What if the Enterprise A,B,C,D,& E had a standard registry number. What do you think it would be for each ship? and Enterprise-A being a new ship and not a refit.
Posted by Daniel Butler (Member # 1689) on :
Who knows? Pick a random 5-digit number. Maybe 4-digit for A and B.
Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
NCC-2339 (if it were a new-build, which it wasn't), NCC-2500, NCC-26118, NCC-71820, and NCC-74541.
Because I say so.
--Jonah
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
NCC-2500? Nuh-uh. There's no way Starfleet production was that slow, even all the way back then, even despite the relatively short life-span of the -A before she was replaced.
Posted by Daniel Butler (Member # 1689) on :
Assuming registry numbers were even sequential.
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
And assuming starship production was in full swing.
Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
Well, this is in accordance with my Jeffries-extrapolated registry scheme, which I know isn't universally loved. *lol* The 23rd Cuiser block was assigned to the Enterprise class newbuilds (the ones that weren't Constitution refits). This around the early 2280s, when Starfleet was recognizing that their production capacity was increasing, and the old hundred-vessel preassigned blocks were going to soon be insufficient, so the decision was made to stop the block system and assign hull numbers sequentially as vessels were ordered, regardless of class, beginning with number 2500.
But notice he said if the -A were a newbuild. Starfleet extended the service life of the old Yorktown to give to Kirk. For the purpose of this hypothetical, I gave it my number for the Levant, one of the ships in fandom that became the -A. NCC-1701 was already scheduled for decommissioning at the time. And Starfleet decided to lead off the new registry system with an uprate to the Excelsior design, hence NCC-2500, and give it the Enterprise name. While it was being developed, Starfleet let the Enterprise-A fly around under Kirk for a few years before retiring her and giving the name to the -B.
I gave the -C that number as a lead-off to that block of canon 26xxx registries.
The Galaxy is NCC-70637. The next half-dozen I gave to the ones that were stored incomplete. Then the Yamato and Odyssey either side of the Enterprise-D. Then the Venture and Trinculo to round out the initial order.
And the number I gave the -E is the higher of the two numbers I've seen for the Sovereign, so I figured why not.
That's a bit more detail than I was expectiong to go into on this, but I was feeling eloquent.
--Jonah
[EDITed to fix a couple typos and clarify some awkward phrasing.]
Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
Double postage. The intertubes seem clogged this evening...
--Jonah
Posted by Axeman 3D (Member # 1050) on :
and that other ships didn't keep their registries active the way the Enterprise did.
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
I've wondered if that's 'actually' the case . . . would solve the dual-registry Yamato issue.
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
I think it's best to assume it is the case. For starters we've seen multiple 'incarnations' of the same name in different ships and classes (Hood, Defiant, Grissom, Lexington, Bellerophon, Farragut) to name a few off the top of my head, none of which continued the registry number of a predecessor plus an alphabetical suffix. Assuming that they do, just to account for the odd lapse in continuity is a bit silly if you ask me. It's safe to say the Enterprise is a special case as it is the Flagship of the Federation, not just the flagship of a certain fleet or a task force, the whole fleet.
As for how numbers are assigned, speaking s someone who has work with stores and stock allocation, to me the most likely way it is that certain ranges are pre-assigned for planned production runs, possibly even some ranges are reserved for specific ship yards, so it'd be up to the yards themselves to assign available registries.
So, for the sake of argument, say Starfleet command gives out the construction orders the next 2 years as follow:-
Utopia Planita is assigned ranges NCC-77200 -> NCC-77358 and NCC-77780 -> NCC-77999 San Francisco is assigned ranges NCC-77359 -> NCC-77779
In which time UP is ordered to build 24 Galaxys, 50 Akiras, 70 Novas and say 150 Danubes So the yard commander assigns the registries available to him as he sees fit. Say NCC-77780 -> NCC 77804 for the Galaxy class ships; NCC-77805-77855 for the Akiras, NCC-77856 -> NCC-77926 for the Novas and NCC-77208 -> NCC-77358 for the Danubes.
Now he still has NCC-77927 -> NCC-77999 which can be tacked in front of the next batch of Novas that gets ordered and NCC-77200 -> NCC-77207 which he intentionally left to one side because he knows the NXP-2765WP/T pathfinder is being fast tracked and will likely go into production as an official prototype for the new Yorktown-Class, which will probably require an additional order of six hulls after the prototype, for which he "pencils in" NX-77200. That still leaves NCC-77207 without a ship to go with, so he either leaves it unallocated, possibly to be used years later as a "filler" when he find's he doesn't have a "block" of numbers big enough to neatly take a whole order, or he ends up assigning it the experimental Icarus Project as NX-77207 along with several other "scrap" numbers he has on file to cater for the five or so prototypes they have been cleared to order.
That's how I see it anyway.
Posted by Mars Needs Women (Member # 1505) on :
Yamato aside, I never had a problem with ships having a registry scheme similar to the Enterprise. Unfortunately this would not be the case for reused ship names like Constellation and Defiant. Which then begs the question how that alien guy from Hope and Fear managed to pull of that weird USS Dauntless NX-01-A registry with the Voyager crew none the wiser, but that's another can of worms.
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
Out of all the "new" toys on display on the Dauntless, an unusual registry number is the least attention grabbing, at least for the new of Voyager. At most it'd get a raised eyebrow from Tuvok.
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
Either Jefferies or Probert originally wanted to have the new Enterprise in TMP be NCC-1800. Roddenberry nixed it because he wanted the ship to be more familiar to the audience.
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
So did they envision the TMP Enterprise as a new ship, and not a refit of the TV version?
Posted by B.J. (Member # 858) on :
quote:Even this early in the design process, it was evident that our new Enterprise was going to be quite different from the ship Kirk commanded on television. And being that different, it seemed logical that it would qualify as a new vessel class. I, therefore, proposed that it be the first in a line of new 'Enterprise Class' starships, initiating a new number series starting with: NCC-1800. By placing those kinds of graphics on sketches like this, I was hoping to suggest that our new Enterprise would also carry its own Work Bees for smaller missions in deep space.
Given his wording, I'm pretty sure that it's still the original vessel, but the extensive refit modifications required a new number. At least that was Probert's thinking, anyway.
Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
Both Jeffries and Probert, althought they had different ideas of how it would manifest. It was the same ship, but so extensively refitted it was decommissioned and recommissioned under a different number -- until Gene saw and said "it has to be 1701".
The 1800 block was later assigned ot the Miranda class. And a good thing, too. The Intrepid was NCC-1831, so it couldn't have been an Enterprise-class ship. I gave the Enterprise class the 2300 block, hence the number I gave way above.
--Jonah
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
1631.
Posted by Daniel Butler (Member # 1689) on :
31337! w00t!
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
"NCC-2500? Nuh-uh. There's no way Starfleet production was that slow, even all the way back then, even despite the relatively short life-span of the -A before she was replaced."
Holy shit guys, I was just spouting stuff, I didn't expect you to take me seriously! Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
1831, Mim. The wall chart has a slightly different numeral for that ship than the other 16xx registries. This is why Matt didn't use either a 6 or an 8 in the Enterprise's registry. *heh*
--Jonah
Posted by SwSmith (Member # 1319) on :
Back to the same old question. The Enterprise-A, was she a new ship or a refit. In the end of Star Trek IV the bridge display show the ship had transwarp, and in Star Trek V Scotty's shakedown report. "I think this new ship was put together by monkeys. Oh, she's got a fine engine, but half the doors won't open, and guess whose job it is to makw it right?" but why they decommissioned this ship so eary, new or refit, is beyond me!
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Oh man. The classics.
("Clearly" the A was a refit, since it was decommissioned relatively quickly. One might postulate that the whole refit project was largely intended to keep aging Constitutions in the field just long enough to cover the gap between new-build Constitutions and Excelsiors.)
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
quote:Originally posted by Peregrinus: 1831, Mim. The wall chart has a slightly different numeral for that ship than the other 16xx registries. This is why Matt didn't use either a 6 or an 8 in the Enterprise's registry. *heh*
--Jonah
According to Greg Jein, who had access to an actual film clip from the episode, it's 1631. That was the basis for why it was changed in the later Encyclopedia. The reason why it looks different may be because of a piece of dust or something to that effect. Perhaps the upcoming HD-DVDs will tell more...
Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
Hopefully...
--Jonah
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
...In any case, NCC-1831 is one of the poorest candidates for Intrepid there - why should Stone pull out a ship that is 120% complete to give priority to the Enterprise?
NCC-1709 would be my favorite there. Since those ships aren't in any sort of registry number order, or order of percent completed, they could be in order of arrival, or alphabetic order - or then in order of bumpability, as determined by Stone. The top one would then be the first to get shoved aside.
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by Fabrux (Member # 71) on :
That looks an awful lot like 1831 to me... Pretty obvious by the slight dimple on the left as compared to 1672, 1684, 1697 further down the chart that have a straight line.
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
To be sure, the font doesn't look completely "stable" to me. Some of the nines seem to have different lower parts from others, for example. There's still too much granularity there to be sure...
How would they have created that lettering back then, anyway? Badass typing machine? Stencilling with cut patterns?
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
Wasn't it an existing font? Off-the-shelf is often cheaper than scratch-making. And of the two '9's on there, they look the same to me...
And it's 100% complete, with a differently-coloured bar further to the side to indicate something in addition to or besides "completion status". The percentage numbers don't go any higher than 100, and nothing is above that green bar. Probably finished with dockwork and moving out for final outfitting prior to resuming her mission.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
