posted
Arg...thats what I have moreless been saying all along...but noooooooooo it was insisted upon in the other thread that it has to be nailed down to a USS Starship and blah blah blah...thank you for validating my point
-------------------- Hey, it only took 13 years for me to figure out my password...
Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Griffworks: Agreed, Shane. That's the only explanation which makes any real sense, if I may use the word to describe any of the many seemingly arbitrary decisions made by TPTB. I would have prefered it remained the "Enterprise class" and even called it that for the longest time. At least, 'til we saw those blueprints in ST:VI.
As far as I'm concerned, if one is referring to the TMP Enterprise, it's 'Enterprise Class.' If the 1701-A, it's 'Constitution Class.'
I'm stubbornly sticking with the 'Enterprise Class' designation for the TMP vessel. As I pointed out, such makes the most continuital sense and is the simplest explanation for everything we've seen on-screen. Besides, as I also said -- according to my official sources at the time of MSG's writing, it was 'Enterprise Class.'
quote:Originally posted by Futurama Guy: Arg...thats what I have moreless been saying all along...but noooooooooo it was insisted upon in the other thread that it has to be nailed down to a USS Starship and blah blah blah...thank you for validating my point
quote:Originally posted by Guardian 2000: Thus, unfortunately, there's an unbroken chain of "Constitution", from Picard's comment to Scotty in "Relics"[TNG] regarding a TOS bridge, to the Star Trek VI incident regarding the 1701-A. And, given the designation of the far different Enterprise-B as still being under the original Excelsior class name, it's relatively certain that while a subclass designation might include the term "Enterprise", the ship herself (and any classmate) remained a Constitution.
I don't remember anything in 'Relics' that can be taken to indicate that the TMP Enterprise was 'Constitution Class.' Seems like Picard mentioned having seen a 'Constitution Class' vessel on display in a museum, but I don't recall if he meant one of the TOS variety or one like the 1701-A. However, 'Relics' does bring up an interesting point:
Scotty, in asking the holodeck computer to show him the Enterprise, says he wants to see the "NCC-1701...no bloody 'A,' 'B,' 'C' or 'D.'"
Without further question, the computer creates for him the bridge of the TOS vessel.
Now, the clear implication is that the TMP Enterprise is entirely missing from consideration at that point. The computer doesn't ask him "Which 'Constitution Class' 1701 do you mean?"
Why would this be so?
One possible explanation is that the computer perceived a clear distinction between the TOS and TMP versions of the vessel, even though they shared a common hull number. Class difference, as well as structural changes, easily could have come into play in its 'decision.'
And I don't know if this means anything, but the computer didn't just begin with the first 'Constitution Class' Enterprise, since it didn't re-create Pike's (or April's) ship.
Just a thought...but for me, the beauty we saw in TMP was, is and ever shall be 'Enterprise Class.'
quote:Originally posted by thelastguardian: I don't remember anything in 'Relics' that can be taken to indicate that the TMP Enterprise was 'Constitution Class.' Seems like Picard mentioned having seen a 'Constitution Class' vessel on display in a museum, but I don't recall if he meant one of the TOS variety or one like the 1701-A. However, 'Relics' does bring up an interesting point....
Shane
When Picard looked around at the bridge and made the distinction that it (the TOS bridge) was of a "Constitution Class" and that there was one like it in the Fleet Museum...I think he was quite specifically referring to bridge upon the ship that he stood, notably the TOS version of a 'Constitution Class' starship.
Unless...there were 2 "Constitution Class" vessels...one being the 'old' and the other being the 'new' variant. Maybe, for whatever reason, the "Constitution Class" had a variant (aka the refit model) that was known as the "Enterprise Class". This could be associated with the USS Enterprise possibly being the first of the old "Constitution Classes" to undergo said refit, and hence, the self named class designation. Perhaps once the remainder of the Constitution fleet was upgraded (or a second generation was built) they reverted back to the familiar "Constitution Class" designation for whatever reason.
It, in anycase, would make for a plausable explanation, such as why during the same 'timeframe' we see the "Miranda Class" 'upgrade' USS Bozeman, designated as a "Soyuz Class", when it was little more than a variant of the original USS Reliant in the first place....
Ah, the foibles of too many cooks in the kitchen!!
-------------------- Hey, it only took 13 years for me to figure out my password...
Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by thelastguardian: I don't remember anything in 'Relics' that can be taken to indicate that the TMP Enterprise was 'Constitution Class.' Seems like Picard mentioned having seen a 'Constitution Class' vessel on display in a museum, but I don't recall if he meant one of the TOS variety or one like the 1701-A. However, 'Relics' does bring up an interesting point....
Shane
When Picard looked around at the bridge and made the distinction that it (the TOS bridge) was of a "Constitution Class" and that there was one like it in the Fleet Museum...I think it was quite blunt distinction that he was referring to recreation he was 'aboard' as being the 'Constitution Class' that we were familiar with during TOS.
Unless...there were 2 "Constitution Class" vessels...one being the 'old' and the other being the 'new' variant. Maybe, for whatever reason, the "Constitution Class" had a variant (aka the refit model) that was known as the "Enterprise Class". This could be associated with the USS Enterprise possibly being the first of the old "Constitution Classes" to undergo said refit, and hence, the self named class designation. Perhaps once the remainder of the Constitution fleet was upgraded (or a second generation was built) they reverted back to the familiar "Constitution Class" designation for whatever reason.
The most plausible reason seems to me to be that the first ship to be upgraded to the new specs (1701-A as opposed to 1701) was in fact the Constitution, probably for PR reasons. Alternatively, the Constitution NCC-1700 had been destroyed by this point and they built another one, NCC-2050 (or something), to be the first of a new class of which the Yorktown/Enterprise was part.
I don't think changing the name of an already built class makes any sense. If I recall correctly, modern navies keep the class name even if the class ship is renamed (Kirov Class had this I think).
Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Phoenix: The most plausible reason seems to me to be that the first ship to be upgraded to the new specs (1701-A as opposed to 1701) was in fact the Constitution, probably for PR reasons. Alternatively, the Constitution NCC-1700 had been destroyed by this point and they built another one, NCC-2050 (or something), to be the first of a new class of which the Yorktown/Enterprise was part. I don't think changing the name of an already built class makes any sense. If I recall correctly, modern navies keep the class name even if the class ship is renamed (Kirov Class had this I think).
Alas, the 1701 (TOS) WAS "Constitution Class", but then the 1701 (TMP-TSFS) WAS "Enterprise Class", but then the 1701-A WAS "Constitution Class", again. Obviously, a class name change occurred...(and BTW, where the hell is NCC-2050 coming from???...anyway) just because they don't do class name changes NOW doesn't mean protoculs won't change in the next 250 years...we are, afterall, comparing sailing vessels to starships...not quite the same fruit of the vine growing here...
-------------------- Hey, it only took 13 years for me to figure out my password...
Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
posted
Class names typically aren't changed, because they are so insignificant and of such little practical value.
Which explains how even the people who operate a ship may be unsure of her class. Is the Reagan a Nimitz class ship or not? Were those old destroyer leaders really of Coontz or Farragut class? After the GUPPY commonalization, were there still half a dozen different submarine classes in the USN, or just the one? Who cares? Not the Navy, clearly.
quote:Originally posted by Phoenix: The most plausible reason seems to me to be that the first ship to be upgraded to the new specs (1701-A as opposed to 1701) was in fact the Constitution, probably for PR reasons. Alternatively, the Constitution NCC-1700 had been destroyed by this point and they built another one, NCC-2050 (or something), to be the first of a new class of which the Yorktown/Enterprise was part. I don't think changing the name of an already built class makes any sense. If I recall correctly, modern navies keep the class name even if the class ship is renamed (Kirov Class had this I think).
But the 1701 (TOS) WAS "Constitution Class", but then the 1701 (TMP-TSFS) WAS "Enterprise Class", but then the 1701-A WAS "Constitution Class", again. Obviously, a class name change occurred...(and BTW, where the hell is NCC-2050 coming from???...anyway) just because they don't do class name changes NOW doesn't mean protoculs won't change in the next 250 years...we are, afterall, comparing sailing vessels to starships...not quite the same fruit of the vine growing here...
I don't think you understood what I said.
There are two main possibilities, if we assume 1701-A used to be another name (I am assuming Yorktown for the sake of this post, but it's not canon):
1700 built, first of Constitution Class 1701 built, Constitution Class 1717 built, Constitution Class 1701 upgraded, first of Enterprise Class 1700 upgraded, first of Constitution Class 2 1717 upgraded, Constitution Class 2 1701 destroyed 1717 renamed 1701-A
1700 built, first of Constitution Class 1701 built, Constitution Class 1717 built, Constitution Class 1701 upgraded, first of Enterprise Class 1700 destroyed/lost 2050 built, first of Constitution Class 2 1717 upgraded, Constitution Class 2 1701 destroyed 1717 renamed 1701-A, Constitution Class 2
2050 is just a number I made up to represent the possible new-build Constitution (I chose it simply because it appears to represent a block between the 2000 of the Excelsior Class and the 2100 of the Federation Class).
The vast majority of SF protocols and traditions are based on "sailing vessels", as you put it (I don't think the Kirov Class is actually a sailing vessel, but anyway), and we have no reason to suggest otherwise for this particular thing.
Apart from exterior appearance, there are a lot of differences between the TMP 1701 and the TFF 1701-A, so why can't they be two different classes?
Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Proteus: Or mabye they decided to just change the name?
But we have no examples in ST of class names being changed, whereas we do have evidence of upgrades/modifications to an existing class being given a new class name (Miranda and Soyuz Classes).
I can only assume that this process was stopped by the time the NCC-1701-B was launched as an Excelsior Class.
Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
posted
Or then these things are decided on a case-by-case basis. Perhaps it was budgetarily easier to "sell" a new class rather than further Miranda units - whereas riding on the Excelsior class name was considered good publicity for the E-B?
And "Enterprise class" might have become politically incorrect by the 2290s, the name being a red flag for Klingons and Romulans alike. Even Starfleet at that point might have hated it, as it reminded them of the mutineer Kirk and of the fact they were ordered by some civilians to rename a ship "Enterprise" for the said pain-in-ass.
quote:Originally posted by Timo: Or then these things are decided on a case-by-case basis. Perhaps it was budgetarily easier to "sell" a new class rather than further Miranda units - whereas riding on the Excelsior class name was considered good publicity for the E-B?
And "Enterprise class" might have become politically incorrect by the 2290s, the name being a red flag for Klingons and Romulans alike. Even Starfleet at that point might have hated it, as it reminded them of the mutineer Kirk and of the fact they were ordered by some civilians to rename a ship "Enterprise" for the said pain-in-ass.
Timo Saloniemi
That doesn't sound like a particularly good way to run a quasi-military organisation.
The way I see it, around the time of TUC they stopped using both new-name-for-new-subclass and registry-numbers-assigned-in-blocks systems, probably because of the increased number of ships around that time.
I see it more as a definite shift in policy than as a random quirky make-it-up-as-you-go-along system.
In TNG, for instance, we have variants on the Galaxy Class that are presumably still Galaxies, and variants on the Nebula that are still Nebulas. But in TOS and the movies, it appears (to me) as if a new design gets a new name.
Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
posted
I think Starfleet is building Constitution Class starships in the 2280's. This class still had importance in an era of uneasy relations with the Klingons. The Enterprise-A may have been one of the newer ships of this class built.
The confusion over Enterprise Class and Constitution Class I think originated on the original series. In the book 'The Making of Star Trek', the author writes of Enterprise-type starships. In the fictional and non-fictional worlds of Star Trek, class and type are used interchangeably.
This is what I understand from reading the book and looking at the available data.
When the series began, the U.S.S. Enterprise is the second ship of the 17th class of starships to be built. She is constructed and commissioned approximately a quarter of a century before. She has twelve 'sisters' of which several are known including the U.S.S. Defiant, the U.S.S. Excalibur, the U.S.S. Exeter, the U.S.S. Hood, the U.S.S. Lexington, and the U.S.S. Potemkin. The U.S.S. Constellation, of a lower number, represents an earlier class of starship and is a variant of the later Enterprise and her sister ships. These ships are supported by other classes of ships.
In 1967, there is a technical readout which shows the class "Constitution Class" and gives information on phaser turrets. This readout which Scotty reads has two possiblities attached to it:
a. this readout is information pertaining to another class of starship; or
b. this readout is information pertaining to the Enterprise and this is the phaser turrets common to her and her sister ships.
The book The Making of Star Trek is published. A class is identified for the Enterprise as Enterprise-type. A Constitution is included in the list. This could be the same ship mentioned above, or another ship.
Years pass, and FJ publishes a technical manual which identifies this class of ship as Constitution Class. Supposedly, this is approved by Gene Roddenberry. From this manual, we get a page showing the schematics of a starship bearing the registry NCC-1700 which is later seen in the movies and TNG. This registry is seen briefly in "Court-Martial".
So, we have two opinions on the class of the Enterprise in 1976. This difference of opinion comtinues into the episode "The Naked Now". The E is identified as a Constitution Class starship. From this episode on, this has been the E's class.
I think the issue arises from a failing on the part of the original production crew. First, they never gave a specific class for the E. Second, they didn't assign registries for these starships. So, not only are we having to work through the failings of these people, we are also having to reconcile the conflicting fan interpretations on registry & class which have become canon via the efforts of a fan, Mr. Okuda.
Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
As far as I'm concerned, and I take canon information to be that which is revealed as dialogue or something seen on-screen, only the cadet bridge simulator was, for whatever reason, named Enterprise Class, not the ship.
Strictly canonically, the TMP-TFF vessel was never referred to by any class name. In TUC, we finally 'know' that the refit starship is identified as Constitution Class. For me, end of story. No point in dwelling on 'could've beens' and 'should've beens'. FASA had me convinced long ago because no other information was out there at the time. The show finally revealed the way it was meant to be. (As some have pointed out before, if Paramount goes to use this information again for any reason, they're likely to fall back to using Constitution Class.)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
