posted
Jonah: With all due respect, I don't think it's necessary to complicate things so much, or contradict what we see onscreen.
I think there is only one problem with the way we accept things -- we assume, for example, that every ship that is visually identical (or mostly identical, leaving out the rollbar-issues) to the U.S.S. Miranda is automatically Miranda-class.
According to the accepted theory, the TOS Enterprise and the visually identical ships must be Constitution-class, and they must have registries of 1700+. This means Star Trek VI's listing of Eagle 956 etc is wrong, and the registry of the Constellation is wrong. At the very least, it seems the registries are not chronological in this century.
However, this theory is too simplistic, and not derived from the canon. It forgets that the Bozeman, which we would've normally identified as Miranda class is actually Soyuz-class! That's one hint of the better theory.
The other hint is the generalization starship-class, espoused by Daystrom and the dedication plaque. It ties in nicely with the registries; if there were many other classes visually identical to the Enterprise, then Constitution-class as a name does not mean much and can be discarded, especially if the visually identical starship classes are omnipresent during this time period. Later on, the ships would look different, so class names would matter more.
Hence, there is no need to discard Jein's registry scheme, although it's certainly questionable. It's also unnecessary to assume that just because the range spans 900-1800 that so many ships were actually built. One class could span the range 1700-1704; another 1013-1018, etc. I'm modifying Jefferies' scheme, but it's necessary if it is to fit the canon.
[ March 21, 2002, 23:03: Message edited by: Boris ]
Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
TSN, thanks. I had remembered it as United "Spaceship" Republic...
And I had forgotten the Kongo was one of the ones Mike actually used in a screen display...
As for the larger issue, Boris... Either we have to make Matt's scheme contort to fit Mike's, or the reverse, or say that they are in fact two separate things -- which they are -- and revise opinions accordingly. There's a lot more I've hammered out on this over the years, but I don't want to post an essay.
--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
While we're waiting for that particular battle against a ferocious canful of worms... Anybody out there with "Doomsday Machine" on tape? Is the Constellation identified as a Constitution class starship there?
Naturally, the word "Constitution" is not uttered, or it would already have been mentioned in the many debates about whether the class of Kirk's ship was canonically established. But does the dialogue specify the Constellation as being "a ship of the Enterprise's class" or something?
The exterior of the 1017 is roughly similar to that of the 1701, of course, and later shows and movies tend to bunch all roughly similar ships up into a single class. But I'd still like to know if it's theoretically possible the 1017 was of a different class, or if the dialogue forbids this.
posted
So there are 100 ships of each class? 100 ships of the 1600 class and hundred ships of the 1700 class?
This makes no sense. To me its fair and simple, the Oberth class is either a new ship with an never used reg. or a refitted ship that proved extremely successful.
The Consitution class is according to some sources could be the first of 3-4 sub-classes that identically to her. Then outside of these sub classes are the older ships that were upgraded selectively.
-------------------- Matrix If you say so If you want so Then do so
Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
No, simply that starfleet starts numbering the 17th class of cruisers/starships (whichever was intended to be represented by NCC) at 1700 and then counted upwards until it stopped making those ships. If only 35 Constitutions were made then the numbers would stop at NCC-1734 and NCC-1735 to NCC-1799 would never be assigned to any ship.
-------------------- "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
Also, strictly canonically, a new class need not start at xx00. It could just as well run from 1754 to 1758.
In "The Doomsday Machine", they pick up a message from the Constellation but cannot locate it yet. They proceed to the system where they pick up a ship's distress beacon on the sensors. According to Spock's blue eyepiece sensor, the emitting ship is "by configuration a starship." Then they get a visual, confirming the suspicion that it was the Constellation.
The blue sensor couldn't reveal that it was the Constellation. It probably did reveal that the ship is visually identical to the Enterprise. If Spock couldn't come up with a more accurate name than "starship", either it isn't necessarily Constitution-class or the Constitution-class is the only starship at the time. The former sounds more likely.
On the other hand, it is possible that Spock's sensor was so rough that it only determined a really vague outline. However, given that they had a visual only a few seconds after the line, this seems unlikely.
Boris
[ March 22, 2002, 09:06: Message edited by: Boris ]
Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Boris: Also, strictly canonically, a new class need not start at xx00. It could just as well run from 1754 to 1758.
We're not talking about the TNG stuff, or even the movies, just the original scheme of Matt Jeffries. Now show me a canonical instance of a TOS class that didn't start off with a ship registry xx00 ?
Jonah is suggesting that Starfleet changed away from this scheme to a more linear scheme at some point. Just as Trek changed from Matt Jeffries' scheme to Mike Okuda's scheme.
quote:The blue sensor couldn't reveal that it was the Constellation. It probably did reveal that the ship is visually identical to the Enterprise.
But the Constellation is NOT visually identical to the Enterprise. They used an inaccurate model kit with several noticable differences. So it's much harder to decide whether the Constellation was a Constitution with yard differences or a member of another class within the starship type.
-------------------- "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
I understand Jonah's theory of changes in registry systems; however, I'm suggesting a simpler, unified theory of registries and classes, where the only difference between TOS and later periods is that during the time of TOS, the individual starship classes were essentially identical to the Enterprise, to the point that they could all be lumped together into the term "starship-class." This could've been true in the time of the Daedalus as well, with the starship classes being visually identical to the Daedalus class.
There is no need to suggest that the registries were jumpy during this time period -- how do we know that the gaps between the Eagle, Republic, and the Constitution weren't filled by non-starships? This might contradict the NCC-Fxxx and so on scheme from TAS, though, even though there is no need to suggest that NCC-xxxx refers to only starships.
Sure, the Constitution and the Excelsior both end in xx00; so yes, the TOS era could've been slightly less linear than the TNG era. On the other hand, are there really at least 71 ships of the 13th class (Republic 1371)? Given what we know of the TNG era, it seems reasonable to suppose that not all of the classes started at xx00.
And I know the Constellation is somewhat different -- however, we don't know if it is these differences that constitute another class. After all, the Enterprise herself was often represented by different models in the same time period due to reused stock footage.
[ March 22, 2002, 10:24: Message edited by: Boris ]
Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
Why must it start at xx00? It makes no sense, seeing that we have many other ships that don't follow that guideline. Because if we believe that there are many sub-classes of the Constitution (actually it would the Connie that would be a sub-class) that reach all the way down to the 1000's, then that COULD explain the reason why al that we saw was the Connies and no other smaller or even larger ships than the Enterprise herself.
However, seeing that the Oberth class is the 600's, then that means in the 23rd century, ships were not built linear, even less than the 24th century ships.
However I would like to believe that there roughly 30 ships of the Connie class with 2 sub-classes and some older ships were upgraded at some point either to test if they seriously could upgrade them to Connie standards as well.
The Oberth could be either a slot of numbers that were never used for some reason and they decided to use that or the Oberths are actually TOS or older ships upgraded in the 2270's.
Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged
capped
I WAS IN THE FUTURE, IT WAS TOO LATE TO RSVP
Member # 709
posted
*sigh* were talking strictly TOS pre-production, not the Oberth or the movies.. it isnt canon anymore because of the movies, and we know this has never been adhered to for even a minute, but Matt Jefferies' notes state that he thought that NCC would be reserved for cruisers/starships/whatever.
he thought the design of Enterprise (not yet but eventually called the 'Constitution-class' was the 17th starship/cruiser class made by Starfleet.
he thought the Enterprise was the second ship built to that specification, with the class ship being the first (the 00)
so NCC + 17 + 01 is how he arrived at NCC-1701, and that leaves Constitution as NCC + 17 + 00, NCC-1700.
They would sequentially number them, and then move on as soon as an 18th class or cruiser/starship was built. So if there were 12 of them, the number NCC-1713 would NEVER be used
We know that this went out the window as soon as the Constellation was built, or perhaps even as early as the creation of the wall chart in Court-Martial. But that was what he wrote went into him making that number.
-------------------- "Are you worried that your thoughts are not quite.. clear?"
Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
Yes, I know. But the discussion didn't seem to be strictly behind-the-scenes; Jonah was trying to actually apply it to the Star Trek world in one way, which is where I tried to suggest another way. Or was there a sign saying, "Don't touch -- any theories must assume the existence of Jefferies' system"
[ March 25, 2002, 14:55: Message edited by: Boris ]
Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
Leaving NX-01 out of the equation for the moment, I don't find it all that hard to simply use the old "hull number" explanation for NCC #s. The Federation in Kirk's day was only about 105 years old (2161-mid 2260's), and was supposed to be largely unexplored. Starfleet was stretched fairly thin in those days (the "Enterprise is the only ship in the quadrant[sector]" phenominon). How often did we really see a large number of Starfleet vessels in any one place w/o a specific purpose?
Now move forward approx 100 years (2360s). The Federation has grown considerably (triple or more the volume it was 100 years ago) People (of all species) have swarmed out into space, building new worlds everywhere. Starfleet has had to grow to accomodate the increased demands on it's resources. Starships become almost ubiquitous (ie, there are usually several operating in [relatively] close proximity). How often in TNG-beyond did we see sizeable task forces assembled in VERY short periods of time?
So I, for one, DON'T see why we need to overcomplicate things with arcane formulae trying to figure out the system. And, no, I'm NOT implying that Starfleet in the late 24th century has over 74000 ships...one has to allow for attrition, and the relatively shorter lifespans of early ships.
Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
OK maybe we can stick to the Jeffries system for TOS. Maybe the Constitutions that had 13**'s etc might have had an ORIGINAL 17** like the E-D originally was 7****? But for some reason those ships were given earlier numbers - maybe another 'homage' - they just hadn't done suffixes yet.
OR They are earlier versions before the 17**'s
OR They used unused registries?
I think the last ship to possibly use this system might have been the NX-2000 Excelsior... (for such a 'new tech' ship - building must have begun during TOS - or at least PLANNING/Testing). Cause we get the 2010 - Jenol*n pretty soon after - maybe the Excelsior too so long they wanted to use the 2000's later on. Maybe this 'filling in' only happens once a new class is launched.
OR maybe they kept doing it... it would explain why there was such a large jump from the movies to TNG... the Excelsior would have been started much earlier than TSFS - so maybe by the movies they were up to the 30's... and then there was a boom and by TNG we get up to the 720's (that is 720 types of ship) maybe this isn't working after all ;o)
-------------------- "Bears. Beets. Battlestar Galactica." - Jim Halpert. (The Office)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
