice the size of the original Normandy, would this ship be considered to be a frigate or a cruiser? 99.192.54.224 20:46, February 5, 2010 (UTC)

It's still a frigate. The SR-2 is no where near as heavily armed as a cruiser. While the SR-2 is double the size of SR-1, cruisers are still substantially larger. Think back to the cinematic from ME where the Alliance is attacking Sovereign. There were ships fighting alongside the Normandy that were much larger, but not as large as a dreadnought like the Ascension. The SR-2 is larger to accommodate Cerberus needs, a very large eezo core, and an AI computer. So it's not a conventional frigate, but I still believe it is classified as such. --ArmeniusLOD 21:16, February 5, 2010 (UTC)



I would like to note that it is stated as being twice the mass not twice the size, size has very little to do with mass looking at the ship models in the captains quarters it appears to be roughly 1.5 times the size of the SR1, and the 2 times increase in mass could be down to materials with more mass being used over just as strong but lower massing alloys being used in the SR1 and civilian equipment being used rather than military grade equipment, which would have had a military budget rather than a covert ops budget by a non governmental organization (some evidence of this can be found with ken and gaby with the various things they talk about like the FBA couplings)

The codex does actually say twice the size. "The vehicle's many alterations produced a craft nearly double the original size." The dialogue in the game also indicates that Cerberus spent lots more money on SR-2 than the Alliance spent on SR-1. Leather seats. More seriously, Cerberus used equipment that even the Alliance Navy doesn't normally have access to, like EDI and the Quantum Entanglement Communicator. As Joker and EDI frequently point out, the SR-2 is superior in every way to the SR-1.
Even though the SR-2 is twice the mass of the SR-1, the SR-2 is probably still considered a frigate. Ship types tend to be determined more by the ship's intended role, rather than its size. For example, a Ticonderoga-class cruiser has a standard displacement of 9,800 tons while a Spruance-class destroyer displaced 8,000 tons. The Ticonderogas' designs were based on a Spruance hull, so they are similar in size, but the Ticonderogas are intended for primarily anti-air while the Spruances are anti-submarine warfare ships. Also, the Spruances replaced the Adams-class destroyer which were only 4,500 tons, nearly half the size, but both classes are destroyers. The SR-2 seems to follow the SR-1's intended role as a independently-operating stealthy reconnaissance vessel, rather than be a ship duking it out in a stand-up fight.
Seburo 20:00, February 13, 2010 (UTC)

CIC image Edit

Is it just me, or is that not the CIC? Look at the spot where the galaxy map is supposed to be... it's totally different then what's actually in the game. Matt 2108 23:42, February 5, 2010 (UTC)

No, it's pretty clearly the CIC. It's taken from back and to the right of the galaxy map, with the map deactivated, but it's obvious that it is showing the map pedestal, and you can clearly see the ring of stations around the periphery of the CIC, and see down the "neck" of the ship towards the cockpit. So yeah, it's definitely the CIC. SpartHawg948 23:54, February 5, 2010 (UTC)
There is no pedestal leading up the galaxy map on the SR2, just a small set of stairs. In the picture in the article, there is also a "Cerberus SR2" logo on the right side, which is not present in the real version. Shepard's private terminal and Kelly's terminal are also missing. The picture must be an earlier design that was scrapped... not sure where it came from. Matt 2108 00:08, February 6, 2010 (UTC)

Anyone want to back me up on this? :p Matt 2108 02:12, February 6, 2010 (UTC)

Upon further examination it does appear that the image depicts an earlier version of the SR-2 CIC. Even though it is pretty recognizable as the CIC of the SR-2, it would be better to get a more accurate and up-to-date image. SpartHawg948 10:04, February 6, 2010 (UTC)

Normandy SR-2 Windows Edit

What decks are all the windows with the orange lights on? It doesn't seem like there are that many from the inside of the ship.24.211.169.152 09:15, February 6, 2010 (UTC)

I would say it's a form of Physological warfare. Froma distance, it makes the ship look a lot bigger than it is, makes it look like at least 5-6 decks in the main hull Forward of the cargo doors, with twice the number going the full overall height of the main hull. it's also why people complained about the SR-1: the outside size did not 'compute' with the supposed internal space because of the window arrangement... However,

On the other hand, The starboard obs window is huge. Where the heck is it on the normandy hull model? Atleast they remembered where to put the turrets this time! (i.e. Thannix cannons that popup from under the hull.AlexMcpherson 22:57, February 6, 2010 (UTC)

The orange stripes are probably heat radiators. From the Codex on Heat Management: "Warships use Diffuse Radiator Arrays (DRA), ceramic strips along the exterior hull. These make the ship appear striped to thermographic sensor." The codex goes on to say they're nicknamed "tiger stripes" or "war paint". —Seburo 04:50, February 22, 2010 (UTC)

Upgrades & Regular Systems Edit

Info on the Normandy's upgrades is already up, but information on its regular systems should be here as well. How are we going to organize it? Should we just categorize the information as we would a normal ship, i.e. armament, propulsion, defenses, etc while noting which are upgrades, or should the upgrades remain in a separate section from the regular systems? Tophvision 17:45, February 6, 2010 (UTC) Upgrades maybe in italics or something, with the rest of the info in a table, unless I'm thinking completely different from what you're thinking of? AlexMcpherson 22:59, February 6, 2010 (UTC)

Trophy Case? Edit

The description for the Captain's Cabin lists a "trophy case containing souveniers from previous missions." I don't actually see this in the cabin. I have the model ship display case and Shepard's N7 helmet from the crash site, but no seperate case. Does it actually exist? --XavierGTR 09:16, February 7, 2010 (UTC)

the display case fills with ships when you buy the models at shops etc. I've got them all, I think:

SR-1 Normandy, SR-2 Normandy (default), Human Cruiser, Turian Ship (Also in starboard cargo hold with Zaeed) Quarian homeship, Geth Ship, that big flagship thing which is hollow through the centre-fronttoback, Sovereign, A cargo ship, and another I don't recognise. AlexMcpherson 19:17, February 7, 2010 (UTC) edit: wups, sorry I didn't see the 'trophy' part. I'm not yet firing on all cylinders though. ugh-grumblegrumble. AlexMcpherson 19:18, February 7, 2010 (UTC)

Yea, I've got all the model ships now (Finished both Tali's and Legion's loyalty quests). I was curious about the mentioned trophy case since I don't see anything like that. On the second desk by the bed there's Shepard's wrecked N7 helmet from the Normandy crash site and then the datapad with Navigator Pressley's notes. Other than that, nothing. --XavierGTR 00:09, February 8, 2010 (UTC)
I'm also curious about this - is this something that's come about as it's being edited and where it reads 'trophy case' it actually means the model ships, the table with the helmet, or the achievements terminal? I've just had a look around the cabin on one of my games and I can't see what's meant by the 'trophy case'. Think that section of text should be removed unless someone can explain it? 212.219.98.249 19:51, March 2, 2010 (UTC)

Armory, what's the point? Edit

I can't figure out the purpose of the Armory, weapon selection crates in the Armory and in missions, nor the weapon selection screen you see every time you choose a landing party. You can change weapons for everyone, or just your squadmates, but since all the weapons in the game are generally across the board upgrades with no trade-offs, and because upgraded version are automatically equipped by your teammates, I don't see any use for this GUI except to allow Shepard to change his heavy weapon. Am I missing something? Why would you ever downgrade a teammates weapons? Servius 03:58, February 9, 2010 (UTC)

You might want to change an assault rifle because you like auto-fire rather than burst-fire, or a sniper rifle with reloads every shot (but more damage), rather than semi-automatic, or similar. I wouldn't see all of them as direct upgrades. They are just a matter of preference. --Spoo12 04:02, February 9, 2010 (UTC)

If you consider the whole purpose of the SR-2, with a resarch lab as well, it would appear to be designed for long term missions. The armory itself serves little purpse in the game, but the whole point of the room would again to make weapons on the long term missions that Cerberus designed it for. Lancer1289 00:51 February 11, 2010 (UTC)

What are the secondary weapons? Edit

I'm wondering something: what are the blue projectiles the SR-2 fires from the wings? IIRC, when getting the codex entry from the main battery room, the codex is updated with info on disruptor torpedoes and Javelins. Is that it? The codex may have also updated with the mass accelerator entry; I'm not sure. Tophvision 13:50, February 10, 2010 (UTC)


I'd say it's distruptor torpedoes, because the ship fired them at close range and the projectiles itself looks like a blue rocket.Cyphius 14:02, February 10, 2010 (UTC)

Okay I just read the Javelin definition on the codex and it seems that the description perfectly match what we can see in game, so I think that the secondary weapon are Distruptor torpedoes mounted "Javelin-Style" Cyphius 14:08, February 10, 2010 (UTC)

Huh. If you'd ask me, the Normandy just has side-mounted mass drivers. Just like the SR-1 had a spinal mount, the Normandy could have two, side-mounted rapid-fire railguns for ship to ship combat. - 83.13.234.242 11:30, February 23, 2010 (UTC)

Well you have to remember that the Normandy can destroy the Collector Cruiser with this secondary weapons, 2 light railguns do not old enough firepower to break trough the shield and hull of a cruiser, distruptor torpedoes in the other hands can. We are not even sure that something like "light railgun" (guns that can be mounted on the "wings" of small ship) are used in the ME universe. Cyphius 01:29, February 25, 2010 (UTC)

These shots are still consistent with mass accelerators, and remember: Joker flew right into the beam emitter, and I think it's damn hard to shield or armor up a particle accelerator. And besides, what kind of an idiot would fly right into a capital ship beam weapon? (Joker and Shepard, of course) Still, I think a little more detailed approach to space combat wouldn't have hurt ME3.95.165.199.109 16:01, April 13, 2010 (UTC)

hammerhead Edit

hi l got the dlc cerberus amor and wepon comments on the internet said that the hammerhead was with that dlc can someone please tell me if that is true

The Hammerhead will be released at a later, unspecified date. Contrary to the marketing, it isn't immediately available. Boter 22:01, February 12, 2010 (UTC)

Logic Edit

Has anyone noticed that the observation deck's and the cockpit's windows do not show from the outside?

Also, it's said in the codex that the Normandy flies "without the use of heat emitting thrusters" by creating "a hole into which the Normandy falls into", yet there are four thrusters and the Normandy needs normal H2/O2 fuel while it's stated in the codex that the Normandy uses it's Mass Effect Core to move instead of thrusters.

It's said that the Mass Effect Core has the ability to fully neutralize Normandy's weight, why can't it land on planets?

It's been said in the ME2 codexes that the Normandy can't land on planets, but it does seem to be able to dock at Illium's docks which are in the atmosphere (and thus in the full gravity zone) of the planet.

The disruptor torpedoes that the Normandy SR2 can launch seem to be magically spawning and shooting from the wings rather then from an external or interior weapon.

Since the Normandy SR2 is a copy of the SR1, I'm still having trouble understanding there the Normandy's main cannon go that was used to punch though Sovereign clean during the battle of The Citadel.

The Mass Effect Core in the SR2 is shielded, while in the SR1 it was just floating in the middle of the room, looking a lot larger then it looks in the SR2.

--SilentShadow 19:58, February 13, 2010 (UTC)

I have a solution to the problem. Unfortunately, I've been wanting to do a fanfic for awhile so I'll be doing an 'in-universe' kind of scene explaining it...

Scenario:

Commander Shepard entered Engineering and pulled Tali into the connecting hallway, where EDI couldn't listen in without turning up the audio receptors' gain to full.
"Shepard, Something you wanted?" Tali asked.
"Yes, I was just looking over my codex entries on the ship, and noticed a few problems. EDI says we can't land on a planet, due to our mass, but my codex entry says the Mass Effect core nullifies the effect of the ships' mass in such things... AHm, I'm no technician, but even I see that either must be wrong there."
"Ah, I see. It isn't so much a question of if the new Normandy's mass prevents landing at a dock on a planet, as the physical size of the ship. The old Mako would have had to be dropped from a greater height, and Cerberus already used shuttles that could travel between systems anyway, with atmospheric re-entry. I know the codex entries I've read were about the original SR Program design, but neither this nor the old one operate as some of those entries say. When the design was changed, I guess no one bothered to update their corralative entries."

So there ya go. The codex Entry guys at Alliance (and then Cerberus) were just lazy. AlexMcpherson 20:37, February 13, 2010 (UTC)

That's a funny way of saying that BioWare worked on the new Normandy while celebrating their boss' birthday... --SilentShadow 20:46, February 13, 2010 (UTC)
1) The cockpit's windows are viewable from the outside. This is very obvious in the cutscenes when the Normandy goes through the Omega-4 relay. As for the windows in the commanding officer's quarters, Miranda's office, the Armory, the Tech Lab, and the observation decks, they do not appear to be visible, but can be easily explained away as the shutters being closed. EDI in the observation deck explains there are shutters for the windows and you can activate shutters for the cockpit windows. Or maybe the windows are tinted to match the paint of the hull.
2)As for Normandy's propulsion systems, you're misreading the codex. The entry says, "The Tantalus drive generates mass concentrations that the Normandy "falls into", allowing it to move without the use of heat-emitting thrusters." Normandy has multiple propulsion systems. She has the four antimatter thrusters for normal flight. However, the thrusters produce heat in the million of degrees Celsius. Heat is one of the main ways to detect a ship. Against the near absolute zero of space, the thrusters make starships easily detectable. So that's why the Tantalus drive is so revolutionary, because it allows the Normandy to maneuver without emitting heat, and therefore not be detected.
3)Normandy SR-2 is capable of landing on planets; it's just more difficult. The SR-2 codex says, "Its shuttle can make landings the Normandy cannot attempt." EDI says, "It's more difficult to land the ship on high-gravity worlds," when asked about the need for a shuttle. Mass effect fields can lower mass, but the more it's lowered, the more power required. From the codex entry on FTL drives, "The amount of element zero and power required for a drive increases exponentially to the mass being moved and the degree it is being lightened." There's also considerations other than the weight of the ship, such as the actual physical size and volume of the ship. Larger ship means more surface area. If Normandy's mass is nil, winds are going to be able to bat it around like a balloon. Of course, the real reason is to justify the shuttle to directly transport the player to the appropriate location, since Normandy SR-2 doesn't have a Mako to air-drop onto the scene.
Seburo 20:49, February 15, 2010 (UTC)


If you ask EDI about the windows and say its a design flaw she says that when in battle the windows close over with armor plating


-- Note: Maybe what they mean by the Normandy SR-2 being unable to land, is that it doesn't seem to have any landing gear, and the wings slant far down... it could hover above the ground like in Illium but not "land". - Vandrek 11:30, 3/29/10 (CST)

Number of Normandy's crew Edit

I believe the article was inaccurate when it says there are 25 crew members and includes Shepard's team among them. When Sherpard discusses with Miranda and Jacob what to do with Grunt's stasis pod, Shepard asks EDI how many other crew members are on board. EDI responds that there are 24 permanent crew. The 24 do not include Miranda and Jacob because they're in the same room with him. They do not include any of the recruitable party members, because they're not permanent. Many of them are only with Shepard for the length of the mission. Also, I doubt Cerberus would consider any of the aliens onboard as permanent crew. Furthermore, the 24 number doesn't change depending on how many members have been recruited. So the 24 must refer to people other Shepard, Jacob, Miranda, and all the other party members. —Seburo 05:44, February 14, 2010 (UTC)

  • "do not include Miranda and Jacob because they're in the same room with him" There's nothing in that scene to suggest one way or the other. As far as I'm concerned, those three count as permanent crew. - 83.13.234.242 11:34, February 23, 2010 (UTC)
I did not write that Miranda, Jacob, and Shepard aren't permanent crew. I wrote that there are 24 permanent crew other than those three. This is the dialogue:
  • Select "He gets out, we vent the hold."
  • Shepard: EDI, how quickly can the cargo hold be vented to space if there is an issue?
  • EDI: Twenty eight seconds, Shepard.
  • Miranda: And if anyone else is in the hold at the time?
  • Select "Replaceable."
  • Shepard: How many other crew are onboard the Normandy?
  • Miranda: Twenty-four permanent crew, Shepard.
Seburo 08:28, February 24, 2010 (UTC)


As a note: there are 24 crew bunks in the crew quarters, the 1st Officers quarters (Miranda's), and the Captain's Quarters (Shepard's). All of the Recruitables are placed in other areas of the ship. - Vandrek

4th/5th floor backwards?Edit

maybe I'm just imagining this but does it look like the engineering deck (and from there the hanger) are on backwards? Lancer AR 02:34, February 21, 2010 (UTC)

The elevator just has two doors- the door for the crew deck is opposite the door for the command deck. Tophvision 03:10, February 21, 2010 (UTC)
No, the elevator's door is fore. When you exit the elevator on Deck 4, you're directly facing the windows and can see the hangar doors. You have to turn around to get to the drive core, which is at the aft, as it should be. —Seburo 03:15, February 21, 2010 (UTC)
Ok, deck 2 and 4's doors are forward, deck 3's door is rear.Tophvision 03:24, February 21, 2010 (UTC)

I too noticed this immediately. It's very obvious when you go to the rooms with a view of the core. On deck 1, you know the lab and armoury are at the back... deck 3, hold on, when you come out, the two rooms in front of you are the crew quarters and life support room (thanes room), both have views of the core... we're facing the back! Sorry I just kinda don't like that particular goof in the ship design. The lift controls are on the back wall of the lift, It's very clearly not a lift with front and back doors, but just one door... so it must spin around between the two decks... or something... I think they forgot about all that when they did the mapping during development, because of the SR-1's 2nd deck. AlexMcpherson 11:08, February 21, 2010 (UTC)

the elevator controls are holographic so they can change positions the elevator opens from both sides Lancer AR 23:08, February 21, 2010 (UTC)

The fact that the bottom half of all the other doors *and the outside elevator door* split in half again and go diagnally down from each other, meaning you should see the inner door go down but its obvious from the wall with the control there's no seam... well i could go on but as a scifi fan of star trek, star wars, star gate and a few other shows with fans who are big on continuity and dislike the fact that the producers weren't... *gasp for breath* I'll go with 'it spins even though it shouldn't'. AlexMcpherson 23:17, February 21, 2010 (UTC)

the back wall of the elevator is the same as the elevator door from the first normandy only there aren't 2 of them at each floor (one elevator door and another door to the elevator if that makes sense)and if that's not enough wouldn't we notice I slight spin or something on the loading screens?

also as a side note I'm not revering to an issue with elevator entrance/exit I'm refering to the fact that you exit the elevator facing the back of the shipp and the hangar is where the drive core should be Lancer AR 00:03, February 22, 2010 (UTC)

Isn't that... really the same issue? To me, the explanation is clear. The doors to the elevators are on each level, not on the elevator itself. The doors for decks 2 and 4 face forward, and the door for deck 3 faces aft. Simple. Tophvision 01:49, February 22, 2010 (UTC)
I don't think ship builders would do that. Why? If there's a hull breach and the lift shaft is exposed to vacuum... well the fact that the lift is, as you suggest, a box with 2 open sides, then there will be gaps for air to escape through.AlexMcpherson 11:02, February 22, 2010 (UTC)
gah I think alex is the only one that knew what I was talking about. when you look at the engine core from the crew quarters and life support it's facing the back of the ship then when you go down to the engineering deck you're facing the same direction the crew quarters/life support are but the core is behind you Lancer AR 22:09, February 22, 2010 (UTC)
Ok, so it was a design oversight- likely by the game developers in the real world, and by the ship builders in-universe. Unintentional, but we have to conclude that the elevator is just open like that. Otherwise we're left with the reality-bending thought that deck 4 really is backwards. Tophvision 23:44, February 22, 2010 (UTC)
Lancer, I don't mean any disrespect, but you don't get the real problem. The problem is that the door is facing the towards the back of the ship. If you think deck 4 is reversed, then that means deck 2 is reversed too. On deck 1, 2, and 4, the door to the elevator is facing forward. On deck 3, however, the door is facing aft (AKA the back.) the decks are all right, it's the elevator that's screwy.--Effectofthemassvariety 06:44, February 23, 2010 (UTC)
it could be but it still feels wrong. the elevarors on deck 1 and 2 are facing fore and deck 3 is facing aft as it should be. but when you go down to engineering/hanger it feels like you're facing aft so maybe it's a screwy elevator but it feels like engineering and the hangar is backwards. Thinking about it now the SR-1 had this problem also. 11:06, February 23, 2010 (UTC)

You went down stairs to Deck 2, then the lift to the hanger, and as it had elevator transition, you knew there were two doors... the whole thing slid upwards.

The new elevator on the SR-2 doesn't have a the door as just two pieces (the one piece that moves with the lift, the other piece that stays at the deck... It's several, the top piece moves up then the other two do / \ movements.down-and-outward. with the control panel on the wall right were the three sections split, well...

If you all walk around the deck, look at the distance between the lift doors and the wall against which those two crewmembers next to the rear-most mess hall table (between the wall and partition) are talking. It's a large section, maybe the lift drops down, and then turns around there...? :P

I think the issue with the back wall of the elevator not looking like a door is simple. The elevator has no walls. It's simply a platform and a ceiling, moving within a shaft that has five doors on opposite sides, four fore, one aft. Since every deck has a door, shaft depressurization doesn't do anything. - 83.13.234.242 11:22, February 23, 2010 (UTC)

Doors can be pressurized, but since the lift would essentially be sliding up and down that surface, it can't do the same thing. the doors close, and push against each other... the lift being an enclosed space is safety 101. The only reason it isn't on the SR-1 (no sidewalls so you could see it drop down/go up) is because any depressurization at the bottom of the ship would do it to the hanger, if it happens to the lift, so what - on deck 2, the door would be sealed anyway. But, okay, say deck 5 on the SR-2 is depressurized, and they need to get engineers up to repair stuff on deck 2 first... Oh dear.
When it comes to safety, measure ontop of precaution ontop of procedure etcetera etcetera. So it's an enclosed space, that means the lift has doors that when shut are then sealed airtight. the decks also have doors, too those are sealed airtight. The sound they all make when they 'unlock' just before opening is the seals holding them closed releasing.When the two doors meet, it's a simple process to clamp the doors together, the lift pushing into a slot if you will, so that no gaps are left when the doors open. Like docking clamps. AlexMcpherson 11:35, February 23, 2010 (UTC)

Non-interactive Crewmember Page Edit

I noticed that the pages for non-interactive crew members of the SR-2 have been suggested to be merged with the SR-2's page. I agree that they don't deserve individual pages, but I think putting their info on the SR-2's page would clutter it. Maybe there can be a separate page that all the crewmen are listed on and given a small description? Tophvision 02:24, March 1, 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, that sounds reasonable. SpartHawg948 02:45, March 1, 2010 (UTC)

Stealth systems paragraph Edit

The whole paragraph on how the SR-2 doesn't have stealth systems is pretty much null, in my opinion.

  • Just because the SR-2 has stealth systems does not mean they're necessarily activated at all times. There are plenty of cutscenes where the ship's engines are glowing hot, which would obviate the stealth systems. In fact, that's the whole point of the Tantalus core- it allows the Normandy to move while in stealth mode without firing up its super-hot thrusters and giving away its position to every sensor in the system.
  • If the SR-2 is scanning a planet, it is by definition not in stealth mode. The scanner descriptions mention that the upgraded scanner tech uses active (radar-based) scanning. If your ship is emitting microwave-frequency EM radiation, you are no longer in stealth mode any longer. The description for the stealth tech in one of the Codex entries states that the Normandy can 'drift passively for days, listening...[to outside communications]'- listening, not scanning.

Saying the SR-2 doesn't have stealth systems because Eclipse mercs can apparently detect it while it's in orbit around a planet, scanning the planet with active sensors, and firing probes at the planet is silly, silly speculation, and I've taken it out. If anyone disagrees, they can easily revert.


UERD 00:17, March 5, 2010 (UTC)


EDI info Edit

Can people please stop deleting the EDI info entirely? I know there is now a separate page for EDI, but it's not finished yet, as there are no images or character box or any of the more visually appealing stuff, so till it's finished, shouldn't we present the info in full here? Also, even when it is finished, there will still need to be a section on this page about EDI, as EDI (last time I checked) was an integral part of the Normandy SR-2. It will be shorted, consisting of a link to the main page and info about EDI's function onboard the ship, with none of the storyline and plot points, but there will definitely still be an EDI section. SpartHawg948 22:54, March 25, 2010 (UTC)

Extra Vehicle Slot Edit

After downloading the firewalker pack and taking note of its position in the hanger bay, I couldn't help but notice that there is still another crane just in front of it that is empty. The thing seems identical to the one holding the M-44. Could another vehicle DLC pack be in the future or is just a cargo crane? Thoughts. Lancer1289 03:13, March 26, 2010 (UTC)

I noticed that too, but it's at an angle so I'd so no. AlexMcpherson 03:42, March 26, 2010 (UTC)

Shelves behind desk Edit

One thing I've noticed about Shepard's cabin is the amount of space that there still is. Mainly the shelves in the office area of the cabin still have a lot of room. Granted you have the N7 helmet on the desk, and now the relic on the table but the shelves only have one thing, the space hamster. Is that extra room for more prizes/rewards for more upcoming DLC or is it just supposed to be there? Lancer1289 20:01, March 27, 2010 (UTC)

Drive core trivia Edit

After making the Tantalus drive my namesake, curiosity begot me , and I looked up Tantalus on wikipedia; what I discovered was a small part of Greek mythology dealing with a king who spent eternity in Tartarus for trying to fool the gods. ( for the full story, look it up yourself.) Tantalus is also the base of tantalize, and the name has been used many times in history (i.e. the element once known as Tantalum; the U.S.S. Tantalus in WWII). Should any note of this be made in the article?--Tantalus91 04:39, April 14, 2010 (UTC)

Being very familiar with the story of Tantalus, don't think it's a reference to him. The Navy ship, don't see why it would be either. Nor would it be for tantalum, unless that element is used in the core. There is, IIRC, trivia on the SSV Normandy page about how it may be a Star Trek reference (as Tantalus was a penal colony in the Original Series, and the Warden, again IIRC was named Adams, which would make sense seeing as Engineer Adams watched over the Tantalus Core). But is the core in the SR-2 even a Tantalus Core? SpartHawg948 04:42, April 14, 2010 (UTC)

And on further review, I do believe the Star Trek reference is far and away the most likely, as it incorporates/explains both the name of the Tantalus Core and the name of it's operator, Engineer Adams. SpartHawg948 04:47, April 14, 2010 (UTC)

I was doubting the authenticity of that trivia when I was cleaning up that article, but I gave it the benefit of the doubt as I wasn't too sure about the Star Trek reference. But if it's true... it's an interesting references among the other Star Trek trivias. I wonder how many more Star Trek homages there is. Teugene 04:55, April 14, 2010 (UTC)
I don't see any reason to doubt its authenticity, or at least its possibility. I mean, what are the odds of someone named Adams overseeing something named Tantalus (not the most common name, generally not used unless it's in reference to something) in two different sci-fi series? Seems plausible to me. SpartHawg948 05:03, April 14, 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't it say in the article that the ship uses a Tantalus drive core, just verticle? And, in addition , I was assuming that, since scientists have been using the name (either directly or in some derivation), to describe something just out of reach, it would still be being used by their 23 rd century decendants. ( sorry if my posts are a little (or very) slow; i'm typing on my iPhone /:p )--Tantalus91 05:00, April 14, 2010 (UTC)

Nope. It says the SR-2 uses a core that utilizes technology visibly different from the Tantalus Core of the SSV Normandy. And given that the Tantalus was an experimental model of core, I don't see any reason to suspect that this new core, which appears totally different and which has completely different specifications, would be of the same model. SpartHawg948 05:03, April 14, 2010 (UTC)

I was not suggesting the drive core was named after Tantalus directly, but was named instead because of it's previously unreachable abilities and power.

It was reachable before, just not fiscally practical. Really the only thing distinctive about the Tantalus Core is that it's twice the size of the normal core used on an Alliance frigate. SpartHawg948 05:10, April 14, 2010 (UTC)

Well, your the one with over 5000 edits, so I guess I'll take your word for it. It just seemed something the reader might be interested to know. (And about those edits... wow. Just wow.)

That's nothing. You want to see impressive, take a look at Tullis. She's the real queen of the edits around here! Also, so you don't feel your query was in vain, because of this thread, I also added the Tantalus trivia to the SSV Normandy page. Before it was just on the Engineer Adams page. SpartHawg948 05:23, April 14, 2010 (UTC)

Well, your the one with over 5000 edits, so I guess I'll take your word for it. Just thought it be something that might interest readers. (And about those edits... wow. Judy wow.)

Sorry about the double post, my phone kicked me out when I posted the first time, and didn't think it went through. /:p--Tantalus91 05:28, April 14, 2010 (UTC)

It's very common for ships and spaceships to be named after mythological figures. It's used now so I don't see why it wouldn't be used then. Half the time the name is chosen for the sound and not the meaning Setimir92 21:51, June 6, 2010 (UTC)

Yes, this is true. However, I'm a bit unsure as to why this was posted here. After all, while the drive core of the SSV Normandy is called a Tantalus core, there is no indication that the drive core of the Normandy SR-2 is named after Tantalus or any other mythological figure. SpartHawg948 22:02, June 6, 2010 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.