The Constellation's registry number

[Warped9]

sbk1234 wrote:

---

My "in-universe" explaination was that they had numbered it the same as an earlier Constellation. However, it was a different numbreing system back then, and instead of adding a letter (such as ncc-1701-A), they just used the same number.

This idea always worked for me.

[blssdwlf]

Timo wrote:

---

The one and only school of thought that will have to go on recess would be the one following Jeffries' original idea about the 17th design... This would be more contradicted than supported by the terminology used here.

The existence of the "Starship Class" plaque pretty much excluded the possibility of the Enterprise being the "1st bird of the 17th design". Then again, it isn't the first time the artist's intent is trumped by other production decisions.

[BK613]

find myself more interested in the histories of the various proposed class names for the Enterprise than another round of which is correct?...what publications they appeared in etc.

[Robert Comsol]

blssdwlf wrote:

---

The existence of the "Starship Class" plaque pretty much excluded the possibility of the Enterprise being the "1st bird of the 17th design". Then again, it isn't the first time the artist's intent is trumped by other production decisions.

Apparently "Starship Class" is just an umbrella term for the most powerful Starfleet vessels and helps to distinct from destroyers and scouts.

However, it wouldn't allow the distinction of inherently differently "Starship Class" designs like the USS Enterprise compared to the USS Reliant, a "starship", too.

Consequently, you have a sub-classification, that's proven canon by the (long range) primary phaser schematic seen in "The Trouble With Tribbles".
It's a phaser of a "starship" (= Starship Class) which obviously belongs to the "Constitution Class".

All the ships of the 16th design (Constitution Class), 17th design (Enterprise Class) and of the 18th design (Miranda Class) are "starships".

Bob

@ BK613

"Constellation Class" - various novel adaptations (I think James Blish & company)
"Constitution Class" - Bjo Trimble, Greg Jein and Franz Joseph publications
"Enterprise Class" - Making of Star Trek, Matt Jefferies, official TMP Blueprints

[blssdwlf]

Robert Comsol wrote:

---

Apparently "Starship Class" is just an umbrella term for the most powerful Starfleet vessels and helps to distinct from destroyers and scouts.

It could be an umbrella term, but it is harder to defend as that term because of the use of "Class", IMO. After thinking about it, I would think "Starship Type" makes more sense as an umbrella term. Or some number or letter designation after the word "Class" like "Starship Class I".

With other ship's plaques stating their class name in the plaque it also seems unusual for "Starship Class" to not also be a class name.

Robert Comsol wrote:

---

However, it wouldn't allow the distinction of inherently differently "Starship Class" designs like the USS Enterprise compared to the USS Reliant, a "starship", too.

A "Starship Class" could still be a distinct set of ships if referred to specifically by it's class name while "starship Enterprise" and "starship Reliant" would fall under the generic "starship" term. It's alot like using "Dreadnought Class" vs the generic term "dreadnought" Texas.

As to why someone would name a starship, USS Starship, that's something the production crew should've worked out before making the plaque

Robert Comsol wrote:

---

Consequently, you have a sub-classification, that's proven canon by the (long range) primary phaser schematic seen in "The Trouble With Tribbles".
It's a phaser of a "starship" (= Starship Class) which obviously belongs to the "Constitution Class".

All the ships of the 16th design (Constitution Class), 17th design (Enterprise Class) and of the 18th design (Miranda Class) are "starships".

Let's say the TOS Enterprise belonged to the Constitution Class. That again negates the "1st bird of the 17th design" idea. The USS Constitution would've been the 1st ship.

What we do have in TOS is the bridge plaque with "Starship Class" and the tech diagram with "Constitution Class" but nothing about Nth design. The Enterprise doesn't get to be the "1st bird" or lead ship until her big moment in TMP and confirmed in TWOK that she's her own class (or subclass of the Constitution Class). That puts suspect to the whole "Nth design" idea, IMHO.

[CrazyMatt]

Another interesting tidbit: look closely at the font of the decal of the Constellation's name... it's not quite the same as the font shown on the 3 or 11 footers of the Enterprise. A bit more Arial vice the Amarillo of the latter.

[Warped9]

It's pretty self-evident that any manned vehicle capable of voyaging between star systems is in fact a "starship" even if said vehicle is a relativistic vessel going slower than light. Of course that doesn't mean everyone automatically interprets it that way.

By the early to mid 23rd century the term "starship" could come to mean something more specific in context of TOS. It might have something to do with the ship's intended primary role: extended deep space exploration. By the time of Pike and Kirk the Enterprise and her sister ships are recognized as something special, something meant to operate more autonomously for extended periods to probe deep into unfamiliar and unexplored territory. They are the Federation's vanguard.

And so the TOS Enterprise can easily fit into three classifications at the same time.
- Star Ship class (primary mission profile)
- Heavy Cruiser class (type of vessel)
- Constitution-class (ship's configuration)

When the ship is refitted in TMP we can assume its configuration has changed now to Enterprise-class because she is the first of her kind even though the other two classifications can still apply.

Sometime after TMP the "Star Ship class" designation falls into disuse for whatever cultural/political/organizational reason. Maybe the Federation pulls back on extensive deep space exploration or some other reason. In TOS' time there might have been a pioneering/exploratory push fuelled by cultural and political reasons as well as great technological advances which fed into the idea of a "starship" being something really special by what it's meant to do and what it represents: the Federations noblest ideals.

Kirk's line of "only twelve like it in the fleet" doesn't mean there are only twelve starships or only twelve star faring ships in existence. It can't credibly mean that. It's more likely his reference means twelve ships specifically designed, fitted and manned to do what no other vessel could do (at that time).


Merick: "He commands not just a spaceship, but a starship. A very special vessel and crew."

Stone: "Not one man in a million can do what you and I have done: command a starship."

What makes Kirk and the Enterprise and her crew special (as well as the other eleven ships) is because they're meant to be the best of the best assigned to do something seen as grander and more hazardous than anything comparable.


Just my two cents.

[Shawnster]

Merick's comment does make it seem like there is a difference between a "Spaceship" and a "Starship." While it may be a matter of quality over quantity, it still lends support to the idea that 23rd century nomenclature makes a distinct difference between the two.

[Warped9]

Shawnster wrote:

---

Merick's comment does make it seem like there is a difference between a "Spaceship" and a "Starship." While it may be a matter of quality over quantity, it still lends support to the idea that 23rd century nomenclature makes a distinct difference between the two.

Which tends to support what I'm saying. For a time during the 23rd century a starship was seen as something special.

It's kind of like saying, "Now that's a real car rather than just a convenience on wheels."

[Robert Comsol]

blssdwlf wrote:

---

Let's say the TOS Enterprise belonged to the Constitution Class. That again negates the "1st bird of the 17th design" idea. The USS Constitution would've been the 1st ship.

What we do have in TOS is the bridge plaque with "Starship Class" and the tech diagram with "Constitution Class" but nothing about Nth design. The Enterprise doesn't get to be the "1st bird" or lead ship until her big moment in TMP and confirmed in TWOK that she's her own class (or subclass of the Constitution Class). That puts suspect to the whole "Nth design" idea, IMHO.

I'm a bit surprised, what happened to your "Thermian" approach?

A) I understood that you base your research entirely on what can actually be seen and heard in TOS. Even in HD the Thermians wouldn't have been capable of reading Scotty's viewscreen schematic in "The Trouble With Tribbles".

This in essentially a behind-the-scenes information (I understood you usually tend to ignore) just as Matt Jefferies' "17th design statement" and The Making of Star Trek referring twice to (TOS) "Enterprise Class".

B) Let's assume the Thermians would have been capable of reading Scotty's viewscreen schematic, how would they have concluded that viewing the schematic of a primary phaser of a starship of a Constitution Class is evidence that the TOS Enterprise has to belong to this "Constitution Class"?

Again, Scotty is not reading the technical manual of the Enterprise but merely a technical "journal", that could show a historic phaser bank same as when Khan was / would have been viewing these materials in "Space Seed". Of course, for him, it wasn't historic but still futuristic stuff he was trying to catch up with.

Bob

[blssdwlf]

Robert Comsol wrote:

---

Consequently, you have a sub-classification, that's proven canon by the (long range) primary phaser schematic seen in "The Trouble With Tribbles".
It's a phaser of a "starship" (= Starship Class) which obviously belongs to the "Constitution Class".

All the ships of the 16th design (Constitution Class), 17th design (Enterprise Class) and of the 18th design (Miranda Class) are "starships".

blssdwlf wrote:

---

Let's say the TOS Enterprise belonged to the Constitution Class. That again negates the "1st bird of the 17th design" idea. The USS Constitution would've been the 1st ship.

What we do have in TOS is the bridge plaque with "Starship Class" and the tech diagram with "Constitution Class" but nothing about Nth design. The Enterprise doesn't get to be the "1st bird" or lead ship until her big moment in TMP and confirmed in TWOK that she's her own class (or subclass of the Constitution Class). That puts suspect to the whole "Nth design" idea, IMHO.

Robert Comsol wrote:

---

I'm a bit surprised, what happened to your "Thermian" approach?

My "Thermian" approach would've stuck to the Enterprise being "Starship Class".

My response to your comment (in bold) was a hypothetical following the line of reasoning and evidence you presented that she "obviously belonged to the Constitution Class" instead.

edit: Basically the idea of a class name other than Enterprise Class conflicts with the idea of the Enterprise being the 1st ship of the 17 design.

I should've been more clear on that.

[Robert Comsol]

blssdwlf wrote:

---

My "Thermian" approach would've stuck to the Enterprise being "Starship Class".

Yes, according to the bridge dedication plaque.

blssdwlf wrote:

---

My response to your comment (in bold) was a hypothetical following the line of reasoning and evidence you presented that she "obviously belonged to the Constitution Class" instead.

Excuse me, what evidence actually is there that "she" (i.e. the Enterprise) "obviously" belongs to the Constitution Class because of the viewscreen schematic? That's been my whole point during this and the other debate

All we see is a Mark 9/01 primary phaser that belongs to a starship of a Constitution Class.

If you felt that there is only one "starship class" than "Constitution Class" would be totally redundant or even illogical unless there were several starship design differences as a sub-classification.

Bob

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Warped9 wrote:

---

And so the TOS Enterprise can easily fit into three classifications at the same time.
- Star Ship class (primary mission profile)
- Heavy Cruiser class (type of vessel)
- Constitution-class (ship's configuration)

I have no problem with that.

In fact we know that all three of those apply, because various canon sources have said so. The numerous 'starship' references in TOS, ditto for 'Heavy Cruiser', and (if I may mention TNG here) Picard flat-out says that the 1701 is Constitution class in "The Naked Now" and "Relics".

So they can be, and in fact are, all true.

[BK613]

Mr. Laser Beam wrote:

---

I have no problem with that.

In fact we know that all three of those apply, because various canon sources have said so. The numerous 'starship' references in TOS, ditto for 'Heavy Cruiser', and (if I may mention TNG here) Picard flat-out says that the 1701 is Constitution class in "The Naked Now" and "Relics".

So they can be, and in fact are, all true.

The curious thing about Relics will be when this scene becomes legible. Will it say Constitution or Starship?

[blssdwlf]

Robert Comsol wrote:

---

Excuse me, what evidence actually is there that "she" (i.e. the Enterprise) "obviously" belongs to the Constitution Class because of the viewscreen schematic? That's been my whole point during this and the other debate

I'm quoting what you wrote.

Robert Comsol wrote:

---

It's a phaser of a "starship" (= Starship Class) which obviously belongs to the "Constitution Class".

You wrote, "Starship Class which obviously belongs to the Constitution Class." If the Enterprise is a Starship Class, by the logic in your writing, she's a "Constitution Class".

And to recap, if the Enterprise was either "Starship Class" or "Constitution Class" she cannot be the "1st bird of the 17th design" as she is not the lead ship.