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
-------------------- The flaws we find most objectionable in others are often those we recognize in ourselves.
Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
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"?
-------------------- “Those people who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do.” — Isaac Asimov Star Trek Minutiae | Memory Alpha
Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
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 ]
Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
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).
-------------------- "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
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 ]
Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged
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.
posted
And that all names of connie-silhouettes were longer than EAGLE.
-------------------- "Never give up. And never, under any circumstances, no matter what - never face the facts." - Ruth Gordon
Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
Yes, the name Eagle seemed to be next to one of the smaller silhouettes, whatever class those were supposed to represent...
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
capped
I WAS IN THE FUTURE, IT WAS TOO LATE TO RSVP
Member # 709
posted
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.
Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
Shik
Starship database: completed; History of Starfleet: done; website: probably never
Member # 343
posted
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.
-------------------- "The French have a saying: 'mise en place'—keep everything in its fucking place!"
Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged
capped
I WAS IN THE FUTURE, IT WAS TOO LATE TO RSVP
Member # 709
posted
but Mim beleives the SotSF dates of 2220
-------------------- "Are you worried that your thoughts are not quite.. clear?"
Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
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 ]
Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
