Since those are special-case "tributes" to the original, no it doesn't.
Ship Registries Questions
- Thread starter CuttingEdge100
- Start date
Since those are special-case "tributes" to the original, no it doesn't.
darkwing_duck1
Vice Admiral
From a production history perspective, you are correct.
From an IN UNIVERSE perspective, you're not.
Which is why I clearly stated at the beginning of my post...
"Well, if we are going strictly by what we were given in TOS, the only ships we heard about were the following..."
... so that no one would attempt to make assertions like yours. 
Since the numbers were never nailed down during TOS, I really wouldn't call it revisionism, since nothing's really being revised. Just better fleshed out.
i call a pox down on the idiot who labelled the Constellation 1017 when using the AMT sticker sheet instead of using 1710!!!!!!!!!!!!!
and i ignore all the 16XX registries from Okuda in my fan-fic.
my Connie class list runs:
Constitution 1700
Enterprise 1701
Excalibur 1703
Exeter 1704
Lexington 1709
Constellation 1710
Potemkin 1711
Dedalo 1715 (my creation)
Endaevour 1720 (ship name from Vanguard novels)
Yamato 1725 (my creation)
Hood 1730
Defiant 1764 (as seen on ENT)
Yorktown 1770 (built to replace Constellation, became Ent-A)
Shenzhou 1775 (my creation, replaced Defiant)
Connie to Dedalo were the first batch, Endaevour, Hood and Yamato were completed next, with Defiant last. Yorktown and Shenzhou were part-built hulls pulled from storage to replace the losses.
and i ignore all the 16XX registries from Okuda in my fan-fic.
my Connie class list runs:
Constitution 1700
Enterprise 1701
Excalibur 1703
Exeter 1704
Lexington 1709
Constellation 1710
Potemkin 1711
Dedalo 1715 (my creation)
Endaevour 1720 (ship name from Vanguard novels)
Yamato 1725 (my creation)
Hood 1730
Defiant 1764 (as seen on ENT)
Yorktown 1770 (built to replace Constellation, became Ent-A)
Shenzhou 1775 (my creation, replaced Defiant)
Connie to Dedalo were the first batch, Endaevour, Hood and Yamato were completed next, with Defiant last. Yorktown and Shenzhou were part-built hulls pulled from storage to replace the losses.
Sure it was... most of those references were from TOS-R. That information wasn't there originally and was added later in the revised versions of the effects.
I have no problem with those numbers as a fan of the show... but as someone who studies the history of the show, I won't be revising my list of known TOS ships and registries because of stuff added 40 years later.
But on the note of what is revising and what is expanding... the registry number of the Defiant was given in ST:Ent, so that would be an expansion of known info compared with TOS-R which added stuff that wasn't originally in TOS before (which makes it a revised version of the original).
To be fair, the Defiant's registry of 1764 dates back at least as far as Bjo Trimble's 1975 edition of the Star Trek Concordance (Greg Jein's list of registry numbers are also used in that book, instead of the FJ/AMT list). It wasn't a number the ENT guys pulled out of some unnamed orifice.
I never said it was (though you seem intent on creating any argument even if one doesn't exist). That just happened to be the first time we saw it on-screen.
So, our we having a problem?
Probably just a semantics thing, and we'll just leave it at that.
I always wondered where that came from. I first saw it in The Star Trek Encyclopedia IIRC, long before ENT, and wondered then where Okuda had found it.
Now that begs the question, where did Bjo Trimble get it?
Franz Joseph's Star Fleet Technical Manual is missing the Defiant completely, but does show a starship lost in Tholian space that's labelled Valiant. FJ's chief reference, Whitfield's Making Of Star Trek, predated the 3rd season "Tholian Web"--if I remember correctly--so Defiant wouldn't have been in there. I've wondered if maybe he was going from memory since he didn't have a reference, and got the name wrong; 'Valiant' is pretty close to 'Defiant'. That's pure speculation, though.
Marian
all i see there is NCC 18smudge smudge or possibly 16smudge smudge.
however, since I'm cheerfully ignoring the blatantly blindingly visible 1017 in a 'canon' episode in favour of 1710, what makes you think I'm going to accept a book cover?
that thing's full of more assumptions and speculation than next year's weather forecast...
#1 being why assume all starships on the repair list at Starbase 11 are Constitution class?
#1 being why assume all starships on the repair list at Starbase 11 are Constitution class?
If "call a pox down on the idiot" is what you regard as cheerfully ignoring something, I shutter at the thought of how you would react if you actually got upset over anything.however, since I'm cheerfully ignoring the blatantly blindingly visible 1017 in a 'canon' episode in favour of 1710, what makes you think I'm going to accept a book cover?
But if it makes you feel any better, I cheerfully ignore all those novels (professional or fan made)... which is why it took me a while to figure out who Captain Calhoun was (I thought it was something you made up on your own in your writings).
I would think that the main reason might be that in TOS there originally wasn't a Constitution class, the Enterprise was a STARSHIP CLASS ship in TOS and the list of numbers was titled STAR SHIP STATUS.
The idea of a Constitution class was still floating around and not solidified until later (the graphic credited with it being on-screen appeared in the second season episode The Trouble With Tribbles, as seen here).
I've always kind took a middle-of-the-road approach in regards to the Constitution-class registries. To me, the Constitution was the first (originally NX-1700 than later NCC-1700), and that a number of earlier ships with lower hull registries--like the Constellation--were upgraded into the Constitution-class later from previous similar designs.
A similar thing may have occurred with the Soyuz-class if some of them started out originally as Miranda-class...
A similar thing may have occurred with the Soyuz-class if some of them started out originally as Miranda-class...
In the real world, alternatives abound.
Say, the Soviet navy assigned pennant numbers according to the operating theater of the ship, so the registry would change if the ship moved from the Baltic to the Pacific. The modern Russian navy no longer operates in that fashion. It wouldn't be difficult to claim, say, that ships on a five-year exploration assignment got 1700 or 1800 registries, while "homebodies" got lower numbers.
OTOH, it's quite possible to argue that certain starship types were built in distinct batches at greatly different times - and later refitted to the most modern standard, thereby unifying the external looks at least. This is what happened to Italian battleships before WWII, with the Conte di Cavour class of 1911 ending up looking basically identical to the Littorio class launched in 1937.
After TOS, Starfleet would be about a hundred years old. Plenty of time to have found what registry schemes work and what don't. One might assume, then, that all registries from the 2280s on would follow the "Okuda pattern" where the registry is a running number roughly indicating the time the ship was ordered (or launched, or commissionied, or whatnot), even though ships preceding that era would have more complex numbering schemes. That, too, is something with precedent in real navies, which have tended to simplify obscurities out of their systems: the USN dropped the DD-21 registry for its newest Zumwalt class (a silly reference to the 21st century), and opted for a basically sequential DD-1000 instead.
I thus wouldn't sweat the meager few registries given in original TOS, or even the roughly doubled number of registries available in TOS-R. Most of the stuff works pretty well, and NCC-1017 (from TOS) and the almost-visible 1600-range rego of the supposed Intrepid (from TOS-R) can be explained away with minimal fuss. The vast bulk of registries go by the blessfully simple Okuda system where there are no rules and thus no violations of rules, either.
And if all else fails, we can fall back on one final real-world practice: that of painting on false registries for the duration of war games or for counterintelligence purposes....
Timo Saloniemi
Say, the Soviet navy assigned pennant numbers according to the operating theater of the ship, so the registry would change if the ship moved from the Baltic to the Pacific. The modern Russian navy no longer operates in that fashion. It wouldn't be difficult to claim, say, that ships on a five-year exploration assignment got 1700 or 1800 registries, while "homebodies" got lower numbers.
OTOH, it's quite possible to argue that certain starship types were built in distinct batches at greatly different times - and later refitted to the most modern standard, thereby unifying the external looks at least. This is what happened to Italian battleships before WWII, with the Conte di Cavour class of 1911 ending up looking basically identical to the Littorio class launched in 1937.
After TOS, Starfleet would be about a hundred years old. Plenty of time to have found what registry schemes work and what don't. One might assume, then, that all registries from the 2280s on would follow the "Okuda pattern" where the registry is a running number roughly indicating the time the ship was ordered (or launched, or commissionied, or whatnot), even though ships preceding that era would have more complex numbering schemes. That, too, is something with precedent in real navies, which have tended to simplify obscurities out of their systems: the USN dropped the DD-21 registry for its newest Zumwalt class (a silly reference to the 21st century), and opted for a basically sequential DD-1000 instead.
I thus wouldn't sweat the meager few registries given in original TOS, or even the roughly doubled number of registries available in TOS-R. Most of the stuff works pretty well, and NCC-1017 (from TOS) and the almost-visible 1600-range rego of the supposed Intrepid (from TOS-R) can be explained away with minimal fuss. The vast bulk of registries go by the blessfully simple Okuda system where there are no rules and thus no violations of rules, either.
And if all else fails, we can fall back on one final real-world practice: that of painting on false registries for the duration of war games or for counterintelligence purposes....
Timo Saloniemi
Last edited:
I believe Mike Okuda used Greg Jein's speculations, logical or not, as the basis for his assignment of registry numbers to Constitution-class starships for the Star Trek Encyclopedia and ultimately to TOS-R. I for one wish that one of FJ's numbers -- just one -- had been used as a subtle tip of the hat to his contributions to the technical side of Trek fandom... but them's the breaks.
and in "A Piece of the Action" Kirk says that the Horizon, operating a hundred years ago was a starship. i doubt that was a Connie. Like wise the also missing a hundred years, USS Archon in "Return of the Archons" in S1.
Reappopriation seems the most natural to me. (If you're using Okuda's numbers). Let's say that, for instance, NCC-1670 thru NCC-1699 were planned for "Xenith Class Cruisers" up until around 2260. Now, they haven't been laid down yet by the time that the Constitutions prove themselves.
Rather than continue the apporpriation for ships now, more-or-less, obsolete, the existing apporpriation and funding for the former Xenith-class ships are brought over to be a 'new batch' of Constitution class ships. So, NCC-1674 was originally going to be Xenith class, but when that class was declared 'obsolete', the ship was made into a Constitution class instead after the NCC-1700 was launched.
Rather than continue the apporpriation for ships now, more-or-less, obsolete, the existing apporpriation and funding for the former Xenith-class ships are brought over to be a 'new batch' of Constitution class ships. So, NCC-1674 was originally going to be Xenith class, but when that class was declared 'obsolete', the ship was made into a Constitution class instead after the NCC-1700 was launched.
