quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Nguyen:
{Nabeshin}
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!
{/Nabeshin}

---

Sadly, I understand this.
 

---

Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
 
Well, we've never had this conversation over and over and over again, have we?
 

---

Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
 
Drat these pesky time loops....I wonder if he's stacking the deck.
 

---

Posted by Rogue Starship (Member # 756) on :
 
Hey, I didn't mean to renew one of the "Dreaded" topics...I just wanted to add new insite.

Hell I hate it when newbies bring those up, but I am no newbie...

I guess it was a pretty stupid idda...

RD
 

---

Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
 
Not at all. As a matter of fact, I am always interested in talking about registries.
 

---

Posted by Akira62497 (Member # 850) on :
 
Here is my feeling toward all the registries. From 1-about 5600 is all built in class order with same type of registry like 600-650 as one class (this includes the Constitution witch older ship were retro-fitted into Constitution class but still there is other ships in this class from 1700 to 1717 or something but names not given) once around 5600 or so, the registry�s changed to meet the new ship classes and the system is changed that the Registry�s don�t follow the class like the old ones (lets make some examples. The enterprise A was launched on 8442.5 the excelsior was 8205.5 the Sutherland was 44820.5 the Brittain was 22519.5 the defiant was 47538.5 voyager was 48038.5 Enterprise b was 9715.5 USS Prometheus 50749.5 the USS Sao Paulo NCC-75633 was 52889.3? USS Tsiolkovsky 40291.7 USS Valiant NCC-74210 was 49456.5? The Original enterprise was in 2245 while the excelsior was 2285 the stargazer was in 2290 the constellation was in 2279 the pasture was 58928 or so they say and the Hathaway was on 2286 )like the ambassador class(look at the build date for some of the ships and they just don�t match in my book for the older ships.(you mean to tell me that you guys believe they built only 300 ships in 40 years? 1701-2000 than in a hundred years later they built 70000 that does not make since to me )

[ September 10, 2002, 20:52: Message edited by: Akira62497 ]
 

---

Posted by Capped In Mic (Member # 709) on :
 
i'm not sure i understand any of that. try to construct simpler sentences. and spellcheck. i'm not trying to insult you but the spelling and grammar is so bad that i actually have no idea what you said.

by the way, older ships being made into Constitution-class? Bullshit. Using the most complicated explanation is the worst way to logically solve a problem. I'll call it Fanboy's Razor.

I think the registries arent as chronological as people might think. When the Constitutions were built in the early 2240s, some yards were using 9xx-10xx registries, some were using 16xx and 17xx registries. basically, there had been 1700 numbers assigned by that point, but there hadnt been 1700 ships built since some of the yards were still using older numbers because they made less ships per year than other busier yards like San Fran.

This explanation allows the Constitutions to be built as a class, not as some bullshit concept of pasting together ancient hulls to make new ships, it hardly seems logical that there were so many dated saucers built to that specification, and whatnot. it seems a tremendous and bizarre waste of resources and time to rearrange existing ships in ways contrary to their original design.
(even the connie refit was only a refurbishing of new panels on the old frame, not a rearrangement of them shoving new nacelles in wierd new places)

This explanation also allows for later oddities such as the Excelsior coming out after the establishment of other 21xx registries like the Entente, and the 6xx Oberths being newer than the 9xx-17xx Constitutions, and the 5xxxx Prometheus, etc,etc blah blah

most importantly, this system disguises the true number of ships in Starfleet, which leaves it open to the writer's intentions. since Star Trek was designed to be a character show and not a technical universe, so the writer needs to be allowed to have a huge fleet or a small one, depending on the plot they want to put the character through. the system was deliberately designed to be oh-so non-specific, so that the Enterprise could have a fleet around it for fun VFX sometimes, but other times be the only ship in the quadrant.

and by TNG era Starfleet could grow very much faster.. we know that vessels capable of serving as starships are getting smaller and smaller.. if they built 1,000 runabouts they would eclipse the number of NCCs they used in the whole first century of the Federation. even small ships like the scout or the little Defiant (little?!), basically any ship thats self sufficient for long travel gets an NCC, that applies to more ships in the TNG era.
 

---

Posted by Capped In Mic (Member # 709) on :
 
i cant believe i responded to such a n00b thread anyway. this HAS been discussed to death.
 

---

Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
 
Yes, but it made since... I had never thought of the smaller craft getting the NCC numbers...
 

---

Posted by The Red Admiral (Member # 602) on :
 
Mic also pretty much summed up my opinions on this much flogged dead horse. It's not hard to account for 70-some thousand ships since the Federation began if they began integrating previously non-listed ships into the fleet, such as small Utilities, Tankers, Tugs, Freighters and so forth.

Also, possibly, the ships of alien races that join the Federation. For instance, if the Bajorans entered the Federations, some of it's military defense forces would be incorporated into the 'Federation Fleet'. So, being assigned a registered number, this too would boost the ever expanding figures for registries.
 

---

Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
 
However, most non-Starfleet, Federation-used ships usually had registries with a NAR, NFT, NGL etc. prefix, not NCC. NCC is reserved only for Starfleet vessels.

Here's an interesting conundrum for chronological registry buffs like me: According to the dedication plaque for the U.S.S. Tsiolkovsky, the ship was launched on stardate 40291.7, roughly one year before the first season of TNG. However, the ship's registry is only NCC-53911! You would think that a ship launched in 2363 would have a registry as high as 70000, but it doesn't.

Of course, this was only the second episode of TNG, and registries, stardates, and even TNG's calendar year were not set at this time, so I choose to ignore the plaque totally.
 

---

Posted by Akira62497 (Member # 850) on :
 
im calling it a recommishined ship
 

---

Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
 
Indeed. It's not currently customary to decommission a ship for the duration of a refit, but it USED to be the norm. Recommissioning might be commemorated in a new plaque even when the registry is retained.

Of course, the Tsiolkovski wasn't too extensively refitted, from what little we saw. If any of the other ships for which the plaques are known had undergone a major refit after the known launch date, and the SD on the plaque didn't agree with this, this theory would come crumbling down. But none of the prominent ships has undergone such a refit, AFAWK.

Timo Saloniemi
 

---

Posted by J (Member # 608) on :
 
Being exactly chronological is impossible... there will be times when the registry is reserved for a certain ship and that ship never comes about so that by the time that registry number is freed up to actually be used it has been passed for many years in the chronological order.

At the same time registry numbers are not given at a specific time. Some ships receive their registry number before they come off the production line [this is most likely the case with NX vessels]. Some ships will receive their numbers when they come off the line and go into flight tests. Other ships will receive their numbers when they finish and pass the flight tests. And yet others will receive the numbers at the last possible second, when they finally get commissioned.

Add into the above that some ships get delayed while other get fast tracked... it adds into the inability to strictly say all registries are chronological. But for the general point of the matter, if you really want to describe registry numbers you have to point out that they are roughly chronological--- if you can't agree with that you are blind to the evidence before you.
 

---

Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
 
This does not strike me as being a problem, because by and large, pre-Farpoint stardates simply don't work. They're all over the map. More troubling to me would be the registry itself, implying a continuing construction of Oberths long after I would personally like to see them being constructed. But, there you are.
 

---

Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
 
I agree, with the same argument for the Mirandas & Excelsiors. I'm in the process of writing up an essay dealing with just such matters, but in a nutshell:

1. First Excelsior = NCC-2000.
Last known Excelsior = NCC-62043.
*huh?*

2. First known Miranda = NCC-1864.
Last known Miranda = NCC-31911.
*double "huh"?*

3. First Oberth = NCC-602.
Last known Oberth = NCC-59318.
*triple "huh"*

Compared to the Ambassador, for example:
First Ambassador = NCC-10521.
Last known Ambassador = NCC-26849.

I've just never understood why, if TPTB either reused the model of a movie era ship, or had the ship's registry on a display somewhere, why they chose to give them such ridiculously high registries.
 

---

Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
 
I don't have a problem with the Mirandas though, and that high Excelsior number was a one-time anomaly.
 

---

Posted by Capped In Mic (Member # 709) on :
 
i can accept that they took out the blueprints and built a new series later. possibly even with significantly different internal technology witihn the same proven spaceframe, essentially a new ship in an old-style hull.
 

---

Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
 
I find the continued construction of a certain type of starship across several centuries very plausible. In fact, Starfleet's obsession with creating dozens of ship types that don't significantly differ from each other or from previous models is the anomalious factor here. It smacks of early 20th century, with its primitive short-lived technological solutions and relatively low costs of R&D. Compare this e.g. with the current trend in military aviation - the rate of introduction of new fighter types has dropped to near-zero when R&D costs and cost-per-plane skyrocket.

There's very little problem with the Oberths, since their role doesn't actually lend itself to aging. What was good for surveying a star system in 2260 would still be good for the job in 2852, assuming you haven't invented something that would *so radically* lower the costs of the survey that it would justify the capital expenses of creating a new surveyor design (or an alternate survey method).

A warship is subject to outdating, though. At least if the rate of military escalation is synchronized among the major adversaries. But the Trek galaxy could be largely asynchronized, making a Miranda a superpowerful dreadnought against most 24th century (or 29th century) adversaries.

So, I don't see the seeming longevity of certain ship types as a reason to disbelieve in chronological NCCs. In fact, I'd like to see even greater longevity - indications of technologies inherited from civilizations hundreds of millennia past. Those ship types that seem to be all across the galaxy could well be a few million years old in their basic design, a design that continues in production among a number of civilizations which aren't even aware of each other nowadays.

Timo Saloniemi
 

---

Posted by Intruder1701 (Member # 880) on :
 
Maybe each class had a specific registry, like the Excelsiors were all 2000s while the Oberths started in the 5-600s and the Galaxys started off in the 6-7000s. I dunno just a hunch
 

---

Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
 
That wouldbe plausable. Except for all the evidence that proves it wrong.
 

---

Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
 
Don't you just hate it when the facts get in the way of a perfectly good theory?

I'm generally in favour of a chronological registry system; this fits on the whole, with only a few exceptions. To be honest, I would expect a few abberations in the scheme over the two centuries or so that Starfleet has existed; ships that were assigned hull numbers but were never completed and the numbers reassigned; hull numbers assigned in blocks to shipyards which build different ships at different rates etc. even an Admiral trying to use up any numbers which have been skipped for whatever reason. The wrong number accidentally painted on the hull (my favourite- ). Starfleet is not infallable.
 

---

Posted by Capped In Mic (Member # 709) on :
 
*sigh*
 

---