Fresh from the Constitution class history thread, I'm laying down a synopsis of my draft of a way to have Matt Jeffries' registry system from TOS change over in the mid-2280s to Okuda's system, followed by my list of the ships that would need some aspect of their being altered to fit. And trust me, that list is far shorter than the lists that come from forcing one system on the other...
To recap, for those not familiar with the obscure background material of TOS, Matt Jeffries partially laid out a system for ship registries as a sort of guide to himself. It stemmed out of his speculation on what the various parts of 'NCC-1701' might signify. Granted, he came up with that registry more or less at random, by starting with the 'NC' of American civilian aircraft, and adding another 'C' to make it different. He eliminated all the numerals that look unclear on a TV screen, and that left him with '1', '4', '7', and '0'. And with those to work with, '1701' was as good as anything.
Now we come to his speculating. Gene's comments to him were that the ships of the 'Starship' class were the heavy cruisers, the ships-of-the-line, the workhorses. So that was what the 'NCC' prefix came to signify in his mind. Presumably other vessel types would have other prefices. Then he turned to the numbers. Rather than just a sequential assigning, he posited that the '17' stood for the Federation's 17th Starship (read: Cruiser) design, and the '01' indicated the 1st production hull built after the prototype.
All this would have stayed in the realm of speculation, and would be utterly irrelevent, were it not for the first season episode "Court Martial". For that episode, Jeffries -- in his capacity as Art Director -- created a wall graphic for Commodore Stone's office on Starbase 11. For those who are unable to see this, it is a wall chart listing "STAR SHIP STATUS", and consists of a listing of ten numbers with no prefices down the left hand side, each of which has a horizontal bar to the right, representing differing levels of completion of something. Some think it indicates repair or refit progress, some think it denotes completion of a patrol cycle or other mission. I lean to the latter interpretation, as the bar after the number '1831' goes to 100%, skips a column, than goes for a further column.
First of all, remember Starships all have NCC prefices, hence why he didn't feel the need to put it before each registry number. Next, notice some numbers are in the 16xx range, some in the 17xx range, and one in the 18xx range. By the system Matt had noodled up, the 16xx numbers would be ships of the Cruiser class just before the Constitution class, and NCC-1831 would belong to the Enterprise's successor class.
Unfortunately, no one ever interviewed Matt, and he didn't publicize. So more and more half-arsed numbering came along as the years passed, from the cringeworthy numbering of the Constellation in "The Doomsday Machine", to Franz Joseph's Technical Manual and all the fandom works that use that as a basis, to Greg Jein's cocked-up list in the T'Negative fanzine, to the damn odd freighter registries in TAS, to FASA's offerings.
No one ever thought to ask Matt if he had a system, and more and more made-up systems contradicted his and each other's. Mike Okuda coming on the scene in 1986 was rather a windfall, and his registry scheme became the new and current standard, where all Federation Starfleet vessels have the 'NCC' prefix, and numbers are assigned roughly sequentially as ships are built, regardless of class. Works great, but then he tried to apply it to Matt's era.
Starting with the erroneous conceit that all the ships on the "Court Martial" chart are Constitutions, and thus leading to the (let's face it) stupid notion that registry numbers don't have to be chronological or even sequential.
Well, then, what's the f***in' point of having registry numbers at all?
Anyhoo... My approach was to apply Matt's system to his era and Okuda's to his own era. The two but up against each other in the TOS movies, mostly between 2285 and 2291 (TSFS and TUC), so somewhere in there makes the most sense for the one system to be abandoned for the other. Let me gather my thoughts now before going on to the next stage.
--Jonah
Posted by Topher (Member # 71) on :
Spike might want to look into that 403 error... Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
First, to go back and massage things in the TOS-TVH era...
The Cruiser class registries would go up by one for each new class, and fandom sources provided a rich and largely consistent pool of material to draw from. So not going too far back, we have this for the Starship class -- ships with 'NCC' prefices:
1600 -- Baton Rouge class 1700 -- Constitution class 1800 -- Miranda class 1900 -- Constellation class 2000 -- Excelsior class 2100 -- Federation class 2200 -- Belknap class 2300 -- Enterprise class (hi, Mim!) 2400 -- Menagha class
As of NCC-2500, all vessels would adopt the 'NCC' prefix. Newly built ships would continue to be numbered as they were ordered by Starfleet, and older ships of other types would also get new >2500 'NCC' registries.
So now we come to the individual vessels within the crossover range, either in terms of registry or in terms of time period, that need either their prefix, number, or class changed to fit in.
From TAS, the freighters need new registries altogether, I think. That suffix system never made sense to me. Barring that, at least a new prefix is needed.
From TMP, the Revere and Columbia need new prefices.
From TWOK and TSFS, the bridge displays of the Saladin and Ptolemy need to be considered to have at least different prefices. Not much problem, as the resolution is too crappy anyway.
From TSFS, the Grissom needs a new prefix, or else a new >2500 number. The time period of these three movies is when the Constellation-class Hathaway is said to hail from, with her registry of NCC-2593. The Repulse, then, with her NCC-2544 registry must have been laid down a bit earlier.
The Jenol*n and Nash (that latter problematic already) also need new >2500 registries.
And then, of course, most of Okuda's ships from those nearly illegible displays in TUC need a little work. The Ahwahnee and Challenger are perfect as pre-switch Excelsiors, but the Eagle has a registry more appropriate for a Ranger-class Cruiser, the Endeavour and Emden should be Mirandas, the Springfield should be a Constellation, the Scovil should be of the Cruiser class before the Baton Rouges, the Constellation should be NX-1900, or else NCC-1974 should be some other Constellation-class ship, the Helin should be a Baton Rouge, and so on. If we want to keep them as the classes shown, they need different registries.
Let me know if I missed any. Considering only two of these are seen clearly onscreen (the Grissom and the Jenol*n), the rest are very easy retcons indeed...
--Jonah
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
quote:ten numbers with no prefices
Uh...Jonah? Each and every one of those numbers has an NCC prefix.
Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
*facepalm* D'oh. That's what I get for not actually having looked at that chart in a year.
Okay, that aside...
--Jonah
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
I see many, many problems with this idea. But I doubt that going through them will do anything but spark a long-winded and ultimately pointless argument.
To be blunt and brief, in my opinion your ideas of 'retconning' canon registries to fit with a scheme that has never been so much as suggested by onscreen dialogue (your interpretation of the "Court Martial" chart aside) and is the result of early conceptualization by one person when Trek was only in its very infancy, and has been continuously (and continues to be) contradicted ever since, is both ludicrous and entirely against the spirit of much of the discussion that takes palce on this board.
You cannot (well, I mean, you can, but...) presume to take on the role of re-molding the Star Trek universe as it has come to be revealed by all of the collected works that make up the official canon---namely the six television series and ten films that have been produced to date, plus perhaps a few select printed sources and official statements---to fit with either Matt Jefferies' outdated notions or your own personal speculations. To make such a presumption is...to be regrettably impolite...quite unbecomingly fanboyish.
Even if what you propose does make some measure of sense, (and I want to be clear on the fact that I don't think it makes nearly as much sense as you seem convinced of) I'm not sure what you're hoping to gain or accomplish by proposing it. Obviously, speculation is invaluable among such people as frequent this board, (and indeed among many who do not) but there can come a point where one's speculation gets too radical. At such a point, it looses believability and credibility.
I respect your passion and your knowledge in regards to this subject, but I am wholly and totally opposed to your ideas as presented in this thread. I realize you're simply presenting a hypothetical resolution of what you seem to see as some kind of injustice somehow done to Mr. Jefferies, but the kind of mass-scale revisionism you're talking about---even if those views which it is intended to revise are revisionist in nature themselves---is simply not possible, and additionally would be an insult to the principles of continuity and canonicity. Minor retconning (as is occasionally initiated by TPTB, etc) is sometimes an unavoidable part of keeping an entertainment phenomenon going for nearly 40 years. But it is never a desirable thing. I am usually disappointed and in rare cases even saddened and disgusted when Fandom actually strives for it.
Sincerely & respectfully, -MMoM
P.S.
I do not wish to make it seem as if I feel that my opinion is somehow more valid than yours. In fact, that would be totally contrary to my point---that no one of us, or even all of us as a collective entity (Fandom) can dictate canon (read as: "valid") Trek. For better or for worse, only Paramount has the power to do that.
-MM Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
*heh* All true, Mim... And if I didn't want your feedback, I wouldn't throw this up here for all to see. I'd just print it out and masturbate over it at home. *chuckle* If it doesn't take up too much room, please do lay out your line-item objections. The scientific method is about seeking to disprove theories, not to look for corroborating evidence. That which can't be disproved, survives. As long as we don't resort to name-calling, I find these debates exhilerating.
I also grant that what I posted above is the most extreme retro-un-revisionist (or whatever) approach I could take. When you get right down to it, I'd be realistically happy just having Okuda let go of his dear little notion that all the "Court Martial" ships are Constitutions, and the Constellation is a lone aberration. I've actually written a little premise that could account for that case, too...
I guess it comes down to my long-standing grumpiness when it comes to 1) people not doing their homework before filming/publishing stuff in the Trekniverse, and 2) inconsistencies that arise out of laziness or carelessness -- which sort of also ties into point 1 above...
--Jonah
Posted by Akira (Member # 850) on :
My feelings are the Old Connies were from an earlier production run that a contract was cancelled or production stopped but later reissued to Connie�s to fill in for the gaps in the system.
OR
Could have been older ship but reclassified to Connie specs but the reg. never changed.
Than later around TMP the reg. system was changed.
I�m more for the 1st idea.
I still think the Old series was blocked for the Most part until around 2284 when the Constellation was launched than it goes to Sequentially(sp?)
Canon speaking with noncanon info research.
2242 or there abouts the Connie was Comm. 2245 Enterprise was launched
| v 2284 Constellation is launched 2285 Excelsior is Com. or launched I don�t remember
Well Download this and read this and you will see what I�m talking about. BTW this is about 8mths of work so i hope you guys like it.
There are really only three problematic registries for the Connie. The 16** and 18** are close enough to allow for small variations in the sequential system (left over numbers from some Yard, or left-over numbers from a discontinued class).
The Eagle (which I actually believe is a new-built post-2271 Connie! Yay! Crazy me! ) is most likely named en numbered in honor of some older ship, much like the Sao Paul -> Defiant thing. I guess the same story could go for Constellation, unless you say it's actually of a different class (since it was a very inaccurate AMT model...) but that's a bit weird... That leaves the Republic. I'm running out of ideas now.
Posted by Ryan McReynolds (Member # 28) on :
There's no concrete need for the Republic to be a Constitution at all...
Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :
Aah, but the republic needs a constitution!
Posted by Spike (Member # 322) on :
quote:Originally posted by Topher: Spike might want to look into that 403 error...
That's a side-effect of my bandwidth-stealing script. It doesn't allow inlining of pictures but unfortunately neither does it allow linking to them.
Scroll down to the end of the page.
Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
Back again, as you all may have noticed by now...
In my constant quest of self-examination and personal criticism, I've looked at why I'm so adamant on reviving some semblance of Jeffries' embryonic rego system. I guess it mostly comes down to a couple distinct but interrelated observations:
1) If registries aren't sequential, what's the point in numbering ships, anyway, if the number is assigned more-or-less at random? Why would not the name and class alone suffice for record-keeping? Unless later ships of the same class are given the same name as an earlier ship. Yards would probably assign individual numbers to each hull they built, and those would be on file somewhere, but there wouldn't be any need to paint them on the hull -- and more often and prominently than the ships' names, to boot!
2) Registry blocks seem too damn obvious when one looks at the 1700 hull number of the Constitution and the 2000 hull number of the Excelsior. No reason, based on the first three films, why the Reliant's class ship can't be assumed to be 1800, either.
3) Given the assignation of the 1600, 1700, 1800, 2000, and 2100 blocks to Cruisers, where in that scheme is there room for other types of vessels? Simply assigning smaller ships smaller registry batches, or some such, doesn't make much sense, for what happens when enough Scout, Destroyer, and Surveyor classes are created to but up against the Cruisers' low end? Easier to presume different prefices for different vessel types to allow unrestricted room for growth.
Given all those considerations, Matt Jeffries' system, regardless of when he first conceived it, or how far he developed it, fits that era best, just as Okuda's fits his era best. Considering Mike gives us two additional Excelsior-class ships in the 2000 range, as well as one in the 2500s, plus a Constellation-class ship also in the 2500s, NCC-2500 seemed to represent the best place for an abandoning of the type/block registry pattern.
In the end, though, I will only accept the "Court Martial" ships all being Constitutions if Mike goes to Matt, asks him, and is told by Jeffries that he intended them to all be Constitutions (which I currently find about as probable as William Shatner actually being a woman).
With Andy Probert up in San Francisco, Mike here in Los Angeles, and Matt down San Diego way, I hope one day to get them all together with me for a weekend pizza party to hash all this out face-to-face. *chuckle* Wish me luck. If I pull it off, you can bet I'll videotape it. Now if I could only figure out how to get Todd Guenther out here from New England...
--Jonah
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
While phoning through the arrangements for that historic summit, could you also ask who would be the miser most likely to be in possession of the "Operation Retrieve" charts at the moment?(Hopefully, not the garbage guy, except if he's the one frequenting Dilbert...) Okuda claims he doesn't have any idea.
I'm ready to accept that there was a Constitution named Eagle, because that's a fun, fun reference. But this isn't enough for me yet to accept that NCC-956 would be a Constitution class vessel. She could be some later Eagle just as well, perhaps an Oberth or a Miranda (if that's what those smaller silhouettes on the chart were). Or a NCC-1956 typo, not by Okuda but by Starfleet.
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
What if it's a registry re-used in honour of the original Eagle NCC 956. It's just that the Enterprises were the first (and presumably only) to get the suffix.
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
But the entire purpose of a registry is to distinguish between different hulls; if you reuse the exact same registry with the exact same name you negate the entire purpose of the registry. Which is why the Enterprises have the suffixes.
Posted by Griffworks (Member # 1014) on :
Jonah,
Please don't take this the wrong way, but I agree with pretty much everything that "MMoM" said about it being fairly "arrogant" and all that. Plus, while I agree with basic idea of what you're saying about the blocks of numbers making sense for TOS thru TOS Movie era, than it just getting sort of chaotic afterward. However, I don't agree w/the thinking of the "1600" series of Constitution class ships ever having been Constitution class vessels, regardless what Mr. Okuda or Mr. Jein have come up with as a rationale. It just makes no sense!
Why would SF do that?
On the subject of "re-registering" some of those ships, I can understand if they were originally "filling in" numbers by going w/the "1600" series and then "back re-registered" them to fit the FJD system - tho why they'd number them w/lower registries in the first place just doesn't compute to me. However, the supposition given for Eagle being given that registry to "honor" the name in this thread makes no sense to me, either. As "Wraith" said, registry systems are meant to keep track of things. Having two vessels w/the exact same registry makes no sense to me, DS9's Defiant in the last couple episodes, not-with-standing....
While I admire your passion, I just don't think you're doing yourself justice with all this info gathering. You should be building some models, man! Posted by Phoenix (Member # 966) on :
quote:Originally posted by Griffworks: You should be building some models, man!
Build two models, one of the Constitution Class Eagle NCC-1956, and one of the Oberth Class Eagle NCC-956. Then throw them at each other, see which one comes off better, and decide the system that way. Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
Thanks, Griff. I'm not trying to be arrogant. I'm mainly seeking to inform and propose alternatives to dogma. The very fact that a blocked out system in TOS and TMS gives way to the semi-chaotic system in TNG is what I've been getting at. My conclusions are only one possible rationalization, but (and this is the part that may seem arrogant) it's the best way I've seen to handle the observed canon incorporated with the BTS info we've all gathered.
Greg Jein and Ms. Berman have a nice approach, but it has massive holes. FJ/SotSF, et al, have a well-known approach, also with massive holes. FASA expands (badly) on the Jein list, but it has massive holes. Okuda's system works nicely, except for the occasional communications breakdown/budgetary shortfall. I have utterly no problem with his system kicking in around or just before he took over such duties (c.2286 -- or Star Trek IV).
In TOS, the only problematic registry is that of the Constellation. And incidentally, we never saw the Intrepid. It's just assumed she was Constitution-class from the memos, FJ's ship list, etc. I have no problem with her being so.. I also have no problem with a convergence of Jeffries' system, Commodore Stone's gesture, and my conclusions leading me to say the Intrepid was a Miranda (unless the best reconstructionists we have on this board end up deciding that 1831 is in fact 1631, which I don't see...).
I have no problem with abandoning my views if a more logical and consistent approach or conclusion is presented. Seek to disprove my hypotheses through contrary analyses, rather than personal beliefs. Personally, I wanted to believe Starfleet started with one registry system when it was first founded (whenever that ends up being), but the evidence didn't lead me to that conclusion. And I'll warn you now, the "but that's the way things are" or "but Okuda's in charge now, and his system is the one they'll most likely use" arguments don't carry much weight with me. I'm hoping to change Mike's mind, too, one day. I fight dogma as strongly on this subject as I do any other.
--Jonah
P.S. Star Trek Battle-Bots... Now that I would watch.....
Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
Additionally, I have the following in various stages of completion:
1/2500 DS9 (it's close enough for my purposes, includes Defiant) Enterprises Nil through E (not counting NX) "Adversary set" (close enough to this scale)
OTHER SCALES 1 Mann (kitbashed out of two Oberths, plus a lot of work) 1 Intrepid (with separately-displayed Aerowing -- the docking bay's a bitch) 1 Defiant (with markings for a different ship) 1 K'Vort (converted out of the Generations BoP, with mods to increase the scaling) 1 Constitution ("The Cage" version) 1 Enterprise (hi, Mim!) (in drydock, with full interior seen through open shuttlebay doors, and shadowboxed portholes/windows) 1 Excelsior (ditto, minus drydock and open shuttlebay) 1 Centaur (converted from Enterprise-B saucer) 1 Elkins ('cuz I wanna see if I can make it pretty)
This is, of course, not counting all the other non-Trek models I have...
--Jonah
Posted by Griffworks (Member # 1014) on :
Glad you're not taking my comments as an attack. Refreshing, that.
Well, one of the problems I have w/your system is that you assume that all 18xx series registry numbers must all be of the Miranda class. I realize that the basic thinking comes from the Matt Jeffries registry break-down, but it doesn't mean that all starships w/a registry of 17xx must be of the Constitution class, either. I always envisioned it not too different than FJD put forth to us: a class of ship is authorized, a block of numbers conforming to the authorized number is assigned and then those ships are built. After all, they might not end up needing 100 Constitution class starships, right? If we went by your system, then all those additional registry numbers would go "to waste", so to speak. Doesn't seem terribly efficient to me.
But then, I've also disagreed w/the fan classification of the Avenger/Miranda class being categorized as a heavy frigate, too. The internal volume has got to be pretty darned close to that of a refit Enterprise, right? To that thinking, the Avenger/Miranda's should also be listed as a heavy crusier, or at the least a "straight" cruiser.
Just my thinking on the subjects. As is always the case, YMMV.
Pretty kewel list of models, BTW. What do the Elkins and Mann look like? Don't recall hearing of those two before. I'm always interested in original or non-standard designs.
Posted by SoundEffect (Member # 926) on :
Jeff, the USS Elkins is one of the DS9 kitbashes that had a Voyager saucer, F-14 body, Runabout pylons and Reliant nacelles.
Cojoker built one recently and mine is about 1/3 finished at studio scale. It's a weirder design than the 'Medusa'.
Posted by Spike (Member # 322) on :
What if they built 101 Constitutions? NCC-17100? Posted by Griffworks (Member # 1014) on :
quote:Originally posted by SoundEffect: Jeff, the USS Elkins is one of the DS9 kitbashes that had a Voyager saucer, F-14 body, Runabout pylons and Reliant nacelles.
Cojoker built one recently and mine is about 1/3 finished at studio scale. It's a weirder design than the 'Medusa'.
With all due respect to you guys and the original designers, that's one fugly ship! Also another which made little real sense to me.
quote:Originally posted by Spike: What if they built 101 Constitutions? NCC-17100?
Prolly NCC-1799+1 Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
quote:Originally posted by Griffworks: After all, they might not end up needing 100 Constitution class starships, right? If we went by your system, then all those additional registry numbers would go "to waste", so to speak. Doesn't seem terribly efficient to me.
Of course, now that I think about it, this could be the very explanation for ships that have a lower registry number than that of their class ship. Let's say that SF commissions the U.S.S. Baton Rouge as NCC-1600, and they build an additional 30 vessels in the class. The last one to be commissioned would be NCC-1630. Then SF constructs the new design Constitution, numbering the prototype NCC-1700. However, some of the vessels in the run are assigned "left-over" registry numbers from the unused Baton Rouge block. (That's how you get the Intrepid as NCC-1631 and so forth.)
Maybe?
Posted by Griffworks (Member # 1014) on :
Right. I thought I had addressed that above, but it might not have been the clearest of sections, as I have a bad habit of ranting and making people's eyes glaze over when doing such....
Anyhow, I can see that happening, but it's a very sloppy way to do paperwork, IMO. I think it makes more sense than Constitution being 1700 and then Constellation, Intrepid and some of those other odd-balls having been been older vessels and then "refit" or "upgraded" to Connie specs later. After all, they didn't take any of those old WWII era aircraft carriers and "upgrade" them to post-Korean War era spec's, did they...?
Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
I think the Elkins and the Centaur are the most promising, with the Yeager a likely possibility, if I can tinker with the physical bits...
With the Elkins, I'm blending the hulls together better than the distant kitbash had done to it, and giving it twin deflector dishes. Plus, I'm scratchbuilding nacelles of the right size, based on Rick's Voyager concept model.
The Centaur looks good with the Enterprise-B saucer. I kept the Excelsior bridge, but mounted it in place of the sensor dome on top of the Reliant bridge module. I also modified the window layout, superimposing the dorsal port and starboard windows all on one side and mirroring them on the other. I eliminated most of the ventral windows, only keeping a few small ones by the lower sensor dome. I painted the saucer boxes as shuttlebays, not impulse engines -- as I stubbornly insist they are. *heh*
The Yeager is okay on the initial pass. I think it just needs a little... "filling out" bits added to the secondary hull to smooth them out to more normal Starfleet-y standard. I'll use the leading edge of the secondary hull as the deflector array, that's fine. And, of course, I renamed this class Jaeger, in ironic homage to the guy who stole its original name. *chuckle*
--Jonah
P.S. Here's the Mann class. The painting is a rougher version of what I'm building. One of my favorite pastimes is to "clean up" ship designs with good potential, but not necessarily the best execution.
Posted by Warped1701 (Member # 40) on :
quote:Originally posted by Griffworks: After all, they didn't take any of those old WWII era aircraft carriers and "upgrade" them to post-Korean War era spec's, did they...?
Actually the USS Midway was commissioned during the last days of WWII, and she was upgraded in 1955 after Korea was over.
quote:Midway remained with the 7th Fleet until 28 June 1955 when she sailed for overhaul at Puget Sound Naval Shipyard. Here, she was out of commission until 30 September 1957, while she was modernized and such new innovations as an enclosed bow and an angled flight deck were installed.
Got the quote from here Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
WOOT! Bremerton! I take a lot of pride in where I grew up -- with Seattle on one side and Bremerton on the other. *wistful smile* I miss the old homestead...
--Jonah
Posted by Phoenix (Member # 966) on :
quote:Originally posted by Peregrinus: Thanks, Griff. I'm not trying to be arrogant. I'm mainly seeking to inform and propose alternatives to dogma. The very fact that a blocked out system in TOS and TMS gives way to the semi-chaotic system in TNG is what I've been getting at. My conclusions are only one possible rationalization, but (and this is the part that may seem arrogant) it's the best way I've seen to handle the observed canon incorporated with the BTS info we've all gathered.
Greg Jein and Ms. Berman have a nice approach, but it has massive holes. FJ/SotSF, et al, have a well-known approach, also with massive holes. FASA expands (badly) on the Jein list, but it has massive holes. Okuda's system works nicely, except for the occasional communications breakdown/budgetary shortfall. I have utterly no problem with his system kicking in around or just before he took over such duties (c.2286 -- or Star Trek IV).
In TOS, the only problematic registry is that of the Constellation. And incidentally, we never saw the Intrepid. It's just assumed she was Constitution-class from the memos, FJ's ship list, etc. I have no problem with her being so.. I also have no problem with a convergence of Jeffries' system, Commodore Stone's gesture, and my conclusions leading me to say the Intrepid was a Miranda (unless the best reconstructionists we have on this board end up deciding that 1831 is in fact 1631, which I don't see...).
I have no problem with abandoning my views if a more logical and consistent approach or conclusion is presented. Seek to disprove my hypotheses through contrary analyses, rather than personal beliefs. Personally, I wanted to believe Starfleet started with one registry system when it was first founded (whenever that ends up being), but the evidence didn't lead me to that conclusion. And I'll warn you now, the "but that's the way things are" or "but Okuda's in charge now, and his system is the one they'll most likely use" arguments don't carry much weight with me. I'm hoping to change Mike's mind, too, one day. I fight dogma as strongly on this subject as I do any other.
--Jonah
P.S. Star Trek Battle-Bots... Now that I would watch.....
Fantastic - someone with the same approach as me.
One thing I noticed last night:
Everyone assumes that Starfleet assigns registry numbers in blocks of 100 (1600, then 1700, etc). However, for an organisation with not many ships this doesn't make a lot of sense - they are unlikely to build 100 of each class, aren't they? So I looked at the numbers and realised that a system with blocks of 50 works perfectly.
Ships we know are Connies have numbers 956, 1657, 1700, 1701, and 1895. So, perhaps the original Connie-type (doesn't need to be called Constitution Class) was NCC-950, its sucessor (or perhaps built at the same time for a different role) was NCC-1000, then they built some more ships, then at NCC-1650 they launch another type, followed soon after by NCC-1700, and lastly by NCC-1875 (1800 to 1874 being used by Mirandas). The last class doesn't need to be so big as they know the Excelsior is coming soon.
Under this system, Eagle NCC-956 is a first batch Connie, Constellation NCC-1017 a second batch, Potemkin NCC-1657, and 1664, 1672, 1685 and 1697 from CM are 1650 types, Enterprise NCC-1701, and 1703, 1709 and 1718 (also from CM) are Constitution NCC-1700 types, and Endeavour NCC-1895 is part of the NCC-1875 type.
Republic NCC-1371 (part of the NCC-1350 Class) could be a Connie-type, but it could be something else. Intrepid NCC-1831 looks like a Miranda. NCC-1900 seems to be the Soyuz Class (Bozeman NCC-1941).
Posted by Griffworks (Member # 1014) on :
quote:Originally posted by Peregrinus: P.S. Here's the Mann class. The painting is a rougher version of what I'm building. One of my favorite pastimes is to "clean up" ship designs with good potential, but not necessarily the best execution.
Oooh! A Pre-TOS design! I recall seeing that in "Star Trek Chronology". Wish I could find another copy of that book! Loaned it to a friend just before I entered the USAF and lost contact w/him not long after.
quote:Originally posted by Warped1701:
quote:Originally posted by Griffworks: After all, they didn't take any of those old WWII era aircraft carriers and "upgrade" them to post-Korean War era spec's, did they...?
Actually the USS Midway was commissioned during the last days of WWII, and she was upgraded in 1955 after Korea was over.
quote:Midway remained with the 7th Fleet until 28 June 1955 when she sailed for overhaul at Puget Sound Naval Shipyard. Here, she was out of commission until 30 September 1957, while she was modernized and such new innovations as an enclosed bow and an angled flight deck were installed.
Thanks for the correction. I honestly thought that this never happened. I note that this seems to be a "one of" sort of thing, so wonder it if it was just too cost-prohibitive to do a major overhaul/refit like this...?
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
Midway & her sisters modernized with the British deck system along with all the Essex-class fleet carriers in the 50s. The Essex ships went throuch SCB 27A & 27C modifications; the 27As became the Hancock-class & the 27Cs the Oriskany-class. 27A has a 5-to-8-degree angle to the deck, 27C had a 10-degree angle. These mods also include lift repositioning, addition of steam cats, & missile launchers.
In the late 60s/early 70s, the Midways were rebuilt again with a wider flight deck & a repositioned portside lift. Franklin D. Roosevelt was stricken in 1977, & in the mid-80s, Midway & Coral Sea underwent more modernisations as well as SLEPS in the early 90s. Both have since been stricken & either scrapped or sold for scrap (there IS a difference). Interesting to note that due to their smaller sizes, Midway & Coral Sea could not embark a full 90-piece airgroup, using instead a reduced 76-piece wing. Major differences include the fact that Tomcats were not able to be embarked (thus necessitating the usage of Hornets for interceptor duties as well) & a lack of dedicated ASW craft.
Posted by Griffworks (Member # 1014) on :
Oh, sure. Twist the knife of incorrectness further into my back....
Was that a GWII only config w/o ASW aircraft for Midway? I ask 'cause my uncle was some sort of avionics guy on ASW aircraft and did a cruiser on her back in the 70's or 80's. Kind of curious to know if you've got that info, tho am not at all challenging you on that. I sort of figure that w/today's ASW tech in all the USN ships out there it might have made little difference in her deploying w/ASW aircraft. Especially since the Iraqi Navy didn't exactly have much of a sub threat. Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Two friends of mine are going to be attending a prom somewhere in Bremerton. IT IS A SMALL WORLD WITH MANY CONNECTIONS AMONG THE PEOPLE IN IT. Plus, they are college students who are doing it as a "favor" to high school students. Tacky? OH YES.
Posted by Jim NCC1701A (Member # 1021) on :
quote:Originally posted by Peregrinus: ... were it not for the first season episode "Court Martial". For that episode, Jeffries -- in his capacity as Art Director -- created a wall graphic for Commodore Stone's office on Starbase 11. For those who are unable to see this, it is a wall chart listing "STAR SHIP STATUS"... --Jonah
Awfully difficult to tell the 6's and 8's from one another in that chart. Guess that explains how the Intrepid, in my copy of the Star Trek Encyclopedia, ended up being listed as both NCC-1631andNCC-1831 in seperate entries.
Perfect example of why Jeffries
quote:eliminated all the numerals that look unclear on a TV screen, and that left him with '1', '4', '7', and '0'. And with those to work with, '1701' was as good as anything.
Doesn't bode well for my model though - she's NCC-1251
Cheers!
Jim
Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
Wonder what would have transpired if they'd had HDTV back then... *heh*
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
(right click and save as)![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)