The Enterprise-class/ Constitution-class nomenclature has certainly been debated inside and out. Furthermore, images of “Enterprise-class” signage from The Wrath of Khan and “Constitution-class” illustrations from The Undiscovered Country only fuel the fire and strengthen many fans’ resolve.
So, I have come up with one possible theory that may appease both sides. This employs some canonical facts as well as information from “Ships of the Star Fleet,” one of the most popular books of “Trek Tech” fandom. My idea, more or less, keeps both fan data AND canonical data in continuity with what has been seen on screen.
My theory essentially concludes that refit 1701 was an Enterprise-class vessel and that the Enterprise-A is a Constitution-class vessel. This would coincide with the signage seen in TWOK as well as other canonical information that establishes the Enterprise-A as Constitution-class.
Let us begin in the “Ships of the Star Fleet” (a book that I would think every die-hard Star Trek fan owns). However, for those that are not familiar with this publication, a summary may be useful:
The book begins by listing the 12 original Constitution-class vessels, trying to maintain continuity with Kirk’s line in “Tomorrow is Yesterday” about 12 ships being built. To account for the 14 ships, as listed in Franz Joseph’s Blueprints and Technical Manual, 2 of these ships (the Constellation, NCC-1017, and the Republic, NCC-1371) are said to have been “refit” from an older ship class. This would help to explain why their registration numbers do not fit within the 1700 numbering scheme.
The book is also well organized in trying to “explain” the differences in the Enterprise as seen throughout the Original Series. For those of you that are unaware, there were basically three different versions of the TOS Enterprise filming model. (Please note, that in describing these variations, I will list only a two or three of the most obvious details, even though each time the model was actually modified, there were several things that were altered.)
There is “The Cage” version, with no lights, few details, and warp nacelle dome “spikes.” For the second pilot, lights were added to the model, along with a few additional details. This is sometimes referred to as the “Where No Man Has Gone Before” version. Lastly, the model was further modified with the “spinning” warp nacelle domes, a lower bridge profile, and a smaller deflector dish. This is commonly known as the “Production Version.”
“Ships of the Star Fleet” presents the “Where No Man Has Gone Before” version as the original Constitution-class configuration. (For some reason, they omit “The Cage” version.) “Ships” goes on to point out that the Potemkin is the only ship still in service (at the time of the Kirk/Spock movie era) in what is basically her original Constitution-class configuration. (pictured)
The “Production Version” is considered to represent the next refit, and is designated as the Bonhomme Richard-class (pictured) This is a tie-in to Frank Joseph’s Tech Manual, as well as the actual filming model.
A third refit is then listed as Achernar-class (pictured), and is also a tie-in to the information in Joseph’s Tech Manual and Blueprints. While the Enterprise in this specific configuration was never actually a reality, this configuration was presented to attempt to tie-in the Constitution-class linage to the famous Frank Joseph Blueprints.
Supposedly, as each “refit” was done and the Enterprise was brought up to Bonhomme Richard, and then Achernar specifications, the ship presumably remained a Constitution-class vessel (certainly, a popular concept among “Constitution-classers” ) , as evidenced by the “Achernar” specs being illustrated in Joseph’s “Constitution-class” Blueprints. (Although, it is important to note that Joseph’s “Constitution-class” Blueprints were published well before “Ships of the Star Fleet.” ) Anyone confused yet?
According to “Ships,” at the time of the Motion Picture, Starfleet began to assign ships for MAJOR refits, which was to cause them to be identified under new classes. (A popular concept among “Enterprise-classers.” ) According to “Ships,” the Enterprise, and several other ships of the Constitution/ Bonhomme Richard/ Achernar classes were assigned to be refit to Enterprise-class specs, with of course, the Enterprise being refit first. (Coinciding with events in TMP and our famous sign in TWOK.)
Additionally, some other ships of Constitution/ Bonhomme Richard/ Achernar classes were allocated to be refit to a class known as Constitution II. (pictured) The keen observer will note that this design is based on the Enterprise filming model that was to be used for the Star Trek: Phase II Series. Among the ships that are listed to be refit to this class, is none-other-than the infamous Yorktown. Furthermore, it is stated in the book that once the Potemkin is retired from service, the Constitution II-class will be re-designated Constitution-class. (Anyone see where I am going with this yet?)
The NCC-1701 “Enterprise-class” Enterprise (as I am designating it) was, of course, destroyed in The Search for Spock. This brings us up to the “whalesong crisis” in The Voyage Home and the events that followed.
Whether you are a fan of the Yorktown/Enterprise-A theory or not, it is a pretty safe bet that the E-A is NOT a brand new ship. I base this conclusion on time elements regarding Kirk and crew’s assignment to the “new” ship, and then their orders to return home for decommissioning. If it were a brand new ship, it would have been fairly ludicrous to decommission it after only 7 years. (Assuming Okuda’s time-line is correct for Star Trek IV through Star Trek VI.) After all, based on what we have seen in subsequent Star Trek, Starfleet certainly gets its mileage out of its ships!
So, let us assume that the Potemkin has been retired by this time and that Constitution II-class ships (such as the Yorktown) have been re-designated Constitution-class, as suggested by “Ships.” And, let us then say that the Yorktown got that “makeshift solar sail” working in TVH and returned for refit. Let us further assume that the Yorktown was either: (a.) Upgraded to Enterprise-class specifications; or (b.) Given exterior cosmetic changes that made her identical to Enterprise-class vessels. In any case, and for whatever reason, the Enterprise-A retained the Yorktown’s Constitution-class nomenclature.
Personally, I prefer explanation b, as this would make more sense as to why the designation was not changed to Enterprise-class. Additionally, this would help to explain why so many sets in TUC (which, of course, were redressed sets from TNG) differ so greatly from the sets constructed for TMP. The internal arrangements may differ so greatly between the Constitution (II)-class and the Enterprise-class, (i.e., the location of Main Engineering) that despite the Yorktown’s exterior cosmetic change to Enterprise-class specs, her differing internal arrangement causes her to remain in her previous class.
As some justification for this, “Ships of the Star Fleet” has already given us examples of ships that are almost identical in exterior appearance, but belong to differing classes for a variety of reasons. Such an example would be the Avenger-class (that’s Miranda-class for all of you non-Trek Tech folks) compared to the Cyane-class.
My theory is by no means simplistic, but hopefully it does help to bring two factions of Star Trek fans together. More or less, it “fits” canonical material such as the TWOK signage as well as Scotty’s TUC schematic. Furthermore, it fits a great deal of “Trek Tech” lore that has been so widely accepted for several years.
Actually, the bad news is for die-hard “Ships of the Star Fleet” fans. While much of the book’s material works in this theory, the section on the Enterprise II-class must be ignored, as this was intended to give information regarding the Enterprise-A’s origins and construction.
I think that my theory brings together the best of both worlds as much as logically possible. Take it or leave it, as even I myself have not quite decided just how “practical” the whole idea is. Any comments and/or suggestions are very welcome.
[ December 05, 2001: Message edited by: Commander Dan ]
Posted by Spike (Member # 322) on :
Firstly, a few new facts about this ST2 label. Lee Cole was the graphic designer of TWOK and Cole helped also designing the Enterprise for TMP. So, I assume she (?) knew about Probert's Enterprise class designation and that this label refers to that.
Secondly, there's a much easier way to explain the ST2 label and the ST6 schematics. After the refit the Enterprise was a Constitution class refit and this specific Constitution refit was called Enterprise-(sub)class. So, the Enterprise and the Enterprise-A are both, Constitution-class and Enterprise-class.
And to add a real Navy-example to support this theory: The USS Lewis and Clark SSBN-644 is a Lafayette-class submarine, but also a Benjamin Franklin (sub)class submarine AFAIK.
Posted by mrneutron (Member # 524) on :
quote:Originally posted by Commander Dan: Additionally, some other ships of Constitution/ Bonhomme Richard/ Achernar classes were allocated to be refit to a class known as Constitution II. (pictured) The keen observer will note that this design is based on the Enterprise filming model that was to be used for the Star Trek: Phase II Series. [ December 04, 2001: Message edited by: Commander Dan ]
Too bad whoever drew that up didn't actually attempt to capture the actual lines of the Phase II model. The saucer and secondary hull are TMP style, not Phase II.
Has anyone ever built a 3D model of the Phase II ship?
Posted by Matrix (Member # 376) on :
I have came up with my own theory of my own.
Starfleet wants a large number of new heavy cruisers, however they are unable to accept to have a large amount of ships built and by the time the last is built it is obosolete by the next generation of starship design. What they came up with is a series of 3 classes each the same but different in some way to incorporate the latest technology. The Constitution class is designed and built in between the 2240-2245. At this time the Bonhomme Richard sub-class is designed and started to be built. As the new Bonhomme Richard class comes out, the older Constitutions are at the end of their 5 years missions and are put in drydock as the Bonhomme Richard class filler their place. Then in 2255-2260 the last of the series is designed and built, the Achernar sub-class. The Bonhomme Richard is put in drydock as the Achernar are built. The Constitutions newly refitted from their Bonhomme Richard class starts their 2nd 5 years mission. Then by 2260 its their turn to go to drydock for their refits. Each class are different from each other and can be considered the saem whole class but different sub-classes. (Side note I got this concept from the US Navy. In the years 1912-1920's, the US Navy had a standard battleship tpye called the "Standards." These ships are differed from each other but so differently where they were a whole new battleship. The Pennsylvania class is slightly larger than the Neveda clas which was the first of the standards. The Pennsylvania class had 12 14" guns and the Nevada had 10. The New Mexico and the Tennessee were only different from having the clipper bow and slightly different armoring schemes. The Colorado class were armed with 8 16" which were superior to the 14" guns but they weighed the same. Each of these classes were rated at 21 knots and 13.5" armor belt and 3-4" armored deck. Thus where the rest of the world's navies had a wide range of ships that varied from 21-32 knots. The US Navy wished the enemies navy come to them where the US fight on there own terms with the combined might of the US Navy behnd it. Whereas the other navies of world must stay at the same speed of the slower classes which come to about the same speed of 21 knots, thus no speed advantage if they wanted to fight the US on equal terms.)
Then with no heavy cruiser designs through 2260-2270, the current Consitutition class and sub-classed were becoming obsolete with the latest technological advances that made huge leaps in power. The first ship to test these designs was the USS Decatur which tested new warp engines. At a fraction of the weight and size of the Constitution classes, it was overall superior to them in every way. First it was thought that they could build a whole fleet of these ships but it became very costly. So instead in a very sneaky move Starfleet drydocked a couple of Consititutions class ships for a major refit to Decatur standards. The first the Enterprise porved so valuable that almost the whole fleet of Consitution class ships were brought in to be refitted to Enteprise standards. In a way the Enterprise was a whole new class but some of the fleet still called them Consitution class ships.
At this time Starfleet still feeling the expensive refits to the Enterprise class decided to make a slightly less advanced design that could save time and resources to building them. Though very powerful ships only about a dozen were refitted and they were scrapped before the Enterprise class. In the late 2270's and the early 2280's, Starfleet had a new Enterprise subclass built entirely from scratch. Though appearing simplified, it was better built and overall superior to the refitted type. Inherited design weaknesses from being refitted froma whole different design is what cost the ships to scrapped in the early 24th century, where some of the subclass is still being served to even up to the Dominion War.
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
Here's what I say, not that it isn't a good theory and an interesting idea, and keeping in mind that you're entitled to your own view of the ST universe, and I'm entitled to mine.
This is exactly the sort of dilemma that TPTB want to avoid and why they follow a policy of all those sourcebooks and such from this time period being NON-CANON.
This being as it is, I personally disregard all information furnished in those publications. (Along with the great mountains of other such material, such as FASA, Shane Johnson's books, etc.) It simply is just too unreliable to look to for explanations, simply for the reason that no one with any true influence in ST (Okuda, Sternbach, Moore, Eaves, Berman, Braga, etc.) pays any though to that material, being that it is NON-CANON and therefore inconsequential to the furtherance of the ST franchise. It has already been contradicted in hundreds of places and just doesn't seem to me to be any kind of valuable source of accurate information.
That being said, I'll go on to say that there is NOTHING in canon that suggests or even really supports what you're trying to say.
TMP: Probert refines and puts the finishing touches on the refit enterprise design originally conceived by Matt Jeffries for Phase II. Probert decides the ship--which is markedly different from the configuration seen in TOS--should be designated Enterprise-class. The bulk of Fandom and other Paramount-licensed material adheres to this. However, this is not the case universally. Gene Roddenberry's own novelization of the movie (which itself is also *non-canon* but demonstrates a point) calls the ship Constitution-class, in keeping with Franz Joseph's designation. And even in the finished film itself, Franz Joseph's original deck plans of the ship are displayed on the computer screens of the bridge. Only bits and pieces of the blueprints actually appeared on the screen, but everyone knows that if they were to be examined, they would show a designation of Constitution-class. Of course none of this so far establishes anything canonically. It's just a look at how the "controversy" got started.
TWOK: The simulator room at SF Academy bears door sinage reading "Enterprise-Class." As Spikey said, the intention of the set decorators may indeed have been to reflect Probert's intended designation. However, canonically, the words could refer to a number of other things. (The Class of Trainees for the Enterprise, The Class of the simulator, etc. Both of these are quite possible, the latter especially, considering that we've seen that individual starships often have their own distinctive bridge modules, different from other ships of their class.)
TSFS: Chekov's computer display is a slide of a page taken from Franz Joseph's old Technical Manual, which reads "CLASS ONE HEAVY CRUISER: Constitution-class Starships". Of course, the panel showed the series-style configuration, and had the registry of NCC-1700. (Generally accepted to be that of the U.S.S. Constitution.)
TUC: A blueprint of the Enterprise-A (externally identical to the refit-1701) onscreen clearly shows the designation of that vessel to be CONSTITUTION-CLASS.
TNG: Any time either of Kirk's vessels are referred to by class, "Consitution-class" is used. The canon or semi-canon publications released from this period and to date unanimously refer to the ship as a Connie. This designation is also listed at Paramounts official Star Trek website, and has been quoted from Okuda and several other members of TPTB numerous times. NO ONE refers to any of the ships as "enterprise-class" with the exception, of course, of Andrew Probert.
In my mind it is a very clear cut case of Canon Vs. Non-canon sources. Intention versus the final product.
It is no different from the case of the Defiant, whose designers designated it a Valiant-class vessel, but was later revealed in the show to be the first of its class and called Defiant-class. No different from the designers of the Reliant for TWOK, who invented the designation of Avenger-class for it, accepted by Fandom and probably by Paramount for years, but which was later proved false when the design was explicitly referred to as Miranda-class in TNG, and likewise designated in all official publications of the day.
Some scream "revisionist history" and they may be right. But that is of little consequence. Canon is what it is. And no non-canon material will ever be able to compete with that. You can't make an argument for non-canon being "right" over canon. It just doesn't work with the way TPTB have set up the ST universe. It is a dream.
Like I've said above, you are all entitled to your own personal view of the ST universe. However, the people that carry forward the ST franchise have stated the they view it in one fairly clear-cut manner. And you must admit that since it is they who do in fact hold the keys to continuity and all aspects of the "reality" of ST, it is really only their views which will have any impact.
My personal views are for the most part based solidly in established canon. I do not, for the most part, bother at all with non-canon material, as it is all potentially incorrect, and I have no desire to internalize such unreliable information into my outlook on ST. I prefer the safer course of sticking to that which has been established onscreen and in the scant few truly canon publications that have been released.
Given that, I see no evidence in canon whatsoever to indicate that either the 1701 or 1701-A were of any class other that the Constitution-class, and I furthermore see no evidence whatsoever of any kind of sub-class or class re-designation system within Starfleet. So I'm afraid a cannot agree with your interpretation.
-MMoM
P.S.
I apologize if I came on a bit too strongly, or have made myself appear to be some sort of Nazi or something. No disrespect it meant towards Cmdr. Dan or Spikey or anyone else.
-MMoM Posted by Spike (Member # 322) on :
quote:It is no different from the case of the Defiant, whose designers designated it a Valiant-class vessel
It is different, because those people who believed the Defiant was a Valiant class-vessel had no on-screen evidence for that.
Another theory:
Starfleet decided to call this Constitution refit Enterprise-class because there were still Connies in the TOS configuration around. Before TUC they switched back from Enterprise-class to Constitution-class because all Connies had been refitted and it was unnecessary to distinct between the original and the refit.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
The Phase-II Enterprise didn't have torpedo tubes on the interconnecting dorsal, did it?
One thing I've always found interesting is that we've never, ever seen a refit-Constitution/Enterprise-class ship apart from the Enterprise and Enterprise-A. Yet fandom insists that this design was well accepted.
We did see refit designs on the Operation Retrieve diagram in TUC, addmitadley, but they could have been generic labels for Federation Starships.
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
PsyLiam & mneutron: There exists a photo of the Phase II model that lacks the torpedo launcher assembly, yes. It can be seen in the Reeves Stevens book "ST Phase II: The Lost Series". However, that model is far from finished, and it is mentioned in the book that the lack of detail on the model was proving problematic even considering the intended TV resolution.
Later in the book, a blueprint is shown, and while the caption claims it "has never been published before", fans of "SotSF" immediately recognize it as the "Constitution (II)" class shown above. The torpedo launchers are where one would expect. "SotSF" reproduces this design accurately and acknowledges the uncertainty surrounding the detailing by showing several different torpedo launcher configurations for the "Constitution (II)", as well as covering further modifications in the "Tikopai" class that represents an intermediate stage of Probert modifications.
I like Cmdr Dan's take on the subclass naming history, insofar as I'm a devout fan of "SotSF" and interested in making it work with canon as well as possible. The "Enterprise (II)" designation suggested for E-A and her putative sisters could easily be changed to "Constitution" soon after the writing of that book (Which is pseudo-dated as 2291, right? Despite the speculation on what will happen as late as 2293), and nicely before TUC.
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by targetemployee (Member # 217) on :
PsyLiam,
We do see two other Connie-refits. One is to the right of the screen in the DVD version of STIV as the travel pod is escorted to the USS Enterprise A . Another view is from a computer readout in "Datalore" which shows the NCC-1700 .
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
Hmmmmm... Fascinating.
If USS Constitution was refitted to that standard, then it's pretty obvious why the standard would be called "Constitution subclass".
My suggestion of the day: "SotSF" holds as written (to the most part), but Starfleet in the mid-2280s gets fed up with the low-performance "Constitution (II)" subclass. Now that the Klingons are at the gates, the defence budget no doubt is rather Reaganesque. So Starfleet starts refitting these ships to the E-A standard. The class is tentatively named "Constitution (III)" until public pressure causes Starfeet to launch a different first refit (USS Yorktown) from the one intended (USS Constitution), slightly ahead of schedule and under the Enterprise name.
For a few years, the designation "Enterprise (II)" class lingers on, until Starfleet decides it will no longer bow to the humiliating circumstances that made a hero of Kirk the Mutineer, and deliberately reverts back to "Constitution (III)" subclass designation, since that ship has now been converted, too. As soon as the remaining "Constitution" and "Constitution (II)" variants are scrapped or converted, the Roman numeral is dropped.
Why does "SotSF" in "2291" insist that the "Ent (II)" is a newbuild class, then? Why, pure subterfuge to put the Klingons ill at ease! The latest details in such a publication would be the ones most likely to contain disinformation, after all.
Timo Saloniemi
[ December 07, 2001: Message edited by: Timo ]
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
If you read SotSF, disregard all year dates, disregard the part about refit Horizon and Archon class Connies and replace 'class' with 'sub-class' or 'type' for all the ships that are subclasses, then it holds up as a good exploration of starship design.. actually.. i think its not too far fetched for a ship that was called 'Constitution-class' to be called 'Enterprise-subclass' and to have that be shortened to 'Enterprise-class' on occasion.. or are we really that rigid?
Posted by mrneutron (Member # 524) on :
One other thing on the subject of Connie refits. I've seen people post messages about the variations int he nacelle caps and spikes, the rear grills/balls of the nacelles, and the bridge, etc. betweent he pilots and the series versions of the Enterprise, but no oen has ever mentioned the weirdness of the nacelle aft ends seen in the final shots of The Cage (not the Menagerie) where there's a rectangular dohickie in the place where eventually the "ball" would appear at the end of the each nacelle. I'm relatively certain these shots were made with the 3-foot model, but it makes for yet another variation on the ship's detailing.
If none of you knows what I'm talking about, I'll capture images from the video.
Posted by Woodside Kid (Member # 699) on :
quote: Later in the book, a blueprint is shown, and while the caption claims it "has never been published before", fans of "SotSF" immediately recognize it as the "Constitution (II)" class shown above. The torpedo launchers are where one would expect. "SotSF" reproduces this design accurately
Actually, it doesn't. There are quite a few differences between the two. The grid patterns on the saucer are different, and the bridge modules are completely different (Phase II has two turbolifts, Constitution (II) only one). There are subtle differences in the strut design, and the details on the warp nacelles do not match either. While it's obvious that someone involved with "SotSF" had some familiarity with the Phase II design, he or she didn't (or couldn't) reproduce it exactly.
Posted by mrneutron (Member # 524) on :
quote:Originally posted by mrneutron: One other thing on the subject of Connie refits....but no one has ever mentioned the weirdness of the nacelle aft ends seen in the final shots of The Cage (not the Menagerie) where there's a rectangular dohickie in the place where eventually the "ball" would appear at the end of the each nacelle.
In reference to this...
Posted by Commander Dan (Member # 558) on :
I am not sure if the images above are specifically of the-3 footer or the-11 footer, but according to several sources, the rectangular details on the restoration cowls (rear of the warp nacelles) were, in fact, on the 11-foot filming model at the time The Cage was filmed. (Refer to Star Trek Communicator Issue 133, page 50)
For more information on the differences in details between the “First Pilot Enterprise,” the “Second Pilot Enterprise,” and the “Production Enterprise,” I refer you to:
Is it me or does the larger photo has the saucer a little fat?
If we count the little rectangle thing on the ends then that would be a 4th. However just like modern day naval ships are not all the same as each ship goes in the drydock for a little refit to add something here take away something there etc. The E-nil is perhaps only had that rectnagle thing on as a experimental design that failed.
The latest details in such a publication would be the ones most likely to contain disinformation, after all.