posted
I'm glad you like it, Harry. I've always been a long-distance fan of your work.
They didn't build 100 of them. The way I view Trek registry numbers is simple, but I don't know if anyone else looks at them this way. Maybe you can offer some insight.
I see SF reserving registries in blocks of 100 for each class. Now, as time passes, things change and for whatever reason, very often the full block doesn't get used (re: ships don't get built). Then, SF may come back at that point and pick up those number in special situations (i.e. another class may exceed its run and be in want of registries)
Thoughts?
-------------------- This is just fun...it's not life...keep this in mind and we'll all enjoy it much more
Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
posted
The way I see it (for up to about the 2320s), and this follows established practice in the Star Trek Technical Manual and the Ships of the Star Fleet universe, blocks of registries are assigned to classes early in planning. The blocks themselves are not necessarily given out in order, so the 500 block assigned to Saladin does not imply the class is older than, say, the NCC-1000 Horizon class. There is however, a tendency of ships of a similar type and era to be in the same range. Therefore, the blocks around NCC-600 are assigned to scouts and surveyors, and the 1600 to 1800 range are mostly heavy cruisers. This is only a vague rule of thumb, though.
Gaps occur in the system when ships or cancelled, or SF decided to start a ship class on nice, round numbers.
Some classes, like the Soyuz and the Constellation, fill up these gaps. Possibly because they are planned on a per-ship basis, or to disguise their true numbers (Soyuz and Constellation both seem to be fit for 'clandestine' surveillance operations).
Starting in the late 23rd/early 24th century, registry numbers are sequentially assigned to construction facilities, instead of ship classes. This allows for TNG's roughly chronological but non-sequential numbering.
The early Federation might've had a more sequantial system, though, and I like to keep very early ships (like Marshall and Deadalus) in the low numbers.
If I were to put an early surveyor in my NCC list, as I have it here, I'd put 25 of them at NCC-560 to NCC-584. Neatly before the Hermes-class of scouts of a few decades later
posted
One thing I ponder, was that the 1701, 1701-A, 1701-B... and so on, and why we only ever see the Enterprise get to carry on its registry number on to the next vessel. I don't think we've ever seen another ship with a letter after the number, and with other like the Defiant, which we know there were three, they all had different registry numbers. I know with the Defiant perhaps since the second vessel (that we know of) to bear the name was a NX, it had to be changed.
Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
posted
My theory is that they are all sequential. We have gaps because a ship was assigned a number, but was then cancelled later on freeing up the number. We have very high numbers up to 75xxx because the numbering scheme not only include NX and NCC, but also NAR, NFT and other Federation registries. Also as new worlds are brought into the Federation, their fleets are absorbed and given Federation and Starfleet registries. As for the Enterprises they are also givin numbers in the regular number scheme, so that 1701-A is officially in the record books as maybe NCC-2236 or something. And so maybe 1701-D was NCC-71821 or something. And 1701-E was perhaps NCC-74483. With Defiant (ex-Sao Paulo NCC-75633) her number would have needed to be changed to perhaps 75698 or something.
-------------------- Is it Friday yet?
Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
VFX notwithstanding, I don't see any reason why the renamed Sao Paulo wouldn't have kept its number, just changed the name. Plenty of precendence for that in the real world.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
