StarDestroyer.Net BBS

It was mentioned in the Akira topic that the Thunderchild's registry number is in the 63000 range, which would date it as an older design than the Galaxy class. Curious, I went and looked up other registry numbers on various classes to determine what these numbers might tell us.

My conclusion is that Starfleet registry numbers are quite strange. The Steamrunner and Akira are both supposed to have been designed and built in response to the Borg threat...yet Steamrunner class ships have registry numbers in the 52000s, and Akira class ships in the 63000s, indicating that if registry numbers are assigned by design age they are both somewhat older than the Galaxy. On the other hand, the Prometheus, which we KNOW is a later design than the Galaxy, has a registry number of NX-59650, which would make it an older design than the Akira!. Likewise, the Prometheus's registry number would make no more sense if the ships are based on the time they were constructed.

I then thought that perhaps registry numbers are based on ship size--the Steamrunner is smaller than the Prometheus, which is smaller than the Akira, which is smaller than the Galaxy. This notion fell apart as soon as I looked at the Intrepids, of course, which are comparable in size to the Steamrunner and far smaller than the Galaxies but have comparable registry numbers (72000 series).

Obviously, whatever formula Starfleet uses to determine registry numbers is not based on vessel size or age considerations, and perhaps merely reflects a number assigned to a vessel for security purposes.

I read in an (at-best semi-official) TNG tech manual that the first two digits in a Starfleet vessel's registry number referred to the class of the starship, with the following digits referring to the number of the ship off of the slips. So, the original Enteriprise was a class-17 (Constitution) cruiser, hull no. 01.

I doubt that this stands up to canon scrutiny (the Constellation's registration was NCC-1071, as it was a kitbash of an AML Enterprise model). However, it would make the whole thing a little easier to understand.

As an alternative, the hull numbers might be similar to the USAF's tail numbering system, with the first few numbers referring to the budget year that funding was given for the ship. The next few numbers would then refer to the ship's place in the list of ships budgeted for that fiscal year. This would mean that ships of different classes could easily have sequential registries depending on when the Federation Defense Budget Subcommittee approved construction funding.

Kerneth wrote:It was mentioned in the Akira topic that the Thunderchild's registry number is in the 63000 range, which would date it as an older design than the Galaxy class. Curious, I went and looked up other registry numbers on various classes to determine what these numbers might tell us.

Heh heh...I know who you're talking about!

Seriously, this is a good topic for Pure Star Trek I think, worth investigation.

My conclusion is that Starfleet registry numbers are quite strange. The Steamrunner and Akira are both supposed to have been designed and built in response to the Borg threat...yet Steamrunner class ships have registry numbers in the 52000s,

Let me stop you here.

Where is it said that those two ship classes were designed to counter the Borg?

So far as I know, there are no canon statements to that effect. Some have merely inferred as much based on the fact that we first saw those classes fighting a cube in "First Contact".

That's pretty spurious logic...I suppose the Klingon Bird-of-Prey was an answer to the Federation's Oberth, then, since the latter was the Bird's first onscreen victim?

and Akira class ships in the 63000s, indicating that if registry numbers are assigned by design age they are both somewhat older than the Galaxy. On the other hand, the Prometheus, which we KNOW is a later design than the Galaxy, has a registry number of NX-59650, which would make it an older design than the Akira!. Likewise, the Prometheus's registry number would make no more sense if the ships are based on the time they were constructed.

Hmm...not necessarily.

The Prometheus could've been under development for a VERY long time, assigned that registry long before she left the shipyards.

Additionally, there is a strong possibility that Prometheus' registry is intentionally misleading. I don't have to tell you that Starfleet has a strict "no warships" policy...where the war-making capacities of Defiant-class ships could be partially dismissed on the basis of size, a medium cruiser like the Prometheus could not be. It's simply too damn big to rationalize away as an "obscenely armed explorer."

As such, the PCS should be "illegal," and her exact nature would warrant concealment. Giving her a lower no., perhaps one of a ship long since destroyed, lost or whatever, would be a good way to do that. (Interestingly enough, there ARE older "Prometheuses.")

Consequently, I submit that the PCS is an aberration, an exception to the rule.

I then thought that perhaps registry numbers are based on ship size--the Steamrunner is smaller than the Prometheus, which is smaller than the Akira, which is smaller than the Galaxy. This notion fell apart as soon as I looked at the Intrepids, of course, which are comparable in size to the Steamrunner and far smaller than the Galaxies but have comparable registry numbers (72000 series).

True.

Good thought, though. You've tried to cover all the bases!

Obviously, whatever formula Starfleet uses to determine registry numbers is not based on vessel size or age considerations, and perhaps merely reflects a number assigned to a vessel for security purposes.

On the latter count, I agree, but I still think it's chronological overall.