Starbase 11 registry chart
- Thread starter Kenny
- Start date
So you guys are aware that the chart was hand drawn by Jefferies... right? And that any study of the chart should also include the other hand drawn graphic from that same episode. After all, it helps to see how Jefferies approached creating these characters when attempting to recognize what they might be.
This is how I would approach it at any rate.
This is how I would approach it at any rate.
Doesn't make much difference to me. I'm still not seeing these 6's and 8's with 100% clarity.
You presume that Jefferies did both, but I don't think we can make such assumptions. The font between the two is different (e.g. the A is pointy in "STAR DATE" and rounded for "STAR SHIP STATUS"), and I don't think the number font is quite the same. The 2 looks different (less serif on upper left), the lateral bar of the 4 looks much higher on the log screen, et cetera, not to mention the more monospaced nature of the status screen numbers.
Excelsior was on one of the early lists in TMoST (Part II, Chapter 1).
Now looking back at those pages we see that Defiant wasn't one of the names listed but we see her in "The Tholian Web". I'd like to think that either the "established" list was only a point in time and more starships were built beyond the 12-13 of this class or TMOST is just a suggestion and not absolute...
Yeah, one of the bits of cleverness that Franz Joseph did in his Tech Manual was to have stardates for the authorization for the second and third batches of 'Heavy Cruisers' occur after the stardate given in 'Tomorrow is Yesterday', thereby preserving the validity of the 'twelve like it' statement.Now looking back at those pages we see that Defiant wasn't one of the names listed but we see her in "The Tholian Web". I'd like to think that either the "established" list was only a point in time and more starships were built beyond the 12-13 of this class or TMOST is just a suggestion and not absolute...
And I think most fans of a certain age know this but, barring the name Defiance, his second batch of ships comes from the alternate names listed in TMoST like the aforementioned Excelsior.
Franz lists 14 ships in the first Batch, but I guess the "12" are only the 1700's and not 1017/Constellation and 1371/Republic. Also, he has the Intrepid as 1708 which is not on Stone's Chart. Also, Franz has no 1600's; I guess he never watched Court Martial.
FJ lists the same 14 names as his first batch that TMoST says "have been established for starships." The book further states that "four...are destroyed in various episodes." Two of those four, Valiant and Farragut, were lost before "Tomorrow is Yesterday" and the other two, Constellation and Intrepid, were lost after. So twelve.
Probably not, which is not surprising given that there was no home media at the time. It looks like he was working from the Poe book. I wonder if he ever used the Concordance?Also, he has the Intrepid as 1708 which is not on Stone's Chart. Also, Franz has no 1600's; I guess he never watched Court Martial.
The Valiant, if the same one, was destroyed ~50 years prior to TOS. Maybe it was renamed again as a 1700 class ship per FJ's list, and lost before Court Martial; a very unlucky name, indeed (same name lost 200 years before WNMHGB). Same with the Farragut; the space cloud killed half of its crew ~11 years prior the TOS, so maybe, it was not destroyed at that time (my guess) but destroyed before Court Martial...mysteries abound.
As for the stardate of FJ's list, he has stardate 0965 for the 14 ships. If the Enterprise was commissioned Earth Year ~2245 (ref. Wiki), then this stardate must refer to a time period slightly before 2245 or about two 10,000 stardate rollovers from the TOS time period of about 2266 or on stardate 1329 putting the Enterprise at ~20 years old. FJ would put TOS starting in 2265.
Reference: “The Case of Jonathan Doe Starship” by Gregory Jein, April 1975: http://trekplace.com/article10.html
@Husk of Henoch Not arguing just saying what the references were saying. Nor am I saying that FJ is without inconsistencies. But it is clear he tried to do the best he could with the limited resources available at the time.
"The following ships of the MK-XI class were authorized by the original Articles of Federation of stardate 0965:"
So that stardate would not be when they were built but when they could begin being built. Construction of individual ships could have been easily been over the long haul.
FJ uses the same idea for the following blocks, ie, when they were authorized, but replaces "the original Articles of Federation of stardate xxxx" with "the Star Fleet Appropriation of stardate xxxx."
I squint and view it as the construction say of the Nimitz class, where there is approx 42 years between the order of the first one and the commissioning of the last.
The blueprint exchange has the heavy cruiser page up, for those that wish to peruse it.
At the risk of sounding pedantic, the exact line (not counting case) is:
"The following ships of the MK-XI class were authorized by the original Articles of Federation of stardate 0965:"
So that stardate would not be when they were built but when they could begin being built. Construction of individual ships could have been easily been over the long haul.
FJ uses the same idea for the following blocks, ie, when they were authorized, but replaces "the original Articles of Federation of stardate xxxx" with "the Star Fleet Appropriation of stardate xxxx."
I squint and view it as the construction say of the Nimitz class, where there is approx 42 years between the order of the first one and the commissioning of the last.
The blueprint exchange has the heavy cruiser page up, for those that wish to peruse it.
There is another ship that could have been on that chart, the USS Carolina from "Friday's Child".
Greg Jein's article was published in April 1973.
The Star Fleet Technical Manual was released in 1975.
SNW fixed the Valiant issue. The name Valiant is seen on a star chart from the second season.
Greg Jein's article was published in April 1973.
The Star Fleet Technical Manual was released in 1975.
SNW fixed the Valiant issue. The name Valiant is seen on a star chart from the second season.
I get "ERROR 403 - FORBIDDEN".
Weird. Works for me in both desktop Firefox and Chrome. Both on mine and my wife's PCs. Sorry it's giving you fits.
Here's the link to the Main Page:
Assuming it works, FJ's manual in under Other References / Technical Manuals (bottom link on the right)
That makes sense. I like the idea that several ships my have the same emblem if they are organized into small groups. The largest fleet of ships we actually see in TOS is 4, during war games. In TNG, there are several episodes that imply the Hood is a week away from the Enterprise-D. So my thinking is that there are small groups about a week apart. I think the guy Kirk calls Mike might be the same voice as "John Daly of the Astral Queen," so perhaps the Enterprise is in a 4 ship group as the cruiser, with the Astral Queen as the cargo/personnel carrier (being Ptolemy class?), and two other ships, at least one being a tanker or surveyor or scout..
I agree that this idea works as an origin for the Constellation; there was a lot of talk about things like "I can't imagine a man like Matt Decker abandoning ship while his life support systems were still operative," or Matt Decker's line of "I've never lost a command before." Perhaps he nearly lost the ship but saved the saucer and it was attached to a 1600 or 1700-style secondary hull?
The FJSTM does set aside some ships for this but the numbers are, I think in the 500's.
Given the number of large battleships or aircraft carriers today, the whole line may have been sarcasm. However, it is interesting to consider the possibility that the 12 like the enterprise might not include some ships we saw onscreen like the Exeter.
However, if the 1800's are all Miranda's or similar and do not have the configuration that the Enterprise has, they may look like oceangoing cargo ships and less heroic to Kirk. Fans seem to think so
This makes sense if one follows the Federation articles from the FJSTM.
If you are referring to 1017, I don't think I can ignore it when it is so prominent in the episode. I like the idea that it originally looked like the TAS Bonaventure. I have suggested that, since on early registries capital "I' was sometimes used for 1, the real registry of the Bonaventure was 1028 I NCC. That would put it in the same general category as 1017.
There would be two possibilities as to their age:
1. They would be the first ships built after, as Jose-Tyler says, "The Time Barrier has been broken," having "true" warp drive instead of "hyperdrive," and therefore meet Scotty's claim that the Bonnaventure was "The first ships to have warp drive installed." Or
2. They would be part of the first batch of dedicated, newly built UFP Starfleet ships as authorized for the articles of the Federation as shown in the FJSTM, built in number order, but with the Bonaventure getting its warp drive installed first. I envision the Daedalus class ships being part of this initial build, too, but the Bonaventure was the first to start its mission.
In either case, I imagine that Matt Decker saved at least the ship's saucer after a major damage incident, and that the ship was attached to a Constitution-style secondary hull. We did not see the Bridge of that ship.
I do treat the FJSTM ship lists and registries as canon: canon for what the Federation had planned for Starfleet, but not necessarily canon as to what Starfleet actually built: especially all this ships named after constellations. Those are very likely placeholder names in-universe
Since parts of the book are intentionally left out, with even page numbers set aside for them, but intentionally not made, so as to say that "the universe goes on into more that we do not see yet," I came to accept the fact that the 1600's just are not listed as the page for them does not exist.
If it did exist, I do not* think it would have been a cruiser, but instead a cargo carrier looking wither the the Huron or the Ptolemy/Astral Queen. I suppose it could have been on the chart in Court Martial, but since Friday's child had not been written and the ships on the internal list for producers mostly had famous warship names, the Carolina is unlikely to have been a name that either Franz Joseph or Greg Jein would have considered for a starship that could have been on that chart. The Carolina could have been assigned to defend/escort the cargo ship that was part of the Klingon ruse in the area, but the episode does not make that clear.
Just discovered recently that after the update this site holds quotes from posts even after logging out, which is kind of nice.
*added for clarity after posting.
Last edited:
It also plays to the prickly nature of the Andorians/Vulcans as presented in Star Trek: Enterprise.
------------
Re: The USS Carolina. Could be part of the same batch that gave us the Defiant (also not on the original lists).
At least there was a historical USS Carolina, which had a short but potent career. At the time of TOS, no Navy ship had carried the name Defiant (my speculation would be the name was from the early 60s movie Damn the Defiant).
