This is topic T-Negative #27 (Yes, I *found* it!) in forum Starships & Technology at Flare Sci-Fi Forums.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://flare.solareclipse.net/ultimatebb.php/topic/6/2154.html

Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
 
A few days ago I found a guy selling some old 1970s-vintage fanzines online. One of them, to my utter delight (I squealed with glee like the little geek that I truly am [Wink] ) was T-Negative #27 from April of 1975, published by one Ruth Berman out of Minneapolis, Minnesota. In case you don't know, this is the document that contains Greg Jein's original article on the Constitution-class registry numbers.

That's right. You heard me. I found it.

Scans:
http://lobotomy.pleh.net/~flareupload/uploads/646/Jein1.jpg
http://lobotomy.pleh.net/~flareupload/uploads/646/Jein2.jpg
http://lobotomy.pleh.net/~flareupload/uploads/646/Jein3.jpg
http://lobotomy.pleh.net/~flareupload/uploads/646/Jein4.jpg
http://lobotomy.pleh.net/~flareupload/uploads/646/Jein5.jpg

The article runs from the bottom half of the first page to midway through the second column of the last page.

This is a pretty damn cool find, to me anyways. The original source of the infamous non-sequential registry scheme. As you can see, Jein himself readily admitted that it was a little on the shaky side, but his research is impressive and his compilation is articulate and convincing. No wonder Trimble and Okuda believed him.

It's pretty interesting to find out that the Eagle, Endeavor, and Essex originally had references in the scripts of "Journey to Babel" and "Amok Time." (And, as a futher side note, that the Exeter from "The Omega Glory" was originally to be the U.S.S. Agentina, the S.S. Beagle from "Bread and Circuses" was to be the U.S.S. Lord Nelson, and the Defiant from "The Tholian Web" was to be the U.S.S. Scimitar.)

And how about that display? He alleges that it comes from Scene 44 of "Space Seed." (I don't know if it's there or not, but I think it *is* the one that Scotty was looking at in "The Trouble With Tribbles.") It's doubly cool because A) it gives us a canonical reference for the use of the term Constitution-class from within TOS itself, something that has long been thought not to exist, and B) it gives us a DIAGRAM of the TOS phaser banks! Awesome!

Yes, I know. I am a truly mighty monkey. [Cool]

-MMoM [Big Grin]

P.S.
This is my little present to y'all before I go on vacation for a week. I'll see if the accolades are still flying when I return...

[ April 27, 2003, 12:43 PM: Message edited by: The Mighty Monkey of Mim ]
 
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
 
Good... GOD! [Eek!] I've just downloaded these images to read, but from even the quickest glance suggests this is a great source of info.

Very, very nice find! [Smile]
 
Posted by Spike (Member # 322) on :
 
Interesting. Unless I overlooked something, this article does not claim, that all vessels on the chart were Constitution-class vessels. So, who did really come up up with this crappy theory??
 
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Spike:
Unless I overlooked something, this article does not claim, that all vessels on the chart were Constitution-class vessels. So, who did really make up this crap?

Well, actually it does. You've got to remember that at this point (as during TOS) the term "Starship" very specifically referred to the Constitution-class. (Obviously, that's been modified through the years, but in this context that's what it meant.)

-MMoM [Big Grin]

P.S.

Looks like Jein couldn't find anything more about the Kongo than I could.

Can somebody make a screencap of that display from "The Trouble With Tribbles," and also check to see if it was in "Space Seed?"
 
Posted by Spike (Member # 322) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim:
quote:
Originally posted by Spike:
Unless I overlooked something, this article does not claim, that all vessels on the chart were Constitution-class vessels. So, who did really make up this crap?

Well, actually it does.
But look at page 5. Only the starships with NCC-17xx-registries got a MK IX designation. Or is he implying that there are Constitution-classes MK I through X?
 
Posted by The359 (Member # 37) on :
 
So where exactly did he get the numbers for the Farragut, Horney, Kongo, Lafayette, Potemkin, Tashik-Sotra, Valiant, or Yorktown?

And I wonder if I should change my numbers for the Eagle and Endeavour now.
 
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Spike:
But look at page 5. Only the starships with NCC-17xx-registries got a MK IX designation. Or is he implying that there are Constitution-classes MK I through X?

quote:
Originally posted by The359:
So where exactly did he get the numbers for the Farragut, Horney, Kongo, Lafayette, Potemkin, Tashik-Sotra, Valiant, or Yorktown?

That big list at the top of the second column on the the last page is NOT Jein's. It was part of Ruth Berman's note that comes after the asterisk before the last paragraph of the first column on that same page.

quote:
And I wonder if I should change my numbers for the Eagle and Endeavour now.
I don't know about that, since Okuda used NCC-1895 and NCC-956 for them on the Operation Retrieve chart from TUC.

-MMoM [Big Grin]
 
Posted by The359 (Member # 37) on :
 
Well I don't think that Operation: Retrieve numbers have been completely confirmed either.

Another question. Were the numbers on the chart confirmed to be the same ones on Jein's list? He says that he guessed on them, so he might have been wrong.
 
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
 
The only one that hasn't seemed to be right is NCC-1631, which *looks* like NCC-1831 in DVD caps. (See here.) But Jein said he had access to an actual film clip of the scene, which might possibly have been even clearer, so I don't know. Maybe it really *is* NCC-1631...
 
Posted by Brown_supahero (Member # 83) on :
 
First Page watermark.

that's cool
 
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
 
Actually, that's a show-through of the illustration on the cover page. In the true fanfic tradition, it's Spock and Chapel groping each other while McCoy looks on, astonished... [Razz]

 -

-MMoM [Big Grin]
 
Posted by SoundEffect (Member # 926) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim:
The only one that hasn't seemed to be right is NCC-1631, which *looks* like NCC-1831 in DVD caps.

I don't see how it can be 1631. In the DVD cap there's a definite dimpling of the number on the left side. If it were a 6, the left side would be straight and would only be dimpled on the left if it were an 8. I can only see that it can be NCC-1831.
 
Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
 
GREAT STUFF!!! Greg Tyler of www.trekplace.com also has a copy of #27 but refused to post it until he got the ok from Greg Jein.

Jein's scheme, as he readily admits, is completely hairbrained and can be pretty much ignored except where it has been canonized by inclusion in onscreen graphics. Of course, inclusion in the encyclopedia cannot be considered as any real evidence either way.

Next, Mim you have to track down these film clips. They have higher resolution than DVDs, so may be more amenable to image enhancement. Does anyone have any original scripts either?
 
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
 
This just occurred to me, but we finally have explanations for the Franz Joseph names of the starships for registries -1712 through -1727. (Or at least, I'd never known where they came from before.) It also suggests that the name Excelsior has more of a history with the writers than we'd thought.

Dunno if anyone else has already done this, but I figured I'd type up the ship lists for reference. (I hope this isn't considered problematic because of copyright; after all, it's been posted online already, and I'm just saving people transcribing work. [Wink] )

quote:
USS Constitution NCC-1700 Constitution
USS Constellation NCC-1017 Constitution
USS Defiant NCC-1764 Constitution
USS Eagle NCC-1685 Constitution
USS Endeavour NCC-1718 Constitution
USS Enterprise NCC-1701 Constitution
USS Essex NCC-1697 Constitution
USS Excalibur NCC-1664 Constitution
USS Exeter NCC-1672 Constitution
USS Farragut NCC-1647 Constitution
USS Hood NCC-1703 Constitution
USS Hornet NCC-1868 Constitution
USS Intrepid NCC-1631 Constitution
USS Kongo NCC-1732 Constitution
USS LaFayette NCC-1866 Constitution
USS Lexington NCC-1709 Constitution
USS Potemkin NCC-1702 Constitution
USS Republic NCC-1371 Constitution
USS Tashik-Sotra NCC-1865 Constitution
USS Valiant NCC-1623 Constitution
USS Yorktown NCC-1717 Constitution

STARBASE 10 LIST:

NCC-1709
NCC-1631
NCC-1703
NCC-1672
NCC-1664
NCC-1697
NCC-1701
NCC-1718
NCC-1685
NCC-1700

ESTABLISHED:
Enterprise, Exeter, Excalibur, Lexington, Yorktown, Potemkin, Republic, Hood, Constitution, Kongo, Constellation, Farragut, Valiant, Intrepid

POTENTIAL:
Essex, Endeavor, El Dorado, Excelsior, Saratoga, Hornet, Wasp, Bonhomme Richard, Monitor, Merrimac, Tori,
Lafayette, Ari, Krieger, Eagle

USS Excalibur and USS Endeavour -- two other ships at Altair III. ("Amok Time")
USS Essex and USS Eagle -- two ships near Babel. ("Journey to Babel")

USS Argentina (became Exeter in "The Omega Glory")
USS Lord Nelson (became Beagle in "Bread and Circuses")
USS Scimitar (became Defiant in "The Tholian Web")


 
Posted by The359 (Member # 37) on :
 
if the Intrepid is 1831, then why aren't the others 1894, 1897, and 1885? They certainly look like the same digit as the Intrepid.

I still also do not include the Valiant as a Constitution class, since it doesn't fit the timeline or anything.
 
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Masao:
GREAT STUFF!!! Greg Tyler of www.trekplace.com also has a copy of #27 but refused to post it until he got the ok from Greg Jein.

Yes. His reluctance motivated me to do some more searching online for myself. (It turned out to ba really great deal---I paid a mere $1.00 for this thing!) I'm afraid he's in for a hard time in trying to get into contact with Jein. He seems to be something of a recluse. Neither Okuda nor Sternbach have a contact address (e-mail or otherwise) for him (or at least one they're willing to divulge) and online searches turn up nothing helpful.

quote:
Originally posted by MinutiaeMan:
(I hope this isn't considered problematic because of copyright; after all, it's been posted online already, and I'm just saving people transcribing work. [Wink] )

I strongly doubt that Jein would have any objection to the distribution of this article, since it was written nearly 30 years ago and furthermore was intended for the very purpose of dissemination among Star Trek fandom. (That's what the whole fanzine system was about.)

quote:
This just occurred to me, but we finally have explanations for the Franz Joseph names of the starships for registries -1712 through -1727. (Or at least, I'd never known where they came from before.)


Yes, FJ's number one source when writing the Tech Manual was Stephen Whitfield and Gene Roddenberry's The Making of Star Trek. That book reproduces several internal memos regarding potential starship names ciculated between Dorothy Fontana, Bob Justman, and Gene Roddenberry during the production of TOS, which contains those names.

quote:
USS Constitution NCC-1700 Constitution
USS Constellation NCC-1017 Constitution
USS Defiant NCC-1764 Constitution
USS Eagle NCC-1685 Constitution
USS Endeavour NCC-1718 Constitution
USS Enterprise NCC-1701 Constitution
USS Essex NCC-1697 Constitution
USS Excalibur NCC-1664 Constitution
USS Exeter NCC-1672 Constitution
USS Farragut NCC-1647 Constitution
USS Hood NCC-1703 Constitution
USS Hornet NCC-1868 Constitution
USS Intrepid NCC-1631 Constitution
USS Kongo NCC-1732 Constitution
USS LaFayette NCC-1866 Constitution
USS Lexington NCC-1709 Constitution
USS Potemkin NCC-1702 Constitution
USS Republic NCC-1371 Constitution
USS Tashik-Sotra NCC-1865 Constitution
USS Valiant NCC-1623 Constitution
USS Yorktown NCC-1717 Constitution



Remember now, this is not Jein's list but rather Ruth Berman's modified one, and includes at least one fandom addition (the Tashik-Sotra) and a lot of seemingly arbitrary numbers. (Although Bjo Trimble later used those of the Yorktown[i], [i]Potemkin, and Farragut in her officially-licensed 1976 Star Trek Concordance and they were later passed on from there to FASA. The Valiant number was used by Maynard and Mandel in Star Trek Maps [1980] and was apparently modified into NCC-1223 by Okuda in the Encyclopedia. Also, the Defiant's registry is from D.C. Fontana, and came out of a third season memo, IIRC.)

quote:
STARBASE 10 LIST:
Starbase 11, actually. [Razz]

quote:
Originally posted by The359:
if the Intrepid is 1831, then why aren't the others 1894, 1897, and 1885? They certainly look like the same digit as the Intrepid.

No, the others at least do in fact look to be 6s.

quote:
I still also do not include the Valiant as a Constitution class, since it doesn't fit the timeline or anything.

Yes, even Jein recognizes this in the article. It's outside of the Connie's timeframe by a decade.

-MMoM [Big Grin]
 
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
 
quote:
Remember now, this is not Jein's list but rather Ruth Berman's modified one
Yeah, I realized that after I posted. I'd been wondering where that unusual Vulcan-sounding name came from... [Wink]

At any rate, I think that rather than incorporating this info into canon, it should be used to debunk the Encyclopedia's lists of most of the Connies. After all, this article shows all the convoluted (although still quite inspired) logic that would make poor Spock weep. For its time, though, the registry numbers would make pretty good sense -- they just don't fit into the Okudaic system that's taken over since then.

There's not many times I would choose the FJ system over the Encyclopedia, but I think that FJ's list of Constitution-class ships (the first batches, anyway, before he goes off the deep end from NCC-1732 and onwards) makes a better choice as far as ships and registry numbers go. With a couple of exceptions:

1) We never, ever SAW the USS Republic, so it doesn't HAVE to be a Constitution unless that specific designation was placed next to it in some ST:6 display. And even then, I'd be inclined to toss that out to explain the registry number.

(Aside: I'm wondering if the ship's number from "Court Martial" -- NCC-1371 -- was actually a typo during the writing of the script, and was supposed to be NCC-1731 instead. After all, no one would've guessed back then that a bunch of fanboys who had never been born would be conversing over a computer-powered information network with people on the other side of the world about the design and origins of starships that were never even seen on the show, and so they never cared about getting a "correct" number. However, since that number was actually SPOKEN on screen and not just seen, I wouldn't propose decanonizing that.)

2) As I indicated in another thread, my personal belief is that some strange gravitational distortions caused by the Doomsday Machine distorted light waves in a peculiar way, and the Constellation's true registry number is actually NCC-1710. [Wink]
 
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
 
I think it just fits nicely that the Court Martial chart is just Reverse-alphabetical.

What's wrong with that?

Oh and reguards the front cover picture - I thought it was a watermark too! [Smile] I thought the person coming through the door was Kirk - which would have made sense in-light of fan slash-fic! LOL!

McCoy has dropped his PADD in that picture! [Smile]
 
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by MinutiaeMan:
At any rate, I think that rather than incorporating this info into canon, it should be used to debunk the Encyclopedia's lists of most of the Connies. After all, this article shows all the convoluted (although still quite inspired) logic that would make poor Spock weep. For its time, though, the registry numbers would make pretty good sense -- they just don't fit into the Okudaic system that's taken over since then.

I could *almost* be in favor of this, but the fact remains that if there's ever anything more about the Connies established, Paramount is likely to use these numbers rather than any other set.

quote:
1) We never, ever SAW the USS Republic, so it doesn't HAVE to be a Constitution unless that specific designation was placed next to it in some ST:6 display. And even then, I'd be inclined to toss that out to explain the registry number.

Well, the ship was called a "Starship" in "Court Martial," which in TOS terms is a strong indicator that it was a Connie.

quote:
2) As I indicated in another thread, my personal belief is that some strange gravitational distortions caused by the Doomsday Machine distorted light waves in a peculiar way, and the Constellation's true registry number is actually NCC-1710. [Wink]
Of course that rather messes with the NCC-1710 Kongo, which appeared on the TUC Operation Retrieve chart. [Frown]

-MMoM [Big Grin]
 
Posted by newark (Member # 888) on :
 
The useage of "Mk" indicates the existence of a wide variety of starship classes with the Constitution Class (aka Enterprise Class) being the best known example from the 2260's.

Classification system, based on latest information c. 2266:

MK IX Starship
--->MX I Heavy Cruiser
------>Constitution Class
--------->Enterprise Class
------------>U.S.S. Enterprise NCC-1701
 
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
 
That is what I've said about the term "Starship Class" before - that it's like a hierarchical system. Sort of like:

Kingdom
Phylum
Class
Order
Family
Genus
Species
 
Posted by Futurama Guy (Member # 968) on :
 
I still think it is quite odd that such a large percentage of Star Fleets' core are all under repair at the same time at the same place....

...one fast and furious attack from a hostile force and there goes the meat and potatoes of the Federation....
 
Posted by The359 (Member # 37) on :
 
I've always believed in the use of sub-classes within a class, however I would prefer to keep Constitution as the basic general class name, not Starship.

And apparently a lot of Constitutions were listed in Star Trek VI (either Operation Retrieve or the Ship Status Chart). If I remember correctly, some of them were the ones with 16xx registries, so it'd be hard to adapt the FJ registries.

Really, I have no problem with the way the registries are now. If we move Eagle and Endeavour to their new numbers, then the registries are more closely grouped together, except Constellation and Republic, and we can explain those two off.
 
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Futurama Guy:
I still think it is quite odd that such a large percentage of Star Fleets' core are all under repair at the same time at the same place....

...one fast and furious attack from a hostile force and there goes the meat and potatoes of the Federation....

Maybe it's the control point for several repair depots? Like a central control - maybe a few are at UP, San Fran, Luna, Vulcan, Rigel etc.

Also, I don't get what the problem is with the Connies - like what's the issue? Are people trying to rationalise 16xx's as Connies? or even the Constellation?

Maybe the basic space-frame design is quite old - but it's the guts of the ship that is quite different. Maybe the shillouttes from Op: Retrieve are not all CONNIES - but of that shape?
 
Posted by newark (Member # 888) on :
 
Canon says in the era of Captain Kirk that Starship Class was the general classifier for ships bearing a starship configuration. This is supported by the dedication plaque and the illustration.

From the illustration, are we able to draw any conclusions on how phasers of this era worked and what comparisons can be created between these phasers and phasers of a hundred years later?
 
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
 
Wasn't it considered unprecedented -- or at least very unusual -- to have so many starships (or Starships [Roll Eyes] ) at the same place and time?
 
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Futurama Guy:
I still think it is quite odd that such a large percentage of Star Fleets' core are all under repair at the same time at the same place....

I thought we decided that it wasn't necessarily a repair schedule but could be something else, like a mission readout or fleet operations overview.

quote:
Originally posted by The359:
...If we move Eagle and Endeavour to their new numbers, then the registries are more closely grouped together...

But I don't think this is warranted. What would it be based on, besides Jein's conjecture? It would be fine if there weren't the Operation Retrieve chart to contradict it. But that's just the issue.

Besides, the Eagle's NCC-956 is the only one of those two that's a problem. The Endeavour is NCC-1895, which just means it's a later build.

NCC-1685 and NCC-1718 are just two additional unknown ships.

quote:
Originally posted by AndrewR:
Also, I don't get what the problem is with the Connies - like what's the issue? Are people trying to rationalise 16xx's as Connies? or even the Constellation?

The problem is that it doesn't really make sense that nearly ALL of them should have registries lower than the class prototype, NCC-1700.

-MMoM [Big Grin]
 
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
 
So let me ask the question - I sure has been asked before in the thread... why then consider ALL of the ships less than 1700 as Constitution?

Maybe they have a similar build but the guts/warp engine etc. might be different!?!
 
Posted by David Templar (Member # 580) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by newark:
From the illustration, are we able to draw any conclusions on how phasers of this era worked and what comparisons can be created between these phasers and phasers of a hundred years later?

Our understanding of the modern internals of a phaser emitter came exclusively from Sternbach's TNGTM... And the DS9TM, to a lesser extent. So that's my only point of reference.

So, from what I know of phasers, I'm looking at a prefire chamber, with the power feed from the bottom, and the emitter assembly that clutter on the top and to the right of the blob.

If we could actually read what the labels say (the texts are too faded in the box!), we wouldn't need to guess!
 
Posted by The359 (Member # 37) on :
 
Well, there's always been the alternate theories of two Constitutions. 1700 being the newer one replacing the older, destroyed one.
 
Posted by Futurama Guy (Member # 968) on :
 
quote:
quote:
I still think it is quite odd that such a large percentage of Star Fleets' core are all under repair at the same time at the same place....
I thought we decided that it wasn't necessarily a repair schedule but could be something else, like a mission readout or fleet operations overview.
I dont think the "% Complete" refers to missions; and the cap I have has 3 words above that cut out that probably would clear a lot up....page 6 of this lil gem seems to think the same thing about it being a repair schedule, some of which can be based on the lines about ships undergoing maintenance. Consider also that if that is a repair base they would have to be at full capacity if they need to pull the Intrepid to get the Enterprise in...so by that we already know a few ships are there
 
Posted by TheWoozle (Member # 929) on :
 
Another possibility is that the model was popular and has been around for a few years, but they needed replacements, so commissioned another dozen-or-so that we see on TV, as the Constitution class. Older ships might be refered to as the Constitution class, since theyre all basically the same, but the Constitutions get all the press.
 
Posted by Akira (Member # 850) on :
 
I have a simple way of looking at this

All the Ships were Starship Class untill the new connie class came into play and thus renamed Constitution class

See im a mad man [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Cpt. Kyle Amasov (Member # 742) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Akira:
I have a simple way of looking at this

All the Ships were Starship Class untill the new connie class came into play and thus renamed Constitution class

See im a mad man [Big Grin]

Ack. So this does either mean that there has been a "USS Starship" or that the Constitution has to be something absolutely new and brilliant that they decide to change their whole nameing/class pattern. [Roll Eyes]

The Enterprise is NX-01. First ship of the NX-class.
The Enterprise is NCC-1701. 1701st ship of Starfleet or 1st ship of the 17th class of starfleet vessels or 2nd ship of a new class of starfleet vessels that started its registry run with 1700.
Those are the two known registry patterns. But maybe there was a third one, prior to the second, known system, in the time between the founding of Federation's Starfleet and TOS. Maybe it's even one of the versions of the second pattern (since to this day we still haven't been able or willing to pick one of them). At some point it was decided (maybe when SF grew too large) that they needed a "logical" (logical in "'s because we all know that it is far from logical, but Starfleet probably wasn't aware of that [Wink] ) new system and invented what we know today. There could have been another change in the registry system between TOS and the 24th century. From all we know, allthough Okuda says otherwise, TOS and TNG registry systems do not work the same way.
 
Posted by Griffworks (Member # 1014) on :
 
quote:
>SNIP<
There could have been another change in the registry system between TOS and the 24th century. From all we know, allthough Okuda says otherwise, TOS and TNG registry systems do not work the same way.

This is a part of my favorite theory. I subscribe to the FJ registry series because it more closely resembles the registry of the modern U.S. Navy, wherein blocks of registry numbers are used for specific ship classes. While it's not 100% that simple, the basic thinking is.

Yep. I prefer to think that at one point in time, StarFleet made sense in their registry order. Somewhere during the 24th Century, however, they decided to change that and just assign a registry number to each individual ship as it was approved, most likely.

Works for me, anyhow. You don't have to like it. And even if you do, you're all wrong anyhow - unless you agree with me. [Wink]
 
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by David Templar:
So, from what I know of phasers, I'm looking at a prefire chamber, with the power feed from the bottom, and the emitter assembly that clutter on the top and to the right of the blob.

If we could actually read what the labels say (the texts are too faded in the box!), we wouldn't need to guess!

The one above the lower diagram says "ANTI-CYCLING" but that's the only one I can really make out. Perhaps when Greg Tyler posts his scans he'll have had a slightly clearer copy to work from.

quote:
Originally posted by Futurama Guy:
...the cap I have has 3 words above that cut out that probably would clear a lot up...

"STAR SHIP STATUS"

-MMoM [Big Grin]
 
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
 
quote:
"STAR SHIP STATUS"
Yes, we already know that's what the chart's about. But what's the title? [Razz]
 
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
 
Pardon? I can sense that was somehow supposed to be clever, but I don't get it.

The heading of the chart reads "STAR SHIP STATUS" and the one above the graph reads "% COMPLETE."

-MMoM [Confused]
 
Posted by Phoenix (Member # 966) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Akira:
I have a simple way of looking at this

All the Ships were Starship Class untill the new connie class came into play and thus renamed Constitution class

See im a mad man [Big Grin]

Perhaps the USS Starship was a prototype that was commissioned but never in active service, thus eliminating "This is Captain Smith of the Starship Starship".

Incidentally,
a) when was the first time "Constitution Class" was used?
b) was it ever used later to refer to the TOS Enterprise?
 
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Phoenix:
Incidentally,
a) when was the first time "Constitution Class" was used?

As we've just now found out from that display, TOS "Space Seed" or alternatively "The Trouble With Tribbles." (BTW, I'm still waiting for that screencap from any willing body...)

quote:

b) was it ever used later to refer to the TOS Enterprise?

Yes. Immediately coming to mind are TNG "The Naked Now" and "Relics." Possibly DS9 "Trials and Tribble-ations" as well...

-MMoM [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
 
The first time Constitution was used is allegedly that phaser diagram from Space Seed. Although no-one has apparenly seen it anywhere in any episode.

I don't remember very well, but it could be that they specifically called the TOS Enterprise a Connie in "Relics"?
 
Posted by Phoenix (Member # 966) on :
 
With regard to the Starship = Constitution theory, I am pretty sure that Archer calls himself Captain Archer of the Starship Enterprise, at least 100 years before TOS, which would suggest that (regardless of the original intentions of the writers) Starship does not mean Constitution Class.
 
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Phoenix:
With regard to the Starship = Constitution theory, I am pretty sure that Archer calls himself Captain Archer of the Starship Enterprise, at least 100 years before TOS, which would suggest that (regardless of the original intentions of the writers) Starship does not mean Constitution Class.

Speaking in "real" Trek terms, you're correct. But generally the issue in question in our discussions on this particular subject is whether these ships were intended to be Connies originally or not. So the fact that "Starship" was synonymous with "vessel of the Enterprise's design" then becomes a significant identifier.

-MMoM [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Phoenix (Member # 966) on :
 
I suspect that, if you want to take the intentions of the writers, all SF ships ever mentioned in TOS were supposed to be Connies, for the simple reason that they (rather naively) thought that SF didn't have any other ship designs.

However, apart from the 4 Connies in "The Ultimate Computer" (Potemkin, Excalibur, Hood and Lexington, I think), the Defiant which appeared in an episode, and the Constitution which was obviously a Connie, I am inclined to think of all other ships as "unknown", including the Constellation, which I don't think was a Connie - only a very similar looking ship.

I will not go making up imaginary classes for these ships, however (especially not ones called Bonhomme Richard, which I think is a rather silly name for a ship in the first place). [Smile]
 
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Phoenix:
(especially not ones called Bonhomme Richard, which I think is a rather silly name for a ship in the first place)

Tell that to Commodore Jones! [Razz]
 
Posted by Phoenix (Member # 966) on :
 
quote:
The Bonhomme Richard
She was an elderly, high pooped, French East Indiaman of 900 tons named LE DUC DU DURAS and, in 1779, she was lying at L`Orient on the French Atlantic coast.

At the instigation of M. de Sartine, the French Minister of Marine, she was bought by King Louis XIV of France and put at the disposal of Captain John Paul Jones of the American Continental Navy.
She was originally armed for protection against pirates in far eastern waters and carried her guns on one deck, twenty-eight 12-pounders, with six lighter pieces, six-pounders, on the poop-deck and forecastle. Jones had ports cut in the gun room on the deck below where he mounted six 18-pounder guns - making forty-two guns in all.

Jones renamed her BONHOMME RICHARD in honor of Dr Benjamin Franklin, the American representative in France, who had used Richard as a pen-name. Four other vessels, mainly crewed by Frenchmen, the PALLAS, VENGEANCE, an armed brig, a large cutter CERF and a warship ALLIANCE, were added to make a small squadron under the American flag, with Jones in command. The crew of the BONHOMME RICHARD included 150 American seamen, 100 of whom had recently been exchanged as prisoners of war for captured English sailors.

Point the First:
That's a very silly way to name a ship - even sillier than the name itself.

Point the Second:
The Duke of Duras???? Conspiracy!
 
Posted by Dat (Member # 302) on :
 
*fumes* Everybody says what I want to say before I can even hit reply.
 
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
 
quote:
She was an elderly, high pooped, French East Indiaman of 900 tons

 
Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
 
Mim: I don't think screen caps from DVDs or videotapes will be enough here. At least other people have tried looking at screencaps from the scenes in question and could find nothing. I think someone has to trackdown some film clips, just like Greg Jein used.
 
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Phoenix:

Perhaps the USS Starship was a prototype that was commissioned but never in active service, thus eliminating "This is Captain Smith of the Starship Starship".


Was the motto on the plaque:

"We built this city on rock and roll"? [Smile]
 
Posted by newark (Member # 888) on :
 
Though not mentioned, this does kill the notion the registry of the U.S.S. Constitution is seen or could be seen in "Space Seed".

When we did see the registry NCC-1700, it is disassociated from any name (ex. "Court Martial")or on a starship with Connie specifications with no corresponding name (ex. "Datalore"). I discount the computer displays in the movies for reasons of poor quality resolution and the Technical Manual is becoming a very rare item. For me, the class ship has no known registry.

This is my shiplist for the Connies:

1st Tier Identification: Starship Class
2nd Tier Identification: Mk IX
3rd Tier Identification: Constitution Class
4th Tier Identification: U.S.S. Constitution

Production Ships:

Known registries

NCC-956 U.S.S. Eagle
NCC-1017 U.S.S. Constellation
NCC-1657 U.S.S. Potemkin
NCC-1700
NCC-1701 U.S.S. Enterprise
NCC-1701-A U.S.S. Enterprise
NCC-1831 U.S.S. Intrepid
NCC-1895 U.S.S. Endeavour

Unknown registries

NCC-xxxx U.S.S. Defiant
NCC-xxxx U.S.S. Excalibur
NCC-xxxx U.S.S. Exeter
NCC-xxxx U.S.S. Hood
NCC-xxxx U.S.S. Lexington


Ships of unknown class

NCC-1371 U.S.S. Republic
NCC-1664
NCC-1672
NCC-1685
NCC-1697
NCC-1703
NCC-1709
NCC-1718

NCC-xxxx U.S.S. Antares
NCC-xxxx U.S.S. Carolina
NCC-xxxx U.S.S. Valiant
NCC-xxxx U.S.S. Yorktown
 
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by newark:
For me, the class ship has no known registry.

I can kindasee your point, if you are going to be strict over the "canon" definition. But it doesn't change the fact that for pretty much everyone who has had anything to do with the show (that has cared), NCC-1700 has equalled the Constitution, and if it ever came up in the future, that is the number and name they would almost certainly use.
 
Posted by Phoenix (Member # 966) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by newark:
Though not mentioned, this does kill the notion the registry of the U.S.S. Constitution is seen or could be seen in "Space Seed".

When we did see the registry NCC-1700, it is disassociated from any name (ex. "Court Martial")or on a starship with Connie specifications with no corresponding name (ex. "Datalore"). I discount the computer displays in the movies for reasons of poor quality resolution and the Technical Manual is becoming a very rare item. For me, the class ship has no known registry.

This is my shiplist for the Connies:

1st Tier Identification: Starship Class
2nd Tier Identification: Mk IX
3rd Tier Identification: Constitution Class
4th Tier Identification: U.S.S. Constitution

Production Ships:

Known registries

NCC-956 U.S.S. Eagle
NCC-1017 U.S.S. Constellation
NCC-1657 U.S.S. Potemkin
NCC-1700
NCC-1701 U.S.S. Enterprise
NCC-1701-A U.S.S. Enterprise
NCC-1831 U.S.S. Intrepid
NCC-1895 U.S.S. Endeavour

Unknown registries

NCC-xxxx U.S.S. Defiant
NCC-xxxx U.S.S. Excalibur
NCC-xxxx U.S.S. Exeter
NCC-xxxx U.S.S. Hood
NCC-xxxx U.S.S. Lexington


Ships of unknown class

NCC-1371 U.S.S. Republic
NCC-1664
NCC-1672
NCC-1685
NCC-1697
NCC-1703
NCC-1709
NCC-1718

NCC-xxxx U.S.S. Antares
NCC-xxxx U.S.S. Carolina
NCC-xxxx U.S.S. Valiant
NCC-xxxx U.S.S. Yorktown

That's the way I see it, I think.

A few questions (I am not challenging you, I just want to know how we know things):

1) The Enterprises and Constellation were seen in episodes and films, and the Republic was mentioned, but how do we know the Eagle, Potemkin, Intrepid and Endeavour's numbers? Were some of them seen in Operation Retrieve?

2) How do we know the Exeter is a Constitution?

3) How do we know that the Constellation is a Constitution and not just a similar looking ship?
 
Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
 
Constellation was a Constitution because uhm.. it was one. It was a Connie AMT model, used to represent a Connie. It was theorized later that it might be a different, yet similar class because of the imperfections in this early kit and the strange registry. But strictly speaking, it was a Constitution.
 
Posted by Spike (Member # 322) on :
 
quote:
How do we know the Exeter is a Constitution?
Because it looked like a Constitution?
 
Posted by Phoenix (Member # 966) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Spike:
quote:
How do we know the Exeter is a Constitution?
Because it looked like a Constitution?
Sorry, I didn't know it had appeared. Which episode was this?

Edit: I just realised my brain isn't in gear. Captain Tracy or something, wasn't it? The one where he killed his crew?
 
Posted by Futurama Guy (Member # 968) on :
 
"The Omega Glory"

They were killed from a virus that was brought back to the ship from the away team from the Yank-Kohm planet of which name I cannot recall, where the ppl there lived a reallly reallly long time.

Also, RE: a post last page...both Picard and O'bRien did ID the Enterprise as a Constitution Class...I dont think anyone specifically addressed that...if so...nevermind.
 
Posted by Griffworks (Member # 1014) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by newark:
Though not mentioned, this does kill the notion the registry of the U.S.S. Constitution is seen or could be seen in "Space Seed".

When we did see the registry NCC-1700, it is disassociated from any name (ex. "Court Martial")or on a starship with Connie specifications with no corresponding name (ex. "Datalore"). I discount the computer displays in the movies for reasons of poor quality resolution and the Technical Manual is becoming a very rare item. For me, the class ship has no known registry.

This is my shiplist for the Connies:
}SNIPPERS{

Uhm.... Well, it's not exactly TOS, but you get quite a clear view of the blueprints that Scotty is looking at in ST:VI. They quite clearly show that at least the refit/-A Enterprise is a Constitution class. I don't have the film grabs handy, but I'm pretty certain it also gives the registry as NCC-1700, tho admit I might well be wrong and mentally placing that in my memory.

And there is that little bit of insite that Greg Jein gave for the "T-Negative" article which clearly shows the words "Constitution class", after all. Doesn't give the registry, but at least does justify the class name.... [Smile]
 
Posted by The359 (Member # 37) on :
 
The paper in ST VI says NCC-1701-A. However, the security screen in ST III says NCC-1700 (and shows the TOS Enterprise instead of the Movie Enterprise).
 
Posted by Dat (Member # 302) on :
 
Well, it really shows the imperfect drawing of the TOS Enterprise... i.e. the bridge and decks 2/3 structure.
 
Posted by newark (Member # 888) on :
 
Eagle, Endeavour, and Potemkin registries are from the sixth movie. The first two ships were on the Operation: Retrieve plans and the last was on an okudagram located at Uhura's station.

The Intrepid's registry was based on a logical inference. When Commodore Stone made his decision to pull a maintenance team off the Intrepid, he was looking at the top of the chart, not the middle, not the bottom. There were two registries in his pov, NCC-1709 and NCC-1831, and the latter had reached 100 percent completion. The commodore wouldn't have pulled off a team working on a ship if the ship wasn't repaired and ready to embark.

We have a very clear image of a Connie with registry NCC-1700 in "Datalore". Unfortunately, this ship bears no name. So, she could be for all intents and purposes an unknown Connie bearing the registry NCC-1700.

As for the Space Seed reference, it is damn near impossible to read the screen. I know for I have tried. The same goes for the reference seen in "The Trouble with Tribbles". With the reissue of the article, we have the only copy of one of those technical screens and they tell us nothing of the registry of the class ship. We are given additional information on the mechanics of phaser techonology and the class structure then in place.

I would be more comfortable if I didn't get the impression that both Greg Jein and Michael Okuda were acting on third source material, not first source material. Both have said there was canonical evidence for the associaton between the name Constitution and the registry NCC-1700 in "Space Seed". If the image preserved in this article was from the episode, this association has been proved to be false. As the issue stands, we are accepting a canonical registry for a ship where there was no proven association between name and registry. So, the question arises, where did the association originated? Did it originate in the production offices of TOS, or in fandom?
 
Posted by newark (Member # 888) on :
 
I would like to add more on the Constellation. When the vessel was spotted in Spock's scanner, he stated the ship had starship configurations. Two possible meanings: a. Starships of this era shared basic components and were designed in myriad ways using those components; or, b. There was only one starship class in operation and the schematics of this class identified this vessel as the Constellation. I think the former. We have evidence of additional starship classes as inferred from the class structure glimpsed in the technical manual. The Connies were one specific class of starship in Starship Class and were possibly a variant of the basic starship design as indicated by the words "Mk IX".
 
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by newark:
So, the question arises, where did the association originated? Did it originate in the production offices of TOS, or in fandom?

The association originated with Matt Jefferies, who designed the registry number of the Enterprise (NCC-1701) as an indicator that the ship was the first vessel of Starfleet's 17th heavy cruiser design to be constructed after the prototype. (NCC-1700, the Constitution.)

In accordance with this, Franz Joseph used it in the official Star Trek Blueprints and Star Fleet Technical Manual, which are the source of both computer screens from STIII and "Datalore" that show the number.

-MMoM [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Phoenix (Member # 966) on :
 
It could be that the Enterprise NCC-1701 was officially a Starship Class, in that it was the same hull as the Starship NCC-900 (say), but it was of the Constitution Sub-Class (named after Constitution NCC-1700), and so was called Constitution Class for short (as "Constitution Sub-Class of the Starship Class" is a bit unwieldly), including by the computer and some blueprints. Only very official things like the dedication plaque note its true designation.

Thus, ships like the NCC-900s, NCC-1000s and NCC-1600s, are of different Sub-Classes. Eagle NCC-956 was originally built to the base specs of the Starship Class, Constellation NCC-1017 was of the Tribble Sub-Class, etc.

Now, some time before TMP, Starfleet launches a major ship refitting drive. After this, all ships we see are later (TMP style) models. The first Starship Class to be refitted is the Constitution NCC-1700. As all ships will be refitted, and so having different Sub-Classes is a bit irrelevant (possibly also due to a shift in SF policy regarding Class names) the Class is officially redesignated Constitution Class.

As we start to see both Mirandas and Connies in the NCC-1800 range, I am assuming that this is around the time that Starfleet dropped the block-system of numbering and started the sequential system.

(Regarding the DVD cap of the Court Martial scene, I can definately see it being 1631. There isn't actually any dimpling, just a bit sticking out of the side of the bottom bit, which could be a smudge - the rest is completely straight. And I don't see why they would put in a 1831 number when there are no other 1800s that have ever been seen, and the others are all 1700s and 1600s. The 1800s from the movies are probably new builds.)

Excelsior NCC-2000 is most likely a publicity stunt (in the same way that there was a big fuss over the year 2000, SF may be trying to say "look at us, we have started a whole new era of uberships" to the Federation public).

Now, as the refitted Starship Class was redesignated Constitution Class, it makes sense that some other Class was redesignated Miranda Class (if there was a TOS version Miranda, which I think there probably was - maybe it did more menial things that the Starship Class which is why we never see it). Perhaps the Miranda NCC-1500 (first of the Miranda Sub-Class of the Titanic Class) was the first of its Class to be refitted, and so the new Class is designated Miranda Class in its honour.

The TMP-TSFS Enterprise dedication plaque can be easily explained, I think. The Enterprise was originally dedicated when it was built, and so I doubt if it would be proper to "rededicate it", which is basically what changing the wording of the dedication plaque would be doing.

So, in the time of TNG, they know all TOS and Movie Connies as Constitutions for two reasons:
1) the refitted one was called Constitution Class
2) the original famous NCC-1701 was known as Constitution Class, and so people call all the others Connies as well, even though it isn't technically correct

So, when Spock said that the Constellation was of Starship configuration, he meant that it was one of the Sub-Classes of the Starship Class, which it clearly was.

Now you can all pick holes in my little theory, and I'll spend the next month trying to patch it up. [Smile]
 
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
 
I'm not sure if this should be categorized as a "hole", but it is a major gripe anyway:

Are we really supposed to believe that somebody in his or her or its right mind would name a class of starships "Starship class"?

I mean, "Starship class" is canonical from a solid brass plaque and all that. But it's also crazy. From ENT we know that the word "starship" has been applied as a descriptive noun to spacecraft at least since the 2150s. It would make sense that the word would be applied that way from the very first shiplike startraveling thingamajig on. Which should preclude silly "proper noun" usage at a later date.

To negate the canonical power of that dedication plaque, perhaps we could say that USS Enterprise of Constitution class was awarded a prize for being "Star Ship Class". Perhaps this is even the same thing as awarding "Star Ship Status", which is what was listed on that wall display in "Court Martial". That is, Kirk and his crew had earned X percentage points for "Starship Class" award, while the Vulcan crew of the Intrepid was already well past 100% and was in fact in the process of attaching the award plaque when Stone ordered the work to be halted... At some point after "Court Martial", Kirk's crew reached 100%, too, and got that plaque to be attached in place of the old one that read "USS Enterprise, Constitution Class". [Razz]

Timo Saloniemi
 
Posted by Futurama Guy (Member # 968) on :
 
[Eek!] Holy speculation overload, Batman! [Eek!]
 
Posted by Phoenix (Member # 966) on :
 
I don't like the existence of USS Starship either, but it seems to fit.

There are several explanations I can think of:

1) Some silly person named a freighter or something Starship, and it did something really special, and so they named a ship in honour of it, even though it was a silly name.

2) As I have already suggested, it was a prototype that never did anything, and so its name wasn't important.

3) Starfleet was trying to make a point - that this would be the definitive class of starship, which would surpass all others. (If this is the case, it would seem that they were right)

4) Someone in Starfleet just chose the name on a whim, and no-one thought to object, not knowing it would be assigned (randomly?) to a class ship.

Also, two other points:

1) This is the organisation that launched the Federation Starship Federation, misspelled Brattain on a ship's hull and painted the wrong number on their latest battleship we are talking about. [Smile]

2) We don't know (canonically speaking) what USS stands for. Perhaps its not the United Star Ship Starship, but the United Space Ship Starship or United Systems Ship Starship instead.
 
Posted by Futurama Guy (Member # 968) on :
 
Maybe Starship Class means the same as Runabout Class does.

A broad, generic term that eventually came to mean a variety of large spacefaring warp-capable Federation vessels. What makes the Connie any more of a "Starship" than the NX? Didn't Archer call his ship a "starship" at one point or another?

The E-D was the "Federation Starship Enterprise", implying that "Starship" is a generic term for pretty much anything, a term coined when the original Enterprise was conceived, and later honed once the number of classes designed began to inflate.
 
Posted by Phoenix (Member # 966) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Futurama Guy:
Maybe Starship Class means the same as Runabout Class does.

I can't say I have ever heard anyone say "Runabout Class" before.

quote:
Originally posted by Futurama Guy:
A broad, generic term that eventually came to mean a variety of large spacefaring warp-capable Federation vessels. What makes the Connie any more of a "Starship" than the NX? Didn't Archer call his ship a "starship" at one point or another?

That's kind of the point. Look at it like this:

Now: USS New Jersey BB 62 is Iowa Class
ENT: Enterprise NX-01 is NX Class
TNG: USS Enterprise NCC-1701-D is Galaxy Class
DS9: USS Defiant NX-74205 is Defiant Class
VOY: USS Voyager NCC-74656 is Intrepid Class

It does not make sense to have "Starship Class" meaning anything other than "Of the same design as a ship called Starship", as it has meant nothing else in any other Star Trek series, and means nothing else now.

Archer calls his ship a "starship". Picard calls his ship a "starship". Why, between these two time periods, would SF decide that only one design of ship is in fact a "starship"? If it means all spacegoing vessels, why, when he scanned the Constellation, didn't Spock say "its a Constitution", so Kirk would know it wasn't another type of "starship", like a Hermes or Ptolemy?

quote:
Originally posted by Futurama Guy:
The E-D was the "Federation Starship Enterprise", implying that "Starship" is a generic term for pretty much anything, a term coined when the original Enterprise was conceived, and later honed once the number of classes designed began to inflate.

So on the one hand it's a generic term for pretty much anything, and on the other it's a specific designation for a type of ship (Constitution Class)? Surely it can't be both? If it's generic in ENT and TNG, why would it be different in TOS?

And the point is that Starship is a name. Surely the Constellation isn't a constellation, and the Federation isn't a federation?
 
Posted by Spike (Member # 322) on :
 
quote:
I can't say I have ever heard anyone say "Runabout Class" before.
Sisko used this term in "Emissary".
 
Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
 
There's another half-hearted explanation in the fact that it the organization is also called Starfleet. A Starfleet of Starships and Starbases. It could be that during TOS "Starship" referred to a ship in SF service, as opposed to a civilian "spaceship".

The real question is what the heck Jefferies was thinking when he labeled his final schematics as "USS ENTERPRISE - Space Cruiser - Starship Class". Did he have some sort of system in his head? Or did he just make it up, because he "was never a science-fiction guy"? That one sketch where he explains the 1701 does give the impression he tried to make up a system for it.

Perhaps "Starship Class" refers to the "Class One" for main ships (from the SFTM) and "Class Two" for shuttles (from that Voyager episode). But then, why did Mudd at one time claim "he didn't know this was a Starship!". Or did that only mean he didn't know it was a Starfleet ship?

This entire weird TOS thing leaves me with the distinct impression that several behind-the-scenes people had their own system, but never bothered to tell each other. The fuzzy fandom interference doesn't help either.

Antoher question.. Where did that alleged Space Seed display come from? I can't remember ever seeing such technical drawings in TOS (apart from NOMAD perhaps). I suppose it's too early to have come from any fan-source?
And what exactly did Franz Joseph know when he did his TM? He must have seen some of these technical drawings because he also calls the Enterprise a "Mk IX".

Aargh! This is all messing with my head.
 
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
 
"If it's generic in ENT and TNG..."

Now, if it had NOT been used in ENT, we would be much, much happier overall.

1) We could claim that the Constitution class was the very first to be called "starship", giving it extra leeway for funny naming schemes. Those would erode away as time passed after this formative event. Which was in TOS's past already, so Kirk would already be hearing terminology like "J class starship".

2) We wouldn't have to worry about the "five starships named Enterprise" thing, because NX-01 was just a "spaceship" or something equally mundane.

Now, all that is left is damage control. [Frown]

Timo Saloniemi
 
Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
 
With all respect, but to really explain the TOS "system", we need to at least ignore ENT, but probably also the Okudan TNG system. If we know how the TOS system works within the context of TOS only, we could then try to fit it into the ENT and TNG systems.
 
Posted by Phoenix (Member # 966) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Spike:
quote:
I can't say I have ever heard anyone say "Runabout Class" before.
Sisko used this term in "Emissary".
It can also be explained by the fact that:
a) there is only one type of runabout
b) runabouts are a brand new type of ship

Neither of these could possibly apply to the Starship Class. There is more than one type of starship, and there have been many starships in the past. Sisko was probably trying to be clear. Saying "Danube Class" would probably have met with confusion. (I am guessing here, it's a long time since I have seen the episode)

Also, I doubt Runabout Class was written on their dedication plaques. [Smile]
 
Posted by Futurama Guy (Member # 968) on :
 
Okay, much of this was answered while my post was in editing, but either way...


quote:
Originally posted by Phoenix:
quote:
Originally posted by Futurama Guy:
Maybe Starship Class means the same as Runabout Class does.

I can't say I have ever heard anyone say "Runabout Class" before.
Rewatch the DS9 pilot and you will see the light as Sisko mentioned it there, my resource deficient friend...

quote:
Originally posted by Phoenix:
Well for one, the system which you are referring was not designed until the Excelsior came around. It does not make sense to have "Starship Class" meaning anything other than "Of the same design as a ship called Starship", as it has meant nothing else in any other Star Trek series, and means nothing else now.

Archer calls his ship a "starship". Picard calls his ship a "starship". Why, between these two time periods, would SF decide that only one design of ship is in fact a "starship"?

So on the one hand it's a generic term for pretty much anything, and on the other it's a specific designation for a type of ship (Constitution Class)? Surely it can't be both? If it's generic in ENT and TNG, why would it be different in TOS?

You absolutely missed the point of what I said. Why would they have a "Starship Class"...after the term was already used to identify the NX and later the Galaxy Class??? Does it then mean that those ships, too, are of the "Starship Class" as well?? A starship is a starship and the term "Starship class" defines the generic term for what it is, a starship. Much like the Runabout Class is a Runabout in broad, generic terms - but a Danube Class in more specific terms. Sisko never said: "Lets go take a Danube to Bajor"...Even though we have heard Picard say "This is the Federation Starship Enterprise". Hell for that matter, when he hailed the Enterprise-C he refrained from naming his ship specifically, but still managed to say: "This is Captain Jean-Luc Picard from the Federation Starship...a Federation Starship..." again implying the term as a generic identification to 'any ship of the stars', until proved otherwise.

quote:
Originally posted by Phoenix:
If it means all spacegoing vessels, why, when he scanned the Constellation, didn't Spock say "its a Constitution", so Kirk would know it wasn't another type of "starship", like a Hermes or Ptolemy?

Well, it could have been all in the writing (remember how everyone thought of the existance of the "Discovery" because of the writing??). Otherwise, I believe I answered that when I said something like: "The E-D was the "Federation Starship Enterprise", implying that "Starship" is a generic term for pretty much anything, a term coined when the original Enterprise was conceived, and later honed once the number of classes designed began to inflate. A Galaxy Class surely isnt a "Starship Class" and the NX isnt a "STarship Class" yet they were called a 'starship', much the same the Original Enterprise was called a starship. It makes even less sense to designate a "Starship Class" to a design when the term is continued to be associated with other non-Constitution Class ships, both before and after the ship was designed.

quote:
Originally posted by Phoenix:

quote:
Originally posted by Futurama Guy:
What makes the Connie any more of a "Starship" than the NX? Didn't Archer call his ship a "starship" at one point or another?

That's kind of the point.
Then you just contradicted yourself.
 
Posted by Phoenix (Member # 966) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Harry:
With all respect, but to really explain the TOS "system", we need to at least ignore ENT, but probably also the Okudan TNG system. If we know how the TOS system works within the context of TOS only, we could then try to fit it into the ENT and TNG systems.

Unfortunately, the TOS system doesn't work even in TOS, so that's a bit impossible.

They decided to start with "all Ent-like ships are NCC-17XX", then along came the Constellation, and the chart in Court Martial, and it just continued getting worse from there. (956 springs immediately to mind.)

The fact is that TOS is over, and we can explain it in the best possible way to fit in with the rest of ST, and no episodes will contradict us. [Smile]

quote:
Originally posted by Harry:
There's another half-hearted explanation in the fact that it the organization is also called Starfleet. A Starfleet of Starships and Starbases. It could be that during TOS "Starship" referred to a ship in SF service, as opposed to a civilian "spaceship".

In that case the dedication plaque would not have needed to say "Starship Class" because it would have been clear from the USS prefix. And even if it had said it, it should have said "Starship", if that is indeed its status, rather than "Starship Class", which means what I have already said.

[Incidentally, perhaps USS stands for UFP Starfleet Ship]

quote:
Originally posted by Harry:
Perhaps "Starship Class" refers to the "Class One" for main ships (from the SFTM) and "Class Two" for shuttles (from that Voyager episode). But then, why did Mudd at one time claim "he didn't know this was a Starship!". Or did that only mean he didn't know it was a Starfleet ship?

It makes so much more sense if Starship is a class. It would be like saying "I didn't know this was an Intrepid!" Surely he realised that Starfleet personnel wearing Starfleet uniforms had a Starfleet ship?

quote:
Originally posted by Harry:
This entire weird TOS thing leaves me with the distinct impression that several behind-the-scenes people had their own system, but never bothered to tell each other. The fuzzy fandom interference doesn't help either.

That's why we are here. [Smile]

What I have done is taken what is canon, compared it to modern practice and other ST examples, and produced what I think is a decent explanation for their incompetance. Granted, everyone else seems to think it's nonsense, but it works for me.
 
Posted by Phoenix (Member # 966) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Futurama Guy:
Okay, much of this was answered while my post was in editing, but either way...


quote:
Originally posted by Phoenix:
quote:
Originally posted by Futurama Guy:
Maybe Starship Class means the same as Runabout Class does.

I can't say I have ever heard anyone say "Runabout Class" before.
Rewatch the DS9 pilot and you will see the light as Sisko mentioned it there, my resource deficient friend...

quote:
Originally posted by Phoenix:
Well for one, the system which you are referring was not designed until the Excelsior came around. It does not make sense to have "Starship Class" meaning anything other than "Of the same design as a ship called Starship", as it has meant nothing else in any other Star Trek series, and means nothing else now.

Archer calls his ship a "starship". Picard calls his ship a "starship". Why, between these two time periods, would SF decide that only one design of ship is in fact a "starship"?

So on the one hand it's a generic term for pretty much anything, and on the other it's a specific designation for a type of ship (Constitution Class)? Surely it can't be both? If it's generic in ENT and TNG, why would it be different in TOS?

You absolutely missed the point of what I said. Why would they have a "Starship Class"...after the term was already used to identify the NX and later the Galaxy Class??? Does it then mean that those ships, too, are of the "Starship Class" as well?? A starship is a starship and the term "Starship class" defines the generic term for what it is, a starship. Much like the Runabout Class is a Runabout in broad, generic terms - but a Danube Class in more specific terms. Sisko never said: "Lets go take a Danube to Bajor"...Even though we have heard Picard say "This is the Federation Starship Enterprise". Hell for that matter, when he hailed the Enterprise-C he refrained from naming his ship specifically, but still managed to say: "This is Captain Jean-Luc Picard from the Federation Starship...a Federation Starship..." again implying the term as a generic identification to 'any ship of the stars', until proved otherwise.

quote:
Originally posted by Phoenix:
If it means all spacegoing vessels, why, when he scanned the Constellation, didn't Spock say "its a Constitution", so Kirk would know it wasn't another type of "starship", like a Hermes or Ptolemy?

Well, it could have been all in the writing (remember how everyone thought of the existance of the "Discovery" because of the writing??). Otherwise, I believe I answered that when I said something like: "The E-D was the "Federation Starship Enterprise", implying that "Starship" is a generic term for pretty much anything, a term coined when the original Enterprise was conceived, and later honed once the number of classes designed began to inflate. A Galaxy Class surely isnt a "Starship Class" and the NX isnt a "STarship Class" yet they were called a 'starship', much the same the Original Enterprise was called a starship. It makes even less sense to designate a "Starship Class" to a design when the term is continued to be associated with other non-Constitution Class ships, both before and after the ship was designed.

quote:
Originally posted by Phoenix:

quote:
Originally posted by Futurama Guy:
What makes the Connie any more of a "Starship" than the NX? Didn't Archer call his ship a "starship" at one point or another?

That's kind of the point.
Then you just contradicted yourself.

1) I don't see how not having watched the one particular episode in which this term occurs makes me resource deficient.

2) Starship Class does not "define the generic term for what it is, a starship". The word "Starship" does that. Ignoring the "Runabout Class" (the Danube Class Runabout is the only Class of Runabout, and so it could be called the only Runabout Class - the same is not true of the Connie), have you ever heard anything like "freighter class", "aircraft carrier class", "frigate class", or "starship class" used in dialogue in ST or in real life? As I have said about a billion times, X Class means one thing, and one thing only - the class of ships of which X was the first.

3) No, a Galaxy Class isn't a Starship Class, and neither is an NX Class, but the Enterprise is, because it was written on the dedication plaque. Do you actually think I just made up the term because someone called the Enterprise a Starship? Starship Class is associated with nothing else. No other ship we have seen has been called it. Starship, yes, Starship Class, no. They are different things.

4) No I didn't. There is nothing that makes the NCC-1701 more of a Starship than the NX-01. However, it is a Starship Class because the first ship was the USS Starship. The very fact that all ships are Starships, and yet only one type is Starship Class, means that Starship Class cannot just mean Starship.
 
Posted by newark (Member # 888) on :
 
In Star Trek III, as the USS Enterprise enters into orbit around Genesis, Sulu reports seeing a small ship. Kirk asks the navigator if he is referring to a "Scout Class" ship. The answer could be yes and the good captain asks for a channel to be open to the USS Grissom.

I know of four such classes:

DESTROYER CLASS
According to The Making of Star Trek, Captain Kirk served aboard a ship of this class before his captaincy on the USS Enterprise.

STARSHIP CLASS
On Enterprise dedication plague in TOS and in the fourth movie.

SCOUT CLASS
See above. Refers to ships such as the Oberth Class Grissom and, possibly, the Columbia and Revere of TMP.

RUNABOUT CLASS
"Emissary" (DS9). Refers to ships of the Danube Class delivered by the USS Enterprise D to DS9.


Star Trek: The Magazine added a fifth such class, the TUG CLASS .


Numerical classes:

1
Reference to probes, heavy cruisers, destroyers, transports/tugs, dreadnoughts, scouts, and shuttles.

2
Reference to probes and shuttles.

3
Reference to probes and neutronic fuel carriers.

4
Reference to probes and stardrive surveyors (ex. Beagle).

5
Reference to probes.

6
Reference to probes, supply ships (ex. Lantree), and shuttles (ex. Justman, "Suspicions").

7
Reference to probes, warp nacelles (ex. Defiant has class seven warp nacelles), and shuttles.

8
Reference to probes and shuttles.

9
Reference to probes and shuttles.

10, 11, 12, 15, 16, 18
Reference to shuttles.


Alpha

F
Reference to starbase shuttles.

J
Reference to cargo vessels and starships.

S
Reference to shuttles.

Y
Reference to cargo vessels.


Mks
Reference to torpodoes, probes (ex. Nomad), and starships (ex. Connie)


In the original, I have heard these three full names for the original E:

United Earth Ship Enterprise (U.E.S. Enterprise)

United Space Ship Enterprise (U.S.S. Enterprise)

United Star Ship Enterprise (U.S.S. Enterprise)


There were four technical screens in the whole of TOS:

"Space Seed". Khan is reviewing specs on the Enterprise. [Roll Eyes]

"The Changeling". Specs of the Nomad.

"The Trouble with Tribbles". Scotty is reviewing the latest technical journal.

"Day of the Dove". Hull pressure compartments aboard the ol' Enterprise.
 
Posted by Ryan McReynolds (Member # 28) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Harry:
That one sketch where he explains the 1701 does give the impression he tried to make up a system for it.

Incidentally, that sketch is for the refit Enterprise of Phase II. I believe the book it appears in tries to pass it off as a TOS sketch, or has misleading captioning, but look at it. It is clearly one of his sketches for Phase II, with the redesigned pylons, nacelles, and so on. He even refers to the registry NCC-1701A, suggesting that "A" represents the refit version of the first ship of the seventeenth class, an idea later abandoned for TMP and quasi-resurrected for TVH.

Jonah claims the system was in place during TOS, but I have never seen any evidence for that. I'm not saying it doesn't exist, just that all I've seen is the Phase II sketch. If that's the case, there was no system in TOS, but Jeffries briefly tried to retrofit one into the registry during the '70s. Any reverse extrapolation back to TOS is wishful thinking, unless there's some hidden cache of unseen drawings or never-reported Jeffries interviews. The USS Constellation didn't screw up some preexisting system: there was no system until Phase II, and that was abandoned.
 
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Phoenix:
[QUOTE]2) Starship Class does not "define the generic erm for what it is, a starship". The word "Starship" does that. Ignoring the "Runabout Class" (the Danube Class Runabout is the only Class of Runabout, and so it could be called the only Runabout Class - the same is not true of the Connie), have you ever heard anything like "freighter class", "aircraft carrier class", "frigate class", or "starship class" used in dialogue in ST or in real life? As I have said about a billion times, X Class means one thing, and one thing only - the class of ships of which X was the first.

Actually, quite often. When the Ticonderoga-class CGs & the Arleigh Burke-class DDGs were proposed & launched, they were (& still are) colloquially referred to as "AEGIS cruisers" or "AEGIS destroyers" based solely on the radar/fire control system they were built around. The Seawolf-class subs SHOULD have been SSN-774 to SSN-776, but the project was call the "SSN-21" project, meaning a sub for the 21st century & some idiot thought that was the hull number, so now those are SSN-21 to SSN-23--a technical if not actual reuse of numbers. The follow-on design to the Nimitzclass carrier is the CVNX project. Los Angeles-class subs are still call 688 & 688I-class boats; even Sturgeons were 637-class boats.

And to add another wrench...possible reuse of class names? RL ref point: with the launch of USS Virginia SSN-774, the USN will have started its 3rd "Virginia-class" of ships.
 
Posted by Futurama Guy (Member # 968) on :
 
You know Phoenix, you are debating a never-seen-clearly-enough-to-be-read-plaque that simply reads "Starship Class" on something that was designed to indicate the only style of ship Starfleet had, LONG before the idea was conceived to make a second class of starship (the Reliant), nearly 15 years later.

And not to waste space as you did quoting things and not specifying what you were replying to...the concept of a Yellowstone class, whether or not it can be deemed existant, is at least a second "Runabout Class" ship seen. You cannot continue to deny the existance of something that is a cold hard fact.

Picard noted the holodeck Enterprise bridge (in "Relics") as a "Constitution Class"...Scotty didn't reply "Erm, its a Starship Class, sir"...especially considering how 'close' he was to 'her'...thus identifying it SPECIFICALLY as a Constitution Class and therefore indicating that the term belongs to the TOS ship and supporting the idea that "Starship Class" is generic to any Federation/Starfleet STARSHIP. This is a cold hard fact. Never before this was it confirmed visibally ON SCREEN to be anything more or less.

There never was a "USS Starship", besides being completely redundant, it just sounds silly. Why use a term "Starship" to both identify a specific ship, but then to also apply it to ALL ships prior to it and preceeding it. That would be like deciding to call all (of what we know as) 'starships' - instead 'excelsiors' - whereas Picard would be of the "Federation Excelsior Enterprise"...I certainly cannot believe that they went around hailing folks saying "this is the Federation Starship Starship"
 
Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
 
Well.. I've tried to mix some of the nomenclature in one semi-workable system..


Jefferies Sketch #1: ~1966 // deprecated, because no-one ever used it
17th CRUISER DESIGN

Jefferies interview:
17th MAJOR DESIGN

Jefferies Sketch #2: ~1966 // the origins of Starship class
USS ENTERPRISE
SPACE CRUISER
STARSHIP CLASS

Dedication Plaque: 1966 // probably pulled straight from the sketches
USS ENTERPRISE
STARSHIP CLASS
SAN FRANSISCO

Space Seed: 1967 // Adds Mk IX and Constitution class
PRIMARY PHASER L,R
STAR SHIP MK IX/01
CONSTITUTION CLASS

SFTM: 1975 // FJ (tries to) expand the Space Seed system and adds Class I
CLASS I STARSHIP
HEAVY CRUISER CLASS
MOD: MK IX
-and-
CLASS I HEAVY CRUISER
CONSTITUTION CLASS STARSHIPS


=====
STARSHIP MK IX == CONSTITUTION CLASS == CLASS I HEAVY CRUISER

STARSHIPS
MK CLASS CATEGORY
I
II
III
IV
V
VI PTOLEMY CLASS I TRANSPORT/TUG
VII HERMES CLASS I SCOUT
VIIb CYGNUS CLASS I SCOUT
VIII SALADIN CLASS I DESTROYER
IX CONSTITUTION CLASS I HEAVY CRUISER
X FEDERATION CLASS I DREADNOUGHT

USS ENTERPRISE NCC-1701
CONSTITUTION CLASS MK IX STARSHIP
CLASS I HEAVY CRUISER

USS ENTENTE NCC-2120
FEDERATION CLASS MK X STARSHIP
CLASS I DREADNOUGHT

TRANSPORT CONTAINERS (TYPE FJ)
MK REGISTRY CATEGORY
I NCC-C1000 BULK LIQUIDS
II NCC-C2000 DRY BULK
III NCC-C3000 REEFERS
IV NCC-C4000 CLASS I STARLINER
V NCC-C5000 PRODUCTS

SS ANDORIA NCC-C4024
MK IV TRANSPORT CONTAINER (TYPE FJ)
CLASS I STARLINER


(ehm.. the PRE tag seems to forget my newlines. Too lazy to fix it now)
 
Posted by Phoenix (Member # 966) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Shik:
Actually, quite often. When the Ticonderoga-class CGs & the Arleigh Burke-class DDGs were proposed & launched, they were (& still are) colloquially referred to as "AEGIS cruisers" or "AEGIS destroyers" based solely on the radar/fire control system they were built around. The Seawolf-class subs SHOULD have been SSN-774 to SSN-776, but the project was call the "SSN-21" project, meaning a sub for the 21st century & some idiot thought that was the hull number, so now those are SSN-21 to SSN-23--a technical if not actual reuse of numbers. The follow-on design to the Nimitzclass carrier is the CVNX project. Los Angeles-class subs are still call 688 & 688I-class boats; even Sturgeons were 637-class boats.

And to add another wrench...possible reuse of class names? RL ref point: with the launch of USS Virginia SSN-774, the USN will have started its 3rd "Virginia-class" of ships.

I'm not entirely sure I see how that applies - the first example seems to be like calling Voyager a "Bio Neural Cruiser" or the Dauntless a "Quantum Slipstream Cruiser". The last example seems to be like calling Voyager 74600-Class.

And it would seem that Starfleet is not adverse to reusing Class names - otherwise the Voyager crew would have been surprised at the Dauntless NX-01-A being the first of its class (like the Dauntless NX-01 presumably was).

quote:
Originally posted by Futurama Guy:
You know Phoenix, you are debating a never-seen-clearly-enough-to-be-read-plaque that simply reads "Starship Class" on something that was designed to indicate the only style of ship Starfleet had, LONG before the idea was conceived to make a second class of starship (the Reliant), nearly 15 years later.

So I'm not allowed to use the Dedication Plaque which was (theoretically) in every episode, but other people can use schematics seen on a tiny screen that are only visible when you get the original from the producers?

quote:
Originally posted by Futurama Guy:
And not to waste space as you did quoting things and not specifying what you were replying to...the concept of a Yellowstone class, whether or not it can be deemed existant, is at least a second "Runabout Class" ship seen. You cannot continue to deny the existance of something that is a cold hard fact.

I'm not sure I follow this argument. You claim as an example of a second Runabout Class a ship that only existed in an alternate timeline years after Sisko made his comment? Even if it does exist (which seems unlikely, as Harry supposedly designed it, and he was 70,000 light years away at the time) it certainly didn't exist in Emissary, when the comment was made.

quote:
Originally posted by Futurama Guy:
Picard noted the holodeck Enterprise bridge (in "Relics") as a "Constitution Class"...Scotty didn't reply "Erm, its a Starship Class, sir"...especially considering how 'close' he was to 'her'...thus identifying it SPECIFICALLY as a Constitution Class and therefore indicating that the term belongs to the TOS ship and supporting the idea that "Starship Class" is generic to any Federation/Starfleet STARSHIP. This is a cold hard fact. Never before this was it confirmed visibally ON SCREEN to be anything more or less.

If the blueprints and schematics of the ship show it to be a Constitution Class, it seems likely that Scotty would think of it as that - especially as he was close to it. Sub-Classes would be different to one another, and Scotty would be aware of every single way in which his ship was not just a run-of-the-mill Starship Class.

quote:
Originally posted by Futurama Guy:
There never was a "USS Starship", besides being completely redundant, it just sounds silly. Why use a term "Starship" to both identify a specific ship, but then to also apply it to ALL ships prior to it and preceeding it. That would be like deciding to call all (of what we know as) 'starships' - instead 'excelsiors' - whereas Picard would be of the "Federation Excelsior Enterprise"...I certainly cannot believe that they went around hailing folks saying "this is the Federation Starship Starship"

Well, someone went around saying "This is the Federation Starship Federation", didn't they?

There is always the possibility it was never made spaceworthy and sits in a museum somewhere. Or they could have said "This is the Federation Vessel Starship".

And stating your personal opinion as undenialable fact is just a tad arrogant, wouldn't you say?

I don't demand anyone agree with me; in fact I don't even expect it. After all, this is a highly speculative theory based on incomplete and often contradictory facts. However, I do expect not to be treated like I am a complete idiot by people like you.

This is supposed to be a discussion forum, but whenever I try to discuss something you turn up, flame me, and insult everything I say. Fine, you have opinions, but I have them too, so try not to be so rude about everything.

Edit: Just to throw yet another spanner in the works, re Scout Class, there were two Royal Navy ships, a turn-of-the-century cruiser and a WW2 destroyer, called HMS Scout.
 
Posted by Griffworks (Member # 1014) on :
 
Ah, just give up on "Futurama Guy". I'm beginning to suspect that he's in a "mood" of late and just feels like tweakin' eveyrone's nipples. That or he's just a Troll. [Wink]

As to the whole "starship class" debate, I'm inclined to agree with what I feel that Franz Joseph was getting at: the term "starship" applies to all "large" vessels in Star Fleet use at a given time and that Constitution is indeed the class name for which Enterprise belongs. "Starship" simply refers to the overall designation of ships that meet certain requirements, which I seem to recall is listed in the "StarFleet Technical Manual", but am too lazy to look up at the moment. This also goes along with our current U.S. Navy's practice of naming a specific ship class after the lead ship, while using a basic technology label for all ships that meet basic mission requirements, such as the AEGIS class missile cruiser - and there's no ship named "U.S.S. AEGIS", either....

Use of phrase "United Star Ship Enterprise" in a few episodes of TOS by Kirk - and maybe others - indicates to me that U.S.S. stands for "United Star Ship", tho it's never specifically stated as such. I take it as an implication, tho.

As is always the case with conjecture: YMMV, TT&L not included, not recommended for use by children under 5, inhalation hazard and may cause cancer in lab rats. [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Phoenix (Member # 966) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Griffworks:
As to the whole "starship class" debate, I'm inclined to agree with what I feel that Franz Joseph was getting at: the term "starship" applies to all "large" vessels in Star Fleet use at a given time and that Constitution is indeed the class name for which Enterprise belongs. "Starship" simply refers to the overall designation of ships that meet certain requirements, which I seem to recall is listed in the "StarFleet Technical Manual", but am too lazy to look up at the moment. This also goes along with our current U.S. Navy's practice of naming a specific ship class after the lead ship, while using a basic technology label for all ships that meet basic mission requirements, such as the AEGIS class missile cruiser - and there's no ship named "U.S.S. AEGIS", either....

That's what I always thought, but it doesn't seem to fit in with other things. Oh well, I think I'll just give up on TOS and watch some Enterprise episodes [Big Grin]

quote:
Originally posted by Griffworks:
Use of phrase "United Star Ship Enterprise" in a few episodes of TOS by Kirk - and maybe others - indicates to me that U.S.S. stands for "United Star Ship", tho it's never specifically stated as such. I take it as an implication, tho.

My only problem with this (which is what I always assumed it meant) is that it doesn't make any sense. [Smile]

USS today stands for United States Ship - i.e. a Ship of the United States.

SO what does United Star Ship mean? A Ship from a United Star? A Star Ship that is United?

We know that SF is officially the UFP Starfleet. If I was building the first ship of the UFP Starfleet, I'll call it a UFP Starfleet Ship, or USS.

In anticipation of replies: I know it's not canon, I know it has never been mentioned in dialogue or on screen - it's just logical. If you don't like what I think, then disagree. Just don't flame me.
 
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
 
Just to be really difficult, another theory: Perhaps Starship class applies to all interstellar Starfleet vessels with the two nacelle-saucer-secondary hull configuration. Didn't Spock say something like 'by configuration, a starship" in one episode? that would seem to fit in (assuming I've actually remembere that correctly, or even semi-corectly).
 
Posted by Ryan McReynolds (Member # 28) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Phoenix:
SO what does United Star Ship mean? A Ship from a United Star? A Star Ship that is United?

We know that SF is officially the UFP Starfleet. If I was building the first ship of the UFP Starfleet, I'll call it a UFP Starfleet Ship, or USS.

Or, perhaps, you might just abbreviate it twice. United (Federation of Planets) Star(fleet) Ship = United Star Ship = USS.
 
Posted by Griffworks (Member # 1014) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Phoenix:
[QUOTE]That's what I always thought, but it doesn't seem to fit in with other things. Oh well, I think I'll just give up on TOS and watch some Enterprise episodes [Big Grin]

I think it makes perfect sense, personally. After all, the model that Gene Roddenbarry was copying at the time was the US Navy and standard naval parlance. You didn't name a class of ship after the purpose it served, but the lead ship in the classification. Thus, it should be Constitution class, if you follow that line of thinking, not Starship.
quote:
My only problem with this (which is what I always assumed it meant) is that it doesn't make any sense. [Smile]

USS today stands for United States Ship - i.e. a Ship of the United States.

SO what does United Star Ship mean? A Ship from a United Star? A Star Ship that is United?

We know that SF is officially the UFP Starfleet. If I was building the first ship of the UFP Starfleet, I'll call it a UFP Starfleet Ship, or USS.

In anticipation of replies: I know it's not canon, I know it has never been mentioned in dialogue or on screen - it's just logical. If you don't like what I think, then disagree. Just don't flame me.

I think that United StarShip makes perfect sense, obviously. [Smile]

H.M.S. stands for "Her/His Majesty's Ship", right? Well, instead of saying "United Federation of Planets StarShip", just shorten it, just as "United States Ship" is shortened from "United States of America Ship", if you think about it. We don't call them "USAS", do we...? [Wink]
 
Posted by Phoenix (Member # 966) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Griffworks:
I think that United StarShip makes perfect sense, obviously. [Smile]

H.M.S. stands for "Her/His Majesty's Ship", right? Well, instead of saying "United Federation of Planets StarShip", just shorten it, just as "United States Ship" is shortened from "United States of America Ship", if you think about it. We don't call them "USAS", do we...? [Wink]

Yes, but people actually call the United States of America the United States, don't they? In fact United States is more common than United States of America. I doubt Federation citizens shorten United Federation of Planets to United. [Smile]
 
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
 
Pike (and Kirk) also said on at least two occasions "This is the United Space Ship Enterprise".

One question. There are three standard hailings for our intrepid crews:

"This is the Federation Starship Enterprise."

"This is blah blah blah of the USS Enterprise."

"This is the starship Enterprise".

Did anyone ever say "This is the starship USS Enterprise"? Or "Federation starship USS Enterprise"?
 
Posted by Griffworks (Member # 1014) on :
 
Not that I recall, no. However, I think that Picard said it a time or two in TNG. He never added that "D" on the end when he said it, tho. [Wink]
 
Posted by Spike (Member # 322) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by PsyLiam:
Did anyone ever say "This is the starship USS Enterprise"? Or "Federation starship USS Enterprise"?

What about the decals of the Enterprise and the Reliant?
 
Posted by Phoenix (Member # 966) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by PsyLiam:
Pike (and Kirk) also said on at least two occasions "This is the United Space Ship Enterprise".

One question. There are three standard hailings for our intrepid crews:

"This is the Federation Starship Enterprise."

"This is blah blah blah of the USS Enterprise."

"This is the starship Enterprise".

Did anyone ever say "This is the starship USS Enterprise"? Or "Federation starship USS Enterprise"?

In that case I would suggest there are two options:

1) United Federation of Planets Starfleet Ship
2) United Federation of Planets Star Ship

Option 1 has the advantage of being logical and true - this is what USS means - as non-Starfleet Federation ships would be covered by Option 2 (surely someone must have called a civilian ship a "starship" at some point). Option 2 has the advantage of including the "this is the Starship X" and "this is the Federation Starship X" greetings as simple variations on which words are included.

However, I would say the deciding factor is the whole "Starship" issue. When this system started, not all SF ships were Starships (or Starship Class). The Grissom for instance, is a "Scout Class", and still has USS, which would suggest that USS doesn't include the word "Starship".

Therefore I would go for Option 1.

There are two options for Kirk/Pike's strange usage of USS:
1) they are abreviating it in an odd way
2) they don't know what it stands for and are making it up as they go along

Due to the fact that they use several different versions of it, I would go for Option 2.

This doesn't really answer your question as such, but I have looked through Spike's starship dialogue page, and starships are always referred to as either:
1) USS Name
2) the USS Name
2) the starship Name
3) the Name
No other variations appear to exist.
 
Posted by Griffworks (Member # 1014) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Spike:
quote:
Originally posted by PsyLiam:
Did anyone ever say "This is the starship USS Enterprise"? Or "Federation starship USS Enterprise"?

What about the decals of the Enterprise and the Reliant?
Well, yeah. However, I believe we're talking about spoken lines, not what appears on the hull of the ships.

On a semi-related note, there is NO "U.S.S." in front of Enterprise on the TV show of the same name, if you'll notice.
 
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
 
Yikes! Much discussion! [Eek!]

I'll have to post again in a small while after I've finished something up...but for now, here's a DVD cap of the phaser display from the article, taken from "The Trouble With Tribbles." Can anyone tell if it was also in "Space Seed," or did Jein just confuse the episode names?

-MMoM [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Topher (Member # 71) on :
 
About the HMS Scout, there was also an HMS Dreadnought. All ships of the basic configuation (a cruiser with lots of extra guns) have since been called dreadnoughts.
 
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
 
Who said Grissom was a "scout-class"?
 
Posted by Phoenix (Member # 966) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Malnurtured Snay:
Who said Grissom was a "scout-class"?

Kirk, in TSFS.

Chekov: I'd swear something was there sir, but I might have imagined it.

Kirk: What did you see, Chekov?

Chekov: For an instant... A scout class vessel.

Kirk: Could be Grissom. Patch in the hailing frequency. U.S.S. Grissom, this is Enterprise calling. Come in, please.
 
Posted by SoundEffect (Member # 926) on :
 
There's been a huge discussion going about the meaning of the term Starship. I'm inclined to say it refers generically to Starfleet warp-capable vessels rather than a USS Starship. (I'm of the opinion that Runabout Class refers to a type of small freight-carrying type of vessel, and although we don't know of any other Runabout types, we also don't know they do not exist)

One reference that I haven't seen posted here yet is from TNG's "Peak Performance". The Ferengi says:

"Enterprise targeted, leader! Leader, a Federation ship is approaching...it's a starship!"

To me this suggests that the Ferengi weren't concerned that a Federation freighter or colony vessel or whatever was showing up, but when it was determined it was a Starship (I read: Starfleet vessel), then the Ferengi decided they were no match and high-tailed it out of there.

Opinions?
 
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
 
I still haven't got a substantial enough amount of time this evening to type up a full post with responses to the numerous arguments that are going on here. I hope to do this tommorow. But for now, here's a couple quick things:

quote:
Originally posted by Ryan McReynolds:
quote:
Originally posted by Harry:
That one sketch where he explains the 1701 does give the impression he tried to make up a system for it.

Incidentally, that sketch is for the refit Enterprise of Phase II. I believe the book it appears in tries to pass it off as a TOS sketch, or has misleading captioning, but look at it. It is clearly one of his sketches for Phase II, with the redesigned pylons, nacelles, and so on. He even refers to the registry NCC-1701A, suggesting that "A" represents the refit version of the first ship of the seventeenth class, an idea later abandoned for TMP and quasi-resurrected for TVH.

Jonah claims the system was in place during TOS, but I have never seen any evidence for that. I'm not saying it doesn't exist, just that all I've seen is the Phase II sketch. If that's the case, there was no system in TOS, but Jeffries briefly tried to retrofit one into the registry during the '70s. Any reverse extrapolation back to TOS is wishful thinking, unless there's some hidden cache of unseen drawings or never-reported Jeffries interviews. The USS Constellation didn't screw up some preexisting system: there was no system until Phase II, and that was abandoned.

Incorrect. This sketch whcich appears in the TOS Sketchbook is indeed a TOS pre-production drawing from when Jefferies was still refining the exterior design of the ship.

U.S.S. stands for United Space Ship, not United Star Ship. This was spoken explicitly by Pike in "The Cage," right from the beginning. Kirk once also used United Star Ship, but this was more in reference specifically to the Enterprise, rather than to what the prefix stood for. (This is how the Grissom could be both a scout and have a U.S.S. prefix.)

-MMoM [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Phoenix:
quote:
Originally posted by Malnurtured Snay:
Who said Grissom was a "scout-class"?

Kirk, in TSFS.

Chekov: I'd swear something was there sir, but I might have imagined it.

Kirk: What did you see, Chekov?

Chekov: For an instant... A scout class vessel.

Kirk: Could be Grissom. Patch in the hailing frequency. U.S.S. Grissom, this is Enterprise calling. Come in, please.

I don't think he meant Grissom...at least, I never interpreted it that way.

Sulu later on mentioned a KBoP as having a crew of "12 officers & men"...& given that the KBoP had been shown to cloak around there, I always figured the line referred to that since Grissom was long gone by then. The ship shows on sensors at the same time that the Klingons detect Enterprise. The Klingons cloak instantly, & Chekov says that "for an instant" he saw "a scout-class vessel."
 
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
 
The implication is indeed that the Grissom is a "Scout-class" vessel (in the same sense that the Danube is a "Runabout-class" vessel) as is the BoP. It's a size/power classification, most likely. Since Franz Joseph, we think of the Connie as a "Heavy Cruiser-class" ship, but in TOS terms that translated as "Starship-class."

There was most definitely never a U.S.S. Starship. That's ridiculous. As has been already stated by several people. [Roll Eyes]

-MMoM [Big Grin]
 
Posted by newark (Member # 888) on :
 
Then again, there is no evidence that there wasn't a U.S.S. Starship. At the present, this is unresolved and is not relevant to the discussion.

The known families of ships include the destroyer, the scout, the tug, the starship, the dreadnought,and the runabout classes. There may be additional families of ships. Within each of these families, there are individual classes.

It would seem by the 2360's Starfleet simplified matters by grouping several families of ships into one mega-family, the Starship Class. There is another mega-family for which we have evidence of and this is the Runabout Class. I think there could be other mega-families.

[ April 28, 2003, 10:37 PM: Message edited by: newark ]
 
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
 
I'd say that ST3 is good evidence that the Grissom *wasn't* a scout-class vessel. Chekov says he sees a scout. Kirk's response is one of *doubt* and *concern*!

I got the impression that the Grissom could in certain special conditions be *mistaken* for a scout class vessel, which Kirk thought might have happened. But he said that only to placate the crew - secretly, he was concerned that if there really was a scout class vessel out there, then he was leading his friends into some sort of unscheduled trouble.

As for "USS", I'm sure Starfleet is full of people who *don't really know* what the thing means. The Fleet must have its share of people who'd misplace Deneva on the stellar charts, or think that Maazarites are the guys with lots of fur, and still are competent enough to serve as top officers. The deeper meaning of "USS" isn't likely to be a top topic to be taught in any of the Academy lectures, really.

And I'm quite convinced that "starships" are a special breed among spacegoing vessels in the eyes of some, even if this is an erroneous belief and misuse of terminology on their part. Nobody would dare correct a Zakdorn strategy guru when he speaks of "star cruisers", either.

As for the whole "class" thing, I'm sure it, too, means several things in several contexts. Say,

1) Mission class. Ships are classified according to what they do, and some are known as "scout class" or "explorer class" vessels. "Starship class" could be a mission class.

2) Proper name class. Ships are classified according to the name of the first ship of the design subfamily, with certain rare exceptions. "Starship class" could be a proper name class, too.

3) Activation class. Ships are classified according to their status in a scheme of crisis activation, extending from frontline active service ships of class I to auxiliaries like class IV stardrive vessels, class VI supply ships or class VII impulse drive vessels that are only drafted in situations of extreme need.

Timo Saloniemi
 
Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
 
Mim: Not since FJ. Read "The Making of Star Trek" again. Gene and Matt both consider(ed) 'Starship' to be synonymous with 'Heavy Cruiser'.

Thus, I have no problem applying the "Starship class" monicker to vessels of other design classes (that is, at the time of TOS, you could have the Constitution Starship class and the Baton Rouge Starship class serving side-by-side).

The fact that Kirk is unsure of applying the "Scout class" designation to the Grissom does not refute the validity of the term, else why would 1) Chekov use it, or 2) Kirk respond to it with anything other than "What the hell are you talking about, Pavel?"...

Since later source material leads us to the conclusion that Scouts are armed reconnaisance vessels (Hermes, Talon, and possibly Intrepid classes, et al), while the Oberths are Surveyors -- smaller and unarmed (or lightly armed later on, as with the Novas). If Kirk knew the Grissom was a Surveyor, but Chekov spotted something of comparable size (ish), but with a higher power utilization curve and reported a Scout, would that not cause the good Admiral some consternation...?

--Jonah
 
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
 
The point is, it did. Stroking the jaw was the usual Kirk reaction to the impending doom of the universe.

Moreover, it caused Chekov a coronary, too. He had already overheard Kirk speculating that the Enterprise might not be welcomed to Genesis by resident Starfleet forces. The presence of a ship should have been no surprise to him. The curious behavior (being visible only for "an instant") explains part of the amazement in Chekov's voice, but I'd still read into it the surprise that the ship would be scout class instead of being the expected Grissom.

Timo Saloniemi
 
Posted by Futurama Guy (Member # 968) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Timo:
I'd say that ST3 is good evidence that the Grissom *wasn't* a scout-class vessel. Chekov says he sees a scout. Kirk's response is one of *doubt* and *concern*!

I got the impression that the Grissom could in certain special conditions be *mistaken* for a scout class vessel, which Kirk thought might have happened. But he said that only to placate the crew - secretly, he was concerned that if there really was a scout class vessel out there, then he was leading his friends into some sort of unscheduled trouble.

As for my two cents:
quote:
150

CHEKOV
Sir, Starfleet calling Grissom
again. A warning about us.

KIRK
Response?

CHEKOV
(a beat)
Nothing. As before.

KIRK
What's Grissom up to?... Will they
join us, or fire on us...?
(thinks)
Chekov, break radio silence. Send
my compliments to Captain Esteban.

CHEKOV
Aye, sir.

Later...

quote:
165 INT. ENTERPRISE BRIDGE - FAVORING CHEKOV

At the science station, the blue light of the scanner flickering on his face.

CHEKOV
I'd swear something was there sir,
but I might have imagined it.

KIRK
What did you see, Chekov?

CHEKOV
For an instant... A scout class
vessel.

KIRK
(thoughtfully)
Could be Grissom.
(then)
Patch in the hailing frequency.
(at Chekov's nod)
U.S.S. Grissom, this is Enterprise
calling. Come in, please.


I think "doubt" or "concern" is a bit extreme... I believe, based on the first quote, Kirk was still wondering whose side the Grissom was on. If, indeed, that was the Grissom, as they established from sensor contact something resembling Grissom was in orbit, they were attempting to hail her again, curious on her allegiance....

...also if you really want to be anal...the script identified the Grissom as: A mid-sized Federation Science Vessel..., and the Klingons identified the Enterprise (in Klingon terms) as a "Federation Battle Cruiser".
 
Posted by Phoenix (Member # 966) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Futurama Guy:
...also if you really want to be anal...the script identified the Grissom as: A mid-sized Federation Science Vessel..., and the Klingons identified the Enterprise (in Klingon terms) as a "Federation Battle Cruiser".

Incidentally, that's what Duras identified Enterprise NX-01 as in "Judgement" (although without the "Federation" bit, obviously). Perhaps for the Klingons, Federation "Starships" or "Heavy Cruisers" are "Battle Cruisers" (they do like fighting, after all).
 
Posted by Futurama Guy (Member # 968) on :
 
quote:
Phoenix Perhaps for the Klingons, Federation "Starships" or "Heavy Cruisers" are "Battle Cruisers" (they do like fighting, after all).
The Kronos One was identified as a "Klingon Battle Cruiser" by the Computer/PA on ST6, so maybe it's mutual, or maybe it's just a general classification interchangable with "Heavy Cruiser"...as that is what the Enterprise, Enterprise-A, and Enterprise-C were recognized as by Starfleet.
 
Posted by Phoenix (Member # 966) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Futurama Guy:
quote:
Phoenix Perhaps for the Klingons, Federation "Starships" or "Heavy Cruisers" are "Battle Cruisers" (they do like fighting, after all).
The Kronos One was identified as a "Klingon Battle Cruiser" by the Computer/PA on ST6, so maybe it's mutual, or maybe it's just a general classification interchangable with "Heavy Cruiser"...as that is what the Enterprise, Enterprise-A, and Enterprise-C were recognized as by Starfleet.
TNG Angel One mentions Romulan Battle Cruisers (presumbly Warbirds)

TNG The Arsenal of Freedom calls the USS Drake (possibly a Wambundu Class) a Light Cruiser.

TNG Peak Performance calls the USS Hathaway a Star Cruiser (although I don't think this is a SF person talking).

TNG Conspiracy calls the Ambassador Class USS Horatio a Heavy Cruiser, and the USS Renegade and USS Thomas Paine (the former possibly a New Orleans Class, the latter definately one) Frigates.

The TNP script calls the Klingon ships (D-7s I presume) Heavy Cruisers, and the dialogue calls them Cruisers.

The Klingon ships in TWOK are called Cruisers.

The USS Enterprise is called a Battle Cruiser, and the USS Grissom/Klingom BOP a Scout in TSFS.

As you mentioned, Kronos One is called a Battle Cruiser in TUC.

The Enterprise is called a Battle Cruiser in ENT Judgement.

Thus it would seem we have, in descending order of power:

Battle Cruiser
Heavy Cruiser
(Medium Cruiser perhaps?)
Light Cruiser
Frigate
(Destroyer?)
Escort
Scout (not sure of the last two's order)

I'm not sure about the canonicity of Dreadnought - perhaps someone could clarify this?

Perhaps they have some more classes (the Prometheus or Sovereign may be Battleships, for instance)

Edit: I think I should point out that a large part of this is from Spike's website.
 
Posted by Griffworks (Member # 1014) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Timo:
I'd say that ST3 is good evidence that the Grissom *wasn't* a scout-class vessel. Chekov says he sees a scout. Kirk's response is one of *doubt* and *concern*!

I got the impression that the Grissom could in certain special conditions be *mistaken* for a scout class vessel, which Kirk thought might have happened. But he said that only to placate the crew - secretly, he was concerned that if there really was a scout class vessel out there, then he was leading his friends into some sort of unscheduled trouble.

With all due respect, I think that you're seroiusly reaching for this answer on this one, Timo. I was not at all left w/any impression of Kirk being concerned beyond not knowing if he'd have to fire on a Federation ship or not. That's it. He already knew that Grissom was there, right?

As "Futurama Guy" pointed out w/the exact text from the movie, Kirk knew that Grissom was expected to be there. Any "doubt" he had would have likely only been directed at wondering if Enterprise's sensor systems were having problems or if Grissom were trying to "hide" in a sensor blind spot of some sort - possibly a naturally occuring phenomenon.

quote:

As for "USS", I'm sure Starfleet is full of people who *don't really know* what the thing means. The Fleet must have its share of people who'd misplace Deneva on the stellar charts, or think that Maazarites are the guys with lots of fur, and still are competent enough to serve as top officers. The deeper meaning of "USS" isn't likely to be a top topic to be taught in any of the Academy lectures, really.

And I'd wager that you're wrong here, too. I've got one family member and two friends who've been thru the United States Naval Academy at Annapolis, Maryland here in The States. Core classes there, as in all branchs of the United States Armed Forces, get pretty in-depth about the history and traditions of the service. Heck, in the USAF, we received the equivalent of 6 college credit hours worth of history, tradition and customs & courtesy's for our Service.

While it's entirely possible to have "less than competent" officers in a service (trust me, I've seen plenty in the USAF!), I doubt most of them would ever be in a position to do any "harm" to the ship. We also see very few "enlisted" crewmen who aren't pretty darned proficient in at least their direct duties. Being as enlisted folks tend to be more along the lines of "specialists", I'm willing to bet that they're not nearly as "dense" in the Trek universe as most would thinkg. Also, consider that there is a Darwinian Process hard at work which eliminate's this in the Real World - called performance reports. Having not yet seen an incompetent officer beyond Captain Esteban's utter shock at encountering a BoP in Federation space and failing to raise his shields immediately, I'm willing to bet that most officers in Star Trek are highly competent and capable of giving disertations on the history of Star Fleet. [Wink]

I won't argue the rest, as I feel it's fully conjecture on everyone else's part. There is nothing which 100% supports there not being a "Starship Class", much as I disagree with it. It's just silly think that there really was a "U.S.S. Starship", lead ship in her class.... [Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Timo:


As for "USS", I'm sure Starfleet is full of people who *don't really know* what the thing means. The Fleet must have its share of people who'd misplace Deneva on the stellar charts, or think that Maazarites are the guys with lots of fur, and still are competent enough to serve as top officers. The deeper meaning of "USS" isn't likely to be a top topic to be taught in any of the Academy lectures, really.

I dunno. I'd doubt that there's many people serving in the royal navy who don't know what "HMS" stands for.
 
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
 
...or even outside the Navy. I mean, it's not exactly quantum physics, is it?
 
Posted by SoundEffect (Member # 926) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Phoenix:
Perhaps they have some more classes (the Prometheus or Sovereign may be Battleships, for instance)

I believe the USS Prometheus was referred to as a Long-Range Tactical Cruiser.
 
Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
 
IIRC, the TMP comm chatter explicitly said "Dreadnought Entente".

And I do believe "Battle Cruiser" is mostly a Klingon thing. In ENT Judgment, Duras only used that term for dramatic purpose. Being a tough warrior, would you claim to be attacked by a wimpy Warp 5 explorer before the High Court?
 
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
 
The designations of vessels change from speaker to speaker in the real world as well. Prior to WWII, it was fashionable to declare certain battleships (of older or smaller designs) to be "mere" battlecruisers, whereas after the beginning of the war, navies suddenly had battleships where battlecruisers had previously floated.

I gather "starship" could have been intended as the TOS equivalent of "battleship". All warships do battle, but only the very biggest are called battleships. And all warpships go to the stars, but only the biggest are called starships.

Timo Saloniemi
 
Posted by Cartmaniac (Member # 256) on :
 
quote:
Thus it would seem we have, in descending order of power:

...
Escort
Scout (not sure of the last two's order)

Defiant-class crews would disagree with you there, I should think.
 
Posted by Phoenix (Member # 966) on :
 
As the Enterprise identified Kronos One as a Battle Cruiser, it would seem to be a SF term as well (you wouldn't identify an alien ship as a type that doesn't exist in your nomenclature).

Federation Class seems to be more powerful than Constitution/Enterprise Class, so I assume Dreadnought is more powerful than Battle Cruiser.

The Prometheus is a pure warship, whereas the Battle Cruisers we have seen (Connies) are all multi-purpose ships - perhaps that is the difference between Battle and Tactical Cruisers. Although, as the Prometheus destroyed a Romulan Battle Cruiser (Warbird) in MIAB, I suspect it may be more powerful than a BC. Perhaps TC is a replacement for Dreadnought? If so, I would expect the Sovereign to be a TC, the Galaxy and Nebula with weapons pod BCs, the Nebula with science pod a Heavy Cruiser, the Intrepid perhaps a Medium Cruiser.

Long-Range is clearly just an addition (Voyager is probably a Long-Range Medium Cruiser, or something similar).

quote:
Originally posted by Cartmaniac:
Defiant-class crews would disagree with you there, I should think.

I don't think that the Defiant Class is really the best example of an escort. I seem to recall reading somewhere that the Defiant was "officially" classed as an Escort, but wasn't really one - Starfleet lacking a proper term to classify a ship with very strong weapons yet very small. Perhaps the term Tactical Cruiser was invented partly for this reason, to classify a largish ship with very strong weapons, as I suspect Dreadnoughts became obsolete after the peace with the Klingons in TUC.
 
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
 
Or then "long range tactical cruiser" is your typical manufacturer nonsense, and the ship in actual practice will be known as a run-of-the-mill "light cruiser".

It's an old marketing trick to invent flashy new names for things that in practice fall neatly into existing niches. From what we saw of the Prometheus, she could simply be the next Intrepid with one fancy extra feature (for which the user might never figure a good use). "Warship", my ass. She has fewer phaser strips than the Intrepid (or the Nova!), and no visible torpedo launchers. She's probably still half-finished anyway.

Timo Saloniemi
 
Posted by Phoenix (Member # 966) on :
 
Sorry, please ignore.
 
Posted by Phoenix (Member # 966) on :
 
Sorry, for some reason it posted three times.
 
Posted by Phoenix (Member # 966) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Timo:
Or then "long range tactical cruiser" is your typical manufacturer nonsense, and the ship in actual practice will be known as a run-of-the-mill "light cruiser".

It's an old marketing trick to invent flashy new names for things that in practice fall neatly into existing niches. From what we saw of the Prometheus, she could simply be the next Intrepid with one fancy extra feature (for which the user might never figure a good use). "Warship", my ass. She has fewer phaser strips than the Intrepid (or the Nova!), and no visible torpedo launchers. She's probably still half-finished anyway.

Timo Saloniemi

I don't think Starfleet needs to resort to marketing tricks. Who does it need to sell them to?

Multi Vector Assault, Ablative Armour, Regenerative Shielding, (apparently) regenerating weapons systems - it doesn't seem very Voyager-ish to me. [Smile]

Any ship that can obliterate a Romulan Warbird in a few seconds is no Light Cruiser, in my opinion. [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
 
Starfleet is the sucker that buys these things, not the manufacturer. In most cases nowadays, the ASDB seems to be the seller. And regenerative shields is what Kirk already had - give them a minute's rest and they are good as new. I think Starfleet is being had, big time.

Anyway, if this tech pans out, then it stands to reason that the Prometheii will be among the lighter ships to be built to this standard. Better reserve the more impressive names for the bigger ships that will follow. Ships comparable in size to the Ambassadors at least, since that's the known heavy cruiser yardstick for the 24th century.

Timo Saloniemi
 
Posted by Phoenix (Member # 966) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Timo:
Starfleet is the sucker that buys these things, not the manufacturer. In most cases nowadays, the ASDB seems to be the seller. And regenerative shields is what Kirk already had - give them a minute's rest and they are good as new. I think Starfleet is being had, big time.

When did they say the ASDB is selling them? Don't all the dedication plaques have Starfleet personnel as the design teams? Didn't Sisko help to design the Defiant? Aren't they all built in SF shipyards?

And if the Regenerative Shields weren't something new (as in uber-fast regeneration during battle) they wouldn't have bothered mentioning them.

quote:
Originally posted by Timo:
Anyway, if this tech pans out, then it stands to reason that the Prometheii will be among the lighter ships to be built to this standard. Better reserve the more impressive names for the bigger ships that will follow. Ships comparable in size to the Ambassadors at least, since that's the known heavy cruiser yardstick for the 24th century.

I got the impression that the Prometheus Class would be the only one like it (with MVAM anyway). Any smaller, and it would be too fragile, any bigger and it would lose maneuverability and speed, some of its main advantages. There would be no point in an Ambassador Class sized ship trying to separate - it would be too slow.

I really can't reconcile the Prometheus being classified as less powerful than a Nebula (which it pummelled) and an Ambassador (which is already 50-odd years old, and still called a HC).
 
Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
 
But Starfleet most likely doesn't take firepower as the decisive factor in categorising ships. Sure, the brand new Prometheus class Cruiser could have more firepower than the Nebula class Explorer, but it doesn't remotely have the same amount of labs and sensors. I can't imagine a Prometheus being sent on a "continuing mission to seek out new life", not least because you'd have to maintain everyting in three-fold.

And with regards to that classification, I'd rather believe it's a "long-range tactical Cruiser" than a "Long-Range Tactical Cruiser", if you know what I mean.
 
Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
 
In no particular order:

Starfleet calling a Klingon ship a Battlecruiser, and Klingons calling a Starfleet ship a Battlecruiser seems, in light of all the other supporting evidence on the two race's/organization's nomenclatures, to be a Klingon thing.

Don't know if I've mentioned my Ambassador conclusions on here yet, but I think we also have Explorer-Ambassadors. The ones in the Enterprise-C configuration are the Explorers, while the ones in the Yamaguchi configuration are the Heavy Cruisers. The differences are minor, but permanent enough I don't think it's something that would be possible in a spacedock layover. Enough plumbing and positioning changes are involved that they have to be intended and built - from the keel up - as one or the other. I apply the same process retroactively to the Excelsior class. The stock Excelsiors, whether with one or two deflection crystals, are the Heavy Cruisers. The later Enterprise-B-style ships are the Explorers. That handily answers why Starfleet would continue ordering ships of the earlier design after the later design was introduced.

By that token, I include "Tactical Cruiser" in my type designation glossary as a Cruiser-sized vessel with more of an emphasis placed on fleet actions, combat capability, and/or border patrols along contested boundaries than your run-of-the-mill multimission Cruiser (Light, Regular, or Heavy).

That's all my rambling at the moment...
--Jonah
 
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
 
It could also be that the E-C was an Explorer, yet would have become a Heavy Cruiser had she survived until the 2360s.

In any case, the Prometheus is neither Long Range Tactical Cruiser nor long range tactical Cruiser. The episode dialogue merely says the was "designed for deep space tactical missions". The size of the vessel suggests a Cruiser designation, although only in the sense that she's between the Constellation and Ambassador canonical 24th century cruisers in size - the size would also match the Frigate designation of the New Orleanses just fine.

Timo Saloniemi
 
Posted by Phoenix (Member # 966) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Harry:
But Starfleet most likely doesn't take firepower as the decisive factor in categorising ships. Sure, the brand new Prometheus class Cruiser could have more firepower than the Nebula class Explorer, but it doesn't remotely have the same amount of labs and sensors. I can't imagine a Prometheus being sent on a "continuing mission to seek out new life", not least because you'd have to maintain everyting in three-fold.

And with regards to that classification, I'd rather believe it's a "long-range tactical Cruiser" than a "Long-Range Tactical Cruiser", if you know what I mean.

As Explorer has never been mentioned in dialogue, is the only classification anyone mentions that isn't in use now, and is completely meaningless and silly, I tend to deny its existence. [Smile]

Also, the classifications are generally used most for battle anyway, to state a ship's tactical ability. I doubt a Vorta commander would be very pleased if his tactical officer told him a Federation Light Cruiser or Frigate was on an intercept course and the Prometheus turned up. And "but it doesn't have many labs or sensors, sir!" wouldn't help the tactical officer much either.

quote:
Originally posted by Timo:
It could also be that the E-C was an Explorer, yet would have become a Heavy Cruiser had she survived until the 2360s.

In any case, the Prometheus is neither Long Range Tactical Cruiser nor long range tactical Cruiser. The episode dialogue merely says the was "designed for deep space tactical missions". The size of the vessel suggests a Cruiser designation, although only in the sense that she's between the Constellation and Ambassador canonical 24th century cruisers in size - the size would also match the Frigate designation of the New Orleanses just fine.

Timo Saloniemi

Thanks for the clarification. I have watched MIAB too many times, and didn't think that classification was mentioned.

In that case, I am inclined to give it the only other canon classification that fits, Dreadnought. After all, isn't a Dreadnought designed for deep space tactical missions?
 
Posted by Griffworks (Member # 1014) on :
 
Uhm... "MIAB"? Shouldn't that be "Ship In A Bottle" or "SIAB"? Or am I off my rocker and this isn't referring to the "Star Trek: Voyager" (VOY) episode?
 
Posted by Phoenix (Member # 966) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Griffworks:
Uhm... "MIAB"? Shouldn't that be "Ship In A Bottle" or "SIAB"? Or am I off my rocker and this isn't referring to the "Star Trek: Voyager" (VOY) episode?

It's "Message in a Bottle". [Smile]
 
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
 
SiaB is a TNG episode with Moriarty...
MiaB is a VGR episode with Andy Dick

have we found an episode that could be abbreviated MOAB yet?

BTW, most SotSF apologists have reconciled 'Explorer' to be the short form of 'Exploratory Cruiser' or 'Heavy' or 'Large' Exploratory Cruiser.

I question whether the Ambassadors would be retypified from EXs to HCs in the post Galaxy-era (since they still seem to be quite similar in capability to the GCS) but I think the Excelsiors definitely would be (according to Okuda and Sternbach sources, Excelsior was an explorer too.. hey, at least its better than 'space control ship'.. ugggh)..
 
Posted by Phoenix (Member # 966) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by CaptainMike:
SiaB is a TNG episode with Moriarty...
MiaB is a VGR episode with Andy Dick

have we found an episode that could be abbreviated MOAB yet?

BTW, most SotSF apologists have reconciled 'Explorer' to be the short form of 'Exploratory Cruiser' or 'Heavy' or 'Large' Exploratory Cruiser.

I question whether the Ambassadors would be retypified from EXs to HCs in the post Galaxy-era (since they still seem to be quite similar in capability to the GCS) but I think the Excelsiors definitely would be (according to Okuda and Sternbach sources, Excelsior was an explorer too.. hey, at least its better than 'space control ship'.. ugggh)..

I still think it's silly. The vast majority of SF ships "explore". Granted, a few will sit around Earth waiting for transwarp conduits to open (some of which are supposedly "Explorers"), a few more will be ferrying Admirals around, and some will be patrolling, but most of them seem to be designed with exploration in mind. And exploration has nothing to do with size, tactical ability or durability, which is what all the other classifications signify, but with specific missions.

And I just checked, and there aren't any MOAB episodes. Measure of a Man (MOAM) comes close though...

Perhaps an ENT episode called Mother of all Bolians? [Smile]
 
Posted by Cartmaniac (Member # 256) on :
 
Betazoids, man... Betazoids. They could even get Majel to play the part! Yes.
 
Posted by Griffworks (Member # 1014) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by CaptainMike:
SiaB is a TNG episode with Moriarty...
MiaB is a VGR episode with Andy Dick

>SNIP<

Oops.... [Frown]

Durr. My bad.
 
Posted by J (Member # 608) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Timo:
And regenerative shields is what Kirk already had - give them a minute's rest and they are good as new. I think Starfleet is being had, big time.

I think you're confusing two different functions. The regenerative qualities of Kirk's shields was simply a rest. When a shield system is hit it causes the generator to heat up as it exerts effort to defend the ship. Coolant systems take care of this to a point, but as the coolant system loses effectiveness so does the shields-- thus as the shield loses effectiveness it goes down in percentage. If you let the system cool off, it will "regenerate" but it isn't the defination of the term Regenerative Shields.

Regenerative Shields have the ability to take a piece of the incoming fire and use it against future attacks. Think of it as an imperfect borg shield. As the shield is attacked it takes a part of the power of the incoming fire and uses it to reinforce the shields. So hitting the shields helps to regenerate them, although it's probably a one step forward two steps back thing.

Don't ask for proof, I don't have it, I just see it that way...
 
Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
 
I'm still diddling out a Class/Mark chart for the contemporary era, so that's the notation I'll be using for this... I'm not a SotSF apologist, but I do note that "Tactical Cruiser" appears there, too.

I understand "Explorer" to indicate the ability to operate completely autonomously for years at a time away from base support and crew rotation. They will be commanded by a Captain skilled in diplomacy in hopes that we have no more "disasterous" first contacts. The Explorers are generally the most massive ships in the fleet, with the possible exception(s) of colonial transports and/or fuel tankers. They differ from Heavy Cruisers in that the Cruisers will be more limited in creature comforts and scientific/analytical ability.

For much of TNG, the Enterprise waffled back and forth between Explorer and Heavy Cruiser (in terms of missions and performance). From late first season on, they hung around Earth an awful lot for a ship that was earlier looking forward to getting out into "the great unexplored mass of the galaxy" beyond Deneb.

When it comes to the Ambassador class, I note the Horatio wasn't seen as anything but debris. The Zhukov and Yamaguchi were the "modified" Ambassadors, and their registries predate the Excalibur, seen to be of the "original" design shared by the Enterprise-C. From this I (admittedly tentatively) conclude they are concurrent designs serving different mission profile needs, and not a case of a design refit like the one the Constitution class went through. I say the same for the Excelsiors.

We know Kirk helped on the Excelsior redesign that led to the Enterprise-B, and that its alterations point toward an improved long-range capability, and expanded long-range sensor capacity (at least that's how I interpret the secondary hull chines flanking the main long range sensor dish). Thus I conclude that that comparitively rare Excelsior variant is an Explorer, probably the first ship so dubbed. Maybe even part of the PR circus surrounding the Enterprise-B's launch...

And as each new Explorer comes along, it bumps the previous front-runner to second-seat status.

Thus in 2380 we have something like:

EXPLORERS
Class I/Mark III (Enterprise-D)
Class II/Mark II (Enterprise-C)
Class III/Mark I (Enterprise-B)

HEAVY CRUISERS
Class I/Mark XVII (Sovereign)
Class I/Mark XVI (Nebula)
Class II/Mark XIV (Akira)
Class II/Mark XIII (modified-style Ambassador)
Class III/Mark XII (or whatever the Excelsiors are...)

And so on. This is of course incredibly sloppy, and only intended to give a sense of how they might be looked at by Starfleet.

--Jonah
 
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Peregrinus:
...the Excalibur, seen to be of the "original" design shared by the Enterprise-C...

That's not really true, though. The Excalibur was what the model was first labeled as *after* Greg Jein modified it to its "modern" look for "Redemption" (TNG). The only reason we some shots of it in the ep as an NCC-1701-C style vessel is because they mixed in some stock footage from "Yesterday's Enterprise" with the new footage of the modified model. So the Excalibur is *really* one of the "new" style Ambassadors. (This of course doesn't necessarily mean your theory doesn't work, it just eliminates an onscreen example of it. There's still, of course, the fact that from DS9 we see that the two Excelsior variants are both still in service.)

quote:
...We know Kirk helped on the Excelsior redesign that led to the Enterprise-B...

Pardon me, but I can't seem to figure what you mean by this? [Confused]

-MMoM [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
 
It should be pointed out that "long range tactical cruiser" is the explicit description of the Prometheus provided by the ship's computer.
 
Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
 
Mim: I can't remember if it was in the actual film or the novelization, but Kirk was at least on the team working on the redesign, if not heading it up himself. I don't see what the difficulty is... [Razz]

Going to watch "Redemption" tonight. Curious about that Excalibur thing. I only remember seeing it in the stock scenes of the Enterprise-C hanging in space next to the Enterprise-D, reused from Yesterday's Enterprise".

--Jonah
 
Posted by Futurama Guy (Member # 968) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Peregrinus:
Mim: I can't remember if it was in the actual film or the novelization, but Kirk was at least on the team working on the redesign, if not heading it up himself. I don't see what the difficulty is... [Razz]

Its not from film, so it certainly cannot be canon, and thats what we tend to be about in here. [Wink]

quote:
Originally posted by Peregrinus:
Going to watch "Redemption" tonight. Curious about that Excalibur thing. I only remember seeing it in the stock scenes of the Enterprise-C hanging in space next to the Enterprise-D, reused from Yesterday's Enterprise".

--Jonah

I think that besides the *old* footage of the Enterprises' hangin' in space -- the *new* footage was when you got the nice ass shot of a handful of vessels leaving the starbase. [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Identity Crisis (Member # 67) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Futurama Guy:
Its not from film, so it certainly cannot be canon, and thats what we tend to be about in here. [Wink]

Checks subject of thread. Hmm. [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
 
[Roll Eyes]

Don't suppose anyones considered the possibility that Starfleet ships might have TWO designations- one for scientific capability and one for military?
 
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
 
Never ask that question.
 
Posted by SoundEffect (Member # 926) on :
 
Here's a picture of the relabeled Ambassador Class miniature from the Redemption episode as the refit version:

USS Excalibur NCC-26517
 
Posted by Futurama Guy (Member # 968) on :
 
It was a sad, sad day when they retired that model all those 10 years ago [Frown]
 
Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
 
I'll be damned... I don't need this YATI cluttering things up still further.
Dammit.

*sigh*

--Jonah
 
Posted by thelastguardian (Member # 1017) on :
 
Just to throw in my two cents (and forgive me if I'm repeating the words of someone else, for I did not read the entire thread)...

Since 1966, I always considered the term 'starship' to mean any warp-capable exploratory vessel. Starship Class would mean no more than that, as a broad description of vessel type. In cases where more specificity was needed, rather than saying a vessel was both 'Starship Class' (describing its capability) and 'Constitution Class' (describing its hull design), for the sake of expediency, one simply used the designation 'Constitution Class Starship.'

As I understand it, 'U.S.S.' originally was chosen to precede the vessel names because it sounded American, and would be more palatable to the NBC viewing audience. 'United Space Ship' (spoken by Pike) and 'United Star Ship' (spoken by Kirk) were attempts to qualify the designation, awkward though they may have been.

'NCC' was chosen to precede '1701' because 'N' is the designated first fuselage letter for civilian aircraft registered in the United States (as in N6741U, for example), 'C' was chosen by Matt Jeffries for a personal reason I cannot recall, and the final 'C' was added for rhythmic balance.

Shane

[ May 04, 2003, 11:32 PM: Message edited by: thelastguardian ]
 
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by thelastguardian:

'NCC' was chosen to precede '1701' because 'N' is the designated fuselage letter for civilian aircraft registered in the United States (as in N6741U, for example), 'C' was chosen by Matt Jeffries for a personal reason I cannot recall, and the final 'C' was added for rhythmic balance.

Shane

In the Star Trek Sketch Book Jefferies says that 1701 were chosen for clarity. NC was the US designation on his own plane and that he added an extra C to make it different from Place. It just happened that the Soviet designation was CCC - which was a nice coincidence.
 
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by AndrewR:
quote:
Originally posted by thelastguardian:

'NCC' was chosen to precede '1701' because 'N' is the designated fuselage letter for civilian aircraft registered in the United States (as in N6741U, for example), 'C' was chosen by Matt Jeffries for a personal reason I cannot recall, and the final 'C' was added for rhythmic balance.

Shane

In the Star Trek Sketch Book Jefferies says that 1701 were chosen for clarity. NC was the US designation on his own plane and that he added an extra C to make it different from planes. It just happened that the Soviet designation was CCC - which was a nice coincidence.

 


© 1999-2024 Charles Capps

Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3