# Enterprise and Exeter -- "Omega" remastered



## chiangkaishecky (Oct 4, 2000)

http://www.startrek.com/custom/include/feature/bst/tos-enhanced/tos-054/pop.html
No controversy there.


----------



## JGG1701 (Nov 9, 2004)

chiangkaishecky said:


> No controversy there.


----------



## CaptFrank (Jan 29, 2005)

Yet another thread started just to post a link.

Here's what it shows:


----------



## spe130 (Apr 13, 2004)

I like it.


----------



## chiangkaishecky (Oct 4, 2000)

CaptFrank said:


> Yet another thread started just to post a link.


If it bugs ya so much ... just don't click


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

Care to clarify on what you mean by "no controversey", 'shecky? Do you mean nothing for folks to get all upset about as they were for some of the other Remastered episodes?


----------



## Ohio_Southpaw (Apr 26, 2005)

I think he means that since it's another Connie, there won't be any complaints about how they changed/ruined the ships comments like the Tholians or Ion ship garnered.


----------



## TGel63 (Mar 26, 2004)

Well, at least it's not another OT-Thread


----------



## KUROK (Feb 2, 2004)

Might be refering to the registry number of Exeter.
Franz Joseph (NCC-1706) vs. Okuda (NCC-1672)


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

Y'know, color me silly, but that's one of those weird issues w/me. I hate the idea that the Okuda numbers - derived from a somewhat bizarre system that Greg Jein cooked up some years ago based off the wall chart in "Court Martial" - have ship registries that are LOWER than that of _Enterprise_, especially since we've been given the information that there was a diagram we couldn't make out in "Space Seed" where where we see that _Constitution_ is the class name and are later given the registry of NCC-1700. Seeing as we got _Constellation_ seen quite clearly on-screen as NCC-1017, my argument doesn't hold a lot of water other than to say that she's the single on-screen aberation that we ever saw during TOS, thus the exception rather than the rule. 

Anyhow, I'm not trying to advocate/convince anyone else that I'm right and they're wrong, but it _really_ bug me that Mr Jein came up with a system that even _he_ admits is convoluted and "reaches" to find a rationale for those registry numbers and that it's slowly becoming canon. I'd much rather they gave a nod to the _Star Fleet Technical Manual_ and use those registry numbers instead. 

Oh, well. 

I'd also rather that they kept the same camera angle as in the original "The Omega Syndrome" w/_Enterprise_ approaching from above and astern in the initial encounter. See, there's just no pleasin' me! :lol:


----------



## wpthomas (Apr 28, 2005)

On the one hand I'd complain about the registry, but the old NCCs have become another fuddy-duddy bagde of honor for me. Like spelling "starfleet" Star Fleet. Or contending that Klingons believe that "cruelty is something admirable; honor is a dispicable trait." Heh. And I'm not even 40 yet.


----------



## WarpCore Breach (Apr 27, 2005)

I'm a little disappointed seeing the _Exeter's_ number being what it is - it is sad that anything FJ-created is or has been expunged from the "official" _Trek_ universe.

Although that's a controversary all in it's own and need not be repeated here. There are strong feelings all around on that still, but you can add me to the list of preferring the _Tech Manual _ numbering!


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

I must say that the FJ numbering system is far preferable for its logic as compared to what Jein came up with.

Who's to say those were all Constitution starships on that chart, anyway? I never thought so when viewing the episode for the first and many times afterwards. In fact, with the numbers on the chart, I'd say that's the last thing I would have thought.


----------



## chiangkaishecky (Oct 4, 2000)

Griffworks said:


> Do you mean nothing for folks to get all upset about as they were for some of the other Remastered episodes?





Ohio Southpaw said:


> ...there won't be any complaints about how they changed/ruined the ships comments like the Tholians or Ion ship garnered.


Exactly.
Sorry for the inadvertent ambiguity everybody.


----------



## KUROK (Feb 2, 2004)

They made the planet more earthlike. Wasn't the old pink and blue planet purdy?


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

Griffworks said:


> Seeing as we got _Constellation_ seen quite clearly on-screen as NCC-1017, my argument doesn't hold a lot of water other than to say that she's the single on-screen aberation that we ever saw during TOS, thus the exception rather than the rule.


There's nothing to say that Constellation is Constituion class, though. (There's a signficant camp that maintains there are several subclasses of Starship Class, e.g. Bonhomme Richard class.)





PerfesserCoffee said:


> Who's to say those were all Constitution starships on that chart, anyway? I never thought so when viewing the episode for the first and many times afterwards. In fact, with the numbers on the chart, I'd say that's the last thing I would have thought.


I'm with you.






chiangkaishecky said:


> Ohio_Southpaw said:
> 
> 
> > I think he means that since it's another Connie, there won't be any complaints about how they changed/ruined the ships comments like the Tholians or Ion ship garnered.
> ...


Of course, there was another controversy waiting! It's like a minefield. 





WarpCore Breach said:


> I'm a little disappointed seeing the _Exeter's_ number being what it is - it is sad that anything FJ-created is or has been expunged from the "official" _Trek_ universe.


Agreed. The fact that I've seen many of the FJ prints on screen and heard ship names/registries read aloud (e.g., USS Columbia, NCC-621) remains. I may not agree with all of FJ's material, but he's most certainly a part of Star Trek to me.


----------



## CaptFrank (Jan 29, 2005)

This numbering of Starships is such a controversy.

When we consider the U.S. Navy's numbering system for 
the hulls of various ships, we find instances of disorder.

The fleet aircraft carriers are mostly in order, but #35 was never
used/completed. If the Navy wanted to, they could use it for the
next carrier. 

The smaller, escort carriers vary widely in their hull numbers, due
mainly to the variety of classes.


As an example, the Essex Class, Long-Hull Group:

CV-19 Hancock 15 Apr 44
CV-14 Ticonderoga 8 May 44
CV-38 Shangri-La 15 Sep 44
CV-15 Randolph 9 Oct 44
CV-36 Antietam 28 Jan 45
CV-21 Boxer 16 Apr 45
CV-39 Lake Champlain 3 Jun 45

At the time, these were some of the main battle carriers. The Navy
depended on them the way Starfleet depends on the _Enterprise_ 
and her sister-ships.
The dates show when they were put into service. The hull numbers
are diverse.

Who's to say Starfleet wasn't more orderly with their system?
They could have skipped *1017* and used it years later for
the _Constellation_.
The _Republic_ is *1371*.
Why assume all the _Constitution_ ships were built one after
the other and numbered in sequence?

As far as that chart in "Court Martial", maybe that Starbase was 
a specialized base that only serviced the Constitution-class.
The chart could have been a schedule with some of the ships
not yet there.


----------



## Treadwell (Aug 22, 2002)

I don't care much about the registry numbers, so if I were to nitpick, it would be that the ships are way too close to each other for safety's sake. Unless they're going to dock or one tow the other, I would think standard procedure would give more breathing room (along the lines of the original shot).

Plus, with one ship farther from the planet than the other, they are actually in different orbits and Sulu would be driven insane trying to maintain their relative positions...for no good reason.

Neat shot, anyway!


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

CaptFrank said:


> As far as that chart in "Court Martial", maybe that Starbase was a specialized base that only serviced the Constitution-class.
> The chart could have been a schedule with some of the ships
> not yet there.


Even so, it would be very strange indeed for virtually all of the Connies to be there at one time! Much easier to think a variety of a dozen or so ships out of a great many more in the entire fleet were there. (Although we dont' know all the ships listed were actually present at the starbase at that time. Maybe they are just ships the commodore has some interest in.)


----------



## aridas sofia (Feb 3, 2004)

What really irritates me about Okuda going forward with showing the bizarre Jein numbers is that we know those numbers fly in the face of what Jefferies himself said was the logic of the numbering system -- that the "17" meant it was the seventeenth design, and that the "01" meant it was the first build (presumably after the class ship). How can this identical _Exeter_ be the _sixteenth_ design? Same with their _Constellation_-- Jefferies used the AMT model, thus giving us a distinctly different ship of a different shape. Different shape, different numbers at the beginning (10 instead of 17). Okuda gives us an identical ship with the "10" leading the number.

It all makes sense until these Jein numbers come in to play, or until you substitute a ship identical to the 11 foot model for the _Constellation_. Then you just have to throw your hands up and say "it's some backdated, out-of-order system".


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

^^ See my reply to this sentiment on the TBBS.


----------



## Lou Dalmaso (Jul 13, 2004)

I'm an old school franz joseph follower. Cuz he was there first dag-nabbit!
nobody else was thinking of these things at the time.

and what about the AMT models at the time that gave you decals to "build the whole fleet"! they gave you numbers 01 to 14 (oddly enough no "00")

When Kirk says that "there are only 12 like her" I imagined a great day when the entire fleet was "launched" at one time (course I was a kid at the time, but hey its still a pretty neat visual) So I had no problem with the Constitution being the test bed vehicle then 11 other ships being produced.

my 2 quatloos,


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

chiangkaishecky said:


> Exactly.
> Sorry for the inadvertent ambiguity everybody.


 See, all ya hadda do was cut-and-paste the pictures instead of the link, and type one more sentence. 15 seconds more work for you, and 10 people wouldn't have been ticked at ya.


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

Warped9 said:


> ^^ See my reply to this sentiment on the TBBS.


Instead of making us have to try and track down _one post_ you made over at Trek BBS - I have to assume, that's what you mean by TBBS - why don't you just post your thoughts here? 




aridas sofia said:


> What really irritates me about Okuda going forward with showing the bizarre Jein numbers is that we know those numbers fly in the face of what Jefferies himself said was the logic of the numbering system -- that the "17" meant it was the seventeenth design, and that the "01" meant it was the first build (presumably after the class ship). How can this identical _Exeter_ be the _sixteenth_ design? Same with their _Constellation_-- Jefferies used the AMT model, thus giving us a distinctly different ship of a different shape. Different shape, different numbers at the beginning (10 instead of 17). Okuda gives us an identical ship with the "10" leading the number.


And the Greg Jein article he wrote for "T-Negative" - a "fanzine": The Case Of Jonathan Doe Starship, from the most excellent Trekplace.com

aridas, do you know of a link online to attribute to Mr. Jeffries designation system? Or was that perhaps in "The Making of Star Trek" (TMoST) and I just can't remember where I've read that? 


> It all makes sense until these Jein numbers come in to play, or until you substitute a ship identical to the 11 foot model for the _Constellation_. Then you just have to throw your hands up and say "it's some backdated, out-of-order system".


I can live w/the exception to the system being _Constellation_ as a few others have postulated in the past - _Constellation_ and perhaps a few other starships were of a much older design that was vaguely of the same shape as the _Constitution_-class and was slated for uprating/major reconstruction to _Constitution_ specifications. Maybe StarFleet or the UFP decided that 13 or so _Constitution_-class starships weren't enough in the face of the "Klingon Threat" or some such, so uprated/refit those ships. You can think of it as being akin to those ships in wet navies in the 20's and 30's that started out life as a cruiser but were converted to use as an aircraft carrier.


----------



## aridas sofia (Feb 3, 2004)

Sure, *Griff*:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/cult/st/interviews/jefferies/page6.shtml

It's all a little odd. Okuda seems like the kind of guy that really wants to get it right. And yet on this one he goes off and dumps MJ's numbering system, institutes the crazy system, and tells us almost the whole class will be at one starbase at one time (in "Court Martial"). And why? Because Franz Joseph actually might have listened to Matt Jefferies when they met, and got it the way the designer wanted it?

Sheez. If they wanted to dump FJ, ignore Jein, and stay true to MJ, they could have just reshuffled the ships and still had them use the 1700 numbers. Petty, yes. But more sensible than this foolishness.


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

Ah! Thanks, *aridas*! I knew I'd seen that somewhere, but couldn't remember where. 

Agreed. It might be somewhat petty on my part, but I prefer the more organized version of what MJ mentions in his article that nicely complements the FJD numbering system. Regardless of who came up with what first between those two gentlemen, it would seem they were at least reading from the same book, if not the exact same chapter or page. 

While I respect Mr's Jein and Okuda for their work, that's one of the few things they've done that disappoints me, and for the same reasons you mention, *aridas*. 

Anyhow, thanks again for the link. I appreciate it.


----------



## Shaw (Jan 9, 2005)

Some of the things to keep in mind when attributing _creators intent_ is that what we have heard was how back in 1964 Jefferies decided on _1701_, which was independent of Roddenberry's input and years before working with the series production. All we have heard was the answer to the question of where the _1701_ came from back in 1964 (which also included the important factors of avoiding numbers such as _3_, _6_, _8_ and _9_), and not what was settled on when picking numbers during the series (which may have been independent of Jefferies input).

I, personally, like the Franz Joseph numbers. For me, the Constellation (1017) and Republic (1371) are pretty easy to justify... those ships could have been test articles of the design that would be finalize with the Constitution. When the Constitution was being built, they were upgraded to match the final class specifications.

Do we have examples of this in real life? You bet!

Enterprise (OV-101) was the first shuttle to be assembled for flight tests, Columbia (OV-102) was the first to fly in space. Given that, the _logical_ sequence of numbers should have been 103, 104, 105, etc. Problem is, Challenger (OV-099) brakes that sequence.

Additionally, what if funding for the _Starship class_ ships took place over an extended period, then those numbers may have been set aside (along with their names) long before production started and may have absolutely nothing to do with the order of completion.

Sure, I would have liked to have seen _1706_ on the hull of a remastered _Omega Glory_, but it was never going to happen. Okuda settled on the revised Jein numbers when writing books like the _Star Trek Encyclopedia_ (which was written *years* before Matt Jefferies died).

But is this the first time that Jefferies ideas have been bypassed for the ideas of others... no.

In Jefferies design of the Enterprise he envisioned a ship of about 19 decks, but Okuda has settled on the Joseph layout of 23 decks. If we all followed Jefferies' (_the creator_) intent, the final model of the Enterprise would need to be disregarded too. Star Trek wasn't just Matt Jefferies, it was a collaboration of quite a few talented individuals who (more often than not) worked together to produce a very coherent universe for these stories.


----------



## aridas sofia (Feb 3, 2004)

I keep reading this "Matt Jefferies intended 19 decks" business. I followed his two cross sections scrupulously as far as deck placement goes. And if you count areas like the upper and lower sensor domes as decks, and that area above a bridge that has been lowered to where he lowered it, you get...

23 decks.

I think folks are thrown off by the fact that FJ interpreted that literally, and not in naval sense, where a tiny space on a tower above the bridge can be counted as a deck.


----------



## Shaw (Jan 9, 2005)

aridas sofia said:


> I keep reading this "Matt Jefferies intended 19 decks" business. I followed his two cross sections scrupulously as far as deck placement goes. And if you count areas like the upper and lower sensor domes as decks, and that area above a bridge that has been lowered to where he lowered it, you get...
> 
> 23 decks.


 Really? Then maybe you can actually show us (rather than just making a vague claim) that it works.

Here is what you have to work with...


_click to enlarge_​
You have Jefferies' original and Phase II cross sections and Okuda's arrangement of the 23 decks of the original Enterprise. _Shoe horn_ away!


----------



## digger1 (May 6, 2007)

yabut, they didn't want to use the real Mars on an episode of Voyager because it looked too real. This looks as real as it gets.


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

Shaw: I don't think aridas was arguing that Okuda's deck assignments were correct. He was just saying you can count that many "decks" in the cross sections, if you count small levels such as navigation dome, even if not normally occupied. Clearly this doesn't jive with Okuda's deck 1 bridge, even (unless we have deck -1 above that)


----------



## Shaw (Jan 9, 2005)

There is still a pretty big difference between 19 and 23 decks... even if we count the upper dome, that leaves us with 3 more decks to find in Jefferies' drawings. I don't see where either a _scrupulous_ or _liberal_ reading of those drawings are going to flush out 3 more decks. They are what they are... in any navy. 




Of course if we put on our _Bill Shatner glasses_ I'm sure we could find much more than 3 additional decks in those drawings.


----------



## Treadwell (Aug 22, 2002)

aridas sofia said:


> _Constellation_-- Jefferies used the AMT model, thus giving us a distinctly different ship of a different shape. Different shape, different numbers at the beginning (10 instead of 17).


waitaminute...you're saying that because the longbox AMT kit has inaccuracies of which only the likes of us are aware, that the creators intended the ship to be of a different design than _Enterprise_?!

The differences are not disticnt, they are infinitesimal in this context. If the creators intended _Constellation_ to look different than _Enterprise_, then by gum it would've been REALLY different--enough so that the average viewer would pick up on it right away.

Hell, the AMT is closer to the 11-footer than the 3-footer is, but the 11 and the 3 are the "same" ship.

But no, the creators used the AMT because as far as they were concerned it looked exactly like _Enterprise_; thus the _Constellation_ would be a sister ship.


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

Shaw said:


> There is still a pretty big difference between 19 and 23 decks... even if we count the upper dome, that leaves us with 3 more decks to find in Jefferies' drawings. I don't see where either a _scrupulous_ or _liberal_ reading of those drawings are going to flush out 3 more decks. They are what they are... in any navy.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Your comments aren't exactly conducive to a civil discussion, as they're acerbic and condescending. Please check that in the future....


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

Treadwell said:


> waitaminute...you're saying that because the longbox AMT kit has inaccuracies of which only the likes of us are aware, that the creators intended the ship to be of a different design than _Enterprise_?!
> 
> The differences are not disticnt, they are infinitesimal in this context. If the creators intended _Constellation_ to look different than _Enterprise_, then by gum it would've been REALLY different--enough so that the average viewer would pick up on it right away.
> 
> ...


Having been privy to similar conversations that *aridas* has had in the past along these lines, specifically at TrekBBS. I believe he's saying that _Constellation_ was an earlier class with somewhat similar lines to that of a _Constitution_-class. A forerunner to the design, but not *exactly* like a _Constitution_.


----------



## jbond (Aug 29, 2002)

Maybe but the idea that Jefferies decided to use the AMT kit because he wanted the Constellation to look like a different class of ship makes absolutely no sense to me and I've certainly never heard any words to that effect in interviews with Jefferies. In the context of a television series made under tremendous time and budget pressure the reason for using the AMT kit is very obvious--it's cheap and it looks like the Enterprise! In order to show the kind of damage the Constellation needed to show, modifying the 11 or 3 foot models would have been absolutely out of the question (whereas for other episodes requiring other starships that were NOT displaying visible damage, reused footage of the 3 or 11 foot models or even reshooting said models was very much an option).

I always assumed the Constellation's "1017" registry was simply the result of what decals were available with the kit and the fact that Jefferies wanted to use the most easily readable numbers he could. There's no doubt that a great deal of thought and planning was put into MANY aspects of TOS but a lot of what else we see on the show was dictated by budget, schedules and resources...


----------



## Lou Dalmaso (Jul 13, 2004)

BINGO.

We reach, brother!


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Did Jefferies have anything to do with the AMT model being used on the show?


----------



## spe130 (Apr 13, 2004)

Shaw said:


> Some of the things to keep in mind when attributing _creators intent_ is that what we have heard was how back in 1964 Jefferies decided on _1701_, which was independent of Roddenberry's input and years before working with the series production. All we have heard was the answer to the question of where the _1701_ came from back in 1964 (which also included the important factors of avoiding numbers such as _3_, _6_, _8_ and _9_), and not what was settled on when picking numbers during the series (which may have been independent of Jefferies input).
> 
> I, personally, like the Franz Joseph numbers. For me, the Constellation (1017) and Republic (1371) are pretty easy to justify... those ships could have been test articles of the design that would be finalize with the Constitution. When the Constitution was being built, they were upgraded to match the final class specifications.
> 
> ...


_Challenger_'s spaceframe was actually built in the sequence indicated. She was originally built as a static test frame, but was sent back for reconstruction into a functional orbiter after it became evident that _Enterprise _was not going to be usable.


----------



## spe130 (Apr 13, 2004)

Treadwell said:


> I don't care much about the registry numbers, so if I were to nitpick, it would be that the ships are way too close to each other for safety's sake. Unless they're going to dock or one tow the other, I would think standard procedure would give more breathing room (along the lines of the original shot).
> 
> Plus, with one ship farther from the planet than the other, they are actually in different orbits and Sulu would be driven insane trying to maintain their relative positions...for no good reason.
> 
> Neat shot, anyway!


It wouldn't be that hard..._Enterprise _would simply need to be moving a bit faster than _Exeter_. The calculation should be pretty simple on any decent computing machine.


----------



## Shaw (Jan 9, 2005)

spe130 said:


> _Challenger_'s spaceframe was actually built in the sequence indicated. She was originally built as a static test frame, but was sent back for reconstruction into a functional orbiter after it became evident that _Enterprise _was not going to be usable.


The sequence is of *completed* orbiters. Challenger's number, _099_ came from it's original specification as _STA-099_ and was changed to _OV-099_.

The actual history was that STA-099 underwent a year of testing to see if the framework built into Enterprise and Columbia was actually needed. When it was found that quite a bit of weight savings could be made without the loss of structural stability, design modifications were made.

Both Columbia and Enterprise were too far along to take full advantage of the modifications, but STA-099 (which had originally been slated as structural spares) was given the modifications and completed as OV-099... and given the name Challenger.

Columbia's weight issues are why it was not outfitted for use with the International Space Station. And while weighing less than Columbia, Challenger was still heavier than the other shuttles built with the modified design from the very start. 

Enterprise would have still been heavier than Columbia (and Challenger) even with some of the modifications. It was never that the Enterprise was _not usable_, just too heavy and thus impractical. Enterprise was being used for shuttle faculty testing in 1978 (both in Florida and California) before it was to be sent back to Rockwell International for reassembly as a space ready vehicle. It wasn't until 1979 that Enterprise was set aside and many of us Trekkies didn't hear about it until much later (1980 or 1981). I first read the full sequence of events in the _Challenger Report_ in 1988.

The structural spares made to replace STA-099 in the shuttle program's inventory were assembled as the Endeavour after the loss of the Challenger.


----------



## aridas sofia (Feb 3, 2004)

jbond said:


> Maybe but the idea that Jefferies decided to use the AMT kit because he wanted the Constellation to look like a different class of ship makes absolutely no sense to me and I've certainly never heard any words to that effect in interviews with Jefferies. In the context of a television series made under tremendous time and budget pressure the reason for using the AMT kit is very obvious--it's cheap and it looks like the Enterprise! In order to show the kind of damage the Constellation needed to show, modifying the 11 or 3 foot models would have been absolutely out of the question (whereas for other episodes requiring other starships that were NOT displaying visible damage, reused footage of the 3 or 11 foot models or even reshooting said models was very much an option).
> 
> I always assumed the Constellation's "1017" registry was simply the result of what decals were available with the kit and the fact that Jefferies wanted to use the most easily readable numbers he could. There's no doubt that a great deal of thought and planning was put into MANY aspects of TOS but a lot of what else we see on the show was dictated by budget, schedules and resources...



I'm not saying he used the AMT kit to indicate a different class. I'm saying he might have given it such a divergent number because of the differences between that kit and the 11 foot model. After all, he could have just as easily given it a "1710" and fit it into the very NCC scheme he is quoted as wanting. Hell, he could have come up with a new number -- they made up a new decal for the name after all. But he felt comfortable with 1017.

Of course, it might have been somebody's mistake, or it might have been merely a desire to visually distinguish the _Constellation_ as much as possible (beyond all that damage?!). But accounting for the differences between the two ships fits the attention to detail Jefferies manifested in his work -- and it made the number visually distinct, to boot!


----------



## Lou Dalmaso (Jul 13, 2004)

after all this fuss about the number, what bugged me about seeing the actual episode is that they didn't re-do the shot at the end to show the Enterprise tractoring the Exeter out of orbit. 

I mean c'mon Starfleet is just gonna leave it there?

All they would have to do is to purge the air out of the ship.


----------



## Modeler1964 (Aug 13, 2006)

Lou- Agreed! Starfleet would never leave a pristine vessel in orbit as an abandoned derelict. Anyone could have then snagged it (Romulans, Klingons, Ferengi) and discovered the Federation's latest technology. 
I was always bothered by that next Gen episode where that Ferengi managed to acquire the Stargazer. What a crock!
Sorry- back to the topic........


----------



## Ohio_Southpaw (Apr 26, 2005)

Lou Dalmaso said:


> after all this fuss about the number, what bugged me about seeing the actual episode is that they didn't re-do the shot at the end to show the Enterprise tractoring the Exeter out of orbit.
> 
> I mean c'mon Starfleet is just gonna leave it there?
> 
> All they would have to do is to purge the air out of the ship.



Any Ship of the Line would not be used as a tow vehicle unless absolutely necessary. Since the crisis had been averted, I would imagine they merely left her in a parking orbit until a ship specifically designed and outfitted to tow another vessel was dispatched to the scene by Starfleet. Tractor beams are fine for smaller ships or emergencies, but I would imagine they would use a more powerful version (sacrifice speed for horsepower) or a physical connection to tow her back to a Starbase for repairs.


----------



## Shaw (Jan 9, 2005)

aridas sofia said:


> But accounting for the differences between the two ships fits the attention to detail Jefferies manifested in his work --


You know, I've watched that episode at least a couple times and I don't recall seeing _Co-written by Walter M. Jefferies_ anywhere. And all this additional _thought_ you seem to be attributing to Jefferies seems to be running pretty close to making alterations to the story.

As much as I hate seeing Jefferies not get credit for his part in Trek, it is just as frustrating to see people make him out to be the writer of the TOS bible (the exact type of thing that he warned against for anyone thinking of doing his job). In 1964 when there was hardly a script, he was free to justify anything in any way he wanted. But by 1967, the writers were making Star Trek.

And more importantly, the only thing that he would have been asked to do in that episode to help the effects artist might have been designing the planet killer.

Lets remember that Jefferies was an _art director_, which is different from being an effects person. The effects people got the script, were given parameters with which to build the Constellation... end of story.

And as I've pointed out many times before, making the _U.S.S. CONSTELLATION_ required heading over to the local hobby shop and grabbing train decals (most likely at the same time they were buying the model kit).


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Shaw said:


> . . . Lets remember that Jefferies was an _art director_, which is different from being an effects person. The effects people got the script, were given parameters with which to build the Constellation... end of story.


That's what I was thinking. I never before read about Jeffries being involved with the _Constellation_/AMT model.


----------



## WarpCore Breach (Apr 27, 2005)

Just to throw in my $.02 - The _Exeter_ was always intended to be the same ship class as _Enterprise_. That's why we got a distant shot of the _Exeter_ orbiting the planet but not able to see her hull number. I don't think that it was ever intended for the _Exeter_ to have a distinct number as it would have required additional FX work and new decals for the 11' mini; all of which would have been "too much" for the show's budget. We notice that the _Exeter's_ hull number is of no consequence to the story as it wasn't necessary. It is clear that the producers felt that at the time it was totally irrelevant.

Comment on the _Constellation_- it has always been my belief that the _Constellation_ was intended to be of the same class as _Enterprise_. But the 11' mini could NOT be damaged to the extent that the _Constellation_ needed to be shown so the FX department used the only model available at the time - the AMT kit. Let's not forget that in spite of that kit's well-known inacurracies, it also was the only kit that supposedly depicted the _Enterprise_. Following this chain of bizarre logic, the _Constellation_ WAS the same class as _Enterprise_. Where we get all the trouble is that the model's ony existing numbers were re-arranged into what's become the central issue for all of us interested in such things. The _Constellation_ could have become NCC-1710. It would have solved a great number of problems in terms of sequence but the model's lack of finer detail to the 11' mini would have made the possible intention of same class resemblances more difficult. 

Buying 2 kits could have also made several other possibilities, such as NCC-1711 but the same problem applies. A possible NCC-16xx number would have probably made more sense but the fact remains that the FX department- for whatever reason - simply re-arranged the existing 1701 decal of ONE model kit into 1017 and thus gave us a hull numbering hell that has been argued over since. 

It's kinda hard to believe that the FX budget apparently only allowed enough leeway for a single commercial kit nor make use of the graphic department's skills to create a new number that would have been more logical and less confusing. Yet, that does appear to have to seemed to have happened.

I doubt that anyone who worked on the show then could recall the specifics as to the why this was done. It sure would go a long way to clear up the confusion but the central issue would still really wouldn't go away. We apparently have a _Constitution_-class starship with an incredibly low hull number.


----------



## Lou Dalmaso (Jul 13, 2004)

*should they stay or should they go...*

I don't know.. It would make more sense to either put a skeleton crew aboard (in decon suits, or else they would really be a skeleton crew) or tow her out immediately. this is a "one in 12, top of the line starship" and the only thing that would be capable of defending her against pirates (name your species here) would be another starship. This is a valuable military asset and whatever mission the E had to go to could wait.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

WarpCore Breach said:


> We apparently have a _Constitution_-class starship with an incredibly low hull number.


Yeah, it's a mess. And apparently they didn't learn their lesson on _ST:TNG_. They numbered the _Enterprise _a number that doesn't come anywhere close to the other _Galaxy_ class ships.  

Since we're stuck with them from the original series, I don't have as much of a problem with a couple of exceptions like the _Republic _and the _Constellation_. 

The others should, IMHO, follow the 1700+ numbering system instead of going willy nilly all over the place [cough]NCC-956[/cough].


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

spe130 said:


> It wouldn't be that hard..._Enterprise _would simply need to be moving a bit faster than _Exeter_. The calculation should be pretty simple on any decent computing machine.


No, it's not that simple. Each orbit has a fundamental speed. The natural speed for an orbit slightly wider than Exeter's is a speed slightly _slower_ than Exeter's! To stay in sync with Exeter (if that's what's shown: I've only seen a still, Enterprise may be falling behind in the shot), Sulu would have quite a job to do, as Treadwell said.

Here's an interesting overview of orbital mechanics: http://www.braeunig.us/space/orbmech.htm


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> I don't have as much of a problem with a couple of exceptions like the _Republic _and the _Constellation_.


Where is it canonically established that the Republic is a Connie or that its registry is below 1700? (I'm not saying it isn't, just asking.)


----------



## Shaw (Jan 9, 2005)

WarpCore Breach said:


> We apparently have a Constitution-class starship with an incredibly low hull number.


Of course now we have lots of low numbers:956 Eagle
1017 Constellation 
1371 Republic
1631 Intrepid
1647 Farragut 
1657 Potemkin
1664 Excalibur
1672 Exeter
1697 Essex 
1700 Constitution 
1701 Enterprise
1703 Hood
1709 Lexington 
1717 Yorktown
1764 Defiant
1895 Endeavour​


> Let's not forget that in spite of that kit's well-known inacurracies, it also was the only kit that supposedly depicted the Enterprise.


Less we forget that this was about a year after the model kit was released... what are now (40 years later) _well-known inaccuracies_ were most likely the furthest thing from the minds of the effects team. 

In nearly all the episodes of the original series, effects shots of the Enterprise with striking physical differences were strung together without a second thought. Why? Because the concept of rabid fans watching reruns wasn't even thought of. Additionally, no one could have foreseen that video taping or video capturing into a computer to do analysis on images would be applied to this production. Nor did they think that fans would be picking over the original model finding discrepancies of fractions of an inch.

Not only was this _cheep_ model of the Enterprise used for the Constellation... it was used to represent other ships too. Why? Because they already had the footage ready for use.

The space scenes in TOS were mostly done using stock footage. The fact that this was how it was done should scream out why any way to keep the effects budget down was done... including using a store bought model.

It is amazing that people seem to have forgotten that Star Trek was always on the verge of cancellation. And it wasn't because the ratings were low, it was that the ratings were too low to justify the series' production budget. Getting that budget down was one of the single most important factors in keeping it on the air.





Lou Dalmaso said:


> I don't know.. It would make more sense to either put a skeleton crew aboard (in decon suits, or else they would really be a skeleton crew) or tow her out immediately. this is a "one in 12, top of the line starship" and the only thing that would be capable of defending her against pirates (name your species here) would be another starship. This is a valuable military asset and whatever mission the E had to go to could wait.


Well, there could have been others who tried to board her while she was in orbit... I guess it depends on if they counted the piles of dust as to whether they even made note of it.



More than 429 piles would mean someone went where they shouldn't have.


----------



## BEBruns (Apr 30, 2003)

Lou Dalmaso said:


> I don't know.. It would make more sense to either put a skeleton crew aboard (in decon suits, or else they would really be a skeleton crew) or tow her out immediately. this is a "one in 12, top of the line starship" and the only thing that would be capable of defending her against pirates (name your species here) would be another starship. This is a valuable military asset and whatever mission the E had to go to could wait.


What makes you think they didn't do that? 

The show is not about the derelict _Exeter_. It's only function is to get our people down to the planet. What happens to the ship is of no importance to the story. The story is over when Kirk looks at the American flag and walks out of the room. The only reason we have the shot of the _Enterprise _ leaving orbit is so they'd have something to run the credits over. There was no reason to waste time showing us what happened to the other ship.


----------



## Shaw (Jan 9, 2005)

uss_columbia said:


> Here's an interesting overview of orbital mechanics: http://www.braeunig.us/space/orbmech.htm


The distances apart that the Enterprise and Exeter are at would represent a difference in velocity so small that it wouldn't register to the human eye. Infact, they could stay in those orbits for days and hardly move more than a few inches relative to each other.

Orbits are calculated from the center of a planet to the orbit... not by altitude above the planet.


----------



## Lou Dalmaso (Jul 13, 2004)

all I'm sayin' is that it would have been a neat shot to show both ships leaving. that's all. 

:wave:


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

uss_columbia said:


> Each orbit has a fundamental speed.


Huh? What does this mean???



uss_columbia said:


> The natural speed for an orbit...


What does this mean, again???



uss_columbia said:


> slightly wider than Exeter's is a speed slightly _slower_ than Exeter's!


Ah some meat. Enterprise being farther out would mean that it would have to be moving faster than Exteter to maintain relative position. From a computational perspective the orbits as depicted in the scene are virtually the same. But still, a higher speed for Enterprise would be required.



uss_columbia said:


> Sulu would have quite a job to do


Nah, Sulu or anyone could do it manually with ease. Heck, pilots do it all the time. But I would assume a standard orbit is computer controlled and since I can compute the perimeter of a circle by hand on paper (or an ellipse if need be). I severely doubt then that Sulu or the flight computer on Enterprise would have the slightest difficulty in maintaining the required path and speed.


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

Lou Dalmaso said:


> all I'm sayin' is that it would have been a neat shot to show both ships leaving. that's all.
> 
> :wave:


Well we don't know that Exeter wasn't already gong by the time they broke orbit. When coming in at the beginning we see Exeter in the distance, but not so when Enterprise leaves. Not conclusive I know but it would seem like a standard procedure to await a recovery vessel before heading out again.


----------



## wpthomas (Apr 28, 2005)

If I understand correctly, a given speed will give you a specific orbit. If you go faster or slower, you change orbit. The real kicker is if you speed up, you go into a higher orbit and the thing you are chasing moves AWAY from you, not toward. Makes the brains ache.

But I'm sure there's warp mechanics and anti-gravity involved. That's why when they lose power they always fall into the atmosphere almost immediately!


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

uss_columbia said:


> Where is it canonically established that the Republic is a Connie or that its registry is below 1700? (I'm not saying it isn't, just asking.)


It's described as the *starship *_USS Republic_ and its NCC-number is given by the computer in _Court Martial._

It's not described as a _Constitution _class per se but seeing as this was the first season and the plaque on the bridge says "_starship_ class," it's a good bet that it was intended to be the same type ship as the _1701_.

It was the ship that Ensign Kirk served on when he caught Ben Finney leaving a circuit open to the atomic piles (and we all know how dangerous _that _can be  ).


----------



## Modeler1964 (Aug 13, 2006)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> It's described as the *starship *_USS Republic_ and its NCC-number is given by the computer in _Court Martial._
> 
> It's not described as a _Constitution _class per se but seeing as this was the first season and the plaque on the bridge says "_starship_ class," it's a good bet that it was intended to be the same type ship as the _1701_.
> 
> It was the ship that Ensign Kirk served on when he caught Ben Finney leaving a circuit open to the atomic piles (and we all know how dangerous _that _can be  ).


LMAO! Atomic Piles......of what? LOL! Don't leave your circuits open to any atomic piles of anything! :lol:


----------



## WarpCore Breach (Apr 27, 2005)

Modeler1964 said:


> LMAO! Atomic Piles......of what? LOL! Don't leave your circuits open to any atomic piles of anything! :lol:


And be careful where you step! Those could be anywhere!! :lol:


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

Four Mad Men said:


> Enterprise being farther out would mean that it would have to be moving faster than Exteter to maintain relative position. From a computational perspective the orbits as depicted in the scene are virtually the same. But still, a higher speed for Enterprise would be required.


A _higher_ linear speed would be required to maintain the same angular speed as Exeter. _In contrast_, the physics of orbit requires a _lower_ (linear) speed for a higher orbit! This can seem counter-intuitive, but it's true.




> But I would assume a standard orbit is computer controlled and since I can compute the perimeter of a circle by hand on paper (or an ellipse if need be).


<scotty accent>A computer "can't change the laws of physics!"</scotty accent>
(But see below about continual thrust.)


If you read about orbital maneuvers and do a little of the math, you'll understand what I'm talking about.


However, Shaw is right that the difference in orbits is quite small and thus the difference in speeds is quite small.

Also, this pertains to _orbiting_. There's nothing to stop Sulu from using thrusters more or less continually to define a circular path irrespective of the natural orbit (overcoming the natural forces and putting the ship on the exact path he pleases, at the expense of using more energy to do so). An orbital path is a path an object follows without the addition of thrust: inertia keeps the object moving forward and gravity pulls it into an elliptical path. This is the "natural" path a satelite takes around its primary and requires no thrust whatsoever (neglecting the miniscule drag). Ordinarily, it is the goal of orbital maneuvers to use as little thrust as possible, since fuel is expensive (heavy). If you have cheap, virtually unlimited fuel, you could pick your path, gravity be darned! (I don't see any good reason why you would, but you could.)


----------



## Shaw (Jan 9, 2005)

uss_columbia said:


> No, it's not that simple. Each orbit has a fundamental speed. The natural speed for an orbit slightly wider than Exeter's is a speed slightly _slower_ than Exeter's!


I suggest putting some numbers to all this... 

Going off the image from startrek.com, guessing that the planet is about the same size as Earth, radius (6,400,000 meters) and mass (6x10^24 kg) and that the Exeter (fully visible in that image) is 288 meters in length, I estimate that the Exeter is about 14,545,455 meters from the center of the planet. Using G=6.67x10^-11 and M=6x10^24, you can find out (in meters per second) the velocity of the Exeter in it's current orbit.

Now add about 300 meters to the orbit of the Enterprise (14,545,755 meters) and calculate again. Now find the difference between the two.

This should illustrate why the ships should look like they are standing still next to each other.




By the way, I get a difference in velocity of 2.704x10^-9 meters per second.... if anyone is interested.

And at that rate it'll take about 3500 years for the Enterprise to move it's full length relative to the Exeter.


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> It's described as the *starship *_USS Republic_ and its NCC-number is given by the computer in _Court Martial._
> 
> It's not described as a _Constitution _class per se but seeing as this was the first season and the plaque on the bridge says "_starship_ class," it's a good bet that it was intended to be the same type ship as the _1701_.


Yes, Starship Class, of which we may have several subclasses including but not limited to Constitution. If we take Constitution as NCC-1700 and Enterprise as Constitution class, we're good. A previous subclass of Starship Class might have been NCC-1000 (Perhaps USS Starship was NCC-1000) and another NCC-1300 (and there's no reason they have to be multiples of 100). There's a large camp that uses this concept (usually with upgrades between subclasses--a ship built as one subclass and then converted to the latest subclass later--but upgrade to later subclass isn't an essential part of the concept).





> It was the ship that Ensign Kirk served on when he caught Ben Finney leaving a circuit open to the atomic piles (and we all know how dangerous _that _can be  ).


According to wikipedia (not always to be trusted), this is contradicted in Obsession: Lt. Kirk served on Farragut from the time he left the academy. I guess he must have briefly served on Republic long enough to tank Finney's career while he was still in the academy: a training cruise perhaps.



I think Republic is shown with a "refit" profile in the Operation Retrieve chard in ST:VI, but that could just be an icon meant to represent of several ship classes with similar configuration, not necessarily indicating Enterprise class or Constitution (II) class.


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

Shaw said:


> I suggest putting some numbers to all this...


Sheesh! What part of "Shaw is right" about the small differences did you miss?


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

wpthomas said:


> If I understand correctly, a given speed will give you a specific orbit. If you go faster or slower, you change orbit. The real kicker is if you speed up, you go into a higher orbit and the thing you are chasing moves AWAY from you, not toward. Makes the brains ache.


Yup, it's kind of fun. To get to a higher altitude orbit, you must first speed up to enter a transfer orbit carrying you out toward the higher orbit, and then you must slow back down even more than you originally sped up, ending up at a slower speed to stay in the desired higher orbit.
To close in on a ship that's in a lower orbit (and is thus moving faster than you), you slow down! (If you speed up, as you say, you'll move further away, altitude-wise). Slowing down will get you down to his orbit, but then you'll be well behind. You might end up slowing down more to go to a lower orbit, then speeding up to catch up and carry yourself back up to his orbit, before slowing back down to his orbital speed.

A while back I had downloaded an orbital simulator that let you play these games, but I couldn't locate it just now. I found others, though, including one here: http://www.ist.edu.pk/orsimulator.htm



> But I'm sure there's warp mechanics and anti-gravity involved. That's why when they lose power they always fall into the atmosphere almost immediately!


Orbits always decay at the speed of plot.
(And no matter how many systems fail, artificial gravity nearly always keeps working. (Counter-example: ST:VI.))


----------



## Shaw (Jan 9, 2005)

uss_columbia said:


> According to wikipedia (not always to be trusted), this is contradicted in Obsession: Lt. Kirk served on Farragut from the time he left the academy. I guess he must have briefly served on Republic long enough to tank Finney's career while he was still in the academy: a training cruise perhaps.


Kirk was still part of the academy when aboard the Republic. His first assignment after graduating from the academy was the Farragut (ST Encyclopedia and Chronology).

Further, at the time of the episode (Court Martial) there was no _Constitution class_, the Enterprise was understood to be a _starship class_ ship, with only 12 like her in the fleet. The intention of the writers/producers at the time was that the Republic was the same type of ship as the Enterprise.

That is why she is part of the _Constitution class_ now, because she was part of the class before it had that label.




> Sheesh! What part of "Shaw is right" about the small differences did you miss?


Well, the part where I got to use more than $80,000 worth of math and physics courses. 

It is nice to use that stuff every once in a while.


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

Indeed, in the original series, Constitution was a class of phaser equipment  (which was unreadable at that). The Enterprise was Starship Class (readable, and in dialog). There was only one class of Starship: the class that matched the existing effects footage.

If one prefers to ignore Starship Class (just like ignoring the one-hump-per-deck diagram of the ship seen nearby) and go with Constitution, one can stick with the idea that she had a low registry number. I don't believe NCC-1700 has ever canonically been pinned to Constitution. (I researched this a while back, but I can't recall what all I found. I'll go look for my posts on the subject.)


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

The registry of NCC-1700 has indeed been "pinned canonically" to _Constitution_-class. Watch ST:VI and the scene w/Scotty pouring over some blueprints in the Officers Mess. Look at the title for those same blueprints.


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

uss_columbia said:


> _In contrast_, the physics of orbit requires a _lower_ (linear) speed for a higher orbit! This can seem counter-intuitive, but it's true.


That may very well be for changing orbit altitude but once you are in that higher orbit if you are to maintain a relative position to the other ship (i.e. matching it's orbit cycle, i.e. matching it's angular velocity)...



uss_columbia said:


> A _higher_ linear speed would be required to maintain the same angular speed as Exeter.


Yes. That's really all I was saying.


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

Griffworks said:


> The registry of NCC-1700 has indeed been "pinned canonically" to _Constitution_-class. Watch ST:VI and the scene w/Scotty pouring over some blueprints in the Officers Mess. Look at the title for those same blueprints.


You sure that said NCC-1700? It didn't come up when I was researching this before. (Heck, it's been long enough since I watched ST:VI, I'll give it a view.) It was there in ST:III, but see below:

Here's what I posted some time back after researching this a bit:


> The Constitution Class was probably introduced during early production or preproduction of the original series. A diagram that was to appear in Space Seed and was later seen in Trouble With Tribbles was labeled Constitution Class. (Image here.) NCC-1700 was not established until later, though.
> 
> It seems Constitution Class was canon during the series, never fanon. (It must have been invented after the "Starship Class" dedication plaque was made, though.) The NCC-1700 as Constitution's registry was fanon and may now be canon.
> 
> ...


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

Four Mad Men said:


> That may very well be for changing orbit altitude but once you are in that higher orbit if you are to maintain a relative position to the other ship (i.e. matching it's orbit cycle, i.e. matching it's angular velocity)...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I know what you're saying.

However, _two separate objects in nearby but distinct orbits simply cannot have the same angular velocity_. As wpthomas said, "a given speed will give you a specific orbit."

If the lower object decelerates to match the higher object, the lower object will spiral down to a lower orbit and actually increase in speed (linear as well as angular). (It speeds up by slowing down!) On the other hand, if the higher ship speeds up to match the ship in the lower orbit, it will change to an eccentric orbit, temporarily getting further from the primary, again out of sync with the other object.

(Of course, if you apply thrust continually, you could overcome the inertia and gravity and move in the path you want at the speed you want; but it isn't really an orbit.)


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Modeler1964 said:


> LMAO! Atomic Piles......of what? LOL! Don't leave your circuits open to any atomic piles of anything! :lol:


Q: What stinks and glows at night behind the barn?

A: Gomer's atomic pile!


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

uss_columbia said:


> I know what you're saying.
> 
> However, _two separate objects in nearby but distinct orbits simply cannot have the same angular velocity_.


I must respectfully disagree here. Angular velocity is the rate of change of θ (theta - "degrees") with respect to time (delta-theta/delta-time).
So the angular velocities of the two ships in this case would be equal.

One ship moves 45 degrees about the center in say 5 minutes.









Now add another ship in a lower orbit that moves the same 45 degrees in the same 5 minutes.









Granted their tangential velocities are different but they move along the arc the same number of degrees in the same amount of time (i.e. same angular velocities).


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> Q: What stinks and glows at night behind the barn?
> 
> A: Gomer's atomic pile!


*** GROAN! ***


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Four Mad Men said:


> *** GROAN! ***


That _is_ bad, ain't it?


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

Not sure they get worse.


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

Four Mad Men said:


> I must respectfully disagree here.


What we have here is a failure to communicate. 
I'm not saying you can't have two concentric circular paths with the same angular velocities. For example, two cars can drive in such paths (by exerting differing inward forces with their steered wheels). What I am saying is that if you had two concentric circular _orbits_ similar to what you've drawn, they could not have the same angular velocity. The outer one experiences less gravitational pull from the primary and therefore must have lower angular velocity to remain in its orbit.

A circular path requires an acceleration toward the center (otherwise, you just run off on a tangent (speaking of which ... ). In an orbit, this centripetal acceleration is provided by gravity. To maintain the distance between the primary and the orbiting object, there must be an equal and opposite reactive force ("centrifugal force") asserted by the orbiting object. The centripetal force is directly proportional to the mass and inversely proportional to the square of the distance: for a given object in a given orbit around a given primary, it is fixed. The centrifugal force is directly proportional to the square of the angular velocity (and directly proportional to the distance to center and the mass, both of which are fixed for a given object in a given orbit). Since the two must be equal for circular path and one is fixed, the other must be fixed as well. Since it's fixed and is proportional to the angular velocity (and the other factors are also fixed), the angular velocity must be fixed as well.

In more concise terms, as wpthomas said, "a given speed will give you a specific orbit."


----------



## Treadwell (Aug 22, 2002)

Oh, what my orbit comment has wrought! 



WarpCore Breach said:


> The _Constellation_ could have become NCC-1710.


 At a quick glance (at a 1960s TV screen, to boot), that looks too much like 1701, and thus 1017 is a better choice from a design/clarity point of view. You don't want a half-attentive viewer to mistake Constellation for the Enterprise.


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

uss_columbia said:


> What we have here is a failure to communicate.


Yes, I'd say we do. Well sort of, I suppose. You are concentrating on orbits of "free flight objects" (with the exception of cases where orbital changes occur). Might we not assume that an advanced interplanetary warp-driven starship might use power while in orbit to maintain relative position to a lower orbit ship?


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

^ Sure, which is why I wrote this:


uss_columbia said:


> Also, this pertains to _orbiting_. There's nothing to stop Sulu from using thrusters more or less continually to define a circular path irrespective of the natural orbit (overcoming the natural forces and putting the ship on the exact path he pleases, at the expense of using more energy to do so). An orbital path is a path an object follows without the addition of thrust: inertia keeps the object moving forward and gravity pulls it into an elliptical path. This is the "natural" path a satelite takes around its primary and requires no thrust whatsoever (neglecting the miniscule drag). Ordinarily, it is the goal of orbital maneuvers to use as little thrust as possible, since fuel is expensive (heavy). If you have cheap, virtually unlimited fuel, you could pick your path, gravity be darned! (I don't see any good reason why you would, but you could.)


and this:


uss_columbia said:


> (Of course, if you apply thrust continually, you could overcome the inertia and gravity and move in the path you want at the speed you want; but it isn't really an orbit.)



:tongue:


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

Yes, well, there is that I suppose. You might have saved me all that trouble by making that text (originally I mean) bold, or flash, or something. So really it's entirely your fault.

:tongue: :tongue:


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

I accept that blame. Silly me. (I edited my post to also quote the _other_ time I failed to make it bold and blinking! :lol:


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

Indeed. Now just don't let it happen again.


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

Griffworks said:


> The registry of NCC-1700 has indeed been "pinned canonically" to _Constitution_-class. Watch ST:VI and the scene w/Scotty pouring over some blueprints in the Officers Mess. Look at the title for those same blueprints.


I just watched ST:VI (it had been a long time). Not bad. The highpoint for me was when McCoy said, "I'd give real money if he'd shut up." I had been thinking pretty much the same thing about Chang's endless quoting of Shakespeare.

(A minor low is where after there are several gaping torpedo holes in the ship's hull, we see Scotty announce "Shields weakening!" How did the hull get ruptured if the shields are still intact and only weakening? OTOH, the damage appears to have been largely superficial: nothing to get in the way of an extended joyride at the end of the movie.)

Anyway, the prints Scotty's looking over clearly read "Constitution Class Starship" and "Starship USS Enterprise," but NCC-1700 is nowhere to be seen. (Actually, the part under his arm down where it says Enterprise might read "NCC-1701." There's no registry up near Constitution, though.)

So, I believe the registry number for USS Constitution is still up for grabs. (Indeed the comment in Datalore about NCC-1700 being "Constitution class" suggests it is not the Constitution herself.)

Still, there are several reasons not to think NCC numbers are sequential, between classes anyway. For example, Grissom has a very low number for a seemingly new ship. And FJ's destroyer/scouts have similarly low numbers. They may have reserved number ranges for classes (or general types) of ships. A rationalization along the lines of GR's well-known stardate one is probably in order.

BTW, does anyone here happen to have a legible image of those Operation Retrieve charts with ship name/registries?


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

^ A quick search uncovered this thread on Operation Retrieve ships:
http://flare.solareclipse.net/ultimatebb.php/topic/6/2251.html


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Treadwell said:


> Oh, what my orbit comment has wrought!
> 
> 
> 
> At a quick glance (at a 1960s TV screen, to boot), that looks too much like 1701, and thus 1017 is a better choice from a design/clarity point of view. You don't want a half-attentive viewer to mistake Constellation for the Enterprise.


 The first time I saw it whin I was 10 years old, I thought it was the same number as the E at first glance anyway.

Hey! Maybe all Connies DON'T have sequential numbers - maybe they all use variations of the same four (THREE?) digits - 1701. We'd have:

NCC-1701
NCC-1710
NCC-1711
NCC-1700
NCC-1770
NCC-1777
NCC-1717
NCC-7777
NCC-7101
NCC-7701
NCC-7710
NVV-7700
NCC-1017
NCC-1010
NCC-1011
NCC-1000
NCC-1100
NCC-1101
NCC-1107
NCC-1170
NCC-1110
NCC-1111

etc., etc...

Plenty for a 12-ship fleet.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

John P said:


> The first time I saw it whin I was 10 years old, I thought it was the same number as the E at first glance anyway.
> 
> Hey! Maybe all Connies DON'T have sequential numbers - maybe they all use variations of the same four (THREE?) digits - 1701. We'd have:
> 
> ...



Now_ that's _getting ridiculous!


----------



## Admiral Nelson (Feb 28, 2002)

Little did the production team know in 1966 that in the 21st Century would there be a thing called the Internet, and on that Internet people would make a fuss over little details such as the numbers of ships. I'm sure had they known, they would have done a better job and saved some of you an ulcer.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Admiral Nelson said:


> . . . saved some of you an ulcer.


Don't I know it! I never worried that much about the NCC numbers but I got a few ulcers waiting on that Lubliner Seaview!  



:jest:


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

John P said:


> The first time I saw it whin I was 10 years old, I thought it was the same number as the E at first glance anyway.
> 
> Hey! Maybe all Connies DON'T have sequential numbers - maybe they all use variations of the same four (THREE?) digits - 1701. We'd have:
> 
> ...


Well, Jefferies did "require" that they not use numbers that could be confused when viewed from a distance, e.g., 6, 8, 9. Not a bad theory you've got there.


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

uss_columbia said:


> I just watched ST:VI (it had been a long time). Not bad. The highpoint for me was when McCoy said, "I'd give real money if he'd shut up." I had been thinking pretty much the same thing about Chang's endless quoting of Shakespeare.
> 
> (A minor low is where after there are several gaping torpedo holes in the ship's hull, we see Scotty announce "Shields weakening!" How did the hull get ruptured if the shields are still intact and only weakening? OTOH, the damage appears to have been largely superficial: nothing to get in the way of an extended joyride at the end of the movie.)
> 
> ...


Well, as I believe I originally said, it's all more of a preference thing for me, anyhow. I go with what I seem to recall the original intent of the class name from TMoST. 

Regardless, thanks for the clarification on the issue of ST:VI and what we see on that blueprint. ST:VI is one of the Trek movies I don't yet have on DVD and I've not watched my VHS copy in a couple years - afraid it might disintigrate! - and so was going on memory. That's never a good thing for me to do.... 



> Still, there are several reasons not to think NCC numbers are sequential, between classes anyway. For example, Grissom has a very low number for a seemingly new ship. And FJ's destroyer/scouts have similarly low numbers. They may have reserved number ranges for classes (or general types) of ships. A rationalization along the lines of GR's well-known stardate one is probably in order.


The reservation of a number range for a class of ships is similar to what the US Navy does - or at least did - at one point. Of course, I find myself thinking that the US Navy _might_ have done that more for a size of ship than the actual type designation? Basically, a "tonnage" not mission sort of deal? 




> BTW, does anyone here happen to have a legible image of those Operation Retrieve charts with ship name/registries?





uss_columbia said:


> ^ A quick search uncovered this thread on Operation Retrieve ships:
> http://flare.solareclipse.net/ultimatebb.php/topic/6/2251.html


Whoa! There's a blast from the past!


----------



## spe130 (Apr 13, 2004)

uss_columbia said:


> No, it's not that simple. Each orbit has a fundamental speed. The natural speed for an orbit slightly wider than Exeter's is a speed slightly _slower_ than Exeter's! To stay in sync with Exeter (if that's what's shown: I've only seen a still, Enterprise may be falling behind in the shot), Sulu would have quite a job to do, as Treadwell said.
> 
> Here's an interesting overview of orbital mechanics: http://www.braeunig.us/space/orbmech.htm


Who said anything about a natural speed? Sulu would have to run _Enterprise _a bit faster than _Exeter _to stay in matched orbits, which would require some other orbital corrections, but nothing that an advanced computer like the one aboard a Constitution-class starship couldn't handle. Instead of simply drifting, accelerate slightly.

And I see that this point has already been made. Looks like I helped a flood...


----------



## Jim NCC1701A (Nov 6, 2000)

uss_columbia said:


> A minor low is where after there are several gaping torpedo holes in the ship's hull, we see Scotty announce "Shields weakening!" How did the hull get ruptured if the shields are still intact and only weakening? OTOH, the damage appears to have been largely superficial: nothing to get in the way of an extended joyride at the end of the movie


I don't think those were actual hull ruptures so much as 'residue' from the shields getting hit - remember, we don't see TNG-style shield effects around the _Enterprise_ so my money is on the shields being a more hull-hugging system.
YMMV


----------

