• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

UFP Ship Classes and History with Visible Registries Only

DSG2k

Captain
Captain
(Note: the below features a number of underlying assumptions/conclusions, including (1) roughly chronological registries, (2) a pre-2009 view of Trek canon, and so on. As such, there is no inclusion of the Kelvin nor any of the Discoverse "Prime". I note this, not for argument, but merely for clarity.)

I recently realized that a chronological assortment of 3-D models I had made and added to over the last couple of years* had a big problem. For the purposes of my website, I've long held both Star Trek and Star Wars to only what was seen on-screen . . . backstage information is traditionally a no-no, at least insofar as basing anything off of it. The only exception I made was a 2245 date for the Enterprise 1701.

However, I'd been slipping from that in recent years, culminating in some really deep dives where I was even including the registry off of the Excelsior study model Alka-Selsior. I was trying to make it work, and was forced to assume that and the Oberth's similar nacelles represented an Andorian strain of early UFP starship design, until that and the human strain were merged in the TMP style . . . with the Oberth being a fusion of Vulcan and Andorian and a little Terran that also constituted one of the "warp seven beauties". Suffice it to say: "It got weird, didn't it?"

*
GV--hVfXMAAIBUX


As such, I've been exploring what would result if one flipped back the other way completely, even abandoning the backstage info, unreadable commissioning plaques, and so on. For most, this is a horrifying prospect, suggestive of some sort of latent masochism, but in reality it's an interesting little experiment . . . but not without its sadness. Much of what we think we know and have accepted disappears as it hasn't been seen on screen. As a result, the Lantree 1837 becomes the oldest known Miranda and Sitak 32591 the highest, which is fine, but doing this means we lose Ambassador 10521. Excalibur 26517 now the lowest Ambassador Class registry observed. The Nebula Class Honshu, NCC-60205, is the lowest-registry Nebula . . . ironically making the updated Galaxy-esque CGI model the oldest type and the slightly funky Sutherland 72015 the newest. (shrug)

Obviously, those barely-readable fleet charts become a major source of visible registries as a result of this approach (leading to me creating a spreadsheet just to have them all in one place), and the DS9 penchant for backlit ships (e.g. the Venture) becomes even more really, really annoying. I'm still working on the list, but thought it would be interesting to hear reactions and observations regarding this approach.
 
This may or may not help you unless you already created it.

This is my Starship and Stardate workbook.


IMO, they are sequential (mostly) by date but with blocks set aside for some classes like Excelsior and Constellation (note they are all over the place with build dates). My workbook is a WIP but you can see how I lined them up by registry and how it works out date wise.

I am also of the opinion that there is at least 3 or 4 numbering sequences.
Ships like the below fall into a legacy NAR system
SD-103 Shuttle NAR-25820
SS Wisconsin NAR-50732

But Vico and SS Shiku Maru NBT-30894 falls into the NCC registry system.

There are some ships like the Stargazer and SS Tsiolkovsky that don't align registry to year format. I consider these as either recommissioned or authorized but built later in production that what they should have been,

Also BTW, we found out its actually the "USS Alka-Celsior" as well as the other Excelsior study is the USS Excelsior NCC-0220.
 
Last edited:
I've seen that Google doc before, thank you. That's a lot of work, and there's some good information contained within. My spreadsheets are more limited in scope . . . one has the ships from the various charts, the other classes and earliest/latest registries associated with them.

I absolutely hate the idea of two separate NAR systems, because no real-world military or what-have-you would ever do anything like that.



. . . well, ****.

(Note that the F-4 is also the F4H and the F-110A before 1962, because reasons.)

Kidding aside, though, the Wisconsin smells like an error on the same Okudagram that gave us planet "Malaya" in contradiction to literally everything else, and the NAR for SD-103 thing is just weird, but fortunately never visible.

Regarding the Stargazer and Tsiolkovsky both, I don’t think there's anything other than the unreadable plaques to indicate anything erroneous.
 
Last edited:
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top