1. Hello and welcome to MSFC. We are a small and close knitted community who specialises in modding the game Star Trek Armada 2 and the Fleet Operations modification, however we have an open field for discussing a number of topics including movies, real life events and everything in-between.

    Being such a close community, we do have some restrictions, including all users required to be registered before being able to post as well as all members requiring to have participated in the community for sometime before being able to download our modding files to name the main ones. This is done for both the protection of our members and to encourage new members to get involved with the community. We also require all new registrations to first be authorised by an Administrator and to also have an active and confirmed email account.

    We have a policy of fairness and a non harassment environment, with the staff quick to act on the rare occasion of when this policy is breached. Feel free to register and join our community.

Ship Registries

Discussion in 'Star Trek' started by Archonon, 29 Sep 2017.

  1. Archonon

    Archonon Community Member Community Member

    Joined:
    13 Aug 2016
    Messages:
    138
    Likes Received:
    43
    Trophy Points:
    73
    That's a very interesting way of seeing it, temporal butterfly effect.

    That's another thing that bothered me about that Voyager episode. If they time traveled to 1996, isn't this time period the height of the reign of the genetically enhanced supermen? Shouldn't ST's 1990s look like a dystopia if not a ravaged warzone from all the fighting between the supermen overlords and those trying to depose them?

    Every description of pre-WW3 Earth in TOS did not make me think that it looked anything like our 1990s.

    As far as the makeup goes, the Klingons look almost lizard-y in DISC or as I like calling it, STD. Lol. The new Klingons remind me of the aliens in Enemy Mine. I think the makeup is a more exaggerated version of the alterations they got in ST: Into Darkness. They would look better if they had some with hair.

    They should definitely be using D-6s by this time period, unless that abomination onscreen is the new canon D-6. I dislike that design very much, almost as much as the Discovery itself. Frankly the only design I liked was the Shenzhou.

    Speaking of which Cabal, I have not been able to see past the first hour because I'm not going to pay for that streaming garbage. So I can't confirm the Discovery's registry. For me, even if they place the Discovery as a newer ship than Shenzhou, my main issue is that the Discovery's design is so ugly and out of place that it just doesn't work as a believable precursor to neither Shatner's Enterprise nor Pine's Enterprise.

    Oh well, I'll watch the series a year from now when it's out on Blu Ray. I hope that it can grow into a really good series, with as many episodes as they have there is plenty of chance to do more exploration and draw out all the essence of Trek. I also hope they make a JJ-verse 4th movie, as I love that crew. So yeah, more Trek is always a good thing as I find there is a severe deficiency of good Sci-Fi right now.
    Majestic likes this.
  2. LordChicken

    LordChicken Colonel Sanders Community Member

    Joined:
    1 Oct 2015
    Messages:
    174
    Likes Received:
    89
    Trophy Points:
    123
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    New Braunfels, Texas
    I do not want to see Discovery A-F. The Enterprise should be the only ship in the fleet that has this distinction. Also in the reboot, why would they reuse the registry of the Enterprise for new ship at the end of Beyond? The first Enterprise was barely out of the shipyard before they blew it up. It was not decorated like the original ship was. Kirk has not saved the Federation for the billionth time yet.

    But to be fair I also dislike that they did that in the first place. They repainted the model for Star Trek 4, they could have just changed the registry number. In real life they do not reuse hull or registry numbers. USS Enterprise CV-6 was a well decorated US Carrier of WW2, USS Enterprise CVN-65 was the first nuclear aircraft carrier in the world. The US Navy didn't designate it CV-06-A. USS Enterprise CVN-80 is not CV-06-B, but I digress...

    That is one of my few gripes about Star Trek.
    Terra_Inc likes this.
  3. Archonon

    Archonon Community Member Community Member

    Joined:
    13 Aug 2016
    Messages:
    138
    Likes Received:
    43
    Trophy Points:
    73
    I know ENT is uspposed to be Prime, damn Riker and Troi appear in it after all. For me personally, it doesm't work. Too many inconsistencies with established history, not that this is exclusive to ENT, see my VOY comment. But yeah the Borg arriving on Earth in the 2150s, encountered by the Enteprirse crew, knowing they transmitted to the Delta Quadrant and not a single entry in the Picard's computer when they encounter them again. Not the kind of thing that would have been swept under the rug or omitted from Federation databases. That's just one example. I ignore the final episode anyway so that's why I see it as a separate timeline. Since it's referenced in the new movies and now Discovery, I see that as its own timeline. So that's me :D

    The "A" was added because the original ship was completely destroyed and it was a newly built vessel, not just a refit or repair as it was with the Prime counterpart between TOS and TMP. I don't think it had to matter whether Kirk had saved the world as we know it once or a hundred times, it's just the fact that it's the same crew operating it. Nor whether this applies to other ships outside the Enterprise.

    I don't disagree with you, I guess it could have gotten a new registry or just kept the original. The 2nd Defiant had the same registry as the original as far as I can remember. It's not something I like but it also doesn't bother me if they add letters to the registry to indicate a legacy. I think it only makes sense when the ship is the same class as the one that came before and with the same crew. When it's a different class and crew, then new registry.

    Ex. USS Lexington, Constitution Class, NCC-1709 (TOS) and USS Lexington, Nebula Class, NCC-30405 (TNG/DS9)

    I think that it's ok if they use the same registry if it is the same class of ship and crew, which is not the case with real life warships. The CV-6 did not have the same crew, nor was it the same generation of carrier, as the CVN-65, same with the CVN-80.

    Ex. USS Enterprise, Constitution Class, NCC-1701 and NCC-1701-A (TOS/TMP/AR)
    USS Enterprise, Excelsior Class, NCC-3019
    USS Enterprise, Ambassador Class, NCC-12015
    USS Enterprise, Galaxy Class, NCC-30510
  4. CABAL

    CABAL << ■ II ▶ >> Staff Member Site Manager Star Navigator

    Joined:
    15 Aug 2009
    Messages:
    2,809
    Likes Received:
    989
    Trophy Points:
    1,328
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Auxiliary Core
    In this particular case I think they just didn't bother with making a new texture for the Defiant CGI model and recycling stock footage. The plaque on the bridge actually has the number it was originally registered under as the Sao Paulo, NCC-75633, even after the name change. It's probably supposed to be NCC-75633 instead of NX-74205. There was also a Constitution-class Defiant, NCC-1764.
  5. LordChicken

    LordChicken Colonel Sanders Community Member

    Joined:
    1 Oct 2015
    Messages:
    174
    Likes Received:
    89
    Trophy Points:
    123
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    New Braunfels, Texas
    This is correct.

    http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/articles/defiant-problems.htm
  6. Archonon

    Archonon Community Member Community Member

    Joined:
    13 Aug 2016
    Messages:
    138
    Likes Received:
    43
    Trophy Points:
    73
    Aha so they were just lazy, gotcha. Lol

    Well I don't know what the in universe explanation is for the Defiant's registry staying the same nor what the canon way of having it should be. I suppose that the 2nd Defiant should have had a new registry number or be NCC-74205-A given that it is a replacement for the original, it's the same class of ship and it's operated by the same crew. Under these circumstances, like the Constitution Class Enterprises, I don't mind the "A" in the registry.

    The Excelsior, Ambassador, Galaxy and Sovereign Enterprises should have had different registries however. IMO it was just kept the same for brand recognition/nostalgia when they were launching TNG.

    What always peeves me off is when I hear characters verbally name their Enterprise as the "Enterprise D" or the "Enterprise E" when there is no other Enterprise around. Ok when Garrett's Enterprise jumped time or when Picard talked to Kirk, sure, but generally speaking just call the ship the "Enterprise".
  7. LordChicken

    LordChicken Colonel Sanders Community Member

    Joined:
    1 Oct 2015
    Messages:
    174
    Likes Received:
    89
    Trophy Points:
    123
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    New Braunfels, Texas
    Majestic likes this.
  8. Archonon

    Archonon Community Member Community Member

    Joined:
    13 Aug 2016
    Messages:
    138
    Likes Received:
    43
    Trophy Points:
    73
    Yeah they were too lazy to update the model.

    My point was that in universe, the 2nd Defiant's registry should have been the same one as the original with an "A" at the end, like the Enterprise, given that it was a replacement for the original ship, it was the same class of ship and it was operated by the same crew. In those instances I think that keeping the same registry and adding the letter "A" is acceptable.

    When you have a ship that uses the same name as a previous ship but is a different class and with a different crew, then it should have a new registry number.
  9. CABAL

    CABAL << ■ II ▶ >> Staff Member Site Manager Star Navigator

    Joined:
    15 Aug 2009
    Messages:
    2,809
    Likes Received:
    989
    Trophy Points:
    1,328
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Auxiliary Core
    The Enterprise registry recycling is a special case, though. Only the Enterprises get the letter suffix, and only starting with Kirk's 1701-A; they're not considered contiguous with Archer's NX-01, for instance, even though it's the same name, and the 1701 was probably named for it in-universe. The second (actually third or fourth, counting ships of other classes) Defiant was built as a different ship with a different registry number. My guess is that Starfleet allows names to be changed with an Admiral's authorization, but the registry number never changes. So whether it's called the Sao Paulo or the Defiant, the ship's 'real' name is NCC-75633 from the moment it went off the assembly line to its eventual destruction or decommissioning, full stop.

    Also keep in mind that the Sao Paulo wasn't built as a replacement for the Defiant, it just wound up as one due to the timing. Sisko also could have turned down the permission to rename the ship and kept it as the Sao Paulo.
  10. Majestic

    Majestic MSFC's Resident Klingon Staff Member Administrator

    Joined:
    17 Apr 2006
    Messages:
    17,069
    Likes Received:
    908
    Trophy Points:
    2,033
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Australia
    Also remember the Enterprise is the flagship of Starfleet which is probably why they keep the registry going.
  11. Archonon

    Archonon Community Member Community Member

    Joined:
    13 Aug 2016
    Messages:
    138
    Likes Received:
    43
    Trophy Points:
    73
    I think that the reason why Archer's Enterprise was not contiguous with the other Enterprises is due to that ship being part of retroactive retconning. In every Enterprise that has had a legacy memorial, a display of all previous Enterprise ships, they have always had the inclusion of the aircraft carrier (CVN-65 most likely, as there have been several Big Es), one of 4 sailing ships to carry the name and the space shuttle. Alongside the classic Connie, Excelsior, Ambassador, etc, as seen in Enterprise D's mural and Enterprise E's ship model collection. If Archer's Enterprise had existed in canon before TNG, it's likely that it would have been included as part of the Enterprise legacy, even though it does not share the registry.

    The case of the Sao Paolo however was a change of a name to an existing ship, it's likely they weren't going to repaint the registry on it as well, lol. However the Enterprise A was built from scratch as a replacement for the original, hence the same registry and the "A". The sources that claim that it was a different Connie renamed to Enterprise have never been confirmed to be canon.

    I still feel that what makes most sense is to add a letter to the registry of a ship if it is built as a replacement to a ship that was destroyed, if it's the same class as the ship it's replacing and operated by the same crew. Like the Enterprise A at the end of Beyond. When the ship has the same name and it's a different class and different era/crew, it should have a different registry. But this is just me. Lol.

    Maj was Kirk's Enterprise ever established as the flagship of the Federation in the Prime universe? I know that Picard's Enterprise was the flagship, from the Galaxy to the Sovereign, but I don't recall Shat-Kirk's Enterprise being anything more than another Constitution in TOS and TMP. I know that in the AR the Enteprise is the flagship, because Pike mentions it in ST:09. I was under the impression that the Excelsior was the flagship of Starfleet in TMP era for some reason. I have no idea. o_O
  12. kjc733

    kjc733 Wibble Staff Member Forum Moderator Seraphim Build Team

    Joined:
    30 Mar 2008
    Messages:
    1,617
    Likes Received:
    1,144
    Trophy Points:
    1,128
    Location:
    Sunny (!?!) old England
    Honestly I don't think we should even bother *trying* to explain registry inconsistencies. The writers and modellers just didn't even think about such things, they just went with what they could do. The Constellation is a classic example, the registry came from rearranging the Enterprises registry as they used an Enterprise model.

    As for "flagship", again, too much is made of this. A "flagship" is a command ship, the ship in which the admiral/commodore/fleet captain hoists his flag. The flagship of the fleet can and will change. When we (the UK) had multiple carriers the flagship swapped between them depending on which was on active rotation. I believe the flagship is currently HMS Albion. I think the US has multiple flagships as they have multiple active fleets - Starfleet (or UESPA as early Trek called it) probably would also have multiple flagships given how many ships they have.
  13. LordChicken

    LordChicken Colonel Sanders Community Member

    Joined:
    1 Oct 2015
    Messages:
    174
    Likes Received:
    89
    Trophy Points:
    123
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    New Braunfels, Texas
    This is correct. The US has multiple "Flagships" as we have multiple fleets.
  14. Archonon

    Archonon Community Member Community Member

    Joined:
    13 Aug 2016
    Messages:
    138
    Likes Received:
    43
    Trophy Points:
    73
    Well everyone tries to explain the vast number of inconsistencies Trek has, with all its retroactive retconning and changing visions. But of course, your point is more than valid kjc. One of the guys from "Trekyards" claims that registries don't even illustrate the order in which ships were built, which makes even less sense.

    But hey if the Discovery is NCC-1031 and the Shenzhou is NCC-1227 and the Discovery is supposed to be much newer than the Shenzhou then sure, why not? Registries don't mean anything except random numbers.

    And I gotcha about the flagships, it's different in real life. I'm saying in the shows they make a big deal about it, like there's only one and its supposed to mean the ship is the most advanced or somehow stand out. There are several examples but one quick one is Riker's comment about the bop engaging the Enterprise in "Generations", he says the line like the flagship is meant to be something significant, as opposed to saying a Galaxy class ship. I believe Pike makes a similar comment about the flagship in ST '09. And there are more examples, I know Picard has made the reference about the Sovereign Enterprise also. But I digress. Lol.
  15. CABAL

    CABAL << ■ II ▶ >> Staff Member Site Manager Star Navigator

    Joined:
    15 Aug 2009
    Messages:
    2,809
    Likes Received:
    989
    Trophy Points:
    1,328
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Auxiliary Core
    Hell, the Discovery's newer than the Enterprise. The only thing I can possibly think of is that at this point Starfleet has the first two digits as the class with the last two digits as the ship (Constitution-class is 17XX, USS Constitution is 1700, USS Enterprise is 1701, etc.) and recycles the first two digits for a new class once an older class has been fully removed from service. So Discovery's class got the 10XX designation because the previous class with the 10XX designation is no longer in service.

    Of course, the real-world reason is probably that whoever came up with the registry just didn't think about it.
    Majestic likes this.
  16. LordChicken

    LordChicken Colonel Sanders Community Member

    Joined:
    1 Oct 2015
    Messages:
    174
    Likes Received:
    89
    Trophy Points:
    123
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    New Braunfels, Texas
    This is actually how registry numbers were supposed to work in TOS. The Enterprise was the 17th cruiser design and the 01 ment it was the first ship of the class. This is why they would always read the registry as 17-01. However, cheapness in TV sort of abandoned this and all concepts about how the registries were supposed to work were thrown out the window. This is why the Constellation has the registry of NCC-1017. They used a commercial model kit to build the model for the show and instead of painting another registry on it, they just rearranged the decals. Kit bashing wasn't really a thing that was done yet, so it saddens me that they lost the opportunity to introduce a variation on the Enterprise design. Matt Jefferies intended that the technology be modular so they could have built different ships out of the same components for the TV show, like the Miranda class. Anywho...

    There was an interview I watched years ago where Nichelle Nichols was explaining about the registry numbers... I can't seem to find it right now on YouTube, but I'll keep looking and when I do I'll post it here.

    Whomever they have doing Star Trek over there at CBS doesn't have a clue in my opinion. Discovery is made under the Bad Robot license, but it can't be related to those movies because of licensing. They advertised it was going to be in the prime universe, but it really really isn't. I would say it is yet another "reboot". Or as my wife puts is, high production fan fiction. Which is where I like to classify it.
    Majestic likes this.
  17. CABAL

    CABAL << ■ II ▶ >> Staff Member Site Manager Star Navigator

    Joined:
    15 Aug 2009
    Messages:
    2,809
    Likes Received:
    989
    Trophy Points:
    1,328
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Auxiliary Core
    The first revival shows (TNG, DS9, VOY, assuming that DSC is a second revival) actually keep that pattern up, too, with the only change being that class is now three digits instead of two. For instance, Intrepid is 74600 and Voyager is 74656. There are some lapses, though. Defiant is 74205 (maybe it took five revisions to get it operational?) and Valiant is 74210, but Sao Paulo is 75633. I suppose it's possible that with the war they built so many that they ran out of 742XX numbers, though.

    Anyway, Discovery is still a newer class of ship than the Constitution-class, so it should have a higher number.
    Majestic likes this.
  18. Archonon

    Archonon Community Member Community Member

    Joined:
    13 Aug 2016
    Messages:
    138
    Likes Received:
    43
    Trophy Points:
    73
    Gah. Shows what a moron I am. I just figured that NCC-1701 was just Naval Construction Contract One Thousand Seven Hundred and One, basically the one thousand seven hundred and first ship built by Starfleet.

    I always figured that the same class of ship had their registries one after the other because that is when that class entered mass production. And then there would be variations here and there as different classes are produced simultaneously.

    The first ship of any class gives that class its name and has the NX registry because it is the prototype; ie. USS Constitution, Constitution Class, NX-1700. Then the rest of the ships in that class have the standard construction contract registry because they are in mass production; Enterprise, Lexington, Defiant, Yorktown, etc.

    And yeah, this kind of thing should be much better organized. It's like that dumb argument about Starfleet not being military when it by definition is and being addressed as military in various series and movies, yet claimed not to be in others. Course this would be a different discussion for a separate thread. Lol.
    Majestic likes this.

Share This Page