Starbase 11 registry chart

[Rowenaster]

Did ya miss me? I'm baaaaaaaaack!

I've refined a previous thought, and added some new ones.

What if I told you (by which I mean, I am creating out of whole cloth the notion) that there was a predecessor class to the Connies? I propose the USS Aster, NCC-1650. Why "Aster"? I'll circle back to that. The hallmark of the 16xx proto-Connies is the appearance given to the Enterprise as shown under Captain Pike (the Jeffrey Hunter version)...Bussards that don't glow (covered by armored caps, per Pacific 201, as a legacy of the recently-concluded Klingon War), with antennae on the domes (Tesla attractors to actively pull in hydrogen molecules, because armored caps interfere with passive collection), gooseneck monitors on the bridge, etc.

Enterprise (and the first few 17xx vessels) were supposed to have been built OEM as we saw her under Kirk, glowing spinning open Bussards, but ended up being actually built with Aster assemblies due to logistical delays -- but with provisions for quick drop-in refitting, later, as happened after Pike's tragic disablement. Later vessels were built OEM as seen in TOS. Asters were designed and built to be a more robust (if slightly slower) variant of (SNW) Sombra fast cruisers. Sombras do seem to have a bit of a "glass jaw", based on the one we've seen.

This brings some but not all known 16xx Connies into the fold, for the rest, I'd have to fall back on my "wartime NCC shell game"; we can assume that SOME were eventually upgraded, but not all (the Aster herself being excluded, which is why no-one's heard of her now), it being found to be quicker to build new rather than refit Sombras & Asters up to Connie specification.

In my headcanon the Sombra fast cruiser paradigm was then revisited and renewed with Franz Joseph's Decatur/Belknap/Ascension-class vessels.

My other new thought is, another reason why Aster would be unceremoniously buried by Fleet Command: it was at the center of an embarrassing (for Fleet) Universal Translator glitch. "Aster" of course means "star" (it is the rootword in "Ad astra per aspera"). The autocorrection-style glitch occurred because the ship name was automatically translated instead of being passed verbatim as a Latin loan-word. Thus the "Star" ship class was born. Fleet initially laughed it off, even leaned into the error as late as when the Enterprise's dedication plaque was struck, but then leadership changed and it wasn't funny any more, and all such references were buried. Sounds outlandish, but stranger things have happened.

None of this, naturally, has any more authority than my own imagination. I'm putting it out there in the hopes that others might see the sense of it and adopt it themselves.

 

[DSG2k]

A pre-TOS Connie is not without a certain amount of support, but the registries ought to be very much older (thus accounting for NCC-1017 and perhaps NCC-956). See: https://www.trekbbs.com/threads/the-st3-screen-and-hull-pressure-compartments.315171/

As for the thread at large, deskewing the screencap shows that the 6 and 8 digits are of different widths, which helps to reduce confusion.

I've got further write-up on it here:

Chrono-Volumetrics Addendum: The Court Martial Chart

A t Starbase 11 in "Court Martial", Commodore Stone had a chart entited "Star Ship Status" with NCC numbers and percentages of completion, ...

weblog.st-v-sw.net

 

[Dukhat]

I'm still flip-flopping about 1664 and 1864. The latter, of course, would make that ship the Reliant (a retcon, I know, but true nonetheless.) However, that second digit still looks like an 8 to me. Ditto with 1831 and 1897.

 

[DSG2k]

Thing is, once we have a clear 8, we see it is wider than the 6 in the deskewed version. Look at 1718, for instance . . . thing be like "171-EIGHT!" 1685 is also very clear on that score, with the 6 clearly narrower. It certainly makes no sense to assume identical digits of widely varying widths. Thus, the digit width is a clear detail to allow 6 and 8 to be distinguished. That leaves 8 and 9 as potentially hard to discern . . . this was handled by having 9's bottom be squared off or wider compared to 8's 45-degree angles.

In the below, I've made 6 slimmer and used the slimmed 6's bottom angles for 9's bottom angles to beef it up a little. There's a big version then a ten times smaller version then a blurred version of the small one. I think you'll find it enhances readability tremendously.

Once you see it on Stone's chart you cannot un-see it, and the numbers all become easily distinguishable. To my mind, that is what Jefferies was aiming for with his stated disdain for 6 and 8 on the hull.

As for 1864, I discussed it this way in the link:

However, the appearance of it being an eight there is more illusory or 'artifactual' than anything . . . compare that faux eight with the wide nine in the next entry or the monster eights in the second- and third-to-last. Additionally, the top collage wider shot (blown up to the lower left of it) seems to show a six more evidently. Finally, consistency with the rest of the chart, which seems to exclusively contain 16xx and 17xx, would suggest it should be a six and not an eight.

 

[Yaroze86]

I have spent some time past few days looking this over. I am like Dukhat on the NCC-1864/NCC-1664 but there is from what I can tell only one or 2 frames it appears to NCC-1664. This leads me to believe that either it was corrected for the remaster or it's an artifact pixel. For NCC-1831, well its always that and very bold. Leading me to also believe its fixed on the remaster or it was always that. I will say the NCC-1864 also in one frame looks like NCC-1694. As much as me and you want these to be the 1664 and 1631, they just simply are not.

 

[blssdwlf]

When I go frame by frame on my DVD version I am seeing
NCC 1709
NCC 1831
NCC 1703
NCC 1672
NCC 1664
NCC 1697
NCC 1701
NCC 1718
NCC 1685
NCC 1700

YMMV

 

[Henoch]

When I go frame by frame on my DVD version I am seeing
NCC 1709
NCC 1831
NCC 1703
NCC 1672
NCC 1664
NCC 1697
NCC 1701
NCC 1718
NCC 1685
NCC 1700

YMM

A pre-TOS Connie is not without a certain amount of support, but the registries ought to be very much older (thus accounting for NCC-1017 and perhaps NCC-956). See: https://www.trekbbs.com/threads/the-st3-screen-and-hull-pressure-compartments.315171/

As for the thread at large, deskewing the screencap shows that the 6 and 8 digits are of different widths, which helps to reduce confusion.

I've got further write-up on it here:

Chrono-Volumetrics Addendum: The Court Martial Chart

A t Starbase 11 in "Court Martial", Commodore Stone had a chart entited "Star Ship Status" with NCC numbers and percentages of completion, ...

weblog.st-v-sw.net

V

On the corrected chart by @DSG2k for "1831", there is a pixel shift across the middle of that line (noticable on the "1" digit), once you shift the pixels at that point, we see:

which looks more like "1631". YMMV

 

[blssdwlf]

On the corrected chart by @DSG2k for "1831", there is a pixel shift across the middle of that line (noticable on the "1" digit), once you shift the pixels at that point, we see:

which looks more like "1631". YMMV

Unfortunately I'm not seeing that pixel shift on the DVD version as I step frame-by-frame through the sequence. It looks like 1831 to me as I don't see the gap for the number 6 but I think due to the fuzziness it could go either way.

 

[Henoch]

Unfortunately I'm not seeing that pixel shift on the DVD version as I step frame-by-frame through the sequence. It looks like 1831 to me as I don't see the gap for the number 6 but I think due to the fuzziness it could go either way.

The pixel line shift is probably an artifact due to the (de)skewing manipulation of the image. There's other incidents of a pixel line shift in the 1701 and 1700 lines, but I think that the deskewing and image straightening are mostly helpful.

 

[DSG2k]

The "pixel shift" was probably the result of the deskewing, going from "/" angle to "|". At some point it left a little shear line. I didn't pay attention to it because it wasn't relevant to the more-easily-observed-character-width stuff.

Of course, that brings up the point that any image modification, used outside the original intent, can be counterproductive to other uses. Yaroze86 mentioned artifact pixels and variation in appearance by frame . . . I concur (and further agree with Jefferies that 6 and 8 (and 9) are too similar in that font, especially blurred in the background as we see them). The best source and what I'd love to see is an original film frame from that episode, in good condition, and without too much algorithmic interpretation (present even in remastering). I think that somewhere between the assorted compression algorithms and computerized interpolations we end up with fuzz that can be confusing, which is why I think the number width argument is so exciting. Once you establish that 6 is skinnier than 8 and 9, all the other issues of fuzziness and arguments about pixels are entirely bypassed.

As much as me and you want these to be the 1664 and 1631, they just simply are not.

It's not about "want". It doesn't matter to me either way.

(I plant my standard on the TMP comm chatter with Entente 2120, so I'd be perfectly content with NCC-1986 showing up (however painful distinguishing the digits would be). Further, I would have no issue with Reliant 1864 being at the same base in the 2260s, since I already think she was running around (and with her 2280s look) then anyway.)

It's certainly possible that there are identical digits on the chart of varying character widths, though this ventures a bit toward declaring the chart sloppily created.

All that said, if I go back as close to original remastered frames as I can (with all the aforementioned caveats even then) and apply simple embossing at rotating angles in Paint.Net, I can easily find additional support that perceived 8s are 6s, most notably around 289 or 110 degrees . . . many other angles simply produce a blurrier view even of obvious numbers. The upper right portion of the top image here is as close to the original as I can get, sharper than the soft/fuzzy blow-up underneath. With Emboss 289 applied, to me, "1631" jumps out both on the character width question and in regards to the gap in the upper right of the 6/8:

One could argue that the embossing algorithm is simply generating false-info artifacts rather than highlighting minor differences in the image, and that's possible. The 289 angle would tend to create a shadow just under the top line (and on the right top vertical) of a character on the right. See the 0 in NCC-1709, though this also corresponds with a darker 'splotch'. Given that other zeroes aren't affected, this seems a valid tool, to me, one which can, with other evidence, help suss out bits that our pattern-recognizing and pattern-preferring minds might unwittingly prefer to ignore on various characters.

That said, there are undoubtedly some choices one could make that would appear to have 8s instead. However, based on some playing around I did, other angles mean you'd also start losing information about other digits, which to me suggests an invalid method. For example, here's a collection of emboss angles for you to judge yourself:

Case in point, the advantage with the 180 degree one is that the "lit" side is the right, which ideally would help us determine what's going on on that side. However, even as Emboss 180 makes some digits look more 8-like, you also lose the big honkin' gap on the right side of the Cs from NCC in several cases, which tells me this isn't the best idea. Further, it covers up obvious 6s, such as NCC-1685, though you can still see a small distinction of tone on 1631 suggestive of a 6 even as it is made to look like an 8.

All of this potential argumentation is bypassed when character width is considered . . . most every emboss angle, even without deskewing, makes the width pretty apparent.

 

[DSG2k]

The pixel line shift is probably an artifact due to the (de)skewing manipulation of the image. There's other incidents of a pixel line shift in the 1701 and 1700 lines, but I think that the deskewing and image straightening are mostly helpful.

Beat me to it . . . and nice catch on the 'deskew shear' pixel shift.

 

[publiusr]

It is easy to get numerals confused

What numbers do you see? A new bistable perceptual phenomenon on symbolic numbers

Perceptual recognition of numerical characters, like Arabic numerals, is indispensable for our daily activities in modern society. Studying the perceptual and neural mechanisms that endow us with the ability to understand those characters is an important scientific topic.

medicalxpress.com

I wonder if Starfleet registries may have been switched at least once.

Deserving name’s assigned values…and/or age.

Later, classes got names..Constitutions the 1700s.

Later, small ships got lower numbers (that would have been considered “old” ships).

 

[Tomalak]

I’ve always seen NCC-1864, but I am happy to go with 1664 on the above evidence. And I always favoured 1631 FWIW.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

The best source and what I'd love to see is an original film frame from that episode, in good condition

I want to highlight this point, which at this stage seems to be the best avenue remaining to resolve conclusively the question of what numbers are on the chart.

Also, I'd be very shocked, if such frames weren't in the possession of someone, such as a superfan or organization that has film reels of the whole episode.

 

[Tomalak]

There are probably prints in private hands, but they may not have sufficient quality to determine for sure.

I imagine if any superfan had that frame, it would have been Greg Jein, considering he started this all back in the day.

Mike Okuda also went with NCC-1664 and NCC-1631, and assigned them to the Excalibur and Intrepid for TOS-R, and presumably he had access to the full 2K scans of the episodes.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

There are probably prints in private hands, but they may not have sufficient quality to determine for sure.

I imagine if any superfan had that frame, it would have been Greg Jein, considering he started this all back in the day.

Mike Okuda also went with NCC-1664 and NCC-1631, and assigned them to the Excalibur and Intrepid for TOS-R, and presumably he had access to the full 2K scans of the episodes.

From Note #1 of that article at Memory Alpha:

The actual chart seems to read NCC-1831, but Greg Jein may have misread it as 1631, unsurprisingly perhaps, as he had to make do with a low-resolution still (given to him by future Star Trek reference author, but fan at the time, Kay Anderson) from the already low-resolution original run of the series. As Michael Okuda had access to an early 1990s remastered version of the episode at the time, he corrected this number in his registry list, otherwise largely based on Jein's, in his first 1994 edition of the Encyclopedia to 1831 (though he had overlooked to change the individual entry for Intrepid accordingly). Nevertheless, Okuda re-corrected himself in the third 1999 edition and applied the original 1631 intent in the 2006-2008 remastered version of the Original Series. It was exactly for this reason why Matt Jefferies avoided the numbers 6 and 8 when he devised the original registry number for the Enterprise. (Star Trek: The Original Series Sketchbook, p. 62)​

 

[Ronald Held]

Anyone have the original script with potentially this info?

 

[ChallengerHK]

I want to highlight this point, which at this stage seems to be the best avenue remaining to resolve conclusively the question of what numbers are on the chart.

Also, I'd be very shocked, if such frames weren't in the possession of someone, such as a superfan or organization that has film reels of the whole episode.

I've said this before, but to expand, and if we can find such a film, I'd be happy to scan it with my film scanner (4800 dpi; 9600 dpi interpolated), and if that didn't work, to find a drum scanner, which will go much higher.

Anyone have the original script with potentially this info?

I doubt that info will be in the script. I'm thinking that somebody said to the set decorator "We should put something on the wall here," and it flowed from there.

 

[DarrenTR1970]

I dug through my files and found James Dixon's Star Trek Chronology Version 17, the last one he uploaded before he stopped. I checked his entry on the episode "Court Martial" and this is what he had to say about the registry chart seen in the office.

Note that at this time Starbase 11 is servicing 9 starships in addition to the "Enterprise" (NCC-1701) - the "Intrepid" (NCC-1708), "Lexington" (NCC-1703), "Excelsior" (NCC-1718), and "Constitution" (NCC-1700) - at 75%, 50%, 45%, and 10% completion, respectively. In addition to these ships of the line are 5 undocumented starships: NCC-1631 (at 100%+), NCC-1672 (at 73%), NCC-1664 (at 77%), NCC-1697 (at 30%), and NCC-1685 (at 25%)

And he was probably doing this with a low-resolution TV screen when he typed this.​

 

[Dukhat]

Why did he link the Intrepid, Lexington and Excelsior to those numbers? For that matter, where did he get the name Excelsior from, other than supposition that the NX-2000 wasn't the first ship named Excelsior? (I do, however, see why he assumed that NCC-1700 was the Constitution.)