RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 140,957
Posts: 5,480,166
Members: 25,057
Currently online: 456
Newest member: Ghost_of_Bubba

TrekToday headlines

USS Enterprise Press-Out And Build Manual
By: T'Bonz on Nov 28

New QMx USS Reliant Model
By: T'Bonz on Nov 28

Star Trek Thirty-Five Years On 35MM: A Retrospective
By: T'Bonz on Nov 28

Trek Shirt And Hoodie
By: T'Bonz on Nov 27

A Klingon Christmas Carol’s Last Season
By: T'Bonz on Nov 27

Attack Wing Wave 10 Expansion Pack
By: T'Bonz on Nov 27

New Star Trek Funko Pop! Vinyl Figures
By: T'Bonz on Nov 26

QMx Mini Phaser Ornament
By: T'Bonz on Nov 26

Stewart as Neo-Nazi Skinhead
By: T'Bonz on Nov 26

Klingon Bloodwine To Debut
By: T'Bonz on Nov 25


Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.


Go Back   The Trek BBS > Star Trek TV Series > Star Trek - Original Series

Star Trek - Original Series The one that started it all...

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old February 17 2013, 07:36 PM   #1
MarsWeeps
Captain
 
MarsWeeps's Avatar
 
Location: Outside of Space/Time
The Constellation's registry number

NCC-1017. I know people have wondered why a Constitution class Starship would have such a low registry number instead of something in the 1700's.

I had a thought...maybe the Constellation used to be a Saladin class ship, you know, with a single warp nacelle in place of the secondary hull.



Then, at some point, the Constellation was upgraded, the secondary hull and twin warp nacelles were added to convert it into a Constitution class starship. It kept the same name and registry that it had before.

May be reaching a little but I think it would be a good explanation of why the registry number is so low compared to other Constitution class ships.
MarsWeeps is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 17 2013, 08:44 PM   #2
ZapBrannigan
Fleet Captain
 
ZapBrannigan's Avatar
 
Location: New York State
Re: The Constellation's registry number

That's a fantastic idea. It makes a lot of sense. I'm adopting it immediately.
ZapBrannigan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 17 2013, 08:46 PM   #3
Chemahkuu
Vice Admiral
 
Chemahkuu's Avatar
 
Location: United Kingdom
Send a message via Yahoo to Chemahkuu
Re: The Constellation's registry number

Her saucer section being 1017 and later grafted to a full Constitution class frame was always a good enough explanation for me.
Chemahkuu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 17 2013, 08:56 PM   #4
Mr. Laser Beam
Fleet Admiral
 
Mr. Laser Beam's Avatar
 
Location: The visitor's bullpen
View Mr. Laser Beam's Twitter Profile
Re: The Constellation's registry number

I wonder why they didn't use NCC-1710.
__________________
It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion. It is by the beans of Java that thoughts acquire speed, the hands acquire shakes, the shakes become a warning. It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion.
Mr. Laser Beam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 17 2013, 09:22 PM   #5
CorporalCaptain
Admiral
 
CorporalCaptain's Avatar
 
Location: Kentucky
Re: The Constellation's registry number

Mr. Laser Beam wrote: View Post
I wonder why they didn't use NCC-1710.
aridas sofia came up with as good an idea as I've ever seen, in that thread from last year: http://www.trekbbs.com/showthread.ph...78#post6568678.

Adding to his treatment the notion that the Constellation is older than Enterprise would provide the final piece to the puzzle.
__________________
John

Last edited by CorporalCaptain; February 17 2013 at 09:48 PM.
CorporalCaptain is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 17 2013, 09:25 PM   #6
MarsWeeps
Captain
 
MarsWeeps's Avatar
 
Location: Outside of Space/Time
Re: The Constellation's registry number

Mr. Laser Beam wrote: View Post
I wonder why they didn't use NCC-1710.
I wondered that also but I've read where it would have been too hard to distinguish between 1701 and 1710 on the small TV screens back in the 60's, while 1017 would be more obvious that it was a different ship.
MarsWeeps is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 17 2013, 09:50 PM   #7
Metryq
Captain
 
Metryq's Avatar
 
Re: The Constellation's registry number

MarsWeeps wrote: View Post
I had a thought...maybe the Constellation used to be a Saladin class ship, you know, with a single warp nacelle in place of the secondary hull.
This idea will be promptly snapped up and added to the books as the official story. Stranger things have happened.

My father attended Tufts University and wrote a story for a student publication back then. In his story, he described a student crossing the campus and noting the elephant statue (which I believe is no longer there). The fictional student also noted a penny balanced in the up-raised trunk, a good luck / wishing well tradition on campus—according to the story. Yet no such tradition existed. By the time my brothers attended Tufts, the penny-in-the-trunk "tradition" was well known and practiced.

(The story was about a student who breaks into a professor's office and steals a test. The details in the story, including the type of locks on the doors and filing cabinet, were so well researched that the elephant tradition was not the only thing taken seriously. The admins called my dad onto the carpet to ask him about this story, and certain exams were delayed while new tests were written.)
__________________
"No, I better not look. I just might be in there."
—Foghorn Leghorn, Little Boy Boo
Metryq is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 17 2013, 10:21 PM   #8
Mr. Laser Beam
Fleet Admiral
 
Mr. Laser Beam's Avatar
 
Location: The visitor's bullpen
View Mr. Laser Beam's Twitter Profile
Re: The Constellation's registry number

They used an old plastic model kit to show the (non-remastered) Constellation, didn't they? I wonder if they were tempted to switch a few of the bits around - TOS kitbashing, if you will. I mean, it's not as if this was a particularly important model, right?
__________________
It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion. It is by the beans of Java that thoughts acquire speed, the hands acquire shakes, the shakes become a warning. It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion.
Mr. Laser Beam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 17 2013, 10:57 PM   #9
MarsWeeps
Captain
 
MarsWeeps's Avatar
 
Location: Outside of Space/Time
Re: The Constellation's registry number

Mr. Laser Beam wrote: View Post
They used an old plastic model kit to show the (non-remastered) Constellation, didn't they?
Yes, while the shots from the front weren't too bad, the rear shots were awful, the lack of detail on the impulse engines and rear (undamaged) nacelle made it very obvious this was just a cheap model thrown together for the show.



Again, it probably wasn't a big deal on the small TV's in the 60's but I remember watching the re-runs in the 70's and it was very noticeable.

I think the remastered version of The Doomsday Machine did an excellent job with the CGI Constellation.
MarsWeeps is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 17 2013, 11:16 PM   #10
CorporalCaptain
Admiral
 
CorporalCaptain's Avatar
 
Location: Kentucky
Re: The Constellation's registry number

The new effects in the remastered Doomsday Machine were awful.
__________________
John
CorporalCaptain is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 17 2013, 11:28 PM   #11
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: Covington, Ky.
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: The Constellation's registry number

CorporalCaptain wrote: View Post
The new effects in the remastered Doomsday Machine were awful.
While I agree for the most part, the Constellation CGI model was a huge upgrade.
__________________
"If I hadn't tried, the cost would have been my soul." - Admiral James T. Kirk, Star Trek III: The Search for Spock
BillJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 17 2013, 11:32 PM   #12
MarsWeeps
Captain
 
MarsWeeps's Avatar
 
Location: Outside of Space/Time
Re: The Constellation's registry number

CorporalCaptain wrote: View Post
The new effects in the remastered Doomsday Machine were awful.
I disagree. I thought the new effects were a huge improvement over the originals.

I mean, seriously, there is no way that the original shot looks better than the remastered shot.

MarsWeeps is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 17 2013, 11:39 PM   #13
CorporalCaptain
Admiral
 
CorporalCaptain's Avatar
 
Location: Kentucky
Re: The Constellation's registry number

Better in some ways doesn't stop it from being awful. Saying it's better than a ten dollar plastic model is faint praise; it could have been much better than it was.

Anyway, we can beat that dead horse in another thread, can't we?
__________________
John
CorporalCaptain is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 18 2013, 12:12 AM   #14
Dukhat
Commodore
 
Dukhat's Avatar
 
Location: Baltimore, MD
Re: The Constellation's registry number

I'm not sure why the Constellation's registry number is a problem.
__________________
“Don’t believe everything you read on the internet.”
– Benjamin Franklin
Dukhat is online now   Reply With Quote
Old February 18 2013, 12:13 AM   #15
C.E. Evans
Vice Admiral
 
C.E. Evans's Avatar
 
Location: Ferguson, Missouri, USA
Re: The Constellation's registry number

While I've generally favored the idea that the Constellation was upgraded to a Constitution-class from an earlier design, I tend to think that earlier design was nearly identical in a way not too unlike the Soyuz- and Miranda-classes were.

Maybe that earlier design the Constellation came from looked like this:
http://www.blastr.com/sites/blastr/f...all01_1280.jpg
__________________
"Don't sweat the small stuff--it makes you small-minded..."
C.E. Evans is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:46 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.