The Constellation's registry number

MarsWeeps · February 17 2013, 07:36 PM

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.

ZapBrannigan · February 17 2013, 08:44 PM

That's a fantastic idea. It makes a lot of sense. I'm adopting it immediately.

Chemahkuu · February 17 2013, 08:46 PM

Her saucer section being 1017 and later grafted to a full Constitution class frame was always a good enough explanation for me.

Mr. Laser Beam · February 17 2013, 08:56 PM

I wonder why they didn't use NCC-1710.

CorporalCaptain · February 17 2013, 09:22 PM

Mr. Laser Beam wrote:

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.

MarsWeeps · February 17 2013, 09:25 PM

Mr. Laser Beam wrote:

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.

Metryq · February 17 2013, 09:50 PM

MarsWeeps wrote:

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.)

Mr. Laser Beam · February 17 2013, 10:21 PM

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?

MarsWeeps · February 17 2013, 10:57 PM

Mr. Laser Beam wrote:

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.

CorporalCaptain · February 17 2013, 11:16 PM

The new effects in the remastered Doomsday Machine were awful.

BillJ · February 17 2013, 11:28 PM

CorporalCaptain wrote:

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.

MarsWeeps · February 17 2013, 11:32 PM

CorporalCaptain wrote:

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.

CorporalCaptain · February 17 2013, 11:39 PM

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?

Dukhat · February 18 2013, 12:12 AM

I'm not sure why the Constellation's registry number is a problem.

C.E. Evans · February 18 2013, 12:13 AM

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

February 17 2013, 07:36 PM	#1
MarsWeeps Commander Location: Red Tardis	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.

February 17 2013, 08:44 PM	#2
ZapBrannigan Commander 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.

February 17 2013, 08:46 PM	#3
Chemahkuu Vice Admiral Location: United Kingdom	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.

February 17 2013, 08:56 PM	#4
Mr. Laser Beam Fleet Admiral Location: The visitor's bullpen	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.

February 17 2013, 10:21 PM	#8
Mr. Laser Beam Fleet Admiral Location: The visitor's bullpen	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.

STAR TREK

CSI

ABOUT US

February 17 2013, 11:16 PM	#10
CorporalCaptain Vice Admiral Location: In pre-production	Re: The Constellation's registry number The new effects in the remastered Doomsday Machine were awful. __________________ John

February 17 2013, 11:39 PM	#13
CorporalCaptain Vice Admiral Location: In pre-production	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

February 18 2013, 12:12 AM	#14
Dukhat Commodore Location: Baltimore, MD	Re: The Constellation's registry number I'm not sure why the Constellation's registry number is a problem. __________________ I never make mistrakes.

February 18 2013, 12:13 AM	#15
C.E. Evans Vice Admiral Location: Saint Louis (aka Defiance)	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 __________________ "Shout, shout, let it all out..."