"What I do find objectionable is that those ships use registries from the "Court Martial" wall chart. If we are supposed to believe that the ships on that chart are all "heavy cruisers" or "star ships" or whatever of the various canon identities we assign to the sort of ship Kirk flies, the Trek universe is so much diminished. Not to mention Starfleet is screwed when all its leading ships are undergoing repairs at SB11 simultaneously!"
Of course the starship status display does not
show all the starships of Starfleet, who is claiming such nonsense!?
The very same episode itself states that USS Republic
(NCC-1371) is a "Star Ship" (same as the creators in their official name list) and it is equally missing from the display as is USS Constellation
Neither does it show all the starships currently harbored at Starbase 11. For Kirk's court martial Starfleet "officers" have to be brought to Starbase 11: The Starfleet representative and at least one more starship captain. The only Starship captains at Starbase 11 are obviously Captain Kirk and the captain of the Intrepid
According to the "Drunken Scotsman" nomenclature in TNG's "Relics" ("I served on a freighter, a cruiser and a starship") to classify as a starship such a ship has to be at least a "heavy cruiser".
I think the only explanation for the starship status display is a list that shows all of Starfleet's starships of the 16th, 17th and 18th design that still require hardware upgrades which are not yet "complete" (bar graph). Alternate interpretations are welcome.
The beauty of this positive Retcon Maneuver:
1) Jefferies Rule has been reconstituted
"That would be a massive downside, as it would mean the vast majority of the registries seen elsewhere in Star Trek would have to be changed as well, to correspond to this doubly fictional rule. None of them ever intentionally did, so all existing compliance would be by sheer chance.
No, none of the 23rd registries would have to be changed, except for NX-2000 that actually should be NX-2001 (but isn't USS Discovery...
The only registry number that has to go is NCC-1700 because it's actually 17th design serial n° 00 and therefore a ship beeing built during the the time of "Court-Martial".
I strongly recommend reading Greg Jein's original "The Case of Jonathan Doe Starship" treatise: http://www.trekplace.com/article10.html
He concluded from the Mark IX/01 designation of a ship's primary phaser of a starship of the Constitution Class that the "Mark IX/01
" was refering to USS Enterprise!
But in the subsequent discussion (at the bottom) he suggested himself that a short bar of the starship status display indicated a starship being constructed - which exactly is the case with "NCC 17 00" in this starship status display!!!
Matt Jefferies production sketch (Enterprise
is 17th cruiser design and "first bird, first in the series") would have helped Greg Jein to conclude that USS Constitution
would be NCC-1601 (especially given his intention to make prefixes beginning with 16 relatives of the Enterprise
The problem with Franz Joseph is, that he simply copied Greg Jein's findings (Mark IX
class) but discarded what he didn't like and the NCC-1700 for the Constitution
Since the producers intention had been that there are 12 starships "like" the Enterprise
I believe these were all meant to have prefixes starting with 17.
But since already the starship status display revealed an "NCC-1718" the inevitable conclusion could be that the first ship or ships of the latest cruiser design are also cycle leaders which include a bulk of other ships including cargo drones, freighters, personnel carriers etc.
If USS Soyuz
were NCC-1901 (cruiser / cycle leader) there's no problem with the USS Constellation
NCC-1947 as it's not a cruiser design but just another class of ships being built during this cycle.