Ship continuity.

[Ryan Thomas Riddle]

Matt Jefferies, who was a pilot, came up with the NCC registry as a variation on the N-numbers on aircraft.

As Jefferies put it:

“I wanted a very simple number that could be spotted quickly. You’d have to eliminate 3, 6, 8, and 9, so I just went for 1701, which incidentally and coincidentally, happens to be very close to the license number on my airplane — NC-17740. But I have never really stepped out and squashed the rumor that the number on the Enterprise came off my airplane.”

Source: http://forgottentrek.com/designing-the-first-enterprise/

According to Jefferies, 1701 was supposed to mean seventeenth starship design, first build.

That however wasn't followed up in the actual show or the series that came after.

 

[DEWLine]

Sequential. Chronological order.

That's all.

 

[F. King Daniel]

Like with Stardates, they're just using random numbers (or ones with in-joke meanings to the production team, like 1031 because Bryan Fuller likes Halloween)

 

[DaveyNY]

How about we throw in the NCC-0514 USS KELVIN and the NX-326 FRANKLIN to really juice things up.

 

[Tim Thomason]

Corporations operating out of the different fleetyards purchase naval constuction contracts sometimes decades in advance. Starfleet doles out only a specific amount of contracts due to the demands of the fleet every year. Possibly limited by law.

The fleetyards aren't always able to finish construction on a project, but the funds aren't allowed to be utilized elsewhere. Instead, the funds for archaic contracts remain in storage, and the fleetyard corporations can drag them out when competing for more contracts against other corporations.

So, the Constitution class project was in the new 1700 range of contracts, but, say, San Francisco decided to build an extra Constitution using an unused contract from the 1000 range of ships (the Engle class, presumably, from the 2200s or so), and thus, the USS Constellation NCC-1017 is born. Additionally, two or more numbers from this series are taken and used for the top-secret Crossfield project. And that's the NCCs 1030 and 1031.

The Constellation and the Crossfield project may have been created due to the demands of the upcoming War, and the legal fiction of using unused registries came into play.

Additionally, registries are reused, as we see in the case of the Sao Paolo Defiant and more especially the multiple Enterprises (which are amended with a letter). The Starfleet Registry only seems to care about not having multiple active ships with the same number... although some TNG okudagrams bring even that into question.

The Excelsior project took years, and that's why the NX-2000 was launched after ships in the 2100 range had been seen. At some point in the late 23rd century, beginning perhaps with the Sydney class runabouts, construction contracts were required for more vessels and smaller vessels (whereas, previously, these were unregistered or contracted alongside a specific large starship or in another system), and this is how we get our big jump from about 2000 or 4000 in 2285 to the 87000 range in the TNG era.

The Prometheus had two NCCs (or, rather, NXs) - 59650 and 74913. This could be because the experiment was originally constructed under one contract, but due to cost overruns or a transfer in shipbuilders, it changed contracts, perhaps late in the construction phase. Which number comes first depends on whether the ship was dedicated first, or had its hull painted.

 

[Tuskin38]

Maybe the Registry numbers are inconsistent to confuse enemy spies. IIRC countries have done that in real life.

Also I've noticed there are no registries above 1700 in DSC, other than the Big E of course.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Like with Stardates, they're just using random numbers (or ones with in-joke meanings to the production team, like 1031 because Bryan Fuller likes Halloween)

Or the ones you can make out of the toy model's decals.

 

[Vger23]

The registry numbers don't mean anything.

Easy.

 

[David cgc]

NCC-1031 is an ancient ship. She was not built for spore work in the slightest. Rather, she was available for spore work because she was so badly out of date. This work involved, among other things, converting the old massive hangar of this ex-shuttlecarrier into all sorts of labs plus a new, tiny shuttlebay.

Exactly. I don't see why we should take a civilian convict commenting on how clean the floor is as evidence of when the ship was first laid down. It seems more reasonable that Discovery and Glenn were gutted to the rafters and rebuilt for the spore drive. It's the same situation you'd have in 2273, where the Enterprise NCC-1701 looks brand new compared to the old-fashioned Entente NCC-2120.

 

[Dukhat]

Exactly. I don't see why we should take a civilian convict commenting on how clean the floor is as evidence of when the ship was first laid down. It seems more reasonable that Discovery and Glenn were gutted to the rafters and rebuilt for the spore drive. It's the same situation you'd have in 2273, where the Enterprise NCC-1701 looks brand new compared to the old-fashioned Entente NCC-2120.

Speaking strictly canonically, though, we never actually saw the Entente, only heard the name and registry number. For all we know the ship looks nothing like what's depicted in the Franz Joseph tech manual.

And to throw a monkey wrench into the idea that the Crossfield class was older: There are only two Crossfield class ships, the Discovery and the Glenn. If it were an older class, I would assume that many more ships would have been produced than only two. That both of them were also testbeds for the spore drive based on their design kinda makes it appear that they were constructed specifically for that purpose. Add to the fact that Burnham seems not to have ever seen a ship of that class before also puts the kibosh to the theory that the class was older.

I've done a lot of research on Star Trek ship classes & registries, and while there is no definitive answer as to how registries are assigned, the bulk of the evidence seem to support the idea that registries were far more chronological during the TNG era, but during the TOS/TMP era, they were not. So I'm perfectly fine believing that a brand new TOS-era ship can have a lower registry than newer vessels from the same era.

 

[Longinus]

The intent clearly is that Discovery is a new ship. There is no need to invent silly and convoluted backstories to satisfy some people's OCD that makes them clinically unable to accept that the registries are not sequential.

 

[ITDUDE]

USS Discovery (NCC-1031) and USS Glenn (NCC-1030) were sister ships, (probably created at same time, definitely for same purpose), with consecutive numbers. So registries can be consecutive, batched AND non-consecutive and random all at same time.

 

[Longinus]

Yes, there are batches, and numbers within batches are probably sequential, but the batches themselves aren't.

 

[SpocksOddSocks]

The intent clearly is that Discovery is a new ship. There is no need to invent silly and convoluted backstories to satisfy some people's OCD that makes them clinically unable to accept that the registries are not sequential.

Indeed, we should be concentrating on inventing crazy convoluted theories as to how the numbers are assigned in the first place.

Whilst this wouldn't work perfectly for the connies we see, it could be a case that a certain number of registry numbers are reserved for future ships of that class, but sometimes they don't all get used by the time they retire a design. Then they get reallocated.

 

[Longinus]

Whilst this wouldn't work perfectly for the connies we see, it could be a case that a certain number of registry numbers are reserved for future ships of that class, but sometimes they don't all get used by the time they retire a design. Then they get reallocated.

Sounds reasonable. They could also be assigned by the fleetyard. So Connies with NCC-17XX are build on Earth and Connies with NCC-16XX build on Andor etc.

 

[Ithekro]

I general subscribe to the idea that the hull number has to mean something, or else they wouldn't paste it on their starships as large and as often. And in full.

The idea that ships build from certain star systems have different starting numbers is the one that makes sense to me for contract numbers and the sometimes wide number range of ships with classes with still relatively few ships in them (there aren't that many Constitution-class starships built to require their be ships built in the 9xx, 10xx, 13xx, 16xx, 17xx, and possibly later number series.) Having multiple star systems work on this starship project that is suppose to be the best of the Federation would be a point of achievement for said star system. Having Some of the ships be wartime emergency construction also works using older unused numbers, or having an additional ship ordered after the original contracts are headed out, and the star system involved has an unused number from a class that was cancelled before getting the contract number authorized, but the following class contract hull numbers were authorized (so say some class was originally going to have 20 ships in it, but the after a long debate in the Federation Council the number was cut to 16. But during that time another class was authorized, and assumed to take place after the previous class was given the number in sequence starting at what would be hull 21. Thus hulls 17-20 are actually never contracted and free for use later.

Plus, Starfleet has been fairly consistent on having starship classes with a class name, have a name ship (Galaxy-class USS Galaxy. Defiant-class USS Defiant. Excelsior-class USS Excelsior) So it be reasonable to assume there is a USS Constitution that is the class ship of the Constitution-class and a USS Crossfield for the Crossfield-class.

The one that doesn't fit is the Starship class. That is either a definition of ship type (rather than a class of ship), or its a British naming scheme where all the ships are named after famous starships (like the Weapon-class ships are all named after weapons, or the County-class are all named after counties....but there is no HMS County nor HMS Weapon.)

The other one that doesn't fit is the NX-class and other United Earth era ships that have project designations as the class name, but no ship has that name (under normal tradition, the NX-class starships would be the Enterprise-class starships after the lead ship, but they might not if every single ship in the class is different, and thus all basically the first ship in their own class, since they are all prototypes of one form or another).

 

[Jon holder]

Let's see if I have my straitjacket straight... Okay, here's my attempt, al fresco from the cell walls:

NCC-1031 is an ancient ship. She was not built for spore work in the slightest. Rather, she was available for spore work because she was so badly out of date. This work involved, among other things, converting the old massive hangar of this ex-shuttlecarrier into all sorts of labs plus a new, tiny shuttlebay.

NCC-1226 is a bit newer, but still one of those "venerable" ships that skip engine upgrades, just like NCC-1701 later does. Most of the rest have been deemed worth a refit that installs the brand new, boxy nacelles.

As of the 2250s, the registries for new ships are probably up to NCC-1900 or thereabouts, but we really learn of no upper limit. As of the 2270s, NCC-2100 is still pretty hot. But then comes the big cold war with the Klingons, and in the next few decades, we get close to the five-digit range; shipbuilding is a matter of alternating creeps and jerks, is all.

A big jerk would come right after the founding of the UFP Starfleet, with lots of war surplus ships adopted. This would mean mass retirement at some later timepoint, with a long creep in the meantime.

DSC fundamentally isn't an additional burden on us registry madmen, not a great offender or even much of a repeat offender. Really, no particular show is. All we ever get in the way of offenses is individual odd registries in every spinoff, usually no more than one or two per each. And it's difficult to argue there wouldn't be a general attempt at making the numbers slowly get higher as time passes - it's their very function for the writers and VFX folks and backstage continuity nerds, after all.

Timo Saloniemi

This actually make sense to me since,( in my view at least) other than the spore drive and the transportes Shinzou appears more advanced than Discovery. The Crossfielda appears more akin to NX-01 than the Connies and Walkers more a predecessor for the Mirandas.

 

[Jon holder]

I general subscribe to the idea that the hull number has to mean something, or else they wouldn't past it on their starships is large and often. And in full.

The idea that ships build from certain star systems have different starting numbers is the one that makes sense to me for contract numbers and the sometimes wide number range of ships with classes with still relatively few ships in them (there aren't that many Constitution-class starships built to require their be ships built in the 9xx, 10xx, 13xx, 16xx, 17xx, and possibly later number series.) Having multiple star systems work on this starship project that is suppose to be the best of the Federation would be a point of achievement for said star system. Having Some of the ships be wartime emergency construction also works using older unused numbers, or having an additional ship ordered after the original contracts are headed out, and the star system involved has an unused number from a class that was cancelled before getting the contract number authorized, but the following class contract hull numbers were authorized (so say some class was originally going to have 20 ships in it, but the after a long debate in the Federation Council the number was cut to 16. But during that time another class was authorized, and assumed to take place after the previous class was given the number in sequence starting at what would be hull 21. Thus hulls 17-20 are actually never contracted and free for use later.

Plus, Starfleet has been fairly consistent on having starship classes with a class name, have a name ship (Galaxy-class USS Galaxy. Defiant-class USS Defiant. Excelsior-class USS Excelsior) So it be reasonable to assume there is a USS Constitution that is the class ship of the Constitution-class and a USS Crossfield for the Crossfield-class.

The one that doesn't fit is the Starship class. That is either a definition of ship type (rather than a class of ship), or its a British naming scheme where all the ships are named after famous starships (like the Weapon-class ships are all named after weapons, or the County-class are all named after counties....but there is no HMS County nor HMS Weapon.)

Agree. One point of contention to me was exactly the point you mention.
The Glenn NCC-1030 is destroyed and Lorca say Discovery is the only Starship with a spore drive in the galaxy. So Where is the Crossfield?
was it lost before the Glenn or did it even have a spore drive and as mentioned above Glenn and Discovery were modified and rebuilt as testbeds.
Which would make sense in the middle of a War with initial large fleet losses makes more sense to refit two older ships for a risky test project than take up valuable shipyard space that could be used to build new warships.

 

[Longinus]

Agree. One point of contention to me was exactly the point you mention.
The Glenn NCC-1030 is destroyed and Lorca say Discovery is the only Starship with a spore drive in the galaxy. So Where is the Crossfield?
was it lost before the Glenn or did it even have a spore drive and as mentioned above Glenn and Discovery were modified and rebuilt as testbeds.
Which would make sense in the middle of a War with initial large fleet losses makes more sense to refit two older ships for a risky test project than take up valuable shipyard space that could be used to build new warships.

I really don't understand why 'Glenn' was just no called 'Crossfield.' They obviously intended to only have these two ships of this class in their story, and certainly they know how the naming conventions is Trek work. Besides '1030' would have been a sensible neat number for the first ship of the class.

 

[Ithekro]

This assumes that USS Crossfield ever had a Spore Drive installed. If it was an older class, that the Glenn and Discovery were heavily refit for the drive. If its not, that Crossfield was a concept design ship that never had the drive installed and was used to test the other systems and provide a baseline for ship operations without the added Spore Drive.