posted
I'd say it likely meant that this was the simulator room for the class of trainees assigned to the Enterprise, as Shik said.
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
-------------------- The flaws we find most objectionable in others are often those we recognize in ourselves.
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 ]
posted
I dunno how you can read that that says Enterprise Class. Too small for me to read...
-------------------- "Lotta people go through life doing things badly. Racing's important to men who do it well. When you're racing, it's life. Anything that happens before or after is just waiting."
-Steve McQueen as Michael Delaney, LeMans
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
Maybe the intention was that the Enterprise class is a sub-class of the Constitution class.
[ November 17, 2001: Message edited by: Spike ]
-------------------- "Never give up. And never, under any circumstances, no matter what - never face the facts." - Ruth Gordon
Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged
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.
-------------------- "God's in his heaven. All's right with the world."
posted
eh, I guess it was just the crappy TV I got 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...
-------------------- "Lotta people go through life doing things badly. Racing's important to men who do it well. When you're racing, it's life. Anything that happens before or after is just waiting."
posted
But it doesn't say anything about an Enterprise-class ship. It says it's an Enterprise-class simulator.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
Cartman
just made by the Presbyterian Church
Member # 256
posted
Oh no. Not here too, for the love of forum-peace...
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 ]
posted
Mojo Jojo has a good idea. Let's say that Enterprise (and all the other existing Constitution class ships) were refit; they remain Constitution class but are now "Enterprise-type ships of the Constitution class." However, all other ships subsequently built new in their image would be Enterprise class. There would be no ship of the Enterprise class actually named Enterprise.
Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged
Printer-friendly view of this topic
