Flare Sci-Fi Forums: Did Starfleet use a different classification chart in the 22nd and 23rd centuries?

This is topic Did Starfleet use a different classification chart in the 22nd and 23rd centuries? in forum Starships & Technology at Flare Sci-Fi Forums.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://flare.solareclipse.net/ultimatebb.php/topic/6/125.html

Posted by Trinculo on :

My materials for this debate-
a. The Making of Star Trek by Whitfield
b. "The Menagerie, Part 1"
c. "The Search for Spock"
d. "Peak Performance"
e. "The Undiscovered Country"
f. Encyclopedias

Known dates-
2161 Starfleet founded
2196 Daedalus Class retired
2225 Commission date of first Constitution Class starship (Whitfield)
2245 USS Enterprise NCC-1701 commissioned
2285 USS Hathaway NCC-2593 commissioned
2287 First recorded use of present classification system-dedication plague of USS Enterprise NCC-1701-A (Constitution Class)
2293 USS Constellation NCC-1974 commissioned

Type and class
I recognize in the Star Trek universe that type and class are interchangeable-Type 6 shuttlecraft (Technical Manuel) and Class 6 shuttlecraft ("Suspicions").

My hypothesis-
Between the years 2161 and 2293, Starfleet uses a classification chart that employs alphabetical letters-A,B,C,etc. to identify the various starship classes. Two classes of ships are known from this chart-J, S (Constitution Class)-and covers other known starship classes-Antares, Constellation, Excelsior, Miranda, Oberth, and Soyuz. If the system is used, this equates to a total of 26 ship classes operating between 2161 and 2293. And, if when the Class Z is in operation, Starfleet has to decide which system to employ-name a class after the prototype or do a Class AA. Starfleet decides to do the former rather than the latter. Classes under the old system are modified-Class S ships became Constitution Class ships. There is a brief transition period from 2287 to 2293 when the modification is occuring. The USS Enterprise NCC-1701-A is one of the first starships to benefit from this change.
Further, under the old system, there is not the sequential ordering of registries. The Constellation Class is a class in point. USS Hathaway NCC-2593 is launched eight years before the USS Constellation NCC-1974, the "prototype" ship of the Constellation Class. It is possible that the USS Constitution NCC-1700 is launched after the first Constitution Class ship and that this ship has a higher registry than the USS Constitution NCC-1700.
For the record, this is my version of the list of Constitution Class ships (not in order of commissioning)-

Commissioned between 2225 and mid-2268 (Whitfield)
USS Constellation NCC-1017 (lost 2267)
USS Constitution NCC-1700 (refitted-"Data's Day")
USS Enterprise NCC-1701 (refitted-STTMP)
USS Essex NCC-1697
USS Excalibur NCC-1664
USS Exeter NCC-1672
USS Farrugut NCC-1647 (lost before 2265)
USS Hood NCC-1703
USS Intrepid NCC-1631 (lost 2268)
USS Kongo NCC-1710 (refitted)
USS Lexington NCC-1709
USS Potemkin NCC-1657 (refitted)
USS Republic NCC-1371 (refitted)
USS Valiant (lost before 2265; not USS Valiant NCC-1223)
USS Yorktown NCC-1717 (refitted)

Commission after mid-2268
USS Defiant NCC-1764
USS Eagle NCC-956
USS Endeavor NCC-1895
USS Enterprise NCC-1701-A

Posted by Trinculo on :

USS Yorktown NCC-1717
Evidence of refitting-STTVH

USS Kongo NCC-1710
USS Potemkin NCC-1657
USS Republic NCC-1371
Evidence of refitting-STTUC (okudagrams)

USS Defiant NCC-1764 (lost in 2268)

Out of curiosity, I adduce the time needed to build a Constitution Class ship. If the ships are built one after the other (15 ships in total) over a 43 year period, the time needed for construction is 2.9 years.

Posted by Bernd (Member # 6) on :

The question is whether the few evidence in TOS or the established facts in the movies, TNG, the Chronology and the Encyclopedias rule. It might be similar as with the time of TOS that was first around 2200 and was later (in the movies) moved forward to 2265. The latter is canon today.

As far as the official designations in TOS are concerned, it could be possible that the class names were introduced as late as in the 24th century. Being much more convenient than mere letters, Starfleet could have decided to use them likewise for ships decommissioned a long time ago (Daedalus). Still, I don't see your point about naming the classes. Why is the Constitution class named for the Constitution if it's not the first of her class?

BTW: Welcome to the Forum, Trinculo

------------------
Early bird catches the gagh. (The Doctor to B'Elanna at 06:00, "Drone")
www.uni-siegen.de/~ihe/bs/startrek/

Posted by The359 (Member # 37) on :

First, where is the launch date for USS Constellation NX-1974 coming from? She was only mentioned in STVI in that Okudagram, it never said she was launched that year. According to my own personal list of starship launch dates, Constellation was launched in 2268, a year after the loss of the first Constellation. Seems logical, since Constellation was a pretty good ship. Also, for USS Hathaway, I have a launch date of 2275. I can't remember exactly, but did they give an exact launch year in "Peak Performance"?

------------------
"The one, the only, THE 359!"

Posted by Trinculo on :

Bernard: Mr. Okuda has written that a follower of Star Trek has the right to decide what is canonical or not. Further, everything that is said or seen in the episodes and films is canonical by Paramount standards. This makes the Class J and Class S designations canonical. The information from the first series I believe is enhanced by the information from the later series. I believe, also, the picking of the USS Constitution NCC-1700 was done according to a certain criteria. What that criteria was? I do not know. The Klingons used a similar system-the D-Class designation.
359: I use what I know. Let's use an example-
the Boeing 717-200. Premiered in 1995, this type of airplane underwent flight testing by the company. After the company had conducted flight testing, the airplane type was certified by the FAA for wide use in 1998. The first models are in 1999 for the airline AirTran. The USS Constellation NX-1974 was certified in 2293. I may have been wrong about the commission date. However, this does indicate that the ship was launched after the USS Hathaway NCC-2593. In the episode "Peak Performance", the ship was described as an "...eighty-year old star cruiser...". And the encyclopedias and chronology have this ship being launched in 2285.

Posted by The359 (Member # 37) on :

Well, think about this. The USS Constellation is still listed as NX in 2293. For all we know she could be just recently launched or nearing the end of her NX era. Here is something, though. USS Excelsior NX-2000 was launched in 2284. Since Constellation's registry is NX-1974, it would seem more likely she was launched before the Excelsior, which would be pre-2284, which would fix the problem by having Constellation launched before Hathaway.

Another thing to think about. USS Galaxy NX-70637, launched in 2357. She was finally seen as NCC-70637 in 2375. That's 18 years. My guess is that it would be more along the lines of 5 - 15 years before an NX ship is changed to NCC. Excelsior was a bit short, being an NX for 5 years (2285 - 2290). Now, if Constellation went for the minimum, she would be launched in 2288. If she went for the maximum, she would be launched in 2278. So, by my guess, USS Constellation was launched around 2284, maming her 9 years old at the time she was in the Okudagram, this would also leave room for the most likely first production ship in the line, Hathaway

------------------
"The one, the only, THE 359!"

Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :

Well, regardless of the actual dates, the Constellation was launched before the Hathaway. How can a ship be launched before the first ship of its class?

And my theory for TOS class designations was that, for a while, the term "class" didn't refer to a particular design of ship, but to its broader classification. Hence, the E-nil was listed on its dedication plaque as "starship class". This could be was class-S is; the 'S' could mean "Starship". Sometime in the 2260s, the system was changed, and "class" came to refer to the design of the ship, named for the first ship of that design. The term was probably also still used in other ways, such as referring to a starship as a class-S ship.

------------------
"All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."
-George Orwell's Animal Farm

Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :

Taking the Klingon tangent, I don't think there is evidence that the Klingons ever refered to their ships using the letter designation.

(I'm going to discount the mention of the D5 from the last Kor episode for a moment. I'll get to it in a minute.)

As far as D types go, we have a D5, D7, and D12, that I know of. First of all, these are not refered to as D class, but D type. The difference is subtle, but important. Type is defined as a general form common to some number of objects, while class is generally defined as a comprehensive grouping.

In terms of starships, class is what a group of ships actually is, like K't'inga class or D'deridex class, while type is what you call a group of ships whose class you are not aware of.

Before Khitomer, there wasn't much understanding between the Federation and the Klingon Empire. Because of this, Starfleet had to classify ships on their own. Hence, Klingon ships were grouped into D types. Later, after Khitomer, we see Klingon ships refered to by their proper class names. B'rel, K'vort, Vor'cha, etc.

The same thing happened with the Romulans. When the new warbirds first appeared, they were called B type warbirds. Once relations warmed a bit, at least to the point where spies could gather reliable information, the B type became the D'deridex class.

But what about that D5, you ask? Why didn't Kor call it by its Klingon name? Well, he wasn't exactly all there at the time...it's possible that he didn't even remember the Klingon name, just the Starfleet designation.

What do you think, sirs?

------------------
"I'm sick, like Nixon was sick, my defeated heart keeps beating on. I won't die, like Chucky won't die."
--
They Might Be Giants

Posted by Federation Shipmaster (Member # 15) on :

I disagree with this proposed system, and I haev no idea what you're talking about. Please explain.

------------------
What bloke invented signatures?

Posted by Trinculo on :

My hypothesis has been rejected by a majority of the participants. I accept your opinions and add nothing further to this discussion. Thank you.

Posted by Ryan McReynolds (Member # 28) on :

Regarding the D-ships... this was the layout I and a few others came up with in r.a.s.t. some time ago...

D-5: TAS battlecruiser, "The Time Trap," "Once More Into the Breach" (extended sensor/torp launcher in front, gray skin, etc.)

D-6: TOS battlecruiser, "Elaan of Troyius," et al. (unextended torp launcher, gray skin)

D-7: battlecruiser, "Trials and Tribble-ations" (unextended torp launcher, green skin, grid lines)

D-8: K't'inga battlecruiser, "ST: The Motion Picture" (unextended torp launcher, green skin, more grid lines)

D-9 through D-11: various birds of prey, B'Rel, K'Vort, etc.

D-12: failed bird of prey

D-13 through D-??: the modern ships

As to why the D-system is in place, in addition to the class names... who knows? Actually, no Klingons have ever used the class names... one might adapt the FASA reasoning and say that the D-system is the internal Klingon one but Feddies often also refer to ships by the first ship of that class... or not! =)

------------------
-=Ryan McReynolds=-

Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :

I believe the evidence points to the D classification as being purely an internal Starfleet one.

However, in "Once More..." I'm pretty sure that it was Kor who refered to his old ship as a D5.

------------------
"I'm sick, like Nixon was sick, my defeated heart keeps beating on. I won't die, like Chucky won't die."
--
They Might Be Giants

Posted by Federation Shipmaster (Member # 15) on :

Yes, I agree. Several non-canon sources say this.

------------------
What bloke invented signatures?

Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :

Kor did indeed refer to his ship as a D5. However, it is possible that he actually called it by its real name, and "D5" was just how it came out on screen. I mean, you're not going to tell me al the Klingons were speaking English on that ship, too, are you? ;-)

------------------
"All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."
-George Orwell's Animal Farm

Posted by Bernd (Member # 6) on :

One question is what the Klingons themselves call their ships in their own language. They probably have the same (ten finger) number system, so this can be easily translated. It might be difficult with the letters. Whole words can be transcribed to sound similar, but one letter in Klingon is not necessarily a letter in English. So D-12 could be *#&-12 or anything else. It is also possible that the "D" refers to a complete Klingon word, and the Federation only uses the abbreviation. Anyway, "K'Tinga" seems to be a real Klingon word, why should the Federation use a Klingon word to name Klingon ships while the Klingons don't use it?

------------------
I'm a doctor, not a bricklayer. (McCoy in "Devil in the Dark")
www.uni-siegen.de/~ihe/bs/startrek/

Posted by Ryan McReynolds (Member # 28) on :

I don't really think there is too big of a deal with having two designations for the same ship, one technical and one descriptive. For instance, "K't'inga" might be the class name, but "D-8" could be the design code number or something. There's no reason for Klingons to follow any naming scheme similar to those of humanity, so I for one have no problem with having more than one name for the same ship.

Oh, and as an off-and-on student of tlhIngan Hol, I can confirm that yes Klingons do indeed use a ten-digit number system.

------------------
-=Ryan McReynolds=-

Posted by Bernd (Member # 6) on :

I'm trying to avoid a definite statement about what the Klingons and what the Feds do call Klingon ships, and if there is an official and a short designation. Maybe it is a bit like the NATO designations for former Soviet aircraft, there was a NATO B**** or F**** designation, a Soviet manufacturer designation and maybe a design number and maybe a nickname for each aircraft, and it didn't really result in confusion.

Ryan: I'm looking for some possible Klingon ship names and their translations ("Bloody Dagger" or something like that). It should be official tlhIngan Hol.

Posted by Federation Shipmaster (Member # 15) on :

Or Soviet submarines. What's the deal with calling one of them the Akula, anways? It ruins the whole pattern.

------------------
What bloke invented signatures?