Flare Sci-Fi Forums: Constitution class might be older than assumed

This is topic Constitution class might be older than assumed in forum Starships & Technology at Flare Sci-Fi Forums.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://flare.solareclipse.net/ultimatebb.php/topic/6/796.html

Posted by Alpha Centauri (Member # 338) on :

It is generally assumed that the Constitution class entered service in the 2240s, with the E-nil being launched in 2245. The E-A was in service only a few years prior to its decommissioning in 2293 (ST6). This indicates a life-time of only 48 years. Since the Constitution was an tough ship, I wonder why it has such a short life-time. I don't believe that ship technology between TOS and TNG has become so incredibly advanced that a ship's life-time has grown from 48 years to 100 years (Galaxy).

Well, I today read a line from The Making Of Star Trek, which says that Gene Roddenberry implied the age of the E-nil at the beginning of TOS as being 40 years. This would place the commissioning of the E-nil in (2265-40) 2225, and the life-time is hereby increased from 48 to 68 years, a more believable figure.

Thoughts?

------------------
Advertisement in the United Federation NewsPADD, SD 53672:

"Now for sale at your local dealer: Miranda class vessels, as good as new! Survived the Dominion Wars! Only 100 years old! Only 20,000 ly on the counter! Buy now for only $1000! And if you order now, you get an Oberth class for half the price!"

Posted by Spike (Member # 322) on :

quote:
The E-A was in service only a few years prior to its decommissioning in 2293 (ST6)

Not when it really was the renamed Yorktown.

------------------
"No matter where you go, there you are."

Posted by colin (Member # 217) on :

Actually, the Making of Star Trek said that the class of ships to which the USS Enterprise was a member was 40 years old by the time of the series, approximately 2225. However, this contradicts another fact mentioned in the same book-the USS Valiant was of the Constition Class. The USS Valiant was lost in the late 2210's.

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

takeoffs are optional; landings are mandatory

Posted by Aethelwer (Member # 36) on :

Fitz: Who really believes that?

------------------
Frank's Home Page
"Canadian bacon is called that because it's made from Canadians. And while I'm on the subject, could you people cut back on the fish and rodents and eat more fruits and berries? It would vastly improve your flavor, in my opinion." - Simon Sizer

Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :

Well, I don't think the Valiant was a Constitution, anyway. But I do believe that the class is older, considering that its registries go all the way back into the 900s...

------------------
"I'm sick of you little girl and boy groups: all you do is annoy me, so I have been sent here to destroy you..."
-Eminem, "The Real Slim Shady"

Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :

I believe the Yorktown story!

AS for the Const., it is probably older than 2245. The USS Eagle is NCC-9**, but that is probably not a number normally assigned to a Const, but a number with some ridiculous story behind it to explain it.
Then we have some 10**'s, 13**'s and a whole buch of 16**'s.

The USS Const. NCC-1700 is possible the same story as the USS Defiant: original ship lost, other ship (NCC-1700) renamed in honour of older one (NCC-13**?).

------------------
FuckU-FuckMe: Changing the feel of communication:
"What kinds of security controls does FuckU-FuckMe offer?

All FuckU-FuckMe users can control whom they connect to on an individual basis. There's no need to go to a public reflector. "

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prakesh's Star Trek Site

Posted by Spike (Member # 322) on :

IMHO the ships with 9**, 10** and 13** are upgrades from other classes. There's no evidence that the 16**-ships belong to the Constitution-Class.

------------------
"No matter where you go, there you are."

[This message has been edited by Fitz (edited July 06, 2000).]