posted
This is a reach, but I wonder if this all has to do with the fact that by ST:II the Enterprise was relegated to a training vessel...and the Enterprise-class simulator represents the only Constitution-class designed as a training vessel at that time...somehow classifying or designating the simulator specifically to the Enterprise brought forth the self named class.
Hell, for that matter, there is no real explaination to this...someone fubared...all that is left is finding someone who can come up with the best fan-conceived explaination for it...
-------------------- Hey, it only took 13 years for me to figure out my password...
Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
posted
I must admit that I really don't see the problem in saying that the refitted 1701 and the 1701-A were different classes. They have completely different internal arrangements and were launched years apart. Why do they have to be the same class simply because they look the same?
Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
capped
I WAS IN THE FUTURE, IT WAS TOO LATE TO RSVP
Member # 709
posted
well, because the 1701 and 1701 refit are the same class DESPITE the fact that they dont look the same..
are we seriously having this much trouble with ONE SIGN in wrath of khan?!.. i accepted 'the subclass used as class' explanation months ago and havent lost any sleep.. i simply have a hard time believing this is even being discussed
-------------------- "Are you worried that your thoughts are not quite.. clear?"
Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
Likely because most people use modern day examples as their rationale, as has already been beaten soundly, tho apparently not to the point of death.
Seriously, the US Navy's vessels that belong to the same class will look almost identical externally. However, there will be internal arrangement differences from ship to ship. Externally, the only differences might be in where masts and navigation lights are located, being off a few meters here and there. Internally, entire sections have a different look, wriring and/or piping is done differently and layout of what's in each section might be completely different. Same class, tho.
While I sort of like the suggestion that Enterprise in TMP thru ST:III was an Enterprise class and that the E-A in ST:IV thru ST:VI was a refit Constitution, it just doesn't really make sense being as the only differences were in the paint job and (conjectural) addition of - or just external markings for - some hatches to the underside of the primary hull. From a strictly logical standpoint, again using today's US Navy as a basis of comparison, it just makes no sense.
Personally, I'd prefer to call it an Enterprise class and be done with it - which is what I used to do 'til I decided to simplify my nomenclature for ease of other folks out there who are more into the canon approach them I am. Gotta have a common point of reference for discussion, after all.
Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
capped
I WAS IN THE FUTURE, IT WAS TOO LATE TO RSVP
Member # 709
posted
seriously, i think that when they were building the simulator wing at the Academy, they were probably putting up the signs for
the Constitution-class Enterprise subclass Constitution-class Endeavour subclass Oberth-class Miranda-class and whatever, and they probably just used the subclass designation because it was much more clear..
just as the blueprints said 'Constitution' and didnt have any information about subclass, because it was redundant, if every member of the constitution-class has modifications that differentiate, it was unnecessary to specify, the blueprints were showing the designations.
te same goes for any computer displays on the ships.. specifying the 'Enterprise' subclass as the class helped the user differentiate the differences of the data he was recieving compared to if he was on a different Constitution subclass..
by the 24th century, no one need make these distinctions.. looking back through history, all these modifications are remembered as the Constitution-class
Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
A better question is why would Mr. �ber Engineer, Montgomery Scott, be looking at general outboard plans for a Constitition class vessel anyway. Woulda been a great moment if we saw him drawing modifications on them.
-------------------- "Well, I mean, it's generally understood that, of all of the people in the world, Mike Nelson is the best." -- ULTRA MAGNUS, steadfast in curmudgeon
Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
I still maintain that an individual ship cannot change classes. Configurations, certainly. But not classes.
The NCC-1701 refit cannot be a new class of vessel because it is the same ship, albeit extensively redesigned, as the vessel from TOS---which we know definitively to be Constitution-class. This coupled with the clearly-seen diagram in TUC, establishing that the NCC-1701-A was also a Connie, is enough for me to maintain my opinion.
Unless of course someone can show me more convincing evidence than that one door sign from TWOK that can easily be re-interpreted as having a different meaning. (i.e., the simulator being used by the class of cadets from the Enterprise, as has been said before...)
-MMoM
-------------------- The flaws we find most objectionable in others are often those we recognize in ourselves.
Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
I don't see why the TUC diagram is a more convincing evidence than the TWOK label. Lee Cole's intention with that label is pretty clear IMO.
-------------------- "Never give up. And never, under any circumstances, no matter what - never face the facts." - Ruth Gordon
Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
Have ya'all considered that in ST:VI, Scotty was looking at the plans for a Constitution class ship, but not the Enterprise? he probobly has a bookcase full of ship plans and just likes to take one out and look at it.
-------------------- joH'a' 'oH wIj DevwI' jIH DIchDaq Hutlh pagh (some days it's just not worth chewing through the leather straps in the morning) The Woozle!
Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim: I still maintain that an individual ship cannot change classes. Configurations, certainly. But not classes.
The NCC-1701 refit cannot be a new class of vessel because it is the same ship, albeit extensively redesigned, as the vessel from TOS---which we know definitively to be Constitution-class. This coupled with the clearly-seen diagram in TUC, establishing that the NCC-1701-A was also a Connie, is enough for me to maintain my opinion.
Unless of course someone can show me more convincing evidence than that one door sign from TWOK that can easily be re-interpreted as having a different meaning. (i.e., the simulator being used by the class of cadets from the Enterprise, as has been said before...)
-MMoM
For me, it simply makes no sense to have two such radically different vessel types (the TOS Constitution Class and the refit Enterprise) going by the same class designation.
At the time of the refit, inasmuch as Enterprise was the first such refit, there surely still were TOS Constitution Class vessels floating around out there. And as more 'refit-type' vessels were refitted or built new from the keel up and their numbers grew, the need for class distinction and clarification would only have increased.
At the time I wrote MSG (1986), I was told unequivocally by those in the know that the class of the refit was 'Enterprise.' The signage on the door of the simulator in ST II (and its meaning is clear, I would say) is further evidence.
It is only a single, revisionist sheet of paper, seen in the final classic Trek film, that has thrown a monkey wrench into everything.
Speaking personally, I'm not going to toss out the evidence of my eyes (the ST II signage) and ears (the information given me directly) just because, more than ten years after the making of TMP, someone decided they liked 'Constitution' better than 'Enterprise' and were in a position to slip it into a film.
I believe the 'explanation' I posted earlier for the 1701 refit being 'Enterprise Class' and the 1701-A being 'Constitution Class' is a sound one that harmonizes everything we've seen on-screen, and it works for me.
But that and a quarter will get you a phone call.
If the 'Enterprise Class' thing doesn't work for everybody, that's fine. I can hardly be adamant about it, or about any hole-patching 'theory' of my own creation. We're here to have fun, and to share our thoughts and ideas, and to do our best to trowel over the gaps left in the ST universe by its creators.
Since Star Trek is meant to be enjoyed and not to be divisive, the best advice I can pass along was given to me once by Mike Okuda, who said that it is up to each Trek fan to decide for himself what is canon and what is not, what is on-screen 'truth' and what is not, and what is Star Trek and what is not.
quote:Originally posted by TheWoozle: Have ya'all considered that in ST:VI, Scotty was looking at the plans for a Constitution class ship, but not the Enterprise? he probobly has a bookcase full of ship plans and just likes to take one out and look at it.
quote:Have ya'all considered that in ST:VI, Scotty was looking at the plans for a Constitution class ship, but not the Enterprise? he probobly has a bookcase full of ship plans and just likes to take one out and look at it.
Yeah, Woozle, and that might be what he was doing BEFORE the shit hit the fan, but I think even Scotty has a better sense of duty then you imply.
quote:Originally posted by TheWoozle: Have ya'all considered that in ST:VI, Scotty was looking at the plans for a Constitution class ship, but not the Enterprise?
It's not very clear, because Scotty's arm is in the way, but I can identify the letters "RISE" on it, which propaply means "ENTERPRISE".
-------------------- "Never give up. And never, under any circumstances, no matter what - never face the facts." - Ruth Gordon
Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged
quote: Unless of course someone can show me more convincing evidence than that one door sign from TWOK that can easily be re-interpreted as having a different meaning. (i.e., the simulator being used by the class of cadets from the Enterprise, as has been said before...)
A theory which makes about as much sense as renaming your high school's gymnasium for the senior class every year.
To throw some more real-world arguments in (sorry, Jeff ), I spent more than six years in the Air Force as a flight simulator technician, working on sims for 4 different aircraft. The simulators were always referred to by the type of aircraft they were patterned after and the model, if there were more than one in the facility (my last shop had both B-52 G and H model sims). We never referred to them by the name of the class, because the sims didn't belong to the student pilots. They were ours!
-------------------- The difference between genius and idiocy? Genius has its limits.
Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by thelastguardian: ...I believe the 'explanation' I posted earlier for the 1701 refit being 'Enterprise Class' and the 1701-A being 'Constitution Class' is a sound one that harmonizes everything we've seen on-screen, and it works for me.
Well I'm convinced. Just so long as it's just a semi-official nickname used for ease of reference until all the old TOS Connies were eith refitted or decommissioned. To celebrate, here is a lovely new logo. I'm definatly in a logoy mood this month...but fear not, I shall be back onto starships soon enough.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
