The Constitution-class U.S.S. Kongo NCC-1710 (named for a Japanese aircraft carrier from WWII) is well known from Franz Joseph's Star Fleet Technical Manual and subsequent publications, and much later made an appearance on a computer readout in Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country.
Joseph presumably added the ship to his list based on its reference in the list of Connies in Stephen Whitfield's The Making of Star Trek. It is interesting that in that book the name is given as one of the fourteen "established" TOS Connies, (along with Constellation, Constitution, Enterprise, Excalibur, Exeter, Farragut, Hood, Intrepid, Lexington, Potemkin, Republic, Valiant, and Yorktown.) though it does not appear on any of the proposed lists compiled by Dorothy Fontana or Bob Justman, also reproduced in the book. This is the earliest reference I can locate for the ship.
SO WHERE DID IT COME FROM ORIGINALLY?
I wouldn't have thought that Whitfield would just toss in an extra name with no kind of source for it. Where the hell did it originate?
-MMoM Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
Unfortunately I can't answer that, but it does remind me of another question that's related: why do so many lists include the Valiant as one of the Constitution-class starships? Did people just confuse the name with the Defiant from "The Tholian Web"?
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
No. It's just because that's what it was always supposed to be. The first time it appeared on an actual list was in Whitfield's book. This was used as a reference by FJ in his manual, which was used as a reference by subsequent publications, and the rest is history...
I personally am completely convinvced it is a Connie, and include it as one in my list. There's no real reason why it shouldn't be, either, as we know the class must be pretty old to have such numbers as NCC-956, etc.
And, incidentally, the Whitfield book was published before the production of the episode "The Tholian Web," and that's why the Defiant is missing from its list, and consequently from the FJ Manual. (It is not the same ship as the U.S.S. Defiance NCC-1717 from that book, as is frequently implied.)
-MMoM
[ June 28, 2002, 15:01: Message edited by: The Mighty Monkey of Mim ]
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
quote:No. It's just because that's what it was always supposed to be.
No, that's just your opinion, Whitfield's opinion, and FJ's opinion. Find me a canon reference which states that the Valiant is a Constitution class ship (and when I say canon, I don't mean refernence books).
Posted by Spike (Member # 322) on :
Didn't someone prove that the Eagle can't be a Constitution-class vessel a few weeks ago?
I think Whittfield heard that they used a Valiant in "A Taste of Armageddon", then he saw that a ship with the same name was on the Connie-list and drawed the wrong conclusion.
[ June 28, 2002, 16:21: Message edited by: Spike ]
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
quote:Originally posted by Spike: Didn't someone prove that the Eagle can't be a Constitution-class vessel a few weeks ago?
Say what? The Eagle is a Connie. It was on the display.
quote:I think Whittfield heard that they used a Valiant in "A Taste of Armageddon", then he saw that a ship with the same name was on the Connie-list and drawed the wrong conclusion.
What "Connie-list"? Whitfield is the one who first composed the Connie list. And if you mean the memo-lists from Fontana and Justman, the Valiant wasn't on them.
-MMoM Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
I feel compelled to mention that IJN Kongo was a battleship, not a carrier.
Posted by Topher (Member # 71) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim: Say what? The Eagle is a Connie. It was on the display.
I believe someone pointed out that not all the representative silhouettes are Constitution-shaped.
Posted by Spike (Member # 322) on :
And that all names of connie-silhouettes were longer than EAGLE.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Yes, the name Eagle seemed to be next to one of the smaller silhouettes, whatever class those were supposed to represent...
Posted by Capped In Mic (Member # 709) on :
Mim, memos are not canon and no one alive besides you and maybe the guy who wrote the (non-canon) Ships of the Star Fleet believes there were any Constitutions prior to 2245... the Valiant was fifty years prior to TOS, way outside of the Connie design era.
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
I believe there were CNSs before 2245. All we know is that Enterprise was commissioned then. Maybe Farragut commissioned in 2237 & Exeter in 2241 & so on.
Posted by Capped In Mic (Member # 709) on :
but Mim beleives the SotSF dates of 2220
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
That sounds a little early. I'd guess around 2230 for the earliest Constitution...
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
quote:Originally posted by Spike: And that all names of connie-silhouettes were longer than EAGLE.
From what TSN and Dukhat can tell. I looked at the pics and at the movie again several times and I'd say its still inconclusive.
The Eagle and the Endeavour are the only ships that Okuda listed from the display in the Encyclopedia. I'm inclined to think their information is correct.
Cpt. Kyle, wherever you are, let me get this straight: Neither Okuda nor Trimble has anything whatsoever to say about this subject? How very disappointing...
-MMoM
[ June 30, 2002, 16:19: Message edited by: The Mighty Monkey of Mim ]
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
The only place I can recall seeing "Kongo" was on the decals for the AMT model of the TOS Enterprise.
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
Ah, yes!
Someone also told me this on the TrekBBS. And remember, Whitfield was an employee of AMT at the time he wrote the book! So, the REALLY REALLY important question is: Did the model kit (the one that included decals for Kongo) come out before or after The Making of Star Trek was written?
Maybe Whitfield just based his list on the decal list. What other names were included? Specific registry numbers? Anything else?
Of course, if the kit wasn't produced until after the book, then they probably just used the book as a reference for the decals...
Anyone know anyone who would know about this kind of thing? IDIC page and other model refernce sites seem to have nothing on this.
-MMoM Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
No, the "really, really important question" is, "What does it matter? And why all the anality about things?" Really, your OCD is beginning to terrify & irk me. Simmah.
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
It's important because I want to know if Whitfield just made the f*cking thing up or if there's actually a source for the bloody thing...
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)