That Starbase 11 wall chart - noe in slide form

[Tomalak]

At the risk of provoking certain debates, it's possible that "colony resupply ship" might be used to drop personnel and/or equipment* during the operation rather than being one of the ships engaging Klingon warships in combat.


*Perhaps similar to the company from The Siege of AR-558, but optimised for polar operations rather than SIGINT/base defence.

Certainly possible. Interestingly, Eagle is a smaller silhouette than Potemkin, possibly suggesting a different ship type, which would make more sense of the registry. Three digits for scout ships came from SFTM of course, and was picked up in the films for the Grissom and Copernicus.

Good views of the original 'Operation Retrieve' chart here:

ST:VI TUC Operation Retrieve Command Briefing

I wanted to post that here my latest replica - a half scale version of the Operation Retrieve Command Briefing briefly seen in The Undiscovered Country, but more so in a cut scene from the movie. Originally this prop was disposed of after filming wrapped, but Penny Juday (former Paramount Trek...

www.therpf.com

 

[Yaroze86]

Certainly possible. Interestingly, Eagle is a smaller silhouette than Potemkin, possibly suggesting a different ship type, which would make more sense of the registry. Three digits for scout ships came from SFTM of course, and was picked up in the films for the Grissom and Copernicus.

Good views of the original 'Operation Retrieve' chart here:

ST:VI TUC Operation Retrieve Command Briefing

I wanted to post that here my latest replica - a half scale version of the Operation Retrieve Command Briefing briefly seen in The Undiscovered Country, but more so in a cut scene from the movie. Originally this prop was disposed of after filming wrapped, but Penny Juday (former Paramount Trek...

www.therpf.com

Funny enough, I just redid all these last week. Doing all these in SVG format so they do not loose resolution. I still need to make a few small corrections to some of them so i wouldn't save them just yet. I can also make some other things as well if time allows. Currently working on the page 6 of the Operation Retrieve USS Enterprise-A chart in SVG format. Side view I am probable around 45% done.

Yaroze86/Okudagrams

memory-alpha.fandom.com

I also have been doing all the star charts I can as a fun side project.

Yaroze86/Star charts

memory-alpha.fandom.com

and emblems.

Yaroze86/Insignia

memory-alpha.fandom.com

 

[Nerys Myk]

Funny enough, I just redid all these last week. Doing all these in SVG format so they do not loose resolution. I still need to make a few small corrections to some of them so i wouldn't save them just yet. I can also make some other things as well if time allows. Currently working on the page 6 of the Operation Retrieve USS Enterprise-A chart in SVG format. Side view I am probable around 45% done.

Yaroze86/Okudagrams

memory-alpha.fandom.com

Azetbur might have a point

 

[CorporalCaptain]

What's "CONOLY RESUPPLY"??! Just what is the Lantree up to??? Oops!

 

[Yaroze86]

As I said, some errors I need to correct =P

I did all those in like a day from scratch. But maybe little later this week I will finish them up.

This is the chart in Microgramma font only from SVG and exported as PNG at 25 dpi

This one is NCC-1631

qxJHRZv

This one is NCC-1831

qLdjSO3

Also, can confirm with the font I am using the 8 is wider than a 6. Same font was used in both images. I created the A in Star ship status, and blocked over the 1 to make them shorter. But if you notice, there is bleed through on even those images even being exported from a vector program at low DPI. Everything else is default Microgramma.

moBt2YN

 

[Dukhat]

So many replies. And no replies to this. On the one hand, it was important it look like Enterprise to establish the threat to Enterprise. On the other hand, getting the number to match all the other numbers they had painstakingly chartpacked onto this status board was a detail left to tie in media and fans online (when no tie in media or fans online yet existed).

The demonstrable fact is, TOS took the issue of verisimilitude seriously. They researched and ruminated for a year before they committed anything to film. Maybe the intent all along was to use the AMT kit because they believed it important to establish the threat. Maybe the intent in drawing this status chart was to show a base with a bunch of starships like Enterprise being serviced. But… if they went to the trouble to put only 16xx and 17xx ships on the chart, but didn’t give a damn when it came time to paint numbers on the hull, something doesn’t fit. You can say one thing was important and they didn’t give a damn about the other and that might be good enough for you. But it doesn’t make sense to me. I think either
1) it was a mistake and there just wasn’t time to correct it
2) it reflected an earlier intention for Constellation to look different from Enterprise to reduce confusion
3) a combination of the two- using the AMT model as is was more expedient than using just the saucer to build a different ship, but the problem of distinguishing Constellation from Enterprise remained and 1017 was more distinctive than... 1631? 1647? (Remember- they made a decal or painted “U.S.S. CONSTELLATION” so a NCC-1647 would have been a cinch and would have looked a hell of a lot more distinctive than 1017, which uses all the same numbers as 1701.)

The intent was either a different look than Enterprise or a number that fit this status chart. But the reality ended up being neither. That’s Hollywood. But it isn’t what a Trek Tech discussion is about. If it is important whether a ship is 1831 or 1631, then it is even more important whether 1017 or the AMT kit is what they really wanted. Because 1017 is what screws up this chart, in universe.

At least, to me.

I'm sure that if there was originally an intent for the Constellation to be a different ship, that went out the window with the reality that they'd have to build an expensive filming model which would then have to be battle-damaged. Obviously the next best thing was the AMT kit. But like I said before, if there was any intent for the ship to have been a different class, they could have easily made modifications to the model kit for that purpose, but they didn't. As for the number? Again, I'm sure that very little thought was put into it other than to distinguish it from the Enterprise while still using the available decals.

 

[DSG2k]

So many replies. And no replies to this.

They probably felt little need to match the Starbase 11 chart since it was only some crazy kid years later who associated all of those numbers with ships like the Enterprise, and of course Republic 1371 was a starship in dialog so lower numbers were perfectly fine.

I just came across _this Flickr image_ of a shot of Constellation 1017 purporting to be from a cleaned up film source. A few things stood out.

1. The spacing between characters for U.S.S. was inexact, and CONSTELLATION seems to change angle a bit at the A.
2. More importantly, I'm not quite sure U.S.S. CONSTELLATION has the right typeface. The font chosen appears to be a close match but seemingly lacks the blocky 45-degree cuts of the Enterprise name on the Enterprise models. Note specifically the S, whose center appears to aim downward ( like \ ) rather than straight across.

Based on _this old scan_ of early AMT decals it definitely isn't a match despite the availability of enough letters S, and comparison of the late version of the font on the 11–foot and the Constellation appears to support the idea that the letters are also taller / less wide, with lower line weight.

I propose, then, something akin to Tomalak:

They had to stencil the new name by hand, but could simply use the existing decals for the number, which they did in the easiest way possible - they didn't even make one additional cut and number the ship NCC-1710 which would have saved us all a lot of heartache! But it could have been worse - they could have picked 7011.

That is to say, they used a transfer or stencil technique for the Constellation name using a close-enough typeface, but they either didn't have the larger size needed for the registry or were concerned about it not matching well enough, so chopped up the AMT decal in a pinch. If they'd had two, 1717 would've been possible, but that wasn't the choice.

1710 was probably considered and disregarded as too close, especially if they weren't close enough for the name to be easily visible. Paint-matching the look, finish, and size of the AMT decal with a new digit would have taken a fair bit of time ... maybe they'd have had the time for that or some other painting if the writers hadn't have picked the longest-ass name for the ship for them to have to letter, not to mention having to ensure they had a paint that would stand up to the lights and not also eat the plastic.

Perhaps they also discussed trying to damage the model at the registry to render it unreadable, but this would have been considered and discarded since they still would've needed lettering visible beneath the burn and it would've burned weirdly.

Back to the point, though, short of some sort of kitbash of the parts, they distinguished the ship as best they could, all while ensuring it remained a clear sister and equal to the Enterprise.

 

[Yaroze86]

Does the AMT model also do away with the hook on the 1's that the larger model has?

 

[BK613]

@Yaroze86 Here's a write-up on the AMT model. To answer your question, the original decal sheet, which only had markings for the Enterprise, had no serifs—no hooks—on the 1s.

 

[aridas sofia]

I have seen the other AMT model finished as Enterprise and used in Trouble With Tribbles. It was in MoPOP in Seattle a few years back. Quite extraordinary finish job, though deteriorated with age and abuse. Carefully opened and squared windows. Very carefully replaced domes on the front and back of the nacelles. Painted like the 11-foot model using what looks like the same paint. The decals of each letter and pennant were very carefully trimmed and applied without any silvering evident. Online accounts say AMT built it but I know at some point I read or heard it was Datin himself.

All this is pertinent as it speaks to understanding of what the thing was supposed to look like, and thus what might have been going on with those numbers. I think it is a very good guess that Chartpack or Letraset press on type was used to approximate the type of USAF-ish hull font used on the 11-foot and 3-foot models. And that such a choice would not have worked on the bigger NCC number. I am still a bit bewildered however, at the thought of Richard Datin and Matt Jefferies just saying, screw it- It has to look different so put a non-sensical number on it. It was going to be torn all to hell. That would make it stand out on its own. And it is hard to fathom that AMT gave them model kits but not as many decal sheets as they needed. But hey, Occam and all that. The simplest answer is what we have come up with here. The number was not as important as making the model stand out as different. And 1710 was not as different as 1017.

So, the script said “Enterprise-class” which was indeed the understanding at the time. And yet 1017. The only in-universe explanation I see is either the numbers have no significance despite being 20-feet tall or Constellation is a refit.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

The only in-universe explanation I see is either the numbers make no sense or Constellation is a refit.

I've proposed (somewhere) two other possibilities,

1) that registration numbers can be assigned wherever there's an available number and a logistical need to fill it,

2) deception during warfare to obfuscate the class of a starship.

 

[Tomalak]

I think we're all broadly comfortable with the refit idea. But we also know that registry inconsistencies run throughout the Star Trek canon so refit doesn't have to be the only answer.

I guess my take would be that there was a design commonly known as "Starship Class" which originated in the late-22nd or early-23rd century that looked broadly like the TOS Enterprise - saucer section, two engine pods linked by a neck and a cylindrical service section.

This built on the configuration established by the NX-refit, Daedalus and Bonaventure types.

It went through several iterations*, the most prominent of which was the Constitution-class (c.2240). The older surviving ships were rebuilt to Constitution specs, the same way they were later upgraded to Constitution II/Enterprise-class in the 2270s.

Therefore "Starship Class" and "Constitution Class" became mostly interchangable terms by the mid-23rd century.

This lifespan of the class is not atypical for the Star Trek universe - with the Excelsior, Miranda and Klingon battle cruiser variants being even longer-lived.

* i.e. we know the Enterprise in her TOS production variant is properly a Mark IX/01 Star Ship, which implies 8 prior marks.

 

[Yaroze86]

So far anyone have any input on the progress so far?

Dropbox

www.dropbox.com

 

[Dukhat]

Regarding the Constellation: There has never been any canonical proof that NCC-1700 was the prototype for the Constitution class, nor has there been any canonical proof that registries are chronological (at least during the TOS and TOS movie era.) So I personally see no problem with the Constitution class USS Constellation having a 1017 registry number. Yes, it goes against Jefferies’ numbering system, and that’s unfortunate. But that’s only background material that technically isn’t pertinent anymore.

 

[B.J.]

I don't think there is, unless some of the later season 3 episodes of SNW say something - I haven't watched past S03E03 yet. My head canon is that the Constitution itself is not NCC-1700, but much lower, like say NCC-7XX or something. It would certainly solve the issue with the Constellation.

 

[Ithekro]

I did once speculate that the NCC numbers were location specific based (built in Sol System. Vulcan. Andor. That sort of thing.) That way you could have some widely different numbers for the same class because they were built in different places. Once the 100 or so number are exhausted, the yard or system gets assigned a new number. Sol, producing the largest number of starships it seems, would run through numbers faster than others. So you might have NCC-15xx ships built in Sol, then NCC-17xx ships built in Sol once the number run past 1599 (that would explain Cayuga and Enterprise being built the same year), with some other system having the NCC-16xx hulls. Would also give some meaning behind the hull numbers as they don't appear to mean much since every class of Federation Starship has just an NCC number. No class or type specifics. No unit designations significance. Just NCC-XXX...