Ships In "The Measure of a Man"

[throwback]

I think that Okuda didn't keep a record of starships, where he had a listing of name, class, and registry for each ship. I think the Encyclopedia became this record. Even that official record is populated by mistakes, for example, a number of starships had two registries - Grissom, Intrepid, Mekong, Saratoga, and Zhukov.

The Yamato is an interesting case for me. I think that Okuda remembered the name, but not its class, so now we have this situation where one starship has four registries.

[Timo]

But the question is, what's more official? A chart made with what seems to be just preliminary information that would change later, and was not meant to be seen up close, or an official publication like the Encyclopedia, made by the same guy who made the chart, with information that he clearly wanted to have supercede this chart?

That's pretty clear-cut if one just thinks of the fictional Star Trek universe in terms of what we actually see. Intent counts for nothing if it's offscreen; on the other hand, onscreen often starts out as accidental and becomes intentional only in retrospect, when it's quoted in later onscreen material.

There is no Encyclopedia in Star Trek, even if there is Star Trek in the Encyclopedia.

However, that would then mean that these are the class ships of the Apollo and Hokule'a class, which have much higher registries than the respective ships of their class.

We know of no other Hokule'a class vessels; the Tripoli, with an Okudagram-provided low registry from "Unification", has no canonical class identity AFAIK. As far as we can tell, there's no pressing reason for the Hokule'a to be a class ship, or a Hokule'a class to exist - but if the class does exist and has this class vessel, there are no contradictions in that case, either.

As for Apollo class vessels, the T'Pau has no canon class identity and in any case does not have a NCC registry. The Ajax has no class identity, making her low registry irrelevant to the argument. The same goes for the Clement, whose registry appears to be noncanonical as well.

Are you referring to that mentioned-but-not-seen Excelsior class Lexington from TNG?

No, I mean that if we are to say that the Nebula class Lexington was built as a replacement to the low-registried Lexington from the list, in the mid-2360s, then in light of the Endeavour precedent the new Lexington really should have a 71000 range registry.

But then I go on to say that for all we know, she does. The 61000 range registry for the new Lexington is noncanon, as we never see any registry on the hull of the Nebula class Lexington. So we can pretend that NCC-30405 was, say, a Niagara, whereas her Nebula class replacement as seen in DS9 "really" has a registry such as NCC-71447.

The problem with that is that Sisko's Saratoga has it's number on the hull. We therefore can't reconcile it being the same ship.

Indeed, this is a rare case where hull labeling does create problems.

Wasn't the registry of the Excalibur printed on its saucer?

If so, it was never seen. All the shots that might even in theory have showed the registry were stock footage from "Yesterday's Enterprise", and all the new shots were from the rear. So, the Okudagram registry can freely take precedence in that respect. The only question remaining is, which Okudagram? Tachyon grid or "Measure of a Man"?

The Yamato is an interesting case for me. I think that Okuda remembered the name, but not its class, so now we have this situation where one starship has four registries.

And if we accept a particular one out of the four, we're automatically closing the door for any rationalizations of the rest: if the explicit dialogue reference to NCC-1305-E is the real deal, then any ships preceding this vessel should have registries in the NCC-1305-Letter format. And probably also any ships succeeding this vessel.

If we dismiss that particular one, then we can pretend that there were multiple different ships. But we still meet a Galaxy class vessel before we get to read a chart with a 20000-range registry, after which we meet a Galaxy class vessel again. It's a bit unlikely that the modern ship Riker claimed was NCC-1305-E was really NCC-24383...

OTOH, the discrepancy between the number seen in the Okudagrams of "Contagion" and the number painted on the saucer in the same episode is trivially explained. Not only is the hull number too blurry to really warrant establishing, but the computer readouts may have been corrupted by the software weapon.

Timo Saloniemi

[throwback]

As for Apollo class vessels, the T'Pau has no canon class identity and in any case does not have a NCC registry. The Ajax has no class identity, making her low registry irrelevant to the argument. The same goes for the Clement, whose registry appears to be noncanonical as well.

In the episode “Brothers”, there is a Starship Mission Status chart. The chart identified the class of the Ajax as Apollo-class. The registry for the Clement was seen on a causality report seen in the episode “In the Pale Moonlight”.

[Timo]

So, essentially, the Ajax is both Apollo class and with a lower registry than USS Apollo? Too bad, that's another contradiction, then.

Assuming, that is, that this chart did give the registry of the ship. Where to look for the chart?

Timo Saloniemi

[Spike730]

throwback is correct. And while the display wasn't legible onscreen, pictures of the display from various auctions exist. Not sure what Timo's opinion on "behind the scenes"-stuff is. http://startrekpropcollector.com/tre...7bddf25844f7ea

But it's really no big deal. Just thought of another precedent: USS Defiant NCC-75633

I dug up an old ship list of mine. It's about 5 years old, so not quite up to date (doesn't include recent findings like the Conspiracy ships for example). I did, however, glance over it quickly and marked some entries with an "x", indicating that proof has been turned up in the last five yeras. Unverified information is in bold. Feel free to dissect.

http://ge.tt/9osnZTT/v/0

[Timo]

Not sure what Timo's opinion on "behind the scenes"-stuff is.

Mainly that 99% of the time, we desperately want blurry text to be something else than it actually is, as it in general consists of nonsense strings of numbers...

Timo Saloniemi

[throwback]

There are times, Timo, when I feel the same way. I felt this way for the first time when i noticed a sizable number of inconsistencies for the ships in "Conspiracy".

[Timo]

...But the fact that you noticed them separates this from the case of the "Brothers" display where nobody can notice anything. Not without backstage information, which we can dismiss.

Timo Saloniemi

[Spike730]

Timo wrote:

---

Indeed, this is a rare case where hull labeling does create problems.

Maybe NCC-31911 was commissioned as USS Poughkeepsie and renamed USS Saratoga after NCC-31640 was destroyed.

[throwback]

I don't see a problem with a NCC-31911 being commissioned in the 2360s. We have a lack of information on when ships are commissioned, and whether the numbering is sequential or random. I don't dismiss what I don't find inconvenient as easily as you do, Timo.

When I was a member of Memory Alpha, Jorg found himself unable to write an article for Starbase Trailer Twenty-Nine. I took the task upon myself. I view the information on face value. I don't like the inconsistencies, and I wish that Michael Okuda was more careful in his work. However, what has been done can't be undone.

I am adaptable to what the TPTB consider canon. Though I am reluctant to include information from comics and novels in my ship list, I have learned that the TPTB on the new Star Trek recognize the comics as canon. I am adding these ships to the list. I suppose if I am able to understand and enjoy the next film, I will need to bone up on what has been published and what will be published. (I personally hate this synergy between the films and the comics. It began to have greater import with video game franchises, ex. Halo, and has spread to film franchises. Ugh. I have learned that much that is important from a story has been imported to these sources, and, if you haven't read these sources, that you are missing out on details.)

[Unicron]

I rather like Jackill's concept that Sisko's Saratoga was the same ship originally seen in TVH, modified to serve as the leader of a new series of frigates. Hence the modifications to the hull and the new registry, though it still doesn't explain why it's such an odd registry for a class leader.

[Captain_Amasov]

I'm assuming that ship names and registries are designated in advance before the ships are built? If we take it that the Nebula-class Lexington began construction, and was completed, well before the Nebula-class Endeavour but the old U.S.S. Lexington NCC-30405 wasn't scheduled to be decommissioned until some time after her Nebula counterpart was completed, would that make sense of the disparity?

[Timo]

I don't see any reason why Starfleet would want to wait for a A class ship ship named X to be decommissioned before launching a ship of B class, regardless of whether this is named X or Y. Starfleet is not in the business of launching names. It launches ships. If Starfleet needs a ship of B class, it certainly won't stop to wait until some other ship liberates a name for use.

If a Nebula class ship was ordered under a 61000 range registry, it is possible she would only be launched after quite a few 71000 range ships left the slipways. The delay in launching her could be due to all sorts of factors - but waiting for a name to get liberated would not be among those.

I don't dismiss what I don't find inconvenient as easily as you do, Timo.

Well, it's more a case of me automatically dismissing everything until it can prove to me it comes with a canon pedigree.

Timo Saloniemi

[Dukhat]

Timo wrote:

---

That's pretty clear-cut if one just thinks of the fictional Star Trek universe in terms of what we actually see. Intent counts for nothing if it's offscreen; on the other hand, onscreen often starts out as accidental and becomes intentional only in retrospect, when it's quoted in later onscreen material.

There is no Encyclopedia in Star Trek, even if there is Star Trek in the Encyclopedia.

While I agree with you in a strictly canon sense, I personally don't like to discount the hard work Mike Okuda and Doug Drexler did on the Encyclopedia, Chronology, et. al, and just sweep it under the rug. That's why I have two separate ship lists, one for both canon and "official" ships, and one that's just strictly canon, based ONLY on what we see on screen (including these obscure wall displays, as they were on screen, albeit in an almost impossible to read fashion).

Also, while it's true that the Encyclopedia does contain several mistakes, I'm sure Mike would be the first person to admit that, and try to fix them accordingly. Unfortunately any future editions of the book seem very unlikely.

We know of no other Hokule'a class vessels; the Tripoli, with an Okudagram-provided low registry from "Unification", has no canonical class identity AFAIK. As far as we can tell, there's no pressing reason for the Hokule'a to be a class ship, or a Hokule'a class to exist - but if the class does exist and has this class vessel, there are no contradictions in that case, either.

Again, I'm going under the assumption that the Tripoli is in fact a Hokule'a class ship. Of course, when this MoaM chart was made, there was no concept yet of conjectural class ships, so Okuda probably just took some names from this chart that he liked, and later used them as class names in the Encyclopedia, while forgetting the actual registries of said ships on the original chart.

No, I mean that if we are to say that the Nebula class Lexington was built as a replacement to the low-registried Lexington from the list, in the mid-2360s, then in light of the Endeavour precedent the new Lexington really should have a 71000 range registry.

Not necessarily. There is proof that at least some vessels with registries of 6XXXX and even 5XXXX were being produced along with ships of 7XXXX registries around the 2360's and '70's.

If so, it was never seen. All the shots that might even in theory have showed the registry were stock footage from "Yesterday's Enterprise", and all the new shots were from the rear. So, the Okudagram registry can freely take precedence in that respect. The only question remaining is, which Okudagram? Tachyon grid or "Measure of a Man"?

Presumably the tachyon grid, as the registry on that diagram matches the registry on the model in the same episode.

...if the explicit dialogue reference to NCC-1305-E is the real deal, then any ships preceding this vessel should have registries in the NCC-1305-Letter format. And probably also any ships succeeding this vessel.

Which is probably one of the reasons why it was changed.

If we dismiss that particular one, then we can pretend that there were multiple different ships. But we still meet a Galaxy class vessel before we get to read a chart with a 20000-range registry, after which we meet a Galaxy class vessel again. It's a bit unlikely that the modern ship Riker claimed was NCC-1305-E was really NCC-24383...

The only explanation that rationally works is that another, older vessel called the Yamato was in service at the same time Varley's ship was. Perhaps the Galaxy Yamato was so newly commissioned that the older ship hadn't been decommissioned yet, and was on its last mission.

throwback wrote:

---

I don't see a problem with a NCC-31911 being commissioned in the 2360s.

If registries are completely random, then no, there's not a problem. The problem comes with the design. I just don't think that Starfleet would still be building brand-new Miranda class ships in the 2360's.