RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 139,689
Posts: 5,430,751
Members: 24,826
Currently online: 484
Newest member: Old Man 51


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 18 2013, 12:42 AM   #16
TOSalltheway
Lieutenant Commander
 
Re: The Constellation's registry number

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.
TOSalltheway is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 18 2013, 12:51 AM   #17
MarsWeeps
Captain
 
MarsWeeps's Avatar
 
Location: Outside of Space/Time
Re: The Constellation's registry number

TOSalltheway wrote: View Post
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: View Post
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.
MarsWeeps is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 18 2013, 02:11 AM   #18
sbk1234
Rear Admiral
 
sbk1234's Avatar
 
Location: Los Angeles
Re: The Constellation's registry number

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.
__________________
In all the history of the world, a riot has NEVER broken out at a Sci-Fi convention.

"It's a fucking TV show!" - Gary Lockwood
sbk1234 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 18 2013, 10:55 AM   #19
Robert Comsol
Commodore
 
Robert Comsol's Avatar
 
Location: USS Berlin
Re: The Constellation's registry number

sbk1234 wrote: View Post
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
__________________
"The first duty of every Starfleet officer is to the truth" Jean-Luc Picard
"We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them."
Albert Einstein
Robert Comsol is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 18 2013, 05:48 PM   #20
Garrovick
Commander
 
Garrovick's Avatar
 
Location: wallowing in a pool of emotion
Re: The Constellation's registry number

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.
Garrovick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 19 2013, 12:21 AM   #21
MarsWeeps
Captain
 
MarsWeeps's Avatar
 
Location: Outside of Space/Time
Re: The Constellation's registry number

Garrovick wrote: View Post
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!
MarsWeeps is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 19 2013, 12:51 AM   #22
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

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.
__________________
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 online now   Reply With Quote
Old February 19 2013, 01:01 AM   #23
MarsWeeps
Captain
 
MarsWeeps's Avatar
 
Location: Outside of Space/Time
Re: The Constellation's registry number

Mr. Laser Beam wrote: View Post
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.
MarsWeeps is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 19 2013, 01:05 AM   #24
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

^ 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.
__________________
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 online now   Reply With Quote
Old February 19 2013, 01:13 AM   #25
MarsWeeps
Captain
 
MarsWeeps's Avatar
 
Location: Outside of Space/Time
Re: The Constellation's registry number

Mr. Laser Beam wrote: View Post
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"
MarsWeeps is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 19 2013, 01:31 AM   #26
Just a Bill
Lieutenant Junior Grade
 
Location: Norfolk, VA
Re: The Constellation's registry number

Garrovick wrote: View Post
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: View Post
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.
Just a Bill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 19 2013, 01:39 AM   #27
CorporalCaptain
Admiral
 
CorporalCaptain's Avatar
 
Location: Kentucky
Re: The Constellation's registry number

Just a Bill wrote: View Post
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.
__________________
John
CorporalCaptain is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 19 2013, 01:44 AM   #28
Pavonis
Commodore
 
Re: The Constellation's registry number

You know what makes sense? That the registries aren't sequential.
Pavonis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 19 2013, 02:27 PM   #29
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: Covington, Ky.
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: The Constellation's registry number

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?
__________________
"I tell you what you all need, you need to take a thirteenth step, down off your high horse." - Hank Hill, King of the Hill
BillJ is online now   Reply With Quote
Old February 19 2013, 04:20 PM   #30
Timo
Admiral
 
Re: The Constellation's registry number

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
Timo 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 05:46 PM.

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