posted
Eagle, Endeavour, and Potemkin registries are from the sixth movie. The first two ships were on the Operation: Retrieve plans and the last was on an okudagram located at Uhura's station.
The Intrepid's registry was based on a logical inference. When Commodore Stone made his decision to pull a maintenance team off the Intrepid, he was looking at the top of the chart, not the middle, not the bottom. There were two registries in his pov, NCC-1709 and NCC-1831, and the latter had reached 100 percent completion. The commodore wouldn't have pulled off a team working on a ship if the ship wasn't repaired and ready to embark.
We have a very clear image of a Connie with registry NCC-1700 in "Datalore". Unfortunately, this ship bears no name. So, she could be for all intents and purposes an unknown Connie bearing the registry NCC-1700.
As for the Space Seed reference, it is damn near impossible to read the screen. I know for I have tried. The same goes for the reference seen in "The Trouble with Tribbles". With the reissue of the article, we have the only copy of one of those technical screens and they tell us nothing of the registry of the class ship. We are given additional information on the mechanics of phaser techonology and the class structure then in place.
I would be more comfortable if I didn't get the impression that both Greg Jein and Michael Okuda were acting on third source material, not first source material. Both have said there was canonical evidence for the associaton between the name Constitution and the registry NCC-1700 in "Space Seed". If the image preserved in this article was from the episode, this association has been proved to be false. As the issue stands, we are accepting a canonical registry for a ship where there was no proven association between name and registry. So, the question arises, where did the association originated? Did it originate in the production offices of TOS, or in fandom?
Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
I would like to add more on the Constellation. When the vessel was spotted in Spock's scanner, he stated the ship had starship configurations. Two possible meanings: a. Starships of this era shared basic components and were designed in myriad ways using those components; or, b. There was only one starship class in operation and the schematics of this class identified this vessel as the Constellation. I think the former. We have evidence of additional starship classes as inferred from the class structure glimpsed in the technical manual. The Connies were one specific class of starship in Starship Class and were possibly a variant of the basic starship design as indicated by the words "Mk IX".
Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by newark: So, the question arises, where did the association originated? Did it originate in the production offices of TOS, or in fandom?
The association originated with Matt Jefferies, who designed the registry number of the Enterprise (NCC-1701) as an indicator that the ship was the first vessel of Starfleet's 17th heavy cruiser design to be constructed after the prototype. (NCC-1700, the Constitution.)
In accordance with this, Franz Joseph used it in the official Star Trek Blueprints and Star Fleet Technical Manual, which are the source of both computer screens from STIII and "Datalore" that show the number.
-MMoM
-------------------- The flaws we find most objectionable in others are often those we recognize in ourselves.
Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
It could be that the Enterprise NCC-1701 was officially a Starship Class, in that it was the same hull as the Starship NCC-900 (say), but it was of the Constitution Sub-Class (named after Constitution NCC-1700), and so was called Constitution Class for short (as "Constitution Sub-Class of the Starship Class" is a bit unwieldly), including by the computer and some blueprints. Only very official things like the dedication plaque note its true designation.
Thus, ships like the NCC-900s, NCC-1000s and NCC-1600s, are of different Sub-Classes. Eagle NCC-956 was originally built to the base specs of the Starship Class, Constellation NCC-1017 was of the Tribble Sub-Class, etc.
Now, some time before TMP, Starfleet launches a major ship refitting drive. After this, all ships we see are later (TMP style) models. The first Starship Class to be refitted is the Constitution NCC-1700. As all ships will be refitted, and so having different Sub-Classes is a bit irrelevant (possibly also due to a shift in SF policy regarding Class names) the Class is officially redesignated Constitution Class.
As we start to see both Mirandas and Connies in the NCC-1800 range, I am assuming that this is around the time that Starfleet dropped the block-system of numbering and started the sequential system.
(Regarding the DVD cap of the Court Martial scene, I can definately see it being 1631. There isn't actually any dimpling, just a bit sticking out of the side of the bottom bit, which could be a smudge - the rest is completely straight. And I don't see why they would put in a 1831 number when there are no other 1800s that have ever been seen, and the others are all 1700s and 1600s. The 1800s from the movies are probably new builds.)
Excelsior NCC-2000 is most likely a publicity stunt (in the same way that there was a big fuss over the year 2000, SF may be trying to say "look at us, we have started a whole new era of uberships" to the Federation public).
Now, as the refitted Starship Class was redesignated Constitution Class, it makes sense that some other Class was redesignated Miranda Class (if there was a TOS version Miranda, which I think there probably was - maybe it did more menial things that the Starship Class which is why we never see it). Perhaps the Miranda NCC-1500 (first of the Miranda Sub-Class of the Titanic Class) was the first of its Class to be refitted, and so the new Class is designated Miranda Class in its honour.
The TMP-TSFS Enterprise dedication plaque can be easily explained, I think. The Enterprise was originally dedicated when it was built, and so I doubt if it would be proper to "rededicate it", which is basically what changing the wording of the dedication plaque would be doing.
So, in the time of TNG, they know all TOS and Movie Connies as Constitutions for two reasons: 1) the refitted one was called Constitution Class 2) the original famous NCC-1701 was known as Constitution Class, and so people call all the others Connies as well, even though it isn't technically correct
So, when Spock said that the Constellation was of Starship configuration, he meant that it was one of the Sub-Classes of the Starship Class, which it clearly was.
Now you can all pick holes in my little theory, and I'll spend the next month trying to patch it up.
Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
posted
I'm not sure if this should be categorized as a "hole", but it is a major gripe anyway:
Are we really supposed to believe that somebody in his or her or its right mind would name a class of starships "Starship class"?
I mean, "Starship class" is canonical from a solid brass plaque and all that. But it's also crazy. From ENT we know that the word "starship" has been applied as a descriptive noun to spacecraft at least since the 2150s. It would make sense that the word would be applied that way from the very first shiplike startraveling thingamajig on. Which should preclude silly "proper noun" usage at a later date.
To negate the canonical power of that dedication plaque, perhaps we could say that USS Enterprise of Constitution class was awarded a prize for being "Star Ship Class". Perhaps this is even the same thing as awarding "Star Ship Status", which is what was listed on that wall display in "Court Martial". That is, Kirk and his crew had earned X percentage points for "Starship Class" award, while the Vulcan crew of the Intrepid was already well past 100% and was in fact in the process of attaching the award plaque when Stone ordered the work to be halted... At some point after "Court Martial", Kirk's crew reached 100%, too, and got that plaque to be attached in place of the old one that read "USS Enterprise, Constitution Class".
posted
I don't like the existence of USS Starship either, but it seems to fit.
There are several explanations I can think of:
1) Some silly person named a freighter or something Starship, and it did something really special, and so they named a ship in honour of it, even though it was a silly name.
2) As I have already suggested, it was a prototype that never did anything, and so its name wasn't important.
3) Starfleet was trying to make a point - that this would be the definitive class of starship, which would surpass all others. (If this is the case, it would seem that they were right)
4) Someone in Starfleet just chose the name on a whim, and no-one thought to object, not knowing it would be assigned (randomly?) to a class ship.
Also, two other points:
1) This is the organisation that launched the Federation Starship Federation, misspelled Brattain on a ship's hull and painted the wrong number on their latest battleship we are talking about.
2) We don't know (canonically speaking) what USS stands for. Perhaps its not the United Star Ship Starship, but the United Space Ship Starship or United Systems Ship Starship instead.
Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
posted
Maybe Starship Class means the same as Runabout Class does.
A broad, generic term that eventually came to mean a variety of large spacefaring warp-capable Federation vessels. What makes the Connie any more of a "Starship" than the NX? Didn't Archer call his ship a "starship" at one point or another?
The E-D was the "Federation Starship Enterprise", implying that "Starship" is a generic term for pretty much anything, a term coined when the original Enterprise was conceived, and later honed once the number of classes designed began to inflate.
-------------------- Hey, it only took 13 years for me to figure out my password...
Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Futurama Guy: Maybe Starship Class means the same as Runabout Class does.
I can't say I have ever heard anyone say "Runabout Class" before.
quote:Originally posted by Futurama Guy: A broad, generic term that eventually came to mean a variety of large spacefaring warp-capable Federation vessels. What makes the Connie any more of a "Starship" than the NX? Didn't Archer call his ship a "starship" at one point or another?
That's kind of the point. Look at it like this:
Now: USS New Jersey BB 62 is Iowa Class ENT: Enterprise NX-01 is NX Class TNG: USS Enterprise NCC-1701-D is Galaxy Class DS9: USS Defiant NX-74205 is Defiant Class VOY: USS Voyager NCC-74656 is Intrepid Class
It does not make sense to have "Starship Class" meaning anything other than "Of the same design as a ship called Starship", as it has meant nothing else in any other Star Trek series, and means nothing else now.
Archer calls his ship a "starship". Picard calls his ship a "starship". Why, between these two time periods, would SF decide that only one design of ship is in fact a "starship"? If it means all spacegoing vessels, why, when he scanned the Constellation, didn't Spock say "its a Constitution", so Kirk would know it wasn't another type of "starship", like a Hermes or Ptolemy?
quote:Originally posted by Futurama Guy: The E-D was the "Federation Starship Enterprise", implying that "Starship" is a generic term for pretty much anything, a term coined when the original Enterprise was conceived, and later honed once the number of classes designed began to inflate.
So on the one hand it's a generic term for pretty much anything, and on the other it's a specific designation for a type of ship (Constitution Class)? Surely it can't be both? If it's generic in ENT and TNG, why would it be different in TOS?
And the point is that Starship is a name. Surely the Constellation isn't a constellation, and the Federation isn't a federation?
Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
quote:I can't say I have ever heard anyone say "Runabout Class" before.
Sisko used this term in "Emissary".
-------------------- "Never give up. And never, under any circumstances, no matter what - never face the facts." - Ruth Gordon
Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
There's another half-hearted explanation in the fact that it the organization is also called Starfleet. A Starfleet of Starships and Starbases. It could be that during TOS "Starship" referred to a ship in SF service, as opposed to a civilian "spaceship".
The real question is what the heck Jefferies was thinking when he labeled his final schematics as "USS ENTERPRISE - Space Cruiser - Starship Class". Did he have some sort of system in his head? Or did he just make it up, because he "was never a science-fiction guy"? That one sketch where he explains the 1701 does give the impression he tried to make up a system for it.
Perhaps "Starship Class" refers to the "Class One" for main ships (from the SFTM) and "Class Two" for shuttles (from that Voyager episode). But then, why did Mudd at one time claim "he didn't know this was a Starship!". Or did that only mean he didn't know it was a Starfleet ship?
This entire weird TOS thing leaves me with the distinct impression that several behind-the-scenes people had their own system, but never bothered to tell each other. The fuzzy fandom interference doesn't help either.
Antoher question.. Where did that alleged Space Seed display come from? I can't remember ever seeing such technical drawings in TOS (apart from NOMAD perhaps). I suppose it's too early to have come from any fan-source? And what exactly did Franz Joseph know when he did his TM? He must have seen some of these technical drawings because he also calls the Enterprise a "Mk IX".
Now, if it had NOT been used in ENT, we would be much, much happier overall.
1) We could claim that the Constitution class was the very first to be called "starship", giving it extra leeway for funny naming schemes. Those would erode away as time passed after this formative event. Which was in TOS's past already, so Kirk would already be hearing terminology like "J class starship".
2) We wouldn't have to worry about the "five starships named Enterprise" thing, because NX-01 was just a "spaceship" or something equally mundane.
posted
With all respect, but to really explain the TOS "system", we need to at least ignore ENT, but probably also the Okudan TNG system. If we know how the TOS system works within the context of TOS only, we could then try to fit it into the ENT and TNG systems.
quote:I can't say I have ever heard anyone say "Runabout Class" before.
Sisko used this term in "Emissary".
It can also be explained by the fact that: a) there is only one type of runabout b) runabouts are a brand new type of ship
Neither of these could possibly apply to the Starship Class. There is more than one type of starship, and there have been many starships in the past. Sisko was probably trying to be clear. Saying "Danube Class" would probably have met with confusion. (I am guessing here, it's a long time since I have seen the episode)
Also, I doubt Runabout Class was written on their dedication plaques.
Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
posted
Okay, much of this was answered while my post was in editing, but either way...
quote:Originally posted by Phoenix:
quote:Originally posted by Futurama Guy: Maybe Starship Class means the same as Runabout Class does.
I can't say I have ever heard anyone say "Runabout Class" before.
Rewatch the DS9 pilot and you will see the light as Sisko mentioned it there, my resource deficient friend...
quote:Originally posted by Phoenix: Well for one, the system which you are referring was not designed until the Excelsior came around. It does not make sense to have "Starship Class" meaning anything other than "Of the same design as a ship called Starship", as it has meant nothing else in any other Star Trek series, and means nothing else now.
Archer calls his ship a "starship". Picard calls his ship a "starship". Why, between these two time periods, would SF decide that only one design of ship is in fact a "starship"?
So on the one hand it's a generic term for pretty much anything, and on the other it's a specific designation for a type of ship (Constitution Class)? Surely it can't be both? If it's generic in ENT and TNG, why would it be different in TOS?
You absolutely missed the point of what I said. Why would they have a "Starship Class"...after the term was already used to identify the NX and later the Galaxy Class??? Does it then mean that those ships, too, are of the "Starship Class" as well?? A starship is a starship and the term "Starship class" defines the generic term for what it is, a starship. Much like the Runabout Class is a Runabout in broad, generic terms - but a Danube Class in more specific terms. Sisko never said: "Lets go take a Danube to Bajor"...Even though we have heard Picard say "This is the Federation Starship Enterprise". Hell for that matter, when he hailed the Enterprise-C he refrained from naming his ship specifically, but still managed to say: "This is Captain Jean-Luc Picard from the Federation Starship...a Federation Starship..." again implying the term as a generic identification to 'any ship of the stars', until proved otherwise.
quote:Originally posted by Phoenix: If it means all spacegoing vessels, why, when he scanned the Constellation, didn't Spock say "its a Constitution", so Kirk would know it wasn't another type of "starship", like a Hermes or Ptolemy?
Well, it could have been all in the writing (remember how everyone thought of the existance of the "Discovery" because of the writing??). Otherwise, I believe I answered that when I said something like: "The E-D was the "Federation Starship Enterprise", implying that "Starship" is a generic term for pretty much anything, a term coined when the original Enterprise was conceived, and later honed once the number of classes designed began to inflate. A Galaxy Class surely isnt a "Starship Class" and the NX isnt a "STarship Class" yet they were called a 'starship', much the same the Original Enterprise was called a starship. It makes even less sense to designate a "Starship Class" to a design when the term is continued to be associated with other non-Constitution Class ships, both before and after the ship was designed.
quote:Originally posted by Phoenix:
quote:Originally posted by Futurama Guy: What makes the Connie any more of a "Starship" than the NX? Didn't Archer call his ship a "starship" at one point or another?
That's kind of the point.
Then you just contradicted yourself.
-------------------- Hey, it only took 13 years for me to figure out my password...
Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
Holy speculation overload, Batman! ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
