The TMP Refit....questions/discussion.

[Shark]

TMP seems to suggest that the Enterprise in that film is brand new in terms of the tech it employs, so I would say it was a prototype that led to ships like the Reliant. Also keep in mind that TWOK was supposed to take place 15 or so years after TMP, plenty of time to build ships like the Reliant.

 

[Timo]

TWoK takes pace fifteen years or so after TOS, not TMP. It doesn't acknowledge the preceding movie in any way; TMP is left floating somewhere along the timeline between TWoK and the one tidbit the movie itself provides, "no sooner than 2.5 years after TOS ends because Kirk hasn't been logging his star hours for that long". Could be at the beginning of that timeline, exactly 2.5 years after TOS. Could be two weeks before TWoK, with the crews just hurriedly changing clothes between movies.

I'm not sure I can see the "brand new" thing all that clearly in TMP. Sure, the new engines of NCC-1701 are untested, and endanger the whole mission. But the engines on NCC-1864 might have looked like that back in 2259 already for all we know, and had their own test period before they were declared properly balanced and operational. The one thing that is new to everybody, and not just Kirk, is the shields, and whether they'd hold against V'Ger's bolts of destruction - but it's invisible tech, and tells us pretty much nothing about starship design eras or trends or timelines.

TMP takes the TOS lead in never having the heroes claim that something would be a gosh-and-wow novelty for them unless it's a story point. For Kirk, it's a massive story point that he is out of touch, and pretty much everything aboard "his" ship is new to him. For McCoy, his similar bout of out-of-touchedness is played to humorous effect, and probably an exaggerated one, too, as there's no indication he wouldn't be familiar with his "new" gadgets when actually required to use them. The rest just operate the gear as in TOS, being familiar and competent with it.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[BK613]

Looks like 1664 to me, at least when referencing this image:
http://tos.trekcore.com/hd/albums/1x20hd/courtmartialhd025.jpg
In fact, based on the difference in width between the '6' and '8' in 1685, and backed up by the '8' in 1718, I would argue that all the second digits that are not '7' are in fact '6'. Gives a nice range of values without large gaps too: 1631-1718

 

[Timo]

In reality, there's no telling from this level of resolution. Might go either way. Although I see a very distinct "overhang" (no doubt a mere optical illusion from the lack of ink just below the overhang, but still) of every upper limb in an "obvious" 6, and no such overhang in that second digit of 1?64. Compare to the reverse case a few lines down, an apparent 1685: the widths of the numbers are all over the place, as if this were all hand-written or stenciled in rather than printed. Which probably is indeed the case.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Ar-Pharazon]

Looks like 1664 to me, at least when referencing this image:
http://tos.trekcore.com/hd/albums/1x20hd/courtmartialhd025.jpg
In fact, based on the difference in width between the '6' and '8' in 1685, and backed up by the '8' in 1718, I would argue that all the second digits that are not '7' are in fact '6'. Gives a nice range of values without large gaps too: 1631-1718

Now in that image, I can almost see 1864, but this 6 isn't as open at the top as the 6 in the 1685.

 

[publiusr]

We also don't know if that Connie wreckage was a ship that was actually in service or something they pulled out of mothballs at the last minute.

I think somebody said here it was a modified Ambassador secondary hull--but it didn't look like that.

I also seem to remember Excelsior given a 17XX registry perhaps from FJ. There was this ERTL metal die-cast toy of Excelsior that had a number in the 1700s No luck here http://memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/Talk:USS_Excelsior

 

[Albertese]

I...
I also seem to remember Excelsior given a 17XX registry perhaps from FJ. There was this ERTL metal die-cast toy of Excelsior that had a number in the 1700s ...

I can't speak to the die-cast toy (though it does kinda ring a bell), but you are right about the FJ reference. NCC-1718 EXCELSIOR was in the second batch of Heavy Cruisers, the MK-IXA Bonhomme Richard-class cruisers. And I like to think this ship was circuitously referenced in ST3. I know it really wasn't, but when Admiral Morrow tells Scotty that he's been assigned to "the new Excelsior" I like to think it's a reference to there having been an older, now decommissioned or lost ship of the same name. I FULLY REALIZE THAT THE LINE IS ONLY TO UNDERSCORE THAT THE NEW SHIP IS REALLY NEW AND NOT A REPLACEMENT. I just enjoy the fact that it can be read both ways.

--Alex

 

[Avro Arrow]

There was this ERTL metal die-cast toy of Excelsior that had a number in the 1700s

Yep.

 

[ian128K]

The Reliant's registry number, NCC 1864, is believed to appear on the repair chart in Commodore Stone's office in Court Martial. http://tos.trekcore.com/hd/albums/1x20hd/courtmartialhd011.jpg

If this is the case, then either the Reliant originally looked like the Enterprise and was likewise refit, or the Reliant looked like it did in TWOK back in the TOS era.

At this point it seems pretty sure that was NCC-1664:
http://memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/The_Case_of_Jonathan_Doe_Starship

 

[Timo]

Well, Jein's eyes weren't better than ours - it's still anybody's guess whether the number in TOS was 1864 or 1664.

OTOH, the use of 1664 in TOS-R "The Ultimate Computer" isn't actually visible to the audience, just like the registry or name of the Intrepid cannot be read in "Court Martial", due to distance and angle. That is, we can read just about any number there that we are inclined to read, including the Jein ones if that's to our liking.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[B.J.]

I keep seeing grainy still pictures of that wall chart. Anyone have a video clip or animated gif? A moving image might be easier to make out.

 

[Kor]

Yep.

With that colouring, I could see this fitting into the TOS timeframe.

Kor

 

[Ar-Pharazon]

^ Not to mention the smoothness (no grid lines). Maybe get some TOS style nacelles on there.

 

[Longinus]

At this point it seems pretty sure that was NCC-1664:

I'm like 90% sure it is not. The third number is harder to see, but the second looks to be eight, especially if you compare it to the clear six above it. The third number is probably eight too. So, NCC-1884.

 

[ian128K]

I'm like 90% sure it is not. The third number is harder to see, but the second looks to be eight, especially if you compare it to the clear six above it. The third number is probably eight too. So, NCC-1884.

So we can at least agree, then, that it wasn't NCC-1864?

 

[Avro Arrow]

With that colouring, I could see this fitting into the TOS timeframe.

Their Klingon bird-of-prey from the same timeframe is coloured an eggshell blue. Faithful reproductions, they are not! The BOP actually has the words "Star Trek" written on the wings, so it doesn't appear they were even *trying* for authenticity!

So we can at least agree, then, that it wasn't NCC-1864?

I still see 1864! I swear that I see a small gap in the third digit that isn't there in the second...

(But it's great that we can all look at the same image and see pretty much every possible combination. Now we just need someone to claim that it's actually 1684! )

 

[trynda1701]

it's actually 1684!

There you go!

I never thought originally watching the episode that the numbers, whatever they were(!) represented the 12/13 Constitution class vessels. Why would all 12/13 be at Starbase 11 at the same time?

 

[Avro Arrow]

There you go!

I never thought originally watching the episode that the numbers, whatever they were(!) represented the 12/13 Constitution class vessels. Why would all 12/13 be at Starbase 11 at the same time?

Oh, agreed. I've read a lot of posts from others agreeing with that as well. I think Greg Jein must have been the only person ever to make that particular assumption!

 

[Timo]

Of course, we don't really know what that chart is supposed to describe. There's this "Star Ship Status", indicated in percentages of "completeness" that can apparently go past 100%, or have some sort of an appendix at least. There's the fact that NCC-1701 is at 85% or so. And then there's some poor NCC-1700 hovering around 11%...

It doesn't make much sense as an indicator of how complete a ship's repairs would be, as work on the NCC-1701 has not even started yet. If it indicates the condition of a ship, with 100% meaning functional, then why is NCC-1701 getting priority when there are others in much poorer condition? OTOH, why is a ship at 100% still listed at all?

This chart is the first time Star Trek makes the grievous error of assigning a NCC pennant prefix to all the ships presented, when real navies have the pennant letters provide information, with different letters denoting different kinds of ship. Of course, we later learn that Starfleet doesn't believe in providing such information; otherwise, we could use this chart as proof that all the ships listed there were at least of the same "mission class" (heavy cruisers or whatnot), and therefore perhaps indeed related to that "only twelve like her" thing somehow.

Apart from that, it might well be the starbase is processing a dozen ships (not necessarily repairing, but perhaps restocking or whatnot), and that their registries range from low 1600s to high 1800s in a "chronological" system, there not having been any bout of block obsolescence in Starfleet lately, but rather a steady evolution so that there are older and newer ships in service simultaneously.

It might also be that there are far more than a dozen ships there on that list, perhaps on other pages we are not seeing, and that not all of those have NCC prefixes, either. Depending on what sort of a filter Stone is applying, "all Constitutions" might be possible as well - but only if the list includes ships not physically present at SB11 at the time.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[ian128K]

If it were a 3rd season episode, I'd be tempted to say it was showing some kind of mission progress bars for ships operating out of SB11.