Flare Sci-Fi Forums: USS Endeavour, 1895 or 1695?

This is topic USS Endeavour, 1895 or 1695? in forum Starships & Technology at Flare Sci-Fi Forums.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://flare.solareclipse.net/ultimatebb.php/topic/6/494.html

Posted by The359 (Member # 37) on :

While working on the Constitution II for UP3, I began pondering why the USS Endeavour featured such a high registry number. Then I remembers the mistake in the original Encyclopedia with the USS Intrepid, which was labeled as NCC-1831 is some sections, and 1631 is others. It was finally found that the real number was 1631. Then there is also the USS Yeager, which was labelled as 81947 is the picture and 61947 in the description. After this, I pondered, and pondered, and wondered if the USS Endeavour NCC-1895 might actually be NCC-1695? Do you people think the Endeavour might actually be 1695? It would better fit into the numbering scheme of the Constitutions.

Oh, nutz, I just realized I screwed up the topic. The topic should say 'USS Endeavour, 1895 or 1695'

------------------
"Can you pull in the leviathan with a fishhook or tie down his tongue with a rope? Can you put a cord through his nose or pierce his jaw with a hook? Will he keep begging you for mercy? Will he speak to you with gentle words? Will he make an agreement with you for you to take him as your slave for life? Can you make a pet of him like a bird or put him on a leash for your girls? Will traders barter for him? Will they divide him up among the merchants? Can you fill his hide with harpoons or his head with fishing spears. If you lay a hand on him, you will remember the struggle and never do it again!" -Job 41:1 - Job 41:8

[This message has been edited by The359 (edited November 07, 1999).]

Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :

And now it does. :-)

And that's an interesting theory you have. I wonder precisely where they got the number...

------------------
Rimmer: "Holly, put a trace on Paranoia."
Holly: "What's a trace?"
Rimmer: "It's space jargon. It means 'find him'."
Holly: "No it doesn't. You just made it up to sound cool."
-Red Dwarf: "Confidence & Paranoia"

Posted by Identity Crisis (Member # 67) on :

If you look at my Constitution class registries page you'll see that the Endeavo(u)r is one of two ships (the other being the Eagle) that have four different registries in the four main registry schemes.

Heaven knows where NCC-1895 came from.

Myself, I'll stick with NCC-1716, and keep NCC-1895 for a Cyane class heavy frigate.

------------------
-->Identity Crisis<--

[This message has been edited by Identity Crisis (edited November 08, 1999).]

Posted by The First One (Member # 35) on :

Well, as with all things FASA, the general response around here is "you can call it your left testicle for all we care." 8)

According to my list, there are 4 canon ships with 18xx registries: the Lantree, NCC-1837, the Emden, NCC-1856, the Reliant, NCC-1864, and the Endeavour, NCC-1895. And of course there used to be 5 with the Intrepid being corrected later. But just because there are two dozen other Constitutions in the 1600s and 1700s doesn't mean there can't be at least one in the 1800s.

After all, the Emden is likely to be either a Constitution or a Miranda. . . but never mind that.

If the registry is wrong, then the last known Constitution is the USS Defiant, NCC-1764. I can't believe that in the 20+ years between the latest possible date of her construction and the appearance of the first Excelsior-class that all they built were Mirandas, Soyuzes, and Constellations (assuming the NX-1974 of the latter class ship is correct; where did this number come from anyway?).

So, not enough information, IMO. And I don't like the idea of saying every figure you don't think sounds quite right must therefore be wrong.

[This message has been edited by The First One (edited November 08, 1999).]

Posted by Identity Crisis (Member # 67) on :

Well as far as your left testicle goes, maybe you should have read the page I pointed everyone at. If you had you would have realised that FASA used NCC-1777 not the NCC-1716 which I favour. But hey, we can't expect people to actually do any research before they mouth off can we?

NX-1974 for the Constellation comes from an Okudagram on the Enterprise bridge in ST VI.

------------------
-->Identity Crisis<--

[This message has been edited by Identity Crisis (edited November 08, 1999).]

Posted by Identity Crisis (Member # 67) on :

Oh and another thing, your canon list of 18xx registry ships is missing the USS Saratoga at NCC-1867.

------------------
-->Identity Crisis<--

Posted by The First One (Member # 35) on :

1. As far as I'm concerned, FASA is a generic term for "nerdy fans trying to impose their views of the subject on everyone else."

2. I'll mouth off as and when I want. And I could give a sh*t who says NCC-1716 or 1777.

3. The Saratoga appears to be a mistake in my list, which seems to say it's NCC-1937. Never noticed that before. *shrug*

Posted by Identity Crisis (Member # 67) on :

1. Well if that's the way your sloppy thinking goes at least we all know to ignore it from now on.

And would you care to explain in what way you are not a "nerdy fans trying to impose their views of the subject on everyone else"? That seems to be exactly what you're doing.

The nerdy fans you denegrate so much are people like Rick Sternbach and Greg Jein.

Would you please give examples of people in trekinical fandom trying to impose their views on other people? That's an attitude much more closely associated with the close-minded canonites and their "if it's not in the 'official' books then it doesn't count" bleatings.

FASA produced a very good set of TOS RPG rules and ship-to-ship combat rules. They are very much products of their time and compared to todays rules are very mechanics heavy. The background they produced was too militaristic for the Trek being produced at the time (ST IV, early TNG) and thay's why they fell out with Paramount. Some of the background has been disproved by later episodes and films, but then so has some of the speculation in the TNG TM and early editions of the Chronology and Encyclopedia.

Trekinical fandom has, by and large, got very little to do with FASA. FASA borrowed material from one book, the Spaceflight Chronology. Would you like me to post a quote from Mike Okuda saying how much he likes that book? For a long time trekinical fandom slagged FASA off, but these days people are more forgiving and tend to incorporate the best of FASA into a larger view that includes many, many different sources.

2. And you expect people to give a sh*t what you think?

3. You're in good company, the Encyclopedia (cam't remember which edition) makes that same mistake.

------------------
-->Identity Crisis<--

Posted by The First One (Member # 35) on :

You really are a very boring person, aren't you?

Posted by Identity Crisis (Member # 67) on :

I think I'll just let your response speak for itself.

------------------
-->Identity Crisis<--

Posted by The First One (Member # 35) on :

Ah, Stephen, Stephen, Stephen. . . you really do need to learn to relax a little now and then! None of this really means anything. But it would be nice to hear your own opinions now and then, instead of parroting what some other fan thought up 20 years ago. You obviously have a talent for this, so put it to good use. Let's hear something original!

But I digress.

I still don't think the available evidence justifies arbitrarily assuming the Endeavour's registry is wrong just because another ship of the same class with a similar registry turned out to be wrong. Now, there are several ways we could go with this:

1. Accept it for what it is. I don't know whether there's any on-screen evidence for this number. If there is, end of story.

2. Acknowledge it as a mistake. Okuda had to think of a number, and he chose the wrong one. But aren't there enough real big mistakes in the Encyclopaedias without going looking for small inconsequential - for that's what this is - ones?

3. Damn the Encyclopaedia for making another boo-boo, and add it to the list, and give the Endeavour its new number.

I'm hovering between 1 and 2 right now, if someone can convince me it's 3 then please do so. Because maybe this is the problem with the Encyclopedias - why should they try to get them exact when no matter how many massive howlers are eliminated, there will still be people worrying over every little niggling detail that doesn't quite fit? No wonder the Okudas don't want to do anymore. . .

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :

MY, this almost sounds like it belings in the Flameboard Forum!

Kids, if it were that important, I'd have said something about it.

------------------
'In every country and in every age the priest has been hostile to Liberty; he is always in allegiance to the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection of his own." ---- Thomas Jefferson

Posted by Identity Crisis (Member # 67) on :

I saw someone posting a controversial assertion and asked him to justify it. He decided to start calling names. Shrugs.

If you want my opinions take a look at my web site. My opinion on this matter is that the Franz Joseph registry for the Endeavo(u)r is the most logical and attractive one.

The NCC-1895 does appear on screen. In ST VI in the Operation: Retrieve and on the Enterprise bridge mission assignment list Okudagram. Why Okuda used 1895 instead of 1718 from the Greg Jein list (which is what most of the Paramount registries is based on) is a mystery. I could easily live with 1718. 1895 just doesn't work for me, which is one of the reasons why I choose to ignore the Paramount Constitution class registries - even those that appeared, just about, on screen in ST VI.

One only has to look at the illogical fashion in which Greg Jein derived the registries to realise that they're suspect. Even the Encyclopedia admits this!

------------------
-->Identity Crisis<--

[This message has been edited by Identity Crisis (edited November 08, 1999).]

Posted by Identity Crisis (Member # 67) on :

Oh, to bring this back to the original question: if you'd like to scrap 1895 (and if you don't want to be radical/traditional by going to the 1716 from FJ scheme) then you can go back to the original Greg Jein scheme and use 1718. Which is what happened when the Intrepid changed back from 1831 to 1631.

For those too busy to look at my web site here's the relevant table:


Name    Greg Jein   Franz Joseph   FASA       Paramount
Constellation
         1017        1017          1017          1017
Constitition
        1700         1700          1700          1700
Defiant    ?         1717          1764          1764
Eagle   1685         1719          1738           956
Endeavour
        1718         1716          1777          1895
Enterprise
        1701         1701          1701          1701
Essex   1697         1727          1719          1697
Excalibur
        1664         1705          1664          1664
Exeter  1672         1706          1672          1672
Farragut   ?         1702          1647          1647
Hood    1703         1707          1703          1703
Intrepid
        1631         1708          1631          1831
Kongo      ?         1710          1710          1710
Lexington
        1709         1703          1709          1709
Potemkin   ?         1711          1702          1657
Republic
        1371         1371          1373          1371
Valiant    ?         1709          1718             X
Yorktown   ?         1704          1717          1717

------------------
-->Identity Crisis<--

Posted by The First One (Member # 35) on :

So the ST:VI registry is the only one to appear onscreen? Then go with that. Did the Endeavour appear on TOS or not?

Posted by Identity Crisis (Member # 67) on :

Actually quite a few registries appeared on screen in ST VI (or at least in the extended video release).

The Ahwahnee NCC-2048, Challenger NCC-2032, Eagle NCC-956, Endeavour NCC-1895, Potemkin NCC-1657, Scovil NCC-1598, and Springfield NCC-1963 are all part of the Operation: Retrieve plan.

The Ahwahnee NCC-2048, Challenger NCC-2032, Constellation NX-1974, Emden NCC-1856, Endeavour NCC-1895, Helin NCC-1692, Kongo NCC-1710, Korolev NCC-2014, Lantree NCC-1831, Oberth NCC-602, Republic NCC-1371, and Whorfin NCC-1024 (and possibly a couple others) are all shown on a mission assignment list on the Enterprise.

I'm not sure which graphic the John Muir NCC-1732 is on but that's in there as well.

There are no classes given on the graphics, so except for the Eagle (shown to be a Constitution) they could be of any class. It's entirely possible that the Endeavour is a Miranda class, named after a Constitution with a 17xx registry. How's that for a new idea? Hmm, I think there's room to play with that idea...

No the Endeavo(u)r never featured in TOS. But it was probably on the list of ships in The Making of Star Trek book which is why both Greg Jein and Franz Joseph included it in their lists of Constiution class ships.

------------------
-->Identity Crisis<--

[This message has been edited by Identity Crisis (edited November 08, 1999).]

Posted by The First One (Member # 35) on :

I like the idea of it being a new Miranda a lot more than I do the idea of ignoring onscreen evidence because it's not convenient for someone's pet registry scheme.

OK, how's this: someone in the production team had a list of ships for some reason. Jein and whatsisface saw this list and each made guesses (educated guesses, but guesses all the same) as to it's registry. Given the way they went about this, it could have gotten any of at least a dozen numbers unassigned from the available range. Either way, it didn't matter. Trek was dead anyway.

However, when the franchise was revived the opportunity arose to canonise the Endeavour, and it duly happened, with one twist: Okuda chose a registry far out of the range of any that had gone before. If he was aware of the previous ones, then he either considered them unimportant enough to ignore (or even forget), or decided to deliberately reject them. Maybe he was unaware of the use of the name before, and chose it purely because it's the name of a famous ship.

I haven't seen anything to disprove the 1895 registry yet. It's the only one seen onscreen, and to dispute it because that number is incompatible with others of that class when you're not even SURE it's one of that class seems absurd.

Posted by The359 (Member # 37) on :

Well, this is worse then I thought. Now I really have no clue what to write for this. Are you positive it said 1895 on those screens? Are you 100% sure you didn't misread it as 1695?

If it doesn't come up as a misreading, then I'll just decide between either NCC-1865, NCC-1718, or another class, since those seem the most logical.

Posted by colin (Member # 217) on :

My thoughts-
1. Why was the USS Valiant changed from a Constitution Class starship to an unknown class of starship? The Making of Star Trek makes this starship a Constitution Class starship. For me, that is pretty definitive and I list the USS Valiant as Constitution Class.
2. USS Saratoga's registry. This starship has since the first encyclopedia been given the registry NCC-1867 or NCC-1937. I favor the latter, however I will rent the dvd version of the fourth movie to confirm the registry. The registry might be visible after the ship is crippled.
3. In the fourth movie, when Capt. Kirk and company are heading to the USS Enterprise A, there is a view of a Constitution Class starship. Her nacelle bears no markings. If I understand correctly, starships are built and after completion are given a registry and then a name. If so, then this maybe evidence that this class of starship was still being built in the 2280's.

------------------

takeoffs are optional; landings are mandatory

Posted by The359 (Member # 37) on :

Registry numbers are assigned while a ship is under construction. The name isn't officially named until she is commissioned (naval tradition, isn't it?)

Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :

TargetEmployee: The trouble with Valiant being a Constitution class ship is that she was lost in about 2217, nearly 50 years before TOS. Enterprise was supposedly launched around 2245, and if we believe the registry numbers, Constitution was probably launched only a few years earlier. It's possible that there is a Constitution-class Valiant, but I think it's unlikely that the Valiant lost in 2217 was a Constitution-class ship.

I have nothing at all to say about 1895 or 1695.

------------------
When you're in the Sol system, come visit the Starfleet Museum

Posted by The First One (Member # 35) on :

I'd have to agree there, there's no way the Valiant can be a Constitution-class starship. But good point about the ship in ST:IV, I really want to believe they were still building them then, but I doubt it. More likely it was undergoing the refit thing.

You see, if there aren't any Constitutions after that batch in the NCC-1700s, then that means no more built after the 2350s! I reckon they'd still be turning them out into the 2370s, hence the NCC-1895.

Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :

Well, the Valiant's registry was in the 1200s, and there are Constitutions going back to the 900s, so it could be one, although there's no proof either way.

Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :

As for that marking-less nacelle, we never saw the ship in its entirety. Of canon TOS-movie ships, only the Constitutions and the Mirandas have registries in their nacelles, as far as we know - perhaps this nacelle belonged to a Challenger or a Sydney or some ship class that uses the LN-64 but hasn't been seen on-screen yet.

And the Valiant was originally interpreted as a Constitution on the premise that the Enterprise as seen in TOS was an old ship, with perhaps four decades of history behind it. The launch date of 2245 is more or less Okudaic revisionism, and one piece of Trek history where I completely agree with Okuda - but earlier sources suggested a launch in the Okudaic 2220s for the first Constitutions, so with a little reworking of TOS dates, the Valiant would fit.

It would be a tight fit, though. And I do hate the idea that Constitutions are such crappy ships that they disappear on their maiden voyages and Starfleet never thinks this fact worth investigating. "Oh, well, now we all expected that, didn't we? Back to the drawing boards, folks, and this time design something that stays afloat at least until the next budgetary evaluations!"...

If the Valiant was of an earlier, inferior ship type from an era when warp travel was slower and more hazardous, then it would be natural for Starfleet not to investigate until half a century later when better ships were available.

Timo Saloniemi

Posted by Identity Crisis (Member # 67) on :

I'm increasingly in favour of my 1895 is another ship theory.
In Ships of the Star Fleet NCC-1895 is a Cyane class heavy frigate (that's really just a Miranda variant) the USS Constellation. Since that book was published ST VI came out with NX-1974 in service in that period. So we need a replacement ship in th Cyane list. It's very neat to have the Constitution class Endeavour destroyed at some point between the early 2270s (when she was the class ship of the Endeavour sub-class of Constitutions) and the late 2280s when the Cyanes were launched. And we get to blow another Constitution up! Always fun

Now can we get rid of all the other non low 1700s registries by similar slight of hand?

Obviously not for the Constellation NCC-1017.

Republic NCC-1371 mentioned in both TOS and on the ST VI Okudagram. But only The Making of Star Trek and fan tradition makes her a Constitution: could easily be another class.

Eagle NCC-956. Registry and picture showing a Constitution class both in ST VI.

Defiant NCC-1764, Excalibur NCC-1664, Intrepid NCC-1631/1831, Exeter NCC-1672. Registries were never given to these ships on-screen. Could be anything.

Essex NCC-1697. Name was never even on-screen!

Potemkin NCC-1657. Ship was definitely Constitution class in TOS and the registry was given in ST VI.

Food for thought...

------------------
-->Identity Crisis<--

Posted by The First One (Member # 35) on :

I rather curiously find myself in agreement with our obsessive friend. I don't see anything to justify changing the registry of that Endeavour from 1895. Maybe there was another, earlier one, I have no evidence for it. Since we don't know for sure it's a Constitution, Let the mention of this USS Endeavour, NCC-1895, stand, but keep it as "class unknown." 8)

Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :

Well, I think the original point of this thread is that sixes and eights have been repeatedly confused in registry numbers. This left open the possibility that the Endeavour was actually 1695, which would have fit in better w/ the rest of the ships. However, if we've determined that 1895 was not the result of a 6/8 confusion, the point becomes moot.

Posted by The359 (Member # 37) on :

Well, I think I've come to a decision. The USS Endeavour NCC-1895 will be listed as "Unknown Class" now, and will be removed from my Constitution Class UP3 write-up. Oh well...

Posted by colin (Member # 217) on :

Why would a class of ship so successful as the Constitution Class be retired after 40 or 50 years of service? Actually, I can understand the class being retired after 80 or 100 years. Similar classes such as the Miranda and the Excelsior have served Starfleet for such a period of time.

The list in the making of Star Trek was an attempt to answer the question posed by the statement Capt Kirk made in the "Tomorrow is Yesterday" that there are 12 ships like the USS Enterprise. The list lists familiar ships like the USS Constellation and the obscure like the USS Kongo. It is quite specific that the USS Valiant and the USS Farrugut were destroyed and were mentioned in episodes.

Now,there is the issue of revionism. The history as laid out in the TOS has been entirely scrapped. This means I suppose from your view that the Making of Star Trek is an interesting footnote. I don't view the book this way.

Further, G. Roddenberry viewed parts of the fifth and the sixth movie as being non-canonical. This could mean that the TNG, DS9, and Voyager are non-canonical. (The sixth movie, especially, is important to the events in TNG, DS9, and Voyager.) They could be intrepations of what could have happen after Voyage Home.

After watching TOS, I see that the historical events in this episode are different than what is seen in the later episodes.

A brief history, according to the TOS
to 2250's there is no Federation
2250's the birth of the Federation following a war. Designed by the people of Axanar. Galactic peace in the galaxy. ("Whom Gods Destroy", "The Mark of Gideon")

------------------

takeoffs are optional; landings are mandatory

Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :

Now, wait. IIRC, the classification of the Endeavour as a Constitution is from the encyclopedia, right? There's no evidence to contradict this, which makes it as canonical as anything else in the encyclopedia that hasn't been on screen...

Posted by The First One (Member # 35) on :

Since when are parts of ST:VI not canon? Parts of V aren't, yes, but VI? Sure, one wonders why other ships that can fire while cloaked weren't built, but that hardly invalidates the premise. Maybe a cloaked ship is easy to detect once you know it's there, so why draw attention to yourself when cloaked? You need to fight, uncloak!

Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :

Furthermore, it was never implied that the Federation was new in the 2250's. Roddenberry simply hadn't come up with a good word for it yet.

------------------
"If you are going to be my girlfriend please don't dump me after I like you."
--
Michael

Posted by Identity Crisis (Member # 67) on :

"which makes it as canonical as anything else in the encyclopedia that hasn't been on screen..."

... in other words, not canonical at all!

------------------
-->Identity Crisis<--

Posted by colin (Member # 217) on :

True, the Federation was never explicitly said to be new in T.O.S.. However, there is evidence to suggest the Federation was new at that time-2250's. Events before 2250 were said like the Earth Romulan War or Earth Ships. Then is the rare mention of the USS Enterprise being United Earth Ship Enterprise ("The Corbomite Maneuver"). The first actual mention of the Federation came at the end of the first season. At a later time, I will present my evidence.

------------------

takeoffs are optional; landings are mandatory

Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :

ID: Well, that's one way to look at it. The other way is that they are semi-canon: canon until proven non-... :-)

------------------
"Alright, so it's impossible. How long will it take?"
-Commander Adams, Forbidden Planet

Posted by Lt. Tom on :

All right, targetemployee, but my rebuttal will be close behind.

The United Federation of Planets was founded in 2161.

Right now, the only citable instance I have is an episode of TNG where Troi suggests a hand of poker be played "Federation Day" and proceeds to explain a) what in the heck that is and b) why it is what it is. I'll gather my sources, but if anyone else has anything they're welcome to share. =)

[This message has been edited by Lt. Tom (edited November 11, 1999).]