The Constellation's registry number

[Robert Comsol]

Timo wrote:

---

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.

I still feel Matt Jefferies' "Federation Design Nomenclature" to provide more answers than it raises questions:

• NCC-1XX (Daedalus Class)
• NCC-5XX (Antares Class, TOS-R)
• NCC-6XX (Oberth Class)
• NCC-9XX (? - Constitution Class USS Eagle apparently named in honor of a ship of the 9th design)
• NCC-10XX (? - USS Constellation, ditto)
• NCC-13XX (Baton Rouge Class? e.g. USS Republic, possibly USS Yamato)
• NCC-16XX (Constitution Class)
• NCC-17XX (Enterprise Class)
• NCC-18XX (Miranda Class?)
• NCC-19XX (Soyuz Class?)
• NCC-20XX (Excelsior Class)

Bob

[CorporalCaptain]

Yeah, besides Stone's wall chart, there's also the Republic NCC-1371 mentioned in Court Martial. But we don't know its class, though FJ puts it as Constitution class. Then again, the wall chart doesn't list classes either; those are assigned by TOS-R and/or apocrypha.

[ssosmcin]

BillJ wrote:

---

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?

Considering this is my favorite episode that I've seen a gazillion times without once wondering about it... I'd have to say no.

[Garrovick]

Timo wrote:

---

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

The only thing I can recall "on screen" that supports Franz Joseph's NCC numbers is some of the communications chatter from the Epsilon Nine station in the opening scene of ST:TMP - They specifically mention the "scouts" Columbia and Revere (I think it was Revere, I'm at work and can't easily check atm), plus the dreadnought Entente - all of which are referred to by NCC numbers which match the Technical Manual.

[CorporalCaptain]

Garrovick wrote:

---

The only thing I can recall "on screen" that supports Franz Joseph's NCC numbers is some of the communications chatter from the Epsilon Nine station in the opening scene of ST:TMP - They specifically mention the "scouts" Columbia and Revere (I think it was Revere, I'm at work and can't easily check atm), plus the dreadnought Entente - all of which are referred to by NCC numbers which match the Technical Manual.

That's true, but even though some parts of the tech manual may be canon, that doesn't mean that all are, need be, or must be. Indeed, I can point to the misspelling Defiance (and/or the absence of the Defiant) as an error, to say that it's wrong on at least one point. If wrong on one, why not many? Additionally, the backstory of the tech manual given in the forewords creates enough room for any part of the tech manual to be fictional in-universe, in any aspect that might clash with canon.

[Metryq]

Pavonis wrote:

---

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

Like stardates?

[Pavonis]

Metryq wrote:

---

Like stardates?

Yeah. Why can't 1214 follow 1517? Who said stardates are sequential?

[Robert Comsol]

Garrovick wrote:

---

The only thing I can recall "on screen" that supports Franz Joseph's NCC numbers is some of the communications chatter from the Epsilon Nine station in the opening scene of ST:TMP - They specifically mention the "scouts" Columbia and Revere (I think it was Revere, I'm at work and can't easily check atm), plus the dreadnought Entente - all of which are referred to by NCC numbers which match the Technical Manual.

I'm not aware of any dreadnought Entente being mentioned, here's the com chatter:

LIEUTENANT: This is comm station Epsilon Nine, calling U.S.S. Columbia. Come in Columbia. Respond!
COLUMBIA VOICE: (too faint to understand)
LIEUTENANT: This is Epsilon Nine. Am boosting output. How do you read this?
COLUMBIA VOICE: All right. (too faint to understand)
LIEUTENANT: Scout Columbia NCC six two one to rendezvous with Scout Revere NCC five nine five on stardate seven four one one point four. Further orders to be relayed at that time. Signed, Commodore Probert, Starfleet. End of transmission.
COLUMBIA VOICE: All right. (too faint to understand)

NCC-621 is a scout ship and tells me it should be an Oberth Class vessel.

Apropos stardates: By the time of TMP it always seemed to me they had somehow decided to settle with "1.000 stardate digits = 1 solar year".

Considering it's a five year mission that probably started at 1277.1 it would have ended around 6.277.1 (i.e. excluding TAS).

Bob

[Timo]

Yeah, besides Stone's wall chart, there's also the Republic NCC-1371 mentioned in Court Martial.

True enough. But that would again be a "bygone" ship. If the range of registries for currently operational ships is as narrow as indicated in TOS, it's tempting to deduce that lower registries eventually disappear from use, and that there has been a steady progression from NCC-1 to NCC-1887 in the century or so that Starfleet has existed, and finally that we can then reverse-calculate the lifespan of a ship class from this data...

It is only TOS-R that sort of challenges this, and even there it could be argued that the low-registry transports we see have every right to be really ancient - especially the ones that have been automated for ore hauling duties.

manual may be canon, that doesn't mean that all are, need be, or must be. Indeed, I can point to the misspelling Defiance (and/or the absence of the Defiant) as an error, to say that it's wrong on at least one point.

I think it's only beneficial to continuity that there would exist the separate starship Defiance that was in no way related to the ship that went missing in "Tholian Web". But as said, the Defiance is not among those elements of the old Tech Manual that would have gained canon status.

Timo Saloniemi

[ssosmcin]

Pavonis wrote:

---

Yeah. Why can't 1214 follow 1517? Who said stardates are sequential?

In the original series, stardates were random nonsense that nobody was really supposed to pay much attention to. The adventures of the Enterprise were apparently presented as pages out of Kirk's log.

I ignore them and just consider the episodes follow in a near chronological order. Only the TNG and beyond series had stardates you could follow.

[Robert Comsol]

ssosmcin wrote:

---

In the original series, stardates were random nonsense that nobody was really supposed to pay much attention to. The adventures of the Enterprise were apparently presented as pages out of Kirk's log.

I'd say the stardates were turned into nonsense when the network decided to broadcast the original episodes out of their production order (and Gene Roddenberry felt forced to play along, hence his odd stardate explanation in The Making of Star Trek).

Even in production order there are occasional glitches (it was a television show, not rocket science) but there's definitely a red thread hinting that they intended chronological stardates, IMHO.

Bob

[BillJ]

Some of it may have been network related but I'm sure most of it would have to do with the length of time it took to finish certain episodes. Wasn't Corbomite the first production episode (third shot) but ended up airing as the 11th episode?

[Garrovick]

Robert Comsol wrote:

---

I'm not aware of any dreadnought Entente being mentioned, here's the com chatter:

LIEUTENANT: This is comm station Epsilon Nine, calling U.S.S. Columbia. Come in Columbia. Respond!
COLUMBIA VOICE: (too faint to understand)
LIEUTENANT: This is Epsilon Nine. Am boosting output. How do you read this?
COLUMBIA VOICE: All right. (too faint to understand)
LIEUTENANT: Scout Columbia NCC six two one to rendezvous with Scout Revere NCC five nine five on stardate seven four one one point four. Further orders to be relayed at that time. Signed, Commodore Probert, Starfleet. End of transmission.
COLUMBIA VOICE: All right. (too faint to understand)

NCC-621 is a scout ship and tells me it should be an Oberth Class vessel.

Apropos stardates: By the time of TMP it always seemed to me they had somehow decided to settle with "1.000 stardate digits = 1 solar year".

Considering it's a five year mission that probably started at 1277.1 it would have ended around 6.277.1 (i.e. excluding TAS).

Bob

I refer you to this thread: http://www.trekbbs.com/showthread.php?t=182222

The Entente (NCC-2120) is definitely mentioned in the chatter during the Epsilon Nine scene. I know there are script transcripts on the Net that omit that part of the chatter but it is definitely in the film.

While I agree that including a few registries doesn't make the entire Tech Manual canon, it does support the existence and registries of three starships with those particular NCC numbers, which ties in to the question of how NCC-1017 fits into the Saladin class numbering.

[Mr. Laser Beam]

^ Speaking of comm chatter, what I never realized until I saw the director's cut of TMP is that, in the theatrical cut, when that booming voice is mentioning the Klingon vessel's encounter with V'Ger ("INTRUDER UNIDENTIFIED, BELIEVED LUMINESCENT CLOUD TO BE..."), it's actually translating what the Klingon captain is saying in his log.

That's one of the reasons I love the DE. It cuts out that damned annoying Epsilon 9 voice!

[Dukhat]

I said it before and I'll say it again. I don't see why the Constellation's registry number is a problem. So it's 1017. So what? The only other canonical Connie registry we see in TOS and could compare it to is the Enterprise's. All that tells me is that the Constellation is the same class as the Enterprise, but may have been built earlier if registry numbers are supposed to be chronological.