RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 138,178
Posts: 5,345,096
Members: 24,603
Currently online: 553
Newest member: Counselor X

TrekToday headlines

Klingon Beer Arrives In The US
By: T'Bonz on Jul 22

Star Trek: Prelude To Axanar
By: T'Bonz on Jul 22

Abrams Announces Star Wars: Force For Change Sweepstakes
By: T'Bonz on Jul 22

New Funko Trek Figure
By: T'Bonz on Jul 21

Saldana As A Role Model
By: T'Bonz on Jul 21

San Diego Comic-Con Trek Fan Guide
By: T'Bonz on Jul 21

Cumberbatch As Turing
By: T'Bonz on Jul 21

Retro Review: In the Pale Moonlight
By: Michelle on Jul 19

Trek Beach Towel
By: T'Bonz on Jul 18

Two New Starships Collection Releases
By: T'Bonz on Jul 17


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 March 7 2013, 12:22 PM   #211
Robert Comsol
Commodore
 
Robert Comsol's Avatar
 
Location: shore leave in La Baule, France
Re: The Constellation's registry number

@ blssdwlf

I don't see the relevance of "NX-74205" (24th Century) for the NCC numbering scheme of the 23rd Century. I'd say that within a period of 100 years certain methods or nomenclatures will undergo some form of change and this might just be it.

EliyahuQeoni wrote: View Post
There is nothing on screen to indicate any rhyme or reason to the registry numbers on starships. I was just pointing out how Jefferies' 17th ship design, 1st build template could be used despite there being an NCC-1700, which doesn't seem to fit. It makes just as much sense to have NCC-1700 be the first ship of the series, or have the first ship of the series/class be NCC-1681 for that matter. Nothing on screen says that Star Ship/Constitution/Enterprise have to have registries that start with NCC-17xx.
While I'd say the 17th design should start with a "17", I agree that the last two digits might merely be a random assignment and/or the actual (Naval Contact) Code, I refer to my post # 123 in the other thread.

There, we also discussed several proposals how to make sense of a registry like NCC-1697 (starship status display in "Court-Martial"). 97 starships of the 16th design? 16th cycle for all Starfleet vessels (Class ship is cycle leader) but limited to 100 vessels? "...97" indicating 17th starship built by the 5th fleet yard? et cetera

USS Oberth is NCC-602, USS Enterprise is (coincidentally?) NCC-1701, USS Excelsior is NX-2000 (had it been "2001" I'm certain most people would have agreed it should have been USS Discovery...) and the TNG Stargazer-type USS Constellation supposedly carries (or from a TOS point maybe could be) NCC-1974.

Theoretically, the NCC-1831 on the starship status display could have referred to the USS Miranda (class leader of the 18th design).

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 March 7 2013, 05:25 PM   #212
Jonas Grumby
Vice Admiral
 
Jonas Grumby's Avatar
 
Location: Somewhere in the South Pacific
Re: The Constellation's registry number

This idea that ship classes are invariably named after the first ship of the class built is an invention of the spinoffs, though, isn't it? IIRC, TOS had "DY-100" and "DY-500" class freighters. And wasn't Christopher Pike crippled in a training accident on board a "J-class starship"? I'd be surprised if we ever saw an "S.S. DY-100" or the "USS J."
__________________
"There are two means of refuge from the miseries of life: music and cats." - Albert Schweitzer
Jonas Grumby is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 7 2013, 05:28 PM   #213
Jonas Grumby
Vice Admiral
 
Jonas Grumby's Avatar
 
Location: Somewhere in the South Pacific
Re: The Constellation's registry number

Double post.
__________________
"There are two means of refuge from the miseries of life: music and cats." - Albert Schweitzer
Jonas Grumby is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 7 2013, 06:30 PM   #214
EliyahuQeoni
Commodore
 
EliyahuQeoni's Avatar
 
Location: Redmond, Oregon, United States of America, North America, Earth, Sol System, Milky Way, Universe
View EliyahuQeoni's Twitter Profile
Re: The Constellation's registry number

Jonas Grumby wrote: View Post
This idea that ship classes are invariably named after the first ship of the class built is an invention of the spinoffs, though, isn't it? IIRC, TOS had "DY-100" and "DY-500" class freighters. And wasn't Christopher Pike crippled in a training accident on board a "J-class starship"? I'd be surprised if we ever saw an "S.S. DY-100" or the "USS J."
And Enterprise has the NX-Class.
__________________
"Canon is only important to certain people because they have to cling to their knowledge of the minutiae. Open your mind! Be a Star Trek fan and open your mind and say, 'Where does Star Trek want to take me now'." - Leonard Nimoy
EliyahuQeoni is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 7 2013, 08:43 PM   #215
Timo
Admiral
 
Re: The Constellation's registry number

...Which may simply be the same as "AEGIS class": a description of what the ship does or carries, separate from any proper-name identity. The Enterprise class would simply be Starfleet's first and only starship built for the NX mission, with NX gear, hence the rare opportunity to use that other unique identifier.

Indeed, when Archer first uses the expression "NX class" in "Fortunate Son", he uses it to describe the power of his starship, just like a USN skipper would brag on having an AEGIS class vessel. The Boomers or the Nausicaans wouldn't know Enterprise class from Lollipop class, but they may have heard of the NX project...

NX class is UESF's only known starship design without a proper name - as opposed to Neptune class and possibly Triton class. The later UFP Starfleet only ever operated one starship class that didn't appear to have a proper name, and that may be because the training ship was a civilian design otherwise known as the J class. Or then there indeed existed a USS Jay.

Timo Saloniemi
Timo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 7 2013, 09:04 PM   #216
Jonas Grumby
Vice Admiral
 
Jonas Grumby's Avatar
 
Location: Somewhere in the South Pacific
Re: The Constellation's registry number

^ I think we all agree that almost anything can be rationalized. We Trekkies are probably the best in the world at it! But the point is, when it comes to first ship of a class sharing the class name, if you want to cite a significant enough on-screen precedent to realistically consider it any kind of rule or even a commonality, you have to go to the spinoffs.
__________________
"There are two means of refuge from the miseries of life: music and cats." - Albert Schweitzer
Jonas Grumby is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 7 2013, 09:28 PM   #217
blssdwlf
Commodore
 
Re: The Constellation's registry number

Robert Comsol wrote: View Post
@ blssdwlf

I don't see the relevance of "NX-74205" (24th Century) for the NCC numbering scheme of the 23rd Century. I'd say that within a period of 100 years certain methods or nomenclatures will undergo some form of change and this might just be it.
That's a good point. And as EliyahyQeoni brings up in a later post, the "NX" Class shows up with the Enterprise in the Enterprise series. It's changed over the series and years from "NX Class" to an "NX registry for prototypes" that also happens to include a lead ship like the Defiant Class in DS9.

Jonas Grumby wrote: View Post
This idea that ship classes are invariably named after the first ship of the class built is an invention of the spinoffs, though, isn't it? IIRC, TOS had "DY-100" and "DY-500" class freighters. And wasn't Christopher Pike crippled in a training accident on board a "J-class starship"? I'd be surprised if we ever saw an "S.S. DY-100" or the "USS J."
Technically, the dialogue in both "The Menagerie" and "Mudd's Women" spoke of the classification of the ship: "Class J starship/cargo ship" and not the name of ship class as in "J Class". Also, "The Menagerie" describes the shuttlecraft as a "Class F shuttlecraft". Classification, IMHO, speaks to the ship's capabilities or qualities and not to the class name.

In the same way, the "Starship Class" plaque on the TOS bridge doesn't say "Starship Class X" to indicate that is a classification. Instead it suggests that the TOS Enterprise belonged to a Starship Class with either a lead ship named USS Starship or a theme of Starship names.

The DY-100 and DY-500 is an interesting thought though. It does give the idea of a series like DY-1XX and DY-5XX. Or it could be very specific model numbers that many civilian/merchant ships were built. The Botany Bay might not be a good choice as an example though since she was off the books and probably didn't have a registry number.

But going back to "Starship Class", well it does suggest a USS Starship in TOS
blssdwlf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 7 2013, 09:51 PM   #218
Jonas Grumby
Vice Admiral
 
Jonas Grumby's Avatar
 
Location: Somewhere in the South Pacific
Re: The Constellation's registry number

blssdwlf wrote: View Post
But going back to "Starship Class", well it does suggest a USS Starship in TOS
Only if you buy into that naming convention. Which one could make a pretty good case for from the spinoffs, but not from TOS itself.
__________________
"There are two means of refuge from the miseries of life: music and cats." - Albert Schweitzer
Jonas Grumby is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 7 2013, 09:55 PM   #219
blssdwlf
Commodore
 
Re: The Constellation's registry number

Jonas Grumby wrote: View Post
blssdwlf wrote: View Post
But going back to "Starship Class", well it does suggest a USS Starship in TOS
Only if you buy into that naming convention. Which one could make a pretty good case for from the spinoffs, but not from TOS itself.
Why is that? It's not like it said, "Starship Class J" on the plaque.
blssdwlf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 7 2013, 10:52 PM   #220
ssosmcin
Rear Admiral
 
ssosmcin's Avatar
 
Location: ssosmcin
Re: The Constellation's registry number

Warped9 wrote: View Post
Uh, practically everything we saw on TOS in space was a starship in some form or fashion, but the issue is whether they were of the prestigious Star Ship Class in context of TOS' universe.
Backed up by this:

MERIK: He commands not just a spaceship, Proconsul, but a starship. A very special vessel and crew. I tried for such a command.

However it is spelled, it is certain a "starship" - meaning starship class, I imagine - is not anything like your average warp driven spacecraft. The SS Beagle of the merchant service obviously had warp drive, which makes it a Star Ship, but not a Starship.
__________________
"Tranya is people!"
ssosmcin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 7 2013, 11:55 PM   #221
Robert Comsol
Commodore
 
Robert Comsol's Avatar
 
Location: shore leave in La Baule, France
Re: The Constellation's registry number

Jonas Grumby wrote: View Post
This idea that ship classes are invariably named after the first ship of the class built is an invention of the spinoffs, though, isn't it? IIRC, TOS had "DY-100" and "DY-500" class freighters. And wasn't Christopher Pike crippled in a training accident on board a "J-class starship"? I'd be surprised if we ever saw an "S.S. DY-100" or the "USS J."
Admiral Grumby sails in from the South Pacific, fires a broadside and demasts the thread. Now, that's seamanship. Looks like I have to surrender my sword.

Yes, it appears the "J-class starship" is the only TOS onscreen evidence that could suggest how to distinguish starships from one another.

Just as the don't say "Earth-class" but "M-class" for planet classifications. I definitely prefer X-class over that "Mark IX/01" nonsense that obviously was a reference to the primary phaser and not to the type or model of ship.

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 March 8 2013, 12:22 PM   #222
Timo
Admiral
 
Re: The Constellation's registry number

if you want to cite a significant enough on-screen precedent to realistically consider it any kind of rule or even a commonality, you have to go to the spinoffs.
Since we only ever saw one class of starship (or indeed any Starfleet vessel) in TOS, and never heard a class name of any sort mentioned, this is a given. TOS-R changed things somewhat by showing us the Antares, a potential Starfleet design, and by offering a resolution at which the discerning home viewer could see "Constitution Class" and "Starship Class" being used on the props.

It's not really a question of making TOS match the spinoffs through rationalizations or assumptions, as there's nothing in TOS to match.

And yeah, there's no "J Class" in TOS. There's only a "Class J" of training or transport ships. However, ENT uses the expression "J Class" on both the episodes dealing with these Boomer ships.

Timo Saloniemi
Timo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 9 2013, 01:08 AM   #223
Robert Comsol
Commodore
 
Robert Comsol's Avatar
 
Location: shore leave in La Baule, France
Re: The Constellation's registry number

blssdwlf wrote: View Post
But going back to "Starship Class", well it does suggest a USS Starship in TOS
Why? Just because that’s our way to handle the issue in the 20th Century they still have do the same in the 23rd Century of TOS?

To add a ship’s name to a “class” first popped up in the “Space Seed” script and in the visualization of this primary phaser schematic belonging to a starship of a Constitution Class. The schematic was featured in “The Trouble With Tribbles” but the text was not readable and even remains so in HD today (and Ultra HD tomorrow). The Making of Star Trek refers twice to “Enterprise Class” but as Timo suggested might have just been a “like the Enterprise” approach (possible since “Starship Class” was the official designation). The “Constitution Class” designation was featured in a couple of fan publications (i.e. people that had not been involved with the actual TOS production).

The 14 Official Blueprints (TMP), “approved” by Gene Roddenberry and “authenticated” by Andrew Probert steer clear of any “Constitution Class” references and instead attempt to reconstitute “Starship Class” (i.e. Starship Class II), yet the text comment makes one reference to “new Enterprise Class”.

In ST II “Enterprise Class” appears as a small text label on the bridge simulator and in ST VI Scotty is (finally…) not looking at the primary phaser of a Constitution Class starship but at a schematic of the actual vessel (i.e. NCC-1701-A). Next…well, you get the idea.

To insist that adding the name to a class should have been a procedure in TOS is obviously retroactive continuity considering the actual readible ("Starship Class") and audible ("Class J starship") information.

If you feel that should be the case on behalf of a Great Unified Theory, here it inevitably comes at the expense of TOS’ official “Starship Class” (readable) and “Class J starship” (audible) and TOS fans are therefore entitled to object (this is still a TOS thread, right?).

To enable those interested to return to the actual topic of this thread, I've started a new thread that may (or may not) rationalise why "Starship Class" is the correct and better choice: http://www.trekbbs.com/showthread.php?t=205531

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 March 9 2013, 01:52 AM   #224
blssdwlf
Commodore
 
Re: The Constellation's registry number

Robert Comsol wrote: View Post
To insist that adding the name to a class should have been a procedure in TOS is obviously retroactive continuity considering the actual readible ("Starship Class") and audible ("Class J starship") information.
How is that a retcon? The plaque says, "Starship Class". Not "Class Starship". Not "Class J Starship". And not "DY-100 Class" or "DY-500 Class" and certainly, not "NCC-1700 Class".

The simple view strictly looking at the plaque then it is a "Starship Class" which does suggest a USS Starship somewhere in the fleet. I would imagine a "DY-500 Class" would likely have a DY-500 somewhere in the fleet as well.

Whether the Enterprise is a "Class J" or "Class 4" starship, or whatever classification that is being used by Starfleet, well, that's anyone's guess

Now, if you want to bring in information that is outside the universe, such as the artist's intent, or the producer's intent (via notes or scripts), or "approved" merchandising, go ahead but all you're doing is making something simple much more complicated, IMHO
blssdwlf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 9 2013, 02:04 AM   #225
Shawnster
Fleet Captain
 
Shawnster's Avatar
 
Location: Clinton, OH
Re: The Constellation's registry number

blssdwlf wrote: View Post
Robert Comsol wrote: View Post
To insist that adding the name to a class should have been a procedure in TOS is obviously retroactive continuity considering the actual readible ("Starship Class") and audible ("Class J starship") information.
How is that a retcon? The plaque says, "Starship Class". Not "Class Starship". Not "Class J Starship". And not "DY-100 Class" or "DY-500 Class" and certainly, not "NCC-1700 Class".

The simple view strictly looking at the plaque then it is a "Starship Class" which does suggest a USS Starship somewhere in the fleet. I would imagine a "DY-500 Class" would likely have a DY-500 somewhere in the fleet as well.
This is the retcon - that the "Starship Class" suggests there be a USS Starship. Why? What on-screen reference or dialogue from any TOS episode proves that the class name is the same as the first ship in that particular class? As already noted, there is historical evidence that naval vessel classes are not always named after the first ship in that class.

So, again, why does "Starship Class" suggest there to have been a USS Starship? Without any direct evidence to corroborate your point of view, all we are left with is opinion.

A rigid interpretation that the name of the class HAS TO, MUST, or ALWAYS be the same as the first ship in the class must have some basis for support.
Shawnster 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 01:28 PM.

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