That Starbase 11 wall chart - noe in slide form

[aridas sofia]

“1697” is a really interesting number. It’s as if someone were trying to say, “almost like Enterprise”.

THAT’S the kind of number I bet Jefferies would have used to differentiate Constellation, had he the time or decals.

I would agree he was saying with his system- “this is a small fleet of special, hard to build ships. We never get to a hundred in one generation”,

But then, he picks one that is 97, which goes against that idea.

He’s either telling us the numbers don’t matter, or they matter in some other way. After all, “1697” IS almost 1700, so that probably isn’t an accident.

 

[Tallguy]

THAT’S the kind of number I bet Jefferies would have used to differentiate Constellation, had he the time or decals.

On the one hand: I'm sure you're right. OTOH (and I don't know if MJ would have thought the same way we / I do on this) would he have implied that the Constellation was older?

I know fan lore has kind of taken up this notion for various reasons (not the least of which being the Connie's Captain).

He’s either telling us the numbers don’t matter, or they matter in some other way. After all, “1697” IS almost 1700, so that probably isn’t an accident.

That's what I meant by "not thinking the same way we do". They might matter (if they do) "in some other way".

 

[BK613]

For those interested, airhistory.net has a write up of the somewhat convoluted serial and tail numbers the US Army Air Corps/Air Force used over its history. Something MJ would have been aware of with his background as WWII veteran and aviation illustrator.

 

[Boo-khat!]

“1697” is a really interesting number. It’s as if someone were trying to say, “almost like Enterprise”.

THAT’S the kind of number I bet Jefferies would have used to differentiate Constellation, had he the time or decals.

I would agree he was saying with his system- “this is a small fleet of special, hard to build ships. We never get to a hundred in one generation”,

But then, he picks one that is 97, which goes against that idea.

He’s either telling us the numbers don’t matter, or they matter in some other way. After all, “1697” IS almost 1700, so that probably isn’t an accident.

On the one hand: I'm sure you're right. OTOH (and I don't know if MJ would have thought the same way we / I do on this) would he have implied that the Constellation was older?

I know fan lore has kind of taken up this notion for various reasons (not the least of which being the Connie's Captain).

I'm still not understanding this need to make the Constellation an older ship of a different class, just because of its registry. Putting aside the number which doesn't conform to Jefferies' standard, everything else in the episode seems to indicate that the Constellation is the same class as the Enterprise. I mean, I desperately wanted the SS Tsiolkovsky from "The Naked Now" (and the Oberth class in general) to have been a new design contemporary to the Enterprise-D, as was originally intended by its registry number and launch date from its dedication plaque, but they used the Grissom model instead, and there's just no way around that now. Unfortunately, wishful thinking isn't going to change what's show on screen.

 

[Tallguy]

I'm still not understanding this need to make the Constellation an older ship of a different class, just because of its registry. Putting aside the number which doesn't conform to Jefferies' standard, everything else in the episode seems to indicate that the Constellation is the same class as the Enterprise. I mean, I desperately wanted the SS Tsiolkovsky from "The Naked Now" (and the Oberth class in general) to have been a new design contemporary to the Enterprise-D, as was originally intended by its registry number and launch date from its dedication plaque, but they used the Grissom model instead, and there's just no way around that now. Unfortunately, wishful thinking isn't going to change what's show on screen.

I don't see a reason (or an intent) for the Constellation to be a different class from the Enterprise. Just like all of the second season Starships that we see the intention is clearly that it's "another Enterprise".

She might be (might be) older than the E just because of the registry. But that's nothing that's implied by the episode.

Sheesh. All of the attention given to this wall chart over the years and now there are people who want to say "You know, the size of the Enterprise was never REALLY shown on screen in TOS. Not REALLY."

(Yes, it's my windmill and I shall tilt at it!)

 

[Boo-khat!]

Sheesh. All of the attention given to this wall chart over the years and now there are people who want to say "You know, the size of the Enterprise was never REALLY shown on screen in TOS. Not REALLY."

(Yes, it's my windmill and I shall tilt at it!)

Well, that's more of an argument for the SNW forum...

 

[Tallguy]

Well, that's more of an argument for the SNW forum...

It'll leak! Mark my words!

 

[Crewman Commander]

This is the Trek Tech forum, not the TOS/TAS forum, anyway.

 

[DSG2k]

“1697” is a really interesting number. It’s as if someone were trying to say, “almost like Enterprise”.

THAT’S the kind of number I bet Jefferies would have used to differentiate Constellation, had he the time or decals.

If everyone knew that there were only so many 1600s, like fifty, and would be no more, starting from 1699 and working your way down would be a nice way of differentiating refits.

 

[aridas sofia]

If everyone knew that there were only so many 1600s, like fifty, and would be no more, starting from 1699 and working your way down would be a nice way of differentiating refits.

That’s an interesting thought.

As for why Jefferies might have wanted to use 1697 instead of 1017, it’s precisely for the reasons being indicated. 1017 seems to say “different kind of ship”. 1697 at least says, “pretty close”. They were trying to communicate to a TV audience, mind you. One that might not know or care about the relationship between say, SBC-127 and 160 and the plans for the Forrestal and Kitty Hawk class carriers and the nuclear Enterprise CVAN-65. (A complicated story for another time but suffice to say, Enterprise started out to be a nuclear powered Forrestal, and Kitty Hawks started out as more Enterprises. And yet they all ended up looking different.)

In other words, the number can be confusing. The fact some people took away from 1017 “must be an older ship” when the intent was to say “just like Enterprise” means it was numbered wrong for the general audience. It needed to have a number that would be visually distinct from 1701 and yet not so different as to infer to a general audience “very different”. And since we are talking about the Stone chart and it had 1697 on it, I’m saying that woulda done the job.

None of this in any way touches upon complications in production and the (iirc) early desire to make the other ship look different. Or the differences between the AMT model and the 11-foot model. It’s just dealing with an intent to say it was just like Enterprise but had to be distinguished in some way beyond being totally wrecked with a lighter.

 

[Boo-khat!]

As for why Jefferies might have wanted to use 1697 instead of 1017, it’s precisely for the reasons being indicated...

In other words, the number can be confusing. The fact some people took away from 1017 “must be an older ship” when the intent was to say “just like Enterprise” means it was numbered wrong for the general audience. It needed to have a number that would be visually distinct from 1701 and yet not so different as to infer to a general audience “very different”. And since we are talking about the Stone chart and it had 1697 on it, I’m saying that woulda done the job.

I'm still a bit confused as to why you're making a correlation between what registry number Jefferies might have wanted to use, and what was printed on the actual model. Because as far as I am aware, Jefferies had nothing whatsoever to do with the construction or labeling of the Constellation. And they used 1017 because those were the numbers available on the decal sheet. They didn't have a 6 or a 9. Or am I misunderstanding you?

As for the idea that it's an older ship based solely on that number...I mean, sure, it could have been older. But that's really not all that relevant when the ship looks just like the Enterprise.

 

[DSG2k]

Regarding registry numbers for TOS: I think that anything past four numbers (especially when you add in dashes) becomes needlessly convoluted to the general tv audience.

I'd earlier suggested NCC2 or NCD or somesuch to avoid five digits or encroaching on another class, and/or the idea of the Jefferies modifications allowing for number reuse, but a simpler solution dawned on me: a leading zero.

So, the 115th ship of the fifth generation/class could be NCC-0514, for instance, without reusing numbers (much), screwing up whatever NCC means, or being confusing when the 25th generation/class comes along as might occur even with NCC2 since we don't typically pronounce the dash.

There's no TOS precedent, of course, but it works.

 

[BK613]

As for the idea that it's an older ship based solely on that number...I mean, sure, it could have been older. But that's really not all that relevant when the ship looks just like the Enterprise.

Yeah, I mean, it's almost as if someone was selling a model kit that looked that and calling it Enterprise...

 

[aridas sofia]

I'm still a bit confused as to why you're making a correlation between what registry number Jefferies might have wanted to use, and what was printed on the actual model. Because as far as I am aware, Jefferies had nothing whatsoever to do with the construction or labeling of the Constellation. And they used 1017 because those were the numbers available on the decal sheet. They didn't have a 6 or a 9. Or am I misunderstanding you?

As for the idea that it's an older ship based solely on that number...I mean, sure, it could have been older. But that's really not all that relevant when the ship looks just like the Enterprise.

We are in this thread discussing the list of ships on that Court Martial graphic. That is something that Jefferies DID (presumably) have something to do with - or actually made.

As for the AMT model, why would you think he had nothing to do with its construction? I mean, he gave clear instructions for the building of the three foot and eleven foot models. He was art director. It would be an abrogation of his responsibility to just leave the thing to someone else without any direction at all. We assume the number was 1017 because of the decal sheet (a good assumption, I think) but that isn’t the point. The point is to figure out this Commodore Stone chart. Jefferies either cared enough to make the numbers make sense or he thought it didn’t matter. I think the former. You may disagree. But I’m assuming those Court Martial ships - including 1371 - AND Doomsday Machine’s Constellation, all fit into some scheme. I may be wrong, but that is why I am tying them together. He was meticulous and I have spent a lot - too much - time trying to get into his thinking. I believe he wanted them to make some sense.

 

[Boo-khat!]

We are in this thread discussing the list of ships on that Court Martial graphic. That is something that Jefferies DID (presumably) have something to do with - or actually made.

Yes, I'm aware of that.

As for the AMT model, why would you think he had nothing to do with its construction?

Because it was just an off-the-shelf model kit with battle damage, utilizing the decals from said model. Anyone could have built that thing or labeled it. If Jefferies was directly involved, I'm sure he would have either wanted an actual filming model built (with a corresponding registry that fit his scheme) or at the least have custom decals made that would have been in-line with his scheme. Since neither of those things happened, I have to go under the assumption that he had nothing to do with the model's construction.

I mean, he gave clear instructions for the building of the three foot and eleven foot models. He was art director. It would be an abrogation of his responsibility to just leave the thing to someone else without any direction at all. We assume the number was 1017 because of the decal sheet (a good assumption, I think) but that isn’t the point. The point is to figure out this Commodore Stone chart. Jefferies either cared enough to make the numbers make sense or he thought it didn’t matter. I think the former. You may disagree. But I’m assuming those Court Martial ships - including 1371 - AND Doomsday Machine’s Constellation, all fit into some scheme. I may be wrong, but that is why I am tying them together. He was meticulous and I have spent a lot - too much - time trying to get into his thinking. I believe he wanted them to make some sense.

But the chart still has nothing to do with the Constellation's registry. You can assume all you want that he 'really' wanted the ship to have a 1697 registry, but there's no evidence that this is the case. That's literally doing the same thing Jein did: making assumptions about which number went with which ship based on zero ironclad information. You're assuming that he wanted the ship on screen to be a different class only because of the registry. All we have as evidence is an AMT Enterprise model kit that was clearly standing in for another ship of the Enterprise's class. I don't even think that the '1017' arrangement was even supposed to be an indicator of how old the ship was. It was just an arrangement to distinguish it from the Enterprise.

 

[Tallguy]

If Jefferies was directly involved, I'm sure he would have either wanted an actual filming model built (with a corresponding registry that fit his scheme) or at the least have custom decals made that would have been in-line with his scheme.

You seem to think Jefferies would have been outside the bean counters. He would have been THE bean counter. This WAS an actual filming model. It was built in such a way that let him build Vaal and any other production considerations for season 2 (including the Doomsday Machine itself). They didn't have the money or the TIME for custom decals and he knew 1017 saved him both.

 

[Boo-khat!]

You seem to think Jefferies would have been outside the bean counters. He would have been THE bean counter. This WAS an actual filming model. It was built in such a way that let him build Vaal and any other production considerations for season 2 (including the Doomsday Machine itself). They didn't have the money or the TIME for custom decals and he knew 1017 saved him both.

So if that was the case, why didn't he just have the model labeled '1710' to line up with his scheme?

 

[aridas sofia]

You can assume all you want that he 'really' wanted the ship to have a 1697 registry, but there's no evidence that this is the case.

I never said I assumed such a thing. I said it would have made sense for him to want such a thing. There is a difference.

You're assuming that he wanted the ship on screen to be a different class only because of the registry.

I would advise against attempting to ascertain what I am assuming. I said I thought I recalled an earlier version of the script or something about its development that said the idea was it was a different type of ship. Which, if you think of it, would make sense given the apparent desire to differentiate it from Enterprise.

All we have as evidence is an AMT Enterprise model kit that was clearly standing in for another ship of the Enterprise's class.

No, we have a sketch of another Starfleet ship that could clearly be made out of those same AMT kit parts. I would say that ship might have been intended as the “stolen plans” ship in the scenes cut from Balance of Terror but a) the AMT model had not yet been made, and b) there was never any need to actually show that ship - unless it was intended to be the Romulan ship built from the stolen plans.

I don't even think that the '1017' arrangement was even supposed to be an indicator of how old the ship was. It was just an arrangement to distinguish it from the Enterprise.

Of course 1017 wasn’t intended to show how old the ship was. It was intended to differentiate it from 1701. But do you think a person is incapable of holding two complementary ideas in their mind at the same time? Do you actually think it impossible that, given the eight other numbers that can be made from “1701” - 1017, 1071, 1107, 1170, 1710, 7011, 7110, and 7101 - that some other consideration entered the person’s mind who decided what number it should be?

Let’s assume 7011, 7110, and 7101 got thrown out because they inferred something too far ahead of Enterprise. 1710 got thrown out because it was too visually similar to 1701. That leaves 1017, 1071, 1107, and 1170, and by chance or some other consideration, 1017 just so happens to be the earliest in that series.

Take that to mean whatever the hell you want it to mean. But if 7101, 7110, and 7011 get thrown out because they look too advanced, then is it logical that the earliest number was chosen without some thought to it inferring much older?

 

[Tomalak]

But doesn't it follow that if you think Jefferies may have had an active role in picking NCC-1017, then he decided that his own theorised registry scheme was not that important, and he was happy to be flexible?

In which case there's no reason to think he didn't take a similar approach with the Court Martial graphic, and that it shows, as Jein concluded, a list of Enterprise-type, 'Starship Class' vessels.

The dramatic function of all the other Starships we see in TOS is that they are sister ships of the Enterprise, and have the same capabilities. Therefore the stakes are set that whatever fate befell them could easily happen to the Enterprise too. The difference is that they didn't have Captain Kirk and Mr Spock.

It could therefore follow that the only thing Jefferies might resist would be a *higher* number than the Enterprise, as that might imply a newer, more advanced and more capable Starship. That would make sense of picking 1017 over 1710, if we accept that it was an active choice and not simply the easiest solution available to the model maker.

It would also, for the purposes of this thread, strengthen the argument for 1631 over 1831.

 

[aridas sofia]

But doesn't it follow that if you think Jefferies may have had an active role in picking NCC-1017, then he decided that his own theorised registry scheme was not that important, and he was happy to be flexible?

In which case there's no reason to think he didn't take a similar approach with the Court Martial graphic, and that it shows, as Jein concluded, a list of Enterprise-type, 'Starship Class' vessels.

The dramatic function of all the other Starships we see in TOS is that they are sister ships of the Enterprise, and have the same capabilities. Therefore the stakes are set that whatever fate befell them could easily happen to the Enterprise too. The difference is that they didn't have Captain Kirk and Mr Spock.

It could therefore follow that the only thing Jefferies might resist would be a *higher* number than the Enterprise, as that might imply a newer, more advanced and more capable Starship. That would make sense of picking 1017 over 1710, if we accept that it was an active choice and not simply the easiest solution available to the model maker.

It would also, for the purposes of this thread, strengthen the argument for 1631 over 1831.

Your argument would be compelling but for the fact the Stone chart also has numbers 1703, 1709, and 1718. They may be 17th generation ships but they were built later if one takes the face value meaning of numbers coming after 1701. USS Carl Vinson CVN-70 and USS George HW Bush CVN-77 are sister ships but very, very different ships, having been built 27 years apart.

Also, and once again, read what I wrote about Constellation’s number above- picking 1017 among the eight other possible numbers still leaves you with why 1017? Even when you throw out 7101, 7110, and 7011and 1710, why 1017 and not 1071, 1107, or 1170? IN THE SAME EPISODE an old ship that is stated as being from Kirk’s early days in Starfleet is given the number 1371. And yet, this ship Constellation - THE ONLY SHIP IN THE ENTIRE SERIES TO BE SHOWN WITH ITS NUMBER - this ship that is supposedly the same as Enterprise - is not given a bigass number that is at least as close as it can be to Enterprise within the feasible numbers - 1170. It is made the furthest away - 1017. You can want to make the number visually distinct but are still left with choosing among the visually distinct combinations available from recombining 1, 7, 0, and 1. And Jefferies (or somebody) chose the lowest number.

If Constellation has any meaning in interpreting Stone’s chart, then that choice has to be taken into account.