The Constellation's registry number

[MarsWeeps]

It doesn't make a lot of sense IMO to take the saucer section of a Saladin-class ship and make a new Contitution-class vessel out of it.

To convert a Saladin saucer to a Consitution-class would involve a lot more than just plopping it onto a waiting secondary hull, you would have to gut out most (if not all) of the interior of the saucer. It would make much more sense to construct a new saucer.

Well, look at TOS Enterprise vs. TMP Enterprise. As Decker put it "This is an almost entirely new Enterprise." Look at the massive upgrades it had, not just the saucer but the secondary hull and nacelles. What was original? Maybe some of the framework and a few bolts? It would have made more sense just to build a new ship.

I'm guessing that some of the other Constitution class ships also had the same massive re-fit (I doubt the Enterprise-A was a brand new ship considering its short life before being decommissioned.)

I guess different people will create their own in-universe explanation when things don't make sense and there's nothing wrong with that at all!

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Unless the Constellation's original configuration (if it had one) was very badly damaged, it does seem like overkill to go to all that trouble to rearrange the saucer and the nacelles and all that crap.

 

[MarsWeeps]

Unless the Constellation's original configuration (if it had one) was very badly damaged, it does seem like overkill to go to all that trouble to rearrange the saucer and the nacelles and all that crap.

Less overkill than TMP Enterprise had.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

^ Point taken.

Although in that case, at least they kept the same design. And who's to say they did it all at once? Think about it.

 

[MarsWeeps]

Although in that case, at least they kept the same design. And who's to say they did it all at once?

That would be Scotty: "Admiral, we have just spent eighteen months redesigning and refitting the Enterprise"

 

[Just a Bill]

It doesn't make a lot of sense IMO to take the saucer section of a Saladin-class ship and make a new Contitution-class vessel out of it. After all, despite outward similarities, the interior components and layout of a Saladin-class and a Constitution-class saucer have to be vastly different

^ This.

My "in-universe" explaination was that they had numbered it the same as an earlier Constellation. However, it was a different numbreing system back then, and instead of adding a letter (such as ncc-1701-A), they just used the same number.

^ And this. The Constellation's 1000-series number is unusual among other Constitution-class ships, but that difference is nothing compared to, say, the Enterprise-D's 1700-series number sticking out like a sore thumb among all the other Galaxy-class ships in the 70,000+ range.

Also, it seems there is already a precedent for re-using a number without an "A," and in the form of the Enterprise herself: we all dutifully refer to the TMP version as a "refit," but really it's a completely different hull. Every detail, from the top-level design lines to the room and corridor layouts down to the buttons on the consoles seems all built from scratch. After all, Ford doesn't take all of last year's Mustangs and bring them in for a "refit;" they design a brand-new car based on the previous model's ideas, with modifications. Chances are, everyone just thinks of it as "still the Enterprise" for sentimental reasons, when common sense and our own eyeballs tell us it can't possibly be the same hull.

But if that idea is unpalatable, then we can still eat our cake and have it too, by imagining that the on-screen Constellation is a "refit" from an earlier similar design that we never saw.

In any event, the Saladin idea sounds fun at first listen, but just doesn't hold water, as others have already shown.

EDIT: Ninja'd.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

But if that idea is unpalatable, then we can still eat our cake and have it too, by imagining that the on-screen Constellation is a "refit" from an earlier similar design that we never saw.

This one makes the most sense.

 

[Pavonis]

You know what makes sense? That the registries aren't sequential.

 

[BillJ]

I know that we have behind-the-scenes notes and such, but do we have anything on-screen that makes the Constellation registry seem out of whack?

 

[Timo]

Well, all the NCC numbers actually seen in TOS were within a fairly narrow range, between 1664 and 1887 at the very most (both numbers taken from the "Court Martial" chart and applying selective squinting at the ambiguous 6s and 8s). In comparison with those, NCC-1017 would really be out of whack. The implication might be that Decker's ship is a relic, launched about halfway between the founding of Starfleet (whenever that was) and the TOS era.

However, TOS-R adds a few low numbers for variants of the transport (drone) design borrowed from TAS and first seen in "Charlie X"-R. Some of these may even be discerned on screen, although again only with heavy squinting. In that context, NCC-1017 isn't quite that bad any more.

Whether the Franz Joseph scheme, with the 500-range scouts and destroyers, makes any sense in either context is debatable. It's not supported on screen much, as the FJ graphics we see in the movies don't flaunt registry numbers.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Robert Comsol]

Well, all the NCC numbers actually seen in TOS were within a fairly narrow range, between 1664 and 1887 at the very most (both numbers taken from the "Court Martial" chart and applying selective squinting at the ambiguous 6s and 8s). In comparison with those, NCC-1017 would really be out of whack. The implication might be that Decker's ship is a relic, launched about halfway between the founding of Starfleet (whenever that was) and the TOS era.

I still feel Matt Jefferies' "Federation Design Nomenclature" to provide more answers than it raises questions:

• NCC-1XX (Daedalus Class)
• NCC-5XX (Antares Class, TOS-R)
• NCC-6XX (Oberth Class)
• NCC-9XX (? - Constitution Class USS Eagle apparently named in honor of a ship of the 9th design)
• NCC-10XX (? - USS Constellation, ditto)
• NCC-13XX (Baton Rouge Class? e.g. USS Republic, possibly USS Yamato)
• NCC-16XX (Constitution Class)
• NCC-17XX (Enterprise Class)
• NCC-18XX (Miranda Class?)
• NCC-19XX (Soyuz Class?)
• NCC-20XX (Excelsior Class)

Bob

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Yeah, besides Stone's wall chart, there's also the Republic NCC-1371 mentioned in Court Martial. But we don't know its class, though FJ puts it as Constitution class. Then again, the wall chart doesn't list classes either; those are assigned by TOS-R and/or apocrypha.

 

[Ssosmcin]

I know that we have behind-the-scenes notes and such, but do we have anything on-screen that makes the Constellation registry seem out of whack?

Considering this is my favorite episode that I've seen a gazillion times without once wondering about it... I'd have to say no.

 

[Garrovick]

Whether the Franz Joseph scheme, with the 500-range scouts and destroyers, makes any sense in either context is debatable. It's not supported on screen much, as the FJ graphics we see in the movies don't flaunt registry numbers.

Timo Saloniemi

The only thing I can recall "on screen" that supports Franz Joseph's NCC numbers is some of the communications chatter from the Epsilon Nine station in the opening scene of ST:TMP - They specifically mention the "scouts" Columbia and Revere (I think it was Revere, I'm at work and can't easily check atm), plus the dreadnought Entente - all of which are referred to by NCC numbers which match the Technical Manual.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Whether the Franz Joseph scheme, with the 500-range scouts and destroyers, makes any sense in either context is debatable. It's not supported on screen much, as the FJ graphics we see in the movies don't flaunt registry numbers.

Timo Saloniemi

The only thing I can recall "on screen" that supports Franz Joseph's NCC numbers is some of the communications chatter from the Epsilon Nine station in the opening scene of ST:TMP - They specifically mention the "scouts" Columbia and Revere (I think it was Revere, I'm at work and can't easily check atm), plus the dreadnought Entente - all of which are referred to by NCC numbers which match the Technical Manual.

That's true, but even though some parts of the tech manual may be canon, that doesn't mean that all are, need be, or must be. Indeed, I can point to the misspelling Defiance (and/or the absence of the Defiant) as an error, to say that it's wrong on at least one point. If wrong on one, why not many? Additionally, the backstory of the tech manual given in the forewords creates enough room for any part of the tech manual to be fictional in-universe, in any aspect that might clash with canon.

 

[Metryq]

You know what makes sense? That the registries aren't sequential.

Like stardates?

 

[Pavonis]

You know what makes sense? That the registries aren't sequential.

Like stardates?

Yeah. Why can't 1214 follow 1517? Who said stardates are sequential?

 

[Robert Comsol]

The only thing I can recall "on screen" that supports Franz Joseph's NCC numbers is some of the communications chatter from the Epsilon Nine station in the opening scene of ST:TMP - They specifically mention the "scouts" Columbia and Revere (I think it was Revere, I'm at work and can't easily check atm), plus the dreadnought Entente - all of which are referred to by NCC numbers which match the Technical Manual.

I'm not aware of any dreadnought Entente being mentioned, here's the com chatter:

LIEUTENANT: This is comm station Epsilon Nine, calling U.S.S. Columbia. Come in Columbia. Respond!
COLUMBIA VOICE: (too faint to understand)
LIEUTENANT: This is Epsilon Nine. Am boosting output. How do you read this?
COLUMBIA VOICE: All right. (too faint to understand)
LIEUTENANT: Scout Columbia NCC six two one to rendezvous with Scout Revere NCC five nine five on stardate seven four one one point four. Further orders to be relayed at that time. Signed, Commodore Probert, Starfleet. End of transmission.
COLUMBIA VOICE: All right. (too faint to understand)

NCC-621 is a scout ship and tells me it should be an Oberth Class vessel.

Apropos stardates: By the time of TMP it always seemed to me they had somehow decided to settle with "1.000 stardate digits = 1 solar year".

Considering it's a five year mission that probably started at 1277.1 it would have ended around 6.277.1 (i.e. excluding TAS).

Bob

 

[Timo]

Yeah, besides Stone's wall chart, there's also the Republic NCC-1371 mentioned in Court Martial.

True enough. But that would again be a "bygone" ship. If the range of registries for currently operational ships is as narrow as indicated in TOS, it's tempting to deduce that lower registries eventually disappear from use, and that there has been a steady progression from NCC-1 to NCC-1887 in the century or so that Starfleet has existed, and finally that we can then reverse-calculate the lifespan of a ship class from this data...

It is only TOS-R that sort of challenges this, and even there it could be argued that the low-registry transports we see have every right to be really ancient - especially the ones that have been automated for ore hauling duties.

manual may be canon, that doesn't mean that all are, need be, or must be. Indeed, I can point to the misspelling Defiance (and/or the absence of the Defiant) as an error, to say that it's wrong on at least one point.

I think it's only beneficial to continuity that there would exist the separate starship Defiance that was in no way related to the ship that went missing in "Tholian Web". But as said, the Defiance is not among those elements of the old Tech Manual that would have gained canon status.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Ssosmcin]

You know what makes sense? That the registries aren't sequential.

Like stardates?

Yeah. Why can't 1214 follow 1517? Who said stardates are sequential?

In the original series, stardates were random nonsense that nobody was really supposed to pay much attention to. The adventures of the Enterprise were apparently presented as pages out of Kirk's log.

I ignore them and just consider the episodes follow in a near chronological order. Only the TNG and beyond series had stardates you could follow.