posted
I think those ships on the wall in that episode (forgot the name, and don't feel like opening another window to get the post that mentioned it, besides it would take longet to actually type this then do it anyway) could be ships similar to the Enterprise herself. For the ones that have 1600's are ships that preceeded the Enterprise. The 1800's are the Miranda TOS style ships. The 1600's I think because it seems only Enterprise type ships are considered starships, that they should have a similar configuration.
But one must wonder that all the ships in the TNG era are starships? Also why have only a one type of ship as the main Starfleet force. Is it really that small?
-------------------- Matrix If you say so If you want so Then do so
Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
I'm working on this problem as we speak... So far, what I've come up with is that Starfleet -- contrary to what we see in "Enterprise" -- took a little while to pick up on the momentum.
There were only a few shipyards in the Federation capable of building the bigger ships at the beginning. It took over fifty years to gear everything up to the degree that ships like the Constitution, and later Excelsior, could be constructed.
I view the growth of Starfleet to be somewhere between logarithmic and geometric. And around the turn of the 24th century, or a bit before at most, forced the Federation to re-examine how they tracked their ships. All ships were now of a high enough technological level that they all fit the criteria for the Starship classification. 'NCC' now became the blanket registry prefix for all of Starfleet, with those older ships of other classifications of that weren't retired assigned the little-represented block of the registries between ~3000 to 10000.
And from that point on, registries were assigned as the hulls were ordered, regarless of class. Occasional groupings or even sequential blocks were accidental artifacts.
This theory probably still needs refinement, but it at least would resolve the dichotomy between what Matt Jeffries put onscreen and what Mike Okuda would construct later...
--Jonah
-------------------- "That's what I like about these high school girls, I keep getting older, they stay the same age."
--David "Woody" Wooderson, Dazed and Confused
Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
The reorganisation of starship classifications and NCC numbers would be like the tri-service designation scheme the US did for its military aircraft (in the late 60s I think).
[ March 19, 2002, 10:59: Message edited by: Wraith ]
-------------------- "I am an almost extinct breed, an old-fashioned gentleman, which means I can be a cast-iron son-of-a-bitch when it suits me." --Jubal Harshaw
Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
I agree with Jonah. Even if one considers Matt Jeffries ideas (NDD, NFF or whatever they would have been) to have been fatally ruined by later works this sort of reorganising explains why the TAS/FASA/Fandom style NCC-G, NCC-F, etc. registries disappear.
-------------------- "My theories appal you, my heresies outrage you, I never answer letters and you don't like my tie." - The Doctor
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
if Jefferes used NFF then we would have used that instead of NCC and we would have argued over that as well.
Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged
capped
I WAS IN THE FUTURE, IT WAS TOO LATE TO RSVP
Member # 709
posted
Matrix, i believe what was meant that Jeffereis considered Constitutions (or possibly all 'starships', since its unclear whether that meant a class or a classification) to have NCCs and then possibly other types of vessels would have NFF, NDD, or some combination of letter registries. (Kinda like we expect Earth Starfleet to do.. NX class has NX regs, maybe there is a ND reg or NY, etc etc)
Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
I think that they're implying that Jeffries was planning to use a registry system similar to that of the United States Navy today.
NCC = cruiser-type starships (ships of the line) NFF = frigate-type ships (defense cruisers?) NDD = destroyer-type ships (patrol cruisers?)
And so on...
-------------------- “Those people who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do.” — Isaac Asimov Star Trek Minutiae | Memory Alpha
Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
Well maybe those connies that FUCK things up were REFITS of earlier ships and they retained their 13**/16** registries? Maybe there isn't a GREAT difference between the last 5 'classes' 13-->18 Essentially "Starship/Constitution" classes. Maybe there was only 12 of the 17** series?
-------------------- "Bears. Beets. Battlestar Galactica." - Jim Halpert. (The Office)
1) The 17th class of starships (Constitution-class) is the VERY specific configuration that started with the U.S.S. Constitution. Only the ships with 17xx registries would be considered Constitution-class.
2) Some of the initial sixteen classes and some of the later ones are visually identical to the Constitution-class, but we would be wrong to label them in such a way. The Constellation, NCC-1017 is an example of these.
3) The rest of the initial sixteen classes and those that follow the 17th class are visually different, although they serve the same basic role as the 17th class and its visually identical relatives (i.e. Daedalus-class, Miranda-class, Excelsior-class, Oberth-class etc.)
4) However, only the classes that are visually identical to the Enterprise were around during the time of TOS, leading to a simplification which labeled only those ships as starships. There would be a total of 12 such ships; again, all visually identical to the Enterprise.
5) Ships that are outside this starship category are labeled NCC-Fxxx etc.
I still can't explain the Grissom NCC-638, but maybe it's a refit of the sixth class. Actually, given the similarity of the NX-01 to ships of the movie era, there is hardly a reason for the Oberth to be a brand-new class. It could be a refit, just like the Enterprise.
[ March 21, 2002, 21:44: Message edited by: Boris ]
Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
This stems from a time before I was bibliographing my sources. It was around the same time as I got the Sketchbook, but I know that wasn't it -- the conversations with Jeffries, and the sketches from him, only reinforced and added to the little bits I already had. I will continue to wrack my brains...
As to the rest, the Republic was never indicated to be a Starship, let alone Constitution-class, so that 13xx rego can be left nebulous. As said previously, the Constellation throws a spanner in the works, but that was outside Matt's control. Much like the '1305-E' making it onscreen for the Yamato was for Mike. And any of the 'deconstructive' data points Mike gives us in Star Trek VI and in TNG are automatically suspect, for reasons espoused elsewhere.
There had to have been more than a dozen Constitutions, but still far less, I think, than the hundred-and-fifty or so FJ postulated.
In noodling things out further, though, I'm now tentatively pointing to NCC-2500 in 2285 to be the start of the new registry system. The Repulse has a rego of 2544, and the Hathaway -- said in dialogue to originate from about this time -- has a rego of 2593. I know it's not what Mike intended, but it fits the wider theory I'm promoting. The only regos that would have to be tweaked are a half-dozen or so (at most -- probably only one or two in practice) "borderline" ships from Star Trek VI displays, plus the Bozeman. Despite the 1947 in-joke rego on her upper hull, going with the 1847 rego on her lower hull would make her the Miranda variant we've always suspected her of being.
I know a lot of the stuff I'm proposing grates with accepted notions of the way things are, but I've always had to know why things are the way they are. And in researching this matter, I've determined that the way things currently are is an inaccurate interpretation of the way things originally were. However, with the sheer bulk of support the way things currently are has, the only recourse to mate the two incompatible systems is to do something along the lines I suggested.
The only thing left would be to choose whether or not to swap the Constellation's rego to '1710' in a later "Special Edition" of TOS...
As you can see, this is something I'm rather passionate about. Sorry. I just like fictional universes to be internally consistent, and it bugs me when they're threated as though just because they're not real, it somehow makes them less valid... Verisimilitude is not a dirty word. And I find myself thinking of Gene's old quote more and more these days: "There's intelligent life on the other side of that screen, too..."
--Jonah
[ March 21, 2002, 21:47: Message edited by: Peregrinus ]
-------------------- "That's what I like about these high school girls, I keep getting older, they stay the same age."
--David "Woody" Wooderson, Dazed and Confused
Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
It was around the same time as I got the Sketchbook, but I know that wasn't it -- the conversations with Jeffries, and the sketches from him, only reinforced and added to the little bits I already had. I will continue to wrack my brains...![[Wink]](wink.gif)
The only regos that would have to be tweaked are a half-dozen or so (at most -- probably only one or two in practice) "borderline" ships from Star Trek VI displays, plus the Bozeman. Despite the 1947 in-joke rego on her upper hull, going with the 1847 rego on her lower hull would make her the Miranda variant we've always suspected her of being. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
And I find myself thinking of Gene's old quote more and more these days: "There's intelligent life on the other side of that screen, too..."
Printer-friendly view of this topic
