View Single Post
Old September 20 2012, 01:48 PM   #68
Timo
Admiral
 
Re: USS Copernicus, NCC-640 or 623?

Fair enough if you stop treating me like a cadet.
...When you are in fact an Ensign.

It's a question of deduction:
a) The USS Constellation NCC-1017 is a cruiser of the 16th (Constitution Class) or 17th design (Enterprise Class). Conclusion: The NCC registry scheme doesn't make sense
Or, rather, doesn't work the way Jeffries once thought it might. But it's quite sensible for a vessel of a certain design to sport a registry number lower than that of a vessel of a design that is not older than the first design. "Not older" is the only requirement there for giving the system easily graspable logic.

b) The USS Constellation NCC-1017 is a cruiser of the 10th design. Conclusion: Thanks to an incredible amount of interior and exterior modifications it looks almost exactly like Kirk's television Enterprise
Or then the 10th and 17th design are identical to start with. Happens a lot in the real world, both with designs separated by some time (if there are no major breakthroughs or other developments in technology during that time) and when numerous designs are created in a short span of time.

c) Matt Decker's Constellation had been renamed and renumbered honoring the achievements of a previous one to send a strong pyschological message to Federation opponents that are familiar with the success of the original ship.
There is no known historical or pseudohistorical precedent for the practice of reusing a registry number for "honoring", though. Registry numbers are supposed to identify, which calls for uniqueness and precludes repetition.

The freezing of a player's number in a sports team is a somewhat different issue, basically the exact opposite of "honoring by copying". Which already might tell us something about the nature of honoring.

So I fail to see, why the same idea shouldn't apply to an earlier Federation vessel.
The thing is, it doesn't seem to apply to the Constellation. Her registry number lacks the established repeat indicator, the suffix letter. And if the "heritage" of Kirk's ship reached the letter D by the 2360s yet that of the Yamato was already at the letter E, then the system of letters for repeat indicators would appear to predate Kirk.

I mentioned Valiant because the two ships in the 24th Century clearly reveal that this concept doesn't apply here or anymore.
Why should two ships of the same name bear the same registry a priori? If registry repeating is a way of honoring a celebrated ship, then you'd have to demonstrate that a random ship (in this case, a Valiant) would be celebrated before you could argue that another ship by that name but by different registry serves as evidence one way or another. As far as we know, there was nothing celebrated about any of the Valiants, Hoods, Intrepids or Grissoms that have had their name reused later on.

Timo Saloniemi
Timo is online now   Reply With Quote