posted
Can someone specify these alleged "notable differences" between the Constellation and Ent? I keep hearing this, but isn't it really just something like the bridge is slightly mis-shapen, etc? It certainly was never noticeable to me...
-MMoM
-------------------- The flaws we find most objectionable in others are often those we recognize in ourselves.
Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
How about an all-inclusive deal (with licensed sources only):
1) In the TOS era, the Jefferies/Joseph system was used for hull numbers. Here, the 17th "major design of the Federation" was not a class, but rather one of several prefices for the type Heavy Cruiser. Specific classes would have their own ranges.
2) Only twelve ships of various heavy cruiser classes would be outfitted for exploration during TOS. The Constellation and the Republic would've been older heavy cruisers refitted into Constitution-class, as Joseph's tech manual indicates. It just happened that Constitution-class specs ended up being the best for this purpose.
3) Later on, Starfleet completely switched to something like the pennant number system, where numbers are basically linear but can change based on mission requirements and are not assigned at construction time. Most of the original Constitutions received different numbers, though some retained them. The reality is that nobody could care less whether or not the final numbers were in a sort of a strict system because any computer can hold a database of 70000+ numbers quite easily and decode the necessary information.
I really don't like #1 because going by that then we can assume that all ships down even the 9XX class was a Connie look alike (well going by the age, the Connie would be the look alike). But we most of us agree that the Enterprise is the second Connie built.
I like #2 for the reason, that they could be fitted and called a different type of ship but still retain their class distinction. For instance, having a Heavy Cruiser type Connie and a Long Range Explorer Connie.
In #3, relies on that a computer can hold 70,000+ ships and their specifications. Hell, my shit 4 year old computer can do that now. (If I delete everything). And if TOS is supposed to be more advanced that our computer they should be able to handle 70,000+ ships easily. But I get where you're going though, but I still don't agree.
quote:Originally posted by: The Mighty Monkey of Mim.
Can someone specify these alleged "notable differences" between the Constellation and Ent? I keep hearing this, but isn't it really just something like the bridge is slightly mis-shapen, etc? It certainly was never noticeable to me...
Its an AMT model, and it has small differences such as a different shaped bridge mount and so on.
Just as an addition: It is generally well known that no ship looks alike, even during construction. If we ignore the small minute details such as welding or placements of structural memebers which can be accounted for human or alien error. Ships under construction are always subject to change under admiral or captain's wishes. Eventually it becomes more apparent when the ship is docked for a refit. Where one ship is docked one year earlier, one equipment would be different from the other.
It even states somewhere in the TNG TM, about this. So its not impossible for the Constellation to be different from the Enterprise.
[ April 26, 2002, 16:58: Message edited by: Matrix ]
-------------------- Matrix If you say so If you want so Then do so
Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
You wouldn't necessarily have 9xx Connies because the Eagle wasn't so numbered until after the switch (I don't recall Joseph's number for it, but it was 17xx). However, you would have one 10xx Connie and one 13xx Connie (which are stated in the Manual to be refits of other ship classes, and which for some reason retained their original numbers after the switch).
The point is that registry numbers aren't commonly used by people. People refer to "the Enterprise" or "Constitution-class Enterprise". The only time we've seen registry numbers is when they've been used to either
1) identify ships (read an unknown ship's number, look up the name in the computer -- example, Nog/Valiant, Yar/Ent-C, Riker/Yamato)
2) specify ships to a computer/recorder (Kirk/Republic, Scotty/Ent-nil).
3) list starships in computer databases.
In all the cases, there's no need to complicate the registry scheme because humans don't need to decode numbers -- the computer does that easily. In reality, you don't even need a strict order -- only that a particular number refers to a particular ship at a time. However, for some reason people liked their numbers in some kind of a system during TOS, which would be abandoned later.
Boris
[ April 26, 2002, 17:19: Message edited by: Boris ]
Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
Of course I'm saying the Constellation and Excelsior classes took a long time in development. One was the first canon quad-nacelled design, which I expect took a bit of time to straighten out. And the other was the testbed for a radical new propulsion system, so the developmental time on that would also take a while. While the Federation is its own distinct design, it wasn't doing anything radically different with the existing tech of the day -- save possibly the third nacelle, which probably is easier to balance than four, going by the number of classes we've seen with each configuration, respectively.
The Miranda class was the 18th Cruiser design, so it precedes all of the others we're quibbling over, and is the immediate successor to the Constitution class. And as an aside to fellow fandom fans out there, I've contradicted Todd Guenther about his Frigates. I rearranged things so the Surya-class Frigate got refit into the Knox and Daran designs. And I have the Miranda as a newbuild Cruiser, after the proposed Coventry design was deemed too big for a Frigate.
The Bozeman creates a slight problem at first glance, however, so here's the full breakdown:
They wanted a wholly new design for the Soyuz class in "Cause and Effect", but time or budget or both prevented it. So a box and some pods were added to a basic Miranda hullform, and the ship was slapped with two different registries -- NCC-1841 on the repeatedly-seen ventral saucer surface, and NCC-1941 on the never-seen dorsal saucer surface.
For whatever reason, Okuda goes with the latter, and acknowledges it's a joke reference by modelmaker Greg Jein to a previous movie he'd done model work for. It is not, however, clear which registry Jein was intending to be the 'actual' ship's registry. I don't know how likely it is that he knew the shooting requirements of the model, but if he did, and knew that only the ventral number would be seen, odds are that's the number he intended to represent the 'real' ship. But since we don't know, quibbling over it is pretty useless. Personally, I go with the 1841 rego.
There's also no indication of what the Soyuz class might have been if they'd been able to build an all-new model. As it is, it's a Cruiser, like the Miranda off of which it was built. So the 'NCC' prefix is valid for the era. Next, the number. Since I go by the more-visible (hence, canon) 1841, that puts it firmly in the middle of the Miranda family, between the Lantree and the Reliant.
At first, this might appear to be another problem of Okuda's system trying to overlay Jeffries' system, but when I actually thought about it, it lends credence to something else I'd seen -- the Decatur/Belknap family. After the prototype and basic production configuration of this design, we've got other classes, all in the same registry range, that are simply the the basic design with either added or swapped details -- like the third nacelle of the Ascension class or the Miranda-style saucer added to make the Athabaska class or the different engines and minor detailing mods that made the Impervious class. Indeed, I intend to carry this whole family over into my "personal canon", but bumped back to the NCC-2400 range, to allow for the NCC-2500 Starfleet numbering system changeover.
How I envision it working is thusly:
The lead design sets the standard. In the case of the 18th Cruiser block, this is the Miranda. Then, other classes that are simply modifications of that basic hullform remain in that number block, such as the Soyuz. I actually like projecting a little real-world fluff into a Trek context, so I'd have a debate going on for decades among Starfleet engineers and other starship afficionados as to whether the design variation led off by the U.S.S. Avenger is significant enough to warrant it being its own class. And by the time we get to TNG, the debate has been settled in favor of the "it's just a Miranda variant" camp.
One last point:
All the ship silhouettes in the Operation: Retrieve charts are dorsal Constitution-refit cutouts. All the ship indicators on the Enterprise-B's Navigation board were Excelsior-refit silhouettes. In both of those cases, all the icons were oriented in the same direction on their respective displays. And when Geordi was reconstructing what happened to create the duplicate Riker, the Enterprise-D's computer called up an profile view of an Ambassador to represent the Excelsior-class Potemkin. I find the most plausible explanation is that that's a generic 'starship' icon (for whatever era we're looking at) to be used when generating something that requires calling out a vessel's position.
In other words, I have every reason to doubt the Eagle in Star Trek VI was Constitution-class. I also defy FJ in claiming that the Republic -- while definitely a Cruiser of some stripe -- was NOT Constitution-class. Which only leaves the original Constellation as problematic, but I've written a short story about that that I think works pretty good...
--Jonah (*whew* I do rattle on, don't I...?)
-------------------- "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
One thing that I see often that I'd like to point out is not true, is the statement that the FJ Manual claims the Constellation and Republic are ships refitted from other classes. There is absolutely NO such claim put forth in that book. It's later stuff based on that work that claims the refittings. The original manual (which is the only old book that comes anywhere NEAR being partially official) says nothing of this.
-MMoM
-------------------- The flaws we find most objectionable in others are often those we recognize in ourselves.
Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
I have the Franz Joseph manual, it just happens to be a bit over 4,000 miles away...so what does it say about the two ships?
I don't see a reason why the Constellation must be a blooper. What's the problem with Starfleet building essentially the same ships for several decades before TOS? It happens to fit both the 40-year age and the 20-year age of these ships stated in the official sources. It also fits the fact that they'd be decomissioned around the turn of the century (although I agree that the exact timing is likely a result of the Klingon peace).
Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Boris: I have the Franz Joseph manual, it just happens to be a bit over 4,000 miles away...so what does it say about the two ships?
Just that they're Constitution class and that they were lost in the line of duty.
-MMoM
-------------------- The flaws we find most objectionable in others are often those we recognize in ourselves.
Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
Boris, the Constellation is a blooper for the same reason the Yamato in TNG was a blooper -- the ship was given a number by people who didn't consult with the person normally responsible for such things, and as a result, the number given onscreen (seen or spoken) was in conflict with the system said person was applying to the series as a whole.
To reference another thread, this is a good example of how conflict results from miscommunication.
--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
Jonah: Have you ever confirmed that Jeffries developed his registry system during the original series? The only basis I know for it is that one Phase II drawing with the note about it being the 17th cruiser design... the one that also says that "A" refers to the first refit of a given ship. So what I'm wondering is how you know that the system was in existence circa 1966 rather than invented circa 1977. I'm not disputing it, I'm just wondering what interview or contact or other evidence you have for it.
The readout in "Space Seed" is unreadable. I have never seen this readout in a book or other written material.
I know that material related to the original show was either destroyed or lost at Paramount Studios. So, how did Mr. Okuda see a display that was shown once and may have become destroyed or lost?
Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Ok, I e-mailed Bjo Trimble to clarify this situation. She says she got some of the numbers used in her Concordance from the actual scripts or production notes -- nothing was made up.
Boris
[ May 05, 2002, 19:05: Message edited by: Boris ]
Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
F. G. Sanford
Ex-Member
posted
This is changing the subject, but I hate all this about a pre refit Miranda. If the Soyuz got retired so early, why couldn't it be the Soyuz be the TOS era one? The Bozeman could be a new build with all those things attached for sensory duties or weapons or whatecer they are.
posted
Well that was the producer's intention. They did, after all, want a TOS era design, but could not have the time to make a new model. Besides, no one is refuting that possibility. We're just saying that a TOS Miranda is (also) a possibility.
-------------------- Is it Friday yet?
Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
Remember, it was not as much a new model, but a combination of that and the time it would take to design and slap together a batch of TOS uniforms and size them to Kelsey and his extras, and the slightly lesser time it would take to build a bridge set contamporary to the TOS era - especially if they wanted a Constitution. Since the whole thing would boil down to a few scant seconds of screen time, the cost-benefit on a TV series budget simply wasn't feasible. Better to use off the rack movie uniforms, a stock bridge set with economical backlit displays, and modify an existing model just enough to make Geordi's "80 years" comment verbally place the ship as from a different era.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
