In my spare time I'm writing up a couple starship-related essays, such as an essay about the conjectural Starfleet ship classes, and another one about the appearance of each ship model on screen in TNG. For the latter, as I was writing the article on the Miranda class U.S.S. Brattain seen in "Night Terrors," I came upon some interesting (and frustrating) information about that ship that I'd like to share & get your opinions about. If any of my info is in error, please let me know.
Now before you all yell at me, understand that I'm going under three assumptions:
1. Starship registries are chronological (at least at the start of my essay),
2. Every registry number from 01 to 75227 (Data's scout, the ship with the highest known registry) has been assigned to an individual ship, and
3. All the information on the Brattain's dedication plaque was correct as written by Okuda (who I presume made the plaque).
OK? Here goes...
U.S.S. Brattain (Miranda Class)
In "Night Terrors," the Enterprise comes upon the U.S.S. Brattain adrift in space. The Reliant model was used, its second appearance since the Lantree. While the use of the Reliant model is not necessarily a bad choice, it's registry seems to be way too high for a ship of that age, NCC-21166. Registry-wise, that would put its construction around the same time as the Ambassador class ships, which would only make sense if the Brattain was the last Miranda class ship to be built, although we will see later that registries of the Mirandas will go as high as 3XXXX. However, the real problem arises with the ship's dedication plaque. It states that the ship was launched in 2345, only 19 years before the Enterprise-D in 2364! So not only does this mean that other Miranda class ships with the 3XXXX registries must have been launched after this date, but this also applies to the super-high 4XXXX registries of some of the Excelsior class ships! This would mean that both the outdated Miranda and Excelsior classes were still in production even while newer types of ships were being designed and built, and in even some cases retired (like the Ambassador class), which is preposterous. Additionally, this would also mean that registry-wise, all of the 3XXXX Mirandas, 4XXXX Excelsiors, 5XXXX Oberths, all of the 5XXXX, 6XXXX, and 7XXXX ships of the Galaxy class "family" AND the ships shown in ST: First Contact were built in only the 19 years between 2345 and 2364. And finally, to make matters worse, the New Orleans class U.S.S. Rutledge was operating only two years after the Brattain was commissioned, and her registry is NCC-57295. So within the span of only two years, starship registries went from 2XXXX to 5XXXX!
There are only two ways around this problem:
1.) Starship registries are not chronological, but that still wouldn't explain the late construction of a Miranda class ship; or
2.) The Cardassian War either started or was in full swing between 2345 and 2347, and in that span of time many, many Mirandas and Excelsiors could have been quickly mass-produced, along with newer designs which were produced only infrequently because there wasn't a lot of time for R&D. The Setlik III massacre in 2347 would seem to confirm this. Plus, just because there were so many registries used during this short time doesn't mean that large ships were being built. There's a precedence for small ships (like runabouts and Data's scout from Insurrection) to also have individual registry numbers. Perhaps all those Peregrine class fighters that the Maquis were using were built around this time, and had their own registries, if not individual names.
Plus, there's another problem registry-wise: In 2337, eight years before the Brattain was even launched, the last of the Renaissance class ships, the Hokkaido, was commissioned. Although the Hokkaido's registry number is unknown, it must be at least one number past the U.S.S. Hornet's registry of NCC-45231, the highest known Renaissance class registry. So let's for argument's sake say the Hokkaido's registry was NCC-45232. That's still 24,066 registry numbers higher than a ship that was produced eight years later! Again, the only option that would make sense of this fact is if registries were not chronological.
There is of course one more theory, one that makes the most sense: that the launch date on the dedication plaque was actually a "relaunch" date, after the Brattain had some kind of refit done (or if the Brattain was in fact another vessel that was rechristened, like the Enterprise-A), and the ship is actually much older than the plaque suggests. That would also explain the higher registries of previous Renaissance class ships, and wipe away the short production timespan theory of other ships. But why bother with such a convoluted idea like that for just one old ship in one forgettable episode? Okuda just should have made the launch date earlier.
Whew!
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
Asymptotic stardate scaling. That's my answer & it's what I'll stick to.
(BTW, I have Brattain comissioning around 2311.)
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
I got the stardate of commissioning (22519.5) from Memory Alpha, which was what was they said was printed on the actual plaque, which they also said translates to 2345. Are they wrong? And any particular reason why you chose 2311?
Either way, you've given me a third option: That the stardate scale changed between the commissioning of the Brattain and the launch of the Enterprise-D, and the plaque represents the older scale (or in reality, Okuda just pulled a random stardate out of his ass, although if anyone would know stardates the best, it'd be him). That certainly makes a hell of a lot more sense than anything I speculated above.
Posted by Daniel Butler (Member # 1689) on :
I always assumed the Excelsiors were still in production during the 24th century. It could still be a workhorse (indeed we saw several of them during TNG) as long as the new ones were built with current technology (newest phaser emitters, torpedoes, replicators, etc) and the ones in the field retrofitted to a degree. I don't have a huge problem with them building new Miranda class vessels for light-duty intra-Fed stuff like patrols and sensor sweeps and scientific investigation and diplomat-ferrying and so forth. I realize it's quite old indeed, but this isn't like oceanic vessels where 200 years ago ships were still wooden with sails - I'm willing to bet that 200 years from *now,* ships will still be made of metal and have engines.
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
He probably DID pull it out of his ass. And the scaling HAS to have changed. You've got 22 years between 7412 & 9523. And then the next real date we see is 41154 a whole 71 years after that...& now things are 1000 per year. I bet it gets rescaled again or the math is recomputed or whatever they do before they hit 100000 in 2423.
As for how I got 2311, well...I had to make a giant hull number per year chart for my project. I'd show you a copy, but I've yet to find a way to get a computer program to show the info I want how I need it, so I made it out of poster board.
Posted by Fabrux (Member # 71) on :
Its Brittain, fuckers. I'mma have to take a picture of my street sign one of these days...
Also, the highest known registry is 75633 for the Sao Paulo/Defiant II.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
You left out one of the options : Registry numbers are assigned chronologically, but there could be a long time between that assignation and the actual building/launch of the ship.
Posted by Daniel Butler (Member # 1689) on :
I don't know if I'd believe that Starfleet is assigning numbers that far in advance, though.
Posted by Sean (Member # 2010) on :
Well, the ship could have had it's name, class and maybe registry was assigned earlier, say before the start of the Cardassian wars, and for some reason, production was halted. I do believe that the Brattain was a science vessel, so maybe it's production was halted ( along with the majority of other non-combatant vessels, in favor of combat capable ships and supply ships) untill the war was over. I think that may at least explain the date of commissioning and registry. Then again, it could well be a refit, or Mike Okuda having a random screw up. Because at the time this ep was produced, I doubt TPTB thought that there would be fans like us disecting every single continuity mistake.
Posted by Daniel Butler (Member # 1689) on :
I'm sure it was a random screwup; these things almost universally are. Still, if you're a geek with time on your hands, you *have* to retcon your favorite shows. Inconsistency grates.
Posted by Dat (Member # 302) on :
My view is that the whole NX/NCC/NAR/NFT/whataver in the Federation and Starfleet is one whole massive numbering scheme and that as a new ship is built for Federation and Starfleet purposes (as well as ships being absorbed into the fleets from newly acquired Federation members) the next available sequential number is assigned. Cancelled ships whose construction is halted will retain the number already given and that number is not reused.
And the stardate system had changed during the 24th century... along with Okuda pulling a random stardate out or his ass. I mean just look at the stardates that were applied to events that were said to have happened some odd years ago like birthdates.
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
quote:As for how I got 2311, well...I had to make a giant hull number per year chart for my project. I'd show you a copy, but I've yet to find a way to get a computer program to show the info I want how I need it, so I made it out of poster board.
That's too bad. I would like to see that chart.
quote:You left out one of the options : Registry numbers are assigned chronologically, but there could be a long time between that assignation and the actual building/launch of the ship.
True, but...
quote:I don't know if I'd believe that Starfleet is assigning numbers that far in advance, though.
I'd have to agree with Daniel.
quote:Because at the time this ep was produced, I doubt TPTB thought that there would be fans like us disecting every single continuity mistake.
Ha! Little did they know...
quote:My view is that the whole NX/NCC/NAR/NFT/whataver in the Federation and Starfleet is one whole massive numbering scheme and that as a new ship is built for Federation and Starfleet purposes (as well as ships being absorbed into the fleets from newly acquired Federation members) the next available sequential number is assigned. Cancelled ships whose construction is halted will retain the number already given and that number is not reused.
Quite true, and very sensible. I just don't like that idea. Posted by Mars Needs Women (Member # 1505) on :
Feel free to get angry at me but, where exactly has it ever been stated that ships are numbered chronologically? Sure it may seem that way more often than not, but it gets kinda goofy when you take into account the Oberth class and Prometheus class as well as the dilemma we have on our hands right now.
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
To keep the opposing forces, at the time say the Romulans, from knowing too much how about if they developed a numbering scheme based on confusing the enemy? Randomly assigned numbers with more added each year and perhaps used.
This could keep the Romulans, then the Klingons, confused as to the true force levels of Starfleet.
This could also be used to explain the multiple numbering/naming seen as a method of psyops. The intel they receive from Spy X has the same names and numbers for a different class as Spy Z you don't know which is what or how to believe.
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dukhat:
quote:As for how I got 2311, well...I had to make a giant hull number per year chart for my project. I'd show you a copy, but I've yet to find a way to get a computer program to show the info I want how I need it, so I made it out of poster board.
That's too bad. I would like to see that chart.
I would very much like to show it to you, but I've yet to find a way to computer chart how & what I need; nothing but the hull number sequence is in any sort of regular order pattern. I have some of the information defined, & the rest is inferred & sussed out from that.
However, I have taken the moment to recreate in Photoshop a segment of the chart (albeit a lot less cluttered) so you can see how I laid it out. The actual chart has small vertical line tabs on the ends of each class run line to define it better from the mess, but I didn't bother adding them here.
quote:Originally posted by Mars Needs Women: Feel free to get angry at me but, where exactly has it ever been stated that ships are numbered chronologically?
It never has, & indeed there are some (like Jonah) who refuse to believe in that, either partly or completely.
Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
A few random remarks that could be helpful.
1) TNG appears to portray several (or all?) Mirandas as transports or other unglamorous types. They usually have small crews, and are apparently not the heavily armed frigates (although that's a fan designation) of yesteryear.
2) If you are assuming that it was launched in the 2340s, there could be any random bureacratic reason for its (too low?) number. Maybe, being a low life transport, construction was already planned for years earlier, and as such the registry number was assigned long before she was launched.
I personally don't believe in strictly chronological NCCs. In TOS, they are sequentially assigned to ships within a class. In "Okudan" times, starting around the turn of the century, registries get assigned more haphazardly, and possibly around this time the numbers get inflated by a reshuffling of runabout-types and other minor ships into the NCC domain.
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
Shik, you should make friends with a spreadsheet.
Using joined cells for the hull numbers/years and a border for the line you can center it like you have it, then border the cells horizontally for the classes. You would have to fiddle with the column widths to make it look right, but a spreadsheet would work nicely.
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
I...uh...what?
I have Mac Excel 2004 but...my spreadsheet fu is poor.
Posted by Daniel Butler (Member # 1689) on :
Hm...spreadsheets were part of my high school curriculum...meaning I don't remember much of it I think I know what Ritten's talking about... if you select a group of cells that are as long as you want the line, you can join them - I think right clicking will give you the context menu you need - and type the name of the class in them. Then you can change the top (or bottom) border to a red color and it'll be the line you need. For the little gray line separating class, you can put a border on the right in a different color. Border colors are changed in the same menu? I think? Poke around.
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
The solution is easy . . . did we actually see the dedication plaque, in the sense of having it readable? If not, then you're pitting what we saw on screen against what we didn't see on screen at all, and thus giving yourself an unnecessary headache.
But even if you soldier on past the point above, there's also the fact that, per the only image I've found of the dedication plaque (lifted from the Encyclopedia or something), the plaque gives a generic 22xxx stardate. Post-four-digit, pre-4xxxx stardates were notoriously inconsistent, and thus it is difficult to lock down a year (as you have done with 2345) for the ship's commissioning.
Cases in point: "Dark Page"[TNG], with 3xxxx stardates 35 years in the past . . . or you could mention Tuvok's 3xxxx birth, which is of course ridiculous given that he was an adult aboard Excelsior in ST6-time.
Simply put, an "interregnum" stardate is an awfully finicky thing to presume a contradiction on.
Shik, & Dan, yeah, the right click, hit format cells, and you can choose the tabs you want. I used Gnumeric for a quick test and it worked well enough.
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
Well, it's all moot anyway since my Mac went into a coma last night& now I can't access anything. I'm pretty sure that the power supply blipped (but there's no reason WHY it should've, except maybe old age?), & it'll take $60 to diagnose it, & probably another $225 to fix it, neither of which I have the money for since being out of work for 3 months (or 2 & a half, depending on POV). So.
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
quote:The solution is easy . . . did we actually see the dedication plaque, in the sense of having it readable? If not, then you're pitting what we saw on screen against what we didn't see on screen at all, and thus giving yourself an unnecessary headache.
But even if you soldier on past the point above, there's also the fact that, per the only image I've found of the dedication plaque (lifted from the Encyclopedia or something), the plaque gives a generic 22xxx stardate. Post-four-digit, pre-4xxxx stardates were notoriously inconsistent, and thus it is difficult to lock down a year (as you have done with 2345) for the ship's commissioning.
Cases in point: "Dark Page"[TNG], with 3xxxx stardates 35 years in the past . . . or you could mention Tuvok's 3xxxx birth, which is of course ridiculous given that he was an adult aboard Excelsior in ST6-time.
Simply put, an "interregnum" stardate is an awfully finicky thing to presume a contradiction on.
Yes, my thinking exactly. I also found the Dark Page reference you mention, proving that Okuda did sometimes randomly make up stardates, and that they should be taken with a grain of salt. Or that some time in the past, the scale was changed, but not before the events in Dark Page, or the commissioning of the Brattain. Or whatever. (Actually, the 3XXXX stardate [which corresponds to 2328] in which Ian and Lwaxana get married actually helps push further back the launching of the Brattain, if they were both using the same scale at the time)
Anyway, I've come to some conclusions, thanks to all of your help. First, I'm going to ignore stardates on dedication plaques, unless spoken dialogue corroborates said date. And second, I'm still going to assume that for the most part, registries are chronological, except for a few instances of which there's just no good answer such as the Oberth problem, and the ships from First Contact. But I'll explain more about that when I've finished my essay.
Posted by Daniel Butler (Member # 1689) on :
Shik: Is it a desktop or a *book? The power cord was a major failure point for the iBook apparently. I've never owned one, but a former roommate did. He had to replace it twice.
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
It's not the power cable. The same cable is powering the fucking PieCe of shit I'm on right now. Also, thank you for insulting my intelligence by thinking that I would not have sussed out whether or not it might be the power cable.
Also, iBooks haven't been sold in like 6 years.
Posted by Daniel Butler (Member # 1689) on :
Noted: You 're too much of an asshole to accept help.
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
Well, I mean...I AM a reasonably intelligent adult human. I've BUILT these these several times before & know how to diagnose the little shit first. Indeed, if I spare parts lying about, I could suss things out for myself. As it stands, one can only assume.
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
You two seemed to have stepped off on the left foot.
Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mars Needs Women: Feel free to get angry at me but, where exactly has it ever been stated that ships are numbered chronologically?
quote:To which Shik replied: It never has, & indeed there are some (like Jonah) who refuse to believe in that, either partly or completely.
Eh? I'm one of the ones who does think registry numbers in the 24th century (and the last fifteen years or so of the 23rd) are assigned sequentially/chronologically without regard to vessel class.
quote:Back to MNW: Sure it may seem that way more often than not, but it gets kinda goofy when you take into account the Oberth class and Prometheus class as well as the dilemma we have on our hands right now.
Yay production shortfalls. *sigh* The Oberth was intended to be a 24th-century vessel, and not of the same type as the Grissom. Time and money considerations screwed that up.
The Prometheus is just a case of the scenic art not lining up with the exterior visual effects. I opt to go with the MSD's "NX-74913".
--Jonah
Posted by Fabrux (Member # 71) on :
Oh yeah, and, take this!
Cameraphone, so forgive the quality. The better sign has been stolen, it seems.
Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
Following up my own comment... With all the work being done on Star Trek Remastered and the Director's Editions of TMP and TWOK, I'd love to see them "remaster" TNG and at least part of DS9 and VOY, where they couldn't do what they originally intended due to time or budget constraints. Within reason, of course. The Hood was originally supposed to be what would later evolve into the Ambassador class, but the Excelsior-Hood has enough recognition now tha tI don't know if replacing it with a suitably-labelled Ambassador would be a good idea.
But I do think all the Oberths should be actual Oberths, and not re-uses of the Grissom miniature -- unless that is the sort of ship that was actually needed.
Still, nothing that changes the story. Just cleanup.
And no, escallum, we aren't going to push for the Voyager to be re-done as a Nebula-class ship. Deal.
--Jonah
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
quote: Yay production shortfalls. *sigh* The Oberth was intended to be a 24th-century vessel, and not of the same type as the Grissom. Time and money considerations screwed that up.
And what a screwup that was, because if you go by the dedication plaque, the Tsiolkovsky was built just a few months before the Enterprise-D, which is absolutely ludicrous. That's like having a continuous run of Ford Model-T's while at the same time releasing the 2008 Ford Mustangs. And even if you ignore the stardate, it's still a new ship because it was launched not long after the Pegasus if registries are chronological, and the Pegasus was a new Oberth. It also doesn't help that the Tsiolkovsky's registry was NCC-53911, when it should have been NCC-70000 or something similar. It boggles my mind why Okuda chose to give such high registries to the Oberth and Excelsior classes. But more on this mess in my essay.
quote:The Prometheus is just a case of the scenic art not lining up with the exterior visual effects. I opt to go with the MSD's "NX-74913".
And I personally think the people responsible for the exterior visual effects for the Prometheus were the same guys who gave the First Contact ships such low registries too. Maybe they thought 5XXXX and 6XXXX were really high (or maybe they were just really high... )
Either way, both the FC ships and the Oberth problem throw a monkey wrench into the works. The Akira, Norway, Steamrunner and Saber classes are obviously contemporaries to the Sovereign and Nova classes, but their registries are too low. I've heard the hypothesis that they are all in fact refitted from older designs, but that doesn't hold water, IMHO. If that was the case, then why haven't all the Excelsiors, Mirandas and Oberths been refitted to look more modern?
quote: Following up my own comment... With all the work being done on Star Trek Remastered and the Director's Editions of TMP and TWOK, I'd love to see them "remaster" TNG and at least part of DS9 and VOY, where they couldn't do what they originally intended due to time or budget constraints. Within reason, of course. The Hood was originally supposed to be what would later evolve into the Ambassador class, but the Excelsior-Hood has enough recognition now tha tI don't know if replacing it with a suitably-labelled Ambassador would be a good idea.
But I do think all the Oberths should be actual Oberths, and not re-uses of the Grissom miniature -- unless that is the sort of ship that was actually needed.
1. As much as I would like to see that happen as well, it probably won't, and
2. Even if they did, there's no sense in remastering the VFX if they're just going to replace the model shots and stock footage of the Excelsiors and Oberths with CGI of the same type of ships. If they were going to replace the Tsiolkovsky or the Hood with new designs, great, but then that would negate the Encyclopedia and any Okudagrams showing the original info, and I just don't think Okuda et. al will do that.
Posted by Bernd (Member # 6) on :
Well, I dismiss stardates for the most part, even though the live dates in the 24th century episodes are pretty much consistent. However, regarding the correlation of (star)dates and registries, the latter could be still considered chronological if you take into account runabouts and other small ships. Perhaps some time around 2330 Starfleet decided to give them "real" NCC registries. This wouldn't really explain why since the 2360s the registries rise only slowly, though.
Posted by OverRon (Member # 2036) on :
What about new members joining the UFP and signing over a bunch of their ships to Starfleet. If those new members had a whole crap-load of ships, which were then given NCC registries once there were passed over to Starfleet, that could account for the dramatic rise in the NCC numbers.
Posted by Fabrux (Member # 71) on :
Perhaps, rather than ships from new members getting assigned NCC registries they get classified with another scheme? We've seen Vulcan vessels with NSP, and then there's the NAR registries, perhaps for miscellaneous?
Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
NCC is for active Starfleet only. NAR seems to have something to do with the Federation Science Council. NSP seems to be Vulcan's system registry. NDT Earth or the Sol system. NGL some Federation civilian transport/freight authority... Et cetera.
--Jonah
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
To my knowledge there wasn't ever an "NDT" reg, though there was a "NFT", which I took as meaning "Federation Transport". Not that I'd assign English based acronyms to all the others, for the most part I'm sure the letters have no specific meaning beyond their application. As for NAR, I always took that as the Earth registry. For one thing it was on the apparantly impulse only shuttle assigned to spacedock (SD-103) in ST:VI, so I doubt NAR is specifically a science vessel designation. Likewise I take NSP to be the Vulcan registry, not specifically the Vulcan science registry since that would make for an impractical number of variations. The way I see it N = Federation (including all member governments) and the other two are planet regs (AR=Earth SP=Vulcan), with the exception of CC which is course be Starfleet.
Posted by Daniel Butler (Member # 1689) on :
Wonder why N? And not, for example, S...
Posted by Dat (Member # 302) on :
Well, wonder why CC and not SS. Remember, it is really just an homage to US airplane registry... or some would say.
Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reverend: To my knowledge there wasn't ever an "NDT" reg, though there was a "NFT", which I took as meaning "Federation Transport".
The SS Milan, NDT-50863, was the transport that brought the Rozhenkos to rendezvous with the Enterprise in TNG's "New Ground".
--Jonah
Posted by Bernd (Member # 6) on :
quote:Originally posted by Peregrinus:
quote:Originally posted by Reverend: To my knowledge there wasn't ever an "NDT" reg, though there was a "NFT", which I took as meaning "Federation Transport".
The SS Milan, NDT-50863, was the transport that brought the Rozhenkos to rendezvous with the Enterprise in TNG's "New Ground".
--Jonah
An opportunity for TNG-R? Posted by Pensive's Wetness (Member # 1203) on :
SEE! Even the Old Jermain guy agrees with me! and that means TNG-R will work!
Gentlemen! Behold! A Wyrmhole! (What the hellllllllllllllll.......) God Dammmmmiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii..... Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
quote:Originally posted by Peregrinus:
quote:Originally posted by Reverend: To my knowledge there wasn't ever an "NDT" reg, though there was a "NFT", which I took as meaning "Federation Transport".
The SS Milan, NDT-50863, was the transport that brought the Rozhenkos to rendezvous with the Enterprise in TNG's "New Ground".
--Jonah
Serves me right for trusting Memory Alpha! Perhaps it's just coincidence that both transport related regs happened to have a 'T' in there. The alternative that all Federation civilian transports have a reg prefixed in an 'N*T' pattern means there's at most 26 variations; not enough to justify the middle letter standing for a planet and even less likely it stands for the type of vessel, or anything similarly insignificant. So 'FT' and 'DT' are just two random planet designators. The Rozhenko's transport need not have come from Earth, since it's unlikely that there just happened to be a transport from Sol to whatever sector the E-D happened to be at the time. More likely they had to change ships several times to get out that far, so the Milan would be registered to either which ever planet they visited for the last leg of it's the reg for Bilana III itself..
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
I'mma have to take a picture of my street sign one of these days...![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)