The Enterprise seen in TMP has been referred to by both class names at one time or another. I was told by all sources at the time of MSG's writing that 'Enterprise' was the proper class designation, so that was the one I used in the book. Then and now, I believe that to be the most logical choice.
A wall sign outside the simulator room in ST II states 'Enterprise Class.' In ST VI, however, we see Scotty perusing blueprints which clearly state 'Constitution Class.' While in reality this is the simple revisionism of a movie made more than a decade after TMP, for the sake of continuity I would approach it this way:
At the time of the Enterprise refit, a few newer vessels of the original Constitution Class still were floating around. To avoid confusion, and since the refit design was so radically different and was unique ("This is an almost entirely new Enterprise..."), the designation 'Enterprise Class' was chosen for the new ship.
Later, once the original 'Constitution Class' vessels all had been retired or refitted, and any new 'Enterprise Class'-style vessels were being built from the keel up, the class was renamed 'Constitution Class' out of tradition. No longer could there be confusion over which 'Constitution Class' a vessel might be, since only one remained.
So, the TMP Enterprise was 'Enterprise Class.' The 1701-A, either at the time of its christening or by the time of ST VI, was designated 'Constitution Class.'
Works for me
If you guys have had this conversation already, I offer newbie apologies for bringing it up again.
Shane
Posted by TheWoozle (Member # 929) on :
I think that most come around to the idea that the ship is an Enterprise style of the Constitution class.
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
Fear not, good sir, no one who wrote the first Trek book I ever bought (or who has such excellent taste in screen names) would be unwelcome, newbie or not.
Though your reasons at the time were altogether fitting in the pre-"Canon Policy" days (especially with the previous work of Franz Joseph, and his many outwardly-similar classes), retroactive continuity alterations have, for better or worse, put "Enterprise Class" out of official consideration.
Alas, the sign in Star Trek II unfortunately means little, as the potential for coincidence is too great. The ship upon which those trainees were to train was the Enterprise, and in the pre-holodeck days it would seem to be overkill for there to be a bridge simulator for every starship class, subclass, and so on. Had we seen a sign indicating that there were other simulators (at least one having a name of a vessel known to be operational, and not as a trainee ship), that situation would be reversed.
Thus, unfortunately, there's an unbroken chain of "Constitution", from Picard's comment to Scotty in "Relics"[TNG] regarding a TOS bridge, to the Star Trek VI incident regarding the 1701-A. And, given the designation of the far different Enterprise-B as still being under the original Excelsior class name, it's relatively certain that while a subclass designation might include the term "Enterprise", the ship herself (and any classmate) remained a Constitution.
All that being said, though, I still prefer the shuttle design (among other various tidbits) used in your book.
Thank you,
G2k
Posted by Griffworks (Member # 1014) on :
Agreed, Shane. That's the only explanation which makes any real sense, if I may use the word to describe any of the many seemingly arbitrary decisions made by TPTB. I would have prefered it remained the "Enterprise class" and even called it that for the longest time. At least, 'til we saw those blueprints in ST:VI.
Oh, well. I guess that we fans are "too stupid" to understand it otherwise... or something.
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
There's always the chance that the stupidity is on the other side of the screen. But not necessarily at Paramount: we could be talking about Starfleet stupidity as well.
Renaming ships or classes back and forth isn't the prerogative of small dictatorships with more or less insane leaders. "Simplifying" military systematicsm is an undertaking that's usually best taken directly to the undertaker, like with the "integration" of Canadian Navy and Air Force with the Army. Yet such efforts are made all over the world, at distressingly regular intervals.
Changing the logic of ship class nomenclature in the mid-2280s wouldn't be all that unrealistic, or surprising...
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by TheWoozle (Member # 929) on :
I just thought of an alternate explination. maybe the simulator was set for the Class, from Enterprise, also known as the Enterprise Class. When they left on their adventure, it was probobly reset for the next group, say... the Kongo Class maybe.
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
its been brought up before, and dismissed..
i think its probably just an example of a subclass system referred to as 'class' for ease of use.. there might be an Achernar Class or Bon Homme Richard Class simulator down the hall, and they didnt want to confuse the cadets by calling them all Constitution-class, so they made the placards with the subclass names
Posted by newark (Member # 888) on :
Or, another possibility. Maybe both Constitution and Enterprise are subgroups? When Starfleet decided to switch to the more familiar system of class named after prototype, they choose to go with the more common subgroup of the whole, the Constitution, and included the Enterprise subgroups and any other subgroups in that major grouping. This could explain the registries and, possibly, the inclusion of the USS Valiant from "A Taste of Armageddon" in the belief that this starship represented an unknown earlier subgroup of the Constitution family.
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
Here we go again... Posted by Phoenix (Member # 966) on :
quote:Originally posted by newark: Or, another possibility. Maybe both Constitution and Enterprise are subgroups? When Starfleet decided to switch to the more familiar system of class named after prototype, they choose to go with the more common subgroup of the whole, the Constitution, and included the Enterprise subgroups and any other subgroups in that major grouping. This could explain the registries and, possibly, the inclusion of the USS Valiant from "A Taste of Armageddon" in the belief that this starship represented an unknown earlier subgroup of the Constitution family.
Here is how I see it:
Classes we know of which use Ent-like spaceframe: NCC-950 Class NCC-1000 Class NCC-1650 Class NCC-1700 Class (Constitution Class)
So then we assume something like: NCC-1875 Class (Enterprise Class) NCC-2050 Class (Constitution Class [II])
Enterprise Class was succeeded by Constitution Class II sometime between TMP and TVH. Yorktown NCC-1717 was upgraded to Connie-II specs and renamed Enterprise NCC-1701-A.
There would be no problem determining which Connie was which because all ships were upgraded to new specs and no Connie-Is were left.
Posted by MrNeutron (Member # 524) on :
...OR the Enterprise class and Constitution class are externally mostly identical but internally dissimilar. After all, every interior of the 1701-A seen in Treks 5 and 6 is radically different from the refit 1701 seen in 1, 2 and 3. Different bridges (the end of 4 notwithstanding), different corridors, different engine rooms, different hangar decks (as discussed elsewhere), differernt captain's quarters, etc. Maybe their mission requirements are different as well.
If this was the case, one could argue that ships upgraded or built to the specifics of the TMP ship were Enterprise class and those to the 1701-A standards are Constitution class.
Posted by thelastguardian (Member # 1017) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrNeutron: If this was the case, one could argue that ships upgraded or built to the specifics of the TMP ship were Enterprise class and those to the 1701-A standards are Constitution class.
I'd settle for that
I just don't like the idea of throwing out the Enterprise Class altogether for the sake of later revisionism.
Shane
Posted by Futurama Guy (Member # 968) on :
Now figure "Starship Class" into that formula....
Posted by thelastguardian (Member # 1017) on :
quote:Originally posted by Futurama Guy: Now figure "Starship Class" into that formula....
Already did, in another thread, here repeated:
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
Posted by MrNeutron (Member # 524) on :
quote:Originally posted by Futurama Guy: Now figure "Starship Class" into that formula....
I still don't see a problem with Starship Class simply meaning deep-space long-duration vessels in general.
Posted by Futurama Guy (Member # 968) on :
Arg...thats what I have moreless been saying all along...but noooooooooo it was insisted upon in the other thread that it has to be nailed down to a USS Starship and blah blah blah...thank you for validating my point Posted by thelastguardian (Member # 1017) on :
quote:Originally posted by Griffworks: Agreed, Shane. That's the only explanation which makes any real sense, if I may use the word to describe any of the many seemingly arbitrary decisions made by TPTB. I would have prefered it remained the "Enterprise class" and even called it that for the longest time. At least, 'til we saw those blueprints in ST:VI.
As far as I'm concerned, if one is referring to the TMP Enterprise, it's 'Enterprise Class.' If the 1701-A, it's 'Constitution Class.'
I'm stubbornly sticking with the 'Enterprise Class' designation for the TMP vessel. As I pointed out, such makes the most continuital sense and is the simplest explanation for everything we've seen on-screen. Besides, as I also said -- according to my official sources at the time of MSG's writing, it was 'Enterprise Class.'
Fight revisionism!
Shane
Posted by thelastguardian (Member # 1017) on :
quote:Originally posted by Futurama Guy: Arg...thats what I have moreless been saying all along...but noooooooooo it was insisted upon in the other thread that it has to be nailed down to a USS Starship and blah blah blah...thank you for validating my point
You are more than welcome
Shane
Posted by thelastguardian (Member # 1017) on :
quote:Originally posted by Guardian 2000: Thus, unfortunately, there's an unbroken chain of "Constitution", from Picard's comment to Scotty in "Relics"[TNG] regarding a TOS bridge, to the Star Trek VI incident regarding the 1701-A. And, given the designation of the far different Enterprise-B as still being under the original Excelsior class name, it's relatively certain that while a subclass designation might include the term "Enterprise", the ship herself (and any classmate) remained a Constitution.
I don't remember anything in 'Relics' that can be taken to indicate that the TMP Enterprise was 'Constitution Class.' Seems like Picard mentioned having seen a 'Constitution Class' vessel on display in a museum, but I don't recall if he meant one of the TOS variety or one like the 1701-A. However, 'Relics' does bring up an interesting point:
Scotty, in asking the holodeck computer to show him the Enterprise, says he wants to see the "NCC-1701...no bloody 'A,' 'B,' 'C' or 'D.'"
Without further question, the computer creates for him the bridge of the TOS vessel.
Now, the clear implication is that the TMP Enterprise is entirely missing from consideration at that point. The computer doesn't ask him "Which 'Constitution Class' 1701 do you mean?"
Why would this be so?
One possible explanation is that the computer perceived a clear distinction between the TOS and TMP versions of the vessel, even though they shared a common hull number. Class difference, as well as structural changes, easily could have come into play in its 'decision.'
And I don't know if this means anything, but the computer didn't just begin with the first 'Constitution Class' Enterprise, since it didn't re-create Pike's (or April's) ship.
Just a thought...but for me, the beauty we saw in TMP was, is and ever shall be 'Enterprise Class.'
Shane
Posted by Futurama Guy (Member # 968) on :
quote:Originally posted by thelastguardian: I don't remember anything in 'Relics' that can be taken to indicate that the TMP Enterprise was 'Constitution Class.' Seems like Picard mentioned having seen a 'Constitution Class' vessel on display in a museum, but I don't recall if he meant one of the TOS variety or one like the 1701-A. However, 'Relics' does bring up an interesting point....
Shane
When Picard looked around at the bridge and made the distinction that it (the TOS bridge) was of a "Constitution Class" and that there was one like it in the Fleet Museum...I think he was quite specifically referring to bridge upon the ship that he stood, notably the TOS version of a 'Constitution Class' starship.
Unless...there were 2 "Constitution Class" vessels...one being the 'old' and the other being the 'new' variant. Maybe, for whatever reason, the "Constitution Class" had a variant (aka the refit model) that was known as the "Enterprise Class". This could be associated with the USS Enterprise possibly being the first of the old "Constitution Classes" to undergo said refit, and hence, the self named class designation. Perhaps once the remainder of the Constitution fleet was upgraded (or a second generation was built) they reverted back to the familiar "Constitution Class" designation for whatever reason.
It, in anycase, would make for a plausable explanation, such as why during the same 'timeframe' we see the "Miranda Class" 'upgrade' USS Bozeman, designated as a "Soyuz Class", when it was little more than a variant of the original USS Reliant in the first place....
Ah, the foibles of too many cooks in the kitchen!! Posted by Phoenix (Member # 966) on :
quote:Originally posted by Futurama Guy:
quote:Originally posted by thelastguardian: I don't remember anything in 'Relics' that can be taken to indicate that the TMP Enterprise was 'Constitution Class.' Seems like Picard mentioned having seen a 'Constitution Class' vessel on display in a museum, but I don't recall if he meant one of the TOS variety or one like the 1701-A. However, 'Relics' does bring up an interesting point....
Shane
When Picard looked around at the bridge and made the distinction that it (the TOS bridge) was of a "Constitution Class" and that there was one like it in the Fleet Museum...I think it was quite blunt distinction that he was referring to recreation he was 'aboard' as being the 'Constitution Class' that we were familiar with during TOS.
Unless...there were 2 "Constitution Class" vessels...one being the 'old' and the other being the 'new' variant. Maybe, for whatever reason, the "Constitution Class" had a variant (aka the refit model) that was known as the "Enterprise Class". This could be associated with the USS Enterprise possibly being the first of the old "Constitution Classes" to undergo said refit, and hence, the self named class designation. Perhaps once the remainder of the Constitution fleet was upgraded (or a second generation was built) they reverted back to the familiar "Constitution Class" designation for whatever reason.
The most plausible reason seems to me to be that the first ship to be upgraded to the new specs (1701-A as opposed to 1701) was in fact the Constitution, probably for PR reasons. Alternatively, the Constitution NCC-1700 had been destroyed by this point and they built another one, NCC-2050 (or something), to be the first of a new class of which the Yorktown/Enterprise was part.
I don't think changing the name of an already built class makes any sense. If I recall correctly, modern navies keep the class name even if the class ship is renamed (Kirov Class had this I think).
Posted by Futurama Guy (Member # 968) on :
quote:Originally posted by Phoenix: The most plausible reason seems to me to be that the first ship to be upgraded to the new specs (1701-A as opposed to 1701) was in fact the Constitution, probably for PR reasons. Alternatively, the Constitution NCC-1700 had been destroyed by this point and they built another one, NCC-2050 (or something), to be the first of a new class of which the Yorktown/Enterprise was part. I don't think changing the name of an already built class makes any sense. If I recall correctly, modern navies keep the class name even if the class ship is renamed (Kirov Class had this I think).
Alas, the 1701 (TOS) WAS "Constitution Class", but then the 1701 (TMP-TSFS) WAS "Enterprise Class", but then the 1701-A WAS "Constitution Class", again. Obviously, a class name change occurred...(and BTW, where the hell is NCC-2050 coming from???...anyway) just because they don't do class name changes NOW doesn't mean protoculs won't change in the next 250 years...we are, afterall, comparing sailing vessels to starships...not quite the same fruit of the vine growing here...
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
Class names typically aren't changed, because they are so insignificant and of such little practical value.
Which explains how even the people who operate a ship may be unsure of her class. Is the Reagan a Nimitz class ship or not? Were those old destroyer leaders really of Coontz or Farragut class? After the GUPPY commonalization, were there still half a dozen different submarine classes in the USN, or just the one? Who cares? Not the Navy, clearly.
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by Phoenix (Member # 966) on :
quote:Originally posted by Futurama Guy:
quote:Originally posted by Phoenix: The most plausible reason seems to me to be that the first ship to be upgraded to the new specs (1701-A as opposed to 1701) was in fact the Constitution, probably for PR reasons. Alternatively, the Constitution NCC-1700 had been destroyed by this point and they built another one, NCC-2050 (or something), to be the first of a new class of which the Yorktown/Enterprise was part. I don't think changing the name of an already built class makes any sense. If I recall correctly, modern navies keep the class name even if the class ship is renamed (Kirov Class had this I think).
But the 1701 (TOS) WAS "Constitution Class", but then the 1701 (TMP-TSFS) WAS "Enterprise Class", but then the 1701-A WAS "Constitution Class", again. Obviously, a class name change occurred...(and BTW, where the hell is NCC-2050 coming from???...anyway) just because they don't do class name changes NOW doesn't mean protoculs won't change in the next 250 years...we are, afterall, comparing sailing vessels to starships...not quite the same fruit of the vine growing here...
I don't think you understood what I said.
There are two main possibilities, if we assume 1701-A used to be another name (I am assuming Yorktown for the sake of this post, but it's not canon):
1700 built, first of Constitution Class 1701 built, Constitution Class 1717 built, Constitution Class 1701 upgraded, first of Enterprise Class 1700 upgraded, first of Constitution Class 2 1717 upgraded, Constitution Class 2 1701 destroyed 1717 renamed 1701-A
1700 built, first of Constitution Class 1701 built, Constitution Class 1717 built, Constitution Class 1701 upgraded, first of Enterprise Class 1700 destroyed/lost 2050 built, first of Constitution Class 2 1717 upgraded, Constitution Class 2 1701 destroyed 1717 renamed 1701-A, Constitution Class 2
2050 is just a number I made up to represent the possible new-build Constitution (I chose it simply because it appears to represent a block between the 2000 of the Excelsior Class and the 2100 of the Federation Class).
The vast majority of SF protocols and traditions are based on "sailing vessels", as you put it (I don't think the Kirov Class is actually a sailing vessel, but anyway), and we have no reason to suggest otherwise for this particular thing.
Apart from exterior appearance, there are a lot of differences between the TMP 1701 and the TFF 1701-A, so why can't they be two different classes?
Posted by Proteus (Member # 212) on :
Or mabye they decided to just change the name?
Posted by Phoenix (Member # 966) on :
quote:Originally posted by Proteus: Or mabye they decided to just change the name?
But we have no examples in ST of class names being changed, whereas we do have evidence of upgrades/modifications to an existing class being given a new class name (Miranda and Soyuz Classes).
I can only assume that this process was stopped by the time the NCC-1701-B was launched as an Excelsior Class.
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
Or then these things are decided on a case-by-case basis. Perhaps it was budgetarily easier to "sell" a new class rather than further Miranda units - whereas riding on the Excelsior class name was considered good publicity for the E-B?
And "Enterprise class" might have become politically incorrect by the 2290s, the name being a red flag for Klingons and Romulans alike. Even Starfleet at that point might have hated it, as it reminded them of the mutineer Kirk and of the fact they were ordered by some civilians to rename a ship "Enterprise" for the said pain-in-ass.
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by Phoenix (Member # 966) on :
quote:Originally posted by Timo: Or then these things are decided on a case-by-case basis. Perhaps it was budgetarily easier to "sell" a new class rather than further Miranda units - whereas riding on the Excelsior class name was considered good publicity for the E-B?
And "Enterprise class" might have become politically incorrect by the 2290s, the name being a red flag for Klingons and Romulans alike. Even Starfleet at that point might have hated it, as it reminded them of the mutineer Kirk and of the fact they were ordered by some civilians to rename a ship "Enterprise" for the said pain-in-ass.
Timo Saloniemi
That doesn't sound like a particularly good way to run a quasi-military organisation.
The way I see it, around the time of TUC they stopped using both new-name-for-new-subclass and registry-numbers-assigned-in-blocks systems, probably because of the increased number of ships around that time.
I see it more as a definite shift in policy than as a random quirky make-it-up-as-you-go-along system.
In TNG, for instance, we have variants on the Galaxy Class that are presumably still Galaxies, and variants on the Nebula that are still Nebulas. But in TOS and the movies, it appears (to me) as if a new design gets a new name.
Posted by newark (Member # 888) on :
I think Starfleet is building Constitution Class starships in the 2280's. This class still had importance in an era of uneasy relations with the Klingons. The Enterprise-A may have been one of the newer ships of this class built.
The confusion over Enterprise Class and Constitution Class I think originated on the original series. In the book 'The Making of Star Trek', the author writes of Enterprise-type starships. In the fictional and non-fictional worlds of Star Trek, class and type are used interchangeably.
This is what I understand from reading the book and looking at the available data.
When the series began, the U.S.S. Enterprise is the second ship of the 17th class of starships to be built. She is constructed and commissioned approximately a quarter of a century before. She has twelve 'sisters' of which several are known including the U.S.S. Defiant, the U.S.S. Excalibur, the U.S.S. Exeter, the U.S.S. Hood, the U.S.S. Lexington, and the U.S.S. Potemkin. The U.S.S. Constellation, of a lower number, represents an earlier class of starship and is a variant of the later Enterprise and her sister ships. These ships are supported by other classes of ships.
In 1967, there is a technical readout which shows the class "Constitution Class" and gives information on phaser turrets. This readout which Scotty reads has two possiblities attached to it:
a. this readout is information pertaining to another class of starship; or
b. this readout is information pertaining to the Enterprise and this is the phaser turrets common to her and her sister ships.
The book The Making of Star Trek is published. A class is identified for the Enterprise as Enterprise-type. A Constitution is included in the list. This could be the same ship mentioned above, or another ship.
Years pass, and FJ publishes a technical manual which identifies this class of ship as Constitution Class. Supposedly, this is approved by Gene Roddenberry. From this manual, we get a page showing the schematics of a starship bearing the registry NCC-1700 which is later seen in the movies and TNG. This registry is seen briefly in "Court-Martial".
So, we have two opinions on the class of the Enterprise in 1976. This difference of opinion comtinues into the episode "The Naked Now". The E is identified as a Constitution Class starship. From this episode on, this has been the E's class.
I think the issue arises from a failing on the part of the original production crew. First, they never gave a specific class for the E. Second, they didn't assign registries for these starships. So, not only are we having to work through the failings of these people, we are also having to reconcile the conflicting fan interpretations on registry & class which have become canon via the efforts of a fan, Mr. Okuda.
Posted by SoundEffect (Member # 926) on :
As far as I'm concerned, and I take canon information to be that which is revealed as dialogue or something seen on-screen, only the cadet bridge simulator was, for whatever reason, named Enterprise Class, not the ship.
Strictly canonically, the TMP-TFF vessel was never referred to by any class name. In TUC, we finally 'know' that the refit starship is identified as Constitution Class. For me, end of story. No point in dwelling on 'could've beens' and 'should've beens'. FASA had me convinced long ago because no other information was out there at the time. The show finally revealed the way it was meant to be. (As some have pointed out before, if Paramount goes to use this information again for any reason, they're likely to fall back to using Constitution Class.)
Just my 2 cents.
Posted by thelastguardian (Member # 1017) on :
quote:Originally posted by SoundEffect: As far as I'm concerned, and I take canon information to be that which is revealed as dialogue or something seen on-screen, only the cadet bridge simulator was, for whatever reason, named Enterprise Class, not the ship.
Strictly canonically, the TMP-TFF vessel was never referred to by any class name.
That is true only if you decide that the 'Enterprise Class' signage seen in ST II applied for some reason only to the simulator itself, and not to the vessel class it clearly was built to represent. Not only its bridge layout, but its displays, its simulated weaponry, its control responses, and its simulated deck-by-deck feedback all were modeled after a single type of vessel -- the 'Enterprise Class' starship the cadets were training to man.
Using your same 'on-screen equals canon' standard, I've chosen to assign 'Enterprise Class' to the vessel seen from TMP through ST III. ST IV (the last few minutes) through ST VI gave us a NEW ship, the 1701-A, a NEW 'Constitution Class' -- which replaced the now-outdated and decommissioned type of vessel we saw in TOS. There are so many differences (both internal and external) between the TMP ship and that seen in ST IV-VI that I would have a hard time believing they both belong to the same class. I mean, seriously -- look at the original TMP Kimble cutaway poster and find ONE thing inside that ship that matches what you see in ST V or VI.
But, to each his own Who's to say whose opinion is the superior one? More than likely, so long as they are based on established knowns, all such theories rest on level ground.
Shane
[ May 06, 2003, 04:42 PM: Message edited by: thelastguardian ]
Posted by Spike (Member # 322) on :
Well, I just ignore the TUC schematic as the person who draw it clearly didn't know of Mr. Probert's Enterprise-class designation.
Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
I can agree to the TMP Enterprise being Enterprise Class. It's not unreasonable to assume the 1701 was the first refitted ship. Perhaps the Constitution was refitted later, and with different internal systems, and ships of that type were named Constitution class.
Posted by Phoenix (Member # 966) on :
quote:Originally posted by Harry: I can agree to the TMP Enterprise being Enterprise Class. It's not unreasonable to assume the 1701 was the first refitted ship. Perhaps the Constitution was refitted later, and with different internal systems, and ships of that type were named Constitution class.
That's what I said. Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
One possibility as regards the Miranda/Soyuz beinbg 'proof' that a new class designation is used for variants of a class; it's possible this only applies if the new variant has a different purpose to the original. It's a fair bet that the Miranda and Soyuz have different purposes but the Constitution and the upgraded variant do not (both are exploratory cruisers).
Posted by MrNeutron (Member # 524) on :
quote:Originally posted by SoundEffect: ...Strictly canonically, the TMP-TFF vessel was never referred to by any class name...
Except that it's not "vessel", it's "vessels". They are two different ships with totally dissimilar internal features.
Posted by darkwing_duck1 (Member # 790) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim: Here we go again...
and again and again and again...
Shane's explanation is as good as any I've seen, and ton's better than the "that simulator is for the cadets training on the Enterprise" notion...that's just reaching, and badly at that...
Posted by MrNeutron (Member # 524) on :
quote:Originally posted by darkwing_duck1: Shane's explanation is as good as any I've seen, and ton's better than the "that simulator is for the cadets training on the Enterprise" notion...that's just reaching, and badly at that...
Which explanation? This one?...
"If this was the case, one could argue that ships upgraded or built to the specifics of the TMP ship were Enterprise class and those to the 1701-A standards are Constitution class."
Posted by Futurama Guy (Member # 968) on :
I think darkwing is half off his rocker...considering the same person he is complimenting is also the same person who he claims: is "reaching"....
Posted by darkwing_duck1 (Member # 790) on :
quote:Originally posted by Futurama Guy: I think darkwing is half off his rocker...considering the same person he is complimenting is also the same person who he claims: is "reaching"....
Uhh...no he isn't.
Shane contends that "Enterprise class" in ref to the simulator refers to a simulator set up to mimic the bridge of an Enterprise-class starship.
This is the interpretation I support.
The interpretation I think is a way over-the-top stretch is the idea that "Enterprise class" refers to "the group of cadets training on the Enterprise" in the sense that two sets of high school English students might be known as "Mr. A's class" or "Ms. B's class".
Posted by darkwing_duck1 (Member # 790) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrNeutron:
quote:Originally posted by darkwing_duck1: Shane's explanation is as good as any I've seen, and ton's better than the "that simulator is for the cadets training on the Enterprise" notion...that's just reaching, and badly at that...
Which explanation? This one?...
"If this was the case, one could argue that ships upgraded or built to the specifics of the TMP ship were Enterprise class and those to the 1701-A standards are Constitution class."
See my answer to Futurama, above...
Posted by Futurama Guy (Member # 968) on :
quote:Originally posted by darkwing_duck1:
quote:Originally posted by Futurama Guy: I think darkwing is half off his rocker...considering the same person he is complimenting is also the same person who he claims: is "reaching"....
Uhh...no he isn't.
Shane contends that "Enterprise class" in ref to the simulator refers to a simulator set up to mimic the bridge of an Enterprise-class starship.
This is the interpretation I support.
The interpretation I think is a way over-the-top stretch is the idea that "Enterprise class" refers to "the group of cadets training on the Enterprise" in the sense that two sets of high school English students might be known as "Mr. A's class" or "Ms. B's class".
Well that certain made more sense than how you put it in the first place.
Posted by Futurama Guy (Member # 968) on :
quote:Originally posted by darkwing_duck1:
quote:Originally posted by Futurama Guy: I think darkwing is half off his rocker...considering the same person he is complimenting is also the same person who he claims: is "reaching"....
Uhh...no he isn't.
Shane contends that "Enterprise class" in ref to the simulator refers to a simulator set up to mimic the bridge of an Enterprise-class starship.
This is the interpretation I support.
The interpretation I think is a way over-the-top stretch is the idea that "Enterprise class" refers to "the group of cadets training on the Enterprise" in the sense that two sets of high school English students might be known as "Mr. A's class" or "Ms. B's class".
Well that certainly made more sense than how you put it in the first place.
[ May 07, 2003, 12:48 AM: Message edited by: Futurama Guy ]
Posted by darkwing_duck1 (Member # 790) on :
quote:Originally posted by Futurama Guy: Well that certain made more sense than how you put it in the first place.
OK, went back and reread the post...I knew what I meant, but I can see how it might've been misread...silly me... Posted by thelastguardian (Member # 1017) on :
An interesting article on this subject, which also includes a screen capture from ST II:
This is a reach, but I wonder if this all has to do with the fact that by ST:II the Enterprise was relegated to a training vessel...and the Enterprise-class simulator represents the only Constitution-class designed as a training vessel at that time...somehow classifying or designating the simulator specifically to the Enterprise brought forth the self named class.
Hell, for that matter, there is no real explaination to this...someone fubared...all that is left is finding someone who can come up with the best fan-conceived explaination for it... Posted by Phoenix (Member # 966) on :
I must admit that I really don't see the problem in saying that the refitted 1701 and the 1701-A were different classes. They have completely different internal arrangements and were launched years apart. Why do they have to be the same class simply because they look the same?
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
well, because the 1701 and 1701 refit are the same class DESPITE the fact that they dont look the same..
are we seriously having this much trouble with ONE SIGN in wrath of khan?!.. i accepted 'the subclass used as class' explanation months ago and havent lost any sleep.. i simply have a hard time believing this is even being discussed
Posted by Griffworks (Member # 1014) on :
Likely because most people use modern day examples as their rationale, as has already been beaten soundly, tho apparently not to the point of death.
Seriously, the US Navy's vessels that belong to the same class will look almost identical externally. However, there will be internal arrangement differences from ship to ship. Externally, the only differences might be in where masts and navigation lights are located, being off a few meters here and there. Internally, entire sections have a different look, wriring and/or piping is done differently and layout of what's in each section might be completely different. Same class, tho.
While I sort of like the suggestion that Enterprise in TMP thru ST:III was an Enterprise class and that the E-A in ST:IV thru ST:VI was a refit Constitution, it just doesn't really make sense being as the only differences were in the paint job and (conjectural) addition of - or just external markings for - some hatches to the underside of the primary hull. From a strictly logical standpoint, again using today's US Navy as a basis of comparison, it just makes no sense.
Personally, I'd prefer to call it an Enterprise class and be done with it - which is what I used to do 'til I decided to simplify my nomenclature for ease of other folks out there who are more into the canon approach them I am. Gotta have a common point of reference for discussion, after all.
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
seriously, i think that when they were building the simulator wing at the Academy, they were probably putting up the signs for
the Constitution-class Enterprise subclass Constitution-class Endeavour subclass Oberth-class Miranda-class and whatever, and they probably just used the subclass designation because it was much more clear..
just as the blueprints said 'Constitution' and didnt have any information about subclass, because it was redundant, if every member of the constitution-class has modifications that differentiate, it was unnecessary to specify, the blueprints were showing the designations.
te same goes for any computer displays on the ships.. specifying the 'Enterprise' subclass as the class helped the user differentiate the differences of the data he was recieving compared to if he was on a different Constitution subclass..
by the 24th century, no one need make these distinctions.. looking back through history, all these modifications are remembered as the Constitution-class
Posted by MrNeutron (Member # 524) on :
A better question is why would Mr. �ber Engineer, Montgomery Scott, be looking at general outboard plans for a Constitition class vessel anyway. Woulda been a great moment if we saw him drawing modifications on them.
[ May 08, 2003, 02:09 PM: Message edited by: MrNeutron ]
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
I still maintain that an individual ship cannot change classes. Configurations, certainly. But not classes.
The NCC-1701 refit cannot be a new class of vessel because it is the same ship, albeit extensively redesigned, as the vessel from TOS---which we know definitively to be Constitution-class. This coupled with the clearly-seen diagram in TUC, establishing that the NCC-1701-A was also a Connie, is enough for me to maintain my opinion.
Unless of course someone can show me more convincing evidence than that one door sign from TWOK that can easily be re-interpreted as having a different meaning. (i.e., the simulator being used by the class of cadets from the Enterprise, as has been said before...)
-MMoM Posted by Spike (Member # 322) on :
I don't see why the TUC diagram is a more convincing evidence than the TWOK label. Lee Cole's intention with that label is pretty clear IMO.
Posted by TheWoozle (Member # 929) on :
Have ya'all considered that in ST:VI, Scotty was looking at the plans for a Constitution class ship, but not the Enterprise? he probobly has a bookcase full of ship plans and just likes to take one out and look at it.
Posted by thelastguardian (Member # 1017) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim: I still maintain that an individual ship cannot change classes. Configurations, certainly. But not classes.
The NCC-1701 refit cannot be a new class of vessel because it is the same ship, albeit extensively redesigned, as the vessel from TOS---which we know definitively to be Constitution-class. This coupled with the clearly-seen diagram in TUC, establishing that the NCC-1701-A was also a Connie, is enough for me to maintain my opinion.
Unless of course someone can show me more convincing evidence than that one door sign from TWOK that can easily be re-interpreted as having a different meaning. (i.e., the simulator being used by the class of cadets from the Enterprise, as has been said before...)
-MMoM
For me, it simply makes no sense to have two such radically different vessel types (the TOS Constitution Class and the refit Enterprise) going by the same class designation.
At the time of the refit, inasmuch as Enterprise was the first such refit, there surely still were TOS Constitution Class vessels floating around out there. And as more 'refit-type' vessels were refitted or built new from the keel up and their numbers grew, the need for class distinction and clarification would only have increased.
At the time I wrote MSG (1986), I was told unequivocally by those in the know that the class of the refit was 'Enterprise.' The signage on the door of the simulator in ST II (and its meaning is clear, I would say) is further evidence.
It is only a single, revisionist sheet of paper, seen in the final classic Trek film, that has thrown a monkey wrench into everything.
Speaking personally, I'm not going to toss out the evidence of my eyes (the ST II signage) and ears (the information given me directly) just because, more than ten years after the making of TMP, someone decided they liked 'Constitution' better than 'Enterprise' and were in a position to slip it into a film.
I believe the 'explanation' I posted earlier for the 1701 refit being 'Enterprise Class' and the 1701-A being 'Constitution Class' is a sound one that harmonizes everything we've seen on-screen, and it works for me.
But that and a quarter will get you a phone call.
If the 'Enterprise Class' thing doesn't work for everybody, that's fine. I can hardly be adamant about it, or about any hole-patching 'theory' of my own creation. We're here to have fun, and to share our thoughts and ideas, and to do our best to trowel over the gaps left in the ST universe by its creators.
Since Star Trek is meant to be enjoyed and not to be divisive, the best advice I can pass along was given to me once by Mike Okuda, who said that it is up to each Trek fan to decide for himself what is canon and what is not, what is on-screen 'truth' and what is not, and what is Star Trek and what is not.
Fight revisionism!
Shane
[ May 09, 2003, 12:30 AM: Message edited by: thelastguardian ]
Posted by thelastguardian (Member # 1017) on :
quote:Originally posted by TheWoozle: Have ya'all considered that in ST:VI, Scotty was looking at the plans for a Constitution class ship, but not the Enterprise? he probobly has a bookcase full of ship plans and just likes to take one out and look at it.
Well, there's a thought...
Shane
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
quote:Have ya'all considered that in ST:VI, Scotty was looking at the plans for a Constitution class ship, but not the Enterprise? he probobly has a bookcase full of ship plans and just likes to take one out and look at it.
Yeah, Woozle, and that might be what he was doing BEFORE the shit hit the fan, but I think even Scotty has a better sense of duty then you imply.
Posted by Spike (Member # 322) on :
quote:Originally posted by TheWoozle: Have ya'all considered that in ST:VI, Scotty was looking at the plans for a Constitution class ship, but not the Enterprise?
It's not very clear, because Scotty's arm is in the way, but I can identify the letters "RISE" on it, which propaply means "ENTERPRISE".
Posted by Woodside Kid (Member # 699) on :
quote: Unless of course someone can show me more convincing evidence than that one door sign from TWOK that can easily be re-interpreted as having a different meaning. (i.e., the simulator being used by the class of cadets from the Enterprise, as has been said before...)
A theory which makes about as much sense as renaming your high school's gymnasium for the senior class every year.
To throw some more real-world arguments in (sorry, Jeff ), I spent more than six years in the Air Force as a flight simulator technician, working on sims for 4 different aircraft. The simulators were always referred to by the type of aircraft they were patterned after and the model, if there were more than one in the facility (my last shop had both B-52 G and H model sims). We never referred to them by the name of the class, because the sims didn't belong to the student pilots. They were ours! Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
quote:Originally posted by thelastguardian: ...I believe the 'explanation' I posted earlier for the 1701 refit being 'Enterprise Class' and the 1701-A being 'Constitution Class' is a sound one that harmonizes everything we've seen on-screen, and it works for me.
Well I'm convinced. Just so long as it's just a semi-official nickname used for ease of reference until all the old TOS Connies were eith refitted or decommissioned. To celebrate, here is a lovely new logo. I'm definatly in a logoy mood this month...but fear not, I shall be back onto starships soon enough.
Posted by MrNeutron (Member # 524) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reverend:
quote:Originally posted by thelastguardian: ...I believe the 'explanation' I posted earlier for the 1701 refit being 'Enterprise Class' and the 1701-A being 'Constitution Class' is a sound one that harmonizes everything we've seen on-screen, and it works for me.
To celebrate, here is a lovely new logo.
I'm definatly in a logoy mood this month...but fear not, I shall be back onto starships soon enough.
I like how you used Phase II design elements. Nice touch!
Posted by Griffworks (Member # 1014) on :
Oooh! I like that, too! Definitely kewel to see Phase II elements. Do you do custom "patch" work. Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
Albatross!
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
Not for free.
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
On the issue of "renaming" the simulator...
Isn't putting an "Enterprise Class" label by the door a much more modest operation than "renaming"? Something more comparable to taping a printout of the week's schedule there?
It should be trivially easy to produce a different "plaque" there every day, or perhaps even every half-hour or so. There are graphically far more impressive "plaques" by the doors of the university here, printed out as needed. And yes, they do include unchanging information (comparable to that "Mark IV" thing) in addition to the changing bits (like "Enterprise Class") - it's easier and cheaper than permanently putting the unchanging info there on one printout and reprinting just the changing bits.
Apart from that, wow on that new patch!
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by MrNeutron (Member # 524) on :
quote:Originally posted by Timo: It should be trivially easy to produce a different "plaque" there every day, or perhaps even every half-hour or so.
Hell, there are already companies today working on technologies which would produce a kind of "paper" in which jillions of little balls (dots) could be realigned so that the text could change whenever you want it.
Posted by Middy Seafort (Member # 951) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reverend:
quote:Originally posted by thelastguardian: ...I believe the 'explanation' I posted earlier for the 1701 refit being 'Enterprise Class' and the 1701-A being 'Constitution Class' is a sound one that harmonizes everything we've seen on-screen, and it works for me.
Well I'm convinced. Just so long as it's just a semi-official nickname used for ease of reference until all the old TOS Connies were eith refitted or decommissioned. To celebrate, here is a lovely new logo. I'm definatly in a logoy mood this month...but fear not, I shall be back onto starships soon enough.
Now, that's cool. Perhaps, it was another piece donated to a museum. How 'bout another note attached to the logo from Kirk to Scotty.
Scotty,
Here's to the next five-years. Let's make her look as good as new.
JTK
Posted by MrNeutron (Member # 524) on :
A question about the nacelles on that patch: What made you decide on those little red slots on the front? I know the TMP nacelle has those black slots, but the Phase II model and Mike Minor's painting of same don't feature this. Also, I think the model that was under construction didn't have the Impulse Deflection Crystal thingus.
So, were you extrapolating between the two?
(Also as I recall, on Minor's painting there was a sizeable NCC-1701 on the side of the secondary hull.?
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
quote: Now, that's cool. Perhaps, it was another piece donated to a museum. How 'bout another note attached to the logo from Kirk to Scotty.
Scotty,
Here's to the next five-years. Let's make her look as good as new.
JTK
Nah, the note thing has been done.
quote: A question about the nacelles on that patch: What made you decide on those little red slots on the front? I know the TMP nacelle has those black slots, but the Phase II model and Mike Minor's painting of same don't feature this. Also, I think the model that was under construction didn't have the Impulse Deflection Crystal thingus. So, were you extrapolating between the two?
(Also as I recall, on Minor's painting there was a sizeable NCC-1701 on the side of the secondary hull.?
More or less a combinations of several models and Sketches I've seen, so yeah.
The glowing bussards were just a little touch I added myself, to strike a parallel with the old connie.
I tried to put a reg on the primary hull but I couldn't get the angle just right so I settled for one on the secondary hull.
I hope thelastguardian will forgive me for the thread hijacking Posted by Treknophyle (Member # 509) on :
For the first time I can remember, a thread is so long and convoluted that I may have lost track of part of the arguement. I was going to state my personal interpretation - but it may have already been stated.
Hell, I still will. If it corresponds to one already posited - point me in the 'right' direction.
1. Of the 'first-flight' Heavy Cruisers, Constellation was the first built. Therefore the class was named after her.
2. Of the refitted 'first-flight' Heavy Cruisers, Enterprise was the first refitted. Therefore the refit class was named after her. (to distinguish between the original and refit configurations).
3. X years later, when the original Constitution was refitted, the refit class was renamed after her.
4. Any surviving pre-refit Constitution-class vessels (such as the one Picard alluded to in a museum) are also designated 'Constitution-class' - but are referred to as pre-refit.
This seems the simplest explanation to me. Comment?
Posted by Phoenix (Member # 966) on :
quote:Originally posted by Treknophyle: For the first time I can remember, a thread is so long and convoluted that I may have lost track of part of the arguement. I was going to state my personal interpretation - but it may have already been stated.
Hell, I still will. If it corresponds to one already posited - point me in the 'right' direction.
1. Of the 'first-flight' Heavy Cruisers, Constellation was the first built. Therefore the class was named after her.
2. Of the refitted 'first-flight' Heavy Cruisers, Enterprise was the first refitted. Therefore the refit class was named after her. (to distinguish between the original and refit configurations).
3. X years later, when the original Constitution was refitted, the refit class was renamed after her.
4. Any surviving pre-refit Constitution-class vessels (such as the one Picard alluded to in a museum) are also designated 'Constitution-class' - but are referred to as pre-refit.
This seems the simplest explanation to me. Comment?
Assuming you mean "Constitution" in 1 and not "Constellation", then that's the theory thelastguardian and I believe in.
The other theories seem to be:
1) They are all Constitution Class - the sign on the door indicated something else (like "the Class being taught on the Enterprise")
2) They are all Constitution Class, but the refitted 1701 is Enterprise Sub-Class, commonly called Enterprise Class
From this theory, however, and looking at the 1017, 956 and 1600s registries we have, if we accept that refits have different class names while looking similar, there seems to be no reason why we have to designate TOS-Connie-type ships as Constitution Class - they could be members of other Classes, which either (in the case of the 1600s) look identical to Connies, or (in the case of 1017) look slightly different. Or possibly 1600s used to look slightly different and have been refitted to Connie-specs by the time of TOS, although, seeing the 1017, this seems unlikely (why upgrade the newer ships and not the older ones?).
Hope you can understand all that... Posted by petergunn1701 (Member # 1054) on :
Greetings All...
I believe this may have been mentioned in a previous post, but I will state my opinion anyway.
The Enterprise was originally a Constitution Class Starship. This ship did undergo some upgrading and refits through the years under April, Pike, and Kirk (ala Photonic Topedos...lol). After Kirk's return from the 5-year broohaha...Starfleet decided that it was time to fish or cut bait...they decided to fish!
The Enterprise was THE FIRST Connie to undergo a massive overhaul, the likes of which deserved a seperate designation...ENTERPRISE!!! Why? Because there are obviously several older Connies running around doing their thing. It would be silly to consider the "Refit" Enterprise a Connie after the work she received. You may also want to consider that Starfleet was pretty proud of the old girl. Heck!!! The whole fleet adopted the Enterprise insignia as a their own. So it would fit that the fleet, in the same manner, would see fit to bestow a new class designation on the refit starship.
However, once all the older Connies are either refit or retired, it makes perfect sense to restore the original designation of Constitution or Constitution II to the class. Now why didn't SF stick with Enterprise as a Class Designation? I have no idea. Maybe it was only temporary anyway. Maybe it came to a vote and some folks hated Jimmy and the Band. Heck, the sub-class makes sence to.
In any case, Starship Class, Constitution Class, Enterprise Class...What's the difference? We know what we see when we see it! Right?!
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
