Do we think this chart will still be reexamined and personal-canoned in the 22nd century?
Anybody have a 35mm clip from Court Martial?
- Thread starter ChallengerHK
- Start date
On a related note, we might ask the same questions about the graphics that are referenced on Memory Alpha about Constitution-class ships with registries in the 18's and 20's. Need they specifically mean Constitution-class ships, or are they other classes of ships? Lately, I like the idea of keeping the Constitution-class ships as starting with 17s, and suggesting other numbers for other types of ships. If the chart at Star Base 11 really had 1864 on it, that would support the idea that this is so, since then the numbers from that chart used for TOS-R would not be correct, possibly.
TOS-R is not original canon...obviously, "they whom remastered" had no good theory about starship registries, either.
My (original TOS, only) head-canon:
Star Ship Classes:
Star Ship Classes:
- ? Class = 1600 series
- Constitution Class = 1700 series (replaced the old 1000 series)
- Miranda Class = 1800 series
- U.S.S. Enterprise NCC-1701. Constitution-class vessels, such as the U.S.S. Enterprise, were used primarily for extended exploration missions. As such, they were equipped with a host of weapon systems, defensive shields and scientific scanners. These ships would be self-sufficient for long periods under all imaginable situations.
- U.S.S. Reliant NCC-1864. Miranda-class vessels, such as the U.S.S. Reliant, were used primarily for science or supply assignments rather than extended exploration missions. As such, they were equipped with a host of scientific scanners.
Last edited:
What you say makes sense to me. As far as I know, no ships were shown to 17-series that were NOT the basic design as the Enterprise. Other than the graphics I mentioned and TOS-R, I don't think any series other than 17 were ever shown for ships of the Enterprise's basic design. (This assumes of course that first-two-digit series means something.)What you say makes sense to me. Here's the thing that really as far as I know, no ships were shown to 17-series
Aside for the Constellation, NCC-1017, no other serial number was ever seen in the original TOS on Enterprise-type ships. We have the names of several of these vessels seen on screen (Lexington, Hood, Excalibur, Potemkin, Exeter, Defiant), but no serial numbers. I prefer to have them all 1700 series (or maybe an odd 1000 series thrown in). TOS-R did us no favors by retconning serial numbers with no theory behind it. Matt Jeffries originally wanted to use the 1700 series for ships like the Enterprise, so, why not honor his original theory especially since it works. Production limitations gave us 1017, so, that was the start of the serial number confusion. So instead of one exception to the rule (1017), TOS-R creates more confusion. 
The sheer number of Star Ships at to Starbase 11 is staggering (ten on the chart in question if one interprets the chart that way). From Tomorrow is Yesterday, I like to think that Kirk was only referring to 12 ships like the Enterprise are only the Constitution Class ships with 1700 serial numbers. This would put still five of the 12 at one Starbase if we only consider the 1700 series off the chart (1700, 1701, 1703, 1709, 1718); seems like a high number unless Starbase 11 is one of the largest bases in one of the most important sectors. One wonders: where are all the Admirals? Hiding on Earth? Something odd is afoot.
If Kirk was referring to all Star Ships of the 1600, 1700 and 1800 series, then Starbase 11 would have ten of the 12 there; seems even more unlikely for so many to be at one Starbase without one Admiral. Did the Federation move almost all of its Star Ships to Starbase 11 due to the after affects of the Romulan affair, or is the Federation getting on a war footing against the Klingons? This doesn't sound right especially since between Enterprise's visit to Starbase 11 and Errand of Mercy, the Enterprise was nearer to Starbases 200, 9, and 12, and then it was the first ship to respond to the Klingons, making Starbase 12 the nearer starbase to the Klingons. I put this later line of thought as less likely than the former one above.
If Kirk was referring to all Star Ships of the 1600, 1700 and 1800 series, then Starbase 11 would have ten of the 12 there; seems even more unlikely for so many to be at one Starbase without one Admiral. Did the Federation move almost all of its Star Ships to Starbase 11 due to the after affects of the Romulan affair, or is the Federation getting on a war footing against the Klingons? This doesn't sound right especially since between Enterprise's visit to Starbase 11 and Errand of Mercy, the Enterprise was nearer to Starbases 200, 9, and 12, and then it was the first ship to respond to the Klingons, making Starbase 12 the nearer starbase to the Klingons. I put this later line of thought as less likely than the former one above.
I was not considering the Constellation in my earlier comment, since its number is so different that I have theorized it was a different class of ship that survived a saucer separation and was refit with a new secondary hull to make it look like the Enterprise. This cold be the case with 1600's from the chart but that kind of limits the possibilities of TOS ship classes. I suppose that it comes down to the idea that "Star Ships" are special vessels and are "like the Enterprise," which could be and has been a topic for its own threadAside for the Constellation, NCC-1017, no other serial number was ever seen in the original TOS on Enterprise-type ships. We have the names of several of these vessels seen on screen (Lexington, Hood, Excalibur, Potemkin, Exeter, Defiant), but no serial numbers. I prefer to have them all 1700 series (or maybe an odd 1000 series thrown in). TOS-R did us no favors by retconning serial numbers with no theory behind it. Matt Jeffries originally wanted to use the 1700 series for ships like the Enterprise, so, why not honor his original theory especially since it works. Production limitations gave us 1017, so, that was the start of the serial number confusion. So instead of one exception to the rule (1017), TOS-R creates more confusion.
However, it would seem strange to have NCC numbers spanning such a wide range and yet only 12 of them a "Star Ships." Unless of course "Star Ship" is analgous to what Rick Sternbach called Cruiser and Explorer in the TNG tech manual.As my mind went through all that, I had an interesting idea come into my head from this chart. Maybe "% Complete" refers to some number of years of service before refit! The Enterprise has been in service for close to 20 years, with a big refit due at the end of that mission, when it reaches 100%. Then the Intrepid's supposed gap is time being re-supplied to go into service one extra/last time, crewed by Vulcans, before the big set of refits to all Star Ships, thus it is over 100%.
That would suggest 1631 for Intrepid, rather than 1831, since it would be older. 1697/1897 could go either way. This would suggest 1664 or 1684 rather than 1864, though.
This might actually help break some ties on what numbers are on this chart!
The number 1371 for Republic comes from dialogue in “Court Martial”.
Here is the list from The Making of Star Trek (1968): “The following names have been established for starships: Enterprise, Exeter, Excalibur, Lexington, Yorktown, Potemkin, Republic, Hood, Constitution, Kongo, Constellation, Farragut, Valiant, and Intrepid.” That’s fourteen; I assume the writers intended Kirk’s mention of “twelve” in “Tomorrow is Yesterday” to be these minus Farragut and Valiant, which were established to have been destroyed by that time. I realize some of you don’t accept this as canon, but, IMO it’s at least a reasonable tie-breaker.
Personally, as I said, I stick with Franz Joseph: 1017 Constellation, 1371 Republic, 1700 Constitution, 1701 Enterprise, 1702 Farragut, 1703 Lexington, 1704 Yorktown, 1705 Excalibur, 1706 Exeter, 1707 Hood, 1708 Intrepid, 1709 Valiant, 1710 Kongo, 1711 Potemkin. The first two would be conversions from previous classes. The (other) non-1700s in Court Martial are other classes (here I don’t take the “star ships” header on the screen literally).
Here is the list from The Making of Star Trek (1968): “The following names have been established for starships: Enterprise, Exeter, Excalibur, Lexington, Yorktown, Potemkin, Republic, Hood, Constitution, Kongo, Constellation, Farragut, Valiant, and Intrepid.” That’s fourteen; I assume the writers intended Kirk’s mention of “twelve” in “Tomorrow is Yesterday” to be these minus Farragut and Valiant, which were established to have been destroyed by that time. I realize some of you don’t accept this as canon, but, IMO it’s at least a reasonable tie-breaker.
Personally, as I said, I stick with Franz Joseph: 1017 Constellation, 1371 Republic, 1700 Constitution, 1701 Enterprise, 1702 Farragut, 1703 Lexington, 1704 Yorktown, 1705 Excalibur, 1706 Exeter, 1707 Hood, 1708 Intrepid, 1709 Valiant, 1710 Kongo, 1711 Potemkin. The first two would be conversions from previous classes. The (other) non-1700s in Court Martial are other classes (here I don’t take the “star ships” header on the screen literally).
Too many exact matches for Exeter to be different; we saw engineering, the bridge, sickbay, a random passageway and the exterior, which were all identical to that of the Enterprise. Looking back to what ancillary material was available in the 60s, even the View-Master booklet description of Exeter (manufactured in 1968 & based on the original script) referred to it as follows:
That, and with the release of the AMT model kit of Enterprise (obviously while TOS was in production), they supplied a decal sheet with the names of the other Starships, for those who wanted to "build the entire fleet", so I think one can conclude Exeter--and all other Constitution class vessels seen or named on screen--were always intended to be identical to Enterprise.
The reference of 12 ships like the Enterprise never uses the term "Starship" or "Star Ship". The discussion was about the Enterprise, so, 12 like her means 12 like her and not other Star Ship classes. There may be several classes of Star Ships, but those of the Enterprise are designed for extended deep space exploration, while the other classes are designed for other missions such as scientific investigation and others for transport of supplies and personnel. All are large Star Ships with formidable weapons/defenses, and so, crewed by the best of the best in Starfleet. If one class is designed for scientific investigation, say the 1800 series, then I could see why Captain Krasnovsky would have a blue tunic from Court Martial, and the Intrepid be crewed by Vulcans in The Immunity Syndrome. I can imagine that the 1300 series like the old Republic be replaced by the 1800 series.
But 1718 is fairly clear to be on the list, too. This makes it positive proof canon to exist, but a model decal sheet would make us forget about that.
Not me.I agree, the Exeter is a 1700 series class Star Ship; as for 1706...sure, why not?What else could it be?
True. The Exeter was portrayed on screen by stock footage of the 11-footer, and that's as exact as the interior sets.
But may I say, the AMT model edition with that "Build the Fleet!" decal sheet did not come along until about 1976. And by then, AMT had switched to a very inaccurate decal font. I built a Lexington (1703, per Franz Joseph) to go with my Enterprise.
In Roddenberry's 2nd pilot version of "The Omega Glory" the Exeter is first spotted on a collision course with the Enterprise, presumably the latter entered the same "standard orbit" as the former.
This is an excellent point, especially considering the wide diversity in ship designs we've seen in other media.
What is it that makes a Starship a Starship, after all?
With all due respect, that's an opinion. There's a lot more that we didn't see (of both the Enterprise and the Exeter) than what we did see. For example, what do the sensor bays look like in each? Does Exeter's phaser control look like Enterprise's? Does Exeter carry the same embarked craft?
As for the viewmaster description, at the risk of using a dirty word, not canon. I would bet that the people creating that description never consulted Roddenberry or Jeffries.
I think that what the Reliant in Star Trek:II did well was looking like a "Star Ship," largely by TOS standards (i.e. special, does some exploring, large-ish crew, etc.), but yet clearly could be a different class with some different missions. The Grissom, on the other hand, which is called a "scout" in dialogue, seems less important/smaller. So maybe is it not a "Star Ship," by TOS standards, but then, it was named with USS.
In the episode they say they say "all four of the craft" are still there. We can assume the Enterprise has at least 7, since that is the Gallileo's number.
This one cannot be correct since it is in the Court Martial Chart.
I think that Farragut would be a good candidate for a 1600 series ship, similar but older than the Enterprise, but then so would Valiant, for that matter.
Any theories on which one would be 1718?
Similar threads
- Poll
