Starship Construction Timeline

[Timo]

Interestingly, novelist Voyda McIntyre calls Kirk's ship a "constellation-class" vessel, with lowercase c...

Regarding Matt Decker's ship, there are many real-world examples of ship classes that externally appear virtually identical to some other class, yet have a completely different construction history. For example, prior to WWII, several naval powers upgraded their WWI-era battleships to more modern standards; say, the old Italian Comte di Cavour class ended up looking very much like the spanking new Littorio class, and it would take some careful squinting to notice the lower calibre and different layout of the guns of the older class - and one still wouldn't notice that the older ships were markedly slower and had rather different internal armor.

It would be easy to think that Decker's ship was several decades older than Kirk's, yet refitted to "2240s standards" when Kirk's ship class was introduced, or to "2260s standards" when Kirk assumed command of the Enterprise. Obvious elements in such an upgrade would be the warp engines, the most conspicuous part of the ship's silhouette. Those, and weapons, which are housed within the primary hull - thus perhaps necessitating the reworking of the primary hull to identical shape, too.

As pointed out above, Decker's NCC-1017 is basically the only "out of the line" registry we really have to deal with, as the other oddball regos were for offscreen ships. Until TOS-R used them on screen, that is...

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Captain Robert April]

Until the remastered version of "The Doomsday Machine", the argument for an older-yet-almost-identical starship class was on pretty firm ground; a side by side analysis of the AMT model and the eleven footer showed the AMT version as slightly blockier and if you tweak the size so that the bridge modules are the same size, the AMT comes in around ten feet shorter than the 947' Constitution class.

If only I were still in Southern California when they were making that episode. I could've rushed over with my vintage AMT model and scanned it to use as the Constellation, instead of them just reusing the CGI Enterprise model they had.

Oh well....

 

[Dukhat]

Until the remastered version of "The Doomsday Machine", the argument for an older-yet-almost-identical starship class was on pretty firm ground

Pretty firm ground with whom? I'm fairly certain that the intent of the creators of the episode was that the Constellation was of the same class as the Enterprise. Every official publication (re: not fan publications) has agreed with that premise.

 

[BK613]

Until the remastered version of "The Doomsday Machine", the argument for an older-yet-almost-identical starship class was on pretty firm ground

Pretty firm ground with whom?

I've always thought that because
-differences in the models.
-the low hull number.
-the "Cage" era view screen

I'm fairly certain that the intent of the creators of the episode was that the Constellation was of the same class as the Enterprise.

I doubt the thinking went much beyond "We need a damaged Fed ship but we can't blow the episode's budget. I know, an AMT model and reuse of the Enterprise sets."

(And seriously, can we get "the designer's intent," and all its variants without citation, added to Godwin's Law as a corollary?)

Every official publication (re: not fan publications) has agreed with that premise.

By "official," do you mean the Okuda stuff rife with retcons?

 

[Dukhat]

I've always thought that because
-differences in the models.
-the low hull number.
-the "Cage" era view screen

So by that logic, the original Excelsior and the U.S.S. Lakota are two completely different classes of ship.

I doubt the thinking went much beyond "We need a damaged Fed ship but we can't blow the episode's budget. I know, an AMT model and reuse of the Enterprise sets."

Maybe, but that doesn't negate the fact that the model kit was of the Enterprise, hence it was supposed to be the same class of ship.

By "official," do you mean the Okuda stuff rife with retcons?

Like it or not, Okuda's works are considered official by Paramount. And while I don't necessarily agree with every little minute detail of it, most of his work makes sense.

 

[BK613]

I've always thought that because
-differences in the models.
-the low hull number.
-the "Cage" era view screen

So by that logic, the original Excelsior and the U.S.S. Lakota are two completely different classes of ship.

Should be different classes IMO, considering that both variants were serving along side each other in the 24th century. And especially since we know that the Ent-B is a new-build and not a refit, which implies other new-builds, maybe even a whole class of new-builds.
Of course, I was always in favor of Enterprise class moniker for the 1701 refit as well.

I doubt the thinking went much beyond "We need a damaged Fed ship but we can't blow the episode's budget. I know, an AMT model and reuse of the Enterprise sets."

Maybe, but that doesn't negate the fact that the model kit was of the Enterprise, hence it was supposed to be the same class of ship.

/shrug The differences as they appeared on screen needed an in-universe explanation and the Constellation as an older starship class made the most sense to me.

Everything that I have read about the TOS production though, about it being overbudget and behind schedule, suggest to me that they would have gone with anything that worked. (If they had a model they could have reworked ala tholian-to-Aurora and the option was better for the budget they would have done that instead. IMO anyway. I just don't think that 1017 class = 1701 class is something that would have been important, if it was thought of at all.)

By "official," do you mean the Okuda stuff rife with retcons?

Like it or not, Okuda's works are considered official by Paramount. And while I don't necessarily agree with every little minute detail of it, most of his work makes sense.

Were considered official. In case you missed it, the Classic Universe was sold off at Christie's a few years ago and I doubt there is anyone at Paramount now that considers a couple of nearly 20 year old ST tomes official. At least not official enough to impact the new movie.

 

[Dukhat]

Should be different classes IMO, considering that both variants were serving along side each other in the 24th century.

But they're not. They're both Excelsiors.

Everything that I have read about the TOS production though, about it being overbudget and behind schedule, suggest to me that they would have gone with anything that worked.

Then it would have been quicker and easier to just glue one nacelle to the saucer and call it a different class, but they didn't do that. They built the whole model.

Were considered official. In case you missed it, the Classic Universe was sold off at Christie's a few years ago and I doubt there is anyone at Paramount now that considers a couple of nearly 20 year old ST tomes official. At least not official enough to impact the new movie.

Really? Perhaps you missed TOS Remastered, which was headed by Paramount, undertaken by Okuda and was heavily influenced by his work on the ST Encyclopedia?

 

[Herbert1]

Personally I would place the Akira, Norway, Steamrunner, and Sabre classes as contemporaries of the Nebula, even though the Akira and the Steamrunner have the same escape pod design and bridge module as the Sovereign. I prefer to think that the ships we have seen have received refits with the new escape pods and bridge modules and they were built originally to fight the Cardassians or Tzenkethi or to support an expanded United Federation of Planets. I like to speculate that USS Liberator (NCC-67016) was an Akira-class or Steamrunner-class starship that fought and was destroyed at Wolf 359. I like to think that Starfleet Tactical/ASDB upgraded existing designs to better fight the Borg threat in addition to designing new ships.

There is also the "Operation Retrieve" mission briefing chart with the Constitution refit silhouette USS Eagle NCC-956.

 

[ProwlAlpha]

I consider the Enterprise-B and the Excelsior to be different classes that share the same hull.

The Spurance Class Destroyer, the Ticonderoga Class Guided Missile Cruiser, and the Kidd Class Guided Missile Destroyer all shared the same hull.

I would still call the Constellation a different class based on the registry number. My theory on the jumps in numbers is that the vast majority of them are small transports, freighters, and support vessels. Look at the small Danube class, they sport registry numbers. In certain times of the Federation, there were wars, cold wars, border skirmishes, mass decommissionings and mass re-commissionings. Another real world example, the US Navy did the same thing within the last sixty years. It kept on de-activating and re-activating old World War II vessels whenever the Russians would get a little squirrelly.

I agree with you Herbert, except I think the Liberator is a Nebula.

 

[Unicron]

One could certainly treat some classes as being part of the overall design block though, and essentially treat them as specific variants but essentially the same class. Ships of the Star Fleet did this with some of the ships mentioned on FJ's original list, the Achernar and Endeavor and so forth. They're essentially separate subclasses, but they're all modifications of the original Constitution class and therefore look very similar visually.

It's also possible that for some as yet unspecified reason, the Constellation's name and registry had already existed on some older design, and were carried over when the ship was either refitted as a Constitution or new built as such. Much like how the Enterprise has always used 1701 rather than whatever registry was typical for its class.

 

[Herbert1]

Does the communications chatter in Star Trek: The Motion Picture count? USS Columbia NCC-621 and USS Revere NCC-595 or the drawings from the Star Fleet Technical Manual shown in Star Trek III: The Search for Spock?

Also have USS Copernicus NCC-623 and USS Grissom NCC-638 of the Oberth class. Going by Franz Joseph, USS Aquila NCC-623 is a Cygnus-class variant of the Hermes-class.

Do you consider USS Columbia NCC-621 and USS Revere NCC-595 to be Oberth-class starships?

"Operation Retrieve" chart gives USS Oberth a registry of NCC-602.

 

[ProwlAlpha]

Then it would be confusing for the books and paperwork if there was a Constellation NCC-1017 Horizon Class and a Constellation NCC-1017 Constitution Class. Given the circumstances of the real USS Constellation built in the late 18th Century and the new or maybe old one built or rebuilt in the 1840s. All you need is for a simple typo to confuse the two vessels.

I agree with the Class design tree. The US did the same during Pre-World War II and World War II for its cruisers and variants. The hull design started with the Brooklyn Class CL which led to the Wichita Class CA and the Cleveland Class CL, then these two led to the Fargo Class CL, Baltimore Class CA, Independence Class CVL, St. Louis Class CL, Albany Class CG, Boston Class CG, Oregon City Class CA, Northampton Class CC, Des Moines Class CA, Alaska Class LCA, Worcester Class CL, Galveston Class CG, Providence Class CG, and Saipan Class CVLs.

 

[BK613]

Everything that I have read about the TOS production though, about it being overbudget and behind schedule, suggest to me that they would have gone with anything that worked.

Then it would have been quicker and easier to just glue one nacelle to the saucer and call it a different class, but they didn't do that. They built the whole model.

LOL Yes because it is so much easier to kitbash then it is to build a model stock right out of the box.

Were considered official. In case you missed it, the Classic Universe was sold off at Christie's a few years ago and I doubt there is anyone at Paramount now that considers a couple of nearly 20 year old ST tomes official. At least not official enough to impact the new movie.

Really? Perhaps you missed TOS Remastered, which was headed by Paramount, undertaken by Okuda and was heavily influenced by his work on the ST Encyclopedia?

Actually, given how underfunded that project was and mediocre the final product was as a result, I would consider that as a point for my argument and not a counter example.

 

[Herbert1]

I erred with the Steamrunner-class, it should be placed in the 2340s because USS Appalachia is NCC-52136.

According to Alex Jaeger's diagram we also have USS Cavor NCC-52133, USS Hiroshima NCC-52136, and USS Menehune NCC-52142 of the Steamrunner-class.

http://johneaves.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/scales2.jpg

 

[Dukhat]

I consider the Enterprise-B and the Excelsior to be different classes that share the same hull.

The Enterprise-B's dedication plaque states otherwise.

Yes because it is so much easier to kitbash then it is to build a model stock right out of the box.

Huh? You mean to tell me it's harder to just glue a nacelle to a saucer than to construct the entire model?

Actually, given how underfunded that project was and mediocre the final product was as a result, I would consider that as a point for my argument and not a counter example.

Sorry, don't buy that logic. No matter what you personally feel about the project, it was authorized by Paramount and based on official works by Okuda et. al. And it was no more underfunded and mediocre than the original show it was enhancing.

 

[Herbert1]

I guess the comm chatter also mentions the Federation-class USS Entente NCC-2120 in Star Trek: The Motion Picture.

Then there is also the Antares NCC-500 from "Charlie X" that conflicts with NCC-500 USS Saladin from the Star Fleet Technical Manual. I guess it depends on if you consider Star Trek Enhanced to be canon and Okuka's decisions concerning registry in the Star Trek: Encyclopedia concerning TOS.

There is also the "Enterprise Class Bridge Simulator" in Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan and whether you consider the refit design to be Enterprise or Constitution class.

 

[Dukhat]

Then there is also the Antares NCC-500 from "Charlie X" that conflicts with NCC-500 USS Saladin from the Star Fleet Technical Manual.

The Antares's registry is NCC-501, actually.

 

[Herbert1]

Then there is also the Antares NCC-500 from "Charlie X" that conflicts with NCC-500 USS Saladin from the Star Fleet Technical Manual.

The Antares's registry is NCC-501, actually.

You're right. Antares' registry concflicts with USS Jenghiz. Are you going to ignore references to the Star Fleet Technical Manual from TMP and TSFS in your Construction Timeline?

 

[Dukhat]

Then there is also the Antares NCC-500 from "Charlie X" that conflicts with NCC-500 USS Saladin from the Star Fleet Technical Manual.

The Antares's registry is NCC-501, actually.

You're right. Antares' registry concflicts with USS Jenghiz. Are you going to ignore references to the Star Fleet Technical Manual from TMP and TSFS in your Construction Timeline?

At one point I had thought about adding the relevant ships, but a) I don't know when they were originally built, and b) they really don't help me in my primary goal for the timeline, that of figuring out the design aspects of the conjectural Starfleet classes from TNG.

 

[Timo]

My personal preference here would be to take elements of TAS and add a letter prefix to the registries of non-starships. This nicely avoids overlap issues: the Antares could be either NCC-G501 (as per the nearly identically shaped drones of "More Tribbles") or NCC-F501 (as per the crewed Huron of "Pirates of Orion"). The barely glimpsed drone ship from TOS-R "Ultimate Computer" could be NCC-G325 rather than NCC-325, and so forth.

You don't see the prefix letter? Well, the people painting the pennants might have been a bit careless, or the robots might have had a bug or three... Or then our TV sets simply don't have the resolution.

FWIW, if the ships of TOS-R "Charlie X" and TOS-R "Ultimate Computer" are given the respective regos NCC-G501 and NCC-G325, they conveniently fall within the range of registries suggested in some classic fan blueprints relating to this design. Starstation Aurora (Todd Guenther and pals) have examples in the NCC-G145-160 and NCC-G420-434 ranges, while Roger Gilbertson has NCC-G1400-1469 to go with the observed TAS registries. It does seem likely that the Feds would build more than just a few dozen of those robots, as their main utility value would be in great numbers (they aren't particularly roomy or anything). So variants in the 300 and 500 ranges would appear logical - and Aurora and Gilbertson do indicate that the robots would come in lots of subtle variants...

Timo Saloniemi