I did some brainstorming. It's possibly going to be part of a little article on the development of the Constitution class and it's nephews. If I ever manage to finish such a thing.
But that aside, this is is a history of the canon, named ships, with a little conjecture of yours truly. Let me explain some things:
[*] The ships are ordered by registry number. Or at least they are until I come up with a final construction order.
[*] Yes, TAS is included
[*] The registries:
[*]The 16** numbers are not really a problem, IMO. They could easily be explained by minor variations in the mostly sequential registry system. Probably 'left-over' hull (or contract) numbers from some fleetyard.
[*]The only real problems arise with the USS Eagle NCC-956,USS Constellation NCC-1017 and USS Republic NCC-1371. There are two reasonable explanations. One is that they could have been named in honor of older ships, like the Sao Paulo was changed into Defiant on DS9. Another explanations can be that they were originally planned to be built earlier (most likely as another class) but were postponed and later constructed as a Connie.
[*]The Enterprise's history is perhaps a bit dodgy. I've moved TMP to '73, and I'm one of those people that places TWOK in '83. But I don't know if that means I have to move the later movies too. Can someone enlighten me?
[*]I'm assuming that all (or at least most) of the ships were refitted.
[*]The months are conjectural of course, based on episodes being spaced evenly across the year.
[*]The 12 Constitution class vessels:
[*]The 8 ships from "Court Martial" must be amongst them. Unless the Essex was destroyed between the two episodes (we know all the other ships were in service after "Tomorrow is Yesterday").
[*]The Farragut and Republic were in service before TIY. Unless Farragut was destroyed, I count them. That leaves 2 more slots open.
[*]Yorktown. Just to give it a bit more history, seeing as it has to be decommisioned in 2293.
[*]Constellation. First, to leave a little room for conjecture on the low NCC, and second, because otherwise it would leave very little time for this ship, seeing as it was destroyed a few episodes later.
[*]This means that all the other ships have to have been launched AFTER early 2267. It could make sense, since the Potemkin took part in the M-5 trial, and it could've been built with an M-5 computer.
That's basically it. There'll probably be umpteen different views on the matter, but this is mine and I think it makes some sense.
(edit: ehh.. what the heck is going on with this UBB code?)
Posted by Akira (Member # 850) on :
The way i have always looked at it was that the Older ship were of a earlier class and Refited into Connie specs and give new reg's but never displayed there newer numbers. Cause look at Kirk when he served on the Republic if i remember that ship was quite old when he was on it. I also agree with a 2273 date for TMP but i dont know how to work it in.
But i dunno anyone else have any idea's
Posted by Akira (Member # 850) on :
This is the way i have it fixed in my data base.
2242 USS Constitution is Comm. Constitution class phase 1 from 1700-1711 2243 2244 2245 (April) USS Enterprise NCC-1701 is Comm. 2246 2247 USS Farragut NCC-1702/1647 is Reclassified USS Hood NCC-1703 is Comm. USS Defiance/Defiant NCC-1704 is Comm. USS Excalibur NCC-1705/1664 is Comm. USS Exeter NCC-1706/1672 is Reclassified USS Valiant NCC-1707 is Comm. 956/1017/1371/1631/1647/1657/1664/1672/1685/1684/1697reclassified as Constitution phase 2 *note at bottom of page 2248 USS Intrepid NCC-1708/1631 is Reclassified USS Lexington NCC-1709 is Comm. USS Kongo NCC-1710 is Comm. USS Potemkin NCC-1711/1657 is Reclassified USS Bonhomme Richard NCC-1712 is Comm. Class changed to Constitution Phase 3 2249 USS Monitor NCC-1713 is Comm. 2250 USS Hornet NCC-1714 is Comm. USS Merrimac NCC-1715 is Comm. USS Endeavour NCC-1716 is Comm. USS Yorktown NCC-1717 is Comm. 2251 USS Excelsior NCC-1718 is Comm. USS Eagle NCC-1719/956 is Reclassified USS Lafayette NCC-1720 is Comm. USS Wasp NCC-1721 is Comm. USS El Dorado NCC-1722 is Comm. USS Ari NCC-1723 is Comm. 2252 USS ???????? NCC-1724 is Comm. USS Tori NCC-1725 is Comm. USS Krieger NCC-1726 is Comm. USS Essex NCC-1727 is Comm. 2253 2254 USS Enterprise 1701 Upgraded 2255 (Pike)
956//1631/1647/1657/1664/1672/1685/1684/1697/reclassified as Constitution phase 2 *note at bottom of page Cont. These Ships were classified as a Different Class but Reclassified as a Constitution Class with old Registry�s hall numbers on the ship but given New Numbers to follow the Reclassifications. This is why you will see for example 1706/1672 For the USS Exeter. USS Republic NCC-1371 Was just Classified as a Constitution Class Only
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
Interesting summary there, Harry. I've got an inconsistency in the episodes, though: wasn't the gathering of starships in "The Ultimate Computer" supposed to be unprecedented or at least Very Important? It seems very, VERY strange for eight of the twelve Constitution-class starships to be undergoing repairs at the same time -- that's a very poor (pseudo-)military deployment strategy.
IIRC, the assignment of the majority of the registry numbers is based on the assumption that ALL of the starships on the list in "Court Martial" HAD to be Constitution-class ships. That's a spurious assumption, IMO.
Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
It's indeed a bit strange that EVERYONE assumed they were ALL Constitution class ships. But it's too late to do anything about it now. It's become canon.
My theory is that all these ships are undergoing the WNMHGB-TOS refit, i.e. adding the balls and removing the spikes. They might have all ended their 5-year missions around this time.
Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
Wait a minute.. Look at that chart here. There are 10 ships on it.
What are NCC-1718 and NCC-1(6/8?)(6/8?)5?
Posted by Ryan McReynolds (Member # 28) on :
quote:Originally posted by Harry: It's become canon.
A pairing of the registries with names has never appeared in any episode or film; therefore, it is not canon. Feel free to discard.
Posted by Identity Crisis (Member # 67) on :
quote:Originally posted by Harry: What are NCC-1718 and NCC-1(6/8?)(6/8?)5?
1718 is the Endeavour and 1685 is the Eagle. That's in the Greg Jein system that first proposed that all the ships on the chart must be Constitutions. FASA and then Mike Okuda copied parts, but not all, of Jein's system.
I may be wrong but wasn't the USS Eagle (NCC-956) identified on the Operation Retrieve chart as an Oberth-Class starship and not a Constitution as had been previously assumed?
For what it's worth here is what my own list has on the connies.
quote: U.S.S. CONSTELLATION NCC-1017 CONSTITUTION-CLASS Federation starship, commanded by Matt Decker, Science officer Masada, investigated the destruction of system L370 and the break up of the forth planet in system L374, Attacked and damaged by the object known as Planet Killer, entire crew beamed down to the third planet leaving Decker on the ship when Planet Killer attacked and disabled CONSTELLATION's transporters then destroyed the third planet with the entire crew still on the surface in 2267 DESTROYED
U.S.S. CONSTITUTION NCC-1700 CONSTITUTION-CLASS First of it's class, Operating out of Starbase 11 under the command of Commodore Stone in 2267 DECOMMISSIONED
U.S.S. ENTERPRISE NCC-1701 A CONSTITUTION-CLASS Commanded by Captain James T.Kirk, Second starship to bear the name, Suffered heavy damage during a battle over Khitomer with General Chang's advanced Klingon Bird of Prey in 2293, Decommisioned shortly afterwards DECOMMISSIONED
U.S.S. ENTERPRISE NCC-1701 CONSTITUTION-CLASS Commanded by Captain James T.Kirk, First Federation Starfleet ship to bear the name, Launched in 2245 DESTROYED
U.S.S. HOOD NCC-1703 CONSTITUTION-CLASS Operating out of Starbase 11 under the command of Commodore Stone in 2267, Participated in disastrous war-game drill with M-5 in 2268 DECOMMISSIONED
U.S.S. LEXINGTON NCC-1709 CONSTITUTION-CLASS Commanded by Commodore Robert Wesley, Operating out of Starbase 11 under Commodore Stone in 2267, Participated in disastrous war-game drill with M-5 in 2268 that killed 53 crew members DECOMMISSIONED
U.S.S. KONGO NCC-1710 CONSTITUTION-CLASS Assigned to neutral zone patrol in 2293 DECOMMISSIONED
U.S.S. MERRIMACK NCC-1715 CONSTITUTION-CLASS Cruiser, Issued communication from Epsilon IX relay station shortly before encounter with V'Ger in 2271 DECOMMISSIONED
U.S.S. YORKTOWN NCC-1717 CONSTITUTION-CLASS Scheduled to rendezvous with U.S.S. ENTERPRISE NCC-1701 in 2268, Commanded by Captain Joel Randolph in 2286, One of seven Federation vessels disabled by Cetacean probe DECOMMISSIONED
U.S.S. DEFIANT NCC-1764 CONSTITUTION-CLASS Lost to a region of spatial interphase within Tholian territory in 2268 DESTROYED
U.S.S. INTREPID NCC-1831 CONSTITUTION-CLASS All Vulcan crew, Operating out of Starbase 11 under the command of Commodore Stone in 2267, Destroyed by giant spaceborne amoebae in 2268 DESTROYED
U.S.S. SPRINGFIELD NCC-1963 CONSTITUTION-CLASS Assigned to neutral zone patrol in 2293, Potential participant of Operation Retrieve DECOMMISSIONED
U.S.S. AHWAHNEE NCC-2048 CONSTITUTION-CLASS On deep space exploration in 2293, Potential participant of Operation Retrieve DECOMMISSIONED
U.S.S. POTEMKIN NCC->UNKNOWN< CONSTITUTION-CLASS Participated in disastrous war-game drill with M-5 in 2268, On scientific survey in 2293, Potential participant of Operation Retrieve DECOMMISSIONED
U.S.S. EXCALIBUR NCC->UNKNOWN< CONSTITUTION-CLASS Commanded by Captain Harris, Operating out of Starbase 11 under the command of Commodore Stone in 2267, Participated in disastrous war-game drill with M-5 that resulted in the loss of all hands in 2268 DESTROYED
U.S.S.EXETER NCC- >UNKNOWN< CONSTITUTION-CLASS Commanded by Captain Ronald Tracey, Operating out of Starbase 11 under the command of Commodore Stone in 2267, Crew killed by Bacteriological agent at Omega IV in 2268 DECOMMISSIONED
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
quote:Originally posted by Harry: It's indeed a bit strange that EVERYONE assumed they were ALL Constitution class ships. But it's too late to do anything about it now. It's become canon.
This is the part where we dismiss the Encyclopedia's definitions on that specific instance due to its faulty assumptions. (The same way that we all ignore the part about Romulan warships without warp drive. )
I haven't seen any of the TOS episodes in quite a while, so I may be remembering a few things incorrectly. But I'm going to try to recount the only solid things we know about Constitution-class ships:
-- USS Enterprise, NCC-1701 (duh!) -- USS Constitution, NCC-1700 (a perfectly logical assumption) -- USS Constellation, NCC-1017 (the only one we know EVERYTHING about aside from Enterprise) -- USS Defiant, Constitution Class (REG UNKNOWN, UNSEEN) -- USS Excalibur, Constitution Class (REG NOT SEEN - IIRC) -- USS Lexington, Constitution Class (REG NOT SEEN - IIRC) -- USS Hood, Constitution Class (REG NOT SEEN - IIRC) -- USS Potemkin, Constitution Class (REG NOT SEEN - IIRC) -- USS Exeter, Constitution Class (REG NOT SEEN)
The above ships are the ones that we've seen on the TV screen directly -- although not always able to read the registry number, IIRC. (I don't remember if the numbers were legible in "The Ultimate Computer" -- I don't think so.) Therefore, the registry numbers are not set in stone.
-- USS Republic, NCC-1371 (NEVER SEEN, class possibly unknown) -- USS Intrepid, NCC-1x31 (NEVER SEEN, presumed Constitution, but only because of Spock's line of "430 Vulcans" -- not seen in "Court Martial") -- USS Farragut (NEVER SEEN) -- USS Essex (NEVER SEEN - or mentioned, IIRC) -- USS Yorktown (NEVER SEEN)
These ships were mentioned -- and often referred to as "starships" with the connotation in the 1960's being that they were identical to the Enterprise. However, given that from our perspective (and attempting to unify the ill-defined aspects of TOS before it became part of "the franchise") ALL Starfleet ships can be considered "starships," there's nothing definitive about those lines. (IMO)
If you want to get REALLY revisionist, I can tell you my wishful theory about the gravitational distortions of the planet killer which distorted the light coming from the Constellation's hull, making it look like its number was NCC-1017 when it's actually NCC-1710! Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
Oh dear, I sense screaming and possible bloodshed lie somewhere in the immediate future of this thread...
quote:Originally posted by Reverend: I may be wrong but wasn't the USS Eagle (NCC-956) identified on the Operation Retrieve chart as an Oberth-Class starship and not a Constitution as had been previously assumed?
No. I've tried to point this out before, but no one seems to be listening. While nobody can tell for certain until/unless we get to see them up close, I believe that the three silhouttes on the Operation Retrieve are those of Excelsiors, Constitutions, and Mirandas. Those ones that people have mistaken for Connies are actually the Excelsiors. The other two types of silhouttes have identical-diameter saucers. They are NOT Oberths. The EAGLE name and NCC (discernable because of their short length compared with the others on the chart) *do* indeed match up with a Connie silhoutte. I *think* SCOVIL matches as well. I'm not yet convinced of most of the other name-silhoutte associations that Tim drew up in the last thread devoted to this topic. The comparative lengths of the names CHALLENGER, POTEMKIN, AHWAHNEE, SPRINGFIELD, and ENDEAVOUR are simply too similar to make a call. (I'm willing to give Okuda the benefit of the doubt, though, and believe the Endeavour also matches with a Connie, even though the registry could easily make it a Miranda as well. Given the registries, the Ahwahnee and Challenger probably match with Excelsior silhouettes.)
I think we all pretty much agree that Greg Jein's original idea of matching all the names on the "Court Martial" chart to Connies was deeply flawed. Had it remained solely a fandom conception over the years, it would no doubt be paid any heed and would be disregarded as the nonsense that it likely is. Franz Joseph's far more logical system (which actually predated Jein's by about two years and was approved by Roddenberry) would have likely become more prevalent and been perpetuated as the official scheme. However, for some reason or other, (probably because she was extremely active in fandom circles, and perhaps not well acquainted with FJ's technical literature) Bjo Trimble picked up on the Jein scheme and used parts of it in then-considered-authoritative Star Trek Concordance, with a few additions. (Defiant with NCC-1764, Potemkin with NCC-1702, Farragut with NCC-1647, and Yorktown with NCC-1717. Unfortunately, she reproduced Jein's erroneous NCC-1631 reg for the Intrepid, and mistakenly listed the Republic as NCC-1373.) This became the lexicon used by most fans and writers thereafter, and was used by FASA in the 80s as a source of Connie registries. (But, of course, they made up their own numbers for ships that Jein had originally given numbers to in his list but Trimble had omitted from hers---namely the Eagle, Endeavour, and Essex.)
Then along comes Okuda, who no doubt revered the Concordance and of course had a personal and professional relationship with Greg Jein himself---and who furthermore had been told by a bitter and vindictive Gene Roddenberry that Franz Joseph was simply a fan kook---and (surprise, surprise) he bases his numbers for the new official Encyclopedia on a combination of the Jein and Trimble schemes, though he corrects the errors of both lists and inexplicably invents new and not highly-sensical numbers for the Potemkin, (NCC-1657) Eagle, (NCC-956) and Endeavour (NCC-1895).
I have come to see that this mishmash of slightly varying but very similar number schemes all tracing their roots back to a scarcely sound premise (that all the ships on the "Court Martial" chart were Connies) is most confusing and difficult to explain. However, the fact remains that this is the scheme which Paramount (at least currently) considers to be definitive and will in all likely-hood continue to use as reference for any future projets concerning these ships. So I choose to simply make the best of it and not scrutinize too closely.
-MMoM Posted by Matrix (Member # 376) on :
If I had the time, I would post my own ideas. However it's a slight merging of the canon and non-canon SotF books.
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
quote:I have come to see that this mishmash of slightly varying but very similar number schemes all tracing their roots back to a scarcely sound premise (that all the ships on the "Court Martial" chart were Connies) is most confusing and difficult to explain. However, the fact remains that this is the scheme which Paramount (at least currently) considers to be definitive and will in all likely-hood continue to use as reference for any future projets concerning these ships. So I choose to simply make the best of it and not scrutinize too closely.
To make a parallel of organized religions, Paramount also has to tread the line between orthodoxy and individual interpretation. Only in this case, it's just a TV show, and we can believe whatever we want! Posted by Starship Millennium (Member # 822) on :
Re: TWOK's date... wherever you place it, it's quite clearly during the same year as the three following films. TWOK probably takes place during the early part of the year, as Saavik seems to graduate soon after. ("The First Duty" shows Starfleet graduation is in September, but personally I think it would make much more sense if it were placed towards May or June.) No more than a few weeks could have elapsed between TWOK and TSFS, and only a few months between TSFS and TVH. Again, there is only a span of weeks, perhaps a month, between TVH and TFF (Kirk mentions it as he is boarding the Enterprise). Of course, if Starfleet Academy does have graduation towards the end of the year, it's very possible TVH and TFF took place in the following year, but it's not possible that TFF happened a year after TVH. I don't know how Okuda or whoever figured out this took place over three years, but it doesn't seem very plausible.
As far as registries go, I'm a staunch Franz Joseph advocate... Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
On the topic of dates for TWOK, remember Kirk's gift of Romulan Ale? "2283..." "Well, it takes this stuff a while to ferment."
That means that it's at least a year, maybe two, past that.
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
That screaming and possible bloodshed I mentioned? I can sense it is coming SOON...
Seriously, why are we taking Harry's thread in this divergent direction? Let's keep it Connie-oriented. This quibbling over the chronology was just given a thorough---and, as usual, inconclusive---rehashing in the latter pages of this thread in the General Trek forum.
-MMoM Posted by Topher (Member # 71) on :
I still don't see why TWOK can't take place in 2283. It's a joke! Hilarity.
Posted by MrNeutron (Member # 524) on :
quote:Originally posted by Starship Millennium: ...("The First Duty" shows Starfleet graduation is in September, but personally I think it would make much more sense if it were placed towards May or June.)
That only makes sense if you assume Starfleet sticks to modern western schedules for schooling. There's no good reason to assume they do so, especially if they give September as a graduation date.
Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
The Defiant's 1764 registry is based on internal memos. In my not-remotely-humble opinion, the notion of any of the 16xx and the lone 18xx registry on the "Court Martial" chart are Constitution-class ships is utter nonsense. The chart was created by Matt Jeffries using his personal roughed-out system of how registries are assigned. They are all Heavy Cruisers -- which is what "Starship" means in that context -- but only the 17xx registries are Constitutions, for reasons laid out in pieces in several interviews with Jeffries.
The Merrimack is referenced at NCC-1715 in TMP, so that's canon.
And as for the Operation: Retrieve displays, they are all Enterprise-class silhouettes orientated the same direction. That, coupled with the Excelsior-class silhouettes all orientated the same direction on the Enterprise-B's helm (or was it navigation?) board, leads me to believe it is a generic position marker for ships with no regard to class.
Far too much of what's come since the late '80s is based on the worst speculation. I wince at the "exhaustively researched" line on the Encyclopedia, when Mike still uses his half-baked registry system for the TOS-era ships, rather than maybe tracking down Matt Jeffries and talking to him like Herb and Fern did for the Star Trek Sketchbook.
--Jonah
Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
Whoops. Someone try to catch the worms!
Since we'll never reach consensus on this debate in the next four billion years anyway, I think it's best to stick to the most official names and numbers we have, at least for the purpose of this timeline.
Posted by Starship Millennium (Member # 822) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrNeutron: That only makes sense if you assume Starfleet sticks to modern western schedules for schooling. There's no good reason to assume they do so, especially if they give September as a graduation date.
True... but any way you cut it, TFF couldn't have been a full year after TVH.
And methinks some people want some sort of "battle" to break out... Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
quote:Originally posted by Peregrinus: The Defiant's 1764 registry is based on internal memos. In my not-remotely-humble opinion, the notion of any of the 16xx and the lone 18xx registry on the "Court Martial" chart are Constitution-class ships is utter nonsense. The chart was created by Matt Jeffries using his personal roughed-out system of how registries are assigned. They are all Heavy Cruisers -- which is what "Starship" means in that context -- but only the 17xx registries are Constitutions, for reasons laid out in pieces in several interviews with Jeffries.
Well... granted TOS has less "official" documentation, at least in the vein that TNG and beyond did... but I don't think that some internal memo could count as canon at all... or even "provisional canon." And depending on your perspective, you could say that Jeffries' system for registries has been thrown out the window with the "modern" Trek pseudo-system.
quote:The Merrimack is referenced at NCC-1715 in TMP, so that's canon.
True, but the class of that ship is not known at all... for all we know it could be an early Miranda or something we've never even seen before. Just because the name and number match references in the book, doesn't mean that the book's complete entry is automatically correct...
Posted by The359 (Member # 37) on :
quote:Originally posted by Peregrinus: The Merrimack is referenced at NCC-1715 in TMP, so that's canon.
Her class, however, is not mentioned, so canonically speaking, its not Constitution class.
Edit: Damn you for your quickness!
Posted by SoundEffect (Member # 926) on :
Regarding the placement of the movies chronologically, the one piece of info that has repeatedly been ignored is the date for Star Trek IV. The Chronology lists it as 2286 and it's supported by early Next Gen. When Next Generation promos were first being televised, they kept mentioning "78 years ahve passed since the days of Kirk and Spock". It's a definitive date they chose, not just a rounded number. W know that Season 1 TNG takes place in 2364. 2364-78=2286. Star Trek IV was the last Classic Trek we saw before TNG began. So they had 2286 in mind for Star Trek IV long before the Chronology came out. That puts Treks II and III in 2285, and cannot be as far back as 2283.
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
quote:Originally posted by Peregrinus: The Defiant's 1764 registry is based on internal memos.
Ooh...what sort of "internal memos"? Is this something you've had access to or just heard about it second hand? Is there any other useful info on registries, names, or classes that could be gleaned from such sources?
quote:In my not-remotely-humble opinion, the notion of any of the 16xx and the lone 18xx registry on the "Court Martial" chart are Constitution-class ships is utter nonsense. The chart was created by Matt Jeffries using his personal roughed-out system of how registries are assigned. They are all Heavy Cruisers -- which is what "Starship" means in that context -- but only the 17xx registries are Constitutions, for reasons laid out in pieces in several interviews with Jeffries.
I agree with what you're saying, and am well acquainted with Mr. Jefferies' intended registry system. Unfortunately, as you are no doubt aware, that registry system never really came to fruition, and is now most certainly quite defunct. (That's one thing you can blame Franz Joseph for to a great extent, although it was actually "The Doomsday Machine" that cast the first wrench into the works.) There is absolutely no way that Jefferies' proposed system can be applied given what we've seen in canon Trek in the ensuing 30 years. A pity, to be sure, but there's no use crying over spilt milk...
quote:The Merrimack is referenced at NCC-1715 in TMP, so that's canon.
Yes, but even while it would fit nicely into the range, there's no reason to assume it is a Connie. In fact, it was lifted directly from FJ's Star Fleet Technical Manual, which lists the ship as a Bonhomme Richard-class vessel. (Which, arguably, could be a variant of the Constitution-class, but isn't necessarily---and I am of the utmost reluctance to accept the fandom notion of subclasses or ships being "upgraded" to new classes...[ick!].)
quote:And as for the Operation: Retrieve displays, they are all Enterprise-class silhouettes orientated the same direction. That, coupled with the Excelsior-class silhouettes all orientated the same direction on the Enterprise-B's helm (or was it navigation?) board, leads me to believe it is a generic position marker for ships with no regard to class.
Unfortunately this is not possible. I don't know how you're seeing them all as Constitution-class refit ( ) silhouttes, as there are clearly three---or two, if for some mysterious reason the two smaller ones are the same---distinct types shown. You should check out the pics again.
quote:Far too much of what's come since the late '80s is based on the worst speculation.
Agreed.
quote: I wince at the "exhaustively researched" line on the Encyclopedia, when Mike still uses his half-baked registry system for the TOS-era ships, rather than maybe tracking down Matt Jeffries and talking to him like Herb and Fern did for the Star Trek Sketchbook.
Agreed...sort of. You can't undo what TNG showed with registry numbers---that they are, at most, assigned in a roughly sequential order without regard to class or vessel type. One can't very well claim (IMO) that it was somehow different in the TOS era, even if the original intent at the time the first series was being produced was just that. There comes a point (and it was reached long, long ago) when it becomes impossible to try to uphold/reconcile something that is universally ignored by all the other series. But you're right in that it would have been much better if that point had never been arrived at.
-MMoM Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
quote:Originally posted by MinutiaeMan: Well... granted TOS has less "official" documentation, at least in the vein that TNG and beyond did... but I don't think that some internal memo could count as canon at all... or even "provisional canon." And depending on your perspective, you could say that Jeffries' system for registries has been thrown out the window with the "modern" Trek pseudo-system.
I mentioned the memo to show that while the 1764 isn't canon, neither did Bjo pull it out of the aether. Remember that at the time the Concordance saw print, D.C. Fontana was very active in fandom, too. I would be not remotely surprised to learn she was the source of the Defiant's registry.
As for Jeffries' registry system, yes I know it isn't the system they're going by now, but it is the system he was going by during TOS and is the system he used to make the biggest single piece of TOS canon starship listing data (the aforementioned wall chart). Rather than be an apologist for Okuda's lack of research, I'd rather say Starfleet switched at some point in the mid-2280s from Jeffries' system to Okuda's system. It is the approach that demands the least illogical revisionism.
Additional: I forgot to comment on it earlier, but given the ships shown at >100% on the wall chart, I find it more likely to show the mission status of the Starships under SB11's jurisdiction than a repair schedule.
As for the Merrimack, given the data points in favour, it is far easier to make the step to say it is Constitution-class than the leap for the Republic...
--Jonah
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"...given the ships shown at >100% on the wall chart..."
There aren't any. The highest one is the 1[6|8]31 which is shown right at 100%, and then there's a gap, and another small bar, which presumably denotes completion, or something.
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
quote:Originally posted by Peregrinus: I mentioned the memo to show that while the 1764 isn't canon, neither did Bjo pull it out of the aether. Remember that at the time the Concordance saw print, D.C. Fontana was very active in fandom, too. I would be not remotely surprised to learn she was the source of the Defiant's registry.
Gotcha -- sorry about that. That definitely does make sense given the other assumptions made back in the day.
quote:As for Jeffries' registry system, yes I know it isn't the system they're going by now, but it is the system he was going by during TOS and is the system he used to make the biggest single piece of TOS canon starship listing data (the aforementioned wall chart). Rather than be an apologist for Okuda's lack of research, I'd rather say Starfleet switched at some point in the mid-2280s from Jeffries' system to Okuda's system. It is the approach that demands the least illogical revisionism.
Not necessarily... for one thing, there's the Reliant. Also, there were no names on that big wall chart, were there? If you use Jefferies' system, and the fact that the Commodore pointed to the number NCC-1831 while referring to the Intrepid, that means that the Intrepid should be a Miranda-class starship!
quote:Additional: I forgot to comment on it earlier, but given the ships shown at >100% on the wall chart, I find it more likely to show the mission status of the Starships under SB11's jurisdiction than a repair schedule.
You know, that makes a LOT of sense! I like that idea...
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
quote:Originally posted by SoundEffect: Regarding the placement of the movies chronologically, the one piece of info that has repeatedly been ignored is the date for Star Trek IV. The Chronology lists it as 2286 and it's supported by early Next Gen. When Next Generation promos were first being televised, they kept mentioning "78 years ahve passed since the days of Kirk and Spock".
I was actually very upset when the first edition of the Chronology came out, and there was no mention of the 78 year thing, to the point that I recalculated numerous dates accordingly.
But, this was resolved (somewhat) in "Star Trek: Generations", with the "78 years later" (i.e. after Kirk's death) subtitle.
Posted by Akira (Member # 850) on :
I think the operation Ret. Poster has 4 excelsiors 1 Connie and 1 oberth. Not countion the far right side that i reallyt cant tell.
I kinda Skewed these in photoshop so there dirct view hope these help
quote:Ooh...what sort of "internal memos"? Is this something you've had access to or just heard about it second hand? Is there any other useful info on registries, names, or classes that could be gleaned from such sources?
Mostly just what you've seen in The Making of Star Trek. Those memos, by the way, are the source of most of FJ's ships before the "Achernar" cutoff, from where the production staff (notably D.C. Fontana) are tossing potential future Constitutions into the collective pool.
quote:I agree with what you're saying, and am well acquainted with Mr. Jefferies' intended registry system. Unfortunately, as you are no doubt aware, that registry system never really came to fruition, and is now most certainly quite defunct.
I agree. But while it never came to fruition, the framework is still there and -- non-canon Okudaic speculation aside -- still eminently available for application to the TOS/TAS/TMP period with (as I said) very few retcons needed.
quote:(That's one thing you can blame Franz Joseph for to a great extent, although it was actually "The Doomsday Machine" that cast the first wrench into the works.)
Agree on "The Doomsday Machine". It's a pity the VFX crews didn't work with the Art Department in those days... But FJ had remarkably little impact except in fandom circles, and hate to say it, but I don't hold anyone who doesn't research what they are contributing to in very high regard. The pretty pictures are great, but I tend to ignore much of the FJ-derived fluff and registration.
I keep FJ's pre-Achernar list very much intact, as well as his Federation list. I muck around a bit with the Hermes and Saladin lists. Indeed, I've been cudgeling my brain on what to do with those classes for years.
quote:There is absolutely no way that Jefferies' proposed system can be applied given what we've seen in canon Trek in the ensuing 30 years.
I don't know about that. Very little has still been done with the TOS era since that series wrapped. When I say very little retconning is needed to have Jeffries' system switch into Okuda's in the 2280s, I'm not making idle projections. I'll post the full list of examples I've gathered over in the Creativity section tomorrow.
quote:Yes, but even while it would fit nicely into the range, there's no reason to assume it is a Connie. In fact, it was lifted directly from FJ's Star Fleet Technical Manual, which lists the ship as a Bonhomme Richard-class vessel. (Which, arguably, could be a variant of the Constitution-class, but isn't necessarily---and I am of the utmost reluctance to accept the fandom notion of subclasses or ships being "upgraded" to new classes...[ick!].)
*heh* I know, "No-Enterprise-Class Boy". I've maintained for a looooooong time that everything from the version seen in "The Cage" to FJ's Achernar is the Constitution class. From the drastic reworking she got in her 2270 refit, I do agree with Andy Probert that the Enterprise started a new class.
For a subclass I demand a bit more deviation from the base template than eliminating the spikes on the nacelle endcaps. The Miranda family is the best canon example of a design and her subclasses. Going by Matt's system as I do, I put the Miranda at NCC-1800, the Soyuz subclass at NCC-1840, and the Avenger subclass (with the rollbar) at NCC-1860. Recent caps from "Cause and Effect" have made me put that project on hold, though, because of the '1941' seen on both bottom and top, contrary to what I'd read.
quote:Agreed...sort of. You can't undo what TNG showed with registry numbers---that they are, at most, assigned in a roughly sequential order without regard to class or vessel type.
Don't intend to. It works with all that has come since '87, and I have no problem with it.
quote:One can't very well claim (IMO) that it was somehow different in the TOS era, even if the original intent at the time the first series was being produced was just that.
Why not? 99% of Okuda's mucking in that era is confined to unreadable screen graphics and encyclopedaic speculation.
quote:There comes a point (and it was reached long, long ago) when it becomes impossible to try to uphold/reconcile something that is universally ignored by all the other series.
It is ignored by all other series, but for the most part not contradicted. I promise I'll show examples tomorrow in that post to Creativity...
quote:The highest one is the 1[6|8]31 which is shown right at 100%, and then there's a gap, and another small bar, which presumably denotes completion, or something.
Hrm. So the Enterprise -- which just arrived -- is already at 84% completion? Man, the Constitution must have been mangled...!
And regarding my saying Starfleet switched over in the mid-2280s...
quote:Not necessarily... for one thing, there's the Reliant.
So? NCC-1800 -- next Starship (Heavy Cruiser by the time we get to TWOK) class after Constitution.
quote:Also, there were no names on that big wall chart, were there? If you use Jefferies' system, and the fact that the Commodore pointed to the number NCC-1831 while referring to the Intrepid, that means that the Intrepid should be a Miranda-class starship!
Did he? Man, it's been too long since I watched that ep. Would someone who has it at hand be able to cap him pointing? Is there any way he could be pointing one above or below?
And lastly (*whew*), regarding the "78 years later thing", that's always been one of my primary data points. Thus I have narrowed TWOK, TSFS, and TVH down to all taking place from early 2286 to the end of TVH taking place at the tail end of that year.
Fandom places Kirk's birthday at March 22nd. Where is this from? Shortly after that, at the end of the Spring semester (or whatever), is the training cruise. Factor in a few weeks for stuff to happen before Kirk's log entry at the beginning of TSFS, and we're getting close to midsummer. Three months later they leave Vulcan to face the music. And I'm one of those wierdos that thinks there's at least a week between their splashdown and the sentencing, and a little bit more time (on the order of hours or days) between that and the trip to the 1701-A. So where doea that leave us? October, 2286?
cant anyone ZOOM on the Pics i know my brothers DVD player can do it so why cant you all get some zoomed in Pics Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
I wonder if that presentation portfolio is still in Paramount's archives... Or maybe in Mike's closet...
I am now waffling on the silhouettes, but I don't think anyone will be able to convince me at this resolution, unless someone out there has an HDTV...
--Jonah
Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
Incidentally, if that smallish silhouette swooping down from above on the second page is the Eagle, I'd like to point out that both the silhouette and the registry fit Last Unicorn Games' Ranger.
--Jonah
Posted by Dax (Member # 191) on :
quote:Originally posted by Peregrinus: And lastly (*whew*), regarding the "78 years later thing", that's always been one of my primary data points. Thus I have narrowed TWOK, TSFS, and TVH down to all taking place from early 2286 to the end of TVH taking place at the tail end of that year.
But, since TNG starts in 2363, wouldn't TVH be in 2285?
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
TNG started in 2364, as evidenced by "The Neutral Zone" and the fact that Okuda maintains that his interpretation of the stardate systems works so that "Encounter at Farpoint" was within the same year as "The Neural Zone".. keep in mind, it is this S1 TNG data point which is retroactively skewing the TOS movie dates.. basically, they knew that TWOK was shortly after 2283, based on the infamous Ale joke, they also knew that TWOK had to be as early as possible, to explain the '15 years' line.. but because the 2364 date was devised in an incorrect manner, they dragged TVH, TSFS and TWOK forward accordingly.
Note that if the date had not been established in "The Neutral Zone", that fifteen years after "Space Seed" would place TWOK in 2281, and I would tentatively say 2283 or 4 just to make the Ale joke work right (for a '15 year' dialogue reference, i'm willing to give 16-17, because when i say fifteen years i round and generalize like that), that they put a date on it to show it had been aged a little over a year, and 'taken a little while to ferment'.. ha ha.. TSFS would take place within the same year since it was only a few days out from Earth where they faced Khan, and i'm sure that the personnell transfers of Reliant's crew and the Grissom rendezvous, and the limp home on low engines couldnt have taken much more than a month or two, given that they were only a little cruise out of Earth in the first place. TVH would be within the same year or in the next year, being 6 months after TSFS..
so the 'correct' interpretation would've/could've looked something like this (2264)2265-2270 - Five Year Mission 2283 - Wrath of Khan (FYM+15), The Search for Spock (TWOK+1-2mo) 2284 - The Voyage Home (TWOK+6mo) 2362 - TNG S1 (TVH+78)
but of course, they couldnt use this, because the TNG date was established early on as 2364, so they felt it necessary to abide by that and place TVH in 2286. (which i don't know why they so closely stuck to the '78yr' reference.. it wasnt even filmed canon, it was background info, and it wasn't even specific.. 78 years after the time of Kirk.. could have meant 78 years after TOS S1, or it couldve meant 78 years after his last command in TUC) so now we are stuck with TWOK being way too late, and the rest of the movies following suit... just a quick note, theoretically is that why they 'bumped' the FYM forward with the Q2 reference.. they knew they put too much time between TOS and TWOK and are now trying to fix it by making TOS to have happened later?
BTW, I'm noticing a lot more fandom references that more correctly interpreted the timespan before TWOK.. i was reading the Peter David "Retrospect" comic, which shows Peter Preston's funeral after TWOK, then cuts to 18 months before TMP with the segue '11 years earlier'.. obviously the pre-Okuda license writers didnt feel it necessary to fuck up the dates as much as Okuda did..
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"Hrm. So the Enterprise -- which just arrived -- is already at 84% completion? Man, the Constitution must have been mangled...!"
Not necessarily. You don't know that those indicators show the status of the entire ship overall. If the Enterprise's work order says "fix ion pod ejector", and it's already in 85% working order, they can say the job is 85% complete. The Constitution may have a work order consisting of a list of twenty little things to do, but only two of them have been done.
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
quote:Originally posted by Akira: I think the operation Ret. Poster has 4 excelsiors 1 Connie and 1 oberth. Not countion the far right side that i reallyt cant tell.
I kinda Skewed these in photoshop so there dirct view hope these help
There's no Oberth there. The small ones are Connies and Mirandas, the larger ones are Excelsiors. Keep in mind the distortion makes things look a little funny.
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
I'm still not 100% convinced that one of those smaller silhouettes isn't an oberth and I dare say that I won't be until I get a much closer and clearer view of the charts, however while the presence of an Oberth is still possible it does look like it could well be another Miranda. In the mean time, for the sake of reference and comparisons here is what the silhouettes of the classes in question should look like. These are scaled more or less correctly but we can't be sure that the same is true of the silhouettes on the OR charts.
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
And keep in mind, the farther away they are from the screen, and depending on the perspective of the chart (which can't be more than superficially corrected by photoshopping) and angle that the silhouettes are pointing at, details like the Connie's spindly hull and nacelles virtually disappear, making it almost indistinguishable from the Miranda.
I know that it's the fashionable thing to do these days to try and refute what's written in the Encyclopedia, but this is one thing I think we can trust Okuda on. He's the one who made the chart, and he specifically remembered associating the Eagle and Endeavour names and regs with Connie silhouettes. (In fact, those seem to be the only two definite name-number-class associations he does remember from the chart, as he didn't include any of the other names in the Encyclopedia, so he must have been fairly sure of them to list them in the book.)
-MMoM Posted by Spike (Member # 322) on :
Penny Juday (in charge of the Star Trek archive) might know, if they have that bloody chart somewhere.
Just thinking out loud. Most Oberth names have something to do with astronomy/spaceflight (Grissom, Oberth, Cochrane, Copernicus, Tsiolkovsky). Eagle would fit nicely into this scheme. Moreover, 956 is a perfect number for an Oberth-class vessel.
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
quote:Originally posted by Spike: Just thinking out loud. Most Oberth names have something to do with astronomy/spaceflight (Grissom, Oberth, Cochrane, Copernicus, Tsiolkovsky). Eagle would fit nicely into this scheme. Moreover, 956 is a perfect number for an Oberth-class vessel.
That is precisely why I'm holding out hope that Okuda was mistaken in his certainty, understandable given the volume of material needed for researching the Encyclopaedias.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
I'd like to point out that considering the numbers of maps/okudagrams we've seen over the years as having galactic centre as 'north' - that these maps put the Klingons to the 'north east'.
Oh, and look - 0350.1 then 6215.3??
And - that second pic - the 'bottom arrow' that points at a starship - there appear to be two 'excelsior sized' ships - or is that 'bottom' one one of those excelsior 4 nacelle studies? It looks longer.
Posted by Akira (Member # 850) on :
Guys i am almost Positive that its one connie and 2 Excelsiors on the 0350.1 Chart i have paisted them into it and they fit very well Id say im 85% sure thats what they are
Damn Image station
Posted by Futurama Guy (Member # 968) on :
I realize that this was mentioned back a bit in this topic, but where was it mentioned in TMP the reference to the Merrimack as well as its registry?
Posted by Akira (Member # 850) on :
BTW does anyone have all the names thats supose to be on the list?????
Does anyone else see that the Spelling saing RuRa Pentis???? or is that hiw its spelled lol
Never Mind i found it Ahwahnee, U.S.S. NCC-2048 Challenger, U.S.S. NCC-2032 Constellation, U.S.S. NCC-1974 Eagle, U.S.S. NCC-956 Constitution Emden, U.S.S. NCC-1856 Endeavour, U.S.S. NCC-1895 Enterprise, U.S.S. [formerly U.S.S. Yorktown] NCC-1701-A Excelsior, U.S.S. NCC-2000 Helin, U.S.S. NCC-1692 Intrepid, U.S.S. John Muir, U.S.S. NCC-1732 Kongo, U.S.S. NCC-1710 Korolev, U.S.S. NCC-2014 Lantree, U.S.S. NCC-1837 Oberth, U.S.S. NCC-602 Potemkin, U.S.S. NCC-1657 Republic, U.S.S. NCC-1371 Scovil, U.S.S. NCC-1598 Springfield, U.S.S. NCC-1963 Whorfin, U.S.S. NCC-1024 This is from MMM's list
I dont see how all these ships are showed on thos one set of charts
Posted by newark (Member # 888) on :
'double post'
Posted by newark (Member # 888) on :
I went through the Mighty Monkey of Mim's website and compiled a list of starships involved in the Operation: Retrieve mission.
Ships considered were:
U.S.S. AHWAHNEE NCC-2048
U.S.S. CHALLENGER NCC-2032
U.S.S. EAGLE NCC-956
U.S.S. ENDEAVOUR NCC-1895
U.S.S. SCOVIL NCC-1598
U.S.S. SPRINGFIELD NCC-1963
I think these silhouttes represent both the class and size of a starship. For instance, we know that an Excelsior-Class starship is larger than a Constitution-Class starship.
My speculation is this: There are two Excelsiors-the U.S.S. AHWAHNEE , the U.S.S. CHALLENGER There are two Constitutions-the U.S.S. EAGLE , the U.S.S. ENDEAVOUR There are two Oberths-the U.S.S. SCOVIL , the U.S.S. SPRINGFIELD
I don't think there are no new classes on the chart.
Listed below are ships from FJ Manual and official Paramount sources.
NCC-1764 U.S.S. GALINA (in FJ Manual); U.S.S. DEFIANT (in offiicial sources)
NCC-1837 U.S.S. MIRFAK (in FJ Manual); U.S.S. LANTREE (in official sources)
NCC-3890 U.S.S. LOCKYER (in FJ Manual); U.S.S. GETTYSBURG (in official sources)
NCC-501 U.S.S. JENGHIZ (in FJ Manual); U.S.S. ANTARES (in official sources)
NCC-602 U.S.S. ARIES (in FJ Manual); U.S.S. OBERTH (in official sources)
NCC-623 U.S.S. AQUILA (in FJ Manual); U.S.S. COPERNICUS (in official sources)
I didn't include the registries from the Court Martial chart. These were already official and canon.
Starships in the time of TOS and the first four movies included the Miranda Class, Constitution Class, and the dreaded J Class . Adding to the fleet, there were scouts (Hermes Class), transports/tugs (Ptolemy), destroyers (Saladin), and dreadnoughts (Federation). The chart could have included examples from all or only one of the above. We don't know.
Mr. Okuda in his descriptive notes says the registries for the starships Archon, Horizon, Valiant, and the Constitution Class fleet are conjectural. The Horizon's registry, with the introduction of the model in Sisko's office, is canon along with the registries of the Enterprise, Republic, Constitution, Constellation, and Potemkin.
My chronology for the Constitution Class fleet could go something like this-
After the loss of the S.S. Columbia in 2238, the Constitution Class fleet was commissioned. This ships were capable of faster speeds and were considered technological marvels. They would serve the fleet for forty years as the premier starship class. Other starship classes, like the Miranda Class, would serve alongside the Constitution Class ships. Lesser starship classes, of the Scout Class, would scan a planet and, if anything of interest was spotted, a ship of the Starship Class would be sent to investigate. Dreadnoughts played a smaller role in the fleet and were very rare. There may have been other families of ships-the destroyers, the transports/tugs, the Antares Class freighters, and so on.
By the mid-2280's, the Constitutions were being replaced by the Excelsiors. The Excelsiors were intended to be the next big capital ships in the fleet.
Prior to 2240's "J" Class and Daedalus Class Starships 2240's Constitution Class starships and its family of similiar ships; "Antares" Class freighters 2270's Miranda Class and Soyuz Class starships; Oberth Class scouts 2280's Constellation Class and Excelsior Class starships; Sydney Class transports
Posted by Akira (Member # 850) on :
on 6251.3
i say there is 2 excelsior 2 connie's 1 Miranda and 1 Oberth
BTW top left hand corner looks like what would be the Eagle and has a really small Reg Posted by newark (Member # 888) on :
So, the Scovil is Miranda-Class. Interesting.
Posted by Spike (Member # 322) on :
quote:Originally posted by Futurama Guy: I realize that this was mentioned back a bit in this topic, but where was it mentioned in TMP the reference to the Merrimack as well as its registry?
It was mentioned in the Epsilon IX comm chatter.
Posted by Dax (Member # 191) on :
quote:Originally posted by CaptainMike: TNG started in 2364, as evidenced by "The Neutral Zone" and the fact that Okuda maintains that his interpretation of the stardate systems works so that "Encounter at Farpoint" was within the same year as "The Neural Zone".. keep in mind, it is this S1 TNG data point which is retroactively skewing the TOS movie dates..
I realise that "The Neutral Zone" takes place in 2364 but that doesn't stop "Encounter at Farpoint" from being in 2363. Anyway, it wouldn't surprise me that the only reason Okuda placed TVH in 2286 is because the film was released in 1986. His datings for the TOS movies are not particularly well researched or thought out.
Posted by newark (Member # 888) on :
At the end of TVH, when the whale doctor says her goodbyes to Capt. Kirk, she says she has 300 years of catch-up learning to do. Since the film occured in 1986, Mr. Okuda may have simply added 300 to this date and arrived at his date for the film.
Posted by Ryan McReynolds (Member # 28) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dax: I realise that "The Neutral Zone" takes place in 2364 but that doesn't stop "Encounter at Farpoint" from being in 2363. Anyway, it wouldn't surprise me that the only reason Okuda placed TVH in 2286 is because the film was released in 1986. His datings for the TOS movies are not particularly well researched or thought out.
As a matter of fact, it almost certainly was in 2363. "Data's Day" (TNG) and "The Assignment" (DS9) establish that the first half of a television season is the second half of a calendar year (October and September, respectively). "Homestead" (VGR) has the last half of a season in the first half of a calendar year (April 2378). Since stardates are intentionally useless for conversion to calendar dates, these and two references to 2371 in Voyager season one are almost all we've got to go by.
Posted by Endeavour3d (Member # 901) on :
to be honest, that ship on the top right looks like an Akyazi class, however I've heard much debate on it being considered a canon ship
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
quote:Originally posted by Akira: BTW top left hand corner looks like what would be the Eagle and has a really small Reg
It does indeed look like that. Feck.
Who's up for resurrecting the old NX-1000 theory for the Constitution prototype?...of course that only helps with the Constellation and not the Eagle, perhaps NCC-956 was a typo? Perhaps it's really supposed to be NCC-1956...perhaps I should sick my fingers in my ears and start humming very loudly...
Posted by Ryan McReynolds (Member # 28) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reverend: Who's up for resurrecting the old NX-1000 theory for the Constitution prototype?...of course that only helps with the Constellation and not the Eagle, perhaps NCC-956 was a typo? Perhaps it's really supposed to be NCC-1956...perhaps I should sick my fingers in my ears and start humming very loudly...
If you're just making the number up anyway, do NX-900 for the original Constitution and Eagle's covered, too.
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
quote:Originally posted by Akira: BTW does anyone have all the names thats supose to be on the list?????
Does anyone else see that the Spelling saing RuRa Pentis???? or is that hiw its spelled lol
Never Mind i found it Ahwahnee, U.S.S. NCC-2048 Challenger, U.S.S. NCC-2032 Constellation, U.S.S. NCC-1974 Eagle, U.S.S. NCC-956 Constitution Emden, U.S.S. NCC-1856 Endeavour, U.S.S. NCC-1895 Enterprise, U.S.S. [formerly U.S.S. Yorktown] NCC-1701-A Excelsior, U.S.S. NCC-2000 Helin, U.S.S. NCC-1692 Intrepid, U.S.S. John Muir, U.S.S. NCC-1732 Kongo, U.S.S. NCC-1710 Korolev, U.S.S. NCC-2014 Lantree, U.S.S. NCC-1837 Oberth, U.S.S. NCC-602 Potemkin, U.S.S. NCC-1657 Republic, U.S.S. NCC-1371 Scovil, U.S.S. NCC-1598 Springfield, U.S.S. NCC-1963 Whorfin, U.S.S. NCC-1024 This is from MMM's list
I dont see how all these ships are showed on thos one set of charts
Of these, only the Ahwahnee, Challenger, Eagle, Endeavour, Potemkin, Scovil, and Springfield are supposed to be on these charts. The rest were only on a starship mission assignment graphic displayed on the bridge of the Enterprise in the film.
The Potemkin is probably the Connie on the second page.
Akira: Nice reconstructions. (You've proved, I think, that the Eagle *is* in fact a Connie! ) But I still don't agree that that bottom one is an Oberth. It looks identical to the one directly above it. Making it another Miranda.
Can we try another reconstruction of the names? I'd prefer not to simply go by registries alone...
-MMoM Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
The ship above the middle arrow looks very much like "Ahwahnee" to me, the one on the left MIGHT be Challenger but I'm not certain.
That has to be an Oberth at the bottom of the list, I'm certain of it.
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reverend: That has to be an Oberth at the bottom of the list, I'm certain of it.
Why? Look at the image w/o the flashy silhouttes. (http://www.angelfire.com/darkside/caniva/Untitled-3_copy.gif) As I said, it appears to be identical to the one above it. (The supposed Miranda.) There's no pointy-ness towards the rear, as you would see on an Oberth, and you can almost make out nacelles.
Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
I can't tell you how overjoyed I am to see the Challenger and Ahwahnee as Excelsiors. That fits in with my registry switch proposal perfectly. The rest need a little juggling, though. Darn you, Okuda...
--Jonah
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
Isn't the Springfield supposed to be NCC-1936 instead of 1963? If so... this is more of a line of reasoning than proof in and of itself, but... remember the USS Saratoga NCC-1937 from "The Voyager Home." Given the Springfield's number NCC-1936, that would possibly be a Miranda (if Okuda had that in mind when making the chart).
After thinking about it for a few minutes, I decided to do a graphical analysis of my own -- because I've got a font that's supposed to be nearly identical to the TMP-era computer text. And so here's my submission:
I made the frame change rate a little slower for easier analysis. If anyone complains, I can do individual pics of each frame.
My conclusions:
(1) The starship top left approaching Rura Penthe is almost certainly the Eagle, with number NCC-956. (I would've liked it to be NCC-1956, since that would fit easier...) The icon looks like a Constitution-refit.
(2) The starship top middle approaching Rura Penthe is probably the Ahwahnee, but misspelled to omit the first "H". I've tried a few other possible combinations, but this is the only one that seems to fit. (I'm also pretty sure that the "W" matches up quite well.) The icon looks like an Excelsior.
(3) The starship top right approaching Rura Penthe was the toughest of the first three. My first guess was that it was the Challenger, but that name is too long, even accounting for the fuzzy nature of this image (and considering that I'm using the same font size for each of the ships' names). It looks most like the name Excelsior itself... though it might also be "Potemkin" (which would raise all sorts of contradictions on its own). The icon looks like an Excelsior.
(4) The three starships off to the side in the "list"-like column seem to be headed by a title that says "IN RESERVE." Which makes sense given this is a military ops plan.
(5) The top ship in this column is almost certainly the Endeavour. It's too short to be "Constellation" or "Challenger," and too long for "Republic" or "Potemkin." This one is almost certainly a Constitution-refit.
(6) The middle ship in the column looks like it's probably the USS Emden. With the number NCC-1856 supplied from elsewhere, this makes perfect sense as a Miranda-class ship (which is what its icon looks like).
(7) The bottom ship in the column was the toughest, and I still haven't been satisfied yet. The closest fit I got was "Republic," but even that wasn't quite acceptable. I'm not positive of the icon, but I tend to believe it's a Miranda.
[ February 12, 2003, 10:00 AM: Message edited by: TSN ]
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
quote:Originally posted by MinutiaeMan: Isn't the Springfield supposed to be NCC-1936 instead of 1963?
Not according to the Concordance, which is the only source for these names and numbers that we've ever had, excepting those of the Eagle and Endeavour in the Encyclopedia. Springfield is NCC-1963.
quote:...remember the USS Saratoga NCC-1937 from "The Voyager Home."
The Saratoga was NCC-1867. The other number was a typo in the Encyclopedia. Mike Okuda is and has been aware of this, IIRC, as he had the correct number in the Shiplist (which he compiled himself) of the first edition.
quote:After thinking about it for a few minutes, I decided to do a graphical analysis of my own -- because I've got a font that's supposed to be nearly identical to the TMP-era computer text. And so here's my submission:
I made the frame change rate a little slower for easier analysis. If anyone complains, I can do individual pics of each frame.
My conclusions:
(1) The starship top left approaching Rura Penthe is almost certainly the Eagle, with number NCC-956. (I would've liked it to be NCC-1956, since that would fit easier...) The icon looks like a Constitution-refit.
(2) The starship top middle approaching Rura Penthe is probably the Ahwahnee, but misspelled to omit the first "H". I've tried a few other possible combinations, but this is the only one that seems to fit. (I'm also pretty sure that the "W" matches up quite well.) The icon looks like an Excelsior.
(3) The starship top right approaching Rura Penthe was the toughest of the first three. My first guess was that it was the Challenger, but that name is too long, even accounting for the fuzzy nature of this image (and considering that I'm using the same font size for each of the ships' names). It looks most like the name Excelsior itself... though it might also be "Potemkin" (which would raise all sorts of contradictions on its own). The icon looks like an Excelsior.
(4) The three starships off to the side in the "list"-like column seem to be headed by a title that says "IN RESERVE." Which makes sense given this is a military ops plan.
(5) The top ship in this column is almost certainly the Endeavour. It's too short to be "Constellation" or "Challenger," and too long for "Republic" or "Potemkin." This one is almost certainly a Constitution-refit.
(6) The middle ship in the column looks like it's probably the USS Emden. With the number NCC-1856 supplied from elsewhere, this makes perfect sense as a Miranda-class ship (which is what its icon looks like).
(7) The bottom ship in the column was the toughest, and I still haven't been satisfied yet. The closest fit I got was "Republic," but even that wasn't quite acceptable. I'm not positive of the icon, but I tend to believe it's a Miranda.
You seem to have forgotten what I said in my above post, so I'll quote myself to reiterate:
quote:Originally posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim: Of these, only the Ahwahnee, Challenger, Eagle, Endeavour, Potemkin, Scovil, and Springfield are supposed to be on these charts. The rest were only on a starship mission assignment graphic displayed on the bridge of the Enterprise in the film.
I'm a-fearing that the distortion caused by artificially adjusting for perspective may be screwing this analysis up somewhat. At least we can tell which names are the Eagle and Scovil, since they're SO much shorter compared to all the rest.
-MMoM
[ February 12, 2003, 10:01 AM: Message edited by: TSN ]
Posted by Akira (Member # 850) on :
Sweet Looks like i Helped on something
I think i can see what your talking about with the bottom one not being a Oberth but infact is a Miranda
Im still not sure if the Eagle is a connie but if you look at the rear end of it it looks alot like a connie It could be an oberth but im leaning towards connie.
Ahwahnee Closest to Rura Penthe Challenger Im guessing this one is on the first page Eagle top left ship Endeavour top ship on the right Potemkin guessing this is on the first page also or maybe Enterprise Scovil Second ship on the right hand side Springfield Bottom Right side I think its the Excelsior on the bottom Excelsior Class.
Posted by MrNeutron (Member # 524) on :
One would assume Mike Okuda made that Operation Retrieve chart, or had a hand in it. Had anyone ever asked him about it?
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
I haven't ever personally, but from what I've always heard (it may have been gone over in some old threads here) someone did ask him, and the extent of what he had to say was that the info in the Concordance should be correct, as he gave it to Trimble. I've also heard it said that in addition to this, Trimble may have actually gotten to examine the displays herself, first hand.
As I said, though, I can't personally corroborate this.
I think Cpt. Kyle Amasov said he e-mailed Trimble to enquire as to whether or not she had pictures of the OR charts and mission assignment list, but she was busy with a convention or something at the time. Perhaps another attempt should be made? Someone above also mentioned contacting Penny Juday, who's in charge of the archives at Paramount. This also sounds like a really good idea to me, if anyone knows how to reach her.
-MMoM Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
What I would have liked to see added to the fancy DVDs that seem to be all the rage these days is, for each film/series, a gallery of okudagrams and assorted graphics. Alas.
Posted by Spike (Member # 322) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrNeutron: One would assume Mike Okuda made that Operation Retrieve chart, or had a hand in it. Had anyone ever asked him about it?
I asked him once and he told me that this art was archived a long time ago.
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim: You seem to have forgotten what I said in my above post, so I'll quote myself to reiterate:
quote:Originally posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim: Of these, only the Ahwahnee, Challenger, Eagle, Endeavour, Potemkin, Scovil, and Springfield are supposed to be on these charts. The rest were only on a starship mission assignment graphic displayed on the bridge of the Enterprise in the film.
I'm a-fearing that the distortion caused by artificially adjusting for perspective may be screwing this analysis up somewhat. At least we can tell which names are the Eagle and Scovil, since they're SO much shorter compared to all the rest.
Ah, my mistake. I'm just supposed to accept your word as infallible and not try to make my own conclusions?
I know that the chart was distorted, that it's very fuzzy, and that this is probably only supporting evidence at best pending a better image. But there's no reason that I can't try some idea of my own in the mean time. And making automatic assumptions during research can seriously preclude any new discoveries. Besides, did you take a look at the "RURA PENTHE" label, and see how perfectly that fit? If that one fits, then it's reasonable to assume that some of the others can fit, at least partially.
Also, I've heard several times that "Ahwahnee" has been misspelled on at least one of the TNG Okudagrams... so it would make sense that it was done here, too. And if you take a close look, the misspelled name "Awahnee" fits perfectly in that middle ship.
Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
Does anyone know if the text of this fabled Greg Jein registry article is available someone online?
Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
Wow... Someone somewhere must have been bored enough to transcribe old T-Negative issues from the early '70s... But I have no idea where to start looking, beyond a Google search for "t negative greg jein" -- but I don't want to right now. If no one has by morning (my time) I'll do it.
--Jonah
Posted by newark (Member # 888) on :
I did attempt an search. There are old issues of T-Negative available on the internet; however, these issues pre-date the issue in question.
In the episode "The Menagerie, Part 1", Captain Kirk says there have been no invasions or word of imminent war. From these brief words, I infer the episode occurs in a time of peace for the Federation. "Court Martial" is the episode before this. I think it possible there was a time of peace in this episode as well.
Like our USN did in the years before WWII, the capital ships were docked together as in Pearl Harbor. I think SB 11 was a space age version of Pearl Harbor. The Constitution Class starships were docked at the space port for routine maintenance.
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
Or then were deployed all across the galaxy. There's nothing in that chart that would say "These ships are currently at Starbase 11"!
Perhaps each and every Starbase has an identical display showing the "Star Ship Status" and the percentage of their mission completed so far? The Intrepid just happened to have completed her mission already, pulled to dock for repairs, and was gathering "overtime" awaiting for her next deployment orders, hence the >100% completeness status - all ships with completeness below 100% were still in deep space performing their missions.
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
)![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
The small ones are Connies and Mirandas, the larger ones are Excelsiors. Keep in mind the distortion makes things look a little funny.
