Starfleet NCC registry numbers - How do they fit? - Also my theory...

[INACTIVEUSS Einstein]

Okay, an old question, that has been debated by Trekkies for decades, but how is it that a Constitution-class starship such as the USS Exeter (NCC-1672) can have a lower registry number than the first ships in the class, USS Constitution (NCC-1700), and USS Enterprise (NCC-1701)? Why isn't the registry number NCC-1704 or something?

None of the theories I read online seemed to explain the problem satisfactorily.

The only comprehensive thing I can think of, is that perhaps "blocks" of registry numbers (say NCC-1670 to NCC-1675) were "booked" for future use, for a series of planned starships that never got built, and that as soon as that particular plan is abandoned, the block of registry numbers becomes free again, and is used by ships as they become available.

This is just practical, mundane and bureaucratic enough that I could believe it.

 

[Kemaiku]

They roll two D20's and paint whatever number comes up on the hull.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

I don't see any particular reason why registry numbers have to be in order.

 

[C.E. Evans]

Some Constitution-class ships may have been older ships that were upgraded to Constitution-class. That's not entirely implausible given the modular nature of the original Constitution-class design. Other designs of the time may also have been equally modular--which may have been Starfleet's shipbuilding philosophy during TOS .

 

[Tracy Trek]

Was Archer's Enterprise a "NX" because it was a prototype? As in experimental. What else had that "NX"? Didn't the Exselsior have it?

You know, I don't recall what Voyager's and Defiant's registry numbers are. Also wouldn't it stand to reason that the Enterprises B,C,D, and E would not have NCC in there because they aren't Constitution class? Or do they have different letters? I just never payed much attention to that, except that 1701 was part of the registry number for the Enterprises.

 

[C.E. Evans]

NX was the name of the original project to develop the Warp 5 engine, and the NX-class was an extension of that. It was after that Starfleet began using the prefix "NX" for experimental starship registries, but the two don't necessarily have a connection. It may be just coincidental.

 

[The Wormhole]

Was Archer's Enterprise a "NX" because it was a prototype? As in experimental. What else had that "NX"? Didn't the Exselsior have it?

Enterprise NX-01 was an NX class starship, it's NX registry code reflected that as evidenced by the fact that all other NX class ships also had NX registries, like Columbia NX-02, and Avenger NX-09. United Earth's Starfleet did the registry numbers based on the ship classes. The Federation Starfleet did the registries differently, NCC code was used for regular ships, NX for experimental ones, like the Excelsior (NX-2000), the Defiant (NX-74205) and the Prometheus (NX-59650). The Franklin seems to be a bit of an anomaly given it predates the Federation but uses its registry code anyway being the experimental warp 4 ship with the registry NX-326.

Anyway, in regards to this thread's OP, most of the time no logic or thought was put into registry numbers by the production people. In fact, in some cases registry numbers are intentionally inconsistent for flimsy reasons. The only reason the Constellation is NCC-1017 is because the filming model was actually a store-bought Enterprise model kit, and they just rearranged 1701. Then there was the USS Challenger, NCC-71099, which apparently is inconsistent with other Galaxy class registries, but was chosen as a way to Trekify OV-099, the registry of the real space shuttle Challenger, which starship Challenger is a tribute to.

 

[The Old Mixer]

Some Constitution-class ships may have been older ships that were upgraded to Constitution-class. That's not entirely implausible given the modular nature of the original Constitution-class design. Other designs of the time may also have been equally modular--which may have been Starfleet's shipbuilding philosophy during TOS .

A grandfather's axe situation? One refit they replaced the secondary hull, the next refit they replaced the primary hull...hey, look, now ol' 1017 is a Constitution!

 

[ian128K]

Food for thought:

The U.S. Navy sometimes ignores the sequence of hull numbering. For example, the Navy built the last Los Angeles-class nuclear submarine as SSN 773. Next the Navy built the three Seawolf class submarines SSN 21 through SSN 23. Then the Navy later resumed the original sequence of hull numbers with the USS Virginia SSN 774 for its next class of nuclear attack submarines.

This change in numbering was done because the Seawolf class was to have a radical new and large design for the continuation of the Cold War into the 21st Century, but cost overruns combined with the end of the Cold War, and the resulting reduction of the Navy's construction budget resulted in only three of these boats being constructed: the USS Seawolf (SSN-21), the USS Connecticut (SSN-22), and USS Jimmy Carter (SSN-23).

 

[C.E. Evans]

A grandfather's axe situation? One refit they replaced the secondary hull, the next refit they replaced the primary hull...hey, look, now ol' 1017 is a Constitution!

Pretty much the idea. As a response to the old argument that ships in ENT looked more advanced than those in TOS, it was proposed that during TOS Starfleet adopted a shipbuilding policy of using standardized parts (primary hulls, secondary hulls, warp nacelles, etc.) that could be used and interchanged for multiple designs.

 

[INACTIVEUSS Einstein]

Was Archer's Enterprise a "NX" because it was a prototype? As in experimental. What else had that "NX"? Didn't the Exselsior have it?

You know, I don't recall what Voyager's and Defiant's registry numbers are. Also wouldn't it stand to reason that the Enterprises B,C,D, and E would not have NCC in there because they aren't Constitution class? Or do they have different letters? I just never payed much attention to that, except that 1701 was part of the registry number for the Enterprises.

Actually the NCC or NX number has nothing to do with the class of the ship.

The most widely accepted definition of what they stand for is: "Naval Construction Contract" for NCC and "Naval Construction Contract - Experimental" for NX.

We also on one occasion see a ship labelled NAR.

So, what this basically means is it is the vessel's number designation, like in the United States Navy, the Enterprise-class aircraft carrier U.S.S. Enterprise CVN-65, is called "CVN-65" in some technical situations.

Except in Archer's time (before the Federation), where a ship is called NX-class, the rest of the time, the designation NX, such as the U.S.S. Excelsior NX-2000, refers to a prototype (such as the first ship of her class), and can later be converted into a full NCC registry, presumably after shakedown trials are complete (the U.S.S. Excelsior is called NCC-2000 in 'The Undiscovered Country').

So it's another case of where Star Trek: Enterprise made a confusing change from the previous 30 years of stuff.

 

[Tenacity]

but how is it that a Constitution-class starship such as the USS Exeter (NCC-1672)

One possible explanation is that the Exeter wasn't a Constitution class, there were outward similarities and design concepts, but it was of a class preceding the Constitutions.

The same story with the Constellation in Doomsday Machine, different class from both the Enterprise and Exeter. Between them three classes of starships.

Kirk in Tomorrow is Yesterday said there was only a (bakers?) dozen like the Enterprise in the fleet, Starfleet might change it's ship building requirements frequently to deal with new knowledge and changing conditions.

And so a new class is born

 

[INACTIVEUSS Einstein]

Some Constitution-class ships may have been older ships that were upgraded to Constitution-class. That's not entirely implausible given the modular nature of the original Constitution-class design. Other designs of the time may also have been equally modular--which may have been Starfleet's shipbuilding philosophy during TOS .

We have only canonically seen ships refit from one class, into a later variant of the same class.

Pike's TOS Enterprise ----> Kirk's TOS Enterprise ----> Kirk's TMP Enterprise

That seems to suggest Starfleet ships are like Navy vessels, rather than like modular NASA space stations

Although it's not beyond the realms of possibility, I wouldn't favor the idea that you can just swap saucer sections onto a completely different secondary hull. True; NASA and the Soviet Space Program stuck different rocket stages together, but a rocket is hugely less complex than a starship. True; space stations are modular, but the ISS does not have to travel faster than light, with a warp core generating untold gigawatts of power, warp nacelles generating a warp field and deflector dish pushing the interstellar medium out of the way. I think each starship is purpose built. The accepted idea until now is that a class of ship cannot just be refit endlessly - the power systems of a certain class would be eventually be too aged to be useful - they would probably just be flat out incompatible between classes of ship - warp field geometry is finely calibrated to each new class of ship - and that a refit is something that just refurbishes older ships a little, bringing them up to date with the latest starfleet designs in some respects, whilst leaving archaic systems that can't be upgraded alone.

 

[C.E. Evans]

We have only canonically seen ships refit from one class, into a later variant of the same class.

Actually, we've seen variants of the Excelsior and Miranda classes as well. One could even take the Soyuz-class as being developed from the Miranda-class (or vice-versa), so it's definitely plausible for designs and even individual ships to be modified from their original configurations.

 

[INACTIVEUSS Einstein]

One possible explanation is that the Exeter wasn't a Constitution class, there were outward similarities and design concepts, but it was of a class preceding the Constitutions.

The same story with the Constellation in Doomsday Machine, different class from both the Enterprise and Exeter. Between them three classes of starships.

Kirk in Tomorrow is Yesterday said there was only a (bakers?) dozen like the Enterprise in the fleet, Starfleet might change it's ship building requirements frequently to deal with new knowledge and changing conditions.

And so a new class is born

Although you could be right, we have no on screen evidence for such small variations in class within Starfleet. Like for example, even quite different variants of the Miranda class and Nebula class, are still referred to as Miranda and Nebula class. So we have to go on the ships being exactly identical in external appearance, just as real life plane spotters do.

 

[INACTIVEUSS Einstein]

Actually, we've seen variants of the Excelsior and Miranda classes as well. One could even take the Soyuz-class as being developed from the Miranda-class (or vice-versa), so it's definitely plausible for designs and even individual ships to be modified from their original configurations.

You misunderstand, I don't mean we have only ever seen one class refitted, I mean we have only seen a class refitted into a variant of itself.

 

[C.E. Evans]

You misunderstand, I don't mean we have only ever seen one class refitted, I mean we have only seen a class refitted into a variant of itself.

My point was that it could have happened other times, especially with the examples I provided.

 

[INACTIVEUSS Einstein]

I don't understand what you mean. Do you mean that it is possible other ship classes were refitted? Or that it is possible the Enterprise was refitted more times than we have seen? I haven't denied either.

 

[C.E. Evans]

I never said anything about the Enterprise being refitted more than what we saw. I did propose, however, that it's possible for some older ships to be upgraded into Constitution-class, especially given the modular nature of the design. If other designs were equally modular at the time of TOS, then it's not implausible that Constitution-class ships with lower registries than the Constitution may have started off from other compatible classes.

 

[The Old Mixer]

I'm surprisingly keen to this idea. I'm picturing classes like the Franz Joseph designs, which largely share their primary hull style with the Constitution class. You could say, take a scout's primary hull and stick it on Constitution-style secondary hull. The result--Lots of ships that look the same with odd registry numbers, because some of them started life as other classes.