What started out as a clean-up operation turned into a near-total rewrite of the page, with about half a billion words on the issue of NCC-based chronologies.
In my opinion, the idea of chronological registries works out quite nicely within the canon itself. But, if you see any obvious holes, feel free to point them out.
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
I've just had to go back and modify the Constellation information. Reports that the ship's registry was seen in "The Abandoned"[DS9-3] are inaccurate, unfortunately.
Posted by akb1979 (Member # 557) on :
I gather that the ships listed (earliest NCC-#) are those actually seen on TV & the movies.
Have we actually seen the USS Intrepid of the Intrepid class? I didn't think that we had . . .
Posted by Dat (Member # 302) on :
No we have not. But the registry did show up on a computer display on the E-E in Nemesis.
Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
And on several newsgroups before that.
Posted by akb1979 (Member # 557) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dat: No we have not. But the registry did show up on a computer display on the E-E in Nemesis.
It did? Well I'd better go and rent it then! Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
quote:Originally posted by Guardian 2000: I've just had to go back and modify the Constellation information. Reports that the ship's registry was seen in "The Abandoned"[DS9-3] are inaccurate, unfortunately.
The number, NCC-1974, appeared on a starship mission assignment list graphic in Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country.
Also, the number at the top of Commodore Stone's list is NCC-1631, not 1831. A speck on the film is likely responsible for the confusion.
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
There's a cap of the Nemesis fleet listing on the page.
As for the Constellation, that and other ships from the Operation Retrieve charts have been removed. I've also heard of her being listed on a computer display, but I don't recall any sufficiently-close shot of one that could be used to confirm that statement.
Don't get me wrong . . . I rather liked the idea of the Constellation briefly being the largest operational ship class. The problem is just that I find it harder and harder to accept the use of "unreadable background canon" on my canon-only site. If it can be read I'll take it, but things like the Lantree's never-seen 1837 just aren't "official canon" for my purposes.
And did I use 1831 or 1631? I don't remember mentioning it, but I'll go look and see if I got misled by a speck somewhere. Thanks!
Posted by Dat (Member # 302) on :
Doesn't the Art of Star Trek book include a behind-the-scenes pic of the Lantree clearly showing her name and registry? I do have a copy of said pic, but I don't know the actual source.
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
And the Constellation was never said to be on the Operation Retrieve chart, only on the bridge graphic I mentioned.
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
I'm well aware of the markings on the front of the model. As I said, however, those were never seen in the episode . . . we only saw her from the back, remember?
And regarding the Constellation, "I've also heard of her being listed on a computer display, but I don't recall any sufficiently-close shot of one that could be used to confirm that statement."
Do you have a screencap that refutes my recollection? Can you at least point me to the scene where it would be visible on a DVD? If so, I will happily revise the page.
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
No I was just correcting your apparent thought that the Contsellation was at any point supposed to be on the Operation Retrieve chart. (It never was.) That's all, I wasn't arguing.
I knew what you meant with the Lantree also, I just provided that link because Dat brought it up. Interestingly enough, the Lantree (with registry) is also supposed to appear on the same graphic as the Constellation. But yes, I understand that you're not counting that. Even though I don't agree with that attitude.
Personally I would say it is important to inculde as much behind the scenes information as possible in trying to formulate a coherent picture of things like these, as often there was more detail intended than made it to the screen. Of course, I'm not talking about stuff that was made up after the fact for the Encyclopedia here, but just stuff that was included in the original production, albeit in a form that we cannot easily see without additional reference material.
-MMoM
P.S.
I have been trying for some months to obtain a copy of the Operation Retrieve graphic (featuring these ships) from Rick Sternbach. He keeps saying he'll scan it for me, but so far he's been too busy to get around to it. But those name/number/class associations are legitimate and the new digital transfer on the TUC CE DVD actually is clear enough to make them out once you know what they are. This of course has nothing to do with the Constellation or Lantree, but it has a bearing on what the lowest (and highest) Constitution registries are.
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
Ooh . . . I'd like a good view of the chart. Constellation-1974 all day long, baby.
As for the rest of the page . . . truth be told, I expected more backlash from the notion that the 1701 was part of a fifty year old class in TOS. But, I guess the Constellation-1017 discussions and theories are old hat.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)