Starbase 11 registry chart

[Kenny]

I’m trying to build a 1960’s vintage AMT Enterprise I won on ebay, and as a result I find myself obsessing about registry numbers again.

Yesterday I re-read a BBS thread from a year ago on Commodore Stone’s wall chart of starship registry numbers.

In the thread someone asked if a kind soul could post a remastered shot of the chart from the BlueRay DVD so that we could decipher some of the numbers. I don’t think anyone did that. So can I repeat the request?

 

[Kenny]

Up for debate are two of the numbers on Stone’s chart (I think there’s agreement on the rest).

Because in the middle of the chart’s list of registries are two numbers that are a bit more compressed (and fuzzy) than the rest which makes them hard to read.

Here’s the clearest photo of the chart I’ve been able to find (from Memory Alpha):
http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20080310072417/memoryalpha/en/images/4/4d/Starbase11_chart.jpg

Notice the image can be expanded.

Here’s how I read the numbers:

NCC-1709
NCC-1831
NCC-1703
NCC-1672
NCC-1664 or 1654 or 1864 or 1854
NCC-1697 or 1897
NCC-1701
NCC-1718
NCC-1685
NCC-1700

But here’s how Memory Alpha interprets the photo:

NCC-1709
NCC-1831
NCC-1703
NCC-1672
NCC-1664
NCC-1697
NCC-1701
NCC-1718
NCC-1685
NCC-1700

Like I said, most of the numbers are clear and there is agreement on 8 of the 10 registries.

But to resolve the enigma of the two registry numbers in the middle of the list, we need a clearer print of the image if available, and we need someone who can advance the shot frame-by-frame so that any modulation in the grain of the image can be taken into account when reading the numbers.

Can anyone do that?

 

[Kenny]

In the meantime, let me share some ideas I have.

Note that when arranged sequentially and eliminating the two questionable registries, the “clear” numbers tend to clump together within a relatively close range:
1672, 1685 (range of 13)
1700, 1701, 1703, 1709, 1718 (range of 18)
1831

Since the numbers appear to be “clumped”, using 1697 (with a range of 25) makes more sense than 1897 (with a range of 66).

And so – given the ambiguity of the photographic image – I’ll agree with Memory Alpha that the second of the two unclear registries is more likely to be NCC-1697 instead of 1897.

This would give us:
1672, 1685, 1697 (range of 25)
1700, 1701, 1703, 1709, 1718 (range of 18)
1831

But I disagree with Memory Alpha on the first of the two unclear registries. The photo clearly appears to show 1864 rather than 1664.

Looking at the clumping tendency doesn’t help on this last unclear registry. For if Memory Alpha’s 1664 is used, we get:
1664, 1672, 1685, 1697 (range of 33)
1700, 1701, 1703, 1709, 1718 (range of 18)
1831

But if I’m right, we get:
1672, 1685, 1697 (range of 25)
1700, 1701, 1703, 1709, 1718 (range of 18)
1831, 1864 (range of 33)

Either way, we get a maximum range of 33.

The photo clearly appears to be 1864 to my eyes. But Memory Alpha sees it differently. So this is why I’m asking for someone to look at this sequence, frame by frame, using a remastered Blue Ray disc.

 

[Timo]

I'd argue that the "clumping" idea does not hold psychological water here: in absence of other factors, we shouldn't aim for narrow ranges of numbers, but rather tackle this list as a series of random numbers created for the purpose of being random numbers, with certain border conditions.

And the psychology of humans trying (and failing) to create truly random numbers is AFAIK well understood. Somebody versed in that ought to be able to tell whether a few more 1800-range or 1600-range numbers in the mix would make more sense in terms of what the artist would have been considering a "nice spread".

The "% complete" bars probably also represent an attempt at a random spread, but being graphical, they achieve better success at being both an even spread (in terms of magnitudes) and a plausibly randomly ordered one.

With the bars, the interesting thing is whether the artist or the writer would have considered any of these vessels the Intrepid. I mean, the story probably calls for one of them to be that ship, and the director seems to want to indicate this as well, but it is far from certain that any "% complete" was drawn in with the Intrepid specifically in mind. We can only speculate whether she was one of the nearly completed ships, or one of the hopelessly incomplete ones, to warrant losing her slot to NCC-1701.

Also left to the viewer is the logic of the order of the registries. The entries aren't ordered by registry number or by percentage, and 1701 being nowhere near the ends makes it unlikely that the ships would be listed in order of arrival, either - so Greg Jein's old assumption about alphabetical order might make good sense. Or then it's the order in which the individual docks are numbered (but the remastering drops the ball there, showing starships but no docks).

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Kenny]

Oh, one more thing.

It doesn't look like it to me, but the first unclear registry could be 1654 or 1854.

If 1654 the range is too much at 43. But if it's 1854 the range is only 23, which is really close to the range of 25 for the 16xx registries on the chart.

Nevertheless, it still looks like 1864 to me, not 1854. And I can live with a range of 33 numbers for the 18xx registries on the Starbase 11 chart if it turns out to be 1864.

I want to stop obsessing over this. Somebody look at a Blu-Ray DVD, please!

Assuming my thesis about the "clumped" registries is correct....

Timo, I see your point. Humans try to create order or patterns when there may not be order or pattern in nature.

But look at the 17xx numbers. They're not a wide range. I mean, we don't have registries like 1700, 1725, 1748, 1764, and 1793.

The 16xx numbers that are easily identifiable are also placed within a relatively narrow range of numbers - one in the 1670's, one in the 1680's, and one in the 1690's.

These numbers are random within what seem to be some parameters. Whoever made the chart didn't seem to want to use numbers that are completely random.

 

[Kenny]

Notice, for instance, that the chart is not totally random in the overall range of registries - we have 16xx, 17xx, and 18xx numbers only. (And then within each of these groups the numbers appear to be "clumped".)

Much to my chagrin, there are no registries in the 10xx range (like the Constellation) or in the 13xx range (like the Republic).

So the author of the chart was clearly not trying to generate a COMPLETELY random set of registry numbers. He was placing limits on the numbers he was choosing.

 

[blssdwlf]

Also left to the viewer is the logic of the order of the registries. The entries aren't ordered by registry number or by percentage, and 1701 being nowhere near the ends makes it unlikely that the ships would be listed in order of arrival, either - so Greg Jein's old assumption about alphabetical order might make good sense. Or then it's the order in which the individual docks are numbered (but the remastering drops the ball there, showing starships but no docks).

Technically, we don't know that the Enterprise was last to arrive and that list could be the actual order of arrival with the most recent being at the bottom. That would mesh with the lowest completion percentage at the bottom and higher completion percentages going up.

Also there are only ten ships listed and Stone calls for "Maintenance Section 18" to be redirected from the Intrepid to the Enterprise. That could still mean one section was left to still work on Intrepid which would still mean it would be impossible to determine which of the registries was hers.

 

[Kenny]

Sorry, but I think I let loose a rabbit for us to chase.

Forget my hypothesis about registry number "clumping" on the Starbase 11 chart. That's not why I started this thread.

Really I just want some clarification about the two registry numbers that are hard to read on the chart.

Can someone who has a Blu-Ray disc of the remastered "Court-Martial" episode (and a really sharp television monitor) look at Commodore Stone's chart, frame by frame, and tell us what the registries on the chart are?

If possible I'd like to nail down this registry list, once and for all.

Thanks.

 

[Timo]

I'm very much afraid that everything that can be done on this issue has already been done many times over; at this point, all that remains is fighting over which interpretation of a blown-up-beyond-all-reason cluster of DVD or Blu-Ray pixels one personally prefers. The original material probably just plain doesn't yield to more definitive analysis, as the recent "improvements" in resolution are likely to come with artifacts that confuse the issue.

...Otherwise, somebody with the Blu-Ray would already have piped in, right?

Right?

<Alphan moon-crickets howl. Betan sky-wolf chirps.>

Timo Saloniemi

 

[yenny]

According to that starbase 11 chart. These are the Constitution class starships that were there at that time.
USS. Lexington NCC-1709
USS. Intrepid NCC-1631/1831
USS. Hood NCC-1703
USS. Exeter NCC-1672
USS. Excalibur NCC-1664
USS. Essex NCC-1697
USS. Enterprise NCC-1701
USS. Endeavour NCC-1895
USS. Constitution NCC-1700
The only registry that doesn't have a name to it is NCC-1718. Non-canon said it's the Constitution class USS. Excelsior. But unlikely in canon. But most likely a Miranda or Soyuz class starship. Most probably it's a Soyuz class starship. Being that the USS Excelsior NX/NCC-2000 was commission three years before the Soyuz class was withdraw from active service. Which mean, NCC-1718 is the USS. Excelsior.
The Constitution class starships that are not at starbase 11 are.
USS. Constellation NCC-1017
USS. Defiant NCC-1764
USS. Eagle NCC-956
USS. Potemkin NCC-1657
USS. Republic NCC-1371
USS. Yorktown NCC-1717
USS. Farragut NCC-1647
These are the Constitution class starships that are active at that time.
USS. Constellation
USS. Constitution
USS. Defiant
USS. Endeavour
USS. Excalibur
USS. Enterprise
USS. Exeter
USS. Hood
USS. Intrepid
USS. Lexington
USS. Potemkin
USS. Yorktown.
USS. Essex
The remainder Constitution class starship are.
USS. Eagle NCC-956/1956 haven't been build yet.
USS Republic, decommission
USS. Farragut, Lost or decommission.

 

[DEWLine]

More and more, I wonder how likely it was that the bulk of Starfleet's active Constitution-class vessels were all present at the same starbase on any particular day.

 

[Wingsley]

In the teaser to "Court Martial", we get a pretty good look at the chart in a medium-closeup while Commodore Stone fiddles with his desktop. The Blu-Ray high-definition screencap is at:

http://tos.trekcore.com/hd/albums/1x20hd/courtmartialhd025.jpg
(NOTE: link must be copied and pasted into your browser; clicking on the above link will backfire)

The list of NCC numbers in the image clearly reads as follows:

1709
1831
1703
1672
1864
1697
1701
1718
1685
1700

Interestingly, but hardly a surprise, is that if you scrutinize the details of Stone's wall-mounted viewer/chart, the data doesn't make sense. How can one starship be over 100% complete?

Of course, it's important to note a few major assumptions about the chart:

1: We assume because the chart is marked "star ship status", that all the ships listed are Federation starships-of-the-line.

2: We assume that all the starships listed are at Starbase 11 for repair, refit, some kind of new construction, or possibly some kind of downtime related to diagnostic, resupply or maintenance.

3: We assume that all the starships listed on Stone's display are Constitution-class vessels.

4: We assume that when Kirk later mentions the Republic, registry 1371, that he is talking about a Federation starship-of-the-line and that the registry is an "NCC" number.

Here's the specific passage about the Republic:

STONE: It's common knowledge that something happened to your friendship.

KIRK: It's no secret. We were assigned to the same ship some years later. I relieved him on watch once and found a circuit open to the atomic matter piles that should've been closed. Another five minutes, it could have blown up the ship.

COMPUTER: Ship nomenclature. Specify.

KIRK: United Starship Republic, number 1371.

(Note a minor deviation: U.S.S. previously was mentioned as "United Space Ship", but Kirk here says "United Starship".)


All of these are, to at least some degree, subject to legitimate speculation and even dismissal.


Here is the transcription from the opening scenes of "Court Martial":

We see the Starship Enterprise and Starbase 11.

KIRK (voice-over) Captain's Log, Stardate 2947.3. We have been through a severe ion storm. One crewman is dead. Ship's damage is considerable. I have ordered a non-scheduled layover on Starbase Eleven for repairs. A full report of damages was made to the commanding officer of Starbase Eleven, Commodore Stone.

[Stone's Office]


STONE: Maintenance Section Eighteen. The section is working on the Intrepid. Reschedule. The Enterprise is on priority one. That makes three times you've read it, Jim. Is there an error?

Added link, just for the hell of it:

The Case of Jonathan Doe Starship - Memory Alpha

 

[Wingsley]

Some alternative theories to think about:

1: If we assume that the second NCC number in the list is "1831" as it appears to be, and not 1631, and if we assume that the fifth NCC number in the list is "1864" and not 1664, then it is possible that a much younger, pre-refit Starship Reliant (NCC-1864, THE WRATH OF KHAN) is on layover at Starbase 11, and perhaps one of her sisterships is there as well. This assumes not just the assertions of what the numbers read, but also that Stone's list contains a least a couple of Federation starships-of-the-line that are not of the Constitution-class.

2: If we assume that "NCC-1700" is the U.S.S. Constitution, the class ship of the most recent starcruisers in Federation service at the time of TOS, and if we assume that NCC registry numbers have at least some vaguely sequential associative property to them, then lower (presumably older) ship registries in the 1600's, the 1300's (Republic) and the 1000's (Constellation) would have to be of starcruiser classes predating the Constitution-class. This would make sense if "there are only twelve like it in the fleet" and Starfleet would not let 90% of those newer ships simultaneously layover at the same port. There is nothing official on this, of course, but it does make sense that if the TOS Enterprise could be refit to become "an almost entirely new Enterprise" that Admiral Kirk would have trouble finding his way around on, then it could be assumed that starships 1672, 1697 and 1685 were of earlier starcruiser classes since rejuvenated to at least vaguely resemble ships like Constitution and Enterprise. (Hence, the strong but not identical resemblance of 1017 Constellation.)

3: Of course, #1 and #2 presume that, in a Federation that is supposedly about 100 years old, Enterprise and other current TOS-era starships-of-the-line, are not the very first-ever starships to be commissioned by the Federation. (So, there had to be previous unnamed starship classes to serve the Federation before Constitution and her then-12 stablemates were built and launched.)

 

[Albertese]

Wingsley, I copied and pasted and still got 404ed...

--Alex

 

[Wingsley]

^ Not surprised.

The link is to HD (BluRay) screencaps of "Court Martial" on TrekCore. If you mouse-over the link you will see the whole thing. TrekBBS' forum setup truncates what's visible when you read it as forum text, so if you try to click-and-drag your mouse over it, then it will not work. You will be copying the truncated address.

In order to get the actual address I posted, you will have to use whatever technique your web browser allows to copy the link without using click-and-drag. (I'm using Safari on a Mac, so for me it's either right-click or control-click on the truncated link, and using the contextual menu to "copy link" which directly copies the concealed full link. Other good folks on this forum who use Windows can probably advise you on the relevant technique for PCs.

 

[Wingsley]

^^ I stand corrected. The best method is not to "copy link", but to "open link in new window". Hope this helps.

 

[Kenny]

Try pasting this link:

tos.trekcore.com/hd/albums/1x20hd/courtmartialhd025.jpg

I think this is the same image I posted earlier from Memory Alpha.

I agree that the two registries in this HD shot seem to be 1864 and 1697. But Memory Alpha lists 1864 as 1664, so it must not be as clear as I think.

I have an unrestored copy of this episode on DVD, and when I watch this sequence frame by frame the grain of the original image tends to change the appearance of the numbers from frame to frame.

I don't have a Blu-Ray player. So I was hoping that someone with a Blu-Ray copy of "Court-Martial" could do the same with this shot to see if 1864 and 1697 remain consistently clear from frame to frame.

Anyone....?

 

[publiusr]

Was it FASA or Shame Johnson or Mandell that had a newer all 17XX listings for all the original Connies?

 

[Wingsley]

Well, my theory (based strictly on conjecture derived from the show) was that the Constitution-class starship, the latest and greatest starship-of-the-line in the Federation fleet in the TOS era, was simply a latest refinement in an evolutionary trail of starcruiser classes spanning roughly 100 years.

I decided to give these previous generation starship classes names: the predecessor to the Constitution generation was the Magna Carta-class. As with the evolution of the Constitution-class, there would be at least a couple of revisions/refits of the Magna Carta spec. So if the introduction of the "great experiment" Constitution ca. 2245 would signal an end to the Magna Carta era (with whatever surviving Magna Cartas still in service being recalled to be decommissioned and/or refit to Constitution specs), then Kirk's brag to Christopher in 2267 "there are only twelve like it in the fleet" would mean that between 2245 and 2267 a total of 12 or 13 brand-new Constitution-class ships were built to the new spec. The previous-generation Magna Cartas would have been either phased out or rebuilt in that same time period.

The Magna Carta succeeded the previous generation, the original post-ENT-era Federation starcruiser known as the Declaration-class (the name is a throwback to the ringship shown in Goldstein & Goldstein's 1980 book "Star Trek Spaceflight Chronology") My feeling was that when Archer and Tripp toasted "to warp seven" in "These Are the Voyages..." they were being a little optimistic. Declaration may have been able to sustain Warp 7.0 for slightly longer periods than the latest Vulcan battlecruiser (according to ENT's "Fallen Hero", the Suurvok-class starship could hold Warp 7.0 for 15 minutes) so maybe the Declaration-class ships could hold Warp 7 for 30 minutes.

"These Are the Voyages..." seemed to suggest to me (as did the rest of ENT) that the ability to sustain Warp 7 was a milestone in space travel. The development of the Declaration, Magna Carta and Constitution-classes was a progression of ships with ever-improving abilities, including the ability to achieve and sustain Warp 7 or above. Since the elderly former President Archer attended the launch of NCC-1701 Enterprise, I would assume his presence there was not just about the ship's name and the last two digits of her registry; it was about her ability to reliably sustain Warp 7, something he toasted to decades before.

The Declaration- and Magna Carta-class ships I imagine would be earlier versions of the same Jefferies-style cruiser design, each previous class/update being a somewhat rougher and less advanced design than the one that followed. I looked at MJ's early illustration of the "final design" for the Enterprise and thought that might be a great place to start in envisioning what these earlier classes would look like. Size-wise, Declaration's overall dimensions would be somewhat larger than Earth's NX-class in terms of length and width. Magna Carta would be larger still, but smaller than the Connies that followed. Another possibility for the evolutionary chain might be the NXX-1701 art floating around the internet.

So when we saw Decker's Constellation with the "NCC-1017" registry and we heard Kirk speaking of 1371 Republic, it is possible that these were ships of older designs, possibly originating in the Declaration- or Magna Carta-classes of previous generations.

If the NCC numbers have any sequential or group association logic to them, then those starcruisers in the 1600-series could be Magna Carta-class vessels that were recently refit to Constitution-spec.

 

[Timo]

I think it goes without saying that "only twelve like her" carries the connotation that there are plenty unlike her. It just isn't plausible for Starfleet to activate and retire all the vessels in a given class simultaneously; there would always be a period of transition with at least two top-of-the-line classes active. And TOS represents the "mundane middle" of Starfleet's starship operations, not a beginning or an end - Kirk himself specifically mentions starships from bygone eras.

One good argument against Stone's chart describing the contents of SB 11 dockyards is that we see a ship whose "status" is 100%. Such a ship has no place in a dockyard... It might very well be that the ships listed here are scattered all around the Federation and beyond, and that Stone has zoomed in on that part of the long list which contains the Enterprise (but not necessarily the Intrepid or any other ships anywhere near SB 11) to monitor the slow crawl of her status percentage back towards 100%.

Timo Saloniemi