How many of you actually believe that Starfleet has only 12 ships or 12 ships like the Enteprrise? How many of you believe that Starfleet possessed ships looking similar to the Constitution class?
I find it very illogical for Starfleet have so little ships in the 23rd century and so many by the time of the Dominion War.
To me I like the ships from Sotf personally. if there was other classes besides the Connies, they would the Sotf not Fandom or other designs.
How do you feel on this?
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
Nobody believes there were only 12 ships in TOS, just 12 Connies. (And even that only around the time of "Tomorrow is Yesterday") Of course there were other ships of different designs.
-MMoM
[ March 15, 2002, 08:21: Message edited by: The Mighty Monkey of Mim ]
Posted by Identity Crisis (Member # 67) on :
Kirk said that there were only twelve like her in the fleet. This has been interpreted in four ways:
1. Kirk was talking rubbish, as he often seemed to be doing. So we ignore him as we often do.
2. There were only 12 ships of the same capabilities as the Enterprise, all other ships were noticeable smaller and less capable. This is the interpretation taken during the production of TOS.
3. There were only twleve ships of the exact same configuration as the Enterprise. Other heavy cruisers, possibly looking quite similar may exist. This is the interpretation taken in the classic Star Fleet Technical Manual.
4. There were only twelve ships of the general configuration of the Enterprise, i.e. what we now call the Constitution class. Other ships would have different configurations but could be of similar capability (e.g. a TOS Miranda). This seems to be the favoured approach of modern fandom.
I find 2 to be too restrictive. So I tend to a view that's something of a combination of 1, 3 and 4. When Kirk made that statement most of the initial batch of Constitutions were still in service and some of the second batch (Bonhomme Richard sub-class) had entered service. For a total of somewhere between one and two dozen, with only about a dozen being exact sister ships of the Enterprise.
quote:To me I like the ships from Sotf personally. if there was other classes besides the Connies, they would the Sotf not Fandom or other designs.
Huh? Can you reword that last sentence? SotSF is fandom.
Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :
I've always interpretted it as something very close to number 4. There were only 12 Connies in service at the time Kirk said that, but many other ships of other classes existed and were in service.
I do, however, believe that the Constitution class was very close to the state of the art at that point in time, though. Now...the Enterprise was a couple of decades old during TOS, IIRC, so there would certainly be a couple of more advanced classes in service as well. I don't think that ship design and production was probably as advanced as it is in the 24thg century, though...so there probably weren't more than a couple classes higher up than the Connie.
Posted by Matrix (Member # 376) on :
Sorry I meant FASA. FAS has the worst (but original, hardly no kitbashes) designs for a Federation starships.
I feel that Kirk meant there was 12 Connies like the Enterprise but there are the other two sub-classes but not like the Enterprise. And of course smaller and larger ships than the Connie (battleships, destroyers, patrol ships, scouts, science ships, explorers, escorts, transports, battlecruisers, and so on)
Posted by Cpt. Kyle Amasov (Member # 742) on :
Twelve Constitutions during TOS, but no one ever told why they were all listed at the Starbase 12 wallchart.
Seriously, was it just Okuda's idea to say all ships on that wallchart were Constitutions? It seems a bit strange. Why should they have all 12 starships docked at the same time at that base (or, if the display didn't say they were currently docked there, why do they send all 12 ships for repairs to the same base?)? Stocker mentioned the Intrepid (which became the Independence in the german translation, I think we had this before), but if we just take one of the 1700-registries or the Encyclpedia-registry of the ship, we could still say the rest were other vessels, Hermeses, Federations, Auroras and so on. I personally like the idea because it adds some diversity to the TOS-universe.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
I recently revamped that part of my starship list, too. I decided the idea of matching the "Court Martial" list to the list of Constitution names was actually rather silly.
As for the 12-ships line... I'd say a combination of options 2 and 4. The twelve ships are twelve Constitutions, and they're the most advanced ships in the fleet.
Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
The notion that all the ships on the "Court Martial" chart were Constitutions originated with Greg Jein in an article he wrote for the fanzine T-Negative. Where FJ had taken the names of the known Constitutions and given them 17xx numbers in sequence, Greg applied them all to the wall chart -- based solely on the header "Star Ship Status", taking it as an indicator that all those numbers were for Starship-class vessels. He then removed the known regos (1700 and 1701) and applied the rest of the names in reverse alphabetical order down the list. Purely arbirary...
Mike Okuda used a blend of that idea with FASA's use of same. After all, FASA had held their liscense for close to a decade... But his list still operates on the same presumption that they're all Constitutions.
Now I have to get a little expository -- forgive me.
We all know Matt Jeffries pretty much pulled 'NCC-1701' out of his ass. But he did spend time later figuring out the significance of those letters and numbers. What he settled on was that 'NCC' represented the heavy cruisers, ships-of-the-line, or -- in Star Trek terminology -- Starship-class vessels. Other prefixes would denote other classes of ships, to be determined later (but he never actually got to that...). The number denoted Starfleet's 17th Starship-class design, and the 01st production hull built after the prototype (1700).
It was with this in mind that he created that chart for "Court Martial", with the 16xx regos representing the predacessor Starship class to the Enterprise (what fandom and the earlier novels eventually called the Baton Rouge-class), and the lone 18xx rego represented the successor design (remember, the Constitution class had been around for decades by that point).
A few episodes later, the Constellation screwed everything up because the people over at the model shooting stage hadn't bothered to ask Matt if there was some system to his numbering. They could just as easily have rearranged the numbers into '1710', but were afraid it would look too much like '1701'... and they didn't have the budget to waste on two model kits, just to get the extra decal sheet. Pity... otherwise we might have gotten '1711', '1717', '1770', or '1771'... With a slight redubbing (to be mirrored later on TNG), they could even have given us '1700' and had the ship be the Constitution herself...
That incident could still be rationalized. But later on, FJ displayed an amazing lack of research skills when he didn't even track down Matt Jeffries to help him with his deck plans or Tech Manual. He relied on what few episodes he caught, still photos and slides from Lincoln Enterprises, and "The Making of Star Trek". So from him, we inherited 'NCC' as a blanket prefix for all of Starfleet, with only the vaguest hint of number blocks having something to do with class -- but not much.
--Jonah
Posted by targetemployee (Member # 217) on :
We know from "The Menagerie" that there are other starship classes. In this example, we hear a reference to a 'Class J starship'.
In "The Doomsday Machine", Spock says the USS Constellation has a 'starship configuration'. This may indicate that classes of starships could have similiar appearance or modules (primary hull, secondary hull, nacelles, pylons). If the latter, then there could exist the possilbility of a multitude of varing ship designs.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
quote:Originally posted by targetemployee:
In "The Doomsday Machine", Spock says the USS Constellation has a 'starship configuration'. This may indicate that classes of starships could have similiar appearance or modules (primary hull, secondary hull, nacelles, pylons). If the latter, then there could exist the possilbility of a multitude of varing ship designs.
The "Starship configuration" line and the "Starship Class" on the plaque are what I'm talking about in reguards to the "Antares class" - see associated thread.
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
I'd just like to point out (at the risk of severe flogging) that while the Okudaic registry scheme may not make a tremendous amount of sense, it *is* most likely the scheme Paramount would use if we ever hear or see more of any of the old Connies...
So it's far from valueless.
-MMoM Posted by Cpt. Kyle Amasov (Member # 742) on :
Do you really think they would return to the Constitutions? Remember, this is not longer Roddenberry's universe. If the NX-01 makes a time travel to the mid-23rd century, Starfleet already has a fleet of Galaxys and Excelsiors and Defiants. Not to mention Borg drones and quantum torpedos. With the speed of evolution we see on enterprise (not one year out in space and allready nominated for at least 10 nobel-prizes in different categories, according to their technical logs. From transportes to forcefields and torpedos, there's nothing that can't be developed on board by a hand full of Starfleet technicans. They let Scotty look like an idiot. Really. )
Posted by darkwing_duck1 (Member # 790) on :
Well, dialogue messed things up as well...IIRC, Kirk said in Court Martial that he'd served on the "United Star Ship Republic number 1417" (or some such). The point being that the number WASN'T a 1700-series number but WAS on a "Starship" (a Connie).
Posted by Boris (Member # 713) on :
To answer the original question: having only the twelve starships would be totally inconsistent with the realism and believability that the TOS producers were constantly pushing. Of course there were more ships, and "The Making of Star Trek" confirms it -- Kirk is said in his bio in "The Making of Star Trek" to have commanded a destroyer, IIRC, before the Enterprise.
The only problem is that we haven't seen them, whereas later series would regularily show different ships such as Mirandas or Excelsiors. Why? Because at this point of time, the Connies are the only starships, that is, the only ships capable of exploring and patroling space; the only ships that would be seen in the far reaches of the galaxy. Even in TAS, where the cheaper cartoon format could've easily allowed new classes of starships equivalent to the Enterprise, none were shown to my knowledge.
Sure, the term was loosened up even during TOS, but its original meaning is nevertheless supported in a few episodes, notably "The Ultimate Computer" where Daystrom notes that "it takes 430 people to man a starship."
However, this doesn't necessarily mean that there were no starships before Kirk's time -- perhaps, in the old days, there would only be one starship class at a time: NX-class during 2150s, Daedalus class during the 2160s, Constitution-class during 2260s, then the Excelsior-class as the next step (which is why the Constitutions were supposed to retire in Star Trek III). As older classes failed to retire, becoming more and more durable, people abandoned the starship-class term and adopted the more specific class names. It's also possible that new types of missions required different configurations of starships, and that the terminology was loosened up, as I've already suggested.
[ March 17, 2002, 21:16: Message edited by: Boris ]
Posted by Dat (Member # 302) on :
quote:Originally posted by darkwing_duck1: Well, dialogue messed things up as well...IIRC, Kirk said in Court Martial that he'd served on the "United Star Ship Republic number 1417" (or some such). The point being that the number WASN'T a 1700-series number but WAS on a "Starship" (a Connie).
Well dialogue never mentioned the Republic to be a Connie, but only a "star ship". And even then I don't think it was their intention that all "star ships" were Connies.
Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
I think I said that.
The term Starship was meant to be the "spacy" version of "Ship-of-the-line", Starfleet's heavy cruisers -- not just the Constitution class...
--Jonah
Posted by Matrix (Member # 376) on :
I think those ships on the wall in that episode (forgot the name, and don't feel like opening another window to get the post that mentioned it, besides it would take longet to actually type this then do it anyway) could be ships similar to the Enterprise herself. For the ones that have 1600's are ships that preceeded the Enterprise. The 1800's are the Miranda TOS style ships. The 1600's I think because it seems only Enterprise type ships are considered starships, that they should have a similar configuration.
But one must wonder that all the ships in the TNG era are starships? Also why have only a one type of ship as the main Starfleet force. Is it really that small?
Posted by Boris (Member # 713) on :
Well, how many types of ships do the Romulans have? Or the Klingons?
Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
I'm working on this problem as we speak... So far, what I've come up with is that Starfleet -- contrary to what we see in "Enterprise" -- took a little while to pick up on the momentum.
There were only a few shipyards in the Federation capable of building the bigger ships at the beginning. It took over fifty years to gear everything up to the degree that ships like the Constitution, and later Excelsior, could be constructed.
I view the growth of Starfleet to be somewhere between logarithmic and geometric. And around the turn of the 24th century, or a bit before at most, forced the Federation to re-examine how they tracked their ships. All ships were now of a high enough technological level that they all fit the criteria for the Starship classification. 'NCC' now became the blanket registry prefix for all of Starfleet, with those older ships of other classifications of that weren't retired assigned the little-represented block of the registries between ~3000 to 10000.
And from that point on, registries were assigned as the hulls were ordered, regarless of class. Occasional groupings or even sequential blocks were accidental artifacts.
This theory probably still needs refinement, but it at least would resolve the dichotomy between what Matt Jeffries put onscreen and what Mike Okuda would construct later...
--Jonah
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
The reorganisation of starship classifications and NCC numbers would be like the tri-service designation scheme the US did for its military aircraft (in the late 60s I think).
[ March 19, 2002, 10:59: Message edited by: Wraith ]
Posted by Identity Crisis (Member # 67) on :
I agree with Jonah. Even if one considers Matt Jeffries ideas (NDD, NFF or whatever they would have been) to have been fatally ruined by later works this sort of reorganising explains why the TAS/FASA/Fandom style NCC-G, NCC-F, etc. registries disappear.
[ March 20, 2002, 02:24: Message edited by: Identity Crisis ]
Posted by Matrix (Member # 376) on :
if Jefferes used NFF then we would have used that instead of NCC and we would have argued over that as well.
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
Matrix, i believe what was meant that Jeffereis considered Constitutions (or possibly all 'starships', since its unclear whether that meant a class or a classification) to have NCCs and then possibly other types of vessels would have NFF, NDD, or some combination of letter registries. (Kinda like we expect Earth Starfleet to do.. NX class has NX regs, maybe there is a ND reg or NY, etc etc)
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
I think that they're implying that Jeffries was planning to use a registry system similar to that of the United States Navy today.
NCC = cruiser-type starships (ships of the line) NFF = frigate-type ships (defense cruisers?) NDD = destroyer-type ships (patrol cruisers?)
And so on...
Posted by Boris (Member # 713) on :
What are your sources for Jefferies' scheme? All I could find were his comments in the TOS Sketchbook, and they only mention NCC.
Boris
Posted by Matrix (Member # 376) on :
Oh, ok. So the TOS Enterprise is the 1701st Constituion class built, right? How would this work?
Posted by Boris (Member # 713) on :
No, it would be the first ship of the 17th class of ships. The other sixteen classes need not be ships of the line.
At least that was his original intention; the Constellation and other Constutitions mess up the scheme later on.
Boris
[ March 21, 2002, 14:07: Message edited by: Boris ]
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
Well maybe those connies that FUCK things up were REFITS of earlier ships and they retained their 13**/16** registries? Maybe there isn't a GREAT difference between the last 5 'classes' 13-->18 Essentially "Starship/Constitution" classes. Maybe there was only 12 of the 17** series?
Posted by Boris (Member # 713) on :
Let's try to summarize:
1) The 17th class of starships (Constitution-class) is the VERY specific configuration that started with the U.S.S. Constitution. Only the ships with 17xx registries would be considered Constitution-class.
2) Some of the initial sixteen classes and some of the later ones are visually identical to the Constitution-class, but we would be wrong to label them in such a way. The Constellation, NCC-1017 is an example of these.
3) The rest of the initial sixteen classes and those that follow the 17th class are visually different, although they serve the same basic role as the 17th class and its visually identical relatives (i.e. Daedalus-class, Miranda-class, Excelsior-class, Oberth-class etc.)
4) However, only the classes that are visually identical to the Enterprise were around during the time of TOS, leading to a simplification which labeled only those ships as starships. There would be a total of 12 such ships; again, all visually identical to the Enterprise.
5) Ships that are outside this starship category are labeled NCC-Fxxx etc.
I still can't explain the Grissom NCC-638, but maybe it's a refit of the sixth class. Actually, given the similarity of the NX-01 to ships of the movie era, there is hardly a reason for the Oberth to be a brand-new class. It could be a refit, just like the Enterprise.
[ March 21, 2002, 21:44: Message edited by: Boris ]
Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
This stems from a time before I was bibliographing my sources. It was around the same time as I got the Sketchbook, but I know that wasn't it -- the conversations with Jeffries, and the sketches from him, only reinforced and added to the little bits I already had. I will continue to wrack my brains...
As to the rest, the Republic was never indicated to be a Starship, let alone Constitution-class, so that 13xx rego can be left nebulous. As said previously, the Constellation throws a spanner in the works, but that was outside Matt's control. Much like the '1305-E' making it onscreen for the Yamato was for Mike. And any of the 'deconstructive' data points Mike gives us in Star Trek VI and in TNG are automatically suspect, for reasons espoused elsewhere.
There had to have been more than a dozen Constitutions, but still far less, I think, than the hundred-and-fifty or so FJ postulated.
In noodling things out further, though, I'm now tentatively pointing to NCC-2500 in 2285 to be the start of the new registry system. The Repulse has a rego of 2544, and the Hathaway -- said in dialogue to originate from about this time -- has a rego of 2593. I know it's not what Mike intended, but it fits the wider theory I'm promoting. The only regos that would have to be tweaked are a half-dozen or so (at most -- probably only one or two in practice) "borderline" ships from Star Trek VI displays, plus the Bozeman. Despite the 1947 in-joke rego on her upper hull, going with the 1847 rego on her lower hull would make her the Miranda variant we've always suspected her of being.
I know a lot of the stuff I'm proposing grates with accepted notions of the way things are, but I've always had to know why things are the way they are. And in researching this matter, I've determined that the way things currently are is an inaccurate interpretation of the way things originally were. However, with the sheer bulk of support the way things currently are has, the only recourse to mate the two incompatible systems is to do something along the lines I suggested.
The only thing left would be to choose whether or not to swap the Constellation's rego to '1710' in a later "Special Edition" of TOS...
As you can see, this is something I'm rather passionate about. Sorry. I just like fictional universes to be internally consistent, and it bugs me when they're threated as though just because they're not real, it somehow makes them less valid... Verisimilitude is not a dirty word. And I find myself thinking of Gene's old quote more and more these days: "There's intelligent life on the other side of that screen, too..."
--Jonah
[ March 21, 2002, 21:47: Message edited by: Peregrinus ]
Posted by Boris (Member # 713) on :
Jonah: With all due respect, I don't think it's necessary to complicate things so much, or contradict what we see onscreen.
I think there is only one problem with the way we accept things -- we assume, for example, that every ship that is visually identical (or mostly identical, leaving out the rollbar-issues) to the U.S.S. Miranda is automatically Miranda-class.
According to the accepted theory, the TOS Enterprise and the visually identical ships must be Constitution-class, and they must have registries of 1700+. This means Star Trek VI's listing of Eagle 956 etc is wrong, and the registry of the Constellation is wrong. At the very least, it seems the registries are not chronological in this century.
However, this theory is too simplistic, and not derived from the canon. It forgets that the Bozeman, which we would've normally identified as Miranda class is actually Soyuz-class! That's one hint of the better theory.
The other hint is the generalization starship-class, espoused by Daystrom and the dedication plaque. It ties in nicely with the registries; if there were many other classes visually identical to the Enterprise, then Constitution-class as a name does not mean much and can be discarded, especially if the visually identical starship classes are omnipresent during this time period. Later on, the ships would look different, so class names would matter more.
Hence, there is no need to discard Jein's registry scheme, although it's certainly questionable. It's also unnecessary to assume that just because the range spans 900-1800 that so many ships were actually built. One class could span the range 1700-1704; another 1013-1018, etc. I'm modifying Jefferies' scheme, but it's necessary if it is to fit the canon.
[ March 21, 2002, 23:03: Message edited by: Boris ]
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"As to the rest, the Republic was never indicated to be a Starship..."
"United Starship Republic, number one-three-seven-one." -James T. Kirk, "Court Martial"
Posted by Dat (Member # 302) on :
Constellation could never be relabelled 1710 as that number already belongs to Kongo which I believe is in a status display in ST6.
Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
TSN, thanks. I had remembered it as United "Spaceship" Republic...
And I had forgotten the Kongo was one of the ones Mike actually used in a screen display...
As for the larger issue, Boris... Either we have to make Matt's scheme contort to fit Mike's, or the reverse, or say that they are in fact two separate things -- which they are -- and revise opinions accordingly. There's a lot more I've hammered out on this over the years, but I don't want to post an essay.
--Jonah
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
While we're waiting for that particular battle against a ferocious canful of worms... Anybody out there with "Doomsday Machine" on tape? Is the Constellation identified as a Constitution class starship there?
Naturally, the word "Constitution" is not uttered, or it would already have been mentioned in the many debates about whether the class of Kirk's ship was canonically established. But does the dialogue specify the Constellation as being "a ship of the Enterprise's class" or something?
The exterior of the 1017 is roughly similar to that of the 1701, of course, and later shows and movies tend to bunch all roughly similar ships up into a single class. But I'd still like to know if it's theoretically possible the 1017 was of a different class, or if the dialogue forbids this.
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by Matrix (Member # 376) on :
So there are 100 ships of each class? 100 ships of the 1600 class and hundred ships of the 1700 class?
This makes no sense. To me its fair and simple, the Oberth class is either a new ship with an never used reg. or a refitted ship that proved extremely successful.
The Consitution class is according to some sources could be the first of 3-4 sub-classes that identically to her. Then outside of these sub classes are the older ships that were upgraded selectively.
Posted by Identity Crisis (Member # 67) on :
No, simply that starfleet starts numbering the 17th class of cruisers/starships (whichever was intended to be represented by NCC) at 1700 and then counted upwards until it stopped making those ships. If only 35 Constitutions were made then the numbers would stop at NCC-1734 and NCC-1735 to NCC-1799 would never be assigned to any ship.
Posted by Boris (Member # 713) on :
Also, strictly canonically, a new class need not start at xx00. It could just as well run from 1754 to 1758.
In "The Doomsday Machine", they pick up a message from the Constellation but cannot locate it yet. They proceed to the system where they pick up a ship's distress beacon on the sensors. According to Spock's blue eyepiece sensor, the emitting ship is "by configuration a starship." Then they get a visual, confirming the suspicion that it was the Constellation.
The blue sensor couldn't reveal that it was the Constellation. It probably did reveal that the ship is visually identical to the Enterprise. If Spock couldn't come up with a more accurate name than "starship", either it isn't necessarily Constitution-class or the Constitution-class is the only starship at the time. The former sounds more likely.
On the other hand, it is possible that Spock's sensor was so rough that it only determined a really vague outline. However, given that they had a visual only a few seconds after the line, this seems unlikely.
Boris
[ March 22, 2002, 09:06: Message edited by: Boris ]
Posted by Identity Crisis (Member # 67) on :
quote:Originally posted by Boris: Also, strictly canonically, a new class need not start at xx00. It could just as well run from 1754 to 1758.
We're not talking about the TNG stuff, or even the movies, just the original scheme of Matt Jeffries. Now show me a canonical instance of a TOS class that didn't start off with a ship registry xx00 ?
Jonah is suggesting that Starfleet changed away from this scheme to a more linear scheme at some point. Just as Trek changed from Matt Jeffries' scheme to Mike Okuda's scheme.
quote:The blue sensor couldn't reveal that it was the Constellation. It probably did reveal that the ship is visually identical to the Enterprise.
But the Constellation is NOT visually identical to the Enterprise. They used an inaccurate model kit with several noticable differences. So it's much harder to decide whether the Constellation was a Constitution with yard differences or a member of another class within the starship type.
Posted by Boris (Member # 713) on :
I understand Jonah's theory of changes in registry systems; however, I'm suggesting a simpler, unified theory of registries and classes, where the only difference between TOS and later periods is that during the time of TOS, the individual starship classes were essentially identical to the Enterprise, to the point that they could all be lumped together into the term "starship-class." This could've been true in the time of the Daedalus as well, with the starship classes being visually identical to the Daedalus class.
There is no need to suggest that the registries were jumpy during this time period -- how do we know that the gaps between the Eagle, Republic, and the Constitution weren't filled by non-starships? This might contradict the NCC-Fxxx and so on scheme from TAS, though, even though there is no need to suggest that NCC-xxxx refers to only starships.
Sure, the Constitution and the Excelsior both end in xx00; so yes, the TOS era could've been slightly less linear than the TNG era. On the other hand, are there really at least 71 ships of the 13th class (Republic 1371)? Given what we know of the TNG era, it seems reasonable to suppose that not all of the classes started at xx00.
And I know the Constellation is somewhat different -- however, we don't know if it is these differences that constitute another class. After all, the Enterprise herself was often represented by different models in the same time period due to reused stock footage.
[ March 22, 2002, 10:24: Message edited by: Boris ]
Posted by Matrix (Member # 376) on :
Why must it start at xx00? It makes no sense, seeing that we have many other ships that don't follow that guideline. Because if we believe that there are many sub-classes of the Constitution (actually it would the Connie that would be a sub-class) that reach all the way down to the 1000's, then that COULD explain the reason why al that we saw was the Connies and no other smaller or even larger ships than the Enterprise herself.
However, seeing that the Oberth class is the 600's, then that means in the 23rd century, ships were not built linear, even less than the 24th century ships.
However I would like to believe that there roughly 30 ships of the Connie class with 2 sub-classes and some older ships were upgraded at some point either to test if they seriously could upgrade them to Connie standards as well.
The Oberth could be either a slot of numbers that were never used for some reason and they decided to use that or the Oberths are actually TOS or older ships upgraded in the 2270's.
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
*sigh* were talking strictly TOS pre-production, not the Oberth or the movies.. it isnt canon anymore because of the movies, and we know this has never been adhered to for even a minute, but Matt Jefferies' notes state that he thought that NCC would be reserved for cruisers/starships/whatever.
he thought the design of Enterprise (not yet but eventually called the 'Constitution-class' was the 17th starship/cruiser class made by Starfleet.
he thought the Enterprise was the second ship built to that specification, with the class ship being the first (the 00)
so NCC + 17 + 01 is how he arrived at NCC-1701, and that leaves Constitution as NCC + 17 + 00, NCC-1700.
They would sequentially number them, and then move on as soon as an 18th class or cruiser/starship was built. So if there were 12 of them, the number NCC-1713 would NEVER be used
We know that this went out the window as soon as the Constellation was built, or perhaps even as early as the creation of the wall chart in Court-Martial. But that was what he wrote went into him making that number.
Posted by Boris (Member # 713) on :
Yes, I know. But the discussion didn't seem to be strictly behind-the-scenes; Jonah was trying to actually apply it to the Star Trek world in one way, which is where I tried to suggest another way. Or was there a sign saying, "Don't touch -- any theories must assume the existence of Jefferies' system"
[ March 25, 2002, 14:55: Message edited by: Boris ]
Posted by darkwing_duck1 (Member # 790) on :
Leaving NX-01 out of the equation for the moment, I don't find it all that hard to simply use the old "hull number" explanation for NCC #s. The Federation in Kirk's day was only about 105 years old (2161-mid 2260's), and was supposed to be largely unexplored. Starfleet was stretched fairly thin in those days (the "Enterprise is the only ship in the quadrant[sector]" phenominon). How often did we really see a large number of Starfleet vessels in any one place w/o a specific purpose?
Now move forward approx 100 years (2360s). The Federation has grown considerably (triple or more the volume it was 100 years ago) People (of all species) have swarmed out into space, building new worlds everywhere. Starfleet has had to grow to accomodate the increased demands on it's resources. Starships become almost ubiquitous (ie, there are usually several operating in [relatively] close proximity). How often in TNG-beyond did we see sizeable task forces assembled in VERY short periods of time?
So I, for one, DON'T see why we need to overcomplicate things with arcane formulae trying to figure out the system. And, no, I'm NOT implying that Starfleet in the late 24th century has over 74000 ships...one has to allow for attrition, and the relatively shorter lifespans of early ships.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
OK maybe we can stick to the Jeffries system for TOS. Maybe the Constitutions that had 13**'s etc might have had an ORIGINAL 17** like the E-D originally was 7****? But for some reason those ships were given earlier numbers - maybe another 'homage' - they just hadn't done suffixes yet.
OR They are earlier versions before the 17**'s
OR They used unused registries?
I think the last ship to possibly use this system might have been the NX-2000 Excelsior... (for such a 'new tech' ship - building must have begun during TOS - or at least PLANNING/Testing). Cause we get the 2010 - Jenol*n pretty soon after - maybe the Excelsior too so long they wanted to use the 2000's later on. Maybe this 'filling in' only happens once a new class is launched.
OR maybe they kept doing it... it would explain why there was such a large jump from the movies to TNG... the Excelsior would have been started much earlier than TSFS - so maybe by the movies they were up to the 30's... and then there was a boom and by TNG we get up to the 720's (that is 720 types of ship) maybe this isn't working after all ;o)
Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
Remember also the Federation-class U.S.S. Entente in TMP at NCC-2120. Most of the "problematic" Okuda regos can be tweaked relatively painlessly, as they are only in background graphics, but the Jenolan irks me due to its high visibility, almost as much so as the Grissom...
I hate laziness. Jeffries was an aerospace artist before he got into television, and it shows in the system he came up with. Okuda was an advertising artist in Hawaii before he got called in to work on Star Trek IV. Given an either/or choice, I'll go with the one who knows what the hell they're doing. But what I'm trying to do now is figure out a plausible way for one system to evolve into the other -- take Okuda out of TOS and most of the headaches disappear.
--Jonah
[ March 26, 2002, 14:03: Message edited by: Peregrinus ]
Posted by Boris (Member # 713) on :
The Excelsior NX-2000 is tricky given the Entente, but at least the Entente doesn't look like the Excelsior (which is the problem with the Constitution NCC-1700 and the Constellation NCC-1017).
The simplest explanation here is that the registry of the Excelsior was reserved at least ten years back, with the ship being a new milestone. We have the same problem with the Prometheus. According to my timeline, the Excelsior would've been launched in 2282, as opposed to 2272/73 of TMP.
This means that we cannot estimate launch dates using registries, but at least we don't have a situation where the class ship has a higher registry than its followers.
[ March 26, 2002, 14:48: Message edited by: Boris ]
Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
For starters, the registry is locked in when the ship is ordered/laid down, and has no bearing on launch date. I use the cruisers as a rough estimation of the pacing of Starfleet's evolution.
And what's problematic about the Prometheus? 74913 is appropriate to when we see her...
--Jonah
Posted by Boris (Member # 713) on :
Well, technically we can't read that number onscreen...if we could then it would be canonical that a ship can have two registries: 1305-E/71807, NCC-75633/74205, etc...
[ March 26, 2002, 16:16: Message edited by: Boris ]
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
By that logic, the Br!ttain made it possible for a ship to have two names.
Posted by Boris (Member # 713) on :
Well, it would at least explain why correcting a wrong hull name is no big priority; after all, nobody cares what's on the hull because it's more of a honorary thing! And besides, why shouldn't the captain of the Brattain be unable to have some fun? Who cares if the hull says Jenolin if the Okudagrams have the correct Jenolan? If I want to use a fun registry such as NCC-2010-B for the U.S.S. Nash, I could do it. Etc.
[ March 26, 2002, 16:22: Message edited by: Boris ]
Posted by darkwing_duck1 (Member # 790) on :
quote:Originally posted by Peregrinus: For starters, the registry is locked in when the ship is ordered/laid down, and has no bearing on launch date. --Jonah
That would make sense. The Galaxy project took a long time to come to fruition, so why couldn't others (like Excelsior)? The ship may have been (under construction) for quite awhile.
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
Then again, if the Galaxies took so long to complete, why do they have such high registry numbers?
Of course, we can ignore the noncanon number for USS Galaxy and instead say that she was NCC-28543 or something. Or then the project was REALLY old, and NCC-1701 and NCC-1305 were actually the original, intended registries of the E-D and the Yamato-E, respectively..
I personally don't see much benefit in saying that the supposed Jeffries system was ever in use. There's so little evidence for it - virtually the only ship class that supports the idea would be the Miranda class, with Constitutions giving some quarterbacking but suffering from the "Constellation handicap". And even the Mirandas weren't numbered by Jeffries.
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
quote:Of course, we can ignore the noncanon number for USS Galaxy and instead say that she was NCC-28543 or something.
...not to mention that canon number from TotP Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
Originally posted by Peregrinus: For starters, the registry is locked in when the ship is ordered/laid down, and has no bearing on launch date. --Jonah
Darkwing said:
That would make sense. The Galaxy project took a long time to come to fruition, so why couldn't others (like Excelsior)? The ship may have been (under construction) for quite awhile.
You know... that's what I said... I just took longer to say it
Exactly - the Exxie was really NEW TECH - "the great experiment" - it could have been started way back - even during TOS... the Entente could have come along looking OLDER than the Exxie - since they still had to keep building ships - they couldn't just STOP and wait for the Exxie to be finished.
Timo Said:
Then again, if the Galaxies took so long to complete, why do they have such high registry numbers?
Well, we've seen so many ships that have older registries, that use galaxy parts - even an Oberth (yeah right) using Galaxy testing tech - the Pegasus...
I guess a general 'tech' test was taken out on various aspects on various ships over the years, but the actual Galaxy building/planning was when the registry occured. Compared where the Excelsior was TOTALLY new out-right - EVERYTHING was new/to be tested with her lauch.
Andrew
Posted by Matrix (Member # 376) on :
The Galaxy class is like the CVN carriers today. It takes 8-10 years to build just one of these ships. From the drawing board to the commissioning of the ship. The Galaxy class if we look at the TNG TM construction does not take place until the 2350's. That means in reality construction really took 8-12 years not 20 like most think. I find that reasonable considering that the ship is very large. The Excelsior was perhaps being design in the late 2260's and construction probably began like in the mid-2270's. That's why maybe the reason that the E-nil was refitted, because design and construction for a new ship takes so long. Then again the new E-nil was really a whole new ship with just a few key parts from the original design in place.
The way I see it, is that the Nebula, the Cheyenne, and the New Orleans are classes that were being designed and along the way, the Galaxy class parts were used to speed up the design process. Or they were unused block numbers and were used later on.
The TOS system might have worked if people had actually used it. It would have made it far easier. However I find it very likely that some people would forget what Class A number was, and instead used Class B number for Ship B, so Ship A and Ship B are the same class but have a different number so they conflict. But thats just me.
Hell, now NX-01 is conflict with the Dauntless which was also the NX-01.
Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
I postulate a twenty-year cycle for each of the Starship/Explorer development projects -- in a twenty-on, twenty-off pattern -- followed by twenty-year refit cycles after completion. At each refit cycle, the class is evaluated and either is given the go-ahead for another cycle, or scheduled to be phased out of service.
So the Constitution was launched in 2243, and had a major refit in 2263 that boosted the crew capacity from ~200 to ~430, etc. That same year the Great Experiment was begun, and wouldn't be completed until 2285, due to problems with developing the Transwarp drive. In the Constitution's 2383 review, it was decided to begin retiring the class in favor of the new Excelsior class, but the failure of Transwarp in 2285 put a hold on that. That year saw the 'fleet registry system change, and the Excelsior go through its first service cycle retrofitting it to conventional (if more advanced) warp drive and testing some variant designs. Then, in 2303, the Ambassador Class Development Project got underway, with better results. Then, in 2343, the Galaxy Class Development Project began.
Given that sort of cycle, the next Explorer project (what I call the Nova Explorator Development Project, in that the actual ship hasn't been named yet -- and also to support the TNG TM appendix on the subject) will officially begin in 2383... *checks watch* ...Which is coming up soon.
--Jonah
Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
As for no one using the TOS system -- Matt did when he created the "Court Martial" wall chart. It's only later, with Greg Jein's, FASA's, and Michael Okuda's attempts to say all those "Star Ship"s were Constitution-class that things get stupid.
--Jonah
Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
Two additional points...
Regarding the Prometheus:
Mike prepared the graphics and dedication plaque in conjunction with Rick's input. Rick himself said a while back in his newsgroup that he went over to Foundation to look over the shoulders of the CG artists and saw them using a number other than the one he had suggested, but by then it was too late to correct it.
Regarding the Galaxy:
One of the Galaxy-class ships in "Sacrifice of Angels"... or was it "Tears of the Prophets"... was seen to bear the rego 'NCC-70637'. I doubt it was coincidence.
--Jonah
[ March 28, 2002, 08:53: Message edited by: Peregrinus ]
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
It was around the same time as I got the Sketchbook, but I know that wasn't it -- the conversations with Jeffries, and the sketches from him, only reinforced and added to the little bits I already had. I will continue to wrack my brains...![[Wink]](wink.gif)
The only regos that would have to be tweaked are a half-dozen or so (at most -- probably only one or two in practice) "borderline" ships from Star Trek VI displays, plus the Bozeman. Despite the 1947 in-joke rego on her upper hull, going with the 1847 rego on her lower hull would make her the Miranda variant we've always suspected her of being. ![[Mad]](mad.gif)
But what I'm trying to do now is figure out a plausible way for one system to evolve into the other -- take Okuda out of TOS and most of the headaches disappear.