That Starbase 11 wall chart - noe in slide form

[BK613]

Presumably, Starbase 11 is the Enterprise's command base in the local sector, just like Starbase 12 was in Space Seed. Whether that is a permanent assignment or a transitional one where oversight is transferred as the Enterprise moves between sectors carrying out her mission, IDK.
(Homeported in Oakland, we would move from 3rd to 7th fleet whenever we deployed to the Indian Ocean. And back to 3rd when we returned to the States. Didn't really change what we were doing but it did move the lines of communication and responsibility closer to where we actually were.)

------------
In my headcanon, 1718 is a new build (perhaps still under construction) and not part of The Twelve, reducing the number to three at the Starbase.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Are we assuming that the ships on the chart represent ships are among the 12 that are like the Enterprise?

 

[BK613]

Are we assuming that the ships on the chart represent ships are among the 12 that are like the Enterprise?

The recent discussion was that Okuda pulling a Jein and making all of them Connies was silly—it put ten of the twelve at the base—and therefore maybe only the 17xx were.

 

[Dukhat]

Are we assuming that the ships on the chart represent ships are among the 12 that are like the Enterprise?

I assumed the 17XX ships were, and the 16XX ships were the previous iteration of starship class.

 

[Ithekro]

One wonder what the difference is between the 15xx series Constitutions, the 16xx series Constitutions, the 17xx series Constitutions, the 18xx series Constitutions, and the 19xx series Constitutions. Because we have seen a wide hull number range of Constitution-class starships. And that is not even getting to USS Constellation (NCC-1071) and USS Republic (NCC-1371), or USS Eagle (NCC-956).

 

[Dukhat]

Exactly what canon Constitution registries are we aware of?

In TOS, we had:

Enterprise NCC-1701
Constellation NCC-1017

In the TOS movies, we had:

Enterprise refit NCC-1701

In TNG/DS9/VOY, we had:

(nothing)

In TOS-R, we had:

Defiant NCC-1764
Exeter NCC-1672
Hood NCC-1703
Lexington NCC-1709
Excalibur NCC-1664
Potemkin NCC-1657

In PIC, we had:

New Jersey NCC-1975


There is no other canon information which shows any definitive Constitution class registries. Diagrams don't count, because we have no idea if a silhouette of a certain ship was the actual class of that ship.

 

[Tomalak]

I think the assumptions that Jein (and later Okuda) made were:

• The Enterprise is there for repairs and Stone is an engineering officer, therefore the chart shows repair completion status of ships in dock.
• The chart is called "Star Ship Status" and Starship = Constitution Class.
• There are only 12 Starships in active service.

He also assumed that the Enterprise/Constitution Class was simply the latest model of Starship, and that older ones with outwardly similar or identical appearances might have lower registry numbers. This is consistent with Jefferies numbering system.

I don't think any of that is unreasonable. The leap was making the list reverse alphabetical, which didn't seem to make any obvious sense, but did line up quite nicely.

The recent discussion here is attempting to explain why nearly all of the Starships would be under repair at the same base at the same time, which lead to speculation that the chart isn't repair status after all.

I think we just have to suck up the TOS-R numbers at this point, so making the chart overall mission status is a neat answer.

 

[BK613]

I think the assumptions that Jein (and later Okuda) made were:

• The Enterprise is there for repairs and Stone is an engineering officer, therefore the chart shows repair completion status of ships in dock.
• The chart is called "Star Ship Status" and Starship = Constitution Class.
• There are only 12 Starships in active service.

He also assumed that the Enterprise/Constitution Class was simply the latest model of Starship, and that older ones with outwardly similar or identical appearances might have lower registry numbers. This is consistent with Jefferies numbering system.

I don't think any of that is unreasonable. The leap was making the list reverse alphabetical, which didn't seem to make any obvious sense, but did line up quite nicely.

Most here are aware. Someone even posted a link earlier in the thread to where Trekplace had a copy of Jein's article.

The recent discussion here is attempting to explain why nearly all of the Starships would be under repair at the same base at the same time, which lead to speculation that the chart isn't repair status after all.

Or that not all the ships are of The Twelve, a number retroactively applied that wouldn't exist production-wise for another half-dozen or so episodes. With speculation that, since this is the very first expression of starship numbers by the show, MJ's numbering system would be in effect.

(And the memos in The Making of Star Trek show that names for The Twelve didn't exist prior to Tomorrow is Yesterday.)

I think we just have to suck up the TOS-R numbers at this point, so making the chart overall mission status is a neat answer.

I never watch episodes with the TOS-R FX so not really. (And there is an active thread for that discussion in the TOS forum here. Active as of the date of this post anyway.)

 

[aridas sofia]

In my headcanon, 1718 is a new build (perhaps still under construction) and not part of The Twelve, reducing the number to three at the Starbase.

That’s why in my illustration posted above, I made 1718 a “Phase II” design ship. It is undergoing trials and nearly half way complete the planned process.

One interesting fact that may or may not add something to this discussion- research into the archives at UCLA that came to light on this BBS revealed memos that confirmed the delta emblem was intended to represent this “Star Ship Corps”. So, it really was a thing. Bill Theiss apparently didn’t get this order from on high, or it was never handed down until he had created an alternate emblem for Constellation and Exeter. That led to the memos saying, hey, the delta is for “star ships” and NOT just Enterprise. So when we see Defiant, the dead crewman has a delta.

Of course, Mike Okuda wasn’t aware of this and “fixed” that delta into a FJ boomerang. Thus, he fixed the one that was right and left the ones that were wrong. To Okuda’s credit however, even Roddenberry had retroactively adopted the “delta=Enterprise” idea in his novelization of TMP.

But the original idea was “delta=Star Ship Corps”. So there may well be something to this idea that there may be a whole lotta ships in Starfleet, but only twelve in the Star Ship Corps.

Does this mean that a 16xx ship on that chart is a “Star Ship”? Maybe. Does it mean it is a Constitution, as Jein concluded? There is no evidence to that effect and at this point in the first season, it would seem Jefferies’ numbering scheme would still have had bearing. Thus, putting “16xx” down would be saying, “these are older ships but they are still in the Star Ship Corps.”

 

[BK613]

Thus, putting “16xx” down would be saying, “these are older ships but they are still in the Star Ship Corps.”

An idea bolstered by "United Starship Republic, number 1371."

 

[Tomalak]

Yes, Republic and Constellation are explicitly "Starships" and the latter looked identical to the Enterprise. Within the bounds of an AMT model kit, of course.

That's why I see no real issue with Jein deducing that the 16XX numbers were also of the same Starship type as the Enterprise.

Both Jein and FJ were happy with the idea of batches of ships, they just differed on the specifics. Constellation and Republic look like bizarre outliers in FJ's list, but not so much with Jein's.

 

[Ithekro]

SNW adds USS Cayuga (NCC-1557) as a Constitution-class starship.

However, SNW also gave us USS Farragut (NCC-1647) that is not a Constitution-class starships at all, but a Bellerophon-class Starship
It also gave is the Sombra-class Starship USS Peregrine (NCC-1549) that is very similar to the Constitution-class as it used most the same components, but has a much, much smaller crew of 99 (less than half of Pike's crew (203), which is much less than a quarter of what would be Kirk's era crew compliment of 430).

 

[aridas sofia]

I think everyone can agree that whatever the merits of SNW may be, fidelity to the minutiae of the TOS backstory is not one of them. The people making SNW are the Mirror Universe opposites of us sitting here trying to figure out if it is 1831 or 1631. They gleefully took “947” and made it “1452”. Using anything on SNW as a guide to understand that chart is like using a bowl of alphabet soup to understand Shakespeare.

 

[UssGlenn]

Constellation are explicitly "Starships" and the latter looked identical to the Enterprise. Within the bounds of an AMT model kit, of course.

What if we make the Constellation the same length as the Enterprise was originally envisioned at 540 feet? So she's an earlier smaller ship with the same configuration.

 

[aridas sofia]

Constellation and Republic look like bizarre outliers in FJ's list, but not so much with Jein's.

Republic is called starship but never called Constitution. And we infer Constellation is Constitution because of it being the AMT model, and I think that’s a fair assumption of the intent. But that model is substantially different from the 11-foot model, so there is room to interpret Constellation as an older, but uprated, ship. Maybe even a testbed for the class.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

SNW adds USS Cayuga (NCC-1557) as a Constitution-class starship.

However, SNW also gave us USS Farragut (NCC-1647) that is not a Constitution-class starships at all, but a Bellerophon-class Starship
It also gave is the Sombra-class Starship USS Peregrine (NCC-1549) that is very similar to the Constitution-class as it used most the same components, but has a much, much smaller crew of 99 (less than half of Pike's crew (203), which is much less than a quarter of what would be Kirk's era crew compliment of 430).

I considered posting that, but I hadn't completed my review of how solidly canonical that is. Where I'm at in that review right now is that what class Cayuga is established as being could well depend entirely upon illegible background graphics that have since been shared but which were never legible on screen [see Memory Alpha]. If that is so, and unless there's something else establishing class, would it not seem that Cayuga could be, for example, Sombra-class instead? Cayuga's registry number is very close to Peregrine's, after all. Or is our position that having the authentic source of the graphics is enough to establish class canonically?

Did they ever do a class name check of the Cayuga in dialog? I don't recall that.

 

[UssGlenn]

I like to think that Starship Class ships were named for older famous starships. But the resulting confusion with"Star Ships" caused the class name to be changed to Constitution. The Republic is a "United Star Ship", not Starship.

 

[Ithekro]

It is possible that Sombra and Constitution-class starships are a relatively minor refit apart from each other. That would give starships like USS Constellation and perhaps USS Republic, a canon lease on being older starships (former Sombra-class) that were upgraded to Constitution-class specs? USS Cayuga may have been laid down as a Sombra-class to be finished as a Constitution-class the same year USS Enterprise was launched (2245). Though Captain Batel would have been fairly young, around 29 years old, if she was given the captain's chair when the ship was commissioned.

 

[Tomalak]

As an Enterprise-class truther, I've always been very comfortable with the idea that Constitution-class merely describes the latest iteration of that Starship configuration. Sombra is fine with me.

 

[Shamrock Holmes]

I like to think that Starship Class ships were named for older famous starships. But the resulting confusion with"Star Ships" caused the class name to be changed to Constitution. The Republic is a "United Star Ship", not Starship.

I've suggested that idea before based on (at minimum) Royal Navy custom. For instance both the Monmouth-class armored cruiser and the Kent/London/Norfolk-class heavy cruisers were referred to as "County-class cruisers" in their day due to all carrying the name of a UK county (save the HMS London technically) and a similar scheme was applied to the Devonshire/Fife-class destroyers in the 1980s (roughly contempories of the Flight I/II Burkes).