(PDF) Constitution Class Registries

[TFVanguard]

In a very real sense, I wrote this in a fit. I've been trying to organize a TOS fleet reference and it's been an uphill battle as Okuda seems at once to really gloss over the Original Series material while at the same time dismissing previously-official works the filled in the holes.

Ugh. Anyway, this article discusses the 'canon' problems, and then sets about rebuilding a workable ship list for the TOS run of Connies, using 'canon' as a starting point, cutting some errors, and then reworking what's left.

Enjoy!

[Renny]

Nice work

Thanks

Renny

[TFVanguard]

Nice work

Thanks! I was hoping I would generate more comments from those who read it, but if there aren't any, I guess I'll just go with it and get back to work.

[SIR SIG]

Nice work

A few points though.

There's nothing to say that all 12/13 ships are consecutive NCC numbers. Even in TOS days they must have been churning out 10-50+ ships a year. So the '1764' could simple be the last of the 12.

Constellation '1017' maybe simply a honorific for a previous named vessel and the connie version is actually an 'A'. But that would go against Enterprise being the first. Unless its simply a number reuse in honour?

Since the connies had a lot of new tech in them. They's quite likely a number of older ships that had the protypes onboard. Which in turn lends itself well to older ships 'a specific similiar hull?' that were upgraded inline with the connies.

In the end it comes down to how many and how quickly and over what time period did SF build Connies?

[SIR SIG]

This link might prove useful to

http://steve.pugh.net/fleet/constitution.html

[spshu]

There's one last 'niggling point' for a potential
connie from the TNG episode "Where Silence
Has Lease", which gives the USS Yamato a
registry of NCC 1305-E. This would make the
original a generation prior to Kirk's time, and
likely would mean that the NCC 1305-A was, in
fact, a TOS connie. There's not really a problem
with this either, it would just mean that the
'honorific' registration scheme went to a ship
before the legendary Enterprise.

In that episode, the Yamato was generated by an alien, there for is not the real Yamato. In the episode regarding the Iconic portal, the real Yamato was sporting a different NCC number similar to range to DS9's Defiant and USS Voyager with an NCC starting with a 7 and four more digits.

You seem to use the NCC 1700 as the Constitution class ship registry number with no proof. Perhaps the number was 1010, and 1700 was a replacement ship of the same name. If you want to keep the NCC 1700 for the Constitution then perhaps the Constellation's number (NCC 1017) was reassigned from a ship whose construction was abandon due to time delay in building and advent of the Constitution class.

[Capt. K. Vaughn]

Interesting read.

I'd treat the Yamato registry as the alien's error and the 1017 as a reassignment in honor of another ship recently lost. Otherwise, I've always treated the discrepancies as registries being assigned to other ships from other classes being built at the time.

Granted, it has been a long time since I've played a TOS game though I have been considering going back and running one so this list could well see some use.

Thanks for putting the time in and sharing it.

Regards,
CKV.

[Owen E Oulton]

Here's a link to Greg Jein's 1975 fanzine article The Case of Jonathan Doe Starship, which is used as the basis for the official numbers used the the Okudapedia: http://trekplace.com/article10.html

[Capt. K. Vaughn]

Here's a link to Gerg Jein's 1975 fanzine article The Case of Jonathan Doe Starship, which is used as the basis for the official numbers used the the Okudapedia: http://trekplace.com/article10.html

Very interesting read Owen. Thanks for the link.

Regards,
CKV.

[TFVanguard]

There's nothing to say that all 12/13 ships are consecutive NCC numbers. Even in TOS days they must have been churning out 10-50+ ships a year. So the '1764' could simple be the last of the 12.

I considered that, and nearly went with it since the Defiant is a season-three ship (and therefore after the Tech Manual), but I also wanted to reflect what the TOS feel was - namely the US Navy of the 1950's through 1960's. Since the Navy orders ships in 'batches' upon appropration, I figured that the same would hold true for the Defiant and its actual number be reflected in the run.

Besides, I couldn't find a reference to the 1764 number, and I seriously looked for it. Only thing I got was the Encylopedia, which has other problems dealing with the TOS era. Other sources, of course, gave her different numbers.

As for building 10 to 50 ships a year, I don't have a problem with that, except that you would assume that very, very few of them would be Connies. If Kirk mentions 'there are only twelve like her' and the class has been around for 20 years, well... hard to imagine that in the next 20 there would be nearly 100 more, nae?

Constellation '1017' maybe simply a honorific for a previous named vessel and the connie version is actually an 'A'. But that would go against Enterprise being the first. Unless its simply a number reuse in honour?

Well, the Constellation herself didn't have either the 'A' or a 'II' anywhere on it, which was established by most sources for honorifics. Also, the NCC 1017 number fit nicely in the Ranger class, and I could easily see an attempt to 'upgrade' an older, successful class of ship to Connie specifics. (It would also explain why the Constellation looks so off compared to the Big-E).

In other words, "Admiral, this is a completely new Enterprise."

In that episode, the Yamato was generated by an alien, there for is not the real Yamato. In the episode regarding the Iconic portal, the real Yamato was sporting a different NCC number similar to range to DS9's Defiant and USS Voyager with an NCC starting with a 7 and four more digits.

I'm aware of the two registrations of the Yamato, but this was just a matter of preference on my part. It also gave another Connie that would make sense in the original series and still not conflict with anything already established. There's also, of course, no evidence that a NCC 1305-A would be a Connie, either, it could have been named from the NX period for all we know of it.

You seem to use the NCC 1700 as the Constitution class ship registry number with no proof. Perhaps the number was 1010, and 1700 was a replacement ship of the same name.

Here I'm just going to take what's accepted, as well as Gene and Franz's word at the intention of the designation. It's still supposition, true, but I don't really see why the Constitution's accept number really needs to be ditched.

[SIR SIG]

I considered that, and nearly went with it since the Defiant is a season-three ship (and therefore after the Tech Manual), but I also wanted to reflect what the TOS feel was - namely the US Navy of the 1950's through 1960's. Since the Navy orders ships in 'batches' upon appropration, I figured that the same would hold true for the Defiant and its actual number be reflected in the run.

Besides, I couldn't find a reference to the 1764 number, and I seriously looked for it. Only thing I got was the Encylopedia, which has other problems dealing with the TOS era. Other sources, of course, gave her different numbers.

As for building 10 to 50 ships a year, I don't have a problem with that, except that you would assume that very, very few of them would be Connies. If Kirk mentions 'there are only twelve like her' and the class has been around for 20 years, well... hard to imagine that in the next 20 there would be nearly 100 more, nae?

Well, the Constellation herself didn't have either the 'A' or a 'II' anywhere on it, which was established by most sources for honorifics. Also, the NCC 1017 number fit nicely in the Ranger class, and I could easily see an attempt to 'upgrade' an older, successful class of ship to Connie specifics. (It would also explain why the Constellation looks so off compared to the Big-E).

In other words, "Admiral, this is a completely new Enterprise."

Good point on the batch numbers. But is the Defiant part of the 12? She could be a replacement so they always had 12? But i guess we'll never know for sure.

10-50 ships a year was simply a educated guess number i pulled out of my head. But yes that was for all of StarFleet. Not just connies

I was always fond of them upgrading a old class to connie standard. But realistically for them to even think about such a engineering nightmare of a upgrade. The classes would have to be very 'genetically' compatible. Unless they are outright replacing most of the ship.

But definately food for thought

[TFVanguard]

Good point on the batch numbers. But is the Defiant part of the 12? She could be a replacement so they always had 12? But i guess we'll never know for sure.

Actually, if you assume that, that the Defiant was built as a later replacement for an earlier ship (very possible), then it would be the Defiant II. (going by old official sources, which are out of date), or have an 'A' suffix , if the ship's from the old class.

The only implication really is that the Defiant isn't part of the original build, and there was at least one later supplementary build somewhere down the pipe. That's fine too, but you have to wonder how many other ships were getting knocked out of commision during the early part of the Connie run.

NCC-1764 would assume either a replacement for an earlier Defiant (non-connie), or a new batch build of replacements... either way, you still have 64 Connie designations in that area, going from the old rules.

I was always fond of them upgrading a old class to connie standard. But realistically for them to even think about such a engineering nightmare of a upgrade. The classes would have to be very 'genetically' compatible. Unless they are outright replacing most of the ship.

I pictured them as trying it, using the Constellation as a 'test-bed' for such an upgrade. I listed it as an 'unfeasable' move to refit the older fleet (based on the Constellation) rather than simply build new ones.