RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 135,739
Posts: 5,215,416
Members: 24,211
Currently online: 910
Newest member: DeimosAnimus

TrekToday headlines

Q Meets NuTrek Crew
By: T'Bonz on Apr 18

Pine In Talks For Drama
By: T'Bonz on Apr 18

New X-Men: Days of Future Past Trailer
By: T'Bonz on Apr 17

Nimoy to Receive Award
By: T'Bonz on Apr 17

Star Trek Special: Flesh and Stone Comic
By: T'Bonz on Apr 16

These Are The Voyages TOS Season Two Book Review
By: T'Bonz on Apr 16

Kirk’s Well Wishes To Kirk
By: T'Bonz on Apr 15

Quinto In New Starz Series
By: T'Bonz on Apr 15

Star Trek: Horizon Film
By: T'Bonz on Apr 14

Star Trek: Fleet Captains Game Expansion
By: T'Bonz on Apr 14


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 20 2013, 11:18 PM   #46
BillJ
Admiral
 
Location: In the 23rd Century...
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: The Constellation's registry number

Dukhat wrote: View Post
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.
This is pretty much where I'm at as far as the Constellation registry goes. A contemporary of the Enterprise just built earlier.
__________________
I'm not popular enough to be different! - Homer Simpson
BillJ is online now   Reply With Quote
Old February 20 2013, 11:40 PM   #47
plynch
Commodore
 
plynch's Avatar
 
Location: Outer Graceland
View plynch's Twitter Profile
Re: The Constellation's registry number

Gridlines are pretty prominent on that Saladin-class!
__________________
Author of Live Like Louis! Inspirational Stories from the Life of Louis Armstrong, http://livelikelouis.com
plynch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 21 2013, 07:25 AM   #48
CrazyMatt
Commander
 
CrazyMatt's Avatar
 
Location: Paradise
Re: The Constellation's registry number

We all sometimes lose sight of the fact that Star Trek was just a TV show, produced to (1) entertain viewers so they (2) tuned in regularly and thus (3) were more amenable to buying the sponsor's products and (4) made the sponsors, network, studio and the production team richer.

While Star Trek did do an admirable job of trying to maintain continuity by creating a "history of the future" as the series went along, it was never fully concerned with details like we're discussing here... probably because they could have never envisioned a group of passionate people such as ourselves ever caring about such minutae.

As GR himself wrote in "The Making of Star Trek," if they had taken the time to think all the small details through, Star Trek would have debued in 1980, not Sept of 1966 as they were selected by NBC to do.
CrazyMatt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 21 2013, 06:20 PM   #49
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

Dukhat wrote: View Post
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.
The Constellation may not even be the same class. It could be an earlier model that just looks the same on the outside.
__________________
Taysiders in Space. In amungst ye!

"Set phasers tae malky!"
Mr. Laser Beam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 21 2013, 06:30 PM   #50
Dukhat
Commodore
 
Dukhat's Avatar
 
Location: Baltimore, MD
Re: The Constellation's registry number

Mr. Laser Beam wrote: View Post
Dukhat wrote: View Post
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.
The Constellation may not even be the same class. It could be an earlier model that just looks the same on the outside.
But why? I mean, what would be the point? The producers obviously meant for the ship to be the same as the Enterprise, since they used an Enterprise model kit, and used the Enterprise's sets. They also obviously gave absolutely no thought to the rearrangement of the registry number, other than perhaps to have it be very different from the Enterprise's for some reason, or to have that difference show better on the screen. But there's nothing other than the inaccuracies of the model kit vs. the filming model that gives any indication that it's not supposed to be the same class (and the producers couldn't be at fault for those inaccuracies).
__________________
“Don’t believe everything you read on the internet.”
– Benjamin Franklin
Dukhat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 21 2013, 06:35 PM   #51
CorporalCaptain
Vice Admiral
 
CorporalCaptain's Avatar
 
Location: Kentucky
Re: The Constellation's registry number

Dukhat wrote: View Post
Mr. Laser Beam wrote: View Post
Dukhat wrote: View Post
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.
The Constellation may not even be the same class. It could be an earlier model that just looks the same on the outside.
But why? I mean, what would be the point? The producers obviously meant for the ship to be the same as the Enterprise, since they used an Enterprise model kit. They also obviously gave absolutely no thought to the rearrangement of the registry number, other than perhaps to have it be very different from the Enterprise's for some reason, or to have that difference show better on the screen. But there's nothing other than the inaccuracies of the model kit vs. the filming model that gives any indication that it's not supposed to be the same class (and the producers couldn't be at fault for those inaccuracies).
Also, the interior sets were the same.

I'm still hip with the refit theory, even if all that was left over from the original Constellation was her "keel".
__________________
John
CorporalCaptain is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 21 2013, 07:55 PM   #52
Timo
Admiral
 
Re: The Constellation's registry number

Also, the interior sets were the same.
Their layout was not, though - not in plot terms.

That is, our heroes head for Auxiliary Control Room to read the logs of the Constellation - and they almost walk past the relevant door!

http://tos.trekcore.com/hd/albums/2x...hinehd0251.jpg

Sure, we could argue that Auxiliary Control isn't in fact a Room but a maze of rooms, but even in that case our heroes seem inexplicably lost. After all, the very room they walk past, the one with Decker in there, is also the one where they finally are able to access the logs.

Either Decker's ship is of a different design internally than Kirk's to begin with, or then all starships undergo constant modifications to stay up to date, and since these are performed at different times, the results are different as well.

Timo Saloniemi
Timo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 21 2013, 08:26 PM   #53
CorporalCaptain
Vice Admiral
 
CorporalCaptain's Avatar
 
Location: Kentucky
Re: The Constellation's registry number

Timo wrote: View Post
Also, the interior sets were the same.
Their layout was not, though - not in plot terms.

That is, our heroes head for Auxiliary Control Room to read the logs of the Constellation - and they almost walk past the relevant door!

http://tos.trekcore.com/hd/albums/2x...hinehd0251.jpg

Sure, we could argue that Auxiliary Control isn't in fact a Room but a maze of rooms, but even in that case our heroes seem inexplicably lost. After all, the very room they walk past, the one with Decker in there, is also the one where they finally are able to access the logs.

Either Decker's ship is of a different design internally than Kirk's to begin with, or then all starships undergo constant modifications to stay up to date, and since these are performed at different times, the results are different as well.

Timo Saloniemi
That's not what I see. I see Kirk walking up at a brisk pace, looking through and stopping in front of an open door that he could to decide to enter, once he's stepped over the debris that has fallen in front of it, but provided it doesn't appear to be too damaged inside to get what they're after. There's probably more than one place to access the log. But he sees Matt inside and decides to step over the debris and enter.

In any case, reading something about the ship's layout into their body language like that is thin.
__________________
John
CorporalCaptain is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 21 2013, 10:02 PM   #54
ssosmcin
Rear Admiral
 
ssosmcin's Avatar
 
Location: ssosmcin
Re: The Constellation's registry number

Timo wrote: View Post
Also, the interior sets were the same.
Their layout was not, though - not in plot terms.

That is, our heroes head for Auxiliary Control Room to read the logs of the Constellation - and they almost walk past the relevant door!

After all, the very room they walk past, the one with Decker in there, is also the one where they finally are able to access the logs.

Either Decker's ship is of a different design internally than Kirk's to begin with, or then all starships undergo constant modifications to stay up to date, and since these are performed at different times, the results are different as well.

Timo Saloniemi
Kirk wasn't walking past Aux Control, he was heading into the next area, where Washburn did his work. He only stopped when he saw Decker hunched over at the main control station.

Could very well have been that Kirk was going in the other room and could either access the logs from there, or he and Scotty would have split up.

You're the guy who comes up with a maze of "outs" to excuse stuff, why not this time?
__________________
"Tranya is people!"
ssosmcin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 21 2013, 10:07 PM   #55
CorporalCaptain
Vice Admiral
 
CorporalCaptain's Avatar
 
Location: Kentucky
Re: The Constellation's registry number

^ Yep, that fits too.
__________________
John
CorporalCaptain is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 22 2013, 10:51 AM   #56
Timo
Admiral
 
Re: The Constellation's registry number

You're the guy who comes up with a maze of "outs" to excuse stuff, why not this time?
'Course, my preferred explanation would be that Auxiliary Control consists of at least three rooms along a curved corridor, with subtle differences to account for the subtly different Auxiliary Control sets we see in different episodes. Perhaps just one of these would feature a "main viewer" of the sort we see, and would act as the alternate means of piloting the ship, while another would be dedicated to records safekeeping and handling and would be located to starboard of the room where Decker sulked.

Timo Saloniemi
Timo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 22 2013, 12:44 PM   #57
MacLeod
Admiral
 
Location: Great Britain
Re: The Constellation's registry number

BillJ wrote: View Post
Dukhat wrote: View Post
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.
This is pretty much where I'm at as far as the Constellation registry goes. A contemporary of the Enterprise just built earlier.
And as it was the prototype of that class, it might have taken a while following constrction to iron out any flaws which appeared during shakedown. Once those had been ironed out and the class entered full production the registry numbers could have gone from where the Consetellation was to where the Enteprise was registry wise.
__________________
On the continent of wild endeavour in the mountains of solace and solitude there stood the citadel of the time lords, the oldest and most mighty race in the universe looking down on the galaxies below sworn never to interfere only to watch.
MacLeod is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 22 2013, 01:02 PM   #58
MarsWeeps
Commander
 
MarsWeeps's Avatar
 
Location: Outside of Space/Time
Re: The Constellation's registry number

MacLeod wrote: View Post
And as it was the prototype of that class, it might have taken a while following constrction to iron out any flaws which appeared during shakedown. Once those had been ironed out and the class entered full production the registry numbers could have gone from where the Consetellation was to where the Enteprise was registry wise.
I think you are confusing "Constellation" with "Constitution."

You know what's cool? When they produced this episode, they never would have thought that we would be dissecting and analyzing the reasoning behind the registry number some 45+ years later.
MarsWeeps is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 22 2013, 02:10 PM   #59
Forbin
Admiral
 
Forbin's Avatar
 
Location: I said out, dammit!
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.

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.
But the rear of the nacelles were never lit up. on TOS.
Forbin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 22 2013, 02:18 PM   #60
Just a Bill
Lieutenant Junior Grade
 
Location: Norfolk, VA
Re: The Constellation's registry number

Forbin wrote: View Post
But the rear of the nacelles were never lit up. on TOS.
Only in licensed merchandise, where some marketing nimrods thought they were rockets that needed to be belching fire. Man, I hated that crap even as a kid.

EDIT: Oh yeah, I forgot — and the hangar deck, too!


Last edited by Just a Bill; February 22 2013 at 02:32 PM.
Just a Bill 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 10:47 PM.

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