That Starbase 11 wall chart - noe in slide form

[DSG2k]

@DSG2k, you've grossly misrepresented my words and put words in my mouth, on multiple occasions.

That's projection. As I've had to point out:

That's your argument, not mine.

You've characterized my remarks as "tiresome" and "embarrassing".

Yes.

And you've implied that Kirk's actions in "Court Martial" were comparable to holding Jamie hostage.

Again, you're the one who started with the whole "ermagerd Kirk is a monster" defense:

"I mean, do you seriously believe that Kirk would deliberately put an innocent like Jamie in immediate danger?! Or that Stone would allow it, for that matter, who explicitly said they would stay to hear the witness out instead of beaming off?? "

That's utterly ridiculous.

Yes.

I'm done here.

Sorry it didn't work out for you. Good luck in your other threads. Don't forget my suggestion about the laughter emoticon, though.

 

[Dukhat]

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

The Eagle NCC-956, the Emden NCC-1856, and the Ahwahnee NCC-2048 are all shown with the smaller silhouettes. Even if they were all meant to be a different class than the Constitution refit, that's quite a spread of numbers for just one specific class.

But this is what we have to work with:

1. A silhouette clearly distinguishing the Excelsior from the other ships.

2. The Endeavour and the Potemkin using the larger Constitution silhouettes on the Strike Operations chart, and the Eagle, Emden and Ahwahnee using the smaller Connie silhouettes.

3. The Potemkin, Korolev and Emden using the same size Connie silhouettes on the Theater of Operations chart.


So what are the conclusions we could possibly draw from this?

1. The silhouettes, regardless of size, do in fact represent the class of a particular ship. So other than the Excelsior, all the other ships are Connies.

2. The smaller Connie-like silhouettes represent a smaller class of ship, but then this is inconsistent with the Emden shown as smaller in one chart and the same size as the Potemkin on the other chart.

3. The silhouettes, other than the Excelsior, are just placeholders, and do not represent the ships' true class. But then why distinguish the Excelsior with its own distinct silhouette?


If I had to make an educated guess based on the evidence, I would go with Occam's Razor: #1 is clearly the simplest explanation, and all the ships other than the Excelsior are Connies. It would have been nice if they'd used, say, a Miranda silhouette for a ship or two, since then there would be no question that the silhouettes represented that specific class. But they didn't, so we have to extrapolate based on what they did do.

 

[aridas sofia]

Problem is, if chronological, Defiant 1764 already is in service by now. Kongo should be as well. If we go by Picard season 3, Reliant is as well due to MA having it listed on the chart forever. I think that's why we need to get this chart right. Though, in my head canon, if it's 1831, it should be the Miranda herself as its pretty close to the Lantree.

I am trying to interpret that chart based on Star Trek alone and not anything made afterwards.

 

[Dukhat]

I am trying to interpret that chart based on Star Trek alone and not anything made afterwards.

Exactly. This is probably the closest we'll get to seeing Jefferies's actual intent for the Starship class. Anything after this (including things in TOS), isn't really relevant to this chart.

 

[Ithekro]

The trouble is the production of order and airing order make for some oddities. "Court Martial" was filmed before "The Menagerie" and "Yesterday is Tomorrow" was filmed later.

Does Starbase 11 have two commodores? One in charge of the base and one in charge of a major fleet yard that is at Starbase 11? Was one replaced by the other between times Enterprise visited? Kirk seems unphased if there was a change in command. As seen, Stone is in red, while Mendez is in gold.

While there was probably the idea that there were only a dozen or so Starships around, it is not stated by Kirk until "Yesterday is Tomorrow" which was film later (number 21 I think) compared to the other two being 15 and 16. So there is that problem as well.

 

[DSG2k]

Exactly. This is probably the closest we'll get to seeing Jefferies's actual intent for the Starship class. Anything after this (including things in TOS), isn't really relevant to this chart.

"United Star Ship Republic, number 1371"

I take it the strategy is to suggest that is not a "Starship Class" like the Enterprise, following the paradigm from _this post_?

(I actually agree with this but for _completely different reasons_.)

 

[Dukhat]

"United Star Ship Republic, number 1371"

I take it the strategy is to suggest that is not a "Starship Class" like the Enterprise, following the paradigm from _this post_?

(I actually agree with this but for _completely different reasons_.)

I was talking about extrapolating info from the chart only as far as Jefferies' system went, to deduce that the five 16XX ships were the direct predecessors of the 17XX ships. But sure, the 1371 Republic is just as valid a point as anything. Going by that system, the Republic would have been an old ship indeed.

 

[aridas sofia]

I think the “twelve like her” line means twelve Constitution class ships outfitted for Star Ship duty. That would mean there are other Constitution class ships that aren’t Star Ships, and other Star Ships that aren’t Constitution class.

 

[DSG2k]

I was talking about extrapolating info from the chart only as far as Jefferies' system went, to deduce that the five 16XX ships were the direct predecessors of the 17XX ships.

The Aridas NCC Synthesis (if I may be so bold) included the idea that 1631 was old and being replaced, as I read it.

But sure, the 1371 Republic is just as valid a point as anything. Going by that system, the Republic would have been an old ship indeed.

If I understand the process, it would've been the 71st of the 13th Class, so may not have been that old at all, though, no? The atomic pile stuff suggests age, but hypothetically they could build 1372 (or some other-number uprated 13th Class design) tomorrow. Or am I misunderstanding / confounding what you were suggesting with Aridas?

I think the “twelve like her” line means twelve Constitution class ships outfitted for Star Ship duty. That would mean there are other Constitution class ships that aren’t Star Ships, and other Star Ships that aren’t Constitution class.

Would that not also imply the possibility of rotation? A former "Star Ship" that could still be operational but without the full kit replenished, intentionally, but then perhaps being kitted out again later?

 

[Yaroze86]

Someone care to refresh my memory,

What Connies do we know that exist prior to Court Martial and then ones after that can't have any numbers higher than the chart from TOS?

On a side note, whos in favor of 1631 or 1831.

Now does the evidence point at the probability of what one?

I would like to have some sort of contentious answer on how to purpose an edit on MA to either accept one or the other. I would like to see 1631 become the intended article with a bginfo note about the long debate. I think there is strong evidence to support 1631 as what was shown just by dialog alone with also stones looking over the chart and Intrepid only a few seconds earlier showing up.

 

[Dukhat]

On a side note, whos in favor of 1631 or 1831.

Now does the evidence point at the probability of what one?

I would like to have some sort of contentious answer on how to purpose an edit on MA to either accept one or the other. I would like to see 1631 become the intended article with a bginfo note about the long debate. I think there is strong evidence to support 1631 as what was shown just by dialog alone with also stones looking over the chart and Intrepid only a few seconds earlier showing up.

I'm not going to lie: I still see 1831. But I freely admit that I could be wrong, since the chart is not perfect and the logic of the other numbers on the chart heavily suggest that it's 1631.

As for MA, they obviously already have the Intrepid as NCC-1631 thanks to TOS-R, so I'm not sure how much of an edit you're going to need to bother with on that end, unless you want to list NCC-1831 as a different unnamed ship.

 

[Shamrock Holmes]

The Eagle NCC-956, the Emden NCC-1856, and the Ahwahnee NCC-2048 are all shown with the smaller silhouettes. Even if they were all meant to be a different class than the Constitution refit, that's quite a spread of numbers for just one specific class.

Perhaps it's wishful thinking, but I kinda assume that the Eagle is an Oberth-class (the Oberth itself was part of the "back-up" shown only on the unscreened fourth page) given the similarity of number to the Grissom, and on the same basis the Ahwahnee, Challlenger and the Korolev plausibly Constellation-class and we know that at least one Miranda-class (USS Lantree) is also present.

1. The silhouettes, regardless of size, do in fact represent the class of a particular ship. So other than the Excelsior, all the other ships are Connies.

Either the class or at least the type is a reasonable thought, though still very much a stretch in the case of the Eagle IMO.

2. The smaller Connie-like silhouettes represent a smaller class of ship, but then this is inconsistent with the Emden shown as smaller in one chart and the same size as the Potemkin on the other chart.

Fair point.

3. The silhouettes, other than the Excelsior, are just placeholders, and do not represent the ships' true class. But then why distinguish the Excelsior with its own distinct silhouette?

The most obvious explanation is that Excelsior was intended to the flagship for the operation.

If I had to make an educated guess based on the evidence, I would go with Occam's Razor: #1 is clearly the simplest explanation, and all the ships other than the Excelsior are Connies.

That's simplest explanation, but only semi-plausible even based only on the sheets actually seen on screen (that are slightly more canon) IMO. But if we accept the info on the fourth page, then the second Constellation, the Oberth and the Lantree are present/included and the latter must be a Miranda-class and the other two are plausibly the prototypes of the titular classes (only Constellation has an NX though).

 

[aridas sofia]

The Aridas NCC Synthesis (if I may be so bold) included the idea that 1631 was old and being replaced, as I read it.

The way I portrayed 1631, it was one generation earlier than 1701, and by size, a cruiser instead of a heavy cruiser. One generation may have been almost contemporaneous though, and I show it as fit with the same technology. I’m assuming it is being decommissioned because it is worn out - much like why Enterprise is almost entirely rebuilt a few years later. Intrepid might have been rebuilt too, but for the fact the Fleet demanded another heavy cruiser instead of the smaller type.

Admittedly the idea is also meant to increase astonishment when the later Intrepid is wrecked by the Space Amoeba. This is a brand new ship - manned by Vulcans, no less - and it goes down.

If I understand the process, it would've been the 71st of the 13th Class, so may not have been that old at all, though, no? The atomic pile stuff suggests age, but hypothetically they could build 1372 (or some other-number uprated 13th Class design) tomorrow. Or am I misunderstanding / confounding what you were suggesting with Aridas?

I think this is a fair reading of Jefferies’ intent, yes. I also think there could be different classes within a generation, though.

That’s where Jefferies’ system falls apart, however. Let’s say you have three classes in the 16th generation and one has 30 ships, the next 40 ships, and the third 45 ships. The first is 1300-1329, the second 1330-1369, and the third… what? 1370-1414? That doesn’t work. 1370-13114? Maybe, but that then runs into what you’d need for the 131st generation.

You either assume they never build a hundred ships in a generation, or they reuse numbers after a suitable wait.

Would that not also imply the possibility of rotation? A former "Star Ship" that could still be operational but without the full kit replenished, intentionally, but then perhaps being kitted out again later?

I think this makes perfect sense. These ships are uprated and rerated on an “as needed” basis, which is why they’d be doing trials and decommissionings way out at Starbase 11.

 

[BK613]

That’s where Jefferies’ system falls apart, however. Let’s say you have three classes in the 16th generation and one has 30 ships, the next 40 ships, and the third 45 ships. The first is 1300-1329, the second 1330-1369, and the third… what? 1370-1414? That doesn’t work. 1370-13114? Maybe, but that then runs into what you’d need for the 131st generation.

That's the thing though. MJ was an aviation guy and his system seems to have combined two things he was familiar with, aircraft version numbers and assigned tail numbers. So I think a full implementation of his system would have had 13xx, the first modernization as 13xxA, the second as 13xxB. Those would be three distinct ship classes. Because it looks like he was mimicking B-17, B-17A, B-17B etc. for the bomber design. And then, instead of a fiscal year prefix for the tail code,, he used the design number.

And I think the numbers would have run higher than four digits, because the tail number system he was familiar with did so. Number overlap would probably be a non-issue because I doubt a 13th gen ship would still be running around when the 131st ruled the space lanes.

 

[Crewman Commander]

And I think the numbers would have run higher than four digits

This is absolutely a great point.

For all we know, the next registration number after NCC-1799 could have been NCC-17100 instead of NCC-1800.

 

[DSG2k]

That’s where Jefferies’ system falls apart, however. Let’s say you have three classes in the 16th generation and one has 30 ships, the next 40 ships, and the third 45 ships. The first is 1300-1329, the second 1330-1369, and the third… what? 1370-1414? That doesn’t work. 1370-13114? Maybe, but that then runs into what you’d need for the 131st generation.

You either assume they never build a hundred ships in a generation, or they reuse numbers after a suitable wait.

The 100 ship limit is a problem, though he also provided something of a solution. Unless your shipbuilding rate is just bonkers, you'll likely end up upgrading ships before the 100 ship limit is reached. Per the image of his you posted earlier, a modification gets a letter.

In theory, then, that frees up the original number for reuse. That is to say, you just built 1499 of the super-successful 14th generation (which I don't recall ever hearing of, offhand) but want another 14XX, but luckily you upgraded 1400–1410 last year to 1400A-1410A, so 1401 is available again.

If you find that as horrifying as I do, another alternative is an extra/different character instead of NCC, e.g. NC2 or NCC2, NCCA, et cetera. NCC, after all, was just a sort of mix of NC and CCCP, so there's wiggle room to play. At that point, the sky's the limit.

 

[DSG2k]

And I think the numbers would have run higher than four digits, because the tail number system he was familiar with did so.

For all we know, the next number after 1799 could have been 17100 instead of 1800.

Aridas covered the fact that this is just kicking the problem down the road:

Maybe, but that then runs into what you’d need for the 131st generation.

So jumping to five digits doesn't actually solve the problem, it just limits you to 99 generations.

Of course, you can then go to the NCC2 sort of scheme, but considering it would only be necessary if you were building a hundred of each on the regular, I wouldn't think going five digits would be the first choice.

 

[Crewman Commander]

1370-13114? Maybe, but that then runs into what you’d need for the 131st generation.

You either assume they never build a hundred ships in a generation, or they reuse numbers after a suitable wait.

One alternative would be for the first ship of the 131st generation to be registered NCC-131001. With the insertion of leading zeroes, disambiguation is always feasible; there are no numerical limitations. Computers of the 23rd century and beyond shouldn't have trouble keeping track.

Myself, I would prefer to use leading zeroes only when necessary, but NX-01etc. and NCC-0514 are canonical, so clearly that ship has sailed!

edited to add: And these ideas or any other fixes to deal with number maximums aren't even necessary if you don't mind some extra punctuation. Double punctuation has already been used before A, B, C, D, etc.: NCC-1701-A. (Note that Jefferies' original proposal lacks the dash right before the A.)

So, when otherwise there could be ambiguity, maybe write NCC-17-100 or NCC-131-1.

I realize that this ship has already sailed too, of course. But we're discussing intent. Might Jefferies have suggested adding more punctuation to eliminate ambiguities? I've no idea.

In any case, the main takeaway here is that there is really no problem that can't be solved, there's no pattern that must get wrecked.

 

[Ithekro]

The other issue is that in ships, a generation can be two ships, then a major change, and another two ships. Not downgrading one to another position, just changing enough stuff on the ship for it to be another class. Look at US Cruisers in the 1920s, 30s, and 40s, when the defining factors between "heavy" and "light" were the diameter of the gun barrels, not the size or power of the ships.

Omaha-class (built as scout cruisers before the Washington Treaty, light cruiser afterwards. Armed with twelve 6 inch guns in two twin turrets and 8 castmate mounts. Designed to be fast to keep up with the new destroyers and projected battlecruisers of the Constellation-class) commissioned staring in 1923. Ten built.

Pensacola-class (treaty cruiser/heavy cruiser. Armed with ten 8 inch guns in four turrets. Not very much armor. Were classed as light cruiser before the London Treaty redefined that term to mean gun diameter, not armor thickness) commissioned starting in 1929. Two built.

Northampton-class (treaty cruiser/heavy cruiser. Armed with nine 8 inch guns in three turrets. Armor is still relatively thin, slightly more than Pensacola) commissioned starting in 1930. Six built.

Portland-class (treaty cruiser/heavy cruiser. Armed with nine 8 inch guns in three turrets. Armor slightly improved and balance issues fixed from previous classes) commissioned starting in 1932. Two completed.

New Orleans-class (treaty cruiser/heavy cruiser. Armed with nine 8 inch guns in three turrets. Armor improvements. Design was made more compact to help with protection. Technically three subclasses, as three were reordered from Portland-class cruisers, two were designed as this class, and two were started two years later) commissioned starting in 1934. Seven built.

Brooklyn-class (treaty cruiser/light cruiser. Armed with fifteen 6 inch guns in five turrets. Similar armor to New Orleans. Designed due to London Treaty restrictions on number of heavy cruisers. Has a two ship sub-class with USS St. Louis and USS Helena that experimented with a different engine layout for better survivability along with improved AA guns, and installing the new 5"/38 cal twin turrets that would start to show up on many, many warships) commissioned starting in 1937. Nine built.

USS Wichita (treaty cruiser/heavy cruiser. Armed with nine 8 inch guns in three turrets. Built on a Brooklyn hull with more armor. The last cruiser designed to treaty requirements) commissioned in 1939. One built.

Atlanta-class (light cruiser. Armed with sixteen 5 inch guns in eight turrets. Designed as a scout cruiser/flotilla leader/destroyer leader type. Almost no armor. A later subclass removed two wing turrets for more AA guns) commissioned starting in 1941. Eight Built.

Cleveland-class (light cruiser). Armed with twelve 6 inch guns in four turrets. Designed to make a cruiser with increased range and AA protection. Several hulls were converted into light carriers) commissioned starting in 1942. Twenty-seven completed.

Baltimore-class (heavy cruiser. Armed with nine 8 inch guns in three turrets. Without treaty limits on tonnage the armor protection is increased as the ship gets heavier) commissioned starting in 1943. Fourteen built.

Alaska-class (large cruiser. Armed with nine 12 inch guns in three turrets. Not quite a battlecruiser, but more a heavy cruiser hunter by design) Commissioned starting in 1944. Two completed.

Fargo-class (light cruiser. Armed with twelve 6 inch guns in four turrets. Improvements on the Cleveland-class from wartime experience. Completed after the war ended) commissioned starting in 1945. Two completed.

Oregon City-class (heavy cruiser. Armed with nine 8 inch guns in three turrets. Improvements on the Baltimore-class from wartime experience. Complete after the war ended) commissioned starting in 1946. Four completed.

Juneau-class (light cruiser. Armed with twelve 5 inch guns in six turrets. Improvements on the Atlanta-class from wartime experience. Completed after the war ended) commissioned starting in 1946. Three built.

Worcester-class (light cruiser. Armed with twelve 6 inch guns in six turrets. Designed like an Atlanta-class but with heavier autoloading guns. Could operate like a surface cruiser or AA platform with the new gun design. Completed after the war ended) commissioned starting in 1948. Two completed.

Des Moines-class (heavy cruiser. Armed with nine 8 inch guns in three turrets. Designed with autoloading gun for a very high rate of fire for a heavy cruiser. Completed after the war ended) commissioned started in 1948. Three completed.

In about 30 years you have 102 cruisers built in 16 classes. One pre-treaty cruiser class. Six treaty classes. Three post-treaty classes. An anomaly (Alaska-class). Three late-war classes that are improvements on the post-treaty cruisers, and two post-war cruisers classes with autoloaders.

 

[Dukhat]

Regarding registry numbers for TOS: I think that anything past four numbers (especially when you add in dashes) becomes needlessly convoluted to the general tv audience. The scheme to have the first two numbers as the class type, followed by two more numbers, gives the indication that 100 ships could potentially be constructed of that class. And based on what we see on this chart for the 16th cruiser design (1631, 1664, 1672, 1685, & 1697), I think that was the idea they were going for.