posted
Thing is, though, that we don't know what other ship classes were available for the saucer (or even the engineering hull) of the Constellation to have come from, what the default connections and necessary framework for that class were, et cetera.
While the conversion idea may be an artificial explanation, it's a good artificial explanation, and is not subject to your artificial curtailment of the notion.
Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
^ Yeah good point. Perhaps the NCC-1017 was modified to demonstrate the technology that would be installed on the connie and the general configuration.
As for the block system of designating minor starship warients, this is something I like (tho' Ritten was wrong about the letter being the block designator on US aircraft. There's actually another number, going up in 10s after it eg. F-16D-30). The letter indicates a more comprehensive varient)
The original Excelcior could have a 'full' designation of; Excelcior-NCC-2000-10 in it's final operational configuration. Refits would just have the block number updated and not the class name.
"I remain firm in my belief that individual ships do not change class, no matter how drastically they are refitted."
I agree here, the Constellation would not necessarily be a Connie, I am merely attempting to explain why it looks so similar.
-------------------- "I am an almost extinct breed, an old-fashioned gentleman, which means I can be a cast-iron son-of-a-bitch when it suits me." --Jubal Harshaw
Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
Alot of fan sources just say that several ships before the Connie were upgraded to Connie specs and were near equals. Now I generally agree with this statement, which explains why there is a Connie class Eagle with NCC-956 or something, far less than the 1017 for the Constellation.
-------------------- Matrix If you say so If you want so Then do so
Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
I've never understood this "they turned one ship into a different ship" idea. Even claiming that the registry system is nothing resembling chronological is better than that.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by TSN: I've never understood this "they turned one ship into a different ship" idea. Even claiming that the registry system is nothing resembling chronological is better than that.
Why? We have the evidence of the connie refits that extensive modifications can be made to a starship and still have the same designation. I'm not saying these ships were reclassified as connies but I'm attempting to explain the similarities between ships with wildly disparate registries.
-------------------- "I am an almost extinct breed, an old-fashioned gentleman, which means I can be a cast-iron son-of-a-bitch when it suits me." --Jubal Harshaw
Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
NCC-2544 and NCC-50446 are much more widely disparate than NCC-956 and NCC-1701. But you don't have to explain why the Repulse and the Crazy Horse look identical. It's because their class ship has a lower registry than both of them. So what's wrong w/ simply saying that the class ship of the Eagle and the Enterprise has a registry lower than both of those ships?
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
I was showing that not only are there blocks, there are also suffixes....
a suffix has no limit on the blocks produced under it....
-------------------- "You are a terrible human, Ritten." Magnus "Urgh, you are a sick sick person..." Austin Powers A leek too, pretty much a negi.....
Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by TSN: NCC-2544 and NCC-50446 are much more widely disparate than NCC-956 and NCC-1701. But you don't have to explain why the Repulse and the Crazy Horse look identical. It's because their class ship has a lower registry than both of them. So what's wrong w/ simply saying that the class ship of the Eagle and the Enterprise has a registry lower than both of those ships?
You mean the Constitution? With NCC-1700? That isn't lower than NCC-956.
-------------------- "I am an almost extinct breed, an old-fashioned gentleman, which means I can be a cast-iron son-of-a-bitch when it suits me." --Jubal Harshaw
Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
Also, look at the 1930's and 1940's especially at battleships and carriers. First the two carriers Lexington and Saratoga were both the first American battleships designed but after Washington treaty of 1921-1922, they were converted into aircraft carriers. Look at their battleship config. and their carrier config. at www.warships1.com. Now because of the Washington Treaty, many navies did major refits to their existing ships. The Itlians gutted out their two WWI era battleships and gave them almost modern look to them. The Japanese extended their ships, put more armor on, new engines, new superstructure and so on. The US after Pearl Harbor refitted about 3-4 WW1 ear ships with a new superstructure looking almost like the newe South Dakota class.
It has been done to the E-nil after TOS. I dobut this was a special event that happened only once. I believe that Starfleet did it before.
-------------------- Matrix If you say so If you want so Then do so
Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
Of course, while conversion could occur, my personal thought is that most of the oddballs are vessels named after older vessels.
In other words, whereas the second Federation starship to bear the name "Enterprise" got another dash and the letter "A" tacked on to the end of her registry, such a system might not have been in place previously.
We know, by virtue of the second Defiant-Class Defiant, that it can and has been done, since they both have the same registry (lazy/budget-conscious FX guys aside).
Thus, it may be that the Eagle and Constellation were not really old Connies, or really old ships converted into Connies . . . they may simply have been new-build Constitutions (in whatever era) that were given the name and registry of an older ship.
If (with apologies to those who despise the chronological registry idea) the Enterprise was a new build with a new 1701 registry in 2245, we could simply take a rough linear progression from 2161 and say that the original Eagle and Constellation were built circa 2200-2210, shortly after the Daedalus Class was retired. Naturally, we don't know what might've happened to these vessels . . . perhaps they got caught in whatever mess took place in 2223 that brought about "70 years of unremitting hostility" with the Klingons. Whatever the case, Starfleet took the names and registries, painting them onto new-build Constitutions decades later.
That's my personal take on the issue.
-------------------- . . . ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.
posted
I am writing a conjectural history of the Constitution Class. I suggest that the design of the Constitution Class was practical enough to convert the existing designs of other starfleet ships into Constitutions because of hositilties with the Klingons. The Eagle, Constellation, and Republic were all converted as test vehicles before the Constitution NCC-1700 was launched. These ships were later given operational status. The 1600 regos of the Constitution was actually of the Intrepid Class (because of the NCC-1631 registry) and these ships were converted because war nearly seemed imenient with the Klingons. Starfleet needed the Constitutions, but the Enterprise and the Hood were not yet finished. That is what I speculated. Overall, Consitution class should be Constitution-Type if we just go with canonicity.
IP: Logged
posted
I agree, but there's no reason why these ships would've been converted before the Constitution; if anything, we wouldn't have had Constitution-class because the first ship of a class names the class. The U.S. Navy is quite strict in this regard -- sometimes classes are renamed because another ship is finished before the intended class ship.
Aside from the registry numbers, another reason why this basic configuration is so old is the 40-year age from "The Making of Star Trek". That book also gives a list of Kirk's "twelve more like her", but for some reason the count works out to thirteen more. Clearly, the Valiant (NCC-1223), listed there, would've been converted to Constitution-class had it not been destroyed, and Kirk would've said "thirteen more"; it's more likely that the forty-year age is a bit off from 50-60 years than that another ship called the Valiant was built and then destroyed.
An age greater than 40 years would also fit the low registry numbers better. It's very probable that some of these ships are as old as 2196, when the Daedalus was commissioned. The Constitution/Enterprise remain 20 years old, which fits their registries.
However, since the Eagle, Endeavor, and the Saratoga are not included in this list, they must be significantly different from the Valiant. They probably were refitted only into Constitution-refit directly. The Defiant (also not on the list), with the next highest registry number (NCC-1764) is probably a newbuild or a delayed newbuild.
As for an overall designation, Constitution-type would be a U.S. Navy designation for a one-off ship without a class (although the nomenclature has been loosened somewhat). I'd call it Constitution-family.
[ April 21, 2002, 20:38: Message edited by: Boris ]
Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
CaptAlabin
Ex-Member
posted
Constitution-family does sound a lot better than what we have. In showing of other classes, the Excelsiors and the Mirandas would fit into that description as well.
IP: Logged
quote:The 1600 regos of the Constitution was actually of the Intrepid Class (because of the NCC-1631 registry) and these ships were converted because war nearly seemed imenient with the Klingons.
Now I may be misunderstanding what you're saying here or trying to say, but how can you have an Intrepid class named after NCC-1631 when we clearly have one that's Voyager's class?
-------------------- Is it Friday yet?
Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
"You mean the Constitution? With NCC-1700? That isn't lower than NCC-956."
So there was a Constitution-class USS Constitution w/ a registry of NCC-1700. Big deal. I'd like to see any real evidence whatsoever that calls this ship the class ship of the Constitution class. I'd also like to see any evidece you have to prove that there was no Constitution-class USS Constitution w/ a registry below NCC-956.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
Printer-friendly view of this topic
