MARK IV
SIMULATOR
ENTERPRISE CLASS
Whew.. glad we settled that
Glad we cleared that up.
I think it's definitely been settled that the E-refit and E-A are Constitution-class. Which actually makes sense. The ship in TMP is the same vessel as we saw on the TV series. A ship can't change classes. Well, maybe in some fandom sources they can, but I've never been a fan of such ideas. Upgrading a ship, even drastically, does not make that ship a different class. Just an upgrade of the same class it's always been.
-MMoM
quote:
Originally posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim:
I'd say it likely meant that this was the simulator room for the class of trainees assigned to the Enterprise, as Shik said.
While that is the best explanation now since we know the refit was still Constitution-class, it is very likely--certain, actually--that at the time it was meant to be Enterprise-class.
quote:
Originally posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim:
I think it's definitely been settled that the E-refit and E-A are Constitution-class.
Yes, after Star Trek VI that is pretty definitive.
quote:
Originally posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim:
Which actually makes sense. The ship in TMP is the same vessel as we saw on the TV series. A ship can't change classes. Well, maybe in some fandom sources they can, but I've never been a fan of such ideas. Upgrading a ship, even drastically, does not make that ship a different class. Just an upgrade of the same class it's always been.
In the United States Navy, and other navies, ships can and do change classes. "Some fandom sources" (read: everyone, including the producers of the movies) just assumed that Starfleet kept that method of class naming. Since Starfleet generally follows naval traditions, it would make more sense if the refit Enterprise was not Constitution-class. However, it is, and there's not much getting around that, so we need a different explanation for the simulator label.
On the other hand, the label isn't any less canon than Scotty's blueprints in Star Trek VI, so one could make the arguement that the later movie made a mistake. Take your pick.
[ November 17, 2001: Message edited by: Ryan McReynolds ]
That's not too small.
Maybe the intention was that the Enterprise class is a sub-class of the Constitution class.
[ November 17, 2001: Message edited by: Spike ]
quote:
Originally posted by Ryan McReynolds:In the United States Navy, and other navies, ships can and do change classes.
When has that happened? The only thing even close I can think of is when the Thresher was lost. Being the first ship of its class, they decided to rename the class to the second boat in line, the Permit. But that was a truly unusual case. If you want to get even more picky, ships do change class when they're produced in one country and end up serving the navy of another. But that's not really the case here.
And yes, Naval ships have changed classes countless times. Among the most well known were the nearly half a dozen different sub-classes of Essex class carriers.
As for "Enterprise Class", I can live with Enterprise SUB-Class, since it's possible that the Enterprise was the first Consitution to undergo refit and therefore be the first of the sub-class. It just gives a person the ability to talk about a class easier. Say "I like the Enterprise Sub-Class" instead of "I like the Constitution Class after her refit in 2272 and before her refit in 2285" or whatever.
Sort of like the whole Hope Sub-Class, Olympic Class thing...
Over at the TrekBBS, there have been several very heated, long-winding arguments regarding the class of the 1701-refit / 1701-A (our own Defiant length wars are but a minor dispute compared to those infernos). No consensus was reached - there's likely never going to be one either.
Personally, I support the theory that 1701-refit was the prototype for a new type of 'subclass' (to which 1701-A belonged). It retained its Constitution 'mainclass' designation, because it was still clearly recognisable as such.
Also, 1701-refit and 1701-A aren't all that dissimilar - simply calling both
"Constitution-refits" seems like the easiest and most logical thing to do.
[ November 17, 2001: Message edited by: Mojo Jojo ]
The new CVNX class which is still being planned is going to be structurally identical to the Nimitz-class, just with different electronics and a smaller crew complement. Some class of carriers are one-of-a-kinds, like the JFK class which is a modified Kitty Hawk. And there were only a handful of the Kitty Hawk-class, which is the Forrestal-class with different tower & elevator configurations, and missiles instead of guns. The Enterprise-class is a one-of a kind too.
By these standards of class differences, a Constitution built simply with a) a different bridge tower b) a different torpedo launcher c) a different type of computer core or d) a different cargo/shuttle arrangement would be of a different class. Certainly a ship with a completely different appearance nacelle configuration etc. would be . The Galaxies built with extra phaser banks might be a different class, or the Ambassadors with the saucer-jut and bussard-covers would be a different class, as would the roll-bar-less Mirandas and the E-B type Excelsiors, and the various Nebul� variants. One situation that would make extreme sense would be the Soyuz.
BTW, i believe the original intention was for the new refit to be called 'Enterprise'-class.. the first mention of the Enterprise remaining a 'Constitution' after its refit wasnt until 91 when Okuda included it in his graphics for ST:VI, thus making another of his assumptions take on a degree of canon. Probably he was concerned about the Naked Now where they said constitution and it showed the refit-E on the display.. but then again the E-refit still had the old E on its screen in ST:III (presumably labeled as Const. because it was scanned from the Franz J. TM)
And while I guess a case could be made that on occasion USN ships change class (or, more accurately, are assigned their own sub-classes) I don't really see that fitting with what we've seen in Trek to date. That's just my personal inclination.
TPTB, and all canon sources, all agree that the refit-Constitution is just that---A refitted version of the Constitution-class. Not a new class, just an upgrade of the existing one. This is supported onscreen by dialog in TNG, by Chekov's screen in STIII, and by Scotty's blueprint in STVI. I think it's quite reasonable to say that this plaque was simply referring to one of two things:
1.) The simulator being used by the class of cadets in training for service aboard the Enterprise.
2.) The class of the simulator. (This could be likely because as we've seen, ships of the same class don't always have the same bridge modules. We've never seen the bridge of another refit-Connie, so this could be an unique bridge for the Enterprise. Thus, an Enterprise-class bridge simulator. I admit it's a bit of a stretch because the Grissom and Reliant both had the same bridge, but at least it's a fairly plausible explanation.)
-MMoM
Three ships of this class are currently known to be planned, CVNX-1 (CVN-78) to replace Enterprise in 2013, CVNX-2 (CVN-79) to replace John F. Kennedy in 2018, and CVNX-3 (CVN-80) to replace Nimitz in 2025.
1966 to 1969 STARSHIP CLASS
1982 ENTERPRISE CLASS
1984 CLASS 1 HEAVY CRUISER
1987 CONSTITUTION CLASS
Since these four classes are known by dialogue or by visual evidence, they are technically correct for this starship. The question then becomes, How do we write a logical and reasonable argument that explains how a single ship can have four different classes?
A Class 1 heavy cruiser might encompass all heavy cruisers of a certain tonnage, energy output, mission profile, etc and encompass a few ship-named classes, in that they all differ from a Class 2 heavy cruiser.
(presumably it the 'Class I Heavy Cruiser' you mean is from the displays scanned from Franz' TM then they say 'Constitution-class' right under them in a smaller font.)
[ November 17, 2001: Message edited by: The359 ]
Or, in simpler language,
1. After we connect these classes together, what can we learned about this second Enterprise?
2. Then, we could attempt to answer the question, why are there four classes for one ship in the Star Trek Universe?
[ November 17, 2001: Message edited by: targetemployee ]
Here goes (these are my own suppositions of definitions that would fit the facts available):
so they are all descriptive of the Enterprise from the very broad (starship encompassing all down to narrower [type, class and then the specific design]).. Yay!
[ November 17, 2001: Message edited by: CaptainMike ]
"Class 1 heavy cruiser" would be in the same category. Just, sometime between 2245 and whenever this newer term appeared, the E's classifiaction was changed. Just different terminology.
"Enterprise class" is a the simulator, not the ship.
And "Constitution class" is the actual class name of the ship, as derived per tradition from the prototype ship's name.
That, in my opinion, is the easiest, most sensical way to look at it.
quote:
Originally posted by The359:
Well, it's possible the Enterprise NX-01 is a modification of an existing class, ya know? It could just be special because of the warp drive and everything...
It's based on the wreckage of a starship which crashed on Mars hundreds of years ago. Some say that it came from the future...
[ November 18, 2001: Message edited by: David Templar ]
You know what I meant! 
hm
Besides, it might not be. Since we've already opened the gate of "Non-Federation Starfleet Enterprises", we could get more.
Was Franz Joseph the one who came up with "Constitution-class"? Or was that what Gene & Co (or possibly Jeffries) were calling it back in the 60s, but they used "Starship-class" onscreen because they were already trying to get the whole starship idea across to the viewers, and didn't want to confuse them.
For that matter, were there any ships called "starships" in TOS that weren't Connies? I seem to remember Klingon ships were usually called "Battlecruiseers", or something like that.
I always thought of this as slightly ridiculous.
The TOS producers had clearly established in their writers' guide that there were 12 ships of what they called the starship-class, first of which were commissioned forty years before TOS. It's obvious that in "The Counter Clock Incident", April's age of 75 was calculated by adding 41 years to 34; the episode also establishes he was involved in the ship's construction and commanded the Enterprise for the next twenty-five years.
All twelve ships had names but no registries, aside from the Constellation, Enterprise, and maybe the Constitution (did its registry appear in Khan's sickbay readouts in "Space Seed"?) Later on, I suppose someone assumed that the Constitution was the class ship because of its nice NCC-1700 registry, widely published in Franz Joseph's blueprints. Originally, however, the Enterprise was to be the first ship of the 17th class of vessels because of its -01 registry (Matt Jefferies). This could be where Joseph got the idea to number the ships sequentially (Constellation being an exception).
[ November 20, 2001: Message edited by: Phelps ]
And then, somewhere along the line, it began to refer to all ships that were capable of independant interstellar travel.
Except in Enterprise Archer has already referred to NX-01 as a starship. So much for that one.
"It takes 430 people to man a starship" (Daystrom, "The Ultimate Computer").
But there was no reason for Okuda to change the 40-year age. The older the ship, the easier it becomes to explain the vastly different style of the movies-era. Let's say that in the TOS era, starships are but a remmant of an earlier age of exploration, no longer worth building in large numbers. These ships and the remote starbases would be out of touch with Earth for months at a time, and always behind as far as technological updates are concerned. In some ways (size? weaponry? speed?) they were top-of-the-line, because they needed to deal with whatever unknown aliens they'd encounter. In other ways, they were inferior.
Back on Earth, however, Starfleet would be building smaller and more modern ships such as Mirandas to deal with the Klingons and Romulans. When the Enterprise returned to Earth, it finally got a chance to upgrade to this new standard. What follows is the militaristic era of the Trek movies as we know it, with Enterprise dealing mostly with troubles rather than exploring space. However, because of its age, the class is always under threat of decommissioning and/or serving as a cadet training vessel. 
[ November 20, 2001: Message edited by: Phelps ]
Think of it like taxonomy... Kingdom Phylum Class Order Family Genus Species Subspecies
"STARSHIP CLASS" could encompass a whole variety of other classes... including Constitution class, Excelsior Class and Miranda Class.
"ANTARES CLASS" could be another one of these superclasses... that encompass a wider range of sub classes... i.e. The Xhosa type etc. etc. etc. This could be for classes of ships that are generally considered for use as cargo vessels.
The named episode gives us the only specific class for a starship in the run of Star Trek: the J Class Starship. By Capt. Kirk's era, this class was old.
The show Enterprise, surprisingly, is giving us a glimpse into the order of classes prior to the Kirkian Era. This order is matching what we know from this era.
Dunno about the rest of the classes.
I'm racking my brain to get the first Excelsior mention. Not too much luck.
No, Danube's first mention was "Hippocratic Oath." I think up to then, I was calling them "Nile-class" ships.
That would jibe with most of the canonical data. The "Enterprise class" plaque next to the simulator might be an outdated one, from the days the simulator simulated the bridges of TOS era vessels. The canon references to "Constitution class" are either vague as to which version they refer to (like Picard's line in "Relics"), or specifically referring to the refitted version (like Scotty's picture or the "Naked Now" computer screen).
And of course, "1701" being the first of a class would be consistent with "01" being the first of a class. The Excelsior might usher in a new tradition of registration, or perhaps merely reinforce the old one in that non-operational "pre-prototype" testbeds get the double zero?
Or was there a mention of Constitution class in "Trials and Tribble-ations"? That would rain on my parade a *lot*. Alas.
Timo Saloniemi
SO Star Trek it is! Yeesh. I had assumed he meant Star Trek, not Star Trek [TOS--- hello that's why we use acronyms]... so I was going through all the ships that had a design shown on screen and were named at the same time --- or they had a design and later given a Class name. The New Orleans was not one of these [the name may have been given in Conspiracy and maybe again later... but never at those two times was the ship model shown on screen--- nor was a model shown later (those two ships either 1) destroyed in that episode and never shown before or 2) never shown because it was a historical reference from 20 years prior)]. I am not certain about the Ambassador Class--- out of the three or four times we've seen it I can't remember if one of those ships were specifically called an Ambassador Class. I can't remember any more right now...
Concerning NX vessels though. For TOS-VOY I'm considereing any NX vessels to have the same ship and class name. Thus Excelsior, Defiant, and Prometheus are respectively an Excelsior, a Defiant, and a Prometheus. And that assumption makes me believe that there are also NX in all classes.
Personally, I don't get what the big deal is about the ship's registry. I think Bernd was ranting about it on his website -- "In Voyager NX-1 was the 'Dauntless!'" But of course, until we know that pre-Federation Starfleet registry carried over into Federation Starfleet, it's a pointless discussion, isn't it?
quote:
Originally posted by TSN:
I've always figured that "starship class" is like saying "cruiser class" or "freighter class" or something. It was simply the terminology used in 2245 for that type of ship."Class 1 heavy cruiser" would be in the same category. Just, sometime between 2245 and whenever this newer term appeared, the E's classifiaction was changed. Just different terminology.
"Enterprise class" is a the simulator, not the ship.
And "Constitution class" is the actual class name of the ship, as derived per tradition from the prototype ship's name.
That, in my opinion, is the easiest, most sensical way to look at it.
I've got to go with the above as the most logical (and aesthetically satisfying) answer.
I will point out, though, that Starfleet designations for Romulan ships have included the phrase "B-type Warbird", referring to what is otherwise referred to as the D'deridex. Not to assume what I'm agreeing with, but perhaps there was a prior Warbird which, though rather "D'deridexish", wasn't quite the same, or was an earlier model.
Similarly, one could refer to a "B-type Constitution" . . . or, more properly, the "Enterprise sub-type".
The big problem I see with referring to the Enterprise post-2271 as "Enterprise Class" would be that you could then give a different class name to all sorts of mostly similar vessels . . . the USS Lakota from Deep Space Nine, which could also be referred to as Enterprise Class (or Enterprise-B Class).
And heaven forbid we start counting all those kooky-topped Nebulas. :-)
Guardian 2000