In my starship list, I have used the reasoning that the registry numbers are chronological. Yes I know that there are arguements against that train of thought.
Well here is my personal solution to the Constitution Class and its dilemma of registry. Using the Okuda registry numbers.
The Constellation and the Republic are not Constitution Class starships but rather just types, since the Constellation was shown on screen in that Constitution configuration. The Constellation, herself or itself, was not the exactly like the Enterprise. It was the minor details that would set it apart from the other 1700s Constitution. I assume the situation would be the same for the Republic.
So instead of Constitution Class Heavy Cruiser Constellation, it would be Constellation Type Heavy Cruiser. Same for the Republic.
The rest of the non-1700 Constitution Class would be organized into two other classes. The 1600s are to be organized as the Farragut Class after the Farragut NCC-1647. The two 1800s are to be organized as the Intrepid Class after the Intrepid NCC-1831. I am going with that the Intrepid was 1831 not 1631.
The counterargument of not having two Intrepid Classes because it would be confusing would be pointless because of the two different time periods that each was set in. A real world example would be the Farragut Class Destroyers of World War I and Farragut Class Destroyers of the 1960s.
Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
FWIW, the Republic was never said onscreen or in scripts to be a Constitution-class ship.
The 16xx numbers (and the one 18xx number) on the wall chart in "Court Martial" weren't intended by Jeffries to represent Constitutions specifically. All attempts to do so are revisionist history. FASA adopted most of Greg Jein's attempt (from his T-Negative article) for their list in the Star Trek RPG. When Okuda was working on Star Trek IV and early TNG, and directly under Gene himself... Well, first of all, he was a longtime Trek fan from Hawaii who was getting a chance to live a dream. He, like many Trekkies, idolised GR and thought he could do no wrong. He slavishly adopted the "Roddenberry Rules of Starship Design" and the policy of no non-liscensed or formerly-liscensed material to be used for reference -- both created by Gene pretty much specifically to disown Franz Joseph's works following the breakup of their working relationship. At the time, the only liscensed source of Constitution registries was the FASA RPG, so that's what Okuda started with. And pointing to the ships listed in Star Trek VI as further support for the Okuda scheme is ignorant, as he created those lists himself.
As anyone who's read the Encyclopedia and Chronology can attest, his research methods are appalling. But there it is. However, one of the joys of revisionist history is setting the record straight. I don't know if it's too late to re-educate the vast hordes of casual Treknologists out there, but for my own use, I am using an extrapolated Jeffries scheme for TOS through to about 2285, and then the Okuda scheme from then on. There are surprisingly few conflicts, when one dismisses Okuda's clumsy attempts to rewrite TOS starship numbering.
Of course, this brings me to the downside of revisionist history and setting the record straight -- having people yelling to burn you as a heretic for not being a good little fish and swimming with the school.
--Jonah
P.S. Additionally, this also still leaves the problem with the Constellation, caused by no interdepartmental communication and a tight VFX budget. I offer to solutions. Either say the model was mislabelled (supposed to be 1710 or some such)... or else the Constellation is an older ship refit to Constitution specs due to some heroic act of her commander, as so many minor details don't match up.
Posted by Prowl Alpha (Member # 1139) on :
If I do go with the Franz Joseph's it would be a lot simpler since he did actually use some sense in making the registries close to real world schemes.
If we go with the 1710 then what about the Kongo later on in VI. I am going with that the Constellation was an older vessel that was refitted to Modern standards as what happens with a lot of old vessels still serving in a navy.
I am in the school where it was the Enterprise Class until the Constitution, itself, was refitted and modernized further. Subsequently the Constitution internal configuration was better because the next Enterprise was rebuilt in that fashion.
Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
Indeed. I toyed with the idea of the Enterprise class being renamed back to the Constitution class after the last old-style Connie was destroyed, retired, or refitted, but that introduces unnecessary complexity into the index, IMO, so I opted against doing that.
As for the Constellation, I also go for the refit notion, and have even written an outline for a story telling what Captain Decker did that gave hime a promotion to Commodore and enough celebrity and clout that he could have his aging ship refit to the latest standards.
--Jonah
Posted by Phoenix (Member # 966) on :
As 1700 is the Constitution, it would seem that numbers are assigned in blocks to Classes, with the Class ship taking the first number.
Thus, 1647 should probably be part of a Class named after 1600 and 1831 should be part of a Class named after 1800.
Likewise 1017 should be (or was originally) part of a Class named after 1000.
As we don't know the names of 1000, 1600 and 1800, we could either call them "NCC-1000 Class" or "Constellation Type" for instance, but saying the entire Class is named for the one ship we happen to know the name of is a bit silly.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
Registries don't make sense; they never will. You can go by them as a good rule of thumb, but to attempt to contruct viable hypotheses regarding their validity? This way lies madness.
You can juggle your Okuda Scheme, your Jein Theorem, your FASA Chronologies, your Joesph Heresies and your Rhythm Methods all you like, and at the end of the day you just might as well be arguing over the length of a piece of string.*
Personally I prefer to avoid the contradictions by assuming that there have been four different registry systems that we know of: Enterprise-era, TOS-era, Excelsior-era (where the actual current system we like to argue about so much came into being, and continuing into the 25th century and beyond), and post-Excelsior (some point in the distant future, leading to Relativity-style registries).
*120m
Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
Well, we do know, if we expand our 'raw material' to include fandom sources. Just be prepared to play fast and loose, as no one from Franz Joseph on knew what Matt Jeffries had in mind for Starfleet and all of the systems conflict at some point or another.
Further, the 'NCC' prefix was for the cruisers. Other types of ships would have had other prefices. I stretch fandom and official sources to fit the extrapolated Jeffries scheme, making the 1000 block the Horizon class, the 1600 block the Baton Rouge class, and the 1800 block the Miranda class, with the latter incorporating the Soyuz subclass at 1840 and the Avenger subclass at 1860. The best fit I've been able to make from available sources led me to fix NCC-2500 as the changeover point. From there on, registry numbers are no longer assigned in blocks, and 'NCC' becomes a blanket prefix for all of Starfleet.
This presents a problem with the Belknap class, one of my favorite fandom designs, so rather than discard it entirely, I bumped it down to NCC-2200, simply knocking off 300 from all the registries. The 2300 block is the Enterprise class newbuilds, starting at NCC-2301, as there was no 'NX-2300' prototype vessel ( ). And to round things off, I included the short-lived Menagha class and its variants (sans S'Harien -- that's another story) under the 2400 block.
Oh, and just in case you couldn't guess, 1900 is the Constellation class, 2000 is the Excelsior obviously, and 2100 is the Federation class.
I've been working on this for a while. Just ask Topher.
--Jonah
Posted by Phoenix (Member # 966) on :
I just assume that registry numbers are assigned in blocks until just after TUC.
I see no reason why the Constellation can't be part of an earlier class than the Enterprise with a similar spaceframe and vastly different specifications.
I dislike the "it looks like a Constitution therefore it is one" theory. Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
But suppose you don't like non-canon sources? Many of us don't. I dislike the idea of just inventing something (or using something that some guy came up with as long ago as the 1970's) that will fit the established (and contradictory) facts, it's too easy, and to my mind a little dishonest. And ultimately it doesn't help the issue, because these things get recycled out of all context. How many webpages are there out there faithfully stating that the Steamrunner is a Defiant replacement, all because of one throwaway line in Utopia Planitia v1? I half-remember a line from Simon's spoof FAQ, that the registry system is base on Naval vessels of the Austro-Hungarian Empire or something like that. . . Great fun if you like that sort of thing, but why should the rest of us have to sit through it?
Essentially, I guess I'm saying this sort fo thread should have, rather than a spoiler warning, a non-canon warning. 8)
Posted by Phoenix (Member # 966) on :
The only two canon class ships we know of from the TOS era are the Constitution and the Excelsior, which are 1700 and 2000 respectively.
I'd say that's a pretty clear canon indication of the numbering system.
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
quote:Originally posted by Phoenix: The only two canon class ships we know of from the TOS era are the Constitution and the Excelsior, which are 1700 and 2000 respectively.
I'd say that's a pretty clear canon indication of the numbering system.
Yes, well, some of us wouldn't.
Posted by Prowl Alpha (Member # 1139) on :
quote:Originally posted by Phoenix: The only two canon class ships we know of from the TOS era are the Constitution and the Excelsior, which are 1700 and 2000 respectively.
I'd say that's a pretty clear canon indication of the numbering system.
Well the Constellation NX-1974 puts a twist that scheme.
As for the Farragut Class and Intrepid Class. They are the 1600 block and 1800 block ships that were converted to the Constitution configuration. Which would place them in to a entirely new class, unless the class ship was converted a long with it.
Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
Canon ships before Okuda came in (which eliminates NX-1974 and everything else in Star Trek VI)...
Enterprise NCC-1701 (Constitution-class) [TOS] Antares (unseen, unknown registry or class) [TOS] Valiant (unseen, unknown registry or class) [TOS] [unknown] NCC-1709 (unseen, class unknown -- presumed Constitution) [TOS] Intrepid NCC-1831 (unseen, class unknown) [TOS] [unknown] NCC-1703 (unseen, class unknown -- presumed Constitution) [TOS] [unknown] NCC-1672 (unseen, class unknown) [TOS] [unknown] NCC-1664 (unseen, class unknown) [TOS] [unknown] NCC-1697 (unseen, class unknown) [TOS] [unknown] NCC-1718 (unseen, class unknown -- presumed Constitution) [TOS] [unknown] NCC-1665 (unseen, class unknown) [TOS] [unknown] NCC-1700 (unseen, almost certainly Constitution-class lead ship, but not canonically referred to as such) [TOS] Republic NCC-1371 (unseen, class unknown) [TOS] Archon (unseen, unknown registry and class) [TOS] Valiant (unseen, unknown registry and class) [TOS] Constellation NCC-1017 (class unknown, similar to Constitution) [TOS] Dierdre (unseen, unknown registry and class) [TOS] Carolina (unseen, unknown registry and class) [TOS] Yorktown (unseen, unknown registry and class) [TOS] Farragut (unseen, unknown registry and class) [TOS] Horizon (unseen, unknown registry and class) [TOS] Exeter (registry unknown, Constitution-class) [TOS] Lexington (registry unknown, Constitution-class) [TOS] Hood (registry unknown, Constitution-class) [TOS] Potemkin (registry unknown, Constitution-class) [TOS] Excalibur (registry unknown, Constitution-class) [TOS] Beagle (unseen, unknown registry and class) [TOS] Defiant NCC-1764* (Constitution-class) [TOS] Aurora (unknown registry and class) [TOS] Revere NCC-595 (unseen, class unknown, Scout type vessel**) [TMP] Columbia NCC-621 (unseen, class unknown, Scout type vessel**) [TMP] Entente NCC-2120 (unseen, class unknown, Dreadnought type vessel) [TMP] Merrimac NCC-1715 (unseen, class unknown -- presumed Constitution, Cruiser type vessel) [TMP] Enterprise NCC-1701 (Enterprise-class) [TMP/TWOK/TSFS] Reliant NCC-1864 (class unknown at the time) [TWOK] Kobayashi Maru (unseen, unknown registry and class) [TWOK] Excelsior NX-2000 (Excelsior-class) [TSFS] Grissom NCC-638 (class unknown at the time, Scout type vessel**) [TSFS]
* Registry suggested in internal memo, not seen in episode, no data to refute validity. ** Type designation incompatible with 'NCC' prefix. Solutions vary.
These are the only canon data points we have to go on for the TOS and early movie era. Any attempts to match up orphaned registries with other ships, seen or unseen, is problematic at best. I know there are a lot of problems with fandom, as well, but there are a few worthy sources out there that build on official (or at least formerly official) publications -- namely the offerings from Franz Joseph and FASA. All of those sources use flawed understandings of the TOS registry scheme, and so their conclusions all require modification to bring them in line. I will present my Constitution class reconstruction in my next post.
--Jonah
Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
The only starting points that can be drawn from Jeffries' scheme and what we were given in TOS (and the early movies) are the following names and registries:
Franz Joseph laid out everything from 1700 to 1799 in his Star Fleet Technical Manual, but there are errors and inconsistencies that require some massaging of the data, and the complete elimination of his "Achernar" subclass. As several of his ships from this book were explicitly used in dialogue in Star Trek: The Motion Picture, I prefer to use this as the primary non-canon source.
FASA built off of Greg Jein's T-Negative list, as does Mike Okuda in the current official Paramount list, and thus their registries are all over the place and can therefore be discarded. However, they do a wonderful job of laying out the construction and refit order, and the names can be applied in chronological order to fill in the gaps in the FJ Constitution list. This still leaves a gap of fourteen ships to get up to the Defiant's registry number, but presents a much richer picture of the class than any other single source I've encountered. So, presented for your approval, the work-in-progress...
--Jonah
Posted by Brian Whisenhunt (Member # 1095) on :
It is possible that the registry would be changed to fit the needs. Originally U.S. aircraft carriers carried the designation CV for standard fleet carriers, then when other SIZES (not CLASSES) of carriers were added additional designations occurred. CVE for Escort Carrier, CVL for Light Carrier, CVB for Heavy carrier which was typ. till the end of WW2. Then came the CVA for attack carrier to signify the more modern angled deck carriers. With the advent of U.S.S. Enterprise, came CVA(N) to designate it as Nuclear and now just CVN. It is possible that the registry would denote the ships by TYPE and CLASS originally and then at some point the registry was changed to just a chronological hull reference number based on what was still flying at that time.
A similar thing occured in aircraft designations from the 30's till today. Originally naval designations for aircraft denoted not only a TYPE, but the MANUFACTURER. Therefore a F4F was a Fighter v.4 from Grumman (F was the designation for Grumman then) while and F4D was a Fighter v.4 from Douglas. Later came the Century series aircraft of the 50's & 60's till the whole thing got rebooted back to where we are today F-14, F-15, F-16, F-22
Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
How nice. Posted by Brian Whisenhunt (Member # 1095) on :
Amazing how all the vessels are named after Earth ships.
Why not an NCC-1999 U.S.S. G'zzzz-Ni'vtz
Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
[ October 15, 2003, 05:08 PM: Message edited by: Peregrinus ]
Posted by Styrofoaman (Member # 706) on :
No, you are wrong... I see a couple French ones in there.
quote:Originally posted by Brian Whisenhunt: Amazing how all the vessels are named after Earth ships.
Why not an NCC-1999 U.S.S. G'zzzz-Ni'vtz
Posted by Capped in Mic (Member # 709) on :
i personally don't thoink theres any escaping the Okuda-Jein system, deploirable as it might be, but its a necessary evil due to the NCC-1017 mistake.. at this point i follow the 'canon' Jein/Okuda & ST:6 material but try to leave as much of the Franz Joseph and FASA material in place, whenever possible. its wierd ill tell you that.
and were not going to be settling this issue anytime soon...
Posted by Woodside Kid (Member # 699) on :
If I may ask, what precisely is the reason for jettisoning the Achernar subclass entirely?
Posted by Identity Crisis (Member # 67) on :
I don't know what Jonah's reasons are but they could include the following:
1. Too many heavy cruisers.
2. Timeframe, the Enterprise was only fully refitted to Bonhomme Richard specs at the start of TOS (the changes between the two pilot versions and the series version reflect a gradual refitting). Which suggest that the Achernar specification didn't yet exist. She was then refitted to the Enterprise specs less then ten years later. Not a lot of time to build all 68 vessels of the Achernar class.
3. The Defiant was shown to be identical to the Enterprise and hence wasn't a member of the Achernar class. But NCC-1764 is slap bang in the middle of the Achernar range.
Posted by Capped in Mic (Member # 709) on :
yuck.. the Jefferies kids seem to think that 1700 registries are for connies onl, and 1800 registries are for Mirandas only (although looking now that would cause more problems for the Tikopai than the Achernar)
i see no problem with the dozen plus connies that were referenced in TOS and the movies/Okudaic literature existing, and then the remaining ships that probably didnt exist (Achernars and Tikopais) being built after the 'twelve like it' comment.. and in much more limited numbers than FJ implied (Guenther's SotSF, the unofficial continuation of FJ's work, also posits that the majority of the Achernars and Tikopais were cancelled -- the Achernar registrys disappeared after NCC-1744 or so {although i think they couldve just made them light cruisers or frigates with the same names/regs} and the Tikopai registries end right before many of the Miranda & SotSF Enterprise-type registries start)
its not like there isnt a version of the 2260s Starfleet that could support that many cruisers.. its possible that, from 2245 to 2265 (for the 12 like it comment) that SF had only 12-20 connies and then another {older or smaller} class of cruiser filling out the rest of the Fleet's needs for that type of ship, then after 2265 that class or classes were being phased out, and replaced with newer Connnie-type cruisers like the dozen or so Achernar subclass, the handful of Endeavour subclass, and then a decade later supplemented by the Tikopai and Enterprise subclasses, until the Connie family was the most numerous cruiser type vessel.. then, another two decades later, the connies begin to get phased out in favor of the Excelsiors in the same kind of situation (by 2290 there were probably less than 12 Excelsiors and dozens of Connies of various series, but by 10 or 20 years later there were probably more than 12 Excelsiors and no more Connies except in support roles (unless they really did an aggressive decommissioning program)..
just because it was only 12 connies in 2265 doesnt mean that there were ALWAYS 12 connies.. i once wrote a projected fleet number that had an initial buildup to 15 or 20 vessels in the 2250s, with a few (like the ill fated Farragut and some others from fandom) being taken out of service before 2265, when there were 12, and then another increase through the 2270s for all the FJ variants that we all love so much (lots of them replacing the many many ships that were cannon fodder during TOS)
Posted by Identity Crisis (Member # 67) on :
quote:Originally posted by Capped in Mic: yuck.. the Jefferies kids seem to think that 1700 registries are for connies only
Well, yeah that's the heart of the Jefferies system. There can only be one 17th class of cruisers, can't there?
Posted by Prowl Alpha (Member # 1139) on :
quote:Originally posted by Identity Crisis:
quote:Originally posted by Capped in Mic: yuck.. the Jefferies kids seem to think that 1700 registries are for connies only
Well, yeah that's the heart of the Jefferies system. There can only be one 17th class of cruisers, can't there?
Yes it is, but it does not work after TOS. It would mean that the Avenger/Miranda Class is the 18th class, the Oberth is the 6th Class, whatever the Class Revere is that would be the 5th Class, The Columbia should be a part of the Oberth Class, the Excelsior is the 20th ship class, and whatever the Entente's class is that would be the 21st Class.
Well, from FJ and others that the Revere is a Hermes, Columbia is a Cygnus, and the Entente is a Federation
Posted by Identity Crisis (Member # 67) on :
That's exactly what Jonah's been saying - for him the Jeffries system applies throughout TOS but the Okuda system comes into play around the time of the later movies.
The various scouts (Revere, Columbia, Grissom) need theire registries changing because NCC only applies to cruisers not scouts.
Now, personally I use the FJ system and apply NCC to all ships, assign registries in blocks but permit the blocks to be smaller than 100 and start with any old number. But I also switch over to the Okuda system sometime in the late 2280s/early 2290s.
Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
I also mention a few problematic prefix/registry/class issues due to lack of knowledge or understanding of Jeffries' system on the part(s) of FJ the filmmakers. There are three biggies in the arena before Okuda came along:
Revere and Columbia -- If they're Scouts, they should have a different prefix to reflect it -- say NSS (doubled letters indicating Starfleet vessels). The Hermes class was big enough, though, to be a Light Cruiser, so the 'NCC' might work for them. However, it requires doing something with FJ's registries and the line from the film either way.
Grissom -- Same issue. If it's a Scout, it should have a different prefix (and potentially a different 'block' number than the Hermes/Cygnus design). If, however, this is after the changeover (which I place in 2280, because of the Hathaway), then the prefix is fine, but the number needs to be changed to something >2500.
With Okuda coming into the mix, we get a few more, mostly from his work in Star Trek VI:
Jenolan -- NCC-2010 is happily within the Excelsior block. A quick fix would be to change the registry to 2510 or something...
Constellation -- Going with the 'prototype = xx00' system, the Constellation would have to be NX-1900, not NX-1974. And with the Hathaway being launched six years before, the odds of the class lead ship still being on deep space trials are fairly small...
Eagle -- Cannot be a Constitution with that registry. Adding a '1' to the front makes it a Constellation. Last Unicorn Games gave us the Ranger class at the 900 block. I think this is a good design, and would work. If that Eagle was destroyed, a later Constitution- or Enterprise-class ship could be built and that could be what's on the chart -- with a new registry number.
Various other ships -- The Scovil, Ahwahnee, Challenger, Emden, Helin, Endeavour, Korolev, and Springfield all need their clases changed. And the rest of the Constitutions listed need their registries un-retconned.
FWIW, I also not only permit blocks smaller than a hundred ships, I consider it almost essential, and indeed consider the growing trend of large, expensive Cruisers with small productions runs -- and all the unused hull numbers as a consequence -- the reason Starfleet changed over to the new registry system.
Oh, and the "dozen liker her" line... Hang on a sec -- I'm going to post another copy of my Constitution list that shows which ones were lost or destroyed. The class' high attrition rate would see only between a dozen and a score of ships active at any given time prior to TMP.
Lastly, on the subject of other "lesser" Cruisers filling in between the big boys, that's also implicit in the extrapolated Jeffries system I've reconstructed. By the time we get to TOS, the Constitution class has been around for between twenty and forty years depending on who you talk to. Even though they're still a major investment, the previous class -- the Baton Rouges -- are much easier and cheaper to build, and thus we see their registries climb to at least 1697 by the late first season. The ubiquitous Miranda class also looks to be a Cruiser slightly smaller and much cheaper than the Constitution and Enterprise classes, and thus we have registries there going up to 1895 with the Endeavour, plus all those that came after the changeover. Compared to this, we have only ~65 Constitution, ~45 Enterprises, and ~25 Federations. And while ~50 Excelsiors were ordered in the initial procurement, only a smattering were finished by the turn of the century. You've got to have smaller and cheaper Cruisers filling in the between spaces...
That's a rough pass. As I said, this is very much a work-in-progress. Expect a final version within a couple weeks that is distinctly different from this list...
--Jonah
Posted by Phoenix (Member # 966) on :
Regarding the 1974 Constellation, how's this for an idea:
As the Hathaway was launched 6 years before 1974 was on trials, 1974 cannot be the class ship.
So, 1900 Constellation was the class ship, but it was destroyed.
Starfleet wanted to refit the class slightly - but not enough to have a new class - and launched a new ship, 1974 Constellation, which as it was refitted was experimental, hence the NX.
Posted by Prowl Alpha (Member # 1139) on :
Another Idea- The Constellation was a pathfinder vessel for San Francisco Fleet Yards. It was decided to fully commission the vessel in later years. I cannot remember what the Tech File said from STTM about the Constellation, herself.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Fame!
It appears that old FAQ has fallen into electronic dust, which is probably a blessing.
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)