Using Reverend's original Excel shiplist as my template, I've been able to add almost every on-screen ship or display of a ship with an NCC number in a chronological order. However, I need some help with a TOS reference chart, namely this one, from Patrick Kovacs' site:
Here's what I came up with, starting from the top of the list.
NCC 1709 (Lexington, according to the 'pedia) NCC 1831 (unknown) NCC 1703 (Hood, according to the 'pedia) NCC 1672 (Exeter, according to the 'pedia) NCC 1894 (unknown) NCC 1697 (unknown) NCC 1701 (Enterprise) NCC 1718 (unknown) NCC 1885 (unknown) NCC 1700 (Constitution)
My main question, of course, is if I have the numbers right. It's not the clearest chart to make out, but I tried my best to distinguish between the 6's & the 8's, but I could still be wrong.
My second question is, was there another TOS chart which showed NCC numbers, or was this the only one?
And my final question is if anyone has a pic of the NCC chart from ST:VI, which supposedly showed such ships as the Korolev, the Ahwahnee, the John Muir, etc. and their registries.
Thanks,
Mark
Posted by Dat (Member # 302) on :
NCC 1709 (Lexington, according to the 'pedia) NCC 1831 (unknown) Maybe it's 1631, the Intrepid NCC 1703 (Hood, according to the 'pedia) NCC 1672 (Exeter, according to the 'pedia) NCC 1894 (unknown) Maybe 1664 pegged as Excalibur by Okuda NCC 1697 (unknown) Wasn't this pegged as Essex by Okuda? NCC 1701 (Enterprise) NCC 1718 (unknown)
NCC 1885 (unknown) NCC 1700 (Constitution)
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Hey, that's the screencap I made... Except it's lost some quality along the way.
Either that, or someone took a screencap of the exact same frame I did...
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Okay, it is my screencap. I'd forgotten that I told Spike (or Fitz, as he was known at the time) that he could use it. :-)
BTW, here's the discussion we had about this back when I took that screencap.
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
That list is so out of date!
I think some of these were the registeries that okuda used when assigning them to the constitutions, so he may have misread them which explains why there are a number of similar...numbers.
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
Most of the Connie registries in the Encyclopedia come off of that chart from "Court Martial" (TOS). It was Greg Jein who originally matched those numbers to Connies back in 1975, and his list was published in the magazine T-Negative. (Incidentally, that was the same year that Franz Joseph's book containing his own numbering scheme was published, which has become so popular with Fandom-inclined folks. Even Spikey uses it, though it's nowhere even close to being either canon or official.) Here's a helpful guide: http://steve.pugh.net/fleet/con_reg.html
Anyways, the official Paramount (Okuda's) list is mainly based off of Jein's list, with a few alterations like the Eagle and Endeavour, which for some reason were assigned different numbers by Okuda for TUC.
So that chart represents as follows (though the quality of this screencap may not have tipped you off to all of them):
*There has been some confusion over whether the Intrepid is NCC-1631 or NCC-1831. From some screenshots it looks like it could be either one. The Encyclopedias list both numbers in various places (1831 in Connie entry, 1631 in Intrepid entry and shiplist.) But all other sources (Chronology and official website) list 1631 exclusively, and that's the number from Jein's original list, so I'm pretty sure it's supposed to be 1631.
To answer your second question, I believe this was the only TOS registry chart seen, though according to Okuda there was a screen in "Space Seed" that showed the Constitution's reg to be NCC-1700, but I've never been able to spot it.
Thirdly, I've never heard of or seen any picture of the actual okudagram from TUC, but a reproduction of it's contents (supposedly furnished by Okuda himself) was in Bjo Trimble's Concordance. Here is that information:
U.S.S. Ahwahnee NCC-2048 SMA (deep space exploration) + OR
U.S.S. Challenger NCC-2032 SMA (deep space exploration) + OR
U.S.S. Constellation NX-1974 SMA (certification tests)
U.S.S. Eagle NCC-956 SMA (colony resupply mission) + OR
U.S.S. Emden NCC-1856 SMA (neutral zone patrol)
U.S.S. Endeavour NCC-1895 SMA (deep space exploration) + OR
U.S.S. Helin NCC-1692 SMA (scientific survey ship on neutral zone patrol in sector 21290)
U.S.S. John Muir NCC-1732 SMA (upgrade at Starbase 24)
U.S.S. Kongo NCC-1710 SMA (neutral zone patrol)
U.S.S. Korolev NCC-2014 SMA (diplomatic mission)
U.S.S. Lantree NCC-1837 SMA (carrying colony supplies in sector 22858)
U.S.S. Oberth NCC-602 SMA (deep space exploration)
U.S.S. Potemkin NCC-1657 SMA (scientific survey) + OR
U.S.S. Republic NCC-1371 SMA (neutral zone patrol)
U.S.S. Scovil NCC-1598 SMA (astronomical research) + OR
U.S.S. Springfield NCC-1963 SMA (neutral zone patrol) + OR
U.S.S. Whorfin NCC-1024 SMA (deep space explorer on neutral zone patrol)
-MMoM
[ January 18, 2002: Message edited by: The Mighty Monkey of Mim ]
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
The Greg Jein interpretation makes me want to vomit. I hate it. But of course, I must accept it. moving on...
Posted by Ryan McReynolds (Member # 28) on :
quote:Originally posted by CaptainMike: The Greg Jein interpretation makes me want to vomit. I hate it. But of course, I must accept it.
Why?
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
I hardly think i could win in a battle between myself, and Greg Jein, Mike Okuda, Doug Drexler, Denise Okuda, and everyone else who has subscribed to that interpretation and would use it in future works. I resign. Checkmate.
What good would it do me now to say that Jein was wrong, 27 years ago. The damage to Trek registry continuity has been done. The only thing that could help now is to explain it (The CaptainMike SemiSequential Registry Theory��™) and move on.
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ryan McReynolds: Why?
Err...because it's the scheme offficially maintained by Paramount? Essentially, it's canon.
-MMoM
[ January 19, 2002: Message edited by: The Mighty Monkey of Mim ]
Posted by Ryan McReynolds (Member # 28) on :
Given that it's in exactly zero live-action episodes or films, it is decidedly not canon. Do you really think Paramount is "officially maintaining" anything? Of course not. It's just like the people who think that Paramount has some great list of what's canon and what isn't that the writers follow. They wouldn't even give the issue a second thought if fanboys didn't keep pestering about it. Mike Okuda stuck the registry list in a book since his art pal Greg Jein came up with it and that's about as far as it goes. With an incredibly large likelihood of never visiting the twenty-third century again in canon Star Trek, it seems pretty sure that there will never be canon to support the Jein sceme. I, therefore, reject it for the time being.
As to your overwhelming opposition, CaptainMike; well, they'll never know if you just quietly dissent. Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ryan McReynolds: Given that it's in exactly zero live-action episodes or films, it is decidedly not canon. Do you really think Paramount is "officially maintaining" anything? Of course not. It's just like the people who think that Paramount has some great list of what's canon and what isn't that the writers follow. They wouldn't even give the issue a second thought if fanboys didn't keep pestering about it. Mike Okuda stuck the registry list in a book since his art pal Greg Jein came up with it and that's about as far as it goes. With an incredibly large likelihood of never visiting the twenty-third century again in canon Star Trek, it seems pretty sure that there will never be canon to support the Jein sceme. I, therefore, reject it for the time being.
Umm...so what exactly do you think the www.startrek.com website is? A figment of the fans' imaginations? The very fact that such a site exists, and that there have even been such publications as the Encyclopedia, proves that Paramount DOES keep track of this stuff. (Granted, as we all have seen, not without a lapse here and there... )
For the last time, canon is not only what is onscreen, but also anything additional that represents Paramount's official view of the Star Trek universe.
And issues of official viewpoint aside, the fact is that this number scheme is the ONLY one for which there is any kind of onscreen support. All of these registries have been seen in the show. A number of them have been definitely matched with their respective ship names on the show. True, some of the accepted matchings have not been explicitly made onscreen. But at least it fits with what was onscreen. However, there is NO onscreen support for ANY of the Franz Joseph numbers, excepting of course for the obvious NCC-1700, NCC-1701, NCC-1710, NCC-1017, and NCC-1371.
As you said, there is very little chance of a revisitation of the time period in question. However, while you say that means we'll not be seeing any further support of these numbers, I maintain that there is no need of any. And what it also means is that we'll (hopefully) not be seeing any contradictions of them.
As non-sensical as it may seem, it's best to stick to the officially-sanctioned numbers. It leaves fewer unsightly blank spaces in our shiplists.
-MMoM
[ January 19, 2002: Message edited by: The Mighty Monkey of Mim ]
Posted by Dax (Member # 191) on :
Don't confuse 'official' with 'canon', Mim. Canon is what's only been seen on screen. And why are you so adamant that everything in the Encyclopedia is canon, when you've admitted that it has so many outright mistakes/inconsistencies?
[ January 19, 2002: Message edited by: Dax ]
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
Yes, there are mistakes in the Encyclopedia. But that's all they are: mistakes. Just about all of them are simply typos. (2 digits flipped in a registry number, a name misspelled, things like that. When you're typing a lot of numbers, don't you sometimes make an error?) It still doesn't invalidate the information that's presented.
[ January 19, 2002: Message edited by: The Mighty Monkey of Mim ]
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Monkey-boy: Is that signature really necessary? On my screen, it comes out to a dozen lines, devoted entirely to bashing one person. I'm not saying you can't post that link or quote, but can't you shorten it all a bit?
Posted by Balaam Xumucane (Member # 419) on :
In that screencap, that's an '8', making it 1831. No question. Closed loop on the top right of the character. You can clearly see the differentiation for the '6' in this typeface two lines below in 1672. Now, I couldn't really tell you whether it was supposed to be a '6' (my clairvoyance is a tad rusty), but that's an definitely an '8'.
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
Reverend: Incidentally, I've updated your "out of date" shiplist, both with the newest NCC information, plus pre-federation ships from both the "Up the Long Ladder" list, and Enterprise. I've also changed a few things around which you had; maybe sometime I'll email it to you to get your opinions. It's a good shiplist, though.
MMoM: Thanks for the info. I didn't have the Constellation and Oberth prototype ships in my list.
To everyone else: Thanks for your help.
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
You're welcome. Are you going to include the TAS ships in your list?
-MMoM Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dukhat: Reverend: Incidentally, I've updated your "out of date" shiplist, both with the newest NCC information, plus pre-federation ships from both the "Up the Long Ladder" list, and Enterprise. I've also changed a few things around which you had; maybe sometime I'll email it to you to get your opinions. It's a good shiplist, though.
Cheers, I'd be quite interested to see your version. I have been maintaining my own one constantly, I just never bothered to update the online copy. I think you'll find I've made a few changes... Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Monkey: Signature. Shorten.
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
MMoM: Yes, I've included the TAS ships. Surprisingly, the registries of the cargo drones are pretty consistent w/ the TOS era ships (the prefix letter not withstanding). The Huron's is a little higher, but still within reason. Also, I can see a good way to justify the Bonaventure's high registry: Instead of looking at it as "NCC S2100", I prefer to see it as "NCC S2", then "100" after it. So instead of 2100, it's 100, making it the earliest ship with an NCC number (the second earliest would be the Carolina, NCC 160). With the way ships are registered & classed in Enterprise, it's not too much of a leap. Plus, I'm making the assumption that the Bonaventure was the first Federation ship w/ warp drive, not the first ship ever.
Reverend: Your online shiplist page came up as a 404 error. I'll email my list to you soon, with an explanation of my changes and additions.
To everyone else: OK, so both I and Balaam see "1831" not "1631." However, Greg Jein must have thought it was 1631 when he made the T-Negative list. So how do we explain it? Do we ignore the chart and go with Greg's number? Or do we add 1831 as an unknown ship, even though that's the (wrong) number he used or the Intrepid? Or do we ignore Greg & the Encyclopedia, and make the Intrepid NCC-1831?
Posted by Spike (Member # 322) on :
I prefer ignoring Greg and the Encyclopedia, add 1831 as an unknown ship and leave the Intrepid without NCC.
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
I feel the same way, but since my shiplist acknowledges non-canon, i have the Intrepid as 1631, because i was revealed as that in "My Enemy, My Ally" by Diane Duane (but oddly enough, that was the replacement Intrepid after 'Immunity Syndrome')
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
Well, you could explain that away by saying that at this point in Starfleet history, any replacement ship was given the exact same registry number as the one which came before it, to alleviate confusion.
Of course, why Starfleet chose to re-establish this policy over 100 years later with the Defiant is beyond me. Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
the last time i did my shiplist, i think i explained that the second Intrepid was 1631-A in honor of the brave Vulcans of the first (and that the 'A' was left off the registry as featured in 'My Enemy.'
(its one of the exceedingly rare cases of an 'A' registry being used ;-) in Starfleet history, some other notable exceptions made were the honors given to the original Enterprise, the Yamato, the Excalibur, etc.. this just helps to explain the handful of 'A' and 'B' registries that have made it into works that i acknowledge in my Galactopedia, such as New Frontier novels and stuf)
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dukhat: Reverend: Your online shiplist page came up as a 404 error. I'll email my list to you soon, with an explanation of my changes and additions.
Free servers, you get what you pay for. this should work better.
Posted by Ryan McReynolds (Member # 28) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim: Umm...so what exactly do you think the www.startrek.com website is?
A marketing tool, of course. What exactly do you think it is?
Do you actually think that the producers and writers of the show choose what goes on the website? Ha! Furthermore, what does the website have to do with starship registry numbers? They presumably just copied them out of the Encyclopedia.
quote: The very fact that such a site exists, and that there have even been such publications as the Encyclopedia, proves that Paramount DOES keep track of this stuff.
No, it proves that there is a demand for said publications great enough to warrant their production. I never said that "Paramount" doesn't keep track of this stuff, only that they don't care about it... they do it to shut all of us up when we bitch and moan about inconsistency.
Now, of course, certain individuals at Paramount (for instance, Mike Okuda) do seem to keep track of this sort of thing. Unless it's being inserted into a script or effects shots or display screens, though, it's nothing more than one guy's opinion.
quote: For the last time, canon is not only what is onscreen, but also anything additional that represents Paramount's official view of the Star Trek universe.
Are you kidding?
We consider only the filmed episodes (and movies) to be canon for our purposes. We do use things like the Encyclopedia, the Chronology, the Technical Manual etc. for reference, but unless it was explicitly mentioned on screen, we won't feel bound by anything stated even in those books. --Ronald D. Moore
Can you provide a single quote from a writer or producer of Star Trek that suggests otherwise? Just one will do! Let me help you out: there aren't any.
[ January 22, 2002: Message edited by: Ryan McReynolds ]
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
)