I thought that meant "etc.," not "The preceding is meant to be taken as sarcasm." Or rather, it can mean the latter when spoken in an appropriately sarcastic tone of voice, but just seeing it as text is more ambiguous.
Revised USS Enterprise numbers
- Thread starter regemet
- Start date
I thought that meant "etc.," not "The preceding is meant to be taken as sarcasm." Or rather, it can mean the latter when spoken in an appropriately sarcastic tone of voice, but just seeing it as text is more ambiguous.
Okay, I'll grant you this...
I basically break Star Trek's history down into five periods...
1) TOS (Roddenberry, Coon, Black, Theis, etc)
2) TWOK (Bennett, w. Meyer, etc)
3) TNG Early (Roddenberry and a largely different crew)
4) TNG Late (Berman et al)
5) Current (Abrams et al)
(FYI, TMP doesn't really fit into any of those... so it essentially fits into its own category, and you could say it's a sixth "period" if you like.)
I suppose though, that you have a valid point... "TNG-late" may need to be further subdivided into additional sub-phases. But in terms of general "feel" and style and so forth, I think that "phase" of Star Trek was pretty consistent overall.
Ah, sorry. I've personally never respected 'canon' as anything more than a writer's tool (to use or not as needed), much less worried about on-screen minutia.
And that's exactly the point I was making as well.
There may be a "construction contract," AND a "hull number," AND a "navigational contact code," AND an "active service status code" and, during construction, a some form of logistical code that goes away once construction is completed.
Oh, and to further complicate matters... each SUBSECTION and each SUBSYSTEM would be tracked by such a code as well.
BJ and I, TGT, and several others on here have dealt with this... but many of you probably haven't.
Did you know that every single replaceable component in any military application today requires its own fully-traceable unique item designation? And by the way, I chose that description for a reason... because the official term for this is UID. (To make matters more confusing, it's a subelement of a larger system called IUID... thank your friendly neighborhood government for that!)
Here's a starting point in case anyone's interested in learning more:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IUID
This is every single component which may ever be removed and/or replaced anywhere other than in the original factory. Every item has a unique identifier, in the form of a 2D data matrix, which is then tied into a vast database (stored simultaneously in multiple locations, in case one system crashes or is destroyed). You can trace every single part ever made, from the time it leaves the original factory, through every removal, every maintenance operation, every refurbishing, every location where it may have been stored... EVERYTHING.
Oh, and this is applied to people too... which, frankly, sort of creeps me out... but oh well.
The point is... an airframe is made up of MILLIONS of uniquely-identified components, and uniquely-identified subassemblies. All of which are traced at every single step by a complex logistical tracking system.
I can't see it getting any LESS complicated with the construction of a starship, can you?
Now, note that (as BJ mentioned), this has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the final aircraft ID number, nor the "tail number" assigned to the aircraft, NOR THE TRANSPONDER ID CODE.
But it has absolutely EVERYTHING to do with what Vance mentions, regarding assembly/construction traceability.
The two are simply totally different, and totally unrelated, issues.
I remember, at the time that ST-III was coming out, an interview with SOMEONE on the production staff who explained what "transwarp" meant... with the "trans" meaning, to them, "going beyond warp drive."
At the time, it became widely accepted (though as we all know, never overtly ... aka "canonically"... stated) that with classical warp drives operating on the "WF^3 x c" scale, (remember, odd-numbered values are required, because even numbers don't allow for both positive and negative values!) "transwarp" would operate on a similar basis but would be "TWF^5 x c."
(Those who've tried to make warp-factor scales match with REAL stellar distances have found that these still don't work... so they include either a fixed "chi factor" of some sort, or they make some assumptions I personally consider pretty far out-there, about there being "subspace rivers" and "subspace streams" where you can go far faster at a given warp speed than you might at the same warp speed in another area. I can't really accept the second, though I could, if given a really good argument, accept the first. My preference, however, is to just accept that the writers, at the time, did their level best and just accept it as it is, flaws and all, and just fix the flaws going forward!)
It wasn't 'til TNG (and the ludicrous "WF10 = infinity" thing) that this got screwed up. And the TNG "tech team" did their level best to fix this...
For the record, here are the basic warp factor scales:
(FYI, I realize I misspelled "infinity" here... but you get the idea!)
The "transwarp" scale is far faster than "TNG-warp" until that massive uptick at the end.
Christopher... I think I understand your explanation of the TNG "base scale" but just to make certain... could you say that in equation form?
(In my case, I didn't bother to do a regression on the data I had, I merely plotted the points I had and did a "best-fit curve" but didn't evaluate for an equation.)
On the topic of warp factors, I got a kick out of writing this.
Last edited by a moderator:
But that doesn't mean you can blame Berman for a blueprint design in a movie that just happened to be made at the same time that he was producing a television show set in the same continuity. Berman had no authority over the TOS movies. Just because they were made at the same time doesn't mean they were under the same "regime."
That said, Herman Zimmerman was the original production designer for TNG and was also production designer for TUC. Also, Mike Okuda was the graphic designer for the film, so he probably would've created the blueprint, with Zimmerman and director Meyer approving it. Still, they weren't working for Berman when they did it. It wasn't about Berman -- and it sure as hell wasn't about Braga. So the invocation of the chimerical 2-headed "B&B" bogeyman is just absurd.
Err, I guess it would be v = WF^(10/3) x c for WF less than or equal to 9. There is no equation for WF 9-10; as I recall, Okuda just drew a curve that looked reasonably exponential and estimated the figures based on that.
Which was why I said this (the only line from my post which you left out in your quotation, oddly enough):
Which, as I'm sure you're aware, means the exact same thing as though I had said "Okay, you're right about this point."
Either you somehow failed to see that line, or you want to argue about it even though I'm not arguing back. Hmmmm.... I'd prefer to think the former, rather than the latter.
From where I sit, it's like was mentioned previously, the registry number of the ship has as much to do with a construction contract number as the license plate number of your car has to do with its VIN.
Exactly!
...Of course, the real world has its share of amusing little exceptions to that, with a significant code for purpose A being used as a significant code for purpose B principally out of a combination of laziness, cuteness, imagination or lack of it. A fighter jet's tail code may end up being the last two digits of its first engine's serial number or something equally bizarre. Perhaps Starfleet has done that on occasion (although probably not throughout the entire pseudohistory of starship registries)?
We might say that the letters "NCC" were chosen because originally in the mists of history, the registries of the ships tended to be the same as their construction contract numbers. The meaning of the letters would not be "naval construction contract" but "this is an active service starship in the UFP Starfleet" - but the origin of the letters might still be as suggested. We might further argue that, say, the TNG era "Okudaic" registries are indeed derived from the construction contract numbers, either by picking suitably many digits from the contract code, or by using some more complicated formula that amuses the little clerks down in the basement.
Timo Saloniemi
We might say that the letters "NCC" were chosen because originally in the mists of history, the registries of the ships tended to be the same as their construction contract numbers. The meaning of the letters would not be "naval construction contract" but "this is an active service starship in the UFP Starfleet" - but the origin of the letters might still be as suggested. We might further argue that, say, the TNG era "Okudaic" registries are indeed derived from the construction contract numbers, either by picking suitably many digits from the contract code, or by using some more complicated formula that amuses the little clerks down in the basement.
Timo Saloniemi
surely the numbers should be revised as:
1701
1801
2701
21701
71701
81701
because the Galaxy was a 70XXX registry and Soveriegn's like 'a generation better' or something. and the Ambassador classes had 26XXX registries...
1701
1801
2701
21701
71701
81701
because the Galaxy was a 70XXX registry and Soveriegn's like 'a generation better' or something. and the Ambassador classes had 26XXX registries...
And they all just happened to all end with 701? That's even more contrived than the bloody A, B, C, D, and E.
...On the issue of the first two digits, I might want for a bit more separation between the -nil and the -A. And the Enterprise-C we saw represented a different design standard from the Ambassadors that had the 26000-range numbers; the E-C might have been in the 10000 range instead, the one given for the class ship in the TNG Tech Manual. And the E-E probably started building before the Voyager, to be ready in the early 2370s, so a registry in the 70k rather than 80k range could be more justified.
Timo Saloniemi
Timo Saloniemi
Absolutely correct.
Look... if it's some form of "contract number"... or just some variation of a "traceable serial number" (as most of you seem to think is the case), then it's going to be assigned sequentially... though the sequence may be more complicated than we're likely to invent in the process of this thread.
The idea of a code being assigned in this nature makes sense only if it's some form of "identification code" which is independent of the "bookkeeping" numbers or the construction information or whatever else.
I can accept 1701-A, 1701-B, 1701-C, 1701-D, 1701-E, as the equivalent of "IFF transponder" codes, but can't accept them in any other role... because in any other role, they're just nonsensical on their face!
And the exact same argument applies to the sequence given above.
There is no plausible justification for the ships to have "x701" or "xx01" for that matter, uniformly, for every "Enterprise" we've seen. Okay, it might make sense for one or two of the various classes of ships to have their second-built vessel named "Enterprise"... but EVERY SINGLE TIME? Not bloody likely.
"1801" made a certain degree of sense, for the TMP-era ship. Of course, that would require that some other ship (say, the Constitution) had been totally rebuilt to the new "class" previously... otherwise, it would have been 1800, according to that model (18th major class of ship, sequential list from 00 to whatever number of hulls you have, up to 99 total hulls).
I can live with the TMP-refit being called 1701, as a "bookkeeping scam" to stay in compliance, technically, with some treaty stipulation, but otherwise, not-so-much... the reason being, it's "officially" the same hull (even though it's almost entirely new construction!).
But every ship after that... 1701A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I J, X, XXX, whatever... should REALLY have had a new hull number, if that were the case.
The "transponder code" is the only way I can see the "similar identifying codes" making any sense. Otherwise, it's just totally contrived.
