Ship Registries Questions

[Wingsley]

I apologize in advance if this muddies the waters, but there is another possibility for how ship registries are assigned for Starfleet.

Let's say Starfleet assembles technologies and design strategies once every generation or so, to base multiple classes of starships on a "platform" of sorts; the individual ship classes may look significantly different from one another, but they may share components, ship-building/refitting techniques, or bundles of hardware, etc., designed and fabricated for their generation.

Some maybe ships in the 2260's are different than ships built under the previous generation specs (2240's). The "new" (2260's) ships have a different appearance (at least subtle changes) than the 2240's ships or the 2270s/2280's generation that follows.

So, let's say that the TOS/2260's era is the "current" generation. Components and shipfitting strategies are still on the drawing boards for the TMP generation. Now, let's assume that NCC-1371 Republic was of a previous generation, which specific one we do not know, but let's assume it was at least two or three generations prior to TOS. Let's also assume that FJ's numbering schemes in the Tech Manual are apocryphal for sake of argument. Maybe each hundred number series is either its own generation or each 200-number block is. So, let's assume that Constitution was the first starship of its class, NCC-1600, as a prototype in the 2230's or earlier. A handful were eventually constructed, maybe mixed in with other 1600 hulls or ships of various classes. Let's say the design was finalized in the 2240's, and by that time all the hulls for various starships in the 1600's. 1610s. 1620's, 1630's, etc. were taken. That doesn't mean that 100 starships were built, only that each sub-block within were already assigned.

Next, let's assume that once the Constitution class spec was finalized and the Enterprise was built, Starfleet was already assigning the 1700 block. This could be useful in explaining why Reliant was NCC-1864, making it possible that TMP-era Connies could also be registered somewhere in the 1800's. This would also explain how Excelsior wound up being NCC-2000 in the 2280's/'90's.

 

[Captain Robert April]

I like Vance's idea. And frankly, the FJ scheme just seemed too cute by half.

 

[Timo]

I in turn like Wingsley's idea of the 1700-range registries being for late Constitutions while the 1600-range ones are for earlier examples that eventually ended up looking like the later batches. A bit like the Conte di Cavour vs. Littorio thing...

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Shaw]

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.

Well, as I stated before... other than appearing on a graphic that wasn't readable (and that part of the text of the graphic was covered from the camera anyways) the term Constitution Class wasn't used in the show.

As for why I didn't include either the Horizon or Archon on my previous list... yes the hundred years was a factor, but not as much as them never being referred to as either the U.S.S. Horizon or U.S.S. Archon in those episodes. The U.S.S. Valiant was added to the list because of this even though it was from 50 years earlier. Without the U.S.S. before the name it is hard to tell if these ships were even part of the fleet or some other organization.


Also, it is funny to here fans refer to the Constitution as Connie when in the U.S. Navy that nickname is used for the Constellation (the Constitution is Old Ironside). But who knows, maybe the Enterprise actually was a Connie (Constellation) class ship.

 

[Unicron]

* snip *

Yes, that is one possibility. In essence, a ship built earlier could retain whatever its original registry was at the time of construction, which would explain those of ships like the Constellation and the Republic. FJ's lists actually do this in several places - the heavy cruisers run from 1700 up to the 1800s, with the later 1800s being used for the tug class. The destroyers start in the 500s and go about halfway, with the remainder being picked up by the scouts and continuing into the 600s.

 

[Wingsley]

I think I've been misunderstood here.

I'm saying that starships of various classes could be mixed in the 100's range. In essence, there could be cruisers and frigates, etc. in the 1600-1699 range, with blocks of ten registries allocated at a time. The 1600's could've been allocated in the pre-pre-"Cage" era, while 1701 Enterprise could've been part of a block of several ships in the 1700-1709 range that were built in the 2240's or later. 1710-1719 could've been cruisers, or they could've been frigates or something else entirely; but it would be likely they were built in the same time frame and with similar technologies as the Enterprise originally had in the "Cage" or pre-"Cage" generation.

 

[DEWLine]

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?

That is indeed the biggest whopper of the bunch of assumptions therein. So, asking why USS Constitution would be NCC-1700 is a fair move.

 

[Timo]

Indeed, it would be nice to do away with that idea - if not for the fact that so many fan works have insisted that the Constitution is NCC-1700, and the corollary where these fan graphics make their way to our TVs or the silver screen...

But there's no big problem in saying that NCC-1700 was a relatively late individual in the production run. She just happened to be the first one built to the Constitution specs, as opposed to the original Bureaucracy class specs of the lead ship NCC-1010. And by the 2260s, all the members of the Bureaucracy class had been refitted and re-refitted until they represented the most modern and now universal Constitution standard.

That sort of stuff also happens in the real world. A numerous class (say, of destroyers) is built; subsequent upgraded production batches are introduced, and named after the first examples of the upgraded standard; and vessels from the earlier batches are brought to the standards of the later batches, and assume that "batch identity".

That said, yes, it's valid to question all the things not stated in the actual episodes, although I hate the idea of dissing TOS-R merely on the grounds that it's not TOS (the two aren't in conflict on any registry issues, after all - TOS-R merely expands on TOS). But relatively little is won by insisting that FJ's or Greg Jein's schemes must be wrong, because TOS/TOS-R in itself doesn't establish any rules. TOS/TOS-R only establishes a set of annoying exceptions, so the adoption of any of the extracanonical works is only a step towards the better, for those of us who want these things to make fictional sense. And nothing is really lost in taking this step.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Shaw]

That said, yes, it's valid to question all the things not stated in the actual episodes, although I hate the idea of dissing TOS-R merely on the grounds that it's not TOS (the two aren't in conflict on any registry issues, after all - TOS-R merely expands on TOS).

Well, speaking for myself, I have no problem with the Okuda/Jein numbers as a fan of the series. But as someone who has dedicated a ton of time to studying the history (real rather than fictional) of TOS, I think it is important to differentiate between what we were originally provided in TOS as opposed to what we were later given in TOS-R.

In fact I would say that it is even more important today to make such a distinction now that we are going to have people who either don't remember the shows as originally aired or have never seen the original versions of them at all.

To date the only Okuda/Jein number I would wished changed is that of the Exeter (to NCC-1706). Beyond that I don't think it matters all that much to my enjoyment of the series.

 

[Timo]

Nor mine - I'd much rather there were changes in the original material (NCC-1017 begone!) than in these more recent and basically palatable numbering schemes.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[aridas sofia]

Nor mine - I'd much rather there were changes in the original material (NCC-1017 begone!) than in these more recent and basically palatable numbering schemes.

Timo Saloniemi

Not me. I am as devoted to the artist's original intent as I can be. And even though it was an after-the-fact rationalization, it was Jefferies' after-the-fact rationalization:

Enterprise was the first build of the seventeenth starship design.

You can bend this to work with a prototype Constitution, and rationalize Constellation away as a refit from an earlier class. And you can say Republic was something else entirely. But you can't get "There are only 12 like it in the fleet" with every other one being a 1600 registry and still have the facade of Jefferies' scheme being valid.

It's become de rigeur to piss on Franz Joseph's contributions as just the wacko ramblings of some old man fan. But Franz Joseph met with Jefferies. Franz Joseph's numbering scheme fits Jefferies' intent. And, it compares favorably to the way military services operate like those Star Fleet was being referenced against. Finally, it leaves some unseen 16th design to tickle our imaginations.

But no. Mike Okuda had to go with the Greg Jein scheme, which fits nothing except a weird idea that an entire fleet of frontline starships is at one starbase at the same time, a scheme that makes as much sense as 10/13 of the police force running off to the FOP convention to get "fixed" while leaving the streets to the thugs. I wonder why Okuda went with the scheme of Jein over Joseph, when Joseph met with Jefferies, came up with a scheme that matched his intent, and got it published and sold to a million-plus fans around the world? If it was just to screw with our expectations, I'd say fine. But in this day and age when everything "Matt Jefferies" is being dumped for the flavor of the moment (which happens to begin with a "JJ"), I'd have preferred if something of the original idea had been allowed to remain intact.

If only to humor another rambling "old man fan".

 

[Timo]

I wouldn't really pat any of these people on the back with such great vehemence, although I wouldn't pat them on the jaw, either.

FJ was an inexcusable idiot for insisting that all starships have "NCC" in their registry numbers. Jein was reaching with his "Court Martial" rationalizations, and Okuda was lacking in judgement when taking Jein's innocent fan-fun material so seriously. And Jeffries may have had a good idea or dozen, but since he didn't really put them out for others to see, later artists are fully entitled to use their imaginations rather than be chained with his old and often arcane concepts.

Much of TOS was a hack job, as could only be expected - it was a scifi romp with rayguns and space babes, for chrissakes! But it was a wonderful hack job, and other equally wonderful blunders have been built on it, few of them truly falling short of the original in terms of production standards, high concepts, wacky ideas, devoted creators and mismatched writers. It's hardly a story of steady decline or devolution - even when it isn't quite a steady "rags to riches" ascent, either.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[aridas sofia]

FJ was an inexcusable idiot for insisting that all starships have "NCC" in their registry numbers.

Once again, Jefferies' original rationalization -- as expressed in at least several interviews that we know of, and not cribbed away so others couldn't see them -- was that "NCC" was a conflation of the U.S. "NC" and the Soviet "CCCP" aircraft prefixes. Those are commercial prefixes, and thus "NCC" is a denial that Starfleet is anything more than a paramilitary agency (just as was Roddenberry's assertion). It is a confirmation of eventual détente and rapprochement and eventually, cooperation, between then-Cold-Warring adversaries. It was part and parcel with the central tenets of the show. So I'd say sticking with it was at the very least excusable, and certainly not "idiotic."

But if you think Jefferies' (note the spelling) ideas were "often arcane," and that "TOS was a hack job", and that what was built on it was "equally wonderful", then further discussion is pointless. I'm not going to waste time trying to convince you otherwise. I'm just going to say that a trough filled with scrapings from other's plates might not be as good a meal as what can be had in the restaurant, and when everything that fills that trough has decayed, the original meal will be remembered.

 

[aridas sofia]

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...

As for why I didn't include either the Horizon or Archon on my previous list... yes the hundred years was a factor, but not as much as them never being referred to as either the U.S.S. Horizon or U.S.S. Archon in those episodes. The U.S.S. Valiant was added to the list because of this even though it was from 50 years earlier. Without the U.S.S. before the name it is hard to tell if these ships were even part of the fleet or some other organization.

This might help. Although he says Enterprise is a starship, he doesn't say the same about Horizon. He does however, confirm that Horizon was from the same organization that sent them:

KIRK: This is Captain James T. Kirk of the Starship Enterprise, representing the Federation of Planets.

OXMYX: Hello, Captain. You're from the same outfit as the Horizon?

KIRK: Yes.

 

[Forbin]

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...

Please! No more NXs!!
Nobody put an X on the USS Iowa, they just built her and painted the final number on.

 

[Vance]

FJ was an inexcusable idiot for insisting that all starships have "NCC" in their registry numbers.

Well, that's funny, because the two people that expressly told him to do that were Gene Roddenberry and Matt Jefferies. So I guess there's some 'idiocy' to go around?

Jein was reaching with his "Court Martial" rationalizations,

Reaching is a profound understatement.

Okuda was lacking in judgement when taking Jein's innocent fan-fun material so seriously.

Okuda deliberately snubbed Franz Joseph, partially at Roddenberry's behest, but also because Okuda felt personally offended by a 'fan letter' reply that Franz Joseph sent to him in the 1980s. The entire point of conflicting registries is a deliberate effort by Okuda to invalidate the Technical Manual.

 

[Mysterion]

Okuda deliberately snubbed Franz Joseph, partially at Roddenberry's behest, but also because Okuda felt personally offended by a 'fan letter' reply that Franz Joseph sent to him in the 1980s. The entire point of conflicting registries is a deliberate effort by Okuda to invalidate the Technical Manual.

Sources for this?

 

[Herbert1]

Okuda deliberately snubbed Franz Joseph, partially at Roddenberry's behest, but also because Okuda felt personally offended by a 'fan letter' reply that Franz Joseph sent to him in the 1980s. The entire point of conflicting registries is a deliberate effort by Okuda to invalidate the Technical Manual.

I have often wondered why Okuda gave Antares a registry number of NCC-500 in the remastered "Charlie X" and the Star Trek Encyclopedia before that. He has admitted that he isn't entirely sure that the Antares is a Starfleet vessel since the model does not have a U.S.S. and the name is in script like TOS shuttlecraft. It now makes sense that the registry is a deliberate effort by Okuda to invalidate the Technical Manual.

I don't have a copy of Bjo Trimble's Star Trek Concordance, but does it seem reasonable that Mike Okuda considered the Star Trek Encyclopedia to be a continuation of the Star Trek Concordance if registry numbers were printed in that book based on Jein's "The Case of John Doe Starship"? In addition, Greg Jein did contribute models to the production of Star Trek: The Next Generation and was known personally to Okuda.
I believe that Okuda was in a damned if you do and damned if you don't situation. He wasn't free to come up with registry numbers for the previously unseen Constitution class himself. He would have been eviserated by fans. Since FJ was considered apocryphal by Roddenberry, he used the list made by his friend Greg Jein?

"Therin of Andor" has stated that Gene Roddenberry was angry with Franz Joseph because Joseph sold a license to Task Force Games that became "Star Fleet Battles". If this is true, then the infamous what is "canon" memo makes a lot more sense.

 

[Vance]

Sources for this?

Unfortunately, the original articles seem long gone. Karen Dick's comments still mention that Franz Joseph often responded to letters 'in character', which seemed to be Okuda's problem. Okuda took offense at the snide and snobbish tone that Franz Joseph took in his letter. I never personally saw such a letter, so I can't say what the offensive part actually was.

Unfortunately, Okuda himself is one of the few Trek 'people' that remains isolated from the fandom, and doesn't seem willing to engage in discussion about such things.

 

[C.E. Evans]

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...

Please! No more NXs!!
Nobody put an X on the USS Iowa, they just built her and painted the final number on.

Sorry, but no. Once TSFS introduced the NX for experimental starships, that's the way I roll. But I do think that NX is a temporary registry for a brand-new design ship that is converted to NCC once it goes into mass production (I personally think that was the case with the Excelsior in TUC).

ENT did something a bit different with NX registries, but that was in the pre-Federation era, and the NX-class was the end result of the initial NX Program, anyway, IMO...