Starship Deploy Status review.

[Yaroze86]

Hello! New to this board but an old member of the Flare forums. Big starship guy for over 35 years.

I would like to open up a discussion on the "Measure of a Man" Starship Deploy Status okudagram. I have been spending fair bit of time analyzing it as I think some of the information is incorrect now. Great job to the people that originally analyzed it. I would like to open discussions. Of course, this is all a work in progress. A lot of these registries were listed as starting with a 3, but when viewing on my PC they more clearly are 5's. The sectors are really wrong and do not start with a 0 like what was initially reported (also would not make sense for Deep Space Exploration for a sector so close to Earth).

Starship Registry Commander Assignment
USS Enterprise NCC-1701-D Jean-Luc Picard Docked at Starbase 173
USS Yamato NCC-24383 Richard McKenzie On Patrol, Sector 234, Neutral Zone
USS Constantinople NCC-43852 Richard James Special Assignment, Terraform Command
USS Wellington NCC-53821 Thomas Purser On Patrol, Sector 230, Neutral Zone
USS Farouk El-Baz NCC-51823 Cari L. Thomas On Patrol, Sector 230, Neutral Zone
USS Hokule'a NCC-52187 Robert Metoyer Planetary Exploration, Sector 530
USS Atlantis NCC-52716 Dick Brownfield Diplomatic Mission to Alderaan
USS Bushwacker NCC-52518 Adele Simmons Planetary Exploration, Sector 542
USS XXXXsicas NCC-51054 Elaina Vescio Deep Space Exploration, Sector 638
USS Neil Armstrong NCC-51865 Gere LaDue Planetary Exploration, Sector 542
USS Saratoga NCC-51843 Martin Jedlicka Deep Space Exploration, Sector 627
USS El-TeXXas NCC-56587 Richard Cronn Planetary Exploration, Sector 528
USS Endeavour NCC-25338 Cosmo Genovese Deep Space Exploration, Sector 637
USS Yorktown NCC-25345 Gregory Benson Deep Space Exploration, Sector 632
USS Excelsior NCC-27445 Muriel Epstein Deep Space Exploration, Sector 634
USS Amber NCC-21335 Marian Fife Diplomatic Mission to Alderaan
USS Lexington NCC-30405 Wil Thoms Planetary Exploration, Sector 536
USS Excalibur NCC-21534 Al Smutko On Patrol, Sector 134, Neutral Zone
USS Yuri Gagarin NCC-25306 Alan Bernard On Patrol, Sector 142, Neutral Zone
USS Artemis NCC-50532 Peter Lauritson Under Repair, Starbase 74
USS Apollo NCC-50585 Dennis McCarthy Deep Space Exploration, Sector 532
USS Endeavour NCC-25338 Cosmo Genovese Deep Space Exploration, Sector 637
USS Yorktown NCC-25345 Gregory Benson Deep Space Exploration, Sector 632
USS Excelsior NCC-27445 Muriel Epstein Deep Space Exploration, Sector 634

The following have been biggest questions about this list.

• USS Bushwacker NCC-52518 - 100% Sure on this name as I think this is a reference to the 1988 Presidential Election or the aloholic drink.
• USS XXXXsicas NCC-51054 - This has been the biggest challenge so far. I initially thought this was Borstkas in reference to Data's off switch and very well could be. It is something that ends in CAS or CIS. When I view it at time is looks like its Eastcas but I am not sure what that would be referring too. At times I thought maybe a slur for Dukakis, but I could not find one like Bush.
  
• USS El-Tejeas NCC-56587 - I think this is a reference to the 1988 Presidential Election as well but it's intended to look like Texas when spelled in all capital letters. EL-TEJEAS, the J and E forming an X from a distance. If it is not that I have narrowed, it down to being the following charterers: J F or P and the E or L. But I cannot find a word that comes close to Teflas (but I have for Teflis) nor Teplas. Any ideas?
• USS Amber NCC-21335 - 100% correct name.
  
• USS Artemis NCC-50532 - I am leaning towards this name but I am also feeling it could be Galileo as a reference to the Galileo shuttle always damage/destroyed, thus being at Starbase 74 for repair. But Artemis goes hand in hand with Apollo and seems the "m" is prominent.
• USS Lexington NCC-30405 - This one I have a feeling is also a 5 but after Picard Season 3, the question is if I should question it. When I view it, I see it as NCC-50425.

I have been posting without many contributions on MA via this link. I have a GIF I created (though outdated now) trying to help figure out the above missing ships. Later I will post a better screen shot of the okudagram but I do have one posted at MA. https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wik..."_and_the_"Starship_Deploy_Status"_okudagrams.

 

[1001001]

Moving to Trek Tech

 

[Dukhat]

I’d be curious to know how you came up with some of those names and registry numbers.

P.S. I’m originally from Flare forums too.

 

[Yaroze86]

I’d be curious to know how you came up with some of those names and registry numbers.

P.S. I’m originally from Flare forums too.

I am sure we ran into each other back in the day, I was on there before 2008 back when forums were a lot more a thing. I miss those days....

I have been reviewing the Blu-Ray remasters at .3x speed over and over again on my PC at 4k using a modified VLC media player to play Blu-rays, magnifier, photoshop/gimp. Going over each one by itself and then repeating the process to see if I come to the same conclusion once I reach the bottom.

I will use the Wellington as an example: MA has it as NCC-33821. I attached a screenshot and IMO should be NCC-53821. It's so hard to capture a complete registry in one screenshot and not over the course of the sequence.

I don't know how this is going to turn out when I add the image as it will probably get its resolution downgraded upon upload. Still new and I don't think it allows me to directly upload images.

 

[Yaroze86]

And of course, the image link didn't work. I lacked edit abilities as well that I hope changes after 14 posts.

https://imgur.com/a/4JYxv4T

 

[Dukhat]

Yeah, unfortunately I cannot make out anything but blobby numbers.

 

[Yaroze86]

Yeah, unfortunately I cannot make out anything but blobby numbers.

That lies the problem as well. My screen setting might not display the same as what you may see. Makes it incredibly hard to objectively discuss if what I see you can not. But like I said it may also because I am seeing it off a 55 inch screen in 4k....

 

[Yaroze86]

This I think is my final edit. As for the ships that are 5, outside the Wellington, I would not be able to capture the whole registry in doing so. Minor correction to first post.

https://imgur.com/a/kNJYJES

 

[CaptChris42]

I am sure we ran into each other back in the day, I was on there before 2008 back when forums were a lot more a thing. I miss those days....

I have been reviewing the Blu-Ray remasters at .3x speed over and over again on my PC at 4k using a modified VLC media player to play Blu-rays, magnifier, photoshop/gimp. Going over each one by itself and then repeating the process to see if I come to the same conclusion once I reach the bottom.

I will use the Wellington as an example: MA has it as NCC-33821. I attached a screenshot and IMO should be NCC-53821. It's so hard to capture a complete registry in one screenshot and not over the course of the sequence.

I don't know how this is going to turn out when I add the image as it will probably get its resolution downgraded upon upload. Still new and I don't think it allows me to directly upload images.

Have you tried using screencaps and then inverting the colours? I got very little clarity out of that, but maybe a little more. HD possibly gets even further?

I note Memory Alpha is in flux in it's article for the list, and has altered several. I'm sure some of the sector numbers have changed, too? We have the USS Nausicaa and USS Laser, now added (in place of the USS Amber?) but I'd say the USS Artemis and USS Galileo (I once considered Bayamo) are still strong contenders, potentially.

Whilst now we may well have the Bushwacker set in stone, I suppose (or USS Brunswicker, as I floated. After all, various obscure naval/coastal names had been used by BTS production staff before, like the LaSalle)
Distinguishing fives from threes will of course also be pretty crucial - for all numbers across the board.

 

[CaptChris42]

Hello! New to this board but an old member of the Flare forums. Big starship guy for over 35 years.

I would like to open up a discussion on the "Measure of a Man" Starship Deploy Status okudagram. I have been spending fair bit of time analyzing it as I think some of the information is incorrect now. Great job to the people that originally analyzed it. I would like to open discussions. Of course, this is all a work in progress. A lot of these registries were listed as starting with a 3, but when viewing on my PC they more clearly are 5's. The sectors are really wrong and do not start with a 0 like what was initially reported (also would not make sense for Deep Space Exploration for a sector so close to Earth).

Starship Registry Commander Assignment
USS Enterprise NCC-1701-D Jean-Luc Picard Docked at Starbase 173
USS Yamato NCC-24383 Richard McKenzie On Patrol, Sector 234, Neutral Zone
USS Constantinople NCC-43852 Richard James Special Assignment, Terraform Command
USS Wellington NCC-53821 Thomas Purser On Patrol, Sector 230, Neutral Zone
USS Farouk El-Baz NCC-51823 Cari L. Thomas On Patrol, Sector 230, Neutral Zone
USS Hokule'a NCC-52187 Robert Metoyer Planetary Exploration, Sector 530
USS Atlantis NCC-52716 Dick Brownfield Diplomatic Mission to Alderaan
USS Bushwacker NCC-52518 Adele Simmons Planetary Exploration, Sector 542
USS XXXXsicas NCC-51054 Elaina Vescio Deep Space Exploration, Sector 638
USS Neil Armstrong NCC-51865 Gere LaDue Planetary Exploration, Sector 542
USS Saratoga NCC-51843 Martin Jedlicka Deep Space Exploration, Sector 627
USS El-TeXXas NCC-56587 Richard Cronn Planetary Exploration, Sector 528
USS Endeavour NCC-25338 Cosmo Genovese Deep Space Exploration, Sector 637
USS Yorktown NCC-25345 Gregory Benson Deep Space Exploration, Sector 632
USS Excelsior NCC-27445 Muriel Epstein Deep Space Exploration, Sector 634
USS Amber NCC-21335 Marian Fife Diplomatic Mission to Alderaan
USS Lexington NCC-30405 Wil Thoms Planetary Exploration, Sector 536
USS Excalibur NCC-21534 Al Smutko On Patrol, Sector 134, Neutral Zone
USS Yuri Gagarin NCC-25306 Alan Bernard On Patrol, Sector 142, Neutral Zone
USS Artemis NCC-50532 Peter Lauritson Under Repair, Starbase 74
USS Apollo NCC-50585 Dennis McCarthy Deep Space Exploration, Sector 532
USS Endeavour NCC-25338 Cosmo Genovese Deep Space Exploration, Sector 637
USS Yorktown NCC-25345 Gregory Benson Deep Space Exploration, Sector 632
USS Excelsior NCC-27445 Muriel Epstein Deep Space Exploration, Sector 634

The following have been biggest questions about this list.

• USS Bushwacker NCC-52518 - 100% Sure on this name as I think this is a reference to the 1988 Presidential Election or the aloholic drink.
• USS XXXXsicas NCC-51054 - This has been the biggest challenge so far. I initially thought this was Borstkas in reference to Data's off switch and very well could be. It is something that ends in CAS or CIS. When I view it at time is looks like its Eastcas but I am not sure what that would be referring too. At times I thought maybe a slur for Dukakis, but I could not find one like Bush.
  
• USS El-Tejeas NCC-56587 - I think this is a reference to the 1988 Presidential Election as well but it's intended to look like Texas when spelled in all capital letters. EL-TEJEAS, the J and E forming an X from a distance. If it is not that I have narrowed, it down to being the following charterers: J F or P and the E or L. But I cannot find a word that comes close to Teflas (but I have for Teflis) nor Teplas. Any ideas?
• USS Amber NCC-21335 - 100% correct name.
  
• USS Artemis NCC-50532 - I am leaning towards this name but I am also feeling it could be Galileo as a reference to the Galileo shuttle always damage/destroyed, thus being at Starbase 74 for repair. But Artemis goes hand in hand with Apollo and seems the "m" is prominent.
• USS Lexington NCC-30405 - This one I have a feeling is also a 5 but after Picard Season 3, the question is if I should question it. When I view it, I see it as NCC-50425.

I have been posting without many contributions on MA via this link. I have a GIF I created (though outdated now) trying to help figure out the above missing ships. Later I will post a better screen shot of the okudagram but I do have one posted at MA. https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Forum:Ships_from_"Conspiracy"_and_the_"Starship_Deploy_Status"_okudagrams.

As for the sector numbers, I wouldn't take them too seriously. They are likely abbreviations of larger numbers (particularly, as 'canonically', Starbase 173 is on the far side of Romulan space, and may use it's own sector blocks, and so on - maybe beginning 22***, or even 23***?)

All spellings of captain names can be thankfully verified from the production staff lists, of course, which would certainly help with letter matching elsewhere.

 

[Yaroze86]

Have you tried using screencaps and then inverting the colours? I got very little clarity out of that, but maybe a little more. HD possibly gets even further?

I note Memory Alpha is in flux in it's article for the list, and has altered several. I'm sure some of the sector numbers have changed, too? We have the USS Nausicaa and USS Laser, now added (in place of the USS Amber?) but I'd say the USS Artemis and USS Galileo (I once considered Bayamo) are still strong contenders, potentially.

Whilst now we may well have the Bushwacker set in stone, I suppose (or USS Brunswicker, as I floated. After all, various obscure naval/coastal names had been used by BTS production staff before, like the LaSalle)
Distinguishing fives from threes will of course also be pretty crucial - for all numbers across the board.

Hey sorry for the untimely reply! If you catch the numbers frame by frame, they show sometimes when other parts of the registries are unclear. Makes it incredibly difficult to grab the best image in just one screen capture sadly. I am confident they are 5's and not 3's. Only one I have not messed with is the Lexington. I really think it is as well a 5 but I cannot disprove it being a 3. What I do feel is its registry is NCC-50325. I also don't know if we should change it after Picard Season 3 with it "supposedly" being labeled as such in it.

 

[Dukhat]

Only one I have not messed with is the Lexington. I really think it is as well a 5 but I cannot disprove it being a 3. What I do feel is its registry is NCC-50325. I also don't know if we should change it after Picard Season 3 with it "supposedly" being labeled as such in it.

I'm just ignoring that obviously wrong registry for a Nebula class starship. Clearly Blass just saw the MA article on the "Measure of a Man" Lexington and equated it with the Nebula we saw in DS9 with the same name, and now MA has merged the two formerly separate entries together. He really should have known better, because it's not like he's a starship newbie.

However, 50325 would also be too low for a Nebula class ship. Since the Nebula class didn't even exist when this MoaM chart was made, the intent was clearly that the Lexington was an older design not affiliated with the ship we saw later on screen.

 

[Ithekro]

Refit of a late Ambassador like Miranda patterned starship into a Nebula-class starship?

 

[Yaroze86]

IMO,

If I had to guess the Lexington's class (If going off the 50325 registry). It would be a late model Excelsior due to the fact it's not far off from the Crazy Horse. If going off the MA 30405 one, then I would say Ambassador-class.

This is a work in progress and in no way should be taken as canon. I currently have the spreadsheet arranged by registry (this will change time to time as I edit), but this is me trying to put logic to some of these ship (some head canon) and what classes they fit into. So again, do not beat me up on this too much.... Anything in the "G" and after fields are for sorting purposes only.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Fqumlt5DNzgp8W56kD2E-J4NB3YJOci7p95_Y6qQ-kA/edit?usp=sharing

 

[Dukhat]

Refit of a late Ambassador like Miranda patterned starship into a Nebula-class starship?

Highly doubtful.

If I had to guess the Lexington's class (If going off the 50325 registry). It would be a late model Excelsior due to the fact it's not far off from the Crazy Horse. If going off the MA 30405 one, then I would say Ambassador-class.

Yeah, I agree about the 50325 Excelsior (although the only reason why the Crazy Horse has a 5XXXX registry was because it was listed in the Star Trek Encyclopedia as a Cheyenne class starship before it was seen on screen with stock footage of an Excelsior), but 30405 is too high for an Ambassador. Ironically though, it fits a Miranda class better even though the Miranda class is older than the Ambassador class.

 

[CaptChris42]

Highly doubtful.



Yeah, I agree about the 50325 Excelsior (although the only reason why the Crazy Horse has a 5XXXX registry was because it was listed in the Star Trek Encyclopedia as a Cheyenne class starship before it was seen on screen with stock footage of an Excelsior), but 30405 is too high for an Ambassador. Ironically though, it fits a Miranda class better even though the Miranda class is older than the Ambassador class.

Well, 30405 isn't THAT high for an Ambassador class. Just atypical. I see no reason why they did not keep producing at least some, clean until about 2342, say. Plus, I believe memory beta sources have the USS Independence listed with a registry of NCC-41452 (for one of the ships in New Frontier/Double Helix)

 

[Dukhat]

Well, 30405 isn't THAT high for an Ambassador class. Just atypical. I see no reason why they did not keep producing at least some, clean until about 2342, say. Plus, I believe memory beta sources have the USS Independence listed with a registry of NCC-41452 (for one of the ships in New Frontier/Double Helix)

All the canon Ambassadors we are aware of only had registries of 1XXXX and 2XXXX. So either they were all built at the beginning of the the 24th century (and then Excelsiors and Mirandas were mass produced after them for some inexplicable reason), or the 1XXXX and 2XXXX regs are 'batch numbers,' and their registries aren't chronological.

 

[CaptChris42]

All the canon Ambassadors we are aware of only had registries of 1XXXX and 2XXXX. So either they were all built at the beginning of the the 24th century (and then Excelsiors and Mirandas were mass produced after them for some inexplicable reason), or the 1XXXX and 2XXXX regs are 'batch numbers,' and their registries aren't chronological.

An assumption, yes. Albeit it a fairly reasonable one.
I believe Sternbach generally locked the first Ambassadors to the early to mid 2320s? Whereas the Excelsiors seem to have had multiple batches with unclear dates, largely.

 

[Dukhat]

An assumption, yes. Albeit it a fairly reasonable one.
I believe Sternbach generally locked the first Ambassadors to the early to mid 2320s? Whereas the Excelsiors seem to have had multiple batches with unclear dates, largely.

The only canon information we have as to the time period of Ambassador service is that the Enterprise-C was operating in the year 2344. That's it. Any other dating info is unofficial. It sucks that we have no other info for this class, but there it is.

 

[Ithekro]

The Galaxy class project seems to start just after the loss of the Enterprise-C. So would there be a need for a similar sized explorer type starship during the roughly 15 years before the first Galaxy-class starships become operational. More Ambassador-class as a stop-gap? Nebula-class starting to appear about five years before the Galaxy-class becomes operational?