Brainstorming Starship Registries

[Crewman47]

Thought it'd be best to make a seprate post for this but following on from the Brainstroming Ship names post, how do you come up with unique registries for Starships that you make up? I realise that there is a sort of pattern that most people will follow, like 1700's and 1800's for Constitution and later Mirandas, 2000's for Excelsior and 74600's for Intrepids but how will you know that the registry you choose will be unique and will fit into the appropriate class?

Something that sometimes got me wondering when trying to come up with a unique reg for a random ship.

 

[Nightfall to-Ennien]

Mostly, I check Memory Alpha for the proper range given the class I'm working with, and pick a number in between the highest and lowest known registries for the class or a roughly contemporary class. I then check Memory Alpha, Memory Beta, and Google to see if the number comes up with an NX or NCC prefix, and if so, I pick a different number.

 

[captcalhoun]

short version: i make shit up.

long version: of the canonical classes, i try to use stuff close to those seen - all my runabouts use the same 74 start as those on DS9. my constitutions are somewhat randomly assigned numbers between 1701 and 1764. the 'canon' Connies i used the numbers from FJ. My Excelsiors are pretty random, as are the Galaxies and Mirandas.

where i've created classes, like the Centurion, Defender, Wraith and so on, I've generally just picked a starting digit like 97XXX for the Wraith and then gone sequentially from there. the 4 named Wraiths are 97511 97512, 97513 and 97514 for example...

buried within those, however are my birthdate, my parents and sisters' birthdates, my parents wedding date, my work-place's account number for a wholesaler with one number missing and the first 5 digits of my 'rents phone-number...

for a few, like the Intrepid-class Challenger and the Ambassador-class Jack Crusher, I started with the registries given to the vessels in the fan-club i used to belong to, and then modified them since they used sequential numbers for all their ships...

 

[hellsgate]

http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/USS_Exeter_(NCC-26531)

I plan on using this one as part of "Star Trek: Exeter".

The Osiris-Class, U.S.S. Exeter NCC 26531-A, commissioned after it's Ambassador-Class sister-ship was damaged beyond repair at The Dominion Front (2374) & stripped for parts. (DS9: "In The Pale Moonlight")

 

[Unicron]

I've only ever invented one registry, for my TBBS flagship (USS Geronimo). Its registry is NCC-76881, and that number was fairly easy to invent (G is the seventh letter of the alphabet, and Geronimo finally surrendered in 1886). It conveniently happens to fall within the range of the official Sullivans class ships (the USS Sullivans has a registry of 78170) I've seen, so that helps.

 

[Tigger]

For ships commissioned prior to 2315, I follow the "starship block" schema where each starship class is pre-assigned a "block" of registries so each successive ship has a registry incremented by one number (so the first ship of the class would be assigned NCC-2520, the second NCC-2521, the third NCC-2522, etc.)

After 2315, I follow the "shipyard block" schema where each shipyard is assigned a "block" of registries. So the San Francisco Yards would get NCC-20000 through NCC-20099 and Utopia Planitia would get NCC-20100 to NCC-20199. The next ship to enter the yards, regardless of class, gets the next NCC number.

So the Kricfalusi class starship USS Stimpson J. Cat laid down at SFY would get NCC-20012 while the USS Ren Höek, also a Kricfalusi class and laid down the same day at UP, would get NCC-20112.

 

[C.E. Evans]

Generally, I just sort of follow four rules for my own system:

1. No Constitution-class ships with a registry higher than NCC-1799
2. No Miranda-class ships with a registry lower than NCC-1800
3. No Galaxy-class ships with a registry lower than NCC-70637
4. No Intrepid-class ship with a registry lower than NCC-73602

Otherwise, anything goes except for ships seen onscreen with an official registry. You can kinda figure out/fudge that ships with a registry between NCC-2000 and NCC-40000 were during the late 23rd-Century/early 24th-Century, NCC-50000-60000 during the mid 24th-Century, and NCC-70000-90000 from TNG to Nemesis...

I also regard any post-ENT ship with an initial NX in their hull registry as a temporary designation that always gets reclassified with a NCC once the class goes into mass production (the Defiant-class Defiant being the only exception)...

 

[Unicron]

What about classes that share registries, like many of the Miranda variants and the Constitution subclasses (Tikopai etc.)? Just curious. Personally I try to avoid series overlapping, but I'm also loathe to tamper with pre-established registries for specific classes in an attempt to make them all seem chronological.

 

[Timo]

Personally, I respect fan NCCs from before the nineties internet boom (say, the Franz Joseph and Mastercom/SSA continuities, even if not all the various RPGs), and insert stuff in the holes left in the TOS/TAS/TFS era. For post-TOS, I respect the Okudaic idea that ship classes aren't numbered in tight little batches, and I also follow the principle that the registries are at least intended to be chronological - possibly so that NCC-10000 coincides roughly with the onset of the 24th century, and 1000 NCC units are allocated for each year's production (although there are always delays, cancellations and other aberrations, and no year sees the completion of a full 1000 ships big enough to receive a NCC registry).

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Unicron]

I'm kind of the opposite - it tends to make more sense to me for registries to be batched, especially if there's meant to be some sort of chronology. That doesn't necessarily rule out chronological duplications, I.E. there being 1800 series for both cruisers and frigates. But I'm not overly fond of many Okuda registries, simply cause they seem to be pulled from thin air and ridiculously high for some classes.

 

[Timo]

I'd just plead a sharp distinction between the way the TOS Starfleet did it and the TNG Starfleet does. Going with clear-cut batches would be easier for a young thousand-ship fleet than for a more mature ten-thousand-ship one...

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Forbin]

First I check the encyclopedia to see if it's taken.

Then I consider the period the kitbash belongs to.

Then I do one of two things:

1) If I give the ship a historical name, I try to make the number out of a pertinant date. i.e. My USS Saipan is NCC 15644 - the US invasion of Saipan was June 15, 1944. My USS Edmund Fitzgerald is NCC 11075, the date of the real ship's sinking was Nov 10, 1975. Both kitbashes use Enterprise-C parts, which jive with th 1XXXX NCC period.

2) pull a random number out of my ass.

 

[captcalhoun]

does that hurt much?

 

[Timo]

I'd figure the eights and zeroes are easier than the fours and sevens. Threes might be intermediate. Ones would depend on whether there's that little notch at the top or not.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Forbin]

The TNG numbers hurt more, 'cause they're longer!

 

[NCC621]

Personally, I respect fan NCCs from before the nineties internet boom (say, the Franz Joseph and Mastercom/SSA continuities, even if not all the various RPGs), and insert stuff in the holes left in the TOS/TAS/TFS era. For post-TOS, I respect the Okudaic idea that ship classes aren't numbered in tight little batches, and I also follow the principle that the registries are at least intended to be chronological - possibly so that NCC-10000 coincides roughly with the onset of the 24th century, and 1000 NCC units are allocated for each year's production (although there are always delays, cancellations and other aberrations, and no year sees the completion of a full 1000 ships big enough to receive a NCC registry).

Timo Saloniemi

And yet, in the entire Original Series, the only actual registry numbers that we saw clearly on screen on the hulls of Enterprise-type ships (presumably Constitution-class) were NCC-1701 and NCC-1017. This seems to suggest that the twelve ships like the Enterprise have registry numbers that are scattered across at least this range.

 

[hellsgate]

I could plausibly see a spontaneous resurrection of TOS / TMP-era registries in fan fiction, & an occasional honorary crossover. Registries from Starfleet capital vessels to Federation Merchant Ships or other vessels. Taking into account that William Shatner did it for the U.S.S. Monitor (U.S.S. Enterprise-F). Is it unlikely it'll happen again down the road in pro-fic or fan-fic?

In example:

• U.S.S. Trieste-A
  Whorfin-Class (or Pandora-Class) Freighter
  Registry Number FMS 1763-A
  

 

[Forbin]

It's also not unreasonable to re-use a registry from a ship that hasn't existed for some decades. I recently googled the registry of an airplane my father owned in 1960, and discovered it's been reassigned to a different plane.

It wouldn't be unreasonable for Starfleet to wipe the slate, so to speak, and start new-build ship registries over from NCC-001 again. Somewhat in the spirit of the way the Air Force did this with aircraft designations when they started getting into high numbers. The F-110 became the F-4, then the next design was the F-5. The first new bomber after the XB-70 was the B-1.

 

[Timo]

And yet, in the entire Original Series, the only actual registry numbers that we saw clearly on screen on the hulls of Enterprise-type ships (presumably Constitution-class) were NCC-1701 and NCC-1017. This seems to suggest that the twelve ships like the Enterprise have registry numbers that are scattered across at least this range.

Assuming that the Constellation is a ship like the Enterprise. The fan material I referred to assumes she is not.

Somewhat in the spirit of the way the Air Force did this with aircraft designations when they started getting into high numbers.

...It has to be remembered that the low numbers had never been used in the scheme in the first place. When the Air Force was founded, the old USAAF numbers still in use were "adopted" into the new scheme, with Pursuit planes like P-40 Warhawk becoming Fighters with F designations. And AFAIK, the lowest-numbered such designation theoretically adopted was P->F-38 Lightning, while "the highest of the low" the modern USAF has used so far is F-35 for the JSF (coincidentally named Lightning II). Even F-38 was never used in practice, though, the "lowest high" F-fighter in USAF service being F-80 Shooting Star. There's a long way to go till they hit that number!

The old USN designations are a different matter entirely...

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Forbin]

Well, actually, P-47s and P-51s were still in service during the F changeover, albeit the former in ANG service. Any Mustangs used in Korea were F-51s, for instance.

However, there was very definitely a B-1 in service in the 1930s.