A Fan Theory about Registry Numbers Inconsistancies

[Redshirt214]

Here's a fan theory about inconsistent starship registries, one which I'm sure other people have had before but that I think there's some firmer evidence than just speculation in a particular starships case. That ship is the USS Hood, Excelsior class starship. In the 1st Season of TNG, she was labled NCC-2541, and when her registry was next seen in TNG season 4 on a chart, she was listed as NCC-42296. The chart claims she is undergoing a "major systems upgrade", at Starbase 134. I submit that this "major systems upgrade" in fact explains the change in registry of the USS Hood, and that she was originally the NCC-2541 but reregistered under a different registry number as a result of her upgrade.

Logically, I think this makes sense, and if extrapolated it set president for the USS Saratoga of Star Trek IV (NCC-1887) being the same as the Saratoga destroyed at Wolf 359 (NCC-31911). I imagine that the producers, or art department intended that to be the case, otherwise why not use another model (Nebula, Excelsior, ect ect) to represent the Sara? No doubt it to me it was meant as a tip of the hat to the film. There's no reason to think it isn't the same ship, just with a new registry that reflects it's modifications.

 

[Dukhat]

Here's a fan theory about inconsistent starship registries, one which I'm sure other people have had before but that I think there's some firmer evidence than just speculation in a particular starships case. That ship is the USS Hood, Excelsior class starship. In the 1st Season of TNG, she was labled NCC-2541, and when her registry was next seen in TNG season 4 on a chart, she was listed as NCC-42296. The chart claims she is undergoing a "major systems upgrade", at Starbase 134. I submit that this "major systems upgrade" in fact explains the change in registry of the USS Hood, and that she was originally the NCC-2541 but reregistered under a different registry number as a result of her upgrade.

It's an interesting theory, to be sure. The main issue is why the new registry (for the Hood as well as the Saratoga you mention below) wasn't higher to be more contemporary to new ships with 7XXXX numbers, unless it's some sort of batch system, which is also plausible, as there are lots of Excelsiors with 4XXXX registries, but 5XXXX seems to be reserved for the Galaxy class kitbash family.

Logically, I think this makes sense, and if extrapolated it set president for the USS Saratoga of Star Trek IV (NCC-1887) being the same as the Saratoga destroyed at Wolf 359 (NCC-31911). I imagine that the producers, or art department intended that to be the case, otherwise why not use another model (Nebula, Excelsior, ect ect) to represent the Sara? No doubt it to me it was meant as a tip of the hat to the film. There's no reason to think it isn't the same ship, just with a new registry that reflects it's modifications.

Honestly, I think the only reason why they used the Reliant model for the Saratoga in 'Emissary' was because they wanted Sisko's ship to be a small Starfleet vessel with a lot of detail that could be seen close up, but the smallest ship they had at the time was that one. I don't think there was any conscious effort to link the two ships.

 

[Redshirt214]

I would think the 4xxxx number block might represent upgraded Excelsiors, probably as part of a upgrade program that has been going on since Ambassador class days. Hence the block number choice. Hood wouldn't be the first to go through the refit, just the latest ship to get the upgrade and be reregistered, so she wouldn't necessarily have to be the trend setter (and the block may have been kept clear for the ongoing program in the registry system).

I suppose you have a point about the Saratoga from a production standpoint, there certainly weren't many small starships available to shoot footage with at the time, and from what I understand ILM loved the Reliant model anyways. Aside from the number, I'm not sure there is any reason to think that the later Saratoga is in fact a different ship. It's the same class of ship, and gets only minor exterior changes over time.

 

[Bry_Sinclair]

I wouldn't try to answer registry number errors, that way madness lies.

 

[Timo]

I sure would. And I see no madness ahead of me. I just never look back.

A pseudo-real-worldish scenario for situations like the Hood one would be that the old ship with a "venerable" name finally comes to the very end of her service, and the name is released for reuse - but at the same time, an all-new supership is in want of an even more glorious name, which then gets yanked off another vessel in mid-service, and the name of the retiree is given to that ship as compensation.

A hundred, hundred and fifty years ago, when steel hulls couldn't lightly be left to sink even though the technology within was no longer combatworthy or upgradeable, it was quite usual for a former battleship to donate a name and to acquire a new one when demoted to a humble coastal defense vessel. And while the new name might be something banal like Coastal Defense Vessel 4, it could also well be a name formerly borne by a vessel in that navy.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Mike Doyle]

My theory is that based on the German Tank problem.

Starfleet stops enemies estimating how many ships they have by adding some randomness into numbering and sometimes changing the number following upgrade, sometimes using "-A" for an upgrade and sometimes for a new ship

 

[Timo]

...This rather supposes the enemy is in the habit of getting a close look at the serial numbers of the engine blocks, uh, the pennant numbers on the hulls. Would that really happen much? Shouldn't the typical encounter rather involve long range sensors and the analysis of warp signatures?

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Mike Doyle]

...This rather supposes the enemy is in the habit of getting a close look at the serial numbers of the engine blocks, uh, the pennant numbers on the hulls. Would that really happen much? Shouldn't the typical encounter rather involve long range sensors and the analysis of warp signatures?

Timo Saloniemi

Just because it’s not the most likely intelligence your enemy would use doesn’t mean you shouldn’t have security around it.

If an enemy spy could get hold of parts manifests or crew postings then that will contain a large number of registry’s that analysis could be done on.

Also refits and new warp cores would likely change warp signatures? Think it makes sense to have multiple layers of security.

 

[Unicron]

For my part, I like that Jackill made the DS9 Saratoga the lead ship in a new variant, which for me works as far it being the same Saratoga from STIV. It got a new registry as a result of those modifications and being a new class ship, insofar as my own head canon.

 

[DEWLine]

I'm sticking with "chronological order".

 

[Boris Skrbic]

My theory is they’re just numbers that need to be there for the sake of tradition, but otherwise it’s not terribly important how they’re selected. Yes, there seem to be certain ranges per class or type; yes, the numbers tend to go up as they’re not being reused (not usually, anyway), but most of the time the name is sufficient, while computers likely use more systematic, longer identification sequences.

 

[publiusr]

I thought FASA was mad for having different size Klingon BoPs.

I forgot the Glomars

 

[BK613]

I'm sticking with "chronological order".

I tend to agree, generally, though I do think that the idea that bureaucrats would leave the same system in place for centuries is one of the more fanciful aspects of Trek.