The Constellation's registry number

[TOSalltheway]

Two simple answers. As stated before they took a kit model of the Eterprise and simply changed the order of the numbers provided.

As to the rear of the nacelles being dark that is easily explained script-wise. They were on impulse, no power in the warp engines so naturally they are powered off and dark.

[MarsWeeps]

TOSalltheway wrote:

---

Two simple answers. As stated before they took a kit model of the Eterprise and simply changed the order of the numbers provided.

Yes, we know why they did what they did, but I was trying to look for an explanation within the context of the show. Also, they went to the trouble of coming up with a "CONSTELLATION" decal, so how much harder would it have been to come up with a 2 digit (or even 1 digit) change to the registration?

TOSalltheway wrote:

---

As to the rear of the nacelles being dark that is easily explained script-wise. They were on impulse, no power in the warp engines so naturally they are powered off and dark.

I never mentioned the rear of the nacelles being dark, it's the total lack of any detail that makes it obvious it was a cheap model.

[sbk1234]

My "in-universe" explaination was that they had numbered it the same as an earlier Constellation. However, it was a different numbreing system back then, and instead of adding a letter (such as ncc-1701-A), they just used the same number.

However, I like the idea of the updated Saladin ship.

[Robert Comsol]

sbk1234 wrote:

---

My "in-universe" explaination was that they had numbered it the same as an earlier Constellation. However, it was a different numbering system back then, and instead of adding a letter (such as ncc-1701-A), they just used the same number.

I wholeheartedly agree. Especially since according to the Matt Jefferies production sketch with the 17th cruiser design the "A"ppendix was originally considered for a modification or upgrade, then, but not necessarily for ships named to honor the accomplishments of a previous one.

Bob

[Garrovick]

It doesn't make a lot of sense IMO to take the saucer section of a Saladin-class ship and make a new Contitution-class vessel out of it. After all, despite outward similarities, the interior components and layout of a Saladin-class and a Constitution-class saucer have to be vastly different since the shuttlebay, main deflector and warp engineering (plus at least some of the cargo holds) on a Constitution-class ship are in the secondary hull which doesn't exist on a Saladin-class. You could make a case that a Saladin-class doesn't carry shuttlecraft but warp engineering and the main deflector are non-negotiable. From the episode, we can tell that main engineering on the Constellation is very similar to the Enterprise (notwithstanding the revisions to the Engineering set which took place between Seasons 1 and 2). To convert a Saladin saucer to a Consitution-class would involve a lot more than just plopping it onto a waiting secondary hull, you would have to gut out most (if not all) of the interior of the saucer. It would make much more sense to construct a new saucer.

Also, in the original Technical Manual, all Saladin-class ships have 3-digit registry numbers starting with NCC-500, so NCC-1017 doesn't really fit into the Saladin-class any more than it does the Constitution-class. I agree with the theory that NCC-1017 was a re-use of an old registry number after a previous Constellation carried it.

They should have just gone with NCC-1710. Yes, TV screens were much smaller in the 60s than they are today, but we only saw the registry in one shot and the different name, plus all the damage, should have made it pretty clear that it wasn't the Enterprise.

[MarsWeeps]

Garrovick wrote:

---

It doesn't make a lot of sense IMO to take the saucer section of a Saladin-class ship and make a new Contitution-class vessel out of it.

To convert a Saladin saucer to a Consitution-class would involve a lot more than just plopping it onto a waiting secondary hull, you would have to gut out most (if not all) of the interior of the saucer. It would make much more sense to construct a new saucer.

Well, look at TOS Enterprise vs. TMP Enterprise. As Decker put it "This is an almost entirely new Enterprise." Look at the massive upgrades it had, not just the saucer but the secondary hull and nacelles. What was original? Maybe some of the framework and a few bolts? It would have made more sense just to build a new ship.

I'm guessing that some of the other Constitution class ships also had the same massive re-fit (I doubt the Enterprise-A was a brand new ship considering its short life before being decommissioned.)

I guess different people will create their own in-universe explanation when things don't make sense and there's nothing wrong with that at all!

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Unless the Constellation's original configuration (if it had one) was very badly damaged, it does seem like overkill to go to all that trouble to rearrange the saucer and the nacelles and all that crap.

[MarsWeeps]

Mr. Laser Beam wrote:

---

Unless the Constellation's original configuration (if it had one) was very badly damaged, it does seem like overkill to go to all that trouble to rearrange the saucer and the nacelles and all that crap.

Less overkill than TMP Enterprise had.

[Mr. Laser Beam]

^ Point taken.

Although in that case, at least they kept the same design. And who's to say they did it all at once? Think about it.

[MarsWeeps]

Mr. Laser Beam wrote:

---

Although in that case, at least they kept the same design. And who's to say they did it all at once?

That would be Scotty: "Admiral, we have just spent eighteen months redesigning and refitting the Enterprise"

[Just a Bill]

Garrovick wrote:

---

It doesn't make a lot of sense IMO to take the saucer section of a Saladin-class ship and make a new Contitution-class vessel out of it. After all, despite outward similarities, the interior components and layout of a Saladin-class and a Constitution-class saucer have to be vastly different

^ This.

sbk1234 wrote:

---

My "in-universe" explaination was that they had numbered it the same as an earlier Constellation. However, it was a different numbreing system back then, and instead of adding a letter (such as ncc-1701-A), they just used the same number.

^ And this. The Constellation's 1000-series number is unusual among other Constitution-class ships, but that difference is nothing compared to, say, the Enterprise-D's 1700-series number sticking out like a sore thumb among all the other Galaxy-class ships in the 70,000+ range.

Also, it seems there is already a precedent for re-using a number without an "A," and in the form of the Enterprise herself: we all dutifully refer to the TMP version as a "refit," but really it's a completely different hull. Every detail, from the top-level design lines to the room and corridor layouts down to the buttons on the consoles seems all built from scratch. After all, Ford doesn't take all of last year's Mustangs and bring them in for a "refit;" they design a brand-new car based on the previous model's ideas, with modifications. Chances are, everyone just thinks of it as "still the Enterprise" for sentimental reasons, when common sense and our own eyeballs tell us it can't possibly be the same hull.

But if that idea is unpalatable, then we can still eat our cake and have it too, by imagining that the on-screen Constellation is a "refit" from an earlier similar design that we never saw.

In any event, the Saladin idea sounds fun at first listen, but just doesn't hold water, as others have already shown.

EDIT: Ninja'd.

[CorporalCaptain]

Just a Bill wrote:

---

But if that idea is unpalatable, then we can still eat our cake and have it too, by imagining that the on-screen Constellation is a "refit" from an earlier similar design that we never saw.

This one makes the most sense.

[Pavonis]

You know what makes sense? That the registries aren't sequential.

[BillJ]

I know that we have behind-the-scenes notes and such, but do we have anything on-screen that makes the Constellation registry seem out of whack?

[Timo]

Well, all the NCC numbers actually seen in TOS were within a fairly narrow range, between 1664 and 1887 at the very most (both numbers taken from the "Court Martial" chart and applying selective squinting at the ambiguous 6s and 8s). In comparison with those, NCC-1017 would really be out of whack. The implication might be that Decker's ship is a relic, launched about halfway between the founding of Starfleet (whenever that was) and the TOS era.

However, TOS-R adds a few low numbers for variants of the transport (drone) design borrowed from TAS and first seen in "Charlie X"-R. Some of these may even be discerned on screen, although again only with heavy squinting. In that context, NCC-1017 isn't quite that bad any more.

Whether the Franz Joseph scheme, with the 500-range scouts and destroyers, makes any sense in either context is debatable. It's not supported on screen much, as the FJ graphics we see in the movies don't flaunt registry numbers.

Timo Saloniemi