Ship Registries Questions

[CuttingEdge100]

1.) I have heard like half a dozen hull numbers for various Constitution-Class Vessels.

For example the Exeter was originally 1706, and now it's listed in the 1600s'... Earlier documents regarding Star Trek had them all in the 1700 registry.

So which one is right, and which one makes the most sense?


2.) The Federation Class Dreadnought has the hull-number NCC-2100 (Which NCC-2120 was mentioned in TMP which was Federation Class) yet it was designed before the Excelsior, who's number was 2000. Why was this so?

 

[Unicron]

1) Canonically, some of the 1600 registries are considered valid because Mike Okuda was not considered bound by the fact that many other sources had attempted to keep Constitution registries in the same block. This is the same reason why almost no Excelsior class ship except the USS Excelsior has a 2000 series number, even though such numbers would be far more practical than the ridiculously high numbers seen on TNG and DS9.

2) I view it as a distinct series number for the Federation class, rather than a registry based on any sort of chronological production order. I've seen several theories for that sort of system, but they all run into problems with the existing lists of ship classes both on and off the screen. I find it simplest just to assume that a given design will have its own registry series, and generally most of these won't overlap.

 

[MarianLH]

The Federation Class Dreadnought has the hull-number NCC-2100 (Which NCC-2120 was mentioned in TMP which was Federation Class) yet it was designed before the Excelsior, who's number was 2000. Why was this so?

I hypothesize that the NX-2000 number was assigned when the idea for a "transwarp testbed vessel" was first proposed, and that it had a very long development process. According to TNG's "Peak Performance", the USS Hathaway was commissioned roughly around the time of ST III with a registry of NCC-2593, which is close to the lowest Excelsior registry after the Excelsior herself, USS Repulse, NCC-2544.

So the timeline might be:

2265: Transwarp project announced, assigned the NX-2000 registry
2266: Federation class dreadnoughts proposed, assigned registries 2100-2120.
2270: Commissioning of USS Entente, DN 2120
2285: Excelsior finally ready for testing after numerous transwarp teething problems, political wrangling, and other delays. Starfleet optimistically proposes additional Excelsior class ships, which are assigned registries 2540-2550.

This is all pure speculation, of course, but AFAIK it isn't flatly contradicted by any onscreen material. There's a lot of wriggle room for registries, as very few ships have established launch dates, and the time between assigning a registry and actual commissioning can be stretched by assuming production delays.


Marian

 

[CuttingEdge100]

Which sources attempted to keep the Constitution Classes all in the same 1700-block?

Also what was the first source to have the USS Lexington feature the designation number NCC-1709

 

[Shaw]

Well, if we are going strictly by what we were given in TOS, the only ships we heard about were the following...

U.S.S. Constellation NCC-1017 (Doomsday Machine)
U.S.S. Carolina (Friday's Child)
U.S.S. Defiant (Tholian Web)
U.S.S. Enterprise NCC-1701
U.S.S. Excalibur (Ultimate Computer)
U.S.S. Exeter (Omega Glory)
U.S.S. Farragut (Obsession)
U.S.S. Hood (Ultimate Computer)
U.S.S. Intrepid (Court Martial, Immunity Syndrome)
U.S.S. Lexington (Ultimate Computer)
U.S.S. Potemkin (Ultimate Computer)
U.S.S. Republic NCC-1371 (Court Martial)
U.S.S. Valiant (A Taste of Armageddon)
U.S.S. Yorktown (Obsession)​

And if we follow Cary's argument of readability, we can throughout all the registries on the wall in Court Martial as they weren't readable on screen in the 1960's and were hardly readable in the 1970's (as Jein got numbers wrong then), and none of them had names associated with them.

So that gives us three ships with registries numbers: Enterprise (NCC-1701), Republic (NCC-1371) and Constellation (NCC-1017)... and only two of those were seen as the same class (Enterprise and Constellation).

And which of the above list did we actually see on screen?

Constellation
Defiant
Enterprise
Excalibur
Exeter
Hood
Lexington
Potemkin​

From there you can draw whatever conclusions you want.

But Cary's readability argument for the scale of the Enterprise rules out names such as Constitution altogether. And because the 18", 33" and 11' models were all intended to represent the same type of ship on screen (even given their mild physical differences), the second list above represents the only Starship class vessels we knew of at the end of TOS original run.


Now, which version of registry numbers are valid after that... who knows. Lots of options, and I think it comes down to personal preference. Pretty much in the same way that people can decide they want a larger Enterprise in TOS.

 

[Forbin]

Which sources attempted to keep the Constitution Classes all in the same 1700-block?

The 1975 Franz Joseph "Star Fleet Technical Manual."

 

[Unicron]

Also FASA's work, Jackill's, and Ships of the Star Fleet.

 

[Captain Robert April]

FASA, Jackill, and Ships of the Fleet, were all basing their stuff on FJ, so they're only as authoritative as FJ (which ain't much these days).

The source of it all is the horrid AMT "build the entire fleet" decal sheet.

 

[aridas sofia]

FASA, Jackill, and Ships of the Fleet, were all basing their stuff on FJ, so they're only as authoritative as FJ (which ain't much these days).

The source of it all is the horrid AMT "build the entire fleet" decal sheet.

Pretty soon, it appears TOS itself won't be authoritative.

For some people.

 

[JNG]

2.) The Federation Class Dreadnought has the hull-number NCC-2100 (Which NCC-2120 was mentioned in TMP which was Federation Class) yet it was designed before the Excelsior, who's number was 2000. Why was this so?

Because the registries are often not chronological.

 

[Anticitizen]

Assuming the 1700-series registry numbers denote Constitution-class hulls would conflict with the Enterprise B, C, D, and E carrying the same registry.

 

[c0rnedfr0g]

^^ and J!

 

[Herkimer Jitty]

Assuming the 1700-series registry numbers denote Constitution-class hulls would conflict with the Enterprise B, C, D, and E carrying the same registry.

The Enterprise, is obviously a special case. You don't see any other ships running around with Alpha-Bits registries.

 

[Captain Robert April]

FASA, Jackill, and Ships of the Fleet, were all basing their stuff on FJ, so they're only as authoritative as FJ (which ain't much these days).

The source of it all is the horrid AMT "build the entire fleet" decal sheet.

Pretty soon, it appears TOS itself won't be authoritative.

For some people.

Well, the repop of the AMT 18" model has a totally new decal sheet, so another touchstone bites the dust. In this case, good riddance to bad rubbish.

 

[DEWLine]

Yeah?

Did they add one in for, say, the Kumari?

 

[darkwing_duck1]

Which sources attempted to keep the Constitution Classes all in the same 1700-block?

Also what was the first source to have the USS Lexington feature the designation number NCC-1709

Franz Joesph

most of the fan Treknologist publications

FASA

 

[darkwing_duck1]

The Federation Class Dreadnought has the hull-number NCC-2100 (Which NCC-2120 was mentioned in TMP which was Federation Class) yet it was designed before the Excelsior, who's number was 2000. Why was this so?

I hypothesize that the NX-2000 number was assigned when the idea for a "transwarp testbed vessel" was first proposed, and that it had a very long development process. According to TNG's "Peak Performance", the USS Hathaway was commissioned roughly around the time of ST III with a registry of NCC-2593, which is close to the lowest Excelsior registry after the Excelsior herself, USS Repulse, NCC-2544.

So the timeline might be:

2265: Transwarp project announced, assigned the NX-2000 registry
2266: Federation class dreadnoughts proposed, assigned registries 2100-2120.
2270: Commissioning of USS Entente, DN 2120
2285: Excelsior finally ready for testing after numerous transwarp teething problems, political wrangling, and other delays. Starfleet optimistically proposes additional Excelsior class ships, which are assigned registries 2540-2550.

Marian

Also, the Constellation-class Constellation has an "out of sequence number (1900 range IIRC) which could share this reason.

Other anomalies, like the Connie Constellation, Intrepid, etc could be explained as refits of ships of other classes to Connie specs. They would keep their original registry numbers for bookkeeping purposes.

 

[darkwing_duck1]

Well, if we are going strictly by what we were given in TOS, the only ships we heard about were the following...

U.S.S. Constellation NCC-1017 (Doomsday Machine)
U.S.S. Carolina (Friday's Child)
U.S.S. Defiant (Tholian Web)
U.S.S. Enterprise NCC-1701
U.S.S. Excalibur (Ultimate Computer)
U.S.S. Exeter (Omega Glory)
U.S.S. Farragut (Obsession)
U.S.S. Hood (Ultimate Computer)
U.S.S. Intrepid (Court Martial, Immunity Syndrome)
U.S.S. Lexington (Ultimate Computer)
U.S.S. Potemkin (Ultimate Computer)
U.S.S. Republic NCC-1371 (Court Martial)
U.S.S. Valiant (A Taste of Armageddon)
U.S.S. Yorktown (Obsession)
​

And if we follow Cary's argument of readability, we can throughout all the registries on the wall in Court Martial as they weren't readable on screen in the 1960's and were hardly readable in the 1970's (as Jein got numbers wrong then), and none of them had names associated with them.

So that gives us three ships with registries numbers: Enterprise (NCC-1701), Republic (NCC-1371) and Constellation (NCC-1017)... and only two of those were seen as the same class (Enterprise and Constellation).

And which of the above list did we actually see on screen?

Constellation
Defiant
Enterprise
Excalibur
Exeter
Hood
Lexington
Potemkin
​

From there you can draw whatever conclusions you want.

But Cary's readability argument for the scale of the Enterprise rules out names such as Constitution altogether. And because the 18", 33" and 11' models were all intended to represent the same type of ship on screen (even given their mild physical differences), the second list above represents the only Starship class vessels we knew of at the end of TOS original run.


Now, which version of registry numbers are valid after that... who knows. Lots of options, and I think it comes down to personal preference. Pretty much in the same way that people can decide they want a larger Enterprise in TOS.

You need to go back and update that list based off of recent events...lots of previously unknown registries got put out there, including Defiant 1764, Lexington 1709, Intrepid (1600 series), etc...

 

[darkwing_duck1]

2.) The Federation Class Dreadnought has the hull-number NCC-2100 (Which NCC-2120 was mentioned in TMP which was Federation Class) yet it was designed before the Excelsior, who's number was 2000. Why was this so?

Because the registries are often not chronological.

They are based on when they are ASSIGNED. A particular hull may be given a registry then sit in the docks for one reason or another for a decade or more then emerge as a NEW ship with what appears to be an anomalously OLD registry.

 

[Shaw]

You need to go back and update that list based off of recent events...lots of previously unknown registries got put out there, including Defiant 1764, Lexington 1709, Intrepid (1600 series), etc...

Why? They didn't exist during TOS so they are post-TOS revisionism. I was only talking about an accurate accounting of what we originally had to work with and no more.

If you want to cloud this stuff with recent events, that is fine... but I think it is very important to know what we actually started with before things that people in the following decades added in. And those number assignments didn't exist in TOS.