Flare Sci-Fi Forums: "By configuration-a starship."

This is topic "By configuration-a starship." in forum Starships & Technology at Flare Sci-Fi Forums.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://flare.solareclipse.net/ultimatebb.php/topic/6/953.html

Posted by colin (Member # 217) on :

This line of dialogue from the episode "The Doomsday Machine" is the topic of this thread.

Configuration is defined as "The form of a figure as determined by the arrangement of its parts; outline; contour."

I interpret this line as saying that starships of the 2260's had the same basic design-a circular primary hull connected to a long tubular secondary hull with two connected smaller tubes for the warp engines. If there were other configurations of starships, wouldn't have Mr. Spock identified the ship by class, as he did with Harry Mudd's cargo ship ("Mudd's Women")?

And this line gives information on the other ships of the fleet. No other class in the fleet had the same configuration of parts as did the U.S.S. Enterprise and her sister ships. These ships were unique in their appearance.

I use this line as evidence that the U.S.S. Carolina ("Friday's Child") is a Constitution Class starship. She is identified as a starship by the U.S.S. Enterprise bridge crew.

------------------

takeoffs are optional; landings are mandatory

Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :

Another possibility is that starship simply meant "Starfleet vessel of certain size and capabilities" and all of those had two distinguishing and easily identifiable features: saucer primary hulls, and standoff nacelles for the warp coils. These features would distinguish the ships sufficiently from just about everything else we saw (except the Romulan vessel which arguably had saucer and nacelles, but she wasn't Starfleet). And semantically, specifying the primary hull as a saucer and specifying the positioning of the warp coils as being in nacelles equals describing the "configuration", at least AFAIC.

So in essence, if sensors show a ship with a saucer and nacelles, it is likely to be a big Starfleet exploration-and combat-capable deep space vessel, that is, a starship. Constitutions, Mirandas, Federations, Loknars... All of those meet the criteria. Antareses, Independences, Sydneys, class J freighters,
alien ships, and assorted other space junk do not.

Timo Saloniemi

Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :

It seems like this is yet again an argument for the early Starfleet classification using the term 'starship'.

First, the Enterprise is said to be a Starship Class ship. This is most likely not the name of the class, but more the type of ship.
Second, in "Relics", Scotty says he 'served on cruiser,.... and starships'. This also seems to imply that starship was a distinguished type of ship.
And this particular line of dialogue also says that by configuration (e.g. capabilities, weaponry, etc.) the particular ship was of the type 'Starship', instead of a cruiser, tanker or something different.

So, this is evidence that the USS Carolina is of the 'starship' type, but it doesn't necessarily say what class it is.
IMHO of course
------------------
"Dynamics is like playing hockey with a flexible hockey stick"
-My Physics teacher
---
Titan Fleet Yards - Harry Doddema's Star Trek Site

[This message has been edited by Prakesh (edited November 29, 2000).]

Posted by Tech Sergeant Chen (Member # 350) on :

Do they refer to alien ships as starships? Seems like they may call it generally a vessel or a ship, or specifically a warbird or battlecruiser but not a starship. OTOMH, I can't recall any mention of Klingon or Breen starships. So maybe they reserve the term for frontline Fed ships. It can't apply to every ship with interstellar capability, otherwise warp-capable shuttles would be included.

Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :

I can't remember any definite references to alien starships, either. I do remember, though, that Scotty actually said he had served on "cruisers, freighters... starships". There was no "and" there. Perhaps he meant to use "starship" as a designation that would include the vessels he had listed before? That is, cruisers and freighters would be some of the starship types in existence.

Another possibility is that Scotty was enumerating the "operational categories" of the ships he had served on: cruisers (as in pleasure cruisers, cruise liners, Love Boats), freighters (as in commercial cargo carriers) and starships (as in any Starfleet vessels of military or exploration persuasion). So the "cruiser" in this list would not be the same as the "heavy cruiser" in Starfleet designation schemes, but more like the civilian "space cruiser Aurora" of TOS "Way to Eden" infamy.

A third possibility is of course that Scotty was using the old 23rd century system where "starship" was a ship designation comparable to cruiser or frigate, possibly a less offending analogy to today's "battleship" - just as you suggest. I also like to think that this is what "starship" originally meant after the term had been coined specifically for the Constitution class, but that the word very soon came to mean all Starfleet vessels. Even pre-Constitution spaceships were then retconned as starships, even if nobody back in 2196 had referred to the Daedalus vessels by that name.

Timo Saloniemi

Posted by colin (Member # 217) on :

TIMO
I agree with your last statement. There is evidence to support this contention.

In 2253, the year of the episode "The Cage", the U.S.S. Enterprise is identified as United Star Ship Enterprise. This is the earliest recorded instance of the word 'starship' being used. Strangely, in this early period of the Enterprise's life, she carried no dedication plate.

12 years later, the Enterprise has a plate that identifies her as of the Starship Class.

2 years later, the Class J starship is mentioned. This starship is older than the Enterprise. This is the first known instance in Star Trek history that different starship classes, from the primary class, are identified.

Decades later, the U.S.S. Reliant and the U.S.S. Excelsior are identified as starships.
I see the Constitution Class having probably the following ships by year:

2253
NCC-956 U.S.S. Eagle
NCC-1017 U.S.S. Constellation
NCC-1371 U.S.S. Republic
NCC-1647 U.S.S. Farrugut
NCC-1657 U.S.S. Potemkin
NCC-1664 U.S.S. Excalibur
NCC-1672 U.S.S. Exeter
NCC-1685 U.S.S. C- or D-
NCC-1697 U.S.S. Essex
NCC-1700 U.S.S. Constitution
NCC-1701 U.S.S. Enterprise
NCC-1703 U.S.S. Hood
NCC-1709 U.S.S. Lexington
NCC-1710 U.S.S. Kongo
(If there was an earlier U.S.S. Constitution, this ship had to be destroyed before 2253.)

2265
NCC-956 U.S.S. Eagle
NCC-1017 U.S.S. Constellation
NCC-1371 U.S.S. Republic
NCC-1657 U.S.S. Potemkin
NCC-1664 U.S.S. Excalibur
NCC-1672 U.S.S. Exeter
NCC-1685 U.S.S. C- or D-
NCC-1697 U.S.S. Essex
NCC-1700 U.S.S. Constitution
NCC-1701 U.S.S. Enterprise
NCC-1703 U.S.S. Hood
NCC-1709 U.S.S. Lexington
NCC-1710 U.S.S. Kongo
NCC-1717 U.S.S. Yorktown
NCC-1718 U.S.S. C- or D-
NCC-1831 U.S.S. Intrepid
(NCC-1647 U.S.S. Farrugut destroyed in 2257.)

2267
"Tommorow is Yesterday"
NCC-956 U.S.S. Eagle
NCC-1017 U.S.S. Constellation
NCC-1371 U.S.S. Republic
NCC-1657 U.S.S. Potemkin
NCC-1664 U.S.S. Excalibur
NCC-1672 U.S.S. Exeter
NCC-1700 U.S.S. Constitution
NCC-1701 U.S.S. Enterprise
NCC-1703 U.S.S. Hood
NCC-1709 U.S.S. Lexington
NCC-1710 U.S.S. Kongo
NCC-1717 U.S.S. Yorktown
NCC-1831 U.S.S. Intrepid
(Capt. Kirk says there are twelve ships like the U.S.S. Enterprise in the Star Fleet. If you count the above list, you will see there are twelve ships, plus one-the Enterprise, to make thirteen. The unknown NCC-1685 C- or D-, NCC-1718 C- or D, and NCC-1697 U.S.S. Essex were destroyed before this episode.)

2267
"Friday's Child"
U.S.S. Carolina is added to the list of Constitution Class starships. She is new to the fleet and has her name given to a later 24th century starship. The known number of Constitution Class starships is 14.

2267
"The Doomsday Machine"
U.S.S. Constellation is lost. Number is now 13.

2268
"The Immunity Syndrome"
U.S.S. Intrepid is lost. Number is now 12.

2268
"The Ultimate Computer"
U.S.S. Excalibur is lost. Number is now 11.

2268
"The Omega Glory"
U.S.S. Exeter is probably deemed unuseable as a result of contagion aboard ship and is destroyed. (ex. U.S.S. Lantree). Number is now 10.

2268
"The Tholian Web"
U.S.S. Defiant NCC-1764 is added to the list of Constitution Class starships. Before her crew has time to decide on ship symbol, she is lost. Number is 12 and then 11. (The uniforms of the Defiant crew carry no insignia. She is given an older registry.)

2269
Ships in class
NCC-956 U.S.S. Eagle
NCC-1371 U.S.S. Republic
NCC-1657 U.S.S. Potemkin
NCC-1700 U.S.S. Constitution
NCC-1701 U.S.S. Enterprise
NCC-1703 U.S.S. Hood
NCC-1709 U.S.S. Lexington
NCC-1710 U.S.S. Kongo
NCC-1717 U.S.S. Yorktown
NCC- U.S.S. Carolina
The class have one or two ships that are not known at this point. Between 2269 and 2280, the U.S.S. Endeavor is built.

2286
Constitution Class ships are being constructed. One of these new ships is the U.S.S. Enterprise NCC-1701-A.

2293
Known ships in fleet
NCC-956 U.S.S. Eagle
NCC-1371 U.S.S. Republic
NCC-1657 U.S.S. Potemkin
NCC-1701-A U.S.S. Enterprise
NCC-1710 U.S.S. Kongo
NCC-1717 U.S.S. Yorktown
NCC-1895 U.S.S. Endeavor

2293
U.S.S. Enterprise is retired for p.r. and political reasons. A new ship, the U.S.S. Enterprise, is launched. This ship reflects the hopes and confidence of Starfleet in a new class of ships, the Excelsior.

2324
U.S.S. Republic begins service as a cadet ship.

2367
An unknown Constitution Class starship is identified in the wreckage of Wolf 359. This ship, broken in two, fought in the conflict and was subsequently destroyed. This starship had to be less than 100 years old to be fit for combat.

------------------

takeoffs are optional; landings are mandatory

[This message has been edited by targetemployee (edited November 30, 2000).]

Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :

I'm curious as to where you got initial letters to the names of the 1685 and 1718. I thought the display these were on didn't have names...?

------------------
"What he did to that walrus gentle-man was inexcusable."
-T. Herman Zweibel on "Mr. Woodrow Wood-pecker", The Onion, 7-Nov-2000

Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :

In the Cage, didn't that actually say "United SPACE Ship Enterprise"?

------------------
"I am in one of those rare periods of life where I am convinced I am a sexy devil."- Simon "Sol System" Sizer

Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :

United Space Ship, yes.
Later, Kirk called it United Star Ship

24th century captains say Federation Star Ship Big-Shippy-Looking-Thing

------------------
"Dynamics is like playing hockey with a flexible hockey stick"
-My Physics teacher
---
Titan Fleet Yards - Harry Doddema's Star Trek Site

Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :

"I am Captain Ritten of the FSSBSLT Lollipop."

Yep, it beats being captain of the starship Lollipop...

------------------
Well, it's done, yes, the deed is done.

Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :

Nothing wrong w/ the Lollipop. It's a good ship... :-)

------------------
"What he did to that walrus gentle-man was inexcusable."
-T. Herman Zweibel on "Mr. Woodrow Wood-pecker", The Onion, 7-Nov-2000

Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :

"Oh, this ship sucks!"

"Is sucked, you mean."

------------------
What did it mean to you
An early chat with death
To pull your body for a moment from your soul
--
Camper Van Beethoven
****
Read chapter TWO of "Dirk Tungsten in...The Disappearing Planet"! Now with 30% more plot.

Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :

Although, unlike Timex, it can't take a lickin'...

------------------
Well, it's done, yes, the deed is done.

Posted by colin (Member # 217) on :

Thanks to everyone for catching my mistake.
TSN
I used the accepted registries of ships fouund in the encyclopedias and matched the information to the chart given in "Court Martial". The chart reads from top to bottom-

NCC-1709 U.S.S. Lexington
NCC-1831 U.S.S. Intrepid
NCC-1703 U.S.S. Hood
NCC-1672 U.S.S. Exeter
NCC-1664 U.S.S. Excalibur
NCC-1697 U.S.S. Essex
NCC-1701 U.S.S. Enterprise
NCC-1718
NCC-1685
NCC-1700 U.S.S. Constitution

If the list is alphabetical from bottom to top, then the two ships between U.S.S. Constitution and U.S.S. Enterprise must begin with the letters C, D, or E. There can be no other choice.

------------------

takeoffs are optional; landings are mandatory

Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :

Are you threatening us?

"There can be no other choice. If you do not agree, I will kill you. You have 1 minute to make up your minds."

------------------
"I am in one of those rare periods of life where I am convinced I am a sexy devil."- Simon "Sol System" Sizer

Posted by colin (Member # 217) on :

A majority of the fans accept the registries given to the Constitution Class starships. If matched to the chart, the list is alphabetical. This leaves only C, D, or E being the letters that are available to begin the names of the unknown starships. This is no threat. Simply, a matter of fact.

------------------

takeoffs are optional; landings are mandatory

Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :

Just because those ships are alphabetical doesn't mean the other two are. There's nothing to say that the alphabetization (is that a word?) of the known ships isn't just a coincidence. You can't be sure they whole thing is in order. Lack of evidence to the contrary does not constitute proof.

------------------
"What he did to that walrus gentle-man was inexcusable."
-T. Herman Zweibel on "Mr. Woodrow Wood-pecker", The Onion, 7-Nov-2000

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

I agree with TSN.

------------------
Star Trek Gamma Quadrant
Rated 7 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux

[This message has been edited by JeffKardde (edited December 01, 2000).]

Posted by spyone on :

Sadly, the definition of "Starship" varied from episode to episode. In some, "Starship" meant any warp-capable ship. In others, it meant only the Constitution Class ships. In others, it refered to the newest ships Starfleet had.

------------------
You're a Starfleet Officer. "Weird" is part of the job.

Posted by Daniel (Member # 453) on :

I agree that alphabetization may be just a coincidence. It might be noted that all or most of the Constitution-class vessels might be named after famous naval vessels. The Constitution and Enterprise we all know about, the Hood was with the British navy and destroyed by Germany's Bismarck During WWII, I think the Potemkin was a famous Russian battleship on which the crew mutinied for lack of better treatment during the period of TR's great white fleet, and I'm sure the others have equally intriguing places in history.

If you follow Todd Allen Guenther's (admittedly noncanon) Ships of the Star Fleet, most of the ships are named like that. Registry numbers are placed in numerical order with the anomalous ones explained as being older ships brought up to the standards of the class. Or ships destroyed and new ones rechristened in their honor, registry number kept for "record-keeping purposes".

Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :

I'd like to point out that Guenther got all the names for Constitution variants from the lists in Franz Joseph's Starfleet Technical Manual. I guess he got the names from those mentioned in the Eps and in The Making of Star Trek. Don't know how he got the registries, though.

------------------
When you're in the Sol system, come visit the Starfleet Museum

Posted by The359 (Member # 37) on :

How many starships are actually listed in "The Making of Star Trek"?

------------------
Me: "Why don't you live in Hong Kong?"
Rachel Roberts: "Hong Kong? Nah. Oh, but we can live in China! Yeah, China has great Chinese food!"

(discussion with fellow classmate, 9/5/00)

Mustang Class Starship Development Project

Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :

I don't have a copy, but there were several lists of suggested names for the 12 starships. IIRC, the number of suggested names exceeded 12.

------------------
When you're in the Sol system, come visit the Starfleet Museum