Flare Sci-fi Forums
Flare Sci-Fi Forums Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile | directory login | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Flare Sci-Fi Forums » Star Trek » Starships & Technology » Enterprise Class vs. Constitution Class (Page 1)

  This topic comprises 5 pages: 1  2  3  4  5   
Author Topic: Enterprise Class vs. Constitution Class
thelastguardian
Junior Member
Member # 1017

 - posted      Profile for thelastguardian     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The Enterprise seen in TMP has been referred to by both class names at one time or another. I was told by all sources at the time of MSG's writing that 'Enterprise' was the proper class designation, so that was the one I used in the book. Then and now, I believe that to be the most logical choice.

A wall sign outside the simulator room in ST II states 'Enterprise Class.' In ST VI, however, we see Scotty perusing blueprints which clearly state 'Constitution Class.' While in reality this is the simple revisionism of a movie made more than a decade after TMP, for the sake of continuity I would approach it this way:

At the time of the Enterprise refit, a few newer vessels of the original Constitution Class still were floating around. To avoid confusion, and since the refit design was so radically different and was unique ("This is an almost entirely new Enterprise..."), the designation 'Enterprise Class' was chosen for the new ship.

Later, once the original 'Constitution Class' vessels all had been retired or refitted, and any new 'Enterprise Class'-style vessels were being built from the keel up, the class was renamed 'Constitution Class' out of tradition. No longer could there be confusion over which 'Constitution Class' a vessel might be, since only one remained.

So, the TMP Enterprise was 'Enterprise Class.' The 1701-A, either at the time of its christening or by the time of ST VI, was designated 'Constitution Class.'

Works for me [Smile]

If you guys have had this conversation already, I offer newbie apologies for bringing it up again.

Shane

Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
TheWoozle
Active Member
Member # 929

 - posted      Profile for TheWoozle     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I think that most come around to the idea that the ship is an Enterprise style of the Constitution class.

--------------------
joH'a' 'oH wIj DevwI' jIH DIchDaq Hutlh pagh
(some days it's just not worth chewing through the leather straps in the morning)
The Woozle!

Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Guardian 2000
Senior Member
Member # 743

 - posted      Profile for Guardian 2000     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Fear not, good sir, no one who wrote the first Trek book I ever bought (or who has such excellent taste in screen names) would be unwelcome, newbie or not.

Though your reasons at the time were altogether fitting in the pre-"Canon Policy" days (especially with the previous work of Franz Joseph, and his many outwardly-similar classes), retroactive continuity alterations have, for better or worse, put "Enterprise Class" out of official consideration.

Alas, the sign in Star Trek II unfortunately means little, as the potential for coincidence is too great. The ship upon which those trainees were to train was the Enterprise, and in the pre-holodeck days it would seem to be overkill for there to be a bridge simulator for every starship class, subclass, and so on. Had we seen a sign indicating that there were other simulators (at least one having a name of a vessel known to be operational, and not as a trainee ship), that situation would be reversed.

Thus, unfortunately, there's an unbroken chain of "Constitution", from Picard's comment to Scotty in "Relics"[TNG] regarding a TOS bridge, to the Star Trek VI incident regarding the 1701-A. And, given the designation of the far different Enterprise-B as still being under the original Excelsior class name, it's relatively certain that while a subclass designation might include the term "Enterprise", the ship herself (and any classmate) remained a Constitution.

All that being said, though, I still prefer the shuttle design (among other various tidbits) used in your book.

Thank you,

G2k

--------------------
. . . ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.

G2k's ST v. SW Tech Assessment

Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
Griffworks
Active Member
Member # 1014

 - posted      Profile for Griffworks     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Agreed, Shane. That's the only explanation which makes any real sense, if I may use the word to describe any of the many seemingly arbitrary decisions made by TPTB. I would have prefered it remained the "Enterprise class" and even called it that for the longest time. At least, 'til we saw those blueprints in ST:VI. [Roll Eyes]

Oh, well. I guess that we fans are "too stupid" to understand it otherwise... or something.

Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Timo
Moderator
Member # 245

 - posted      Profile for Timo     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
There's always the chance that the stupidity is on the other side of the screen. But not necessarily at Paramount: we could be talking about Starfleet stupidity as well.

Renaming ships or classes back and forth isn't the prerogative of small dictatorships with more or less insane leaders. "Simplifying" military systematicsm is an undertaking that's usually best taken directly to the undertaker, like with the "integration" of Canadian Navy and Air Force with the Army. Yet such efforts are made all over the world, at distressingly regular intervals.

Changing the logic of ship class nomenclature in the mid-2280s wouldn't be all that unrealistic, or surprising...

Timo Saloniemi

Registered: Nov 1999  |  IP: Logged
TheWoozle
Active Member
Member # 929

 - posted      Profile for TheWoozle     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I just thought of an alternate explination. maybe the simulator was set for the Class, from Enterprise, also known as the Enterprise Class. When they left on their adventure, it was probobly reset for the next group, say... the Kongo Class maybe.

--------------------
joH'a' 'oH wIj DevwI' jIH DIchDaq Hutlh pagh
(some days it's just not worth chewing through the leather straps in the morning)
The Woozle!

Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
capped
I WAS IN THE FUTURE, IT WAS TOO LATE TO RSVP
Member # 709

 - posted      Profile for capped     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
its been brought up before, and dismissed..

i think its probably just an example of a subclass system referred to as 'class' for ease of use.. there might be an Achernar Class or Bon Homme Richard Class simulator down the hall, and they didnt want to confuse the cadets by calling them all Constitution-class, so they made the placards with the subclass names

Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
newark
Active Member
Member # 888

 - posted      Profile for newark     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Or, another possibility. Maybe both Constitution and Enterprise are subgroups? When Starfleet decided to switch to the more familiar system of class named after prototype, they choose to go with the more common subgroup of the whole, the Constitution, and included the Enterprise subgroups and any other subgroups in that major grouping. This could explain the registries and, possibly, the inclusion of the USS Valiant from "A Taste of Armageddon" in the belief that this starship represented an unknown earlier subgroup of the Constitution family.
Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
The Mighty Monkey of Mim
SUPPOSED TO HAVE ICE POWERS!!
Member # 646

 - posted      Profile for The Mighty Monkey of Mim     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Here we go again... [Roll Eyes]
Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Phoenix
Active Member
Member # 966

 - posted      Profile for Phoenix     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by newark:
Or, another possibility. Maybe both Constitution and Enterprise are subgroups? When Starfleet decided to switch to the more familiar system of class named after prototype, they choose to go with the more common subgroup of the whole, the Constitution, and included the Enterprise subgroups and any other subgroups in that major grouping. This could explain the registries and, possibly, the inclusion of the USS Valiant from "A Taste of Armageddon" in the belief that this starship represented an unknown earlier subgroup of the Constitution family.

Here is how I see it:

Classes we know of which use Ent-like spaceframe:
NCC-950 Class
NCC-1000 Class
NCC-1650 Class
NCC-1700 Class (Constitution Class)

So then we assume something like:
NCC-1875 Class (Enterprise Class)
NCC-2050 Class (Constitution Class [II])

Enterprise Class was succeeded by Constitution Class II sometime between TMP and TVH. Yorktown NCC-1717 was upgraded to Connie-II specs and renamed Enterprise NCC-1701-A.

There would be no problem determining which Connie was which because all ships were upgraded to new specs and no Connie-Is were left.

Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
MrNeutron
Senior Member
Member # 524

 - posted      Profile for MrNeutron     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
...OR the Enterprise class and Constitution class are externally mostly identical but internally dissimilar. After all, every interior of the 1701-A seen in Treks 5 and 6 is radically different from the refit 1701 seen in 1, 2 and 3. Different bridges (the end of 4 notwithstanding), different corridors, different engine rooms, different hangar decks (as discussed elsewhere), differernt captain's quarters, etc. Maybe their mission requirements are different as well.

If this was the case, one could argue that ships upgraded or built to the specifics of the TMP ship were Enterprise class and those to the 1701-A standards are Constitution class.

--------------------
"Well, I mean, it's generally understood that, of all of the people in the world, Mike Nelson is the best." -- ULTRA MAGNUS, steadfast in curmudgeon

Registered: Feb 2001  |  IP: Logged
thelastguardian
Junior Member
Member # 1017

 - posted      Profile for thelastguardian     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by MrNeutron:
If this was the case, one could argue that ships upgraded or built to the specifics of the TMP ship were Enterprise class and those to the 1701-A standards are Constitution class.

I'd settle for that [Smile]

I just don't like the idea of throwing out the Enterprise Class altogether for the sake of later revisionism.

Shane

Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Gvsualan
Perpetual Member
Member # 968

 - posted      Profile for Gvsualan     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Now figure "Starship Class" into that formula....

--------------------
Hey, it only took 13 years for me to figure out my password...

Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
thelastguardian
Junior Member
Member # 1017

 - posted      Profile for thelastguardian     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Futurama Guy:
Now figure "Starship Class" into that formula....

Already did, in another thread, here repeated:

Just to throw in my two cents (and forgive me if I'm repeating the words of someone else, for I did not read the entire thread)...

Since 1966, I always considered the term 'starship' to mean any warp-capable exploratory vessel. Starship Class would mean no more than that, as a broad description of vessel type. In cases where more specificity was needed, rather than saying a vessel was both 'Starship Class' (describing its capability) and 'Constitution Class' (describing its hull design), for the sake of expediency, one simply used the designation 'Constitution Class Starship.'

As I understand it, 'U.S.S.' originally was chosen to precede the vessel names because it sounded American, and would be more palatable to the NBC viewing audience. 'United Space Ship' (spoken by Pike) and 'United Star Ship' (spoken by Kirk) were attempts to qualify the designation, awkward though they may have been.

'NCC' was chosen to precede '1701' because 'N' is the designated first fuselage letter for civilian aircraft registered in the United States (as in N6741U, for example), 'C' was chosen by Matt Jeffries for a personal reason I cannot recall, and the final 'C' was added for rhythmic balance.

Shane

Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
MrNeutron
Senior Member
Member # 524

 - posted      Profile for MrNeutron     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Futurama Guy:
Now figure "Starship Class" into that formula....

I still don't see a problem with Starship Class simply meaning deep-space long-duration vessels in general.

--------------------
"Well, I mean, it's generally understood that, of all of the people in the world, Mike Nelson is the best." -- ULTRA MAGNUS, steadfast in curmudgeon

Registered: Feb 2001  |  IP: Logged
  This topic comprises 5 pages: 1  2  3  4  5   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.

Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


© 1999-2008 Solareclipse Network.

Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3