test content
Logo
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc
The USS Constitution
flash525
Member Posts: 5,441 Arc User
I might not have all the facts here, but I'm going to throw the question out there and see what answers I get back. It was / is my understanding (perhaps incorrectly) that the USS Constitution was the first of the Constitution Class (registry 1700).
That being the case, I'd like someone to explain to me how the USS Excalibur (NCC 1664), USS Exeter (NCC 1672), USS Intrepid (NCC 1631), and the USS Potemkin (NCC 1657) all have lower registry numbers that the Constitution herself.
All other main ships (with the exception of the Enterprise as she carries her registry) shows that the title class of ship precedes any other. The USS Galaxy has a lower registry than any other Galaxy Class, the USS Defiant has a lower registry than the Valiant, yet the Constitution breaks this rule?
I'm curious if there are answers to this.
That being the case, I'd like someone to explain to me how the USS Excalibur (NCC 1664), USS Exeter (NCC 1672), USS Intrepid (NCC 1631), and the USS Potemkin (NCC 1657) all have lower registry numbers that the Constitution herself.
All other main ships (with the exception of the Enterprise as she carries her registry) shows that the title class of ship precedes any other. The USS Galaxy has a lower registry than any other Galaxy Class, the USS Defiant has a lower registry than the Valiant, yet the Constitution breaks this rule?
I'm curious if there are answers to this.
Post edited by flash525 on
0
Comments
That's a common point of confusion.
In actual fact, NCC-1700 was unnamed onscreen, and the Constitution herself was never shown amongst her sisters and so her actual registry number is unknown.
...Oh, baby, you know, I've really got to leave you / Oh, I can hear it callin 'me / I said don't you hear it callin' me the way it used to do?...
- Anne Bredon
USS Constellation (NCC-1017)
USS Defiant (NCC-1764)
USS Enterprise (NCC-1701)
USS Excalibur (NCC-1664)
USS Exeter (NCC-1672)
USS Hood (NCC-1703)
USS Intrepid (NCC-1631)
USS Lexington (NCC-1709)
USS Potemkin (NCC-1657)
Then we get the Encyclopedia and then we get the messed up registries in 92. Then go 20yrs later of keeping the registries as such, we get to see the Intrepid, Excalibur, Exeter, and the Potemkin with those 1600s registries.
Edit: Didn't answer the question, heres my take on it
The USS Constellation was what we would call a technology insertion ship, an older class ship used to test new technology, that's why it various Constitution parts pieced together and eventually the vessel was commissioned into regular service to help bolster the number of heavy cruisers. In Trek lore, the USS Ambassador was such a ship, according to the Encyclopedia.
The 1600s were just older heavy cruisers that were upgraded with the newest technology. In the 50s and 60s, a number of navies did the same to WWII era destroyers and aircraft carriers. The best example would be the Midway-class aircraft carrier and the RN's Centaur-class aircraft carrier, both were built in the late 1940s, but they were so heavily modified that to a non-naval observer, they looked very modern in the 70s and early 80s.
as example, the US Navy cruisers before and through the end of WW2 all shared the same numbering scheme, but not the same designations...basically light cruisers (CL) and heavy cruisers (CA) were numbered sequentially together.
also numbering and naming is usually done well before pre-com or laying down, sometimes even hulls that were started before another hull are finished first, so a "higher" numbered hull could be in service before a "lower" numbered hull if there are construction delays, accidents, inefficiencies, etc.
sometimes construction contracts are canceled, even if a hull has been begun! so NCC-1700 could have been an unnamed construction order that was cancelled.
trek also gives us their own craziness with the continued hull numbering with letter suffixes
my suggestion would be this:
Star Fleet at first numbered all ships sequentially (NX-01,02,03,etc.) until some point after they had made a couple hundred but less than 1000 ships...likely just before the Constitution class was drawn up.
At that point Star Fleet decided they needed to easily classify their ships without causing a big mess (but instead of further confusing things by adding in more letter codes -- i.e. USS Enterprise HXC-01, or some such) they have the contract indicate what is being built and it's sequence (example: the first contract for a class 10 ship = 1001, etc.)
so in the TOS and TOS Movie Era you end up with:
destroyer class 6: (Hermes)
USS Columbia NCC-621 (NX-02 name, rebuilt before number change and in different class...so NX-02 was likely destroyed and rebuilt as NX-21, etc.)
cruiser class 10 (heavy exploration cruiser testbed):
USS Constellation (NCC-1017)
cruiser class 16 (:
USS Intrepid (NCC-1631)
USS Potemkin (NCC-1657)
USS Excalibur (NCC-1664)
USS Exeter (NCC-1672)
cruiser class 17 (heavy exploration cruiser):
USS Enterprise (NCC-1701) (NX-01 -> NCC-1701)
USS Hood (NCC-1703)
USS Lexington (NCC-1709)
USS Defiant (NCC-1764)
cruiser class 18 (light exploration cruiser): Miranda
cruiser class 19 (light survery cruiser): Soyuz
etc.
another possible reason at the TNG point in time for the bewilderingly large number of variant numbers would be at that point different shipyards would get their own block of numbers (i.e., Utopia Planitia got block I of Galaxy builds as class 706, Yoyodyne at 40 Eridani got Block III with class 718, etc.)
cruiser class 706 (technology prototype - heavy exploration cruiser block I): Galaxy built at Utopia Planitia
USS Galaxy (NCC-70637)
USS Enterprise (NCC-1701-D) (tradition!)
cruiser class 709 (etc.): Nebula mod
USS Bonchune (NCC-70915)
cruiser class 710 (heavy exploration cruiser - block II): Galaxy
USS Challenger (NCC-71099)
cruiser class 718 (heavy exploration cruiser - block III): Galaxy built at Yoyodyne
USS Yamato (NCC-71801)
USS Odyssey (NCC-71832)
USS Venture (NCC-71854)
using this line of reasoning, the USS Constitution of TOS would likely be a "class 10" ship with a hull number below 17...it's also very likely that only the Enterprise is allowed to retain the lower null number in TNG and beyond due to Kirk, et al.
Unfortunately, the Jefferies' explanation can only explain classes in the TOS, it falls apart once other classes were introduced. Also, it can mean that there can be more than one NCC-1701, cruiser, destroyer, and so on.
It doesn't answer anything. I have one too. It just gives out lists and the Jefferies plan fails beyond TOS.
I'm sorry, did you even read anything I typed?
Read it all. Again.
I'm sorry, your post ignores how registry numbers worked post-TOS. Your two explanations doesn't explain on how ships with nearly sequential registries can be of different classes. Such as the Endeavour NCC-71805, Nebula and the Yamato NCC-71807, Galaxy.
So, again, the Jefferies system fails beyond TOS and it fails beyond having another type of starship, such as a destroyer or a frigate or a supply ship, since the NCC is all the same, even during TOS. The Antares, a science ship with the registry of NCC-501, is the prime example.
I'm sorry, the Endeavour was never *SEEN* on screen, only a notation in a book said it was a Nebula...and according to Memory Alpha, the one time it *would have been seen* it wouldn't have been a Nebula-class.
So you choose to follow the book, fine. But in reality, for all we know, it was a Galaxy.
I follow the encyclopedia and any of the other works that the individual who came up with the registry numbers on-screen.
If you want to play that game, the USS Hathaway NCC-2593, Constellation vs USS Repulse NCC-2544 Excelsior, USS Excelsior NX/NCC-2000 vs USS Jenolen NCC-2010 , USS Bellerophon NCC-62048, Nebula, vs USS Melbourne NCC-62043, Excelsior, USS Merrimack NCC-61826, Nebula vs USS Odyssey NCC-71832, Galaxy
Anyways, the real-world explanation is that the writers tended to make up registry numbers approximately whenever they felt like it. While some people may have made an attempt to give them some sort of rational purpose, many are apparently 100% random.
My character Tsin'xing
Pennant numbers are alternative names for ships to make identification in a large fleet easier. Imagine you have three ships, Victory, Victor and Victorious; those are names very easy to confuse, and could very well be completely different types of ships. Therefore Victory might then be D157, Victor might be F22, and Victorious might be R99. These numbers are arbitrary and even change; the Soviets changed the pennant numbers of their submarines every year or so, and sometimes would even paint a different numbers on each side of the sub to confuse enemy spies (these numbers are different than the numbers used to designate the ship like K-19, those are the sub's "name").
The two USS Defiants on DS9 support this because they had the same NX number (due to the recycled footage).
Having NCC numbers that make little sense might not be so much of an error, but more of a misunderstanding of their purpose.
Even in the real world, navies will have ships that really don't make sense, like the USN's Seawolf-class, but there is an underlying explanation. It is the same with Starfleet's scheme, but we just don't have in-verse explanation, but the real world ones, like the Yamato's four registries (first two were two groups not being communicative, while the second two were on background screens that were never meant to be seen by the fans until the advent of high-def and the pause button).
For TNG and beyond, the registries do follow chronologically, 80 percent of the time, until you get to dev's scheme for STO, which make no sense over than not having ship's number before 90000, including npc ships (except for a couple or so that really make no sense).
also once a ship class is retired if the name is still on the books but the number designation is retired the newest ship bearing the name will get a new number designation.
usually this will last the lifetime of the class and sometimes if the ship in question is well known will retain its name and number designation with a letter added to distinguish it from the prior ship.
so its more due to tradition why you get
NX-01 (Class retired designation retired as NX refers to experimental stage of development)
NCC -1701 (Constellation class cruiser)
NCC - 1701 A (refit constellation class also rebuilt into a new class constitution class)
NCC-1701 B (Excelsior heavy cruiser)
NCC -1701 C (Ambasador class heavy exploration cruiser)
NCC -1701 D (Galaxy class heavy exploration cruiser)
NCC - 1701 E (Soveraign class assault cruiser)
One thing to note the enterprise NCC 1701 was initially a constellation class then later refit and practically rebuilt into a constituion class.
But as far as designation alot of it comes down to tradition and superstition so having a ship with the same name and numbered designation is not as uncommon as one might think.
Take in this fact for instance: The Federation had less than 100 ships (40) to defend the Sol system from the borg at Wolf 359... the most important system in all the Federation...
cause sometimes its party time!
There is misnomer as a lot of you call it the Connie in actual fact it would called the Old Ironside as the Connie is the Constalation.
USS WARRIOR NCC 1720 Commanding Officer
Star Trek Gamers
The USS Constellation was one of the original six USN frigates that was retired in 1853 and parts of the keel was used to construct a new sloop of war called the USS Constellation, which is now in Baltimore Harbor.
USS WARRIOR NCC 1720 Commanding Officer
Star Trek Gamers