USS Copernicus, NCC-640 or 623?

[Robert Comsol]

"If you're concerned about registry numbers, don't be. You can make them anything you want. There's no rhyme or reason to them. Whatever "Jeffries rule" may have existed, doesn't have to be binding."

Dear Sir,

I'm aware that a Grand Unified Theory, mind a TOE, for the Universe of Star Trek including all series is rather next to impossible than improbable.

However, if a theory that limits itself to observing the original series and its subsequent films (!) answers more questions than it's raising new ones, it should be applied (especially given all the changed premises in Star Trek where new people didn't understand what the old ones intended) rather than being thrown out like a baby with the bath water, in my humble opinion.

According to my understanding of canon, something is most definitely canon if it is what the original producers and production designers intended and if there's no substantial evidence to the contrary (i.e. screen or dialogue information), then it is canon. Therefore the 'Jefferies Rule' (creator of the Enterprise!) should be binding, unless you've arranged yourself with the permanent Retcon Maneuvers that plague or beloved Star Trek.

Bob

 

[Dukhat]

According to my understanding of canon, something is most definitely canon if it is what the original producers and production designers intended and if there's no substantial evidence to the contrary (i.e. screen or dialogue information), then it is canon. Therefore the 'Jefferies Rule' (creator of the Enterprise!) should be binding, unless you've arranged yourself with the permanent Retcon Maneuvers that plague or beloved Star Trek.

That's not true at all. Canon in Star Trek is whatever the person currently in charge of Star Trek says it is. Intent by past producers is invalid if whoever presently holds the reigns says so, decides to blatantly ignore it, or especially if something else has superseded it. Case in point: Whatever Jeffries' intent with his registry scheme was went out the window when Constitution class vessels with registries other than 17XX were listed in Okudagrams, the Encyclopedia, etc. after TOS was produced.

 

[Timo]

Or already when a ship of that class was shown with the registry 1017...

Much of what Jeffries or Roddenberry or Coon etc. dreamed up but failed to make explicit in TOS has been rendered invalid later on, and it's not necessarily a bad thing. Much has been left in limbo, too, neither confirmed nor contradicted. But the idea that the registries identify the class of the ship went out of the window before Jeffries' tenure was over, and even before the Franz Joseph tech manual made its first popular alternate interpretation.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Robert Comsol]

"Or already when a ship of that class was shown with the registry 1017...

Much of what Jeffries or Roddenberry or Coon etc. dreamed up but failed to make explicit in TOS has been rendered invalid later on, and it's not necessarily a bad thing."

So much respect for the people that created Star Trek and their intentions. I take note of that and the open appreciation of the dystopian revisionism 1984 style. Perfect excuse for people that lack the enthusiasm of doing accurate research work, first.

"Much has been left in limbo, too, neither confirmed nor contradicted. But the idea that the registries identify the class of the ship went out of the window before Jeffries' tenure was over, and even before the Franz Joseph tech manual made its first popular alternate interpretation."

Pardon me, where exactly does the TM provide an alternate interpretation for NCC-1017???

All Franz Joseph did was to ignore the official statements in The Making of Star Trek that refer to "Enterprise Starship Class". Though he probably wasn't aware of Matt Jefferies' registry scheme, at least he did that right by assigning prefixes beginning with 17.. to Enterprise's sister ships, except for Republic and Constellation.

Since Republic was an older starship (13th design, Baton Rouge Class as envisioned by Marvel Comics and Rick Sternbach), I assume it's fair to say Joseph got that wrong.

With the USS Constellation of Matt Decker, which seems to be the exception from the rule, I find it amazing that no one ever considered the possibility that it was named and numbered in honor of its predecessor (10th design). With Captain Harriman's Excelsior Class Enterprise it's okay, other USS Yamato's appear to have had the name and registry of NCC-1305 (that's okay, too) but we can't apply that to the USS Constellation of TOS

Bob

 

[Dukhat]

Since Republic was an older starship (13th design, Baton Rouge Class as envisioned by Marvel Comics and Rick Sternbach), I assume it's fair to say Joseph got that wrong.

There is no canon evidence that the Republic was an older ship. Just because her registry started with 13 means nothing. The Encyclopedia lists it as Constitution class, so until canon evidence surfaces that it is not, that's what it officially is. And comics aren't canon.

With the USS Constellation of Matt Decker, which seems to be the exception from the rule, I find it amazing that no one ever considered the possibility that it was named and numbered in honor of its predecessor...

Maybe that's because there was no "A" after the registry number?

With Captain Harriman's Excelsior Class Enterprise it's okay...

It's okay because there's a "B" there.

other USS Yamato's appear to have had the name and registry of NCC-1305 (that's okay, too)...

FWIW, that registry was a mistake. The ship's registry was fixed as 71807.

but we can't apply that to the USS Constellation of TOS

See above for the answer to that question.

 

[throwback]

Dukhat,

Love the three-nacelled starship.

I don't think what we know of the ship's engineering helps us to know if the ship was older. We know that the ship had an atomic pile reactor. There was a real world analogy for this: the Chicago Pile-1. If we applied this analogy to this ship, we would have a starship powered by fission power. Do we have evidence that the Enterprise and her sister ships had another kind of reactor?

Article on Chicago Pile-1: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Pile-1

 

[Dukhat]

I don't think what we know of the ship's engineering helps us to know if the ship was older. We know that the ship had an atomic pile reactor. There was a real world analogy for this: the Chicago Pile-1. If we applied this analogy to this ship, we would have a starship powered by fission power. Do we have evidence that the Enterprise and her sister ships had another kind of reactor?

Article on Chicago Pile-1: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Pile-1

Well, that's just speculation. We don't really know what an "atomic pile reactor" is or what it does, and we don't even know if the Enterprise had one too or not. As you said, it really doesn't help, unless someone stated that said device was only used on ships older than the Constitution class.

 

[Timo]

Pardon me, where exactly does the TM provide an alternate interpretation for NCC-1017???

You seem to have misunderstood. The TM completely dumps the so-called Jeffries rule of starship numbering - that is the "alternate interpretation" I'm referring to. FJ's ship classes don't start out with -01, or even -00 in all cases. Nor is there any suggestion that ships of the same type (say, cruiser) but successive models would have different first two digits. Which always was a pretty weird idea, but I guess science fiction can be weird.

All Franz Joseph did was to ignore the official statements in The Making of Star Trek that refer to "Enterprise Starship Class".

Which is one of the better precedents the Manual set, as it bumped the pompous Paramounters down a peg or two - a position where they rightfully remain even today.

And by that I don't refer to Jeffries, who never pretended his work was in any way "official". He was just paid to imagine fantastic things, and he did. Some of those were keepers, some not. Sadly, not all people are quite at grips with this.

FWIW, that registry was a mistake. The ship's registry was fixed as 71807.

It's a bit difficult to consider the five-digit number as more authoritative than the four-digit-plus-suffix one, as the former is merely tiny numbers on an Okudagram, while the latter is clearly spoken words from the mouth of one of the main heroes...

I do wonder how they'll deal with this when the TNG bluraying project hits the second season!

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Dukhat]

The 71807 registry was printed on the Yamato's saucer. It can be seen clearly when it explodes (at least in the HD trailer I saw for the 2nd season blurays.)

FWIW, I wish they had just let well enough alone and kept the 1305E registry. I believe they decided to change it because it didn't fit the normal registry schemes of other ships (notice there's no hyphen before the letter, implying that it was not in fact the sixth ship to bear the name, but just a different type of reg.)

 

[Timo]

Well, we never actually see the registry written anywhere (and it probably wasn't). Riker says the E is preceded by a "dash", just as is standard for those ships that actually had their miniatures labeled.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Dukhat]

I suppose that would depend on if the HD treatment made the original reg clearer or changed it digitally. If it's the former, then the 71807 reg stands. If it's the latter, then I suppose it's up to the individual viewer to judge whether they approve of the change or not. Regardless, the reg was officially changed by the people in charge of the production at the time.

As for the hyphen, I believe that's how it was written in the script and in official publications like the Encyclopedia.

 

[blssdwlf]

Well, we never actually see the registry written anywhere (and it probably wasn't). Riker says the E is preceded by a "dash", just as is standard for those ships that actually had their miniatures labeled.

Timo Saloniemi

You mean this?

RIKER: It's a Federation ship. NCC one three zero five dash E. It's the Yamato, our sister ship.
​

Did they originally show the ship with NCC-1305-E and a later DVD version changed it to 71807?

 

[Robert Comsol]

"There is no canon evidence that the Republic was an older ship. Just because her registry started with 13 means nothing. The Encyclopedia lists it as Constitution class, so until canon evidence surfaces that it is not, that's what it officially is. And comics aren't canon."

I see, so the Encyclopedia is canon (how many solar years were "Space Seed" and Star Trek II apart?), but the comics aren't and neither is a design by Rick Sternbach. Interesting.

"Maybe that's because there was no "A" after the registry number?"

Just because they do it in the late 23rd Century doesn't automatically imply that's the way they did it in the early or mid 23rd Century. Just because they use four-digit-registries in the 23rd Century doesn't imply they couldn't use five-digit-registries in the 24th.

The whole "A" business originated with that Enterprise design sketch from Matt Jefferies where he added next to "17th Cruiser Design" "1st Moderize & Modification 1701A". So by the time of TOS (what we are talking about) the concept of adding an "A" was reserved only for modernized or modified vessels, not for vessels honoring the name of a previous one.
So Constellation couldn't be NCC-1017-A. Looks like Starfleet wouldn't use this scheme until the replacement of the Enterprise (compare USS Eagle NCC-958(-A) which appears to be a refit Constitution Class Starship)

"FWIW, that registry was a mistake. The ship's registry was fixed as 71807."

I'm aware it was fixed, nevertheless the original registry hinted the existence of a previous and much older USS Yamato NCC-1305 which I considered to be a nice addition to the universe of Star Trek.

Bob

 

[Robert Comsol]

"You seem to have misunderstood. The TM completely dumps the so-called Jeffries rule of starship numbering - that is the "alternate interpretation" I'm referring to. FJ's ship classes don't start out with -01, or even -00 in all cases."

So we should follow the learner (Joseph) because the master (Jefferies) didn't know what he was doing?!?

"Which is one of the better precedents the Manual set, as it bumped the pompous Paramounters down a peg or two - a position where they rightfully remain even today."

Excuse me, but the "pompous Paramounters" you are refering to are the creators of Star Trek! The term "Enterprise Starship Class" originates from the show's producers Bob Justman and Gene Roddenberry.

I suggest you visit the thread "NCC = Not Constitution Class?" where I quoted these original "Enterprise Starship Class" statements from The Making of Star Trek.

In my latest post there I also offered a solution how to rationalize the prefixes beginning with 16, now that these have been established by TOS-R.

Bob

 

[Dukhat]

Well, we never actually see the registry written anywhere (and it probably wasn't). Riker says the E is preceded by a "dash", just as is standard for those ships that actually had their miniatures labeled.

Timo Saloniemi

You mean this?

RIKER: It's a Federation ship. NCC one three zero five dash E. It's the Yamato, our sister ship.
​

Did they originally show the ship with NCC-1305-E and a later DVD version changed it to 71807?

I just watched the scene again and you're correct. Riker does indeed say "dash E." However, I'm pretty sure all scenes with the Yamato were just stock footage of the Enterprise, so the model wasn't actually labeled 1305-E.

 

[Timo]

So we should follow the learner (Joseph) because the master (Jefferies) didn't know what he was doing?!?

Why should we "follow" either of them? As far as the registry business goes, after "NCC-1701" was done, they both only contributed to the backstage element of Star Trek, that which was never part of the TV show we saw.

If anything, Mr. Schnaubelt's registries are more enduring that Mr. Jeffries', as three or four of them were quoted in the first movie while only one Jeffries registry even made it on screen (unless he did the registries in "Court Martial", too, but I sort of doubt it). But neither of the gentlemen ever managed to influence the Trek universe with a "system" of registries.

the "pompous Paramounters" you are referring to are the creators of Star Trek!

Yup. The usual range of alcoholics, womanizers, wifebeaters and general assholes out for money, with an occasional nice guy or gal interspersed (but out for money nevertheless). That's Hollywood for ya. And yes, you are excused. But you are growing a bit tiresome.

However, I'm pretty sure all scenes with the Yamato were just stock footage of the Enterprise, so the model wasn't actually labeled 1305-E.

If the blu-ray enhancements stay as faithful to original footage as they have done so far, we are probably going to keep seeing the Yamato from angles where the name and registry aren't going to be visible no matter what. So that won't "solve" anything yet, I guess. A similar reworking of "Contagion" will have one revealing angle of the saucer, in the big explosion scene, but whether a name or a registry will be readable there remains to be seen. It's really up to how the computer readouts in "Contagion" are redone, then.

Or more probably up to how they were done in the first place. Picard's desktop computer in the teaser appears to have a backlit gel, which doesn't need any redoing as such. But the rest of the log, on Picard's desktop and the main viewer, is postproduction graphics that have to be done all anew anyway.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[blssdwlf]

Wouldn't changing Yamato's registry to something other than 1305-E require dubbing over Riker's dialogue?

 

[Timo]

That, or editing out the line (or its registry-specifying final seconds) altogether. But it doesn't seem as if the blu-ray project would entail doing such extensive changes. Various small dialogue bloopers or continuity crises from the first few episodes have gone unaltered already, including small gaffes like Worf speaking of a dwarf star in "The Naked Now" when the star is still a red giant - and of course the issue that sparkled this very thread.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Dukhat]

I see, so the Encyclopedia is canon (how many solar years were "Space Seed" and Star Trek II apart?), but the comics aren't and neither is a design by Rick Sternbach. Interesting.

No, the Encyclopedia is not canon. Canon is whatever is shown on the screen. The Encyclopedia is an officially licensed Trek publication, as are the comics. But the Encyclopedia was written by actual Trek production personnel, and the comic's weren't, so whatever info the 'pedia has is more official than a comic. And just to be clear, the Baton Rouge ship, while designed by Sternbach, was never meant by him to represent the Republic. That was just the artistic license of the comic artist.

Just because they do it in the late 23rd Century doesn't automatically imply that's the way they did it in the early or mid 23rd Century. Just because they use four-digit-registries in the 23rd Century doesn't imply they couldn't use five-digit-registries in the 24th.

That may be true, but there's more evidence that the opposite is the case. There are newer ships with the same name as an older ship that have completely different registry numbers, and there are ships with a letter suffix implying that there were previous ships with the same name. To my knowledge there has never been a newer ship with the same name as an older ship with the exact same registry number.

The whole "A" business originated with that Enterprise design sketch from Matt Jefferies where he added next to "17th Cruiser Design" "1st Moderize & Modification 1701A".

Get your facts straight. The "A" business, at least as far as delineating a newer ship with the same name as an older ship, originated at the end of Star Trek IV The Voyage Home, by that movie's producers. I sincerely doubt they were thinking anything about Matt Jeffries at the time.

I'm aware it was fixed, nevertheless the original registry hinted the existence of a previous and much older USS Yamato NCC-1305 which I considered to be a nice addition to the universe of Star Trek.

Yes, I considered it nice as well. But it's been superseded by a different registry, so there you go.

 

[Mytran]

The whole "A" business originated with that Enterprise design sketch from Matt Jefferies where he added next to "17th Cruiser Design" "1st Moderize & Modification 1701A".

Get your facts straight. The "A" business, at least as far as delineating a newer ship with the same name as an older ship, originated at the end of Star Trek IV The Voyage Home, by that movie's producers. I sincerely doubt they were thinking anything about Matt Jeffries at the time.

I've also seen that original sketch by Jeffries - its in the Star Trek Sketchbook. 1701A is quite clear there.