The NX class is built differently and has a smaller crew complement, so the space requirements, and allowances, are different. Besides, I'm beginning to agree more with the notion that escape pods are not all they're cracked up to be, and that bailing out of the ship in almost every circumstance is a very bad idea, and in those very few circumstances where leaving the ship is the better option, you're pretty much screwed anyway.
CRA, Regarding TOS lifeboats, other than very well hidden TNG type units (which I have some doubts about there are three main alternatives: 1. Inflatable units (as in some TMP fan manuals) to be towed by shuttles. 2. Shuttle bay mounted ejectable units. Presumably at the inward most area of the bay, presumably ejectable (like Saratoga's in DS9) 3. All turbolifts serve as escape pods, as in the "Enterprise Officer's Manual" (again a fan product). While I am not a major proponent of TOS lifepods, I do suggest studying all the alternatives before assuming there simply are none. Its even possible that all these methods are available, as would be the 'ship/saucer as lifeboat' scenario. > I put absolutely no stock in the "naval construction > contract" feldercarb, especially since it doesn't fit all > the other registries we've seen. OK, I'll add that to the "don't agree" list. > It's a registry number, i.e., about the same as a > car's license plate number. It has nothing to do > with any kind of construction contract (why the > hell would you advertise something like that > anyway?). Its a somewhat different way of doing what modern navies would call "hull numbers" (BB-67, etc.), except making it non-type specific. It is a registry, that's what its called, and except in the most extraoridnary of situations (1701A) we never see it change (unless we count TNG slip-ups). A ship is born with it, and generally dies with the same number. It gets the official designation when the project is funded, hence "construction contract" is appropriate. > What mainly indicates to me that the Constellation > is of a slightly different, and older, class than the > Enterprise, is Well, we agree on a few things. Now others can disagree with that. Since you disagree with the only premise that might be helpful I could drop the thread here and not provide any suggestions to answer your question. But I'll stick my neck out and provide what I can: The fan produced "U.S.S. Enterprise Heavy Cruiser Evolution Blueprints" presents two externally identical (internally different) classes, similar to the Daedalus design, with the following NCC/name designations: http://www.shipschematics.net/startrek/images/federation/cruiser_horizon.jpg 1000 Horizon (Class Ship) 1001 Discovery 1002 Santa Maria 1003 Mathew 1004 Gauss 1005 San Raphael 1006 Scotia 1007 Nimrod 1008 Enterprise (Cancelled) 1009 Aurora (Cancelled) 1010 Beagle (Cancelled) 1011 Norge 1012 Meteor 1013 Victoria 1014 Golden Hind 1015 Yorktown (Cancelled) 1016 Half Moon 1017 Constellation 1018 Eendracht (Cancelled) 1370 Archon (Class Ship) 1371 Republic 1372 Independence 1373 Adventure 1374 Resolution 1375 Roebuck 1376 Southern Cross 1377 Vega (Cancelled) 1378 Fram (Cancelled) 1379 Guda (Cancelled) 1380 Challenger (Cancelled) Inclusion of the known names and registry numbers indicates that these ships "were" converted from this design to the Constitution/Achernar specifications (pilot/production versions, more or less). Normally cancelled contracts are considered to be built as some other class at some point. Today, with our 20-20 hindsight, the overall design is fine but the warp engines seem far too modern (i.e., TOS) for inclusion on such an early design. On the other hand, the spheroid design is seen at the end of TNG in "All Good Things" indicating there is plenty of life left in it, at least for small or auxillery vessels. The Space Flight Chronology gives a completely different design. Licensed and fan sources have produced their own ideas about the sister ships of the Constellation 1010 Pulsar USS Andromeda website (defunct) 1016 Defiant Star Fleet Battles (now, thanks to ENT, apparently not the one we were familiar with, but a destroyed/scrapped predecessor) 1018 Goeben Star Fleet Battles 1019 Eximer Star Fleet Battles 1020 Discovery Prime Directive - Federation Sourcebook Looking at the possibly similar USS Republic (another alleged Constitution class ship with an earlier registry) we get the following the Baton Rouge class as a possible origin: http://steve.pugh.net/fleet/early.html http://homepage.ntlworld.com/steven.bacon/BatoRouge1.htm http://www.shipschematics.net/startrek/images/federation/lightcruiser_batonrouge.jpg Baton Rouge (NCC-1300) Internet - Neale Davidson http://steve.pugh.net/fleet/images/moscow.gif USS Moscow - Lawrence Miller - Star Fleet Tactical Database Series 2 http://flare.solareclipse.net/cgi2/ultimatebb.cgi/topic/6/2431/2.html? USS Baton Rouge - David Kroth http://flare.solareclipse.net/cgi2/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=7;t=001395;p=0 Harry - Titan Fleet Yards ???? Baton Rouge 1357 Moscow SFC/FASA/"Woody" on finescale.com 1371 Republic Canon/Licensed Converted to Republic/Constitution/Achernar class 1378 Tehran FASA/"Woody" on finescale.com (corrected swapped #s) ???? Glasgow FASA ???? Hokkaido FASA ???? Savannah FASA 1390-1406 Baton Rouges (17 ships2, 10 will be refitted to Lafayette) Harry - Titan Fleet Yards 1411-1430 Lafayettes (20 ships, 1425-1430 will be refitted to Nordenskjld) Harry - Titan Fleet Yards 1431-1450 Ashantis (20 ships) Harry - Titan Fleet Yards [Additional information on these last three items would be helpful as the files are no longer available] http://steve.pugh.net/fleet/images/nordenskjold.gif http://flareupload.pleh.net/uploads/709/nord-mosc.jpg ) Allegedly the Nordenskjold class from the "Federation Starship Recognition Chart" (by Aridas Sofia & Todd Guenther) is related to the Baton Rouge and has NCC-1427 & NCC-1430 as registries And the alternative, or related, Republic Class: http://www.caddocourt.com/sfb/index.html http://www.caddocourt.com/sfb/early.html (the background images) http://store.starfleetstore.com/mer...ore_Code=S&Product_Code=5724&Category_Code=10 http://www.amazon.com/Star-Fleet-Battles-Captains-Log/dp/B001N18OJO Refitted to Constitution (by fan): http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2097/2432162692_8facbfe03b_o.jpg http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3168/2470917995_70125a03f3_o.jpg Refitted to System Defence Command cruisers: http://www.nationmaster.com/wikimir...en/thumb/7/78/R8-Cover.jpg/280px-R8-Cover.jpg http://homepage.ntlworld.com/steven.bacon/Republic.htm 1371 Republic Canon/Licensed Converted to Constitution/Achernar class 1372 Reshadije Star Fleet Battles Converted to Constitution/Achernar class 1373 Ramilles Star Fleet Battles Converted to Constitution/Achernar class ???? Revenge Star Fleet Battles Later used as National Guard cruisers ???? Warspite Star Fleet Battles Later used as National Guard cruisers ???? Tuqareg Star Fleet Battles Later used as National Guard cruisers ???? Stalwart Star Fleet Battles Later used as National Guard cruisers I'm a little spotty on the fine details here, as I can't access any of the source material at the moment. "The Final Reflection" may add a few more names to the list as the Baton Rouge class. Registries aside, the Baton Rouge (Rick Sternbach/Spaceflight Chronology), Republic (Star Fleet Battles), and Constitution classes, as various people have conceived them, are somewhat different types of "starships" despite basic design similarities. The Republic has, I believe, been depicted in comics as a Baton Rouge class. SFB's Republic class is more similar to the TOS Enterprise, but noticibly different. Is it possible that all these designs represent a series of upgrades? I suppose, but its a bit hard to swallow. The "USS Valiant" animated 3D fan film project depicts the USS Valiant as a Baton Rouge class (NCC-1102) using an alternate fan design for the secondary hull (a side view by Sternbach wasn't published). This registry is harder to "sync up" with the others. Retconning it is an option. Graphics from their website also show images of a Mann Class USS Valiant (NCC-1223), presumably an earlier vessel of the name. In comparison to the heavy cruisers of the time the Baton Rouge class is very large, and either represents a battleship, "heavy explorer", or advanced cruiser (somewhat similar to comparing Excelsior to 1701A). The variety of names indicates the latter, though it likely functioned as the former. The primary hull disc is actually larger than that of 1701 (assuming the more common of its size estimates). Woody's 1/1000 Baton Rouge model really was excellent, was different from the other available designs, and assuming that anyone is interested in this topic I'll have to find a place to upload the images. [SIZE=2][/SIZE] "Starship Prototype" mentions a Constitution class fore-runner, the Korolev class, and gives a registry number of NCC-367. This is an awfully low number to be a direct predecessor, so either the registry should be considered incorrect and retconned (1367 ??) or it could be considered an early example of a design reminiscent of the Constitution class. Additionally, TNG has a Korolev class and in general class names should not be repeated. http://us.share.geocities.com/dswtrek/TREK15.TXT Just a brief mention. Joshua Bell created the Declaration class based on some of Jefferies concept drawings for 1701. He gave the lead ship the registry NCC-1000, and included several other ships and registries which are all problematic for other reasons (otherwise identified as different classes, perhaps from other eras, or non starships... civilian or otherwise) -- including the Constellation. His design was extrapolated by others into the past and future in the form of variants, one of which uses standard "Achernar" type components (with the name Declaration but a registry of 1031), the other uses a TOS type primary hull, secondary hull somewhat similar to the Daedalus, with Daedalus type engines. Obviously this is a different class than the terran pre-UFP starliner from the Spaceflight Chronology and the ST:TMP rec room images. http://www.calormen.com/Star_Trek/declaration/declaration.htm http://www.shipschematics.net/startrek/images/federation/cruiser_declaration.jpg http://www.shipschematics.net/startrek/images/federation/cruiser_declaration_upgrade.jpg We note the LUG RPG's ellipsoid/spheroid primary hull Ranger Class, which may have appeared in at least one TOS novel. It shares the same design lineage of the Declaration class. http://steve.pugh.net/fleet/early.html http://steve.pugh.net/fleet/problems.html#valiant http://startrek.wikia.com/wiki/Ranger_class_cruiser http://startrek.wikia.com/wiki/USS_Carolina_(NCC-1000) http://startrek.wikia.com/wiki/USS_Valiant_(NCC-1223) 781 Ranger (text) 811 Bastion 915 Ranger (artwork) 966 Orleans 982 Sal'koth 1000 Carolina 1035 Explorer 1223 Valiant The two different registries for the Ranger could be explained away as a second ship being commissioned after the first was lost. The Carolina is often referenced as the ship from "Friday's Child", but my memory is that this was supposed to have been a slow freighter, not a starhip, so the repeatedly made connection seems invalid. These sources also indicate that the Valiant (NCC-1223) is also the same class, which is somewhat reminicent of the Mann class, which a Valiant of the same registry has also been indicated to exist by other sources. Assuming that this isn't all a hodge-podge of confusion over classes, registries, and names, here we can speculate that the USS Ranger is either (1) an earlier design (NCC-781) unrelated to later NCC numbers or classes, (2) a upgrade of the Mann class (explaining the same Valiant's presence in both classes), (3) an independent mid-era class (NCC-915 -- not NCC-315, which appears to be a misreading), (4) Perhaps the Mann, Ranger, Horizon/Archon, early/mid/late Declaration(s), and TOS-depicted Constellation/Republic are all the same class at different stages of various conversions and upgrades. It boggles the mind what the Starfleet engineering staff is asked to do!!! As correlations, we can look at modern 'Treknology' fan-based designs of similar registy and possibly era as USS Constellation. The Starfleet Museum's ( starfleet-museum.org ) Asia (NCC-945, 991, 1002, 1003, 1004, 1073, 1074, 1105, 1106), Lancaster (NCC-1209 to 1258), and the later Valley Forge (NCC-1463-1506) classes can all be seen as possibly related to Constellation's technology base. Bernd Schneider's ex-astris-scientia.org offers us the similar Mercury class (NCC-1288, 1296, 1360, 1361, 1362, 1424, 1425, 1426, 1427, 1428, 1440, 1441, 1532, 1533, 1534, 1535, 1576, 1577, 1578). trekmania.net (and treknology.org) offers the similar Explorer class (NCC-943) and treknology.org presents the Yorktown classes (NX-1470). Asia (2204 AD) is an advanced technology exploration cruiser, Lancaster (2205 AD) is a medium carrier, Valley Forge (2227 AD) is more military oriented than dual-purpose (defense/research) vessel. The Mercury class (2219 AD) is described as a smaller version of the Asia (making it a medium cruiser version of the research vessel, if we believe the depiction of its decks). The Explorer class (2196 AD -- the date pleads for a retcon), and given its stated length it seems a good contender for something that could be converted to Constitution/Achernar specifications. The Yorktown (2230 AD) seems to be the dual-purpose companion to the more specialized Asia and Lancaster classes, but its extended primary hull is problematical. Once it is date corrected, the large Baton Rouge class is also contemporaneous with these vessels (i.e., 2230s on). If we assume that the Constellation was a fairly straight-forward conversion of an existing class, what might it have looked like? The variety of the known names associated with the Constellation and Republic could be considered an indicator that this class was named after famous ships and therefore -- like the Constitution class -- was considered a heavy cruiser: this has implications for its overall design. For this class, I would speculate that removing the outer ring of Shaw's Constitution class pressure compartments and the "command blister" (underneath the bridge) would give a logical later "upgrade" path to a ship much more similar to the Constitution class (though other modifications would be necessary) while making it smaller and different. Adding in the engines and secondary hull from the earlier version of the "Declaration" class (NCC-1031) might be appropriate -- but using an Asia class or similar hull might be reasonable as well, while keeping a Constitution class arrangement to the components to differentiate it from the Declaration class. Removing TOS production era details would also be appropriate, and non-class-specific design cues and detailing should be similar to the Starfleet Museum's Asia class (they seem to be from a similar time period). Of the ships described above, the Explorer class might be the best fit. So, which path is correct? If we go by proximity to canonicity, the Ranger class should be the fountain-head, by merit of its licensed (and somewhat Paramount sheep-herded) roots. If we go by seniority, the Horizon/Archon classes from the "Enterprise Evolution" blueprints would win. If we go by association with design lineage, the Declaration class should win because of its origin in Jeffries' sketches -- with the Baton Rouge in second place (for the Republic) due to its creation by Rick Sternbach. If we go by most logical design for retrofitting the Yorktown or Explorer classes seem the best candidates. Or we can just manufacture one out of thin air. A secondary issue indicates that many of the more modern sources have emulated Paramount's decision to go with a non-consequtive Jein-like system of registry numbers for classes. as opposed to Franz Joseph, FASA, ADB (SFB, etc), and many "classical" Treknologists that emulated them. This makes determining appropriate registry numbers for specific ships next to impossible, problematic on a class basis, and difficult even on the basis of a given timeline. On the other hand the Franz Joseph placement of DD/SC escorts at 500-600 and Tugs at 3800-3900 can also be interpreted as somewhat capricious in terms of placement in a timeline. Possibly his intention was to have escort vessels be numbered 0-999, cruisers to be numbered 1000-1999 (in keeping with Jeffries' idea of the 17th cruiser design), larger ships perhaps to be numbered from 2000-2999, and perhaps support vessels being numbered 3000-3999. At the least one would suspect that a Vulcan was responsible for the idea. Early Treknologists didn't seem to make this distinction in their own efforts to populate the Star Trek universe, and today's tend to scatter around numbers over fairly wide ranges. As they have been taught to do by the canon. But there are exceptions. Third, some of today's Treknologists often seem oblivious to what work has come before (and the problem is not limited to fans) and the number of NCC number "collisions" continues to grow. Efforts have been made to explain these as renaming ships, conversions, or changed "Contact Code" numbers but they have largely been unsatisfactory. Finally, to some extent, creators of designs have a tendancy to be over abundant in the proliferation of their individual ships. Franz Joseph was the first to do so: enumerating the original Constitution class, then adding the Bon Homme Richard class, then the dam burst with the Achernar and Tikopai classes, not to mention the hoards of escorts and tugs. ADB actually pruned his list excessively (for example, only a relative handful of tugs survive in their version of the Star Trek universe, as they are tactically advantageous and would cause an imbalance), but went on to be more generous when enumerating its own creations, at least in some cases. FASA created tremendous fleets of many classes of ships, but generally didn't provide full registration lists. Other Treknologists have tended to be more conservative, but with the spread of Trek-based creativity to the internet the problem continues to crop up. Someone might make a very good 3D model of a new ship, and in their description indicate that there are 100 of the things. Which might not be much of a problem in the large scale registry numbers of the TNG era but in earlier periods it becomes more and more difficult to shoe-horn them all in. It becomes increasingly difficult to take the author's assignments of NCC numbers seriously, because of the collisions, conflicts, and contradictions (as discussed in this post). The problem is not limited to fan-based material alone, as *canon* sources contradict each other and seem oblivious to the licensed and purportedly semi-official material they sell to the public. I had a devil of a time reformatting this after the BBS code got done with it. Its still not back to where I wanted it to be as the board is overriding my formatting (no leading spaces???). I apologize for any errors but I am short on time today. For what its worth, Whorfin
Here's a thought for what it's worth? Since we know that in real life 'NC' stands for 'Naval Curtis' named after the guy who designed/built the planes for the Navy, might 'NCC' stand for something like 'Naval Cochrane Cruiser'? Then the #'s could still be anything , either sequential or not? My apologies if this has already been suggested (and/or rejected).
In airplane tail numbers, which is what the registries are based on, NC stands for United States, Commercial. Do youself a favor and simply ban the word "naval" from your lexicon when discussing this stuff. It'll be less painful that way.
Well, I posted a long reply yesterday. Got a BBS message that it would be posted when a moderator got done reviewing it. Its not here. Does this review process take days?
Well, fair enough CRA, but since 'NX' really stands for 'Naval Experiment', what do you propose "NX' stands for in the Trek universe?
Who says N stands for Naval? Especially with regard to airplanes. As I said, with aircraft, the first letter represents the country, the second letter (if any) indicates what kind of aircraft (C for Commercial, X for Experimental, etc.) For the purposes of this project, I'm going with what I think is the best interpretation of what we saw in the various Star Trek shows. These registry codes do not translate into anything, any more than the real life counterparts do. N = Federation registry AR = Earth, Civilian Research SP = Vulcan, Science X = Experimental Prototype CC = Starfleet Starship CV = Starfleet Timeship I'll probably cook up more as I feel they're needed.
Yeah, that makes sense (as much as anything). Not that it matters, but by way of clarification, I could have sworn 'NC' stood for 'Naval Curtis' and refered to navy planes that could land in water, like the one in "Tales of Gold Monkey" (anybody remember that show)? Anywho, back to Star Trek, since we're all agreed (I think) that U.S.S stands for "United Star Ship" (or United Space Ship) then having 'NCC' stand for 'Federation Starfleet Starship' seems kinda redundent? Or is that the point?
Details, details... I have to disagree with this, because NAR also decorated the shuttle that took Kirk's party to Spacedock in ST6. No research going on there. Perhaps "Auxiliary Reserve" or something like that? The Vico might have been on lease to a civilian outfit because Starfleet didn't acutely need her. The Raven clearly was on a scientific errand in the opinion of her owners, but Starfleet might have disagreed. Or if not "Reserve", to imply nonactive/surplus status, then at least the "Auxiliary" part, and definitely not the "Research" part. Perhaps Auxiliary vessels come in a number of categories, sorted out by who's doing the auxiliary work. The USN has the USNS for most of its auxiliary work, but Starfleet might have more players there; "R" might be the code for a specific organization, or then for a region of registration, in this case quite possibly Earth. Whether the NSP-registered transport T'Pau had anything to do with science is debatable, too. The Okudagram specified "Vulcan National Merchant Fleet". Timo Saloniemi
CRA, et al., Apologies, I still cannot get my somewhat large post through to this thread. Small posts like this go through, but large posts (even split up) are getting sent off for review. Even reducing the size of the post is not working. I've posted a request for guidance over in the administration section, hopefully they will get back to me as to what is going wrong. If anyone has any ideas why plain text and URL are throwing up a red flag please let me know. Apologies for the delay, Whorfin
Whorf - it's because you're a new member and have so few posts under your belt. One of the many security features to filter out spammers. Over time, you'll be able to get longer posts in with less hassles.
Well, with the Relativity's registry prefix of NCV, it's a safe bet that the first C stands for Starfleet. Maybe the A is for Earth, non-Starfleet registry, S for Vulcan, non-Starfleet, etc., with the third letter indicating something about the ship itself. Like I said, this'll all be worked out somehow into something resembling logic, or at least consistent with what was shown on screen.
I wouldn't try too hard to get consistency between different eras, even if it is the same Starfleet. You can't even do that with the US Navy over the course of the last 50 years.
I'm mainly concerned with the second season of TOS, which is the period these blueprints are set in. And the registry business is stuff that'll go in the Technical Primer. The only registries of any importance to the blueprints all start with NCC, regardless of what it means.
CRA et al., My post have (retroactively) shown up in the thread, hopefully the duplicate and partial posts I made will not. Actually several versions were ultimately posted, but I think this is the first version, so I might have to add some additional information in. The ultimate answer to the question is that there is no canon or semi-canon answer, but people have made suggestions over the years for you to pick from, or you can make your own. If you have any questions, I'll do my best to answer. Whorfin
Zoinks! Sure you didn't leave anything out? First off, one of the good things of doing projects like this is the ability to ignore a whole lot of stuff, like other fan produced designs. Another thing to keep in mind, when trying to make heads or tails of the canon registry numbers is that the initial inspiration was aircraft tail numbers, not naval hull numbers, so for any analysis to work, it has to come at it from that angle or it just falls apart (it's tenuous enough as it is, so don't go making things even more difficult). As for the spherical-hulled Daedelus design, I reject it for the same reason it was rejected back in '64, it just doesn't work very well. Plus, with the NX class in the line, the basketball on a broomstick becomes the odd man out. I'm also thinking of the upcoming backstory of the Romulan War, and how Starfleet would be needing new ships based on a proven design, just slightly upgraded (which is being addressed in my other thread here). As for the class before the Constitution, I'm just invoking the AMT 18" model. And for those ships that are supposedly Constitution class but have registries in the 16xx range, they're either later builds that were more easily refit/upgraded to Constitution class, were modified during construction to Constitution class, or the original construction assignments were cancelled and the numbers were reassigned to new Constitution class ships.
CRA, > Zoinks! Sure you didn't leave anything out? Actually, yes, as I repeatedly kept trying to make the post I found a few items that I had overlooked or forgotten about and added, but this seems to be the original. If the later posts don't show up and there is interest I can provide the additional information. If, on the other hand, the information is of no use to anyone I won't further clutter up the thread. > First off, one of the good things of doing > projects like this is the ability to ignore > a whole lot of stuff, like other fan produced > designs. As I said, there is no official answer to the question, so I gave existing alternatives. The fact that there is no consensus in itself invites one to ignore at least some of these suggestions. One can, if one wants, call it the "Good Ship Lollipop Class". Or one can take an existing idea (or half-dozen) and work with them to make something plausible. I try to do the latter though occassionally I am tempted to do the former -- but that has always ended up being unwise in hindsight. One of the reasons that classic Trek fans (however one interprets that) aren't very happy with the franchise is that there has been altogether too much making and remaking out of whole cloth going on -- either out of ignorance or hubris on the part of the people who are in control of the property. > Another thing to keep in mind, when trying to make heads > or tails of the canon registry numbers is that the > initial inspiration was aircraft tail numbers, not naval > hull numbers, Actually, aircraft registry and Soviet spacecraft designation (CCCP). > so for any analysis to work, it has to come at it from > that angle or it just falls apart (it's tenuous enough > as it is, so don't go making things even more difficult). We will have to disagree here. The vessels depicted are unlike any existing aircraft, large bombers included, and are much, much more like existing naval vessels (use of naval rank system, relatively large crews, references to "ship", etc). While Starfleet is, to quote JTK if I remember right, a "combined service", it is not -- even as a television show -- based on any existing airforce or space program. Its inspired by Horation Hornblower, and that's the way Roddenberry depicted its traditions. Naval designation systems seem to hold, and while the registry is unlike the US Navy (for example) it probably doesn't stray completely away from it. So we don't have CA-985 (a hull type designation), but we might have NCC-1701, representing the 1701st vessel of that particular registration type (whatever NCC equates to -- presumably "Starfleet, normal"). And, remember, when all we had was TOS, there just was NCC for typical Starfleet vessels (no NSP, etc.). TAS introduced variants, but they were for other types of vessels (NCC-G1465=Starfleet Cargo Drone; NCC-F1913=Starfleet Freighter; and 10281NCC=USS Bonaventure, "The first ship with warp drive", which leaves us puzzled where this ship belongs to this day). We get NX-2001 in ST3, which becomes NCC-2001, indicating that it probably means "Naval Experimental". The important piece of information there is that the number stayed the same when the letter portion of the registry changed, indicating that NX is temporary and not a real registry number in the typical sense, but the number portion is. The other types we get in TNG, and often what they mean isn't clear from the context, but they either mean "Starfleet, non-standard" (and standard in SF seems to cover the water front) of various types or non-Starfleet (civilian, Terran, Vulcan, whatever) of various types. But none of this tells us for certain what NCC actually means. > As for the spherical-hulled Daedelus design, I reject it > for the same reason it was rejected back in '64, it just > doesn't work very well. Plus, with the NX class in the > line, the basketball on a broomstick becomes the odd man > out. I'm also thinking of the upcoming backstory of the > Romulan War, and how Starfleet would be needing new ships > based on a proven design, just slightly upgraded (which > is being addressed in my other thread here). I'm a little confused here. Perhaps it was a different thread but you I thought you were looking at this from a TOS only perspective (or at least emphasizing it). Frankly, registry numbers from 100 years previous to TOS may not tell us much. Particularly prior to the founding of the UFP, which may mean the ENT Terran "NX-" and TMP/TNG/DS9 UFP Starfleet "NX-" have nothing to do with each other, but I'm not a proponent of that necessarily. Similarly, a registry from a ship of an unknown type from the 29th Century (which we know little about) probably tells us next to nothing about 23rd/24th Century registry practices. Frankly, systems from the 24th Century probably aren't that great a comparison to TOS. In point of fact, 20th century registries of any type tell us about as much, other than as inspirational uses to designers. As to the Daedalus design, and the similar Horizon, they got dragged into this on the basis of a Jeffries-centric perspective. "What comes before the Constitution Class? -- another Jeffries design, of course!" I don't agree with it, but the use of another design study of his for the Declaration class actually makes some sense. My main "beef" with it is that the saucer would probably be too large for a much earlier vessel (the Baton Rouge class is another example of that, according to our 20-20 Treknology hindsight), hence my recommendations of 'whittling' it down by removing the outer section of the pressure hull, which then be added during a refit to match the AMT design. But, playing devil's advocate, it wouldn't be much harder to rework a "Horizon class" into the Constellation than it would be to convert the TOS 1701 into the movie version (it pretty much all would need to be replaced or remanufactured). It was brought up as pertinent to the question and to provide its version of the registry list. I don't think its right, but its relatively early Treknological thinking. As to "ST:Enterprise" invalidating the Daedalus, before taking that as a given you might want to take a poll on the number of fans who consider ENT to even be in the same universe as TOS: I do (with a few necessary retcons) but others might not, particularly those who know TOS well. The Daedalus shows up as a model in Sisko's office, so that makes it Canon. Okuda is the one that places it in a particular time period, which ends up being post-ENT (i.e., just after the founding of the UFP). If one wants to argue with Mr. Okuda that the Daedalus comes before ENT and not the other way around, see if he can work that into the 16th edition of the Encyclopedia. Frankly, one could easily use the same arguement to invalidate TOS as 1701 doesn't look sufficiently advanced by ENT standards, and one could then say that the new movie will be the "correct version" of 1701 and the original an erroneous design. I find the arguement false. I find the ENT design choices somewhat annoying in their anachronism, but not apocalyptic. The Daedalus is just one type of vessel, and we see a similar design far in the future in "All Good Things" ( http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/USS_Pasteur ), and other contemporaneous designs may be somewhat more sevlt, or NX derived, or completely different. At this point only the fans seem to care. One would expect to see many differences in design styles, materials, and technology between 2161 and the 2260s (or the 2240s if you want to accurate). A bad pre-boot, a botched "remastering", and a potentially bad alternate universe re-boot are not sufficient reasons for me to rework anything in Star Trek, fan or canon. For what its worth, I consider precedence and coherence to be higer values in canonicity than brand new and "gee-whizz". In short, when George Lucas decided that he could "do what he wanted" with revising the Star Wars movies (Greedo shoots first, etc.) those fans didn't take it lying down, and when it came time for a "reworking" of the Indiana Jones movies the uproar managed to stop similar butchery. Now the same thing is being done to Star Trek. Can these people, who aren't even the franchise creators, just do whatever they want and we have to accept it as canon? My question is are we going to take it with a smile? http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/articles/tos_ships.htm For example, it would be nice if they could at least get the impulse engines in the right place: http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/articles/tos_ships/d7-elaanoftroyius2-r.jpg > As for the class before the Constitution, I'm just invoking > the AMT 18" model. Here is the part we agree on, probably for different reasons. For me, if you throw Jein's [don't even get me started on his contributions to the 11' model in the Smithsonian] bizarre registry scheme out the window (just read how he cooked it up if you don't like the adjective), and if you assume that registries follow a sane system (such as the Roddenberry approved -- and in small part used -- Franz Joseph Designs system, possibly inspired by Jefferies), then the differences in the AMT model make sense, and the Constellation is a refit of an earlier design. On the other hand, if you embrace the Jein/Okuda registry system, then there is no reason to see NCC-1017 as an odd number for a Constitution class (the destroyed/scrapped/sold/missing Constitution class USS Eagle NCC-1685 which was apparently succeeded by ST6's USS Eagle NCC-956, for example), and any differences between the AMT and studio models are errors of production, corrected by the "remastered" HD version of the episode. In short CRA, if you drink the Koolaid then... its Miller Time, so to speak! Well, not for some of us. http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/The_Case_of_Jonathan_Doe_Starship http://www.trekplace.com/article10.html http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/schematics/starbase11-wallchart.jpg http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/NCC-1685 http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/USS_Eagle > And for those ships that are supposedly Constitution class > but have registries in the 16xx range, they're either later > builds that were more easily refit/upgraded to Constitution > class, were modified during construction to Constitution > class, or the original construction assignments were > cancelled and the numbers were reassigned to new > Constitution class ships. I didn't mention any ships in this range so I assume you are back on to the Jein/Okuda list (is the Intrepid NCC-1631 or 1831? -- they just can't make up their minds!: Erroroneous, corrected to match out-of-context-canon, recorrected back to erroroneous and then made canon). Or they are just ships of a completely unreleated class that just happen to be on a wall in a Starbase commandeder's office. Like ships currently docked their for repairs, etc.? No, couldn't be. Why would he have a list of existing Constitution class ships displayed in reverse alphabetical order by registry? Ask the current keepers of the Canon. http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/NCC-1831 In short, if you want to base your work on that of a bunch of people who throw out the Roddenberry approved FJD laundry list of names and registries and replace it with their own shoddy work, that they then can't even keep straight, be my guest. But its not my cup of Earl Gray.
^ Actually, that'd be Soyuz Sovietski Socialistic Republiki. But, yeah, a Soviet spaceship having CCCP emblazoned on the side is no different than an American ship having USA on it. Jefferies added that second C for balance more than anything else. Any allusions to a US/Soviet partnership was more happenstance than anything intended. As for the continual citing of FJ, keep in mind that a key factor in starting this project in the first place was twenty-odd years of frustration with the gross inaccuracies in FJ's blueprints, so bringing his stuff up as somehow being authoritative, well, let's just say that you're not scoring any points. I think will be using that registry of NCC-1223 for the Valiant when I finally build a model of her, but that's another matter...