Starship Construction Timeline

[Dukhat]

I'm writing up some starship-related essays, one of which concerns the conjectural Starfleet ship classes. In order to pin down attributes for each class, I needed to find out in what time-frame they were hypothetically built, by using the registry numbers of the known ships of each class, along with the numbers of some other official contemporaneous classes. So by using such research materials as the Chronology, Bernd's timeline from Ex-Astris-Scientia, the TNG Tech Manual, statements made about the ships in dialogue, and other factors, I made a hypothetical timeline of ship production. Not only did it help me out, it also showed some interesting information, such as that production of new ship classes happened in roughly ten-year increments between the 2270's and 2360's, the timespan of the timeline.

As always, please understand that these are my own unofficial opinions based on my data, and that there has never been official proof that registries are chronological (and even in some cases, my timeline has no good explanation for some classes of ships, i.e. the Oberth production). But I've tried to do my best with the information I had. Please bring to my attention any mistakes or omissions, as I want this to be as complete and accurate as possible. In a few cases, my findings will also be in dispute with some of the ASDB stuff. It's not my intention to disregard the work that the ASDB did, but hopefully they'll see my work as a supplement to theirs.

Canon/official information is in black font, conjectural information is in blue font.

http://www.box.net/shared/vz0heoe9cx

 

[Timo]

I'd like to argue that none of the four-digit registries are strictly chronological (but instead are possibly allocated batchwise or something), and that the chronological registries start as an all-new thing with NCC-10000 in the 24th century - perhaps even from 2300 onwards sharp.

That's perhaps not really necessitated by canon material, but even in canon terms it would help explain how NCC-2120 can precede NCC-2000 and NCC-2010 by what seems like decades. (Mostly, though, this interpretation is there to allow for the wealth of fandom material relating to the 23rd century, of course.)

So that'd mean I disagree on the Constellation dates, mostly. I'd also have a healthy separation between a proof-of-concept Ambassador and a series production E-C; I don't feel the necessity of putting these two right next to each other in the schedule, when it's known that the class spans something like 16000 numbers anyway at the canonical least.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Dukhat]

For the most part I'd tend to agree with you, although I'm not too overly concerned with four-digit registries, as they don't really help me with determining the design of the conjectural ship classes. And the Entente is kind of a gray area - all we hear is some badly garbled transmissions in TMP determining its name and registry (although the two scouts with 3-digit numbers don't cause much of a problem).

The way I view things is this: There are three distinct "real-world" points concerning registries: the original series, the movies, and TNG-onwards. Since the TOS era doesn't particularly concern me, let's focus the on the movies, specifically ST III. Now I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that the filmmakers really didn't care much about the intricacies of ship registries They simply labeled the Excelsior as NCC-2000 because "2000" seemed like a big, futuristic number for a big, futuristic ship. Likewise, they labeled the Grissom as NCC-638 because the Grissom was a small ship, so it got a small number. All fine & dandy for them, but really screwy for us. It wasn't until TNG that there was some semblance of logic to ship registries (although it still isn't 100% perfect).

 

[Tigger]

I'd like to argue that none of the four-digit registries are strictly chronological (but instead are possibly allocated batchwise or something), and that the chronological registries start as an all-new thing with NCC-10000 in the 24th century - perhaps even from 2300 onwards sharp.

That is more or less how I treated it. I set an arbitrary date of 2315 when Star Fleet moved from assigning numbers by batches to a class of ship to a new system where they were assigned in batches of 100 to the various starship production facilities.

The reason for this is when numbers were assigned by batches, it means numbers became wasted when a class didn't fully "build-out" or if a class was built in greater numbers then planned, the NCC's would be assigned in two different sets.

I came to this idea thanks to the Belknap and Ascension classes. The Belknap has two sets of NCCs: 2500-2519 and 2537-2544. This was because the Ascension class was projected at 16 ships (2520-2536) so when the second block of Belknaps were ordered, they had to have a different NCC range since the Ascension had already taken the logical block. However, production on the Ascension ended early (with NCC-2530). So this left six empty NCCs (2531-2536) which were then assigned to the Impervious class.

While the new schema (first used with the Deneva class of scoutships with the first NCC assigned being NCC-6200 for the pool given to the San Francisco Fleet Yards) eliminated the waste of NCCs, it does mean it's difficult to compare ship commissioning dates across classes. It usually does make sense within a ship's class, however, with a higher NCC number within a class relating to a newer build of that class.

 

[Praetor]

I like that, Tigger.

That arbitrary date of 2315 synchs nicely with when the U.S.S. Ambassador should have been under construction and/or launched... of course, it's unfortunate that semi-canon would have us believe her number was NX-10521 rather than NX-10000.

I personally think that pre-2315 or so, certain registries were 'reserved' and that's how we might have ended up with high numbers but not a ship for every number. For example, it's conceivable that NX/NCC-2000 was reserved for Excelsior even though the ship was ultimately built and launched after ships in the NCC-2100 range and higher were launched. It could also explain how we seem to make the long jump from NCC-2000 in 2285 to NCC-10000ish in 2315 - it wasn't really that long of a jump.

I wonder how tenable it is to try to make the case that early Starfleet registry numbers used the Jefferies System - for example, Enterprise as the 17th cruiser design, ship 01. The Reliant would be 18th (light) cruiser design, ship 64. The Excelsior the 20th cruiser design, ship 00 (prototype.)

For that matter, might we suggest that prior to 2280ish at least, some Starfleet ships used prefixes other than NCC to indicate ship type? NDD for destroyers, for example. What if the reason for the apparent 'jump' to NCC-10000 so quickly is that the 'NCC' nomenclature was adopted for all Starfleet non-civilian ships, and all remaining ships were renumbered chronologically?

Those ships referenced in the comm chatter in TMP might be problematic if we choose to bring them into the mix.

 

[Mysterion]

I came to this idea thanks to the Belknap and Ascension classes. The Belknap has two sets of NCCs: 2500-2519 and 2537-2544.

Hate to point it out, but there is an on-screen conflict with NCC-2544 being used for the Excelsior class USS Repulse (TNG 2d Season "The Child").

Otherwise, I believe your system to be a quite probable explanation of things.

 

[Albertese]

I'm not sure about taking all the ships from FC and putting them at 2370. Why ignore their numbers? I'm perfectly fine with shuffling them into the chronology by their numbers. The only feature that makes them feel like they ought to be contemporaries with the Sovvie is the triangular lifeboats, but who's to say those were new.

--Alex

 

[Praetor]

I'd be inclined to think the triangular pods were not the newest type, just a different type. The tech manuals seem to make a subtle distinction between conventional lifeboats and ASRVs. Perhaps the triangular pods are of a specific subtype designed with atmospheric entry in mind?

 

[DSG2k]

It's based on canon-only data (which means, judging by your sig about hating "canonistas", you won't like it), but here's a chart and notes of mine provided for comparison. Concur or ignore as you see fit.

http://www.st-v-sw.net/STSWvolumetrics2.html

 

[JNG]

I'm not sure about taking all the ships from FC and putting them at 2370. Why ignore their numbers? I'm perfectly fine with shuffling them into the chronology by their numbers. The only feature that makes them feel like they ought to be contemporaries with the Sovvie is the triangular lifeboats, but who's to say those were new.

--Alex

I think you're right, especially as regards the Thunderchild, which to me looks much more like it comes out of the era in which the Galaxy was designed.

 

[Dukhat]

Thanks to everyone for participating in this discussion. I'm going to focus on some points that each person has made.

That is more or less how I treated it. I set an arbitrary date of 2315 when Star Fleet moved from assigning numbers by batches to a class of ship to a new system where they were assigned in batches of 100 to the various starship production facilities.

The reason for this is when numbers were assigned by batches, it means numbers became wasted when a class didn't fully "build-out" or if a class was built in greater numbers then planned, the NCC's would be assigned in two different sets.

I came to this idea thanks to the Belknap and Ascension classes. The Belknap has two sets of NCCs: 2500-2519 and 2537-2544. This was because the Ascension class was projected at 16 ships (2520-2536) so when the second block of Belknaps were ordered, they had to have a different NCC range since the Ascension had already taken the logical block. However, production on the Ascension ended early (with NCC-2530). So this left six empty NCCs (2531-2536) which were then assigned to the Impervious class.

While the new schema (first used with the Deneva class of scoutships with the first NCC assigned being NCC-6200 for the pool given to the San Francisco Fleet Yards) eliminated the waste of NCCs, it does mean it's difficult to compare ship commissioning dates across classes. It usually does make sense within a ship's class, however, with a higher NCC number within a class relating to a newer build of that class.

A few points: Although I like your theory about chronological registry assignments after 2315 (coincidentally only a year before the Ambassador class is produced according to my timeline ), your basis for this theory rests a lot on non-canon sources, which for the sake of the timeline I'm trying to avoid (since as Mysterion pointed out, there will inevitably be a conflict with canon information). And just to point out, the Deneva class is a freighter, not a scout ship (although who's arguing... )

I personally think that pre-2315 or so, certain registries were 'reserved' and that's how we might have ended up with high numbers but not a ship for every number. For example, it's conceivable that NX/NCC-2000 was reserved for Excelsior even though the ship was ultimately built and launched after ships in the NCC-2100 range and higher were launched. It could also explain how we seem to make the long jump from NCC-2000 in 2285 to NCC-10000ish in 2315 - it wasn't really that long of a jump.

No, I don't see Starfleet producing 8,000 ships in 30 years either (with 593 ships being built in the year 2285 alone, if we believed that Starfleet used every single number...), unless, like runabouts, SF had many small support ships that were given registry numbers too (a not unlikely situation). However, I'm far more concerned about the huge jump from 2XXX to 4XXXX between 2285 and 2320, when in reality the Excelsior class should have been phased out before the Ambassador class was produced circa 2315.

I'm not sure about taking all the ships from FC and putting them at 2370. Why ignore their numbers? I'm perfectly fine with shuffling them into the chronology by their numbers. The only feature that makes them feel like they ought to be contemporaries with the Sovvie is the triangular lifeboats, but who's to say those were new.

Granted, this is just my personal belief based on the fact that the VFX people got the Prometheus's number wrong. And I also think that there's more in common with these ships to the Sovereign class than just the escape pods. But yes, you do have a valid point. In the span of just a few years, we have the original TOS Constitution class, the TMP Constitution class, the Excelsior class, and the Oberth class...none of which really look anything alike design-wise. So sure, we can argue that these four FC ships are actually 20 to 30 years older than I think they are based on their registries. But I really don't think that was the intention of the VFX people. I really think they were supposed to be new ships contemporaneous with the Enterprise-E.

It's based on canon-only data (which means, judging by your sig about hating "canonistas", you won't like it), but here's a chart and notes of mine provided for comparison. Concur or ignore as you see fit.

Actually, my sig refers to the people here who are currently saying negative things about the new movie not staying with established canon. It has nothing to do with how I feel about other aspects of Star Trek

 

[Praetor]

I personally think that pre-2315 or so, certain registries were 'reserved' and that's how we might have ended up with high numbers but not a ship for every number. For example, it's conceivable that NX/NCC-2000 was reserved for Excelsior even though the ship was ultimately built and launched after ships in the NCC-2100 range and higher were launched. It could also explain how we seem to make the long jump from NCC-2000 in 2285 to NCC-10000ish in 2315 - it wasn't really that long of a jump.

No, I don't see Starfleet producing 8,000 ships in 30 years either (with 593 ships being built in the year 2285 alone, if we believed that Starfleet used every single number...), unless, like runabouts, SF had many small support ships that were given registry numbers too (a not unlikely situation).

I'm guessing not. Many small, independently-registered vessels does not really seem to me to fit in the pre-TNG era.

However, I'm far more concerned about the huge jump from 2XXX to 4XXXX between 2285 and 2320,

...Which is an advantage of accepting that for example NCC-2000 - NCC-2500 were reserved from, say 2265, and that other classes marched on with their registries up into the 5000s or so by the 2290s.

when in reality the Excelsior class should have been phased out before the Ambassador class was produced circa 2315.

...Assuming that the Ambassador was expressly meant to replace the Excelsior, which I'd vehemently argue it was not. I'd argue that the Ambassador was the first true 'explorer' and the predecessor for the Galaxy, which also did not seem to replace the Excelsiors.

 

[Dukhat]

Assuming that the Ambassador was expressly meant to replace the Excelsior, which I'd vehemently argue it was not. I'd argue that the Ambassador was the first true 'explorer' and the predecessor for the Galaxy, which also did not seem to replace the Excelsiors.

I agree. Probert's original design for the Ambassador class Enterprise-C was specifically supposed to be the mid-point between the Excelsior class and the Galaxy class. When the Enterprise-C model was built, it was drastically different from Probert's design for budget reasons (as I'm sure you're already aware, since you participate in Drexler's blog discussions ), so it no longer became that mid-point design. But the original design is still canon, even if its canonicity solely resides in a wall-hanging from season one. So if one applies another class designation to the Probert design, it would work fine as the mid-point.

 

[Praetor]

Well, I'd argue that it is still a technological midpoint if not a direct design midpoint.

I'd also argue that the U.S.S. Ambassador and other unseen members of the class might have closely resembled Mr. Probert's original design, and it might be the Enterprise-C and her shown sisters that represent a later 'departure.'

 

[Dukhat]

I'd also argue that the U.S.S. Ambassador and other unseen members of the class might have closely resembled Mr. Probert's original design, and it might be the Enterprise-C and her shown sisters that represent a later 'departure.'

It's just that Probert's design looks so different than Sternbach's design. However, the TOS Constitution looked completely different than the TMP Constitution, so you have a point there.

At one point in Drexler's blog, Michael Okuda states that they were going to build an all new model/design for the Enterprise-B in "Generations" instead of using the Excelsior class. If they'd done that (and I really wish they had), then that would have completely invalidated the TNG season one wall models from being an "Enterprise design lineage," (not like those models were all that close to begin with...) and could have just represented different types of Starfleet vessels. Then I'd have a good case that Probert's design could represent the Renaissance class.

 

[Praetor]

I'd also argue that the U.S.S. Ambassador and other unseen members of the class might have closely resembled Mr. Probert's original design, and it might be the Enterprise-C and her shown sisters that represent a later 'departure.'

It's just that Probert's design looks so different than Sternbach's design. However, the TOS Constitution looked completely different than the TMP Constitution, so you have a point there.

And that was in fact what I was specifically thinking of.

At one point in Drexler's blog, Michael Okuda states that they were going to build an all new model/design for the Enterprise-B in "Generations" instead of using the Excelsior class. If they'd done that (and I realy wish they had), then that would have completely invalidated the TNG season one wall models from being an "Enterprise design lineage," (not like those models were all that close to begin with...) and could have just represented different types of Starfleet vessels.

I remember that discussion. Frankly, I'd have preferred it - then the wall's 'inaccuracies' could have been completely ignored and chalked up to 'milestones in shipbuilding history' as you suggest. Plus, the Excelsior model wouldn't have gotten its irreversible makeover.

I still don't get the idea that an Excelsior class Enterprise-B needed a makeover, anyway.

 

[Unicron]

I'm personally glad they didn't invalidate the wall mounts, although I do agree that they should have kept the original Excelsior design. Dukhat, are you mainly interested only in the canonical designs, or in unofficial designs as well?

 

[Lyon_Wonder]

Starfleet must have really liked the Excelsiors, since they’re registries into the 40xxx range. Later Excelsiors were constructed concurrent with the Ambassador, and likely had upgraded systems too. Maybe the Ambassadors had teething problems, and Starfleet found the Excelsior design a proven workhorse. To think of it, we don’t see much of the Ambassador even after the Ent-C is shown on-screen. An Ambassador is shown in TNG’s “Redemption” as part of the blockade between the Romulan-Klingon border, and again at Wolf 359 in the DS9 premiere, but I don’t think any was on-screen in the Dominion war engagements. Plenty of Excelsiors and Galaxies, but no Ambassadors. It can be argued the Sovereign class is a replacement for the Excelsiors, since the Sovereign is smaller than the Galaxy and by the 2370s Starfleet probably took a serious look at replacing those ships.

 

[Praetor]

Lyon Wonder (and anyone else) you may be interested in my Excelsior theories here.

 

[Dukhat]

I'm personally glad they didn't invalidate the wall mounts, although I do agree that they should have kept the original Excelsior design. Dukhat, are you mainly interested only in the canonical designs, or in unofficial designs as well?

The ironic thing is, they added the extra parts to the original Excelsior model to make it into the Enterprise-B because they didn't want to damage the model, but later found that the parts couldn't be removed without damaging it! And then, when they needed the original Excelsior for VOY's "Flashback," they couldn't use it, so Greg Jein had to build a new model of the Excelsior.

Wouldn't it have been easier to just have built a new model/design for the Enterprise-B? Then they could have still used the original Excelsior in "Flashback."

Unicron: Because a lot of unofficial designs have registry numbers that conflict with the canon stuff, I'm really only focusing on the official stuff registry-wise. However, if there are unofficial designs out there that would match the hypothetical descriptions I've written for the conjectural classes, I'd really like to know about them. For example, I'm using Reverend's design for the Apollo class from the ASDB because it fits perfectly with my description of the class.