That Starbase 11 wall chart - noe in slide form

[DSG2k]

But doesn't it follow that if you think Jefferies may have had an active role in picking NCC-1017, then he decided that his own theorised registry scheme was not that important, and he was happy to be flexible?

In which case there's no reason to think he didn't take a similar approach with the Court Martial graphic, and that it shows, as Jein concluded, a list of Enterprise-type, 'Starship Class' vessels.

I find these two paragraphs confusing.

if 1017 was okay for a 1701 sister ship due to numeric flexibility, why would one conclude that the chart -- which only shows 1631-1718 -- must also be composed of sister ships?

(To be sure, I agree that the reality was flexibility . . . as Jefferies noted in the video interview I posted earlier, he didn't really share or insist on the 17th design idea, though it is a playground I've been rolling around in for the last few posts.)

 

[Boo-khat!]

I never said I assumed such a thing. I said it would have made sense for him to want such a thing. There is a difference.



I would advise against attempting to ascertain what I am assuming. I said I thought I recalled an earlier version of the script or something about its development that said the idea was it was a different type of ship. Which, if you think of it, would make sense given the apparent desire to differentiate it from Enterprise.



No, we have a sketch of another Starfleet ship that could clearly be made out of those same AMT kit parts. I would say that ship might have been intended as the “stolen plans” ship in the scenes cut from Balance of Terror but a) the AMT model had not yet been made, and b) there was never any need to actually show that ship - unless it was intended to be the Romulan ship built from the stolen plans.



Of course 1017 wasn’t intended to show how old the ship was. It was intended to differentiate it from 1701. But do you think a person is incapable of holding two complementary ideas in their mind at the same time? Do you actually think it impossible that, given the eight other numbers that can be made from “1701” - 1017, 1071, 1107, 1170, 1710, 7011, 7110, and 7101 - that some other consideration entered the person’s mind who decided what number it should be?

Let’s assume 7011, 7110, and 7101 got thrown out because they inferred something too far ahead of Enterprise. 1710 got thrown out because it was too visually similar to 1701. That leaves 1017, 1071, 1107, and 1170, and by chance or some other consideration, 1017 just so happens to be the earliest in that series.

Take that to mean whatever the hell you want it to mean. But if 7101, 7110, and 7011 get thrown out because they look too advanced, then is it logical that the earliest number was chosen without some thought to it inferring much older?

First of all, chill out. I’m not trying to get into a huge argument over a bunch of numbers.

But…

I keep hearing how ‘Jefferies would have done such-and-such this way,’ etc. etc. Yet when the opportunity arose where a new filming model of a ship like the Enterprise is built, with a new name and registry (something that happened exactly once in all of TOS)…his registry scheme is not followed, despite the idea that he would have had complete control over the build of that model kit AND needed to make a custom name for it, so logically he could have had a custom registry too. So the only conclusions I can draw is that either Jefferies himself wasn’t as gung-ho about this scheme as is being implied, or someone else was given the job of building that model and either didn’t know or care about Jefferies’ scheme. Or some higher-up asked for the 1017 number to differentiate it from the Enterprise, which could possibly be the case but I’m not sure why anyone other than Jefferies would have cared so much about the decal placement.

And if there was any indication that Jefferies wanted the Constellation’s registry to jibe with a chart made for a completely different episode, I think that would have been clear if he was that serious about it. But to me, it simply looks like they just used the decals they had and didn’t give it much thought past rearranging the numbers to not be 1701.

 

[Tomalak]

if 1017 was okay for a 1701 sister ship due to numeric flexibility, why would one conclude that the chart -- which only shows 1631-1718 -- must also be composed of sister ships?

I'm saying they're all ok. There's certainly nothing contradictory about them.

My basic point throughout has been that in TOS, a "Starship" was a space vehicle that looked like the Enterprise. The Constellation was one, the Lexington was another, etc etc.

The range of numbers for such ships went from at least 1017 - 1701 per visual evidence.

Therefore, a chart showing a range of numbers from 1631-1718, entitled "Star Ship Status", could reasonably be interpreted as a list of ships just like the Enterprise.

Certainly I would argue that was the intent of the designers at the time, and Jefferies would have been part of that. Therefore, it seems quite clear to me that his posited rationale for Starship registry numbers was discarded in the show itself.

Obviously Court Martial precedes Doomsday Machine, so perhaps the chart was intended to depict older Starship types. But it seems to me that argument is much less persuasive given the weight of evidence in the show that Starship = Enterprise.

But I'm not going to lose any sleep over it! I'm equally comfortable with the refit idea. The thing that causes the most trouble is USS Constitution being NCC-1700, which implies that no other Enterprise-type ship could have a lower number despite visual evidence.

Perhaps the solution is that 1700 is actually the 'Constitution II', and the original class prototype was in fact USS Constitution, NX-1000!

 

[Tomalak]

Your argument would be compelling but for the fact the Stone chart also has numbers 1703, 1709, and 1718. They may be 17th generation ships but they were built later if one takes the face value meaning of numbers coming after 1701. USS Carl Vinson CVN-70 and USS George HW Bush CVN-77 are sister ships but very, very different ships, having been built 27 years apart.

Also, and once again, read what I wrote about Constellation’s number above- picking 1017 among the eight other possible numbers still leaves you with why 1017? Even when you throw out 7101, 7110, and 7011and 1710, why 1017 and not 1071, 1107, or 1170? IN THE SAME EPISODE an old ship that is stated as being from Kirk’s early days in Starfleet is given the number 1371. And yet, this ship Constellation - THE ONLY SHIP IN THE ENTIRE SERIES TO BE SHOWN WITH ITS NUMBER - this ship that is supposedly the same as Enterprise - is not given a bigass number that is at least as close as it can be to Enterprise within the feasible numbers - 1170. It is made the furthest away - 1017. You can want to make the number visually distinct but are still left with choosing among the visually distinct combinations available from recombining 1, 7, 0, and 1. And Jefferies (or somebody) chose the lowest number.

If Constellation has any meaning in interpreting Stone’s chart, then that choice has to be taken into account.

That's why I'm fairly convinced that Occam's Razor was used to simply slice the decal in half, and little more thought was put into it than that.

"We need a number that looks different to 1701 on a low-res television screen!"

"How about 1017?"

"That'll do!"

*Snip*

 

[Boo-khat!]

Perhaps the solution is that 1700 is actually the 'Constitution II', and the original class prototype was in fact USS Constitution, NX-1000!

I will also point out that canonically, it has never been stated that the USS Constitution's registry number is NCC-1700, or that there is even a USS Constitution at all.

 

[Tomalak]

I will also point out that canonically, it has never been stated that the USS Constitution's registry number is NCC-1700, or that there is even a USS Constitution at all.

That's right! All we know of is the existence of NCC-1700.

 

[Boo-khat!]

That's right! All we know of is the existence of NCC-1700.

And it was a refit Connie no less.

 

[DSG2k]

I'm saying they're all ok. There's certainly nothing contradictory about them.

{...}

The range of numbers for such ships went from at least 1017 - 1701 per visual evidence.

Therefore, a chart showing a range of numbers from 1631-1718, entitled "Star Ship Status", could reasonably be interpreted as a list of ships just like the Enterprise.

Ah, okay. I was coming from taking the unusually-constrained list size from the chart (i.e. compared to Republic 1371 from the same episode) as a  dissimilar approach to 1017, so the "similar approach" part threw me.

My basic point throughout has been that in TOS, a "Starship" was a space vehicle that looked like the Enterprise. The Constellation was one, the Lexington was another, etc etc.

Certainly an argument to be made there. At minimum, the term suggested something better than a mere cruiser or random spacecraft, and I still lament the generic use of the term in later Trek (e.g. my "runabouts as starships, AYFKM?" stump speech).

Perhaps the solution is that 1700 is actually the 'Constitution II', and the original class prototype was in fact USS Constitution, NX-1000!

If Constitution 1700 is a thing (which isn't canonically supported, as others also note), then yes, absolutely.

As for the NX Constitution, she could even be lower and older, depending on Eagle 956 and chronological registries. I am open to Constitutions being quite the old design, with the Enterprise and her sisters seen in TOS being of a 2240s-vintage flight/block. I typically land around 2210 or 2220, but could dip into the late, late 22nd Century ... a Daedalus flying escort at launch ... without panicking too much.

And it was a refit Connie no less.

When? The TNG screen showing her was TOS style.

 

[Boo-khat!]

When? The TNG screen showing her was TOS style.

Huh, you're right. I could have sworn it was a refit display.

 

[BK613]

Huh, you're right. I could have sworn it was a refit display.

Originally, it was. They corrected it for the Blu-Ray release.

 

[Boo-khat!]

Originally, it was. They corrected it for the Blu-Ray release.

Thanks. I figured it might have been something like that. Didn't think I was crazy, lol.

 

[Tomalak]

As for the NX Constitution, she could even be lower and older, depending on Eagle 956 and chronological registries. I am open to Constitutions being quite the old design, with the Enterprise and her sisters seen in TOS being of a 2240s-vintage flight/block. I typically land around 2210 or 2220, but could dip into the late, late 22nd Century ... a Daedalus flying escort at launch ... without panicking too much.

Ideally I'd have USS Starship NX-1000! But am content that the Enterprise is indeed Constitution-class, as later established. I quite enjoy the idea that there's a lineage from NX-01 to NX-2000*, with those millennial numbers reserved for breakthrough explorer ships. But that's entirely my head canon.

* Incidentally why I have no issue with Entente 2120 being an 'older' ship than the Excelsior.

 

[UssGlenn]

Ideally I'd have USS Starship NX-1000!

My "class is named for famous older starships" idea allows us to avoid the USS Starship issue.

 

[BK613]

Thanks. I figured it might have been something like that. Didn't think I was crazy, lol.

Yeah, not your memory...this time.

Ex Astris Scientia page below has side-by-sides of that Naked Now display, among others:

Ex Astris Scientia - Re-Used Graphics

Graphics that serve more than one purpose in Star Trek

www.ex-astris-scientia.org

 

[Crewman Commander]

Ideally I'd have USS Starship NX-1000!

So, the United Star Ship Starship?!

 

[Tomalak]

So, the United Star Ship Starship?!

Yup, sister ship of the USS Eueses.

 

[aridas sofia]

First of all, chill out. I’m not trying to get into a huge argument over a bunch of numbers.

But…

I keep hearing how ‘Jefferies would have done such-and-such this way,’ etc. etc.

Good enough. I am not hot and thus not in need of an admonition to “chill out”. However, I will say once again- don’t say I said something I never said. I never said anything like ‘Jefferies would have done such-and-such this way’ etc. etc. I am not so arrogant as to presume I could interpret his thinking to that extent. I have tried to figure him out, but whatever I have come up with is my idea of his thinking. Nothing more. As a trained academic historian I know the limits of such interpretation.

Yet when the opportunity arose where a new filming model of a ship like the Enterprise is built, with a new name and registry (something that happened exactly once in all of TOS)…his registry scheme is not followed, despite the idea that he would have had complete control over the build of that model kit AND needed to make a custom name for it, so logically he could have had a custom registry too.

Er… what I DID say is we have no idea whether his system was followed. We have no idea whether “star ships” were all intended to look like Enterprise, or whether Constitutions were star ships, and Constellations were star ships, and Republics were star ships, and Intrepids were star ships, etc. And, whether, despite all the ships we saw looking like Enterprise, all star ships looked like Enterprise.

What I DID say is a lot of numbers could have been made with that decal sheet, and yet 1017 - the lowest number - was chosen. Maybe as was said, the decal was just cut in half… wait no, that’s not right. If you just cut it in half, you get “0117”. It would have had to been cut in half, then cut in half again, then reversed, and reversed again.

So, a little more trouble than that wry comment implies. But why? What I DID say was it might have been precisely because it DID fit into his system.

So the only conclusions I can draw is that either Jefferies himself wasn’t as gung-ho about this scheme as is being implied,

This is entirely plausible but not the working assumption based on what I DID say, which was I was trying to use the Constellation’s number to better understand the Commodore Stone chart.

or someone else was given the job of building that model and either didn’t know or care about Jefferies’ scheme.

Of course, this also might be true. But again, based on what I DID say, it isn’t my working hypothesis.

Or some higher-up asked for the 1017 number to differentiate it from the Enterprise, which could possibly be the case but I’m not sure why anyone other than Jefferies would have cared so much about the decal placement.

Bingo. That is the basis for the hypothesis.

And if there was any indication that Jefferies wanted the Constellation’s registry to jibe with a chart made for a completely different episode, I think that would have been clear if he was that serious about it.

If he was saying Constellation was an older ship, he was being perfectly clear.

But to me, it simply looks like they just used the decals they had and didn’t give it much thought past rearranging the numbers to not be 1701.

Again, maybe so. But not my working hypothesis.

 

[aridas sofia]

If Constitution 1700 is a thing (which isn't canonically supported, as others also note), then yes, absolutely.

Well, there was that graphic from Tribbles-

https://imgur.com/CWbutON

So there WAS a Constitution class. It just might not be related to 1700, despite the phaser being studied by the chief engineer of 1701.

 

[Boo-khat!]

Good enough. I am not hot and thus not in need of an admonition to “chill out”. However, I will say once again- don’t say I said something I never said. I never said anything like ‘Jefferies would have done such-and-such this way’ etc. etc. I am not so arrogant as to presume I could interpret his thinking to that extent. I have tried to figure him out, but whatever I have come up with is my idea of his thinking. Nothing more. As a trained academic historian I know the limits of such interpretation.

Er… what I DID say is we have no idea whether his system was followed. We have no idea whether “star ships” were all intended to look like Enterprise, or whether Constitutions were star ships, and Constellations were star ships, and Republics were star ships, and Intrepids were star ships, etc. And, whether, despite all the ships we saw looking like Enterprise, all star ships looked like Enterprise.

You've been trying to make a connection with the chart in Court Martial and the Constellation's registry, implying that Jefferies would have used the 1697 number for the ship if he had the opportunity. I see zero evidence that this is the case, nor do I see any correlation between the chart and the model. But you are welcome to voice your theory.

What I DID say is a lot of numbers could have been made with that decal sheet, and yet 1017 - the lowest number - was chosen. Maybe as was said, the decal was just cut in half… wait no, that’s not right. If you just cut it in half, you get “0117”. It would have had to been cut in half, then cut in half again, then reversed, and reversed again.


So, a little more trouble than that wry comment implies.

You can cut the decal in half. You turn the '01' around to make it '10' because the 1 was just a straight line. So now you have 1017 with minimal fuss.

But that's beside the point. If they had to make a custom name for the ship, why didn't they also make a custom registry if they cared that much about maintaining Jefferies' scheme?

But why? What I DID say was it might have been precisely because it DID fit into his system.

So why didn't he make the registry 1710?

If he was saying Constellation was an older ship, he was being perfectly clear.

We don't know if he was saying that. The ship was supposed to be identical to the Enterprise. Only the registry implies it might have been an older Constitution class, and even then that's iffy evidence, because we don't know the logic (if any) behind the 1017 registry and are just assuming they meant it to be chronological.

 

[DSG2k]

Originally, it was. They corrected it for the Blu-Ray release.

You're thinking of the side view from "The Naked Now" that went from ST4 warp display graphic to a new TOS ship diagram.

I refer to the top view from "Datalore". I am not aware of that being changed.

Thanks. I figured it might have been something like that. Didn't think I was crazy, lol.

Sorry, still bonkers. ;-)