posted
Actually quite a few registries appeared on screen in ST VI (or at least in the extended video release).
The Ahwahnee NCC-2048, Challenger NCC-2032, Eagle NCC-956, Endeavour NCC-1895, Potemkin NCC-1657, Scovil NCC-1598, and Springfield NCC-1963 are all part of the Operation: Retrieve plan.
The Ahwahnee NCC-2048, Challenger NCC-2032, Constellation NX-1974, Emden NCC-1856, Endeavour NCC-1895, Helin NCC-1692, Kongo NCC-1710, Korolev NCC-2014, Lantree NCC-1831, Oberth NCC-602, Republic NCC-1371, and Whorfin NCC-1024 (and possibly a couple others) are all shown on a mission assignment list on the Enterprise.
I'm not sure which graphic the John Muir NCC-1732 is on but that's in there as well.
There are no classes given on the graphics, so except for the Eagle (shown to be a Constitution) they could be of any class. It's entirely possible that the Endeavour is a Miranda class, named after a Constitution with a 17xx registry. How's that for a new idea? Hmm, I think there's room to play with that idea...
No the Endeavo(u)r never featured in TOS. But it was probably on the list of ships in The Making of Star Trek book which is why both Greg Jein and Franz Joseph included it in their lists of Constiution class ships.
------------------ -->Identity Crisis<--
[This message has been edited by Identity Crisis (edited November 08, 1999).]
[This message has been edited by Identity Crisis (edited November 08, 1999).]
The First One
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed
Member # 35
posted
I like the idea of it being a new Miranda a lot more than I do the idea of ignoring onscreen evidence because it's not convenient for someone's pet registry scheme.
OK, how's this: someone in the production team had a list of ships for some reason. Jein and whatsisface saw this list and each made guesses (educated guesses, but guesses all the same) as to it's registry. Given the way they went about this, it could have gotten any of at least a dozen numbers unassigned from the available range. Either way, it didn't matter. Trek was dead anyway.
However, when the franchise was revived the opportunity arose to canonise the Endeavour, and it duly happened, with one twist: Okuda chose a registry far out of the range of any that had gone before. If he was aware of the previous ones, then he either considered them unimportant enough to ignore (or even forget), or decided to deliberately reject them. Maybe he was unaware of the use of the name before, and chose it purely because it's the name of a famous ship.
I haven't seen anything to disprove the 1895 registry yet. It's the only one seen onscreen, and to dispute it because that number is incompatible with others of that class when you're not even SURE it's one of that class seems absurd.
posted
Well, this is worse then I thought. Now I really have no clue what to write for this. Are you positive it said 1895 on those screens? Are you 100% sure you didn't misread it as 1695?
If it doesn't come up as a misreading, then I'll just decide between either NCC-1865, NCC-1718, or another class, since those seem the most logical.
------------------ "Can you pull in the leviathan with a fishhook or tie down his tongue with a rope? Can you put a cord through his nose or pierce his jaw with a hook? Will he keep begging you for mercy? Will he speak to you with gentle words? Will he make an agreement with you for you to take him as your slave for life? Can you make a pet of him like a bird or put him on a leash for your girls? Will traders barter for him? Will they divide him up among the merchants? Can you fill his hide with harpoons or his head with fishing spears. If you lay a hand on him, you will remember the struggle and never do it again!" -Job 41:1 - Job 41:8
posted
My thoughts- 1. Why was the USS Valiant changed from a Constitution Class starship to an unknown class of starship? The Making of Star Trek makes this starship a Constitution Class starship. For me, that is pretty definitive and I list the USS Valiant as Constitution Class. 2. USS Saratoga's registry. This starship has since the first encyclopedia been given the registry NCC-1867 or NCC-1937. I favor the latter, however I will rent the dvd version of the fourth movie to confirm the registry. The registry might be visible after the ship is crippled. 3. In the fourth movie, when Capt. Kirk and company are heading to the USS Enterprise A, there is a view of a Constitution Class starship. Her nacelle bears no markings. If I understand correctly, starships are built and after completion are given a registry and then a name. If so, then this maybe evidence that this class of starship was still being built in the 2280's.
posted
Registry numbers are assigned while a ship is under construction. The name isn't officially named until she is commissioned (naval tradition, isn't it?)
------------------ "Can you pull in the leviathan with a fishhook or tie down his tongue with a rope? Can you put a cord through his nose or pierce his jaw with a hook? Will he keep begging you for mercy? Will he speak to you with gentle words? Will he make an agreement with you for you to take him as your slave for life? Can you make a pet of him like a bird or put him on a leash for your girls? Will traders barter for him? Will they divide him up among the merchants? Can you fill his hide with harpoons or his head with fishing spears. If you lay a hand on him, you will remember the struggle and never do it again!" -Job 41:1 - Job 41:8
posted
TargetEmployee: The trouble with Valiant being a Constitution class ship is that she was lost in about 2217, nearly 50 years before TOS. Enterprise was supposedly launched around 2245, and if we believe the registry numbers, Constitution was probably launched only a few years earlier. It's possible that there is a Constitution-class Valiant, but I think it's unlikely that the Valiant lost in 2217 was a Constitution-class ship.
I have nothing at all to say about 1895 or 1695.
------------------ When you're in the Sol system, come visit the Starfleet Museum
The First One
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed
Member # 35
posted
I'd have to agree there, there's no way the Valiant can be a Constitution-class starship. But good point about the ship in ST:IV, I really want to believe they were still building them then, but I doubt it. More likely it was undergoing the refit thing.
You see, if there aren't any Constitutions after that batch in the NCC-1700s, then that means no more built after the 2350s! I reckon they'd still be turning them out into the 2370s, hence the NCC-1895.
posted
Well, the Valiant's registry was in the 1200s, and there are Constitutions going back to the 900s, so it could be one, although there's no proof either way.
------------------ Rimmer: "Holly, put a trace on Paranoia." Holly: "What's a trace?" Rimmer: "It's space jargon. It means 'find him'." Holly: "No it doesn't. You just made it up to sound cool." -Red Dwarf: "Confidence & Paranoia"
posted
As for that marking-less nacelle, we never saw the ship in its entirety. Of canon TOS-movie ships, only the Constitutions and the Mirandas have registries in their nacelles, as far as we know - perhaps this nacelle belonged to a Challenger or a Sydney or some ship class that uses the LN-64 but hasn't been seen on-screen yet.
And the Valiant was originally interpreted as a Constitution on the premise that the Enterprise as seen in TOS was an old ship, with perhaps four decades of history behind it. The launch date of 2245 is more or less Okudaic revisionism, and one piece of Trek history where I completely agree with Okuda - but earlier sources suggested a launch in the Okudaic 2220s for the first Constitutions, so with a little reworking of TOS dates, the Valiant would fit.
It would be a tight fit, though. And I do hate the idea that Constitutions are such crappy ships that they disappear on their maiden voyages and Starfleet never thinks this fact worth investigating. "Oh, well, now we all expected that, didn't we? Back to the drawing boards, folks, and this time design something that stays afloat at least until the next budgetary evaluations!"...
If the Valiant was of an earlier, inferior ship type from an era when warp travel was slower and more hazardous, then it would be natural for Starfleet not to investigate until half a century later when better ships were available.
posted
I'm increasingly in favour of my 1895 is another ship theory. In Ships of the Star Fleet NCC-1895 is a Cyane class heavy frigate (that's really just a Miranda variant) the USS Constellation. Since that book was published ST VI came out with NX-1974 in service in that period. So we need a replacement ship in th Cyane list. It's very neat to have the Constitution class Endeavour destroyed at some point between the early 2270s (when she was the class ship of the Endeavour sub-class of Constitutions) and the late 2280s when the Cyanes were launched. And we get to blow another Constitution up! Always fun
Now can we get rid of all the other non low 1700s registries by similar slight of hand?
Obviously not for the Constellation NCC-1017.
Republic NCC-1371 mentioned in both TOS and on the ST VI Okudagram. But only The Making of Star Trek and fan tradition makes her a Constitution: could easily be another class.
Eagle NCC-956. Registry and picture showing a Constitution class both in ST VI.
Defiant NCC-1764, Excalibur NCC-1664, Intrepid NCC-1631/1831, Exeter NCC-1672. Registries were never given to these ships on-screen. Could be anything.
Essex NCC-1697. Name was never even on-screen!
Potemkin NCC-1657. Ship was definitely Constitution class in TOS and the registry was given in ST VI.
The First One
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed
Member # 35
posted
I rather curiously find myself in agreement with our obsessive friend. I don't see anything to justify changing the registry of that Endeavour from 1895. Maybe there was another, earlier one, I have no evidence for it. Since we don't know for sure it's a Constitution, Let the mention of this USS Endeavour, NCC-1895, stand, but keep it as "class unknown." 8)
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Well, I think the original point of this thread is that sixes and eights have been repeatedly confused in registry numbers. This left open the possibility that the Endeavour was actually 1695, which would have fit in better w/ the rest of the ships. However, if we've determined that 1895 was not the result of a 6/8 confusion, the point becomes moot.
------------------ Rimmer: "Holly, put a trace on Paranoia." Holly: "What's a trace?" Rimmer: "It's space jargon. It means 'find him'." Holly: "No it doesn't. You just made it up to sound cool." -Red Dwarf: "Confidence & Paranoia"
posted
Well, I think I've come to a decision. The USS Endeavour NCC-1895 will be listed as "Unknown Class" now, and will be removed from my Constitution Class UP3 write-up. Oh well...
------------------ "Can you pull in the leviathan with a fishhook or tie down his tongue with a rope? Can you put a cord through his nose or pierce his jaw with a hook? Will he keep begging you for mercy? Will he speak to you with gentle words? Will he make an agreement with you for you to take him as your slave for life? Can you make a pet of him like a bird or put him on a leash for your girls? Will traders barter for him? Will they divide him up among the merchants? Can you fill his hide with harpoons or his head with fishing spears. If you lay a hand on him, you will remember the struggle and never do it again!" -Job 41:1 - Job 41:8
posted
Why would a class of ship so successful as the Constitution Class be retired after 40 or 50 years of service? Actually, I can understand the class being retired after 80 or 100 years. Similar classes such as the Miranda and the Excelsior have served Starfleet for such a period of time.
The list in the making of Star Trek was an attempt to answer the question posed by the statement Capt Kirk made in the "Tomorrow is Yesterday" that there are 12 ships like the USS Enterprise. The list lists familiar ships like the USS Constellation and the obscure like the USS Kongo. It is quite specific that the USS Valiant and the USS Farrugut were destroyed and were mentioned in episodes.
Now,there is the issue of revionism. The history as laid out in the TOS has been entirely scrapped. This means I suppose from your view that the Making of Star Trek is an interesting footnote. I don't view the book this way.
Further, G. Roddenberry viewed parts of the fifth and the sixth movie as being non-canonical. This could mean that the TNG, DS9, and Voyager are non-canonical. (The sixth movie, especially, is important to the events in TNG, DS9, and Voyager.) They could be intrepations of what could have happen after Voyage Home.
After watching TOS, I see that the historical events in this episode are different than what is seen in the later episodes.
A brief history, according to the TOS to 2250's there is no Federation 2250's the birth of the Federation following a war. Designed by the people of Axanar. Galactic peace in the galaxy. ("Whom Gods Destroy", "The Mark of Gideon")
posted
Now, wait. IIRC, the classification of the Endeavour as a Constitution is from the encyclopedia, right? There's no evidence to contradict this, which makes it as canonical as anything else in the encyclopedia that hasn't been on screen...
------------------ Rimmer: "Holly, put a trace on Paranoia." Holly: "What's a trace?" Rimmer: "It's space jargon. It means 'find him'." Holly: "No it doesn't. You just made it up to sound cool." -Red Dwarf: "Confidence & Paranoia"
Printer-friendly view of this topic
