posted
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.
-------------------- "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
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!
Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
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.
Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
posted
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.....
-------------------- "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
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
-------------------- "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
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.
Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
posted
What if they built 101 Constitutions? NCC-17100?
-------------------- "Never give up. And never, under any circumstances, no matter what - never face the facts." - Ruth Gordon
Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged
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.
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?
-------------------- The flaws we find most objectionable in others are often those we recognize in ourselves.
Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
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...?
Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
posted
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.
-------------------- "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
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.
posted
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
-------------------- "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
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).
Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
