FANDOM


This is the talk page for SSV Normandy/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.


is the command center the tail wing like thing on the back and if it is how do people get up to it and where's the storage (the garage dosn't count)--Garyclementspunji 20:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

EDIT: sorry I didn't relize that was the command center so I'm have a new question between the cockpit and the command center what is that (it has all the monitors)--Garyclementspunji 06:13, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, when Admiral Mikhailovich is ranting at you, he says "having the commander aft of everyone else is inefficient, what if [he or she] needs to consult with the operators towards the bow?" So I'm not sure that area has a particular name: I don't think it's named on the map, either. It's just a forward compartment with monitors in. 'Ops compartment' would do, I suppose. -- Tullis 10:06, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Isn't that the CIC and Joker's little hideout (where are his crutches hidden, anyway?) is the bridge? Oh, and behind the CIC is clearly Astrometrics. :P --Thejadefalcon 14:32, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Concerning SSV Normandy Bridge Edit

Actually the part of the ship that is used to pilot the vessel is the Cock-Pit which is in itself apart of the Bridge as a whole. The Command Center is the aft portion of the Bridge where the CIC is. The Command Center is where, understandably, the Commander of the Ship resides and thus is the Commanders Center on the Bridge (Often spoke as a "Command Center".) The Tower on top of the Normandy is most likely the Conning Tower which serves as a Radio Tower for Communications and such. The Bridge is just a general name for all the parts and compartments aboard the Normandy where controlling the Ship takes place.

Speaking of which, what does CIC Stand for? Command-in-Control? Command Interface Center?

Mandalore the Supreme 23:36, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the 'tower' at the back of the Normandy is actually her tailfin. If you're piloting a ship in an atmospheric environment, you need a tailfin for balance or you can't keep the ship from rolling. But there's no reason why it couldn't have comm equipment in it too. And I always thought CIC stood for something like Command Information Centre, because the galaxy map and info are there. Who knows. Might be in the Codex somewhere. --Tullis 06:55, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I think Tuilis may be right, considering the Normandy is about the size of say, a Corellian Corvette, the fin at the back is not large enough to actually be able to hourse anything other than a fin and sensor equiptment. There does appear to be an aerial poking out of the fin as well.

NecrontyrXV 08:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

To answer Mandalore's question, CIC is a military acronym for Combat Information Center. SpartHawg948 02:14, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

[1]

The SR-1 designationEdit

What does SR-1 stand for? Series 1? Scout/Recon Model 1?--MasterChief117 19:18 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Close. Stealth Reconaissance ship #1. The model used was the US Navy, where the USS Arleigh Burke is registered as "DDG 51," or the 51st guided missile destroyer built. --Stormwaltz 17:42, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

That also relates to the SR-71 'Blackbird' which was a high altitude 'stealth reconnaissance' aircraft used by the US during the cold war.

The "SR" in SR-71 actually stands for "Strategic Reconnaissance." From Non-Standard DoD Aircraft Designations. This could equally apply to the SR-1 designation for the Normandy. However, there have been posts on the Bioware Mass Effect Community forums to the effect that the "Devs have stated it to be Stealth Recon One." However, there were no references to substantiate this, nor was there confirmation by any Bioware employee on any of the threads I read. --- Andaryn 18:25, October 2, 2009 (UTC)

...actually the post a couple of lines above yours is from Stormwaltz, a former BioWare writer who worked on Mass Effect. Therefore, SR-1 is dev confirmed as Stealth Reconnaissance 1. --Tullis 18:49, October 2, 2009 (UTC)


Slightly off on the DDG 51 thing. DDG 51 would be the 51st destroyer, guided missile or otherwise. It's like with carriers. CV is the designation for aircraft carrier. CVN for nuclear (The N designation on any ship means nuclear e.g. SSN, SSBN or the no longer used CGN) but the first nuclear carrier is the Enterprise, which is CVN 65. It's the 65th aircraft carrier commissioned, not the 65th nuclear carrier. Now you know :)

Crew: Edit

ListingEdit

I'm glad someone did a crew listing, but is the phrase 'Crew Complimentary' correct or does anyone think it'd be better as 'Crew Compliment'? I'm not sure.

I change it to "Crew." Complement means "the full number of officers and crew required on a ship" (Dictionary.com). "Crew Complement" is effectively saying "Crew Crew," and it's not positive that the listed characters were the entirety of the crew. All that appear at once, yes, but due to 360 memory budget, that was the maximum number that could be shown at once. -- Stormwaltz 19:01, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

As regards the number of shown crew - the Normandy is only a Frigate, it's not unusual for a ship that size to have so few crew, it's not afterall a very big ship. Also, the number of sleeper pods in the Quarters deck would indicate that not many people were present on board. Those that are shown seem to fill most expected roles aboard the ship. It's also worth noting that the addition of stealth systems to SR-1 also probably reduced the size of the available life support, and the heatsinks probably reduce the effectiveness of what's there during long operations, and thus crew capacity. Also I added Ashley to the crew list. - she was after all added to the crew by Capt. Anderson after Eden Prime. Only thing is I don't know the official Naval term for her role. I'd think it was 'chief munutions officer' or something of that ilk but naval role and rank are not my specialist subject.--LeathamGrant 02:57, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

ConsiderationsEdit

I think the sleeper pods are a mistake by BioWare. This is what I said in a comment to one person who asked me to beta read her Mass Effect fanfiction.
"Okay, I’ve had a brief flick through the first Mass Effect book (Revelation). It claims that the captain of the ship is generally the only one with quarters. Even VIPs have to suffer sleep pods unless the captain gives up their bed. I’ve thought about it carefully and, unless I missed something in my conclusions, in my opinion, that’s total rubbish. Sleep pods are totally unfeasible (disregarding the fact that they were vertical (though I presume they could flick to horizontal at the touch of a button) and that the average human needs to roll over a lot in their sleep). The crew would have nowhere to put their things (the Normandy not even seeming to have lockers for most of the crew, though that’s just due to the limitations of game format, like the shape of the Guild in Fable, which I correct to a more feasible shape in my fics) and that would get on their nerves and lower morale. Given the stuff Alliance crews run into on a constant basis, they’d need photographs of husbands or wives or whatever in order to keep going. So what I’m going to say in my fic, and what I suggest you follow, though you don’t have to, is that Alliance ships have quarters and bunks for all crew, though they generally fit four or more into a single room depending on the ship. The only exception would be the smallest ships of the fleet, where perhaps sleep pods would be accepted as long as there were spaces to place personal items to prevent the lower ranking crew from going psycho in deep space. Possibly rules for alcohol would be slightly less restricted among the kinder captains to allow the crew a drink when off-duty to drown their sorrows in. The officers always get their own quarters, without exception. The Normandy, while I think classes as a frigate, contains enough quarters for every crew member if they are grouped (and, if he’s general crew, a single one for Joker due to his disease, but I think he’s an officer), the officers on their own and a few more for guests (Wrex needs his own, due to krogan territorialism). You could possibly blame this on the turians (their ship sleeping arrangements weren’t mentioned in the Codex), but they are an entirely separate issue and, depending on how much detailed you’re making this fic, could potentially require a small infodump about them in your fic (I don’t think it’ll be necessary, but it’d be nice one day for us nitpickers :P)."
It's possible I'm merely missing something, but I'm still sticking to that rule. --Thejadefalcon 13:40, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
You might want to check out how people manage on submarines, as the Normandy is based on submarine technology and crew culture. Submariners don't have personal space; they learn to manage without it or they get weeded out. I get the need for personal stuff (that did occur to me when I saw the sleeper pods) but the crewmen have lockers elsewhere on the ship to keep their things in.
Also, alcohol is a no-no on submarines, not because the captain's a meanie, but for safety reasons. Drunk crewmen fight and make mistakes, and stored alcohol is dangerous in the event of accidents. That doesn't mean that crewmen won't drink (because that's utterly impossible :) ) but it needs to be strongly discouraged. --Tullis 14:06, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, but this is teh FutUre, right? :P I mean, would you really want people to go buggo in deep space? The crew don't seem to have any lockers (though, as I said, that could be limitations of game format). And the sleeping pods are in the mess hall? Really? *shakes head in amusement* As for the alcohol, I wasn't thinking of getting drunk, merely a little tipple every now and then. Unless their metabolism is dreadful, it wouldn't affect them too much, would it? And what accidents could occur in space? If the compartment is breached, alcohol exploding will be the least of your problems. --Thejadefalcon 14:30, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Your metabolism changes greatly in space so it's not unreasonable that alcohol would affect it unpredictably. The squad has lockers so presumably the rest of the crew does somewhere (if only somewhere to keep their socks or whatever. :) ) Submariners and presumably starship crews are selected for their ability to get along and work under pressure and away from home for months at a time. If they can't cope they won't be there.
"What accidents could occur in space"?? The Apollo 13 mission nearly ended in disaster because of a single spark. A starship has stored oxygen, fuel and propellant which are dangerous at the best of times, even when the ship doesn't have storage sinks full of emissions! And the Normandy has munitions on board. However well-trained people are, accidents happen and a frigate's hull (see ME:R) is not that robust. --Tullis 14:37, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Is the metabolism comment using our puny technology or a-grav? And every now and then someone's going to snap? Ever watched K-19? And yeah, Apollo 13... what happened? *has got to watch the movie at some point* The only accidents I can see happening in teh FutUre sort of cancel out the alcohol factor. Then again, I'm tired, so what do I know? --Thejadefalcon 14:46, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
In the Apollo 13 space mission, a faulty piece of hardware caused a tiny spark in an oxygen tank. The resulting explosion blew off a large part of the module and vented oxygen into space. Heck, even the giant LHC failed because of a single badly-soldered connection. It's impossible to predict this stuff... that's why they're called accidents, I suppose. --Tullis 14:58, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Oh, well. Like I said, the ship was co-designed by turians and their ship design is radically different according to Admiral Whinesabouteverythingwhycan'tIshoothimintheleg. Maybe their quarters are different as well? I mean, Joker would not be able to use the sleeping pods that well. --Thejadefalcon 07:48, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Don't forget the ship is a stealth recon vessel. It probably wasn't made to house crewmembers for long periods of time like a dreadnaught would be207.164.136.6 12:32, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Surely, as a stealth ship, it would be built for the crew living there for ages. If on a recon mission, they'd be stuck on the ship for days at least. Also, the crew of the Normandy doesn't change, throwing that idea out of the window. --Thejadefalcon 09:29, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
It's fairly obvious to me that there is a lot we're not seeing...the mess has a table, but no food or food prep area. So I have to assume there are a lot of things that were left out to save bytes. --My own me 12:34, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Exactly what I said (or meant to say as I can't remember if I actually did). Games have restrictions in what they can show and therefore may require some mild editing to be truly realistic if they are transferred to book or film format. --81.149.77.37 12:42, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I just assumed they were “cryo” sleep pods like in the Halo universe. Also, people would have no problem sleeping at a slight vertical angle. If you look the pods are not at 90-degree angles from the deck. They are more like 85 or 80 degrees from the deck Gundam94 14:20, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the sleep pods are a problem, but the number of pods are. Even if the crew hot-bunked, which they don't seem to do, there wouldn't be enough. I believe someone has already mentioned this somewhere. I haven't counted or calculated anything, but it doesn't seem like there would be enough pods. On a side note, for a while I actually believed the Normandy had an additional crew deck, based off the length of the elevator ride and lack of accomodations. Of course, it's not true, but might be an interesting solution for a fanfic. 24.69.203.173 18:09, July 30, 2010 (UTC)

NumbersEdit

I added Jenkins to the crew list also, as he was part of the crew at the time of the Normandy's maiden voyage. I just stuck him down as a Marine. One thing that occured to me is wether adding Jenkins/Ashley to the crew list reduces the number of 'additional' Marines to 3? I'm wracking my brains as to where the 'extra' marines were stood on the Normandy. I know 1 guarded each door to the lower deck (2). Was there 1 guarding the comm room? I know there are 2 personnel in the mess room sat at the table - are they marines? Just thinking my way around also doesn't Adams count as one of the 3 engineering crew? Also I think there is 1 personnel member stood at the Nav consoles with Pressly, I forget. --LeathamGrant 13:42, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

  • If Renegaded up, Kaiden makes (pre-Ilos) a reference to the ship being crewed by 25 mutineers. Not counting the four aliens. Not counting Jenkins, Ashley and Anderson, it's exactly 25. Works for me - Skarmory The PG 00:36, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


I'm just curious, but why is it necessary to specify the number of female crew members? --VoodooV 04:54, December 3, 2009 (UTC)

That is an excellent question. SpartHawg948 11:34, December 3, 2009 (UTC)

Normandy Armament Edit

Not on the main article, is there any info out there in the ether? She fires either a rail-gun or missle against Sovereign, was just wondering what else she had. RabidStoat 14:51, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

According to the Codex, most frigates have a GARDIAN defence system but the Normandy hasn't had a chance to really use hers. Maeko Matsuo mentions the Normandy has several gun turrets, and we know she has ablative armour. Apart from that, I think the Normandy is stripped down for stealth and reconnaissance missions, she's not really designed to go toe-to-toe with the enemy. --Tullis 14:55, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
"Behind the scenes," the artists actually forgot to put any guns on it at all! :P Stormwaltz 17:21, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, that did occur to me when talking to Captain Matsuo --
Matsuo: "I can count gun turrets as well as anyone else."
Me: "Really? You can? Could you... point out a few for me there?" --Tullis 17:30, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
I think it's probably a Javelin thingy. --Thejadefalcon 09:29, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Private Fredericks Edit

Is he really a member of the Normandy crew? I don't remember him ever being confirmed as a crew member. --Thejadefalcon 14:35, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, considering that Alenko refers to him by name, I'd assume he's part of the marine detail on the Normandy. However, I'm not aware if it's ever been confirmed, it was just my initial reaction.--Effectofthemassvariety

Diane Michelle Edit

I don't think Diane Michelle voices the Normandy V.I. (in regular ME or in BDtS) or the character creation narrator.

I think it's Belinda Cornish who voices the character creation sequence and the Normandy V.I. in BDtS. Not sure about the non-BDtS Normandy V.I., but it doesn't sound like Michelle.

Any citations? --Thejadefalcon 09:13, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Check the Bring Down the Sky credits...
Belinda Cornish is listed as “Female Computer” and “Additional Voices” (-Cornish also voiced Dr. C. Hymes in BDtS). The only female-voiced computer in BDtS is the Normandy’s V.I., so I don’t see what else the credits could be referring to. Non-citation-wise, Cornish was born in England and has a very distinct voice. It’s her in BDtS and the character creation part, but the non-DLC “X.O. Pressly has the deck” V.I. voice isn’t her (Jennifer Hale maybe?)--Morlan 21:05, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
She's credited as "Computer" on IMDB, but that's not irrefutable proof. If it's a different actress, just change the article. :) --Tullis 12:41, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
I think Diane Michelle voices another computer program/V.I. in ME (Mira).--Morlan 21:05, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Mass Effect 2 Section Edit

For the Mass Effect 2 section of this article, you said that in the pre-E3 trailer, they showed Shepherd running past what appears to be an explosion on the habitation deck. ARE YOU KIDDING ME! The trailer shows Shepherd running around on a DESTROYED Normandy with its top blown off. You guys kinda left out that crucial detail. If you're going to make a section talking about spoilers from ME2, put the important details in there. Shepherd isn't running past an explosion, he's running around on a DESTROYED Normandy.

In addition to seeing the destruction to the ops compartment, there is indeed an explosion on the hab deck near the stairs, so the article is technically accurate. If you want to edit the article for accuracy, feel free to do so. That's what the wiki is for. : ) --Tullis 00:14, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Just pointing out: The trailer also shows an external side of the Normandy firing off escape pods. I'd expect this to be part of a "Serenity" style crash landing.

Now don't jump to conclusions. It could also be part of an Endar Spire type "ships about to blow up" sequence like in the beginning of KOTOR. I mean, they are both Bioware games, so there would be precedent for it. SpartHawg948 23:55, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
With the release of the enemies of mass effect 2 trailer and also watching the the E3 trailer, i believe that it is the collectors who destroy the normandy Mrspectre 01:13, November 7, 2009 (UTC)

Redundant ME2 sectionEdit

The section for ME2 just repeats information that can be found on one (or more) of the primary ME2 articles (didn't check the Normandy SR-2 article lately, but I assume that most of the content is mentioned there), it also have nothing to do with the SSV Normandy. Shouldn't this section be removed (or at least cut-down)? --silverstrike 00:00, March 5, 2010 (UTC)


Crew ConcernsEdit

Is there a reason why the crew names found on the Normandy Crash Site mission aren't in the article anymore? It is absolutely clear that they are all crew members and they have names. Shouldn't they at least be mentioned in the manifest on this page?Rayfire 17:44, May 26, 2010 (UTC)

They were removed about four months ago, and there are a few reasons, they are listed on the Normandy Crash Site page, and putting it here would just be a repeat of information. Also the date was wrong, 2283 was off by 100 years. We don't need a second list here as it would just be a repeat of information. Lancer1289 17:59, May 26, 2010 (UTC)

New Trivia Edit

I can’t remember wear I read this, but I think it is relevant. One of the developers at Bioware said that they didn’t realize that they forgot to put visable weapons on the Normandy (on the hull of the ship) until the game had already shipped. If I find the source Ill edit this message. Gundam94 14:20, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

See the above section on 'Normandy Armament' by Stormwaltz. --Tullis 15:16, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, thats my bad, I didnt even see that. My computer at work sucks. 69.130.45.226 15:54, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I thought it looked bigger on the inside then the outside because the player is far away from itDerekproxy

Possible Redesign Edit

Unconfirmed redesign of the Normandy, the name is blurred, but due to the extent of the damage, this appears to be what the SSV Normandy now looks like.

New Normandy

Personally do not like it.

-- Delta Team Curt

Okay so this ship is the SR2 NORMANDY... I think that the SR1 Normandy is destroyed during the beggining (see the E3 Trailer) of the game and this new ship is then used by Shepard... I think we should rename this page "SR1 Normandy" and make a new one named "SR2 Normandy" If you want an in-game look of this new ship, it's here[2] She seems really bigger than the first Normandy, may be a cruiser-class ? And by the way, sorry for my possible grammar mistakes, i'm french :)

--Mobius

Removed link to Mobius to remove from wanted pages --silverstrike 03:40, September 27, 2009 (UTC)
If true, that's likely what we'll eventually do, but not until the game comes out. : ) --Tullis 18:23, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Do we have a source to back up the SR-2 Normandy claim? B/c I see the SR-2, but don't see the Normandy. For all we know this could be the SSV Gallipoli, or Khafji, or something like that. (Also just wanna point out that if this is a cruiser-class vessel, it is unlikely to be the Normandy, as the SA names frigates after battles, cruisers after cities). SpartHawg948 06:05, October 3, 2009 (UTC)
Here are some pics. of the new improved Normandy after the destruction of the SR1, clearly showing the new back end.

SR2 Normandy Hanger SR2 Normandy-Hull name Viper9090 02:41, December 12, 2009 (UTC)

-ste the pic is normandy it is 2times bigger and is not a cruser

And you do realize that this post is over a year and a half old now? Lancer1289 14:27, July 28, 2011 (UTC)

Acronyms? Edit

Where did the acronyms after some of the names come from? Some are pretty straightforward (CO = Commanding Officer, XO = Executive Officer, CMO = Chief Medical Officer), but I've never seen CHENG used as a military acronym, unless it's some navy thing I'm not familiar with. This and the entry for Ashely make me think this may be speculative. Ashley's is "Possibly Munitions Officer". Possibly? Also, as Chief Williams is an NCO, not an officer, pretty sure she isn't the Munitions Officer. She may be the munitions Noncom, or Superintendent, or Supervisor or something like that, but it's pretty hard to be an officer when you aren't commissioned! :P SpartHawg948 11:41, December 3, 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, CHENG is a USN term. A quick Wikipedia link. Ashley never had strict a role defined. Kaidan was head of the ground detail, and when she came aboard she became the most senior noncom. Stormwaltz 16:10, December 3, 2009 (UTC)
Neat! Learn something new every day! As for Ashley, if no role was defined, we should leave it blank, instead of saying "possibly" whatever, and we definitely shouldn't ascribe positions to her that she is militarily unable to hold! :) SpartHawg948 21:03, December 3, 2009 (UTC)

Mass Accelerator Power? Edit

So, where is it stated that the Normandy's Mass Accelerator can punch through an unshielded advanced dreadnought? Hate to be picky, but if the reference is to the Sovereign fight, there are way too many unknowns about that scenario to use it as evidence of the Normandy's main gun's firepower, IMO. Now, if there's documentation to back it up, that's another matter entirely. SpartHawg948 21:46, December 7, 2009 (UTC)

There's no solid numbers, just the fight. What are the "unknowns" that would prevent the simple statement "The cannon has the power to punch through an advanced dreadnought's unshielded hull"? That's basically what happened. Tophvision 21:52, December 7, 2009 (UTC)

Well, basically, but you also have to factor in that A) It wasn't just unshielded. It was basically derelict, drifting without power. And B) It's not a dreadnought, it's a Reaper. Now I know the Codex does call Sovereign a dreadnought, but you also have to factor in that this was one of the earliest Codex entries, long before you have even heard of a Reaper, necessitating the deception on BioWare's part. We don't know what kind of structural differences there are. So, it's not that "he cannon has the power to punch through an advanced dreadnought's unshielded hull", it's that "the cannon has the power to punch through the hull of an unshielded, derelict (or I guess disabled could work) Reaper's hull". SpartHawg948 22:13, December 7, 2009 (UTC)
A) The status of its power has little bearing on the durability of the hull. B) Benezia refers to it as a dreadnought, and functionally it acts like a dreadnought- with the spinal cannon and all. I put it as "advanced dreadnought" to avoid spoilers in that section. Tophvision 00:35, December 8, 2009 (UTC)
So, the status of it's power had little bearing on the durability of the hull, eh? Sources to support that? Also bear in mind that I wasn't referring exclusively to the hull when I mentioned the fact that it was disabled. There are many things that could factor into resistance to a penetrating shot other than just the hull, after all. SpartHawg948 00:38, December 8, 2009 (UTC)
I think you would need a source to prove otherwise. The armor of a modern aircraft carrier doesn't depend on power from its nuclear reactor. When steel doesn't have an electric current running through it you still break your fingers if you try punching it. The durability of a ship's hull doesn't depend on the operation of its systems. Tophvision 00:43, December 8, 2009 (UTC)
I'm not stating definitively that the lack of power makes a huge difference in the characteristics of Sovereign with regards to ballistics, just that it should be included, as there is a difference, militarily speaking, between a vessel whose primary defenses are down, and a disabled vessel. A big difference. And no, the armor of an aircraft carrier doesn't depend on power from it's reactor. However, as I stated, I wasn't just talking armor. A bullet will have much less penetration on an aircraft, for example, if it hits a hydraulic line when the aircraft has power, than it would hitting the same spot on a powerless plane. And while it hasn't been demonstrated here, the perfectionist in me would like to point out that there is SciFi precedent for ships armor performing differently w/ or w/out power. Look at the Enterprise from the series of the same name, with it's polarization of hull plating for combat. Regardless, militarily speaking, power vs no power most certainly is a factor, and should be acknowledged as such. SpartHawg948 00:50, December 8, 2009 (UTC)
I acknowledged that the shields were down, and that's the only such defense known for Sovereign that is tied to its power. Even if the bullet hits a hydraulic line with the power down, it still has to get through the aircraft's armor first. Tophvision 00:54, December 8, 2009 (UTC)
It does have to go through the armor first (although most planes actually aren't armored, so it would be the skin of the plane). However, hydraulic power could make the difference between the bullet penetrating, and the bullet going completely through the aircraft. Your quote wasn't about a round from the Normandy penetrating Sovereign, it was about it punching through Sovereign. So my airplane analogy would still seem to work, wouldn't it? Again, put the quote in the article, just mention that the kinetic barriers (they're barriers, not shields, remember) were down and Sovereign was disabled. When you're talking about a through-and-through shot, it's not just the armor, the bullet has to pass through everything in between, and that's where power is the factor. SpartHawg948 01:28, December 8, 2009 (UTC)

SR-2 Edit

I think the SR-2 information should be kept on the SR-2 page, with the ME2 section here just talking about the SR-1 and a link to the SR-2 in something like "For the ship in Mass Effect 2 see Normandy Sr-2" etc. JakePT 09:08, December 11, 2009 (UTC)

Well, it'd need to be worded differently, something about how there is a new SR-2 Normandy being introduced following the original's destruction, (which can feature an internal link to the article). There's gotta be some context for how the two tie in, as opposed to just, for the ME2 version see Normandy SR-2. SpartHawg948 09:22, December 11, 2009 (UTC)
Yeah I understand that, it's just at that at this stage SR-2 info is being dumped on the SR-1 page, even though we have an SR-2 article. JakePT 10:04, December 11, 2009 (UTC)
I'd noticed that as well, and you're right, it is getting a little exasperating. It's probably one of those things that isn't really going to stop any time soon though. Regardless of any notices we put anywhere, someone will not read them and then throw SR-2 stuff in here. We still get people capitalizing race names over two years after the original game came out, after all! :( SpartHawg948 10:42, December 11, 2009 (UTC)

Just got through a discussion with EDI, and something struck me about what she said. She said that the SR-2 was built from the original schematics, right? Keyword there: original. That means the SR-1 should really have been built larger... would have worked out that the SR-2 as the same as the SR-1... but somewhere between original schematic, and 'laying the keel' if you will, the SR-1's designs changed, Funding issues, or something else. And Cerberus either by choice or not, uses the original, only with knowledge gained from watching the construction of the SR-1, as EDI described. I think either this or the SR-2 page should have some mention of this tidbit, to make it clear the SR-1 wasn't built to original design. (there are people who don't make the jump and point out the differences as inconsistencies and canon errors and such. depicted size of the SR-1 when you're outside looking at it, like the docking places on Therum and Noveria is one... apparently.) AlexMcpherson 14:45, March 13, 2010 (UTC)

Named After...Edit

Do we have any source for the idea that the ship was named after the Battle of Normandy? There were a thousand years' worth of wars and battles fought along that coast before WW2. So, just thinking it could use some looking into. It could very well be just named after the region itself.

Noble House 05:38, December 13, 2009 (UTC)

Well, we know for a fact it isn't named after the Normandy region of France for one specific reason. "Alliance frigates are named for great battles in human history." That is taken directly from the codex. And if you will consult pretty much any military history of the region, or military history in general, you will note there is only one battle of any significance named the Battle of Normandy, and it's the one that occurred in 1944. SpartHawg948 05:44, December 13, 2009 (UTC)


Also there is the SS Normandie, which was the fastest and largest ocean liner ever built at the time and it was the pride of the French Line. The ship was destroyed in WW2. 118.90.32.123 12:08, February 6, 2010 (UTC)
Not sure why that's relevant. As the Codex clearly states, Systems Alliance frigates (such as the SSV Normandy) are named for battles, not for ocean liners or famous ships or regions of France or whatnot. SpartHawg948 22:15, April 5, 2010 (UTC)
Actually the fate of the SS Normandie was it caught fire in Manhattan Harbor. It was being repourposed by the US for use as a troop ship when a welding torch set life vests on fire. Not something you want to name a ship after. Lancer1289 23:48, April 5, 2010 (UTC)
Well, technically that wasn't the fate of the SS Normandie, it was the fate of the USS Lafayette. The fate of the SS Normandie was that she was seized by the United States after the fall of France and renamed USS Lafayette. Technically speaking, of course. SpartHawg948 01:11, April 6, 2010 (UTC)

Female?Edit

The beginning of the article uses "she" to refer to the Normandy, while the SR-2's article simply refers to the SR-2 as "it". Any reason as to why this is done? 85.147.165.48 21:55, April 5, 2010 (UTC)

Different styles of editing/writing. I'm sure the articles weren't originally written by the same user, and no one has gone back and changed it since. SpartHawg948 22:17, April 5, 2010 (UTC)
As a Navy man, let me make perfectly clear til time immemorial. All ships no matter the sea it travels through are universally, she. It is a tradition as old as men traveling on water.Rayfire 17:40, May 26, 2010 (UTC)

Actually, that is not true. At least not always. Ships at sea are generally referred to as she, but there are exceptions. For example, Nazi Germany. Hitler didn't like the idea of German sailors, members of the master race, cavorting about the seas on feminine ships. So ships of the Kriegsmarine were considered masculine and were referred to as 'he'. So no, all ships are not 'universally' she. Many (including some of the most famous, such as the Bismarck and the Tirpitz) have been 'he'. SpartHawg948 18:22, May 26, 2010 (UTC)

In the Western world, at least, ships are always referred to as female. However, during the Cold War, a Soviet ship was referred to as male by the USSR and as asexual (it) by NATO. I believe Russia and parts of Eastern Europe still refer to their ships as male. Don't forget that Mass Effect happens over a century in the future, with many significant events (discovery of the relay, First Contact War, etc), so naming conventions may not be the same.24.69.203.173 18:09, July 30, 2010 (UTC)

Fat-finger edit summary Edit

Just fat-fingered an edit and hit save page before adding a summary. So here's the long and short of it. 1) Multiple uses of Mass Effect 1. This is, of course, incorrect. There are three ME games- Mass Effect, Mass Effect Galaxy, and Mass Effect 2. There is no Mass Effect 1. 2) As for the supposed discrepancy, it really makes perfect sense. The Normandy (at the beginning of Mass Effect) was on a shakedown cruise, which is generally performed with less than the full complement. It wasn't expected to go straight from a milk run/stealth systems test into operation like it did. Additionally, we know for a fact that the Alliance 'hot-bunks' (or 'hot-racks', as I believe it's known of wikipedia), meaning that it's very likely that the Normandy normally had either two or (and this seems more likely) three times the crew seen in ME, as there'd need to be at least two shifts, although again, three is more likely. SpartHawg948 04:00, April 27, 2010 (UTC)

That explains the crew number for the very first mission to Eden Prime, but not for when the number is given- before the final mission to Ilos. I find it hard to believe that the Alliance would send off the first human Spectre with less than half of a full crew. However, it could be that a large amount of the crew refused to go along with the theft of the Normandy- but there's no direct evidence for that. Tophvision 04:13, April 27, 2010 (UTC)
However if you talk to Pressly before heading to Eden Prime he says that Normandy fully staffed, which is unusual. Just wanted to add that in. As to the crew going along, if you look around the Normandy everyone came becuase everyone was still in their place, however I agree becuase there was no direct evidence for that. Lancer1289 04:17, April 27, 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, although there is still the subject of hot bunking. Even assuming the Normandy only has two shifts (meaning each shift would pull a 12-hour shift) as opposed to three, that's still 60 crew, or if they do have 3 shifts, 90. I know they didn't show up in game (due in large part to the rather conspicuous absence of crew accommodations, but it's a mix of common sense and canon that the people you saw weren't the only crew on the ship. SpartHawg948 04:23, April 27, 2010 (UTC)

Very true, however I think that there were three shifts, correct me if I'm wrong but I believe that is typical for naval ships, and that they didn't need a full thirty man crew for each shift. Personally I believe that it was most likely a 40-60 man crew divided into 3 shifts numbering about 15-20 for each shift. Lancer1289 04:26, April 27, 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, you bring up two good points. It is likely 3, and I can't speak for the Navy, but in the AF, our three-shift operations consisted of two full shifts (dayshift and swingshift, aka nights), and a midshift that had about 1/3 of the personnel of the other two. So, if this were the case on Alliance warships, figure about 70 crew. SpartHawg948 04:40, April 27, 2010 (UTC)

Missing things. Edit

Did anyone noticed that there is no bathroom and kitchen on the normandy? And that there are fewer sleeping pods than crewmen?


I searched the ship, but there isn't even a fridge. It's not a problem, nothing can be perfect. Just for curiosity.

I did not bother try looking for those things, even then they are probably somewhere Shep can't go. Anyway they added all of that in the second game.MEffect Fan 14:34, June 3, 2010 (UTC)

And you shouldn't try to look for it. To me the SSV Normandy seems like a submarine, where every single square inch of space is utalized in some role. Often, submarines hide fridges and freezers, so it like the kitchen, may have just not been included or just in a place you can't access. Or they retract into the walls and/or floor, who knows.
As to the pods, remember that the Normandy used a hot bunking system, so eight pods was probably enough for the whole crew, given shift rotations. Since we don't know how many shifts they had, we can't say for certain. They might have three shifts, like most of the US military, or even four shifts like Starfleet ships in Star Trek. Lancer1289 16:35, June 3, 2010 (UTC)
That submarine idea is good. the Normandy realy likes a submarine. Anyway, there is a door like thing behind the sleep pods. There can be an area where shepard can't go, so there can be anything behind it. Thanks for the answers.

About the Size Edit

How long, tall and wide the Normandy was? I welcome speculations too but i would like some real data about it.

Well if you'd like real data, you're barking up the wrong tree. If we had it, it would be in the article. I mean, we don't even really have any comparative data, other than that we know it's slightly over half the size of the Normandy SR-2. If you want data like that, best talk to BioWare. I wouldn't even want to make a speculative guess, especially seeing as it has been stated that (like many ships in these sorts of games) the inside area is actually too large to fit inside the frame depicted in cutscenes. SpartHawg948 17:39, July 14, 2010 (UTC)
Yeah the bigger indoor place then ship is a little funny. Sadly I don't know how to contact bioware. But I bet you would have asked it if you could. thanks anyway.

Launched from Arcturus at beginning of ME1??? Edit

Why does this article state that Normandy launched from Arcturus at the start of ME1? It seems pretty clear that the ship is leaving the Solar System as it flies past Neptune then into what is presumably the mass effect relay orbiting Pluto from the opening cut scene. Is there a source for this? I am going to change this if not. 67.171.69.236 16:21, July 18, 2010 (UTC)

Becuase Joker says the Arcturas Prime relay, not the Charon Relay, which is the one in Sol. We have never seen the Arcturus system in game so we don't know what gas giants are there. A lot of gas giannt look alike so saying that they are planets in Sol by visual comparison alone, isn't support, it is speulation. Again because we have never seen the Arcturus system in game, we don't know what is there. Also we don't italizie ship names, and what is ME1? Lancer1289 16:29, July 18, 2010 (UTC)
Addendum: It has been mentioned somewhere that Arcturus is the Alliance's primary shipyard, and as far as we know, there are no shipyards in Sol. Extremely unlikely given that is humanity's home system, but we have no evidence that there is, or as least that I can recall off hand. Lancer1289 16:34, July 18, 2010 (UTC)
I htought that it was called the arcturus prime relay because arcturus was the first system traveled to. Am i missing something here, i am pretty sure they had launcehd from earth, we have to check on this, we must find canonical proof that it is arcturus. I have continually maintained that arcturus is in name only . . . . aaaaaahhhh, i cant beleive that there is a potential continuity error so early in the game that i never noticed. WELL, ima gonna go dissect that scene pixel by pixel, aswell as teh two hours after that scene. ralok 16:42, July 18, 2010 (UTC)
Except the relay in Sol is the Charon Relay, not the Arcturus Prime relay. That has been established somewhere, again I forget where, but again visual comparisons on planets, especially gas giants aren't enough. A lot of gas giants look alike in the ME universe, so that is why we can't use visual comparisons. For the record, I have seen that seen well over 100 times now, and while I can stay there is visual, note VISUAL, evidence to support that it is Sol, that's all there is. Visual comparisons aren't enough to justify trivia nor anything else for that matter. If we could maybe see Arcturus Station, BioWare DLC pack on the Station perhaps, please, and the system it's in, then maybe things can change. Lancer1289 16:50, July 18, 2010 (UTC)

Umm by the way, what do you think about my stance on arcturus? i feel that the page here on this wiki provides potential misiniformation, also the charon relay includes a image of pluto that i dont think is from mass effect, in fact i dont think its even an accurate shape of pluto. And what i mean by dissect i mean im going to figure this out it isnt just visuals i am going to dissect i am going to disssect the plot, aswell i am going to look through all materials including the prima official strategy guides. A side note, i beleive they show a neptune esque planet complete with a black eye storm, a storm that hasent been present on neptune (according to what i know) for quite some time, unless i am misremembering this lends evidence to the fact that it isnt really the sol system. ralok 16:57, July 18, 2010 (UTC)

And how is that, the dialogue says that its the ARCTURUS Prime relay, not the CHARON relay. If they were traveling from Sol they would have said CHARON, not ARCTURUS. Also I think there is more evidence becuse it says that Arcturus is the hub of three major relays, so Prime is probably the major one, while the other two are other names. Prime is probably that name becuse it connects to the Exodus Cluster, which is where Eden Prime is. Also the Normandy only makes one jump, not two as would have ben required from Sol. IF they had left from Sol, then they would have had to jump to Arcturus, then to the Utopia System, which is prsumably where the relay from Arcturus ends. So one jump is shown with the extra time mentioned in the cutscene for traveling from the relay to Eden Prime. There is much more evidence supporting Arcturus than Sol.
Second, no that image of Charon and Pluto on that page isn't an in game picture, but then neither is the one on the Arcturus page either. Both put things in perspective as we really don't have a good ingame image, at least I don't recall that we do. Both images are good until we get some better images.
Third, storms on Gas Giants are quite common both in real life and in the game universe. Also again jsut because a gas giant is blue, with a storm that appears similar, doens't mean that it's Neptune. There are plenty of blue gas giants seen over ME and ME2, so again visual comparisons aren't enough in this case. Using a storm as a fact to say that it is Neptune, is speuclation as I could pull a ga giant from ME2, and say that it is Neptune becuase it as the same storm. Storms are quite common, and having one isn't emough to compare to. I mean Jupiter's Great Red Spot, which is a storm, looks different than Saturn's storms, or Uranus', or Neptune's. Lancer1289 17:12, July 18, 2010 (UTC)
I think you missed the point, that neptune esque planet actually supports greatly that the system is not the sol system. Neptune used to have a storm like that, but it doesnt anymore, the storm dissapated in the ninties i think, appearently the blue gas giant in the arcturus system does though. I wasnt using that to support that it was the sol system, i was using it to contradict the idea that it is the sol system. I think you have misunderstood my stance on this situation lancer ralok 17:27, July 18, 2010 (UTC)
Well from your first comments it made it seem like you were supporting that the Normandy was launched from Earth. Anyway you are correct about the storm, the Great Dark Spot, or Neptune's storm disappeared abrubtly in 1994, and then a new storm, the Great Northen Dark Spot popped up later that year. Lancer1289 17:40, July 18, 2010 (UTC)

assuming that the normandy was not upside down, or was upside. Assuming that the normandy maintain its up and down the smae throughout the system, then the system cannot be the sol system. Because either way the spot one one planet would be on the wrong hemisphere. Although it is a stretch it is evidence to compound the other proof. ralok 17:46, July 18, 2010 (UTC)

Again its the wole visual comparion part comes back, gas giants to look alike, especially when you have to scan them, as I'm sure you've noticed, they tend to blur together after a while. However it is a massive stretch compounded by the fact storms are quite common and I believe even a few were featured on planets that appear similar to Neptune, or other Sol gas giants. There is more proof for Arcturus than Sol ad what other proof for Sol is there? Lancer1289 17:51, July 18, 2010 (UTC)

I am just trying to proove this to myself, usually i need three peices of evidence to proove something to myself. You pointed out two (i think), i had to rely on my knowledge of neptune stemming from the magic school bus to provide the third. Kind of a wierd quirk of mine, and you are definitly right, even scientifically speaking htere isnt much to seperate gas giants, cloud cover is pretty erratic, if it wasnt for storms and such it would be even more difficult. Its not like they have landmarks, oceans, and wierd stuff taht rock worlds have. ralok 17:55, July 18, 2010 (UTC)

Ya well anyways, the system is definitly not sol, unless sol gained a jupiter type planet that is upside down, or a neptune planet that is rightside up. ralok 17:59, July 18, 2010 (UTC)


Fair enough - the gas giant looks a lot like Neptune, but Joker does say "Arcturus relay". Good enough for me. 67.171.69.236 18:05, July 18, 2010 (UTC)

I just skimmed all this, so I may have missed if someone mentioned this, but the answer seems insanely obvious to me. The intro to ME was clearly a montage. We didn't see everything that transpired from the moment the Normandy left wherever to the moment it reached its destination. It seems pretty obvious that the Normandy started out in the Sol System, passed by Jupiter and Neptune, then used the Charon Relay offscreen to get to Arcturus. It then used the Arcturus Relay to get to Eden Prime. This makes perfect sense, as the Charon Relay is the only way out of the Sol System, and it just so happens that right next door to it (proverbially speaking) is humanity's main mass relay hub in... the Arcturus System! Simple explanation. That's my story and I'm sticking to it. SpartHawg948 19:53, July 18, 2010 (UTC)

Addition of crew names Edit

It might be prudent to put these in their own section, since they may overlap with some of the crew positions listed. Also, I recommend splitting them into two columns to reduce length. I would make these changes myself, but as I am new here, I'm not extensively versed in editing yet. GiantEnemyCrab 21:58, August 7, 2010 (UTC)

What would this other section be? Bear in mind that it is above the spoiler tags for both ME and ME2. Any new section would have to be spoiler-free (i.e containing no information relating to how the names were obtained, or the fates of the crewers), or would have to be relocated to the ME2 section of the article. SpartHawg948 22:03, August 7, 2010 (UTC)
Something as simple as "Crew Names" would be fine. As it is now, it sounds like the named crew are in addition to the listed positions. GiantEnemyCrab 23:47, August 7, 2010 (UTC)
Which they very well may be. Crew Names sounds pretty clunky and contrived, and makes it sound like the names are (or should be) attached to the unnamed crew members listed above, and we do not know if this is the case. SpartHawg948 23:50, August 7, 2010 (UTC)
"Additional Crew Names" then? It just sounds...sloppy the way it is. I'll see if I can come up with a better way to word it. Heh, sorry about the edit conflict too. I left my browser open while I was away and it logged me out.
EDIT: Perhaps leave them all under additional, but put them in the seperate columns like I mentioned before. That way it serves to differentiate them a bit while not suggesting they may or may not be the same people. GiantEnemyCrab 23:54, August 7, 2010 (UTC)
So... move them to "Additional Crew Names", as opposed to leaving them in the "Additional" section of "Crew"? We don't really know the status of these crew members, so long story short, I don't really see this being resolved without... well, without removing the names, or... well, I dunno, honestly. Leaving them there implies that they are in addition to the crew seen. We don't know this. Any restructuring implies either that they are the same, or different. Hmmm... this is quite the conundrum. Ok, how about this... we don't have names for any of the random NPCs in ME, they're just listed by positions they are assumed to be fulfilling. What about removing them, and leaving the names (possibly in two columns) in the 'Additional' section? SpartHawg948 00:03, August 8, 2010 (UTC)
Hmmm...it isn't perfect, but that's probably the best solution. I'll leave the changes to your discretion in case you want to implement the columns. GiantEnemyCrab 00:50, August 8, 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, it really isn't ideal, but this was a less than ideal situation, wasn't it? :P I think I'll hold off for just a bit, just in case someone else has a better idea. If not, I'll try my best to remember and take care of it. SpartHawg948 00:52, August 8, 2010 (UTC)
Entering this a little late, but I have been playing around with it and columns seem to be the best way to go. The only other way I can think of is a table, and IMO, we have enough of those for now. I have also found a way that it wouldn't interfer with the image and it still presents the information. Lancer1289 04:53, August 8, 2010 (UTC)

"Few crewmembers" Edit

Seems odd to be arguing over a couple of words, and it was not me that began the edits. But I happen to agree that "few crewmembers" is a horrible phrase and disrupts the flow of the overall sentence. Can we not change the sentence to something else? I'm happy to hear explanations defending it.... --ElDutchio 10:04, March 23, 2011 (UTC)

So the simple fact that few crewmembers didn’t escape is not only supported in game, but by two different characters apparently means nothing? Few is what is supported in the game and changing that does change the entire meaning of the sentence. So no, we can't change it to something else as it then means something different than what is stated in canon. Lancer1289 14:05, March 23, 2011 (UTC)
I'm not disputing the numbers (i.e. that only a few crewmembers died). It is an issue of style, not canon. I'm saying that the sentence structure is horrible. Current sentence = "Few crew members, with Navigator Pressly among them, are killed during the attack, while others evacuate the ship via escape pods". I would change it to "While a number of crew members, Navigator Pressly among them, are killed during the attack, the rest evacuate the ship via escape pods". I think that flows better, but I guess that is a subjective view. Apologies, but I genuinely don't understand the concern - I may have misunderstood you. Is it that you think that by changing to "a number" implies that more crewmembers died than "a few"? Or is it because the sentence in question is lifted verbatim from a codex entry or from exactly what a character says?

If it is the former of those concerns, then I think it doesn't actually make that much difference, but if you really think it does I would suggest that it needs to be changed to "A few". It would at least be a compromise. --ElDutchio 17:04, March 23, 2011 (UTC)

Yeah no. You have now completely changed the meaning of the sentence. "Few" =/= "a number of" as "a number of" is more ambiguous than what is says currently, and does indeed imply more crew members survived than actually did. That does change the meaning of the sentence and makes a big difference. Therefore, it is not something that you can dismiss as changing a word does change the meaning and context of a sentence. However it is all irrelevant, as both Joker and Jacob say that a few crewmembers didn't make it out, so therefore anything else deferrers from canon, which of course can be viewed by reading the history of the article. I didn't use the word canon lightly in my first comment. So ignoring canon for the sake of "this sounds better" is a very big concern. Right now, I see no pressing need to change the article in any way. Lancer1289 17:17, March 23, 2011 (UTC)
Thankyou for your reply and your explanation. I would disagree with your first point, but am happy to concede it in view of your reasonable concerns. What to the compromise position, however? You have shown that "A few" would make a difference ("as both Joker and Jacob say that a few crewmembers didn't make it out"). How about "While Navigator Pressly and a few crewmembers were killed during the attack, most others evacuated the ship via escape pods"? I can see that this may seem overly pedantic, and I apologise for that, but by way of the fact previous users, the wiki contributor you edited, and now myself have taken issue, perhaps the article does need to be edited slightly to preserve canon but also "make it sound better"? Hopefully the two are not mutually exclusive :) --ElDutchio 17:37, March 23, 2011 (UTC)
You seem to be missing is issue entirely. What each and every one changed was "few" to something else, thereby changing the meaning of the sentence, and differing from canon. None of them changed the wording and I have already given my position on changing the article in my previous comment. Lancer1289 17:42, March 23, 2011 (UTC)
Thankyou for your reply. I will refrain from editing it as per my above suggestion since you see no need for it to be changed. I don't think I am missing the point, but you are the Admin, so your word is final.--ElDutchio 17:52, March 23, 2011 (UTC)
The issue is that the previous edits were changing "few" to something else, which differs from canon. Nothing else was changed, just the representation of how many casualties. Lancer1289 18:01, March 23, 2011 (UTC)
Indeedy, I take that point. I think they kept changing it though because they thought e.g. "a number" flowed a bit better. But as you say, this affects Canon. My suggested edit (not the one at the top of the page, the most recent) was trying to preserve the use of "few" but also make it flow a little better. Starting a sentence with an adjective makes my grammar sense tingle. But it is only one sentence I guess, so leaving it as it is will do. Thanks for discussing the issue with me, I appreciate your replies and your time.86.184.122.127 18:09, March 23, 2011 (UTC)

Normandy crew headcount Edit

Probably one of the most confusing/debated points in ME, but here goes for my ten-penneth.

After completing the Noveria mission first, I ran around the ship and did a manual head count with the following results (bear with me):

Flight deck: Joker, Pressly, 14 unnamed crew (11 male, 3 female) of which 4 appear to be marines (all male) and 2 appear to be officers (both male, wearing dress tunics).

Crew deck: Alenko, Chakwas, 2 unnamed crew (1 male, 1 female)

Maintenance deck: Williams, Wrex, Garrus, Adams, Tali, Alliance Requisitions Officer, 3 unnamed crew (2 female, 1 male)

That gives a total of 20 unnamed Alliance crew (including 'Alliance Requisitions Officer'), and 7 named Alliance crew (including Shepard and counting Williams/Jenkins as occupying the same crew slot at different times, but not including Captain Anderson), with 3-4 alien allies (depending whether you've collected Liara or not).

Ignoring the aliens, and scratching off 'former crew members' Cpt Anderson and Cpl Jenkins, the 7 named Alliance crew are listed under 'crew' along with one incidentally-named marine (Pvt Fredricks).

I therefore have 19 unnamed Alliance crew to the 'additional' listing of 23 unnamed Alliance crew. 4 of my crew, apparently, have gone AWOL!

The 'additional' crew listing groups by role, rather than location, which seems a bit speculative to me. Granted, the Requisitions Officer is identified by his in-game tag, and 3 Engineers in Engineering seems obvious enough, but then it seems to come adrift a bit. The 2 crew in the mess are...what? They can't be marines, because if they are, then two of the four men standing sentry on the flight deck aren't marines (which would seem a bit odd to me). If they're Command Deck Technicians (which added to the 6 seated at the systems monitors between the cockpit and CIC would make the stated 8), then what's the justification for defining them as such? They could be marines, they could be off-shift engineers (which makes more sense to me considering how lightly crewed engineering seems, especially for a shakedown run).

And then there's the 5 CIC Officers. Granted, I have no idea what 'officer' insignia looks like in the game, but I'm leaning towards the smart black-with-gold-trim dress tunics as modelled by Cpt Anderson at various points. In which case, not only can I only see 4 unnamed crew lurking around CIC (not counting the nearby marines or Pressly, who's named), but only 2 of them, to me, look like officers.

As for the list of casualties, to reduce confusion, couldn't they go under a separate heading, e.g. 'Crew named in ME2'? It seems to me that such a heading would clarify the uncertainty over the overlap between the unnamed visible crew in ME and the casualty list in ME2, without spoiling the circumstances under which those crew are named. 92.12.25.4 16:20, April 26, 2011 (UTC)

Expansion of trivia is not trivia Edit

Yet again I find myself on this page disagreeing with trivia, well the addition to a trivia item this time. I have to completely disagree that the new addition to the trivia meets standards for trivia. It's very nature is a subjective comparison. "[P]owerful engines mounted on modestly-sized wings", this by its very nature is subjective and I have to disagree that it is relevant, regardless of what the rest of the trivia says. While I still somewhat disagree that the entire bit is trivia, this just pushes it into the realm of being not trivia as it contains at least one subjective statement, there's one other one in there. I have to say that if we want to keep standards, then the new addition must be removed because of its subjectivity. I could also argue that the comparison is irrelevant to begin with as it just adds nothing but fluff to the trivia, and usually fluff is removed. It adds nothing to the trivia and the new addition needs to go. Lancer1289 14:14, November 8, 2011 (UTC)

It's not subjective. What part of it is subjective? What part of it is irrelevant? It is entirely relevant to the trivia item it has been added to. You are correct about one thing though. The item added is indeed not trivia. No one is claiming it is. It is supporting info for an existing item. It most certainly does add to the existing item. And if it must be removed in order to keep our site standards (though I can't see how site standards are a make-or-break based on this one item), then you must demonstrate how the item in question violates site standards. I can't see any violation. It's not fluff at all. It merely suffers from the failing of being something you don't like. And, IMO, the new addition needs to stay. Unless, of course, there's a serious reason for it to go. And I've yet to see one. SpartHawg948 18:35, November 8, 2011 (UTC)
Very well, I will break it down then and then mention a personal issue that I had with the previous comment.
"modestly-sized wings". If we must compare the two in terms of what is on there, then the wing ratio is completely off. The wings of the SR-1 run about the entire length of the ship's body, while the SR-71's run just about half. Even if we take out the long pylons, we are still off as they run about a third compared to a half respectively. "Modestly-sized" spews subjectivity as "modestly" is different to everyone. Modestly in this case seems to mean about half, perhaps a little less, and that demonstratably false. Even if you take both wings and cut it off at the engines, which I'm assuming to be the bulge in the pylon, then the ration is still off by a significant margin.
"powerful engines". This statement is completely subjective. We do know the Normandy has the largest element zero drive core in the Alliance, but we know nothing about the speed and power of its sublight engines. And those are two completely separate things. We however do know that the engines on the SR-71, the J58, is one of the most powerful engines, both in the turbojet and ramjet categories, to date. Again though, we have no direct comparison for the Normandy, so that statement in of itself is subjective. The entire statement on the Normandy's side is subjective and speculation to boot.
"engines mounted on modestly-sized wings". The engines for an SR-71 are built into the wings, which is clearly demonstratable from any picture of the aircraft. However, the Normandy's engines appear to be attached to the back of the "wings", rather than incorporated to the extent that the SR-71's engines are. Being at the back, or attached, and integrated are two separate things and are not the same thing. Not to mention the word "mounted", for the most part, implies something under the plane, or attached to it, or at least from my experience. For example, like how the engines on a 747 or B-52 are mounted under the wings of their respective aircrafts, while the engines of a B-29 were incorporated into wings. Or, how the missiles of a F-18 Hornet are mounted under the wings, while the Missiles of an F-22 Raptor’s are inside the aircraft, in weapon bays incorporated into the aircraft to preserve the stealth nature of the fighter. The engines of a SR-71 are incorporated into the wings, while the Normandy's engines appear to be attached to the end of them, or the end of the ship.
"cockpits in the front and powerful engines mounted on modestly-sized wings at the back.". What is being described here is the basic layout for a plane. Just about every plane has a cockpit in the front, and engines in the back. That in of itself describes nothing that people don't already know or that they can see on a daily basis. I cannot off-hand think of one plane that doesn't have a cockpit in the front and engines in the back. I know there are a few, usually earlier examples, but again I can't think of any modern ones off-hand. Of course we could argue that the Normandy's front is the Bridge, not the cockpit, but that's splitting hairs. The entire statement here adds nothing of interest, nothing of impact, nothing of value, and demonstrates nothing that people don't already know about how planes are generally laid out. To say it again, this is fluff because of what I just stated. Nothing is added by the statement.
And I have to say this otherwise I will just sit on it for a long time. I know that I'll catch heat from it no matter what I say, but I have to say what I have to say about it, as it infuriated me and almost made me drop the discussion then and there, and I'll leave it at that. I just wanted to point out that I take offense to the statement "[i]t merely suffers from the failing of being something you don't like". I will freely admit that I don't like it, I don't like the trivia as a whole, but to say that is the only reason that I'm calling it out on, is something that I find outright insulting and a slap in the face on what I'm trying to do. Should I have laid out everything out a lot better before hand? Most definitely, but I didn't. To that end, I could have just done with just the "then you must demonstrate how the item in question violates site standards", which would have been demonstrating a failing on my end, and I would have taken the clue.
So there's the entire case and if you can't find one fault with the statement with what I have presented, then I don't know what else to do. The statement has many problems, which I outlined above, and because of the amount of problems, it has to go. There's nothing I can do about the rest of it at the moment, although I plan to start working on it, but this new statement has numerous issues. Lancer1289 19:55, November 8, 2011 (UTC)

So, in other words, you probably feel as offended by my statement that "[i]t merely suffers from the failing of being something you don't like" as I felt by your statement that "if we want to keep standards, then the new addition must be removed because of its subjectivity", given the fact that you flat-out stated that I had acted in violation of site standards, and implied that somehow my knowledge of said standards is deficient compared to your own. Now the shoe is on the other foot.

And no, there is still nothing subjective there. Let's see. Modestly sized wings. Well of course the two don't have the same wing ratio. No one claims they do. But, on the topic of wing ratio, and this is extremely basic airframe design we're talking here, both the SR-71 and the SR-1 do have wings that, proportional to the airframes, are small. Length of the wing root on the airframe is only one of the variables, and far from the most important. The subjectivity=spewing "modestly" does not, in this case, spew any sort of subjectivity, as from a purely technical standpoint (and remember, I do know a bit more than the average civilian layman here), the wings are modestly sized. And if you don't like "modestly", comparatively works just as well.

Powerful engines indeed. This is not subjective. It's demonstrated in-game. On the other hand, the statement that "the Normandy has the largest element zero drive core in the Alliance" is false. The Normandy's drive core is twice the size of a normal Alliance frigate drive core, but nothing indicates it is the largest in the Alliance. For example, is it plausible to assume the Normandy has a larger drive core than a dreadnought or carrier? The speed of the Normandy is commented on several times in-game, and we see for ourselves the power of the engines, thanks to several lovely cutscenes. Of the bits you quoted, this is the closest to being subjective, but even this is tenuous.

As for your arguments about the engine mounts, this I do find offensive from a professional point of view. So, back to technical talk. The engines of the SR-71 are not "built into" the wings. Were this the case, it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to replace them. The engines of an SR-71 are mounted inside fairings which are themselves partially encased in the wings. As it so happens, the engines of the SR-1 also appear to be mounted in fairings which are partially encased in the wings of the Normandy. But yeah, the engines of an SR-71 are no more "built into" the plane than is the engine on an F-16. Your notion of the definition of "mounted" is also incorrect. In the context of an aircraft, mounted does not mean under the plane. You are correct though that mounted does mean that it's something attached to a plane. This attachment, though, can be anywhere. Not just under the plane. Anything that is not a part of the airframe is mounted onto it, regardless of location. Cannons, generally located in the nose or the wing root of a plane, are mounted. Engines are mounted regardless of location. Weapons pylons are mounted. Missiles, however, are not. They are carried. On weapons mounts (aka weapons pylons).

Finally, the comment on the layout. You claim that "Just about every plane has a cockpit in the front, and engines in the back". This statement is, of course, incorrect. Most planes have engines parallel to or forward of the cockpit. Here's an exercise: Look at pictures of WWII fighters - the more, the better. Now, how many do you see with engines at the back? Just speaking in general here, how many planes can you name with engines anywhere near as far back on their airframes as they are on the SR-71. It's a very short list, I can assure you. Most of the planes on the list will be very recent models of bomber. (Recent as in late Cold War on, since bombers don't get replaced very often) What you are (possibly) thinking of when you say you can't think of any modern planes that don't have cockpits at the front and engines at the rear is engine exhausts, not the engines themselves. And, of course, engine exhausts are not indicative of engine placement. If it were, all cars would have their engines in the rear. For some modern examples, consider the F-16 and the Eurofighter Typhoon. In most planes, modern ones included, engines are either forward of, parallel to, or located close behind the cockpit. It is very rare to find a plane where the engines are located as far back as they are on the SR-71. So much for it being nothing more than the basic design of all planes.

In summation, the item added is relevant, it is not subjective (unless viewed strictly through the lens of a layman), and it does contain items of interest and items rare or unique enough to be worthy of note. It is not fluff, nor do I see the need to work on it, as there are no issues I can see. SpartHawg948 00:47, November 9, 2011 (UTC)

Crew Edit

Shouldn't Liara, Garrus, Tali, and Wrex be added to the crew list? ClerkBosker 22:12, March 1, 2012 (UTC)

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.