The First Seventeen Classes...

[CuttingEdge100]

According to Matt-Jeffries' original designation idea the NCC designation was a hybridization of the US's outdated NC designation (dated from 1951 and before I think) which was used for US civilian aircraft, and the Soviet Union's CCCC designation which was used for their aircraft. The 1701 designation was based on a concept that the 17 would indicate the 17th class of cruiser designed, with the Enterprise being the first ship in the class. Of course when the Constitution was mentioned and had the hull number 1700, it makes a small revision required as 00 could the prototype and the first ship in the class, but up to this point the principle works.

Starting with the USS Constellation they deviated from this, giving the ship the designation NCC-1017; it was done largely though simply so viewers would not mistake the ship for the Enterprise.

From that point on, especially when F.J. Schnaubelt entered the equation, everything began to drift away from that. However I actually consider it to be a good concept.

Though truthfully, in TOS there weren't any smaller classes of ships, although truthfully in TOS the only Federation ships shown were other Constitution-Class vessels. TAS did show other ships, but depending on time Roddenberry declared it Canon, then non-Canon and such so I'm not sure how seriously to take it. I suppose other designations could exist for line vessels such as border-patrol vessels, destroyer-size ships, frigate-sized vessels, and corvette sized vessels and so on.

There were other designations such as NX, NAR, and so-on, however most of those appeared to my knowledge after TOS, and NX may have been after TMP.

It still is possible that there were only 17-classes of line-vessels built for the Federation...

There's a reason I'm doing this, I have had an idea in my head for awhile about some kind of machinema fan-movie which would basically be a re-make starting where the TMP movie would take off but it would have a different plot. I'd need to find people who would be willing to do this, and a suitable game engine with reasonably good graphics (I'd also have to make sure no copyright laws are violated).

Since this concept would include TOS but nothing after and starting where TMP began, technically everything after could be changed. Don't worry I don't intend to butcher up the storyline anything like Mr. Abrams did, in many respects I would like to have stayed far truer to the storyline.

In fact like Mr. Shaw who was doing a lot of blueprints awhile back for the USS Enterprise (TOS) design, I actually like his idea of ignoring everything from TNG and just sticking truer to the older stuff.

For example I'd like the ships to have low-surface detail like the TV-series Enterprise as this actually is consistent with a higher-tech design, and also indicates most of the vital equipment is inside or positioned in areas that are hard to hit, I'd like to keep the high-ceilings in TOS, and have most of the equipment stashed in the walls like in TOS.

I'd also like to see the Starship construction take on a more modular construction. For example if you look at the pressure compartments in the saucer, imagine if the saucer was constructed in segments like that, which would be fabricated, then all slapped together in a final join which is resemblant of aircraft construction. The engineering hull of the TOS enterprise seemed to show some characteristics to indicate a similar modular construction (in this case constructed in length-wise segments very similar to an airliner). The nacelles, bridge dome, and impulse deck have already practically been established to be modular in design.

It would make ship construction, and modifications potentially a great deal easier than if it was constructed otherwise.


Regardless, I digress, for my idea to proceed, I'd need to know certain things.

- Was NX and NAR used prior to TMP?
- Was NCC specific to cruisers or all Federation vessels


I'm not sure whether to put this in Trek Tech or Art or Fan Projects. I've decided on Art, but I don't object if it was moved to one of the other forums


Sincerely,
Helen

 

[Albertese]

According to Matt-Jeffries' original designation idea the NCC designation was a hybridization of the US's outdated NC designation (dated from 1951 and before I think) which was used for US civilian aircraft, and the Soviet Union's CCCC designation which was used for their aircraft. The 1701 designation was based on a concept that the 17 would indicate the 17th class of cruiser designed, with the Enterprise being the first ship in the class. Of course when the Constitution was mentioned and had the hull number 1700, it makes a small revision required as 00 could the prototype and the first ship in the class, but up to this point the principle works.

I too have always liked the idea of the Enterprise being the first production ship of the 17th class of starship. It makes a lot of sense, and if you throw out everything but TOS there's no reason it shouldn't be. Interestingly, when MJ was approached to throw out some ideas for Star Trek:Phase II (which eventually evolved into TMP) his sketch had notes to suggest that the model be marked as NCC-1701-A, the letter suffix to indicate a major refit had been carried out. Come ST4 this idea was sorta used, with a letter to designate a second ship that was successor to the registry. This, of course, was carried through the rest of the series too.

Starting with the USS Constellation they deviated from this, giving the ship the designation NCC-1017; it was done largely though simply so viewers would not mistake the ship for the Enterprise.

I certainly realize that as the episode was made, the intention was that the Constellation would be one of Enterprise's sisters, it could be argued that it was actually not. This was the only time the camera got up close and personal with the 18" AMT model kit. As anyone who's tried to build an accurate Enterprise with it can attest to, there are numerous differences between it and the Enterprise from the show (By that I mean mostly the 11' studio model. But there was also a 3' model that was different yet) Some have suggested (and I rather like the idea) that the Constellation was indeed the 17th ship of the 10th design and had been refit to near Constitution specs (not unlike what the TMP refit did to the Enterprise).

YMMV, of course.

- Was NX and NAR used prior to TMP?
- Was NCC specific to cruisers or all Federation vessels

...

Sincerely,
Helen

NX was first used in ST3: Excelsior was NX-2000, evidently as she was an experimental vessel. By the time she saw actual duty in ST6, she bore the registry NCC-2000.

NAR was first a TNG thing. I forget which ship was so designated first, but usually NAR ships were civilian science vessels and other non-official, not-really-Starfleet fare.

NCC has been the catch-all prefix for basically all Starfleet ships from cruisers to frigates to huge explorers to scouts and runabouts.

Hope that's helpful!

--Alex

 

[CuttingEdge100]

Albertese,

I too have always liked the idea of the Enterprise being the first production ship of the 17th class of starship. It makes a lot of sense, and if you throw out everything but TOS there's no reason it shouldn't be.

True, but the Constitution had a 1700 number. Regardless I don't see it a problem as one could list the first ship in the class as having a -00 hull number.

Interestingly, when MJ was approached to throw out some ideas for Star Trek:Phase II (which eventually evolved into TMP) his sketch had notes to suggest that the model be marked as NCC-1701-A, the letter suffix to indicate a major refit had been carried out.

Actually, IIRC, that lettering idea was conceived while MJ was creating the TV-series.

I certainly realize that as the episode was made, the intention was that the Constellation would be one of Enterprise's sisters, it could be argued that it was actually not.

I have heard that argument before, and with the AMT model being slightly different than the studio model, I suppose one could basically make the argument. I, myself though, would generally prefer to avoid making it, The ship was obviously supposed to be a sister-ship to the USS Enterprise; and the out-of-sequence NCC-1017 registry number was given to the Constellation so it wouldn't be mistaken for the USS Enterprise.

NCC has been the catch-all prefix for basically all Starfleet ships from cruisers to frigates to huge explorers to scouts and runabouts.

Even in TOS? Or post-TOS?


CuttingEdge100

 

[Albertese]

Albertese,

I too have always liked the idea of the Enterprise being the first production ship of the 17th class of starship. It makes a lot of sense, and if you throw out everything but TOS there's no reason it shouldn't be.

True, but the Constitution had a 1700 number. Regardless I don't see it a problem as one could list the first ship in the class as having a -00 hull number.

Oh, sorry if I seemed to disagree. I too have always been fine with -00 being the prototype. That's what I meant by first production ship. Production meaning not the experimental prototype ship.

Interestingly, when MJ was approached to throw out some ideas for Star Trek:Phase II (which eventually evolved into TMP) his sketch had notes to suggest that the model be marked as NCC-1701-A, the letter suffix to indicate a major refit had been carried out.

Actually, IIRC, that lettering idea was conceived while MJ was creating the TV-series.

Perhaps so. But the sketch I refer to (though not dated) was very clearly the Phase II Enterprise. Not a big deal in any case.

I certainly realize that as the episode was made, the intention was that the Constellation would be one of Enterprise's sisters, it could be argued that it was actually not.

I have heard that argument before, and with the AMT model being slightly different than the studio model, I suppose one could basically make the argument. I, myself though, would generally prefer to avoid making it, The ship was obviously supposed to be a sister-ship to the USS Enterprise; and the out-of-sequence NCC-1017 registry number was given to the Constellation so it wouldn't be mistaken for the USS Enterprise.

Yeah, that's cool too. There are at least two pretty strong camps on that one.

NCC has been the catch-all prefix for basically all Starfleet ships from cruisers to frigates to huge explorers to scouts and runabouts.

Even in TOS? Or post-TOS?


CuttingEdge100

In TOS, the Enterprise and the Constellation are the only ships we actually see the registry clearly on. In "Court Martial" the Commodore's office has a display showing "% COMPLETE" status chart which shows numerous registries. However, there are no names to link them to any specific ship. But we also don't hear of any other registries that don't include NCC. (Actually in Kirk's deposition, he mentions that he serves as a youth aboard the "Republic, number 1-3-7-1" without referring to "NCC," but if NCC is so ubiquitous, it may be left off between officers). In the movie era, we only see three ships, the Enterprise, the Grissom, and the Excelsior, and all of them had NCC numbers. Except of course when Excelsior was an experimental prototype, when it had an NX number, but later it got the NCC number. And ST3 indicates that Grissom was a scout type vessel rather than an cruiser, so there goes "cruisers-only" for NCC.

For interest's sake, following the "first 17 classes" theory, then the Republic would have been part of the 13th class, the 18th might be the Miranda-class (NCC-1800), the Constellation-class (NCC-1900), and the Excelsior-class (NCC-2000). But then, all three ships wind up in TNG with numbers all across the board, so the theory breaks down if we include more than TOS stuff. (It's not TOS, but the Horizon model on Sisko's desk in DS9 was labeled NCC-177 (IIRC) thus suggesting a 1st federation ship type...)

--Alex

 

[Gagarin]

There was a logic and thought behind everything Jefferies did, but it doesn't all -

Play out onscreen
Stay consistant onscreen
Fit with what comes after, or fill in all the holes

So, you know, that gives some room to play. It's hard to 'just' go by TOS sometimes.

Situation-

A:Constellation had a low 4 digit registry.
B:Several other ships (from the chart) had lower 4 digit registries than Enterprise.

A - There's the old 'Constellation' was an older ship, with an upgraded configuation, but not originally a Constitution/Enterprise-type ship. Hence the lower number.
Or, hey, why not just give her 1710? Stranger things have been retconned. Or maybe she was 'ordered' as a 10-series ship, but not built, and was then re-ordered as a Constitution/Enterprise-type ship? (Same goes for Republic or Farragut, though...what says they were Constitution/Enterprise-type ships anyway?)

B - Someone posted or wrote up how those ST:Encyplopedia authors connected those registry numbers and ship names were made. It was pretty bad. Willing to throw out the Encylopedia connecting those registries lower than 1700 to Constutition class ships. Those other registries were for other types.

I like '17th' design, generally, but how about more like blocks of 100?

100-200 could have been devoted to those early Starfleet survey and explorer ships (Dadeulous, etc).


The series could have been skipped a few hundred for service and auxillary ships (300-500), and then somewhere 1000-series, 1400 series, 1600 series, 1700 series.

And then 600-900 could have later been assigned to other non-ships of the line, like science shops (Grissom), tugs, transports. These blocks were reserved until released by the powers that be.

There's only... 100 spaces between those, so something like Miranda, or some Destroyer type ships, where there's more than 100 produced (or Excellsior eventually), they'd have to assign higher numbers than originally provided. So then you get NCC 3000's and NCC 3500s which may be more Mirandas or Excellsiors or new designs. And then we see NCC 50000s. One fandom book suggested that NCC number assignments changed somewhere in 24th century to correspond to production facility, as in the yards were given blocks of numbers. That made some sense to me - more like a serial number than a Fleet appropriations tracking mechanism.

 

[DestinyCaptain]

It's also completely possible that, in Trek as in life, a registry system that may have started out with a logical frame work - or attempt as such -degraded into a registry system where numbers are now being assigned as available. Remember that the phone number system once started out with specific numbers for specific regions. That has all gone away at this point. I submit that there may have well been a time where MJ's rules provided a structure, but as time went on MANY variables forced it to change. This could have even happened early on when as onscreen dialog suggests, UESPA still had authority over Kirk's Enterprise. I imagine the process of folding the various military forces, civilian space agencies, alien councils such as the Vulcan science council into what we know as Star Fleet as extremely delicate and complicated by "turf" agreements. This could give rise to the concept of UESPA controlling "Star Fleet" ships assigned to the Sol Feet (ComSol - First Fleet - Earth Fleet). Those ships could likely have the UESAP arrowhead delta thingy as their mission insignia. They might have their own registry guidelines. The same might be true of the Intrepid and the Idic being its insignia, with the Vulcan Science council governing that fleet it belongs to. I guess that'd be the Eridani Fleet (ComEridani - Second Fleet - Vulcan Fleet)

 

[Herkimer Jitty]

Does NCC have to be all-encompassing, if we go by the Jefferies scheme?

I mean, only 17 designs - in naval terms, that's not a lot, if UESPA/Starfleet/whatever is supposed to have been around for a while.

Could NCC just mean like "Super Kickass Big Cruiser" or something?

That frees up space for scout ships, support ships, etc etc

 

[DestinyCaptain]

What I was saying in the above post ties in with this...

http://trekbbs.com/showthread.php?t=117439&page=4

 

[CuttingEdge100]

Albertese,

Which ships in the TOS Episode "Court Martial" were shown on the board?

 

[SpyOne]

But then, all three ships wind up in TNG with numbers all across the board, so the theory breaks down if we include more than TOS stuff.

One could suppose that if they wound up building more than 100 of a given design, they'd need to use another number. Thus, the Miranda Class could be the 18th and 26th designs ordered by Starfleet, because they wanted more after the initial hundred and after using the 2500s for something.

I have seen recently someone who retconned the Constellation using exactly that logic: the Constitution Class was actually the 10th design (or at least the tenth block of ships ordered, or whatever). The original USS Constitution was NCC-1000. It was destroyed, and when they wanted a new batch of ships of that class, they decided to re-use the name, building the NCC-1700 USS Constitution. The idea here is that, while Enterprise was built around 2245, the Constitution Class might have been around since the 2190s.

Albertese,

Which ships in the TOS Episode "Court Martial" were shown on the board?

Court Martial

(Image changed to link; board rules prohibit embedding images hosted on other websites, other than those managed by the poster - Ptrope)

Modelmaker Greg Jein (through an amazingly complex and admittedly only barely logical means) managed to match up the various Constitution ships with the starship status chart in Commodore Stone's office in Starbase 11, as seen in "Court Martial" (TOS). Most of these registry numbers are from Greg's conjectural list, although several are from various Starfleet charts and readouts in Star Trek VI.

 

[Mr. Mugato]

Having NCC start EVERY SINGLE Starfleet Registry number has always bothered me. If you have it on every single ship, you don't need it at all. It's like area codes for telephone numbers. If EVERY phone number started with area code 123 then why bother? You would just leave it off.

 

[USS Jack Riley]

According to the chart on the board in "Court Martial" the Enterprise is only 85% complete. Even stranger the Constitution (assuming it is NCC-1700) is between 10% and 15% complete.

Surely this can't refer to construction completion. And don't call me Shirley.

It has to refer to something else - maybe completion of repairs at the station? The chart does say "Star Ship Status" and not "Star Ship Construction Status" so it could refer to repairs rather than construction completion. After all, the Enterprise was damaged in the ion storm.

The chart could also refer to both (general status of work assigned to a particular ship), given the vagueness of the title. Perhaps NCC-1700 was undergoing refit to bring her up to the same standards as the Enterprise and that is why her status is so much lower than Enterprise's.

YMMV

 

[aridas sofia]

If you spot the battleship Wisconsin in some old documentary, it will have a "64" painted on its hull. If you watch another documentary and see the carrier Constellation, it will have "64" painted on its island. One is BB-64 and the other is CVA-64, but the hull numbers are the same. That might not bother you too much because, hey... one is a carrier and the other one is a battleship. But what about the battleship Pennsylvania (38) and the cruiser San Francisco (38)?

The point being that the Navy assumes the port captain has a spyglass and wireless and can see and discern the type of ship and know just what he's going to be dealing with. Thus, might it be possible that in some strange and far distant future where starships follow US Navy traditions and folks presumably have scanners and subspace transceivers that work a bit better than the ol' port captain's spyglass and wireless, there might be a seventeenth space cruiser design with hull numbers beginning with "17" and a seventeenth destroyer design with the same? Sure, that'll screw up the folks watching the little 15" RCA, but we're talking UESPA here and not NBC.

In this scenario, Franz Joseph's Saladins are the fifth destroyer design, and the Constellation might well be from the tenth class of cruisers, outwardly as similar to the seventeenth class of heavy cruisers as the battleship Pennsylvania was to the cruiser San Francisco.

 

[CuttingEdge100]

So there's nothing in TOS alone that says you can't have NCC for Cruisers; and NCD for Destroyers, and so on?

 

[aridas sofia]

You don't need to do it that way if you don't want. Leave "NCC" as the aircraft-y part of the scheme-- the part that harkens back to the US and USSR finding a way to cooperate, etc. Then the number itself is more naval. The whole thing might read "NCC" for Starfleet, "CH" for heavy cruiser, and "1701" for seventeenth design, first built after the prototype. They leave the "CH" off just like they do today, because to the people that know, it's obvious what type of ship it is. It might not be obvious the ship is with Starfleet, however. Thus the commissioning pennant, the "NCC" prefix and "USS" before the name ARE on the hull.

 

[CuttingEdge100]

So on a formal design it could be written like

NCC CH 17-01
With NCC being Naval Construction Contract or National Construction Contract with CH being Heavy Cruiser, 17 being the 17th class of type of vessel (CH), and 01 being the first after the prototype?

If you went past 100 you could have a hull number of NCC-17100 with a formal registry of NCC CH 17-100. Much like how the XB-70's had the full designation 62-0001 and 62-0207 on records but on the tail 20001 and 20207 were on.


CuttingEdge100

 

[Wingsley]

^ I would say that by the time they're getting to ship number 99 of a given "class", they're probably already in trial runs for NX-1800 by that point. I would assume that the Federation member-worlds aren't exclusively churning out hundreds of ships of only one given class in only a few years' time; the UFP probably has limited resources, manpower and priorities that would allow for a limited number of ships to be produced from each class, plus refurbishment projects for ships of previous generations to be modernized to whatever the latest spec might be.

So, let's take the 2270's and 2280's as an example. Let's say by that point there were at least 20 to 50 newly-built Constitution-class starships in existence, including the "twelve like it in the Fleet" Kirk was referring to. (More may have been built after Kirk's statement.) In addition, let's assume for sake of argument that there may be another 50 to 100 cruisers of previous starship classes predating the Constitution (CH 1017 Constellation, CH 1371 Republic, and maybe CH 1305 Yamato, to suggest a few possibilities) which were refit to at least approximate the then-current Constitution-class "17" spec of the 2260's. (The TOS Enterprise).

So by the time a construction and refurbishment program would be completed, assuming even more brand-new ships had been built to the new "refit" TMP spec, there could be a total of at least 100-150 refit cruisers and maybe a couple dozen more brand-new ones. That's quite a sizeable fleet!

 

[SpyOne]

According to the chart on the board in "Court Martial" the Enterprise is only 85% complete. Even stranger the Constitution (assuming it is NCC-1700) is between 10% and 15% complete.

Surely this can't refer to construction completion. And don't call me Shirley.

It has to refer to something else - maybe completion of repairs at the station? The chart does say "Star Ship Status" and not "Star Ship Construction Status" so it could refer to repairs rather than construction completion. After all, the Enterprise was damaged in the ion storm.

Very first line of the episode:
STONE: Maintenance Section Eighteen. The section is working on the Intrepid. Reschedule. The Enterprise is on priority one.
So it seems to be work being done on those ships at that base. And it is canon that one of them is the Intrepid.

(Thanks for fixing the image, Ptrope, and sorry for having broken a rule. I know better now.)

 

[Warped9]

I understand that chart in Stone's office to mean completion of repairs. I also don't assume (unlike Jein) that it automatically means all ships listed there are Constitution-class. Some, yes, but certainly not all.

 

[SpyOne]

So on a formal design it could be written like

NCC CH 17-01
With NCC being Naval Construction Contract or National Construction Contract with CH being Heavy Cruiser, 17 being the 17th class of type of vessel (CH), and 01 being the first after the prototype?

If you went past 100 you could have a hull number of NCC-17100 with a formal registry of NCC CH 17-100. Much like how the XB-70's had the full designation 62-0001 and 62-0207 on records but on the tail 20001 and 20207 were on.


CuttingEdge100

I agree that system makes sense, and quite likely would be used.
The challenge was to reconcile the idea that the initial digits represent the class number with the fact that in TNG several classes were shown to have a wide range of possible initial digits.
That is why I supposed that they represented separate "batches", or when they built more than 100 of a given class.