Umm...just for the sake of argument, AC, the FJ manual says nothing about the Bonhomme Richard-class being a Connie variant. It was the later stuff that postulated that.
-MMoM
[ May 20, 2002, 15:40: Message edited by: The Mighty Monkey of Mim ]
-------------------- The flaws we find most objectionable in others are often those we recognize in ourselves.
Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
Well, who really knows about TOS registry schemes?
But FJ does make a clear connection between the Merrimac(k)/BH Richard class and the Constitution class. The former is listed as an approved production batch of "class I starships - heavy cruisers Mk IX", and we know from the book that the first batch of those was the Constitution class. Furthermore, the second batch features USS Defiance, a ship that probably was meant to be USS Defiant from "Tholian Web", thereby establishing that at least two of those batches (the Constitution and BH Richard batches) looked like Kirk's ship.
Not complete proof, of course. Perhaps the Defiance was not the Defiant at all? There goes our proof that all the batches would look like the vessel pictured on the adjoining page. It could be that only the first batch looks like that, for each given ship category. The second batch of heavy cruisers (the BH Richard class) could have had four nacelles or something...
posted
The way I read it is that there are several "Class 1" starships. Class One probably means that it uses the familiar Connie parts, and Class One ships are likely the most powerful and expensive ships of the fleet.
The Class 1 Heavy Cruiser has three variants:
Mk-IX: beginning with Constitution NCC-1700 and ending with Potempkin (isn't it Potemkin?) NCC-1711. This is what FJ calls the Constitution Class. Perhaps this is supposed to be the first pilot version?
Mk-IXa: from Bonhomme Richard NCC-1712 to Essex NCC-1727. This is possibly the series version of the model.
Mk-IXb: from Achernar NCC-1732 to Tutakai NCC-1799 and from Tikopai NCC-1800 to Wezen NCC-1842. Both the BHR class and the Tikopai class are Mk-IXb, strangely enough.
I have know idea what FJ was trying to say with this. Nowhere does he explain or motivate what he does, and what the difference is between the Mk-IX and the a and b variants.
posted
I suspect that FJ worked from a real-world premise. He assumed that ships in the future would still be produced in batches, with incremental improvements. So all the ships listed would be basically the same, just with different placement or model of guns or something.
The real world was FJ's realm. He was *not* trying to match the names with existing variants of the actual Trek models - he wasn't a devout Trek fan himself, didn't own a VCR, and probably didn't even know of the differences between the pilot and series ships.
posted
I never realsied there was so many variations of the constitution class. I was aware of the bohomme richard variant but not the others. What are the difference then apart from the name?
-------------------- "We set sail on this new sea because their is new knowledge to be gained and new rights to be won" John F Kennedy
posted
Well, the basic idea behind the variants is that FJ first gave us a selection of names, and other fans then matched the various photographic models and unrealized concept drawings of the Constitutions with those names. When they ran out of FJ names, they invented more.
"Constitution" is the subclass that supposedly started it all. Those were built twenty years before Kirk's time by current timeline (older fans usually assumed 40 years), and supposedly looked like the ship in the pilot episode "The Cage". That ship had a taller bridge dome, spikes protruding from the nacelle front ends, and a grillework at the nacelle aft ends instead of the later grey dome. According to many pseudohistories of the class, these ships had laser and particle beam armament instead of phasers (although the new show "Enterprise" makes this unlikely).
"Bonhomme Richard" is the subclass that was shown in TOS. The bridge dome is lower in profile, the spikes are gone, and there are minor modifications to other surface detail. These ships supposedly had phasers and photon torpedoes fitted. Kirk's ship was supposedly modified from a "Constitution" into a "Bonhomme Richard" between the pilot episodes and the regular series.
"Achernar" is the subclass shown in FJ's somewhat inaccurate drawings. Such a ship was never seen onscreen, although FJ's drawings were shown on some computer screens in the early movies. The primary and secondary hull and the nacelles are all shaped slightly differently from the real thing, and this model also has visible phaser turrets on the saucer. The actual models before the movies had no such turrets.
The name "Tikopai" from FJ's book was assigned to a concept drawing for an abortive second Trek live-action TV show. This show later was dropped in favor of the first movie. This ship had most features identical to the actual movie version, but her saucer looked more like the TOS design (with a rounded bridge and lower dome). She did have visible phaser turrets, though.
The name "Constitution II" was given to another 2nd show/1st movie predesign, with slightly different nacelles but otherwise Tikopai-like features.
The name "Endeavor" was assigned to a rare predesign that had TOS-like features but really weird nacelles and slightly canted pylons.
Finally, the names "Enterprise" and "Enterprise II" were given to the classes seen in the first and fourth movies, respectively. Of course, the same exact model was used in both movies, so the supposed differences are internal...
As if this hadn't been enough, fans also created many other classes that were based on Constitution components. You can find most of the above ships at www.shipschematics.org.
posted
Horrible. Just simply horrible. I'll just call them all Constitution class. The Phase II and other TMP predesigns are not canon .
The only versions we have are the pilot ship (was there a difference from the "The Cage" one and the WNMHGB one?), the series ship, the TMP-refit, perhaps the new-built 'refits' and finally that TNG desktop model with shuttlebays/cargobays/whatever on the sides and flipped nacelles.
Alpha Centauri
Usually seen somewhere in the Southern skies
Member # 338
posted
quote:Umm...just for the sake of argument, AC, the FJ manual says nothing about the Bonhomme Richard-class being a Connie variant. It was the later stuff that postulated that.
Owww... There I go again, confusing BHR with the Archernar. I have no copy of the SFTM myself, so I couldn't check it.
The difference between the Cage-Enterprise and the WNMHGB-Enterprise is that there's a different (smaller) bridge dome in WNMHGB. Also, in "The Cage", the nacelle ends are flat, whereas in WNMHGB, the familiar 'balls' in the endcaps appear. If I remembered it all correctly.
posted
Well, it gets a little murkier than the current simplistic Okudaic view of TOS/TFS...
The original model for "The Cage" had simple raised rectangular panels on the aft endcaps of the nacelles. These were replaced in "Where No Man..." by the often-seen 'grillework' endcaps. So if we want to get really persnicketty, we can claim three distinct pre-TMP Constitution versions or subclasses.
I take a different view. Granted, it's not the most popular around here, but from what I've been able to glean over the years, it's the one that makes the most sense and fits all available facts and behind-the-scenes info. See what you think...
The Constitution class entered service around 2243 or so. The ASDB operates with the Class I Starships/Explorers on a twenty-year review-and-refit schedule, with incremental upgrades during each service layover in starbase. So over each starship's service life, they will receive upgrades to equipment and systems on a widely-varying range of schedules. So, for the Constitution class, after their first twenty years of operation, I figure none of the ships exactly resembled any of the others, due to the rate of technological progress, and different mission requirements over the years.
By 2270, I like to think the Endeavour refit was proposed, but scrapped on the drawing board due to the introduction of the LN-60 nacelles the Constitution (II) (to use Ships of the Star Fleet terminology) was seen to employ. Indeed, I like to say that picture was the Constitution in 2270.
About that time, the developments associated with the Constellation and Decatur/Belknap classes impelled Starfleet to incorporate them into the Constitution class, also, as the Excelsior was taking longer to be realized than originally expected.
So the Enterprise was the first ship refit, and became the new benchmark for other newbuilds and Constitution refits. At the risk of inflaming the Okuda adherents in here, I stick with Andy's assertion that the refit Enterprise was the lead ship of a new class. However, with the c.2285 changeover in the registry system and starship classification scheme, all the subclasses were streamlined to simply carry the name of the original class progenitor. So by the time we saw Scotty looking at the blueprints in TUC, it was back to just Constitution class.
I also strongly support Matt Jeffries intended TOS registry system, and (FJ screwups and later fandom dogma aside) purport that that system remained in place until the shift at NCC-2500 around 2285-2290 (at the latest). With that in mind, I include the Merrimac(k) (NCC-1715) from TMP and the John Muir (NCC-1732) from TUC in the ranks of the Constitutions, as well.
Make of that what you will. --Jonah
-------------------- "That's what I like about these high school girls, I keep getting older, they stay the same age."
--David "Woody" Wooderson, Dazed and Confused
Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
There are four variants on the Connie class: 1. Tha Cage...similar to WNMHGB version, but has no grills on nacelle end. 2. The WNMHGB version...we've all seen this one 3. The regular series version...we've all seen this one 4. The movie version...We've all seen this one.
-------------------- Is it Friday yet?
Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
To be honest, I think inventing any refits besides the one between the first and second pilots is somewhat silly. The Enterprise routinely switched external features, most especially the ends of the nacelles, throughout the first season. Usually within the same show, as different stock footage was used for entering orbit, orbit, and leaving orbit scenes. This has made my personal effort to derive the chronology of the show somewhat more difficult, as I must confess I had never noticed the reuse of "grilled" footage before, and thus found my goal of ordering certain episodes based on the configuration of the ship unreachable.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
So where did the term "Constitution" class originate? Did it come from FJ, or GR, or Stephen Whitfield, or someone else?
And to beat a dead horse yet again, IMHO, I don't think that these miniscule changes should constitute an entirely new class of ship as far as the current canon of Star Trek is concerned, regardless of what FJ wrote (although I will state here & now that I still am a fan of FJ's works and own an original copy of his Manual). They should at most be considered variants, not new classes.
And before anyone says anything about that damn Soyuz class, let me again say that that was a special case, & shouldn't be considered part of this discussion.
-------------------- "A film made in 2008 isn't going to look like a TV series from 1966 if it wants to make any money. As long as the characters act the same way, and the spirit of the story remains the same then it's "real" Star Trek. Everything else is window dressing." -StCoop
Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
It was first used in a publication by Franz Joseph. The idea for the name came from Gene Roddenberry, and it was at his request that FJ used it. At least that's what I heard...
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
.![[Smile]](smile.gif)
I have no copy of the SFTM myself, so I couldn't check it.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
