The Constellation's registry number

[Robert Comsol]

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'd say the stardates were turned into nonsense when the network decided to broadcast the original episodes out of their production order (and Gene Roddenberry felt forced to play along, hence his odd stardate explanation in The Making of Star Trek).

Even in production order there are occasional glitches (it was a television show, not rocket science) but there's definitely a red thread hinting that they intended chronological stardates, IMHO.

Bob

 

[BillJ]

Some of it may have been network related but I'm sure most of it would have to do with the length of time it took to finish certain episodes. Wasn't Corbomite the first production episode (third shot) but ended up airing as the 11th episode?

 

[Garrovick]

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

I refer you to this thread: http://www.trekbbs.com/showthread.php?t=182222

The Entente (NCC-2120) is definitely mentioned in the chatter during the Epsilon Nine scene. I know there are script transcripts on the Net that omit that part of the chatter but it is definitely in the film.

While I agree that including a few registries doesn't make the entire Tech Manual canon, it does support the existence and registries of three starships with those particular NCC numbers, which ties in to the question of how NCC-1017 fits into the Saladin class numbering.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

^ Speaking of comm chatter, what I never realized until I saw the director's cut of TMP is that, in the theatrical cut, when that booming voice is mentioning the Klingon vessel's encounter with V'Ger ("INTRUDER UNIDENTIFIED, BELIEVED LUMINESCENT CLOUD TO BE..."), it's actually translating what the Klingon captain is saying in his log.

That's one of the reasons I love the DE. It cuts out that damned annoying Epsilon 9 voice!

 

[Dukhat]

I said it before and I'll say it again. I don't see why the Constellation's registry number is a problem. So it's 1017. So what? The only other canonical Connie registry we see in TOS and could compare it to is the Enterprise's. All that tells me is that the Constellation is the same class as the Enterprise, but may have been built earlier if registry numbers are supposed to be chronological.

 

[BillJ]

I said it before and I'll say it again. I don't see why the Constellation's registry number is a problem. So it's 1017. So what? The only other canonical Connie registry we see in TOS and could compare it to is the Enterprise's. All that tells me is that the Constellation is the same class as the Enterprise, but may have been built earlier if registry numbers are supposed to be chronological.

This is pretty much where I'm at as far as the Constellation registry goes. A contemporary of the Enterprise just built earlier.

 

[plynch]

Gridlines are pretty prominent on that Saladin-class!

 

[CrazyMatt]

We all sometimes lose sight of the fact that Star Trek was just a TV show, produced to (1) entertain viewers so they (2) tuned in regularly and thus (3) were more amenable to buying the sponsor's products and (4) made the sponsors, network, studio and the production team richer.

While Star Trek did do an admirable job of trying to maintain continuity by creating a "history of the future" as the series went along, it was never fully concerned with details like we're discussing here... probably because they could have never envisioned a group of passionate people such as ourselves ever caring about such minutae.

As GR himself wrote in "The Making of Star Trek," if they had taken the time to think all the small details through, Star Trek would have debued in 1980, not Sept of 1966 as they were selected by NBC to do.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

I said it before and I'll say it again. I don't see why the Constellation's registry number is a problem. So it's 1017. So what? The only other canonical Connie registry we see in TOS and could compare it to is the Enterprise's. All that tells me is that the Constellation is the same class as the Enterprise, but may have been built earlier if registry numbers are supposed to be chronological.

The Constellation may not even be the same class. It could be an earlier model that just looks the same on the outside.

 

[Dukhat]

I said it before and I'll say it again. I don't see why the Constellation's registry number is a problem. So it's 1017. So what? The only other canonical Connie registry we see in TOS and could compare it to is the Enterprise's. All that tells me is that the Constellation is the same class as the Enterprise, but may have been built earlier if registry numbers are supposed to be chronological.

The Constellation may not even be the same class. It could be an earlier model that just looks the same on the outside.

But why? I mean, what would be the point? The producers obviously meant for the ship to be the same as the Enterprise, since they used an Enterprise model kit, and used the Enterprise's sets. They also obviously gave absolutely no thought to the rearrangement of the registry number, other than perhaps to have it be very different from the Enterprise's for some reason, or to have that difference show better on the screen. But there's nothing other than the inaccuracies of the model kit vs. the filming model that gives any indication that it's not supposed to be the same class (and the producers couldn't be at fault for those inaccuracies).

 

[CorporalCaptain]

I said it before and I'll say it again. I don't see why the Constellation's registry number is a problem. So it's 1017. So what? The only other canonical Connie registry we see in TOS and could compare it to is the Enterprise's. All that tells me is that the Constellation is the same class as the Enterprise, but may have been built earlier if registry numbers are supposed to be chronological.

The Constellation may not even be the same class. It could be an earlier model that just looks the same on the outside.

But why? I mean, what would be the point? The producers obviously meant for the ship to be the same as the Enterprise, since they used an Enterprise model kit. They also obviously gave absolutely no thought to the rearrangement of the registry number, other than perhaps to have it be very different from the Enterprise's for some reason, or to have that difference show better on the screen. But there's nothing other than the inaccuracies of the model kit vs. the filming model that gives any indication that it's not supposed to be the same class (and the producers couldn't be at fault for those inaccuracies).

Also, the interior sets were the same.

I'm still hip with the refit theory, even if all that was left over from the original Constellation was her "keel".

 

[Timo]

Also, the interior sets were the same.

Their layout was not, though - not in plot terms.

That is, our heroes head for Auxiliary Control Room to read the logs of the Constellation - and they almost walk past the relevant door!

http://tos.trekcore.com/hd/albums/2x06hd/thedoomsdaymachinehd0251.jpg

Sure, we could argue that Auxiliary Control isn't in fact a Room but a maze of rooms, but even in that case our heroes seem inexplicably lost. After all, the very room they walk past, the one with Decker in there, is also the one where they finally are able to access the logs.

Either Decker's ship is of a different design internally than Kirk's to begin with, or then all starships undergo constant modifications to stay up to date, and since these are performed at different times, the results are different as well.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Also, the interior sets were the same.

Their layout was not, though - not in plot terms.

That is, our heroes head for Auxiliary Control Room to read the logs of the Constellation - and they almost walk past the relevant door!

http://tos.trekcore.com/hd/albums/2x06hd/thedoomsdaymachinehd0251.jpg

Sure, we could argue that Auxiliary Control isn't in fact a Room but a maze of rooms, but even in that case our heroes seem inexplicably lost. After all, the very room they walk past, the one with Decker in there, is also the one where they finally are able to access the logs.

Either Decker's ship is of a different design internally than Kirk's to begin with, or then all starships undergo constant modifications to stay up to date, and since these are performed at different times, the results are different as well.

Timo Saloniemi

That's not what I see. I see Kirk walking up at a brisk pace, looking through and stopping in front of an open door that he could to decide to enter, once he's stepped over the debris that has fallen in front of it, but provided it doesn't appear to be too damaged inside to get what they're after. There's probably more than one place to access the log. But he sees Matt inside and decides to step over the debris and enter.

In any case, reading something about the ship's layout into their body language like that is thin.

 

[Ssosmcin]

Also, the interior sets were the same.

Their layout was not, though - not in plot terms.

That is, our heroes head for Auxiliary Control Room to read the logs of the Constellation - and they almost walk past the relevant door!

After all, the very room they walk past, the one with Decker in there, is also the one where they finally are able to access the logs.

Either Decker's ship is of a different design internally than Kirk's to begin with, or then all starships undergo constant modifications to stay up to date, and since these are performed at different times, the results are different as well.

Timo Saloniemi

Kirk wasn't walking past Aux Control, he was heading into the next area, where Washburn did his work. He only stopped when he saw Decker hunched over at the main control station.

Could very well have been that Kirk was going in the other room and could either access the logs from there, or he and Scotty would have split up.

You're the guy who comes up with a maze of "outs" to excuse stuff, why not this time?

 

[CorporalCaptain]

^ Yep, that fits too.

 

[Timo]

You're the guy who comes up with a maze of "outs" to excuse stuff, why not this time?

'Course, my preferred explanation would be that Auxiliary Control consists of at least three rooms along a curved corridor, with subtle differences to account for the subtly different Auxiliary Control sets we see in different episodes. Perhaps just one of these would feature a "main viewer" of the sort we see, and would act as the alternate means of piloting the ship, while another would be dedicated to records safekeeping and handling and would be located to starboard of the room where Decker sulked.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[MacLeod]

I said it before and I'll say it again. I don't see why the Constellation's registry number is a problem. So it's 1017. So what? The only other canonical Connie registry we see in TOS and could compare it to is the Enterprise's. All that tells me is that the Constellation is the same class as the Enterprise, but may have been built earlier if registry numbers are supposed to be chronological.

This is pretty much where I'm at as far as the Constellation registry goes. A contemporary of the Enterprise just built earlier.

And as it was the prototype of that class, it might have taken a while following constrction to iron out any flaws which appeared during shakedown. Once those had been ironed out and the class entered full production the registry numbers could have gone from where the Consetellation was to where the Enteprise was registry wise.

 

[MarsWeeps]

And as it was the prototype of that class, it might have taken a while following constrction to iron out any flaws which appeared during shakedown. Once those had been ironed out and the class entered full production the registry numbers could have gone from where the Consetellation was to where the Enteprise was registry wise.

I think you are confusing "Constellation" with "Constitution."

You know what's cool? When they produced this episode, they never would have thought that we would be dissecting and analyzing the reasoning behind the registry number some 45+ years later.

 

[Forbin]

Two simple answers. As stated before they took a kit model of the Eterprise and simply changed the order of the numbers provided.

As to the rear of the nacelles being dark that is easily explained script-wise. They were on impulse, no power in the warp engines so naturally they are powered off and dark.

But the rear of the nacelles were never lit up. on TOS.

 

[Just a Bill]

But the rear of the nacelles were never lit up. on TOS.

Only in licensed merchandise, where some marketing nimrods thought they were rockets that needed to be belching fire. Man, I hated that crap even as a kid.

EDIT: Oh yeah, I forgot — and the hangar deck, too!