Matt Jefferies and NCC-1017

Discussion in 'Trek Tech' started by Kenny, May 17, 2012.

  1. Dukhat

    Dukhat Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2007
    Location:
    Baltimore, MD
    LOL, yeah, I think you misunderstood me.

    When I said:

    I was referring to this model:

    [​IMG]


    I'm well aware that the Bozeman was a re-use of the Reliant studio model with add-on parts by Greg Jein.
    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: Jun 5, 2012
  2. 137th Gebirg

    137th Gebirg Vice Admiral Premium Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2000
    Location:
    Who is John Galt?
    ^^^ That's interesting. Any other views of this?
     
  3. Dukhat

    Dukhat Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2007
    Location:
    Baltimore, MD
    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: Jun 5, 2012
  4. Dukhat

    Dukhat Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2007
    Location:
    Baltimore, MD
  5. Albertese

    Albertese Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    May 3, 2003
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    Oh wow! I've never even seen this thing before! Never even heard rumors!

    Is it just me or is this quick and dirty even by TV schedule purposes? Interesting TNG era update to the Miranda hull. I like how they repurposed the AMT Excelsior kit's stand to be a sort of AWACS pod. Kinda reminds me of the Nebula. With a little love this design could actually be kinda cool...

    --Alex
     
  6. Forbin

    Forbin Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2001
    Location:
    I said out, dammit!
    I also see Excelsior nacelle parts on the aft deck.

    To the stash!!
     
  7. 137th Gebirg

    137th Gebirg Vice Admiral Premium Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2000
    Location:
    Who is John Galt?
    ^^^ He get your kitbashing juices flowing again with this one? ;)

    I really like this one, but the putty doughnut on top of the B/C deck is a bit jarring...
     
  8. blssdwlf

    blssdwlf Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2010
    Bridge airbag? :)
     
  9. E-DUB

    E-DUB Captain Captain

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2011
    A possible explanation for the whole "new decal for the name but not the registry number" thing. I remember buying press-on letters to make decals myself, and the sheets they came on usually featured letters or numbers, but not both. So the purchasing guy says to himself: "Well we need a new name, so we'll definately need letters, but I won't buy a numbers set too, we can just rearrange the numbers we got."
     
  10. Forbin

    Forbin Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2001
    Location:
    I said out, dammit!
    That's the most sensible explanation I've ever heard.
     
  11. FatherRob

    FatherRob Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    This is the oft-repeated explanation I have been given, together with the fact that the fontface was commercially avaliable as dry-rub transfers in the 1960's. To my knowledge, the effects company built the model, and Jeffries had nothing to do with it.

    My personal view is that the Constellation's low registry is explained by the number being reused in memory of an earlier Constellation that was lost in the line of duty. The use of the lettered distinctive for commemoratively named ships didn't begin until the Enterprise. (Of course, in my universe, the Enterprise would still be NCC-1701 regardless.)

    Rob+
     
  12. aridas sofia

    aridas sofia Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    May 3, 2002
    I think events went sorta like this-

    1. When Jefferies came up with that "1701" number, he retconned a decision made purely on visibility as being indicative of the first ship built in the seventeenth group of starships. So, when conceived, Enterprise was the class vessel. At least to Jefferies.

    2. Along comes "Doomsday Machine". For whatever reason- convenience, visibility, distinctiveness, etc- the ship scripted as being "Enterprise type" is numbered "1017" and named "Constellation". This is the first ship seen onscreen that looks like Enterprise.

    3. Later, a graphic of an Enterprise ship's phaser is needed. Whoever puts the thing together remembers that they've established some ship as having a lower number than Enterprise, probably because the obvious problems with a "1017" number were discussed and still on his mind. He misremembers the lower numbered, "1017" ship Constellation as Constitution and puts that name on the graphic.

    4. By the time Trimble is putting together her book, we have a Constellation with the lowest number, but a graphic hinting all these Enterprise-type ships are Constitution class. So we end up with fans making sense of the mess as Constitution being the prototype and class vessel (00), Enterprise being the first produced after the prototype (01), and Constellation being an older ship uprated to Constitution standards (1017).

    5. Later, an attempt is made to make things right when TMP introduces the brand new, first of her type, rebuilt Enterprise. Probert, Cole and Kimble call this new class "Enterprise class" in an attempt to get back to what was originally intended back in 1964 and to recognize the entirely new nature of the design.

    6. But even later, different artists try to "fix" the "mistakes" of the TWoK bridge simulator plaque and the TMP blueprints by identifying a ship looking like the rebuilt Enterprise as once again... Constitution class.

    7. BUT this TMP-looking ship is ACTUALLY 1701-A. Some fans (like me) make sense of this new mess by saying that the rebuilt 1701 is Enterprise class but that 1701-A is Constitution class. Either because the class name was changed after the loss of 1701, or because 1701-A was an outwardly similar but inwardly different class.

    8. In any event, if you want to go strictly by what was seen onscreen, the TOS Enterprise is "Constitution class" as established in later series, and "Star Ship Class" as established on the dedication plaque seen in the episodes. The TMP Enterprise is "Enterprise class" per the bridge simulator in TWoK, and the new 1701-A is "Constitution class" per the blueprints seen in ST VI. The only apparent contradiction is "Constitution" versus "Star Ship" class for the original ship. And that can easily be resolved by saying that "Star Ship" either represents a later, select subset of Constitution class ships (perhaps the 5YM ships?), or that "Star Ship" is an earlier designation, perhaps implying the ships were named for famous starships or indicating a broader "type" category as has been argued here. In any event, within the context of strictly TOS it is correct to call Enterprise a "Star Ship class" vessel. But within the broader context of the later series it is correct to also call her (and Defiant) "Constitution class" vessels.
     
  13. 137th Gebirg

    137th Gebirg Vice Admiral Premium Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2000
    Location:
    Who is John Galt?
    These are good points and some or all of this may have actually happened. But why not make Constellation NCC-1710? If they only had a limited number of decals or rub-ons to use of those numbers, why not recombine them in a way that made more sense?
     
  14. aridas sofia

    aridas sofia Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    May 3, 2002
    I think there was a fear that any number beginning with "17" would be too easily confused with "1701". These are the numbers that could have been made from the "1701" decal:

    1701
    1710
    1071
    1017
    1107
    1170
    7101
    7110
    7011
    0711
    0171
    0117

    If we go with Jefferies' logic about what the number means we are probably going to throw out the numbers beginning with "0" as being too low. Likewise, any number beginning "70" or "71" would be too high. If we throw out numbers beginning "17" as being too similar, we are left with

    1071
    1017
    1107
    1170

    "1071" and "1170" would represent the 71st and 70th ships of their respective series- numbers Jefferies might have wanted to avoid as being too high for a Starfleet that would only build thirteen ships like Enterprise. That leaves "1107" and "1017" - take your pick.
     
  15. Forbin

    Forbin Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2001
    Location:
    I said out, dammit!
    My brain hurts.
     
  16. aridas sofia

    aridas sofia Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    May 3, 2002
    My brain farts.

    But that can be a good thing.
     
  17. FalTorPan

    FalTorPan Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2000
    Location:
    Out there... thataway.
    If the TOS designers had had any inkling that we fans would be scrutinizing decals applied to a model kit 45 years after the fact, and if they had had any foreknowledge of Internet-era lingo, then I suspect Constellation's registry number would have been made from two decal sets, with 7s inverted, resulting in a number of NCC-L0L. :lol:

    (I'm poking as much fun at myself as I am at other fans, and I'm targeting we fans collectively, not any individuals.) :)
     
  18. aridas sofia

    aridas sofia Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    May 3, 2002
    Hey, I only post about once a year here nowadays. I can afford to save up all my ginormous brainpower for one big one. Sort of like a python eating a cow. Only in reverse.
     
  19. FalTorPan

    FalTorPan Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2000
    Location:
    Out there... thataway.
    :lol:

    I wasn't criticizing you in any way. Sometimes I just step back and am amazed at how much we -- absolutely including me -- continue to obsess over this stuff. :)
     
  20. Forbin

    Forbin Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2001
    Location:
    I said out, dammit!
    I don't obsess.

    I LIVE it!!

    :D