Miranda Class in the Dominion War.

[Dukhat]

Maybe. But in the case of the Stargazer, both its inside and outside appearance completely smacks of a TMP era ship. There’d be no point in constructing it in the 2320’s when it still had 2280’s technology. That’s like Microsoft making a computer today that runs Windows 3.1. It would be completely useless.

 

[evilchumlee]

Going by registry numbers really seems just a bad way to go, all the way back to TOS. The Constitution's then seem to have been made over a weirdly long period of time...

Enterprise is 1701, Defiant is 1764, Constellation is 1017, Intrepid is 1631... when we factor in later additions like Cayuga at 1557 and New Jersey at 1975... and then adding in other information we know, like Discovery being 1031, despite being at least a decade newer than Enterprise...

Sure Stargazer is 2893, Hathaway is 2593... just by straight progression, Stargazer appears newer than Hathaway, although we already know that isn't always the case.

Hear me out here though, it might be helpful to look at the Excelsior-Class, which should also be a contemporary of the Constellation... we're look at, kind of a random sample, Excelsior 2000, Repulse 2544... and then basically every other one we see has a more TNG-style longer registry, Berlin 14232, Charleston 42285, Atlantis 72507, etc.

I'd like to focus on Atlantis here, NCC-72507... Voyager is 74656... were Exclesior's still being produced into the 2360's/70's? I mean, they could be... it's not really a problem, and if we are going to say the serial numbers are indicative of build time, then... yes, yes they were.

Realistically, you have things like the TOS Configuration New Jersey that shouldn't be far off from the Hathaway... I suppose that's not necessarily outlandish, if Hathaway was launched in 2285 and perhaps considering New Jersey may have been among, if the not the last, Constitution to be produced in the TOS Configuration, it would potentially have launched the 2260's...

Thinking of when Starfleet switch from 4 to 5 digits, it's hard to tell. The latest one I can find is NCC-9844, USS Antares, Miranda-Class still in operation in 2374. There was a Constellation-Class NCC-9754 in 2362.

Given that there is a Constellation-Class with an... almost 5 digit registry, it might imply that they were very much still being produced in the early-mid 24th century. It's certainly an aberration for Stargazer to have launched so relatively late with a registry so close to Hathaway.

I think I add to bit here that this all isn't necessarily to prove a point one way or another, just putting the information out there to ponder.

I have to disagree. The hull panelling, pop up phase cannons and ball turrets. It’s like some weird hybrid of mid 22nd and late 23rd century aesthetics. Theres nothing about it that looks post-TNG. Where’s the smooth curves?

I was actually directly responding to the interior look.

Exterior-wise, I actually think the Walker looks great and fits with ALL of the lore, TOS included given that it's supposed to be an old ship even by 2249. I think that ship easily fits in to like, the 2200-2210 range. Registry numbers, as usual, are suspect. It would make Shenzhou a newer ship at 1227 than the Constitution-Class USS Constellation and USS Discovery 1031, which is absolutely canonically 100% is not.

 

[evilchumlee]

Maybe. But in the case of the Stargazer, both its inside and outside appearance completely smacks of a TMP era ship. There’d be no point in constructing it in the 2320’s when it still had 2280’s technology. That’s like Microsoft making a computer today that runs Windows 3.1. It would be completely useless.

That's a perfectly apt comparison... but here's the deal, it's actually more like Microsoft making a computer today in an old 2000's case with some older hardware upgraded to run Windows 11. It's not going to be able to do super intensive operations, but it will work for lighter duties just fine.

I'm also not sure how "useless" it would be. In "Yesterday's Enterprise", Wartime Picard was totally willing to just press Enterprise-C back into service despite it being outdated. When the Bozeman comes through the time rift, while not 100% officially confirmed, it is largely believe that... it just continues to operate in Starfleet service, with it... presumably... being present at the First Contact Battle of Sector 001, given that Kelsey Grammar's voice comes over the comm and confirms Bozeman is there. Could it be a NEW Bozeman with the same Captain? Sure, but... probably not?

 

[Dukhat]

That's a perfectly apt comparison... but here's the deal, it's actually more like Microsoft making a computer today in an old 2000's case with some older hardware upgraded to run Windows 11. It's not going to be able to do super intensive operations, but it will work for lighter duties just fine.

The only reason why Microsoft would do that is for the nostalgia factor. Starfleet doesn't care about nostalgia (at least until 2401 when they made a ship that looks like it literally came from an era 100+ years before. And even then it had upgraded nacelles and interiors.)

I'm also not sure how "useless" it would be. In "Yesterday's Enterprise", Wartime Picard was totally willing to just press Enterprise-C back into service despite it being outdated.

It was wartime, and Starfleet was losing ships left and right. That was out of necessity.

When the Bozeman comes through the time rift, while not 100% officially confirmed, it is largely believe that... it just continues to operate in Starfleet service, with it... presumably... being present at the First Contact Battle of Sector 001, given that Kelsey Grammar's voice comes over the comm and confirms Bozeman is there. Could it be a NEW Bozeman with the same Captain? Sure, but... probably not?

The Bozeman was essentially a brand-new ship despite it being out of time. And the ship isn't all that different from a Miranda class, which Starfleet apparently found easy to upgrade over time.

None of which has to do with the Stargazer being commissioned in 2327.

 

[evilchumlee]

The Bozeman was essentially a brand-new ship despite it being out of time. And the ship isn't all that different from a Miranda class, which Starfleet apparently found easy to upgrade over time.

None of which has to do with the Stargazer being commissioned in 2327.

It's all relevant.

The ships were fine, they worked, they were reliable. There's no reason to assume that a Constellation commissioned in 2327 would be exactly the same as one in 2282. They're using the same spaceframe and such, but systems can be upgraded along the way.

I include the quote for the Bozeman piece there to question... why can't the Constellation be similar to the Miranda? We know Miranda's were in service for an incredibly long period of time. Why couldn't that also be true of the Constellation? We all accept that Miranda's and Excelsior's had a long shelf life, but it's outlandish that the Constellation would as well?

And really, in the grand scheme of things 40 years isn't really all that much time, compared to other ships we know of. About the only evidence otherwise is that we just don't see a ton of Constellation-Class ships over Mirandas or Excelsiors, but that's not great evidence. They may have just produced less of them, over a long stretch of time. Or they might all be out doing things and we just so happen to see Miranda's and Excelsior's more often.

Or hell, there's all kinds of things that could go into it. Maybe Stargazer was actually mostly built earlier, but didn't actually end up formally commissioned until later. Picard does tend to recall Stargazer as being a not exactly top of the line vessel with several issues. I could pop out all kinds of wild theories. My favorite catch-all for that general time period is Khitomer Accords... perhaps the Stargazer was actually planned prior to the Khitomer Accords, but then in the disarmament that followed, it got halted mid-construction and was stuck in limbo for some time. Eventually, as older ships were retired they were allowed by treaty to replace them, and went ahead and finished up Stargazer since it was already in progress anyway. Just one of a thousand explanations, although honestly not really necessary at all. The easiest is just... Stargazer was commissioned in 2327.

 

[Dukhat]

You're welcome to believe all of that. My logic differs from yours.

And I already explained that the info on those plaques should be taken with a grain of salt. And since they weren't readable on screen anyway, that's all the more reason to ignore info that is clearly, to me, a mistake.

 

[evilchumlee]

You're welcome to believe all of that. My logic differs from yours.

And I already explained that the info on those plaques should be taken with a grain of salt. And since they weren't readable on screen anyway, that's all the more reason to ignore info that is clearly, to me, a mistake.

That's all fair enough. I'm happy to agree to disagree on it.

 

[CaptChris42]

Going by registry numbers really seems just a bad way to go, all the way back to TOS. The Constitution's then seem to have been made over a weirdly long period of time...

Enterprise is 1701, Defiant is 1764, Constellation is 1017, Intrepid is 1631... when we factor in later additions like Cayuga at 1557 and New Jersey at 1975... and then adding in other information we know, like Discovery being 1031, despite being at least a decade newer than Enterprise...

Sure Stargazer is 2893, Hathaway is 2593... just by straight progression, Stargazer appears newer than Hathaway, although we already know that isn't always the case.

Hear me out here though, it might be helpful to look at the Excelsior-Class, which should also be a contemporary of the Constellation... we're look at, kind of a random sample, Excelsior 2000, Repulse 2544... and then basically every other one we see has a more TNG-style longer registry, Berlin 14232, Charleston 42285, Atlantis 72507, etc.

I'd like to focus on Atlantis here, NCC-72507... Voyager is 74656... were Exclesior's still being produced into the 2360's/70's? I mean, they could be... it's not really a problem, and if we are going to say the serial numbers are indicative of build time, then... yes, yes they were.

Realistically, you have things like the TOS Configuration New Jersey that shouldn't be far off from the Hathaway... I suppose that's not necessarily outlandish, if Hathaway was launched in 2285 and perhaps considering New Jersey may have been among, if the not the last, Constitution to be produced in the TOS Configuration, it would potentially have launched the 2260's...

Thinking of when Starfleet switch from 4 to 5 digits, it's hard to tell. The latest one I can find is NCC-9844, USS Antares, Miranda-Class still in operation in 2374. There was a Constellation-Class NCC-9754 in 2362.

Given that there is a Constellation-Class with an... almost 5 digit registry, it might imply that they were very much still being produced in the early-mid 24th century. It's certainly an aberration for Stargazer to have launched so relatively late with a registry so close to Hathaway.

I think I add to bit here that this all isn't necessarily to prove a point one way or another, just putting the information out there to ponder.



I was actually directly responding to the interior look.

Exterior-wise, I actually think the Walker looks great and fits with ALL of the lore, TOS included given that it's supposed to be an old ship even by 2249. I think that ship easily fits in to like, the 2200-2210 range. Registry numbers, as usual, are suspect. It would make Shenzhou a newer ship at 1227 than the Constitution-Class USS Constellation and USS Discovery 1031, which is absolutely canonically 100% is not.

It's a very old debate, but as I see it: for much of Starfleet's history, ships were constructed in batches, with pre-assigned registries. These in turn are sometimes cancelled if a line of ships is, and the registries then may get reused later. Some are heavily re-fitted, and as a tribute, some may actually flat out re-use numbers occasionally. Registries like 1029-31 and 2000-2019 may have been set aside significantly in advance, including if for advanced testbed or new generation designs. By the end of the 23rd century this may have been beginning to change, though.

But we still get a likely sense of it into the 2360s, with some pre-set numbers maybe for the First Contact designs, and the Prometheus. Different shipyards may also factor into this. Still, the move seems to by then be TOWARD... a more linear progression. Once you include dedication plaques, though (like on the Tsiolkovsky, say) then it can get more complicated.
As for the switch from 4 to 5 digits, I've usually assumed it was in the 2305-10 period, for convenience. With a progression being between 450 to 720 a year, often (but significantly higher in some periods?)

All that said, I do sincerely doubt the Stargazer launched very much after 2290. Maybe relaunched... at some point.

 

[Dukhat]

It's a very old debate, but as I see it: for much of Starfleet's history, ships were constructed in batches, with pre-assigned registries. These in turn are sometimes cancelled if a line of ships is, and the registries then may get reused later. Some are heavily re-fitted, and as a tribute, some may actually flat out re-use numbers occasionally. Registries like 1029-31 and 2000-2019 may have been set aside significantly in advance, including if for advanced testbed or new generation designs. By the end of the 23rd century this may have been beginning to change, though.

While I don't quite agree with all of your points, I do believe that there was some sort of batch system going on during the 'Lost era' between circa 2300-2340's, where for some reason the registry numbers for the Excelsior, Miranda and Oberth classes jump considerably to extremely high numbers than they had in the 2280's & '90's (4XXXX, 3XXXX and 5XXXX respectively) for no real good reason other than that these were possibly the batch numbers given to those particular classes of vessel, just like the 2XXXX registries for the Ambassador class, which was a considerably newer design than the previous three but had lower registries. The only way the numbers would make sense in this case is if they were batches and not chronological, and that those older types of ships were not still being produced later in the 24th century. It isn't until the 2350's onward where chronological registries, starting with 5XXXX, start to become the norm.

But we still get a likely sense of it into the 2360s, with some pre-set numbers maybe for the First Contact designs, and the Prometheus.

The Prometheus was a mistake due to the miscommunication between the art department (who made the dedication plaque) and the VFX personnel (who made the CGI model.) As for the FC ships, the only real problematic one is the Steamrunner's 5XXXX registries, which based on its design looks anachronistic to the 2340's-'50's that ships with those registry numbers in that time period should have looked like, and looks more at home as a 2370's design.

Once you include dedication plaques, though (like on the Tsiolkovsky, say) then it can get more complicated.

The Tsiolkovsky was yet another instance (actually, the first) where there was a miscommunication between the art department and the VFX people. Michael Okuda made the dedication plaque thinking that the Tsiolkovsky (and the Oberth class in general) was going to be a new design contemporary to the Enterprise-D, and at this early stage of the show, 5XXXX was supposed to be the highest registries for brand new ships (the Tsiolkovsky was commissioned the same year as the Ent-D.) But instead of building a new model like what Okuda envisioned, they just reused the Grissom model from STIII. So Oberth 'became' the class for the Grissom-type despite that not being Okuda's intention, and the Tsiolkovsky's 5XXXX registry from the dedication plaque became the norm for Grissom-type numbers, despite that also not being Okuda's intention. But instead, they ran with it for the rest of TNG.

 

[Tuskin38]

I was actually directly responding to the interior look.

I’d also have to disagree there as well because of the use of physical switches along side the touch interfaces. Looks more primitive than TNG era

 

[Tuskin38]

given that Kelsey Grammar's voice comes over the comm and confirms Bozeman is there.

He’s not credited anywhere for that. Doesn’t even sound like him, to me at least.

 

[evilchumlee]

He’s not credited anywhere for that. Doesn’t even sound like him, to me at least.

It's an uncredited appearance, but it is him.

I’d also have to disagree there as well because of the use of physical switches along side the touch interfaces. Looks more primitive than TNG era

I think it looks roughly like the 2320's-era, to me.

It looks more advanced than say, Undiscovered Country Enterprise-A, less than the Enterprise-D.

Looks are inherently going to be subjective.

 

[Tuskin38]

but it is him.

I can't find anything online other than rumours.

The Tsiolkovsky was yet another instance (actually, the first) where there was a miscommunication between the art department and the VFX people.

Where did you see this info?

 

[evilchumlee]

I can't find anything online other than rumours.

Hmm. You know, you learn something every day. I had always understood that to just be fact, but as it turns out... nobody is actually entirely sure about it.

The character IS Captain Bateson and the ship IS the USS Boseman, but it may or may not have Grammer's voice.

Seems like an odd inclusion to have in the movie if it wasn't. But yeah, totally may or may not be a thing.

 

[Dukhat]

Where did you see this info?

It was an interview with Okuda when the TNG-R Blu-rays came out and the background info showed photos of the Copernicus NCC-640 from TVH being filmed as the Tsiolkovsky. Okuda mentioned that he was unaware that they were going to use the model, and there wasn’t time for him to relabel it before it was filmed.

 

[Tuskin38]

Wow surprised no one has added that to Memory Alpha yet. I guess it’s such a minor ship no one bothered

it does have a quote from Mike mentioning not having time to change the labelling, but he thought it was fine because he didn’t think it would be legible anyways

They did replace it in TNG-R, but the artists missed a couple shots

 

[Dukhat]

it does have a quote from Mike mentioning not having time to change the labelling, but he thought it was fine because he didn’t think it would be legible anyways

In the same quote he says that he didn’t remember if the Grissom was relabeled, or what name it was relabeled to. Implying he never saw the model before it was getting ready to be filmed for “The Naked Now” in post-production. So when he originally made that plaque, the intent was for that name and registry number to be used for a new model, and he was only informed later that they’d be using the Grissom/Copernicus. This happened a lot in early TNG. Excelsior class ships shown on screen such as the Fearless were meant to be Probert Ambassador class ships, but instead they kept using Hood stock footage from “Encounter at Farpoint.” And they were going to use the Enterprise-A as the Stargazer until Greg Jein made a new model on time and under budget.

The TNG producers hated having to pay for new models if they didn’t have to. They preferred using the movie models or stock footage to save money despite the 80 year time span between the movies and TNG.

 

[BK613]

Looks are inherently going to be subjective.

And technology use will overlap. Real world example: The Great Grain Races.
Just because a ship launches with shiny new tech doesn't mean everyone gets it.

 

[CaptChris42]

While I don't quite agree with all of your points, I do believe that there was some sort of batch system going on during the 'Lost era' between circa 2300-2340's, where for some reason the registry numbers for the Excelsior, Miranda and Oberth classes jump considerably to extremely high numbers than they had in the 2280's & '90's (4XXXX, 3XXXX and 5XXXX respectively) for no real good reason other than that these were possibly the batch numbers given to those particular classes of vessel, just like the 2XXXX registries for the Ambassador class, which was a considerably newer design than the previous three but had lower registries. The only way the numbers would make sense in this case is if they were batches and not chronological, and that those older types of ships were not still being produced later in the 24th century. It isn't until the 2350's onward where chronological registries, starting with 5XXXX, start to become the norm.



The Prometheus was a mistake due to the miscommunication between the art department (who made the dedication plaque) and the VFX personnel (who made the CGI model.) As for the FC ships, the only real problematic one is the Steamrunner's 5XXXX registries, which based on its design looks anachronistic to the 2340's-'50's that ships with those registry numbers in that time period should have looked like, and looks more at home as a 2370's design.



The Tsiolkovsky was yet another instance (actually, the first) where there was a miscommunication between the art department and the VFX people. Michael Okuda made the dedication plaque thinking that the Tsiolkovsky (and the Oberth class in general) was going to be a new design contemporary to the Enterprise-D, and at this early stage of the show, 5XXXX was supposed to be the highest registries for brand new ships (the Tsiolkovsky was commissioned the same year as the Ent-D.) But instead of building a new model like what Okuda envisioned, they just reused the Grissom model from STIII. So Oberth 'became' the class for the Grissom-type despite that not being Okuda's intention, and the Tsiolkovsky's 5XXXX registry from the dedication plaque became the norm for Grissom-type numbers, despite that also not being Okuda's intention. But instead, they ran with it for the rest of TNG.

Well by all means I think a batch system during the 2320s-50s is almost certain. See also 'flights' in the US Navy for example. In this case though, these may not be so much pre-assigned as 'as slots became available', in many cases.

It's a matter of when some things are a hard and fast rule or not. Also, some batches might be broken up every so often by randomly interspersed other ships, to make up shortfalls?

But certainly batches of Miranda-class ships in the 21100-21400 range seem to have been common (ranging from 20, to 50 to 100 ships?) and Excelsiors too, particularly in the 42100-200 range.

As for newer designs versus lower registries - I think the Ambassadors got pre-assigned registries early on, in some cases lower than 'new' ships maybe (just see Excelsior vs Hathaway, for a possible minor example - plus Entente, if you count that ship) so ships in the 10500s range may be newer than some ships, say, in the 20000 to 20100 range. Whilst ships in the 26000s range may have launched more gradually, over longer period. That's where it gets more ambiguous.

But I was just trying to give a simplified, general rule, at first.

 

[evilchumlee]

And technology use will overlap. Real world example: The Great Grain Races.
Just because a ship launches with shiny new tech doesn't mean everyone gets it.

Yes, this too. I never got any sort of vibe that the Constellation-Class was ever considered to be a top of the line vessel, which may also be a reason we don't see them particularly often in the TNG+ era. Miranda's were seemingly a top of the line ship, at least when originally produced, as were Excelsiors. Constellation-Class ships were probably more similar to like, a California-Class. They're fine. They work. But they're nothing special.

And if my theory (not really a theory... it's all documented, it's just if you choose to ignore said documentation) is correct that the Constellations were built over a fairly long period of time, it makes more sense that there may be something of a blending of tech. They'll have some older systems, some newer systems, and they may vary in model as time goes on. They're using the same spaceframe and general specs, but bits and pieces get upgraded.

It's an observational thing, but I think that the warp drive is the hardest thing to replace/upgrade/build. It's mostly integrated into the ship, requiring a major refit/redesign. So we end up with something like the Miranda that serves for a century, with the same nacelles and such. They worked, there was no real reason to redesign it, so they left it. Other system were certainly upgraded, but rather than completely overhaul the older ships or very design of the ship, they can churn out spaceframes with warp cores ready to go, and bolt on whatever other tech they want.

It's why you don't see a Miranda with like, Galaxy-Class nacelles. It would be way too much work to overhaul the ship for that. You DO have the Frankenstein ships that can be a mishmash, but in that case I would assume that much of the ship was build around the warp core/drive system. Starfleet is like "We have a bunch of Excelsior drive systems built, what the hell do we do with them?" then they realize another shipyard built a bunch of hull pieces of some other design, and some engineer was like "hold my raktajino."