Maybe it's for both. Howz about that?
They probably assumed it said Aries based on my Flare Forums link. I would prefer it said Amber.
Last edited:
Ships In "The Measure of a Man"
- Thread starter throwback
- Start date
- Status
Maybe it's for both. Howz about that?
They probably assumed it said Aries based on my Flare Forums link. I would prefer it said Amber.
Maybe it's for both. Howz about that?
Indeed, the deeper meaning of a ship name is often only given in "backstage" material. I happen to have on my desk right now a pamphlet from a Perry frigate named after father and son Kaufmann, there being no way to tell what the name refers to unless one gets handed this pamphlet during a port visit...
The selection of names in Earth tradition is near-infinite, but so is the number of Starfleet vessels, it seems. Confusingly close names might well be in use. But I'd like to explain away any instances of actual overlap nevertheless!
Timo Saloniemi
So let's have a little fun with this chart.
Because the Farouk El-Baz, []vicker, []cal, Da-Teplan, Amber, and the Yuri Gagarin don't have any other references (other than the El-Baz shuttle, which doesn't count), their appearances on the chart aren't problematic. (I'm assuming the Amber isn't the "Aries," and the two ships with partial names also don't equate to other known ship names).
There's also the NCC-30352, whose name is illegible for now, so there's nothing to be done for that yet.
So that leaves 13 ship names that also share names of other ships, most with different registries, most operating at the same time.
Anyway, let's whittle the chart down a tad:
1. U.S.S. Excelsior NCC-21145 - Other than the class ship Excelsior NCC-2000, the only other reference was in TNG "Interface," where a ship of this name was sent to find the U.S.S. Hera. One could plausibly say that it was this ship, not the NCC-2000, that was sent on this mission. It doesn't really contradict anything.
2. U.S.S. Apollo NCC-30000 - While the class ship of the Apollo class should technically be under 1XXXX in registry, there's no reason to assume that this is in fact the class ship. The original class ship could have been decommissioned or destroyed, and this ship could simply be a newer vessel with the same name, and not even of the Apollo class.
3. U.S.S. Hokule'a NCC-30187 - see above.
4. U.S.S. Neil Armstrong NCC-31806 - While technically its name is different from the Challenger class U.S.S. Armstrong, the name is obviously meant to honor the same person. It's also possible that the Neil Armstrong was decommissioned before the other Armstrong was built (anywhere between 2365 and 2373), although I would think that the Armstrong would then have a higher registry than NCC-57537, if registries are chronological.
5. U.S.S. Yorktown NCC-20045 - Because the only other 24th century Yorktown is the Zodiac class NCC-61137, it's entirely possible that this Yorktown was decommissioned before the other one was built, although the latter's registry should probably be a bit higher, but it's still within reason.
6. U.S.S. Lexington NCC-30405 - The DS9 episode "Explorers" makes it clear that the Nebula class Lexington NCC-61832 was in operation at least after 2369. So it's possible that this Lexington was decommissioned or destroyed sometime between 2365 and 2369, and the Nebula class ship was its replacement. The newer ship's reg should probably be a bit higher, but it's still within reason.
7. U.S.S. Atlantis NCC-3210 - This is a bit of an anomaly, as both references (this one and the Atlantis NCC-72007) are from displays that were not meant to be taken seriously. So it's debatable whether the ship even exists
So now this leaves six ships that would be classified as problematic:
1. U.S.S. Yamato NCC-24383 - Whatever the accepted registry of the Galaxy class Yamato is, the ship was still in service during "Measure of a Man." That means that either this is at least the third registry for the same ship, or there was another Yamato in service at the same time the Galaxy Yamato was.
2. U.S.S. Constantinople NCC-43622 - This ship was referenced three episodes before "Measure of a Man." The Encyclopedia gives the registry of NCC-34852. While it's possible but unlikely that the ship was destroyed and a newer ship was commissioned within three episodes, the newer ship should probably have a registry of NCC-7XXXX, if registries are chronological. But it's probably supposed to be the same ship.
3. U.S.S. Wellington NCC-33821 - This is obviously supposed to be the same ship referenced in "11001001," but the Encyclopedia gives the registry NCC-28473. Again, that Wellington could have been destroyed or decommissioned the year before and this Wellington could be the replacement, but again the registry should probably be 7XXXX.
4. U.S.S. Saratoga NCC-31640 - Again, this ship could have been destroyed before "Emissary" where we see the NCC-31911 Saratoga, but not only should Sisko's ship's reg be higher if it were brand new, but would Starfleet still be producing Miranda class ships after 2365?
5. U.S.S. Endeavour NCC-25330 - This is the least problematic ship, if we ignore the NCC-39272 from the "Conspiracy" diagram. It's quite possible that this ship was decommissioned and the Nebula class Endeavor NCC-71805 was commissioned around the same time.
6. U.S.S. Excalibur NCC-21534 - Again, this Excalibur could have been destroyed in the few years between "Measure of a Man" and the first time we see the Ambassador class ship in "Redemption," but then why would the newer ship have such a low registry, if regs are chronological?
Because the Farouk El-Baz, []vicker, []cal, Da-Teplan, Amber, and the Yuri Gagarin don't have any other references (other than the El-Baz shuttle, which doesn't count), their appearances on the chart aren't problematic. (I'm assuming the Amber isn't the "Aries," and the two ships with partial names also don't equate to other known ship names).
There's also the NCC-30352, whose name is illegible for now, so there's nothing to be done for that yet.
So that leaves 13 ship names that also share names of other ships, most with different registries, most operating at the same time.
Anyway, let's whittle the chart down a tad:
1. U.S.S. Excelsior NCC-21145 - Other than the class ship Excelsior NCC-2000, the only other reference was in TNG "Interface," where a ship of this name was sent to find the U.S.S. Hera. One could plausibly say that it was this ship, not the NCC-2000, that was sent on this mission. It doesn't really contradict anything.
2. U.S.S. Apollo NCC-30000 - While the class ship of the Apollo class should technically be under 1XXXX in registry, there's no reason to assume that this is in fact the class ship. The original class ship could have been decommissioned or destroyed, and this ship could simply be a newer vessel with the same name, and not even of the Apollo class.
3. U.S.S. Hokule'a NCC-30187 - see above.
4. U.S.S. Neil Armstrong NCC-31806 - While technically its name is different from the Challenger class U.S.S. Armstrong, the name is obviously meant to honor the same person. It's also possible that the Neil Armstrong was decommissioned before the other Armstrong was built (anywhere between 2365 and 2373), although I would think that the Armstrong would then have a higher registry than NCC-57537, if registries are chronological.
5. U.S.S. Yorktown NCC-20045 - Because the only other 24th century Yorktown is the Zodiac class NCC-61137, it's entirely possible that this Yorktown was decommissioned before the other one was built, although the latter's registry should probably be a bit higher, but it's still within reason.
6. U.S.S. Lexington NCC-30405 - The DS9 episode "Explorers" makes it clear that the Nebula class Lexington NCC-61832 was in operation at least after 2369. So it's possible that this Lexington was decommissioned or destroyed sometime between 2365 and 2369, and the Nebula class ship was its replacement. The newer ship's reg should probably be a bit higher, but it's still within reason.
7. U.S.S. Atlantis NCC-3210 - This is a bit of an anomaly, as both references (this one and the Atlantis NCC-72007) are from displays that were not meant to be taken seriously. So it's debatable whether the ship even exists
So now this leaves six ships that would be classified as problematic:
1. U.S.S. Yamato NCC-24383 - Whatever the accepted registry of the Galaxy class Yamato is, the ship was still in service during "Measure of a Man." That means that either this is at least the third registry for the same ship, or there was another Yamato in service at the same time the Galaxy Yamato was.
2. U.S.S. Constantinople NCC-43622 - This ship was referenced three episodes before "Measure of a Man." The Encyclopedia gives the registry of NCC-34852. While it's possible but unlikely that the ship was destroyed and a newer ship was commissioned within three episodes, the newer ship should probably have a registry of NCC-7XXXX, if registries are chronological. But it's probably supposed to be the same ship.
3. U.S.S. Wellington NCC-33821 - This is obviously supposed to be the same ship referenced in "11001001," but the Encyclopedia gives the registry NCC-28473. Again, that Wellington could have been destroyed or decommissioned the year before and this Wellington could be the replacement, but again the registry should probably be 7XXXX.
4. U.S.S. Saratoga NCC-31640 - Again, this ship could have been destroyed before "Emissary" where we see the NCC-31911 Saratoga, but not only should Sisko's ship's reg be higher if it were brand new, but would Starfleet still be producing Miranda class ships after 2365?
5. U.S.S. Endeavour NCC-25330 - This is the least problematic ship, if we ignore the NCC-39272 from the "Conspiracy" diagram. It's quite possible that this ship was decommissioned and the Nebula class Endeavor NCC-71805 was commissioned around the same time.
6. U.S.S. Excalibur NCC-21534 - Again, this Excalibur could have been destroyed in the few years between "Measure of a Man" and the first time we see the Ambassador class ship in "Redemption," but then why would the newer ship have such a low registry, if regs are chronological?
Exactly, and ignoring them sounds like a consistent thing to do from now on.
OTOH,
Then again, the registry of the DS9 vessel is completely noncanon, too. The model apparently wasn't relabeled, and we never got a related Okudagram.
Timo Saloniemi
I'm ill at ease with these things. It's okay to have a USS Constellation after the retirement of the Constellation class ("The Abandoned" would appear to qualify), but rather confusing to have her before this "overlap" is eliminated.
OTOH,
The competing Yorktown is from an alternate timeline, too. Plus its registry and class identity are completely noncanon.
Agreed here. But see the Endeavour.
The higher-registry ship was mentioned in a display that Data judged to contain suspicious things...
I'd hate go give up the idea of chronological registry number allocation for something this minor.
And the only problem with this excellent interpretation is that it somewhat undermines a similar thing done with the Lexington.
Then again, the registry of the DS9 vessel is completely noncanon, too. The model apparently wasn't relabeled, and we never got a related Okudagram.
The registry of the "Redemption" ship remains somewhat noncanonical until the Okudagram from the episode gets blu-rayed.
Timo Saloniemi
Last edited:
But we have precedence. The USS Nova NCC-73515 from "Star Trek: Nemesis".
The 71805-registry appeared on the tachyon grid okudagram.
That okudagram was reproduced in the Encyclopedia.
And the Lexington's 61832-registry didn't appear onscreen AFAIK, so a higher registry could be possible.
Alas.
Then again, with the track record of that chart, the ship probably is "really" named USS Navo.
The registry of the Lexington never appeared anywhere, outside this "Measure of Man" graphic. The ship wasn't involved in the tachyon grid thing.
But not necessarily correctly. I'd tend to view all Okuda-provided information with some caution, considering...
Timo Saloniemi
But the question is, what's more official? A chart made with what seems to be just preliminary information that would change later, and was not meant to be seen up close, or an official publication like the Encyclopedia, made by the same guy who made the chart, with information that he clearly wanted to have supercede this chart?
I can understand that logic. However, that would then mean that these are the class ships of the Apollo and Hokule'a class, which have much higher registries than the respective ships of their class.
While I know the canonicity of the Encyclopedia, I was using it as a reference point for all this, since the same guy who made this chart made that book
Now with that said, I'm going under the assumption that this is the same ship as the one Riker mentions in "Frame of Mind," since the registry seems to indicate a ship built at least before the Enterprise-D, so it would in fact exist in this timeline. But that's just my supposition.
Again, while it's futile to seriously debate the merits of displays that had listings like the Elmer Fudd and the Non Sequitor, I'd find it hard to believe that a change in a ship's registry number would constitute what Data thought of as "suspicious."
Are you referring to that mentioned-but-not-seen Excelsior class Lexington from TNG? Obviously that was just a goof made before it was known that the Nebula class ship would have been operating at the same time.
The problem with that is that Sisko's Saratoga has it's number on the hull. We therefore can't reconcile it being the same ship.
True, but wouldn't 30405 be a bit low for a Nebula?
Wasn't the registry of the Excalibur printed on its saucer? And either way, we don't need blu-ray caps of the tachyon grid; I can see it just fine, and the Excalibur's registry is 26517.
Well, let's have a quick look at the Enc. ship list:
Some things were obviously made up to fill the gaps. Like the registries and classes for the Antares, Carolina, and Archon and pretty much all the Constitution-class registries. Some registries and classes are just plain wrong, like 1937 for the Saratoga, 59983 for the Raman and Olympic-class for the Biko.
Considering all this, I'd say this chart is more official than any unverified information from the Encyclopedia. It doesn't contain any silly names and at the time TMoaM was aired, the only problematic ship on this list is the Yamato.
That's not so clear. Maybe this chart got somehow lost and he invented new registries to fill the gaps.
BTW: The Yorktown also appeared on the DS9 Whispers shiplist.
Last edited:
I think that Okuda didn't keep a record of starships, where he had a listing of name, class, and registry for each ship. I think the Encyclopedia became this record. Even that official record is populated by mistakes, for example, a number of starships had two registries - Grissom, Intrepid, Mekong, Saratoga, and Zhukov.
The Yamato is an interesting case for me. I think that Okuda remembered the name, but not its class, so now we have this situation where one starship has four registries.
The Yamato is an interesting case for me. I think that Okuda remembered the name, but not its class, so now we have this situation where one starship has four registries.
That's pretty clear-cut if one just thinks of the fictional Star Trek universe in terms of what we actually see. Intent counts for nothing if it's offscreen; on the other hand, onscreen often starts out as accidental and becomes intentional only in retrospect, when it's quoted in later onscreen material.
There is no Encyclopedia in Star Trek, even if there is Star Trek in the Encyclopedia.
We know of no other Hokule'a class vessels; the Tripoli, with an Okudagram-provided low registry from "Unification", has no canonical class identity AFAIK. As far as we can tell, there's no pressing reason for the Hokule'a to be a class ship, or a Hokule'a class to exist - but if the class does exist and has this class vessel, there are no contradictions in that case, either.
As for Apollo class vessels, the T'Pau has no canon class identity and in any case does not have a NCC registry. The Ajax has no class identity, making her low registry irrelevant to the argument. The same goes for the Clement, whose registry appears to be noncanonical as well.
No, I mean that if we are to say that the Nebula class Lexington was built as a replacement to the low-registried Lexington from the list, in the mid-2360s, then in light of the Endeavour precedent the new Lexington really should have a 71000 range registry.
But then I go on to say that for all we know, she does. The 61000 range registry for the new Lexington is noncanon, as we never see any registry on the hull of the Nebula class Lexington. So we can pretend that NCC-30405 was, say, a Niagara, whereas her Nebula class replacement as seen in DS9 "really" has a registry such as NCC-71447.
Indeed, this is a rare case where hull labeling does create problems.
If so, it was never seen. All the shots that might even in theory have showed the registry were stock footage from "Yesterday's Enterprise", and all the new shots were from the rear. So, the Okudagram registry can freely take precedence in that respect. The only question remaining is, which Okudagram? Tachyon grid or "Measure of a Man"?
And if we accept a particular one out of the four, we're automatically closing the door for any rationalizations of the rest: if the explicit dialogue reference to NCC-1305-E is the real deal, then any ships preceding this vessel should have registries in the NCC-1305-Letter format. And probably also any ships succeeding this vessel.
If we dismiss that particular one, then we can pretend that there were multiple different ships. But we still meet a Galaxy class vessel before we get to read a chart with a 20000-range registry, after which we meet a Galaxy class vessel again. It's a bit unlikely that the modern ship Riker claimed was NCC-1305-E was really NCC-24383...
OTOH, the discrepancy between the number seen in the Okudagrams of "Contagion" and the number painted on the saucer in the same episode is trivially explained. Not only is the hull number too blurry to really warrant establishing, but the computer readouts may have been corrupted by the software weapon.
Timo Saloniemi
throwback is correct. And while the display wasn't legible onscreen, pictures of the display from various auctions exist. Not sure what Timo's opinion on "behind the scenes"-stuff is. http://startrekpropcollector.com/trekauctions/image.pl?f2e8f4776762e057667bddf25844f7ea
But it's really no big deal. Just thought of another precedent: USS Defiant NCC-75633
I dug up an old ship list of mine. It's about 5 years old, so not quite up to date (doesn't include recent findings like the Conspiracy ships for example). I did, however, glance over it quickly and marked some entries with an "x", indicating that proof has been turned up in the last five yeras. Unverified information is in bold. Feel free to dissect.
http://ge.tt/9osnZTT/v/0
But it's really no big deal. Just thought of another precedent: USS Defiant NCC-75633
I dug up an old ship list of mine. It's about 5 years old, so not quite up to date (doesn't include recent findings like the Conspiracy ships for example). I did, however, glance over it quickly and marked some entries with an "x", indicating that proof has been turned up in the last five yeras. Unverified information is in bold. Feel free to dissect.
http://ge.tt/9osnZTT/v/0
Last edited:
Indeed, this is a rare case where hull labeling does create problems.
Maybe NCC-31911 was commissioned as USS Poughkeepsie and renamed USS Saratoga after NCC-31640 was destroyed.
I don't see a problem with a NCC-31911 being commissioned in the 2360s. We have a lack of information on when ships are commissioned, and whether the numbering is sequential or random. I don't dismiss what I don't find inconvenient as easily as you do, Timo.
When I was a member of Memory Alpha, Jorg found himself unable to write an article for Starbase Trailer Twenty-Nine. I took the task upon myself. I view the information on face value. I don't like the inconsistencies, and I wish that Michael Okuda was more careful in his work. However, what has been done can't be undone.
I am adaptable to what the TPTB consider canon. Though I am reluctant to include information from comics and novels in my ship list, I have learned that the TPTB on the new Star Trek recognize the comics as canon. I am adding these ships to the list. I suppose if I am able to understand and enjoy the next film, I will need to bone up on what has been published and what will be published. (I personally hate this synergy between the films and the comics. It began to have greater import with video game franchises, ex. Halo, and has spread to film franchises. Ugh. I have learned that much that is important from a story has been imported to these sources, and, if you haven't read these sources, that you are missing out on details.)
When I was a member of Memory Alpha, Jorg found himself unable to write an article for Starbase Trailer Twenty-Nine. I took the task upon myself. I view the information on face value. I don't like the inconsistencies, and I wish that Michael Okuda was more careful in his work. However, what has been done can't be undone.
I am adaptable to what the TPTB consider canon. Though I am reluctant to include information from comics and novels in my ship list, I have learned that the TPTB on the new Star Trek recognize the comics as canon. I am adding these ships to the list. I suppose if I am able to understand and enjoy the next film, I will need to bone up on what has been published and what will be published. (I personally hate this synergy between the films and the comics. It began to have greater import with video game franchises, ex. Halo, and has spread to film franchises. Ugh. I have learned that much that is important from a story has been imported to these sources, and, if you haven't read these sources, that you are missing out on details.)
- Status