RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 135,675
Posts: 5,212,691
Members: 24,202
Currently online: 560
Newest member: wendelcarree


Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.


Go Back   The Trek BBS > Misc. Star Trek > Trek Tech

Trek Tech Pass me the quantum flux regulator, will you?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old September 5 2013, 06:53 PM   #211
J.T.B.
Commodore
 
J.T.B.'s Avatar
 
Re: Was the Enterprise A actually the Yorktown?

Robert Comsol wrote: View Post
To me it looks like our interpretation of "canon" is incompatible.

The way I see it "canon" is foremost "first comes, first serves", also to ensure respect for the intentions of the original creators. I think we all owe them that much, at least.

It seems that according to your interpretation of "canon" what is said last and alters, revises or overwrites previous canon is the neo-canon. Thus neo-canon prospers at the expense of previous canon and therefore has a somewhat ungrateful and parasitical nature, IMHO.
You are not talking about a single work by one author, but about a long-standing commercial property that has been and continues to be produced by many different people. It has been and will be updated, modified, or altered in any way the owners or their designated representatives see fit, including possible contraction of what came before. And this was true almost right from the beginning: In TMoST, Gene Roddenberry was already contradicting TOS while it was still on the air.

The results are not always satisfying to me, personally, but to expect otherwise is not realistic.
J.T.B. is online now   Reply With Quote
Old September 6 2013, 06:36 AM   #212
Albertese
Commodore
 
Albertese's Avatar
 
Location: Portland, OR
Re: Was the Enterprise A actually the Yorktown?

(Not that anyone cares about my two cents... but I'll toss 'em in here anyhow...)

The fact is that any work of fiction is a continual process of editing. What I mean to say is that if you, let's say, read a novel, you are reading the final-est version of the story which the the author sent to press. Along the way, the setting, the characters, the events and the order they happen in are massaged continually until they finally arrive where the author feels they best serve the story. But, in a sense, what you are reading is really just a snap-shot of the story in a given editorial phase.

Sometimes even the author isn't happy with it and wants to go back and fiddle with it a bit more. George Lucas is a prime example of this. For better or worse, this guy just can't seem to let his vision of Star Wars alone. There have been, what, three or four different editions of the trilogy with stuff added or deleted or otherwise edited in some fashion?

A weekly television show, like Star Trek is a different animal. The author (or in this case, Executive Producer supported by a number of individual authors) doesn't really get the chance to go back and monkey with it in hopes of refining it to a "better" post-release edit. But, they do get to edit themselves and refine ideas as the show progresses. As has been pointed out, Star Trek began with the Enterprise flying under EUSPA authority, then after a while became under Star Fleet command (while assuming that it was under SFC the whole time) and much later going from being an Earth ship to working for the UFP, again, with the assumption that it had always been working for the UFP. Also, the ship's power: In seasons one and two, most references seem to indicate strongly that the generation happens in the nacelles, yet many third season plots seem to indicate a backstage assumption that the generator was indeed in the hull at least near-ish the Main Engineering room.

It seems to me that this thread is mainly a few guys passionately arguing their opinions (dare I say evangelizing!). Depending on your assumptions, either position could be valid. I enjoy following Robert Comsol's mental gymnastics, but, if I have one criticism, it's that one need not be so violent about where one draws the G.U.T. line. You, sir, rail against Unified Theory attempting to tie together the entire franchise, yet embrace a Unified Theory tying together the original 80 hours, even though the evidence for an evolving backstage concept is readily demonstrable no matter where one draws the G.U.T. line.

Now, without going to re-read TMoST before I type this, my recollection of all the "Enterprise Class Starship" business is that this was mainly mentioned in memos written as the show was getting its "space-legs" so-to-speak in the formative times before "Star Fleet" or "the Federation" were nailed down.

I think it's fair to say that Gene Roddenberry and co. were probably on-board with the Constitution-class nomenclature from early on and that Kahn's viewer graphic, later recycled as Scotty's Tech Journal were intended to indicate a class for our intrepid hero's starship--other logical assumptions be damned. My reason for thinking such is that the original Star Trek Concordance which was made while the show was still on air states as much, and it was written my Bjo Trimble, who seems to have had extraordinary access to cast and crew while assembling her references. Also, GR's use of the term in his TMP novelization and in "The Naked Now" (the first production episode of TNG, when GR was still very much involved with the show) suggest to me that he was perfectly fine the Enterprise being a Constitution-class starship.

My take? I figure the Enterprise was built as a Constitution-class Cruiser. At this point it would be considered a "CRUISER-CLASS." After Kirk's first mission to the galactic rim, she was refit for a larger crew and a longer (read: 5 year) exploration mission and thus received the much coveted "STARSHIP-CLASS" status and got a shiny new dedication plaque to tell you about it. After that, it was decided to use Enterprise as a test-bed for basically everything and she was refit like mad (TMP) thus making her a unique vessel and identified as Enterprise-class (TWOK). Lessons were learned, other ships were built using the resulting technology. By the time of TUC, Enterprise had been destroyed over Genesis and all other Constitution-class ships had either been mothballed or refit to a common new standard (like the 1701-A in TFF and TUC), so they retained the Constitution-class designation, since all were the same now. Imagine some bureaucratic bookkeeping logic to make this all work and it makes sense to me, while still fitting all the on-screen evidence.

Your mileage may freely vary.

I'm going to bed. Later.

--Alex
__________________
Check out my website: www.goldtoothstudio.squarespace.com

Last edited by Albertese; September 6 2013 at 01:12 PM.
Albertese is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 6 2013, 02:14 PM   #213
Robert Comsol
Commodore
 
Robert Comsol's Avatar
 
Location: USS Berlin
Re: Was the Enterprise A actually the Yorktown?

Albertese wrote: View Post
(Not that anyone cares about my two cents... but I'll toss 'em in here anyhow...)
I do because you're open-minded and usually don't cling on conjectural assumptions that turned into dogma, so thanks for your feedback.

Albertese wrote: View Post
It seems to me that this thread is mainly a few guys passionately arguing their opinions (dare I say evangelizing!). Depending on your assumptions, either position could be valid.
Yes, because of different interpretations of "canon". I'm not aware that Gene Roddenberry left us with a Rosetta Stone how to interpret canon one way or the other.

Albertese wrote: View Post
I enjoy following Robert Comsol's mental gymnastics, but, if I have one criticism, it's that one need not be so violent about where one draws the G.U.T. line. You, sir, rail against Unified Theory attempting to tie together the entire franchise, yet embrace a Unified Theory tying together the original 80 hours, even though the evidence for an evolving backstage concept is readily demonstrable no matter where one draws the G.U.T. line.
This must be a misunderstanding. I do not rail against G.U.T. in general. On the contrary I love to see gaps filled and back stories provided which constitute threads to weave a larger tapestry of the vision that is Star Trek.

I only rebel when I see threads introduced which deliberately or accidentally remove already existing "threads". Usually the result of inadequate research and/or lack of interest ("It's just a Show") and/or personal bias (e.g. Romulan Star Empire crest featured in "The Enterprise Incident") or a combination of either three.

To me that is essentially bad and/or unethical behavior and I for one can't possibly accept this as a "truth". I do not try to find fault. On the contrary I look for solutions how to rationalize such latest revisions and alterations but, and again, it's these revisions and alterations that require a rationalization, then, but not the source material.

Albertese wrote: View Post
I think it's fair to say that Gene Roddenberry and co. were probably on-board with the Constitution-class nomenclature from early on and that Kahn's viewer graphic, later recycled as Scotty's Tech Journal were intended to indicate a class for our intrepid hero's starship.
Sorry, but I think the exact contrary is the case here. D.C. Fontana said they should establish the names of the "Starship Class" sister ships of Enterprise. Bob Justman wrote back "Enterprise Starship Class". In the other threads it was suggested he didn't mean it (how can we be sure?), but then he could simply spared himself the letters and just say "Enterprise starships" (just as many here spare themselves the typing when they use "Connie").
And the description of the mission and men clearly reads "Enterprise-class starships".

Had the Producers seriously accepted Constitution Class they would have never made any statements such as this because these definitely suggest otherwise!

And, again, the schematic of "Constitution Class" just popped up in the context of one of several "starship manuals" in "Space Seed".

Albertese wrote: View Post
My reason for thinking such is that the original Star Trek Concordance which was made while the show was still on air states as much, and it was written my Bjo Trimple, who seems to have had extraordinary access to cast and crew while assembling her references.
In the other threads the possibility was suggested that Bjo was deliberately replacing "Starship Class" references with "Constitution Class" and that she simply adopted Greg Jein's NCC registries (I had always wondered where these had come from until I finally read Greg Jein's treatise. It is a must-read to understand where "Constitution Class" came from and especially how! ).

Albertese wrote: View Post
Also, GR's use of the term in his TMP novelization and in ""The Naked Now" (the first production episode of TNG, when GR was still very much involved with the show) suggest to me that he was perfectly fine the Enterprise being a Constitution-class starship.
Valid Points. Of course we need to consider that Gene Roddenberry personally and with his signature authenticated the official TMP blueprints which said "new Enterprise Class" which is also the designation that ended up on the bridge simulator door sign.
It's possible that Constitution Class starships (16th design) are stronger than Enterprise Class starships, so in the context of the TMP novelization you'd wonder how your strongest starships would cope with the latest Klingon Battlecruisers.

Maybe I'm the only one to see a pattern in the M-5 attack on the other starships in "The Ultimate Computer". The M-5 didn't take out the lead ship but first and foremost a stronger one of the Constitution Class (USS Excalibur, NCC-1664).

As for the original scene in "The Naked Now", as blssdwlf has repeatedly noted, we do only see an Enterprise refit shape which Picard comments with "Constitution Class" (which NCC-1701-A obviously is). Here they could have used the erroneous screen graphic from ST III but still they didn't.

If the Constitution Class had been the first design series resembling the later NCC-1701 and the last to undergo a refit (NCC-1701-A) it stands to reason, IMHO, that 80 years later people in the 24th Century no longer make a Vulcan-style differentiation but refer to a particular line that's remembered best, i.e. the Constitution Class (which is my personal rationalization for "Relics" and the subsequent DS9 Episode with the erroneous deck numbering).

And I've presented a simple G.U.T. rationalization without convolution (and which has the advantage that it doesn't work at the expense of the original creators).

Bob
__________________
"The first duty of every Starfleet officer is to the truth" Jean-Luc Picard
"We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them."
Albert Einstein
Robert Comsol is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 6 2013, 02:58 PM   #214
Dukhat
Commodore
 
Dukhat's Avatar
 
Location: Baltimore, MD
Re: Was the Enterprise A actually the Yorktown?

Robert Comsol wrote: View Post
I do because you're open-minded and usually don't cling on conjectural assumptions that turned into dogma, so thanks for your feedback.
__________________
“Don’t believe everything you read on the internet.”
– Benjamin Franklin
Dukhat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 7 2013, 12:35 AM   #215
Albertese
Commodore
 
Albertese's Avatar
 
Location: Portland, OR
Re: Was the Enterprise A actually the Yorktown?

Robert Comsol wrote: View Post

...
It's possible that Constitution Class starships (16th design) are stronger than Enterprise Class starships, so in the context of the TMP novelization you'd wonder how your strongest starships would cope with the latest Klingon Battlecruiser.

...

Bob
I think this is my main objection to your proposal. We get the idea throughout TOS that Enterprise (of series 17) is the top-of-the-line A-number-one type of vessel. Now, in princible, I have no problem with a subsequent design being in some ways inferior to its predecessor, (for example, the series 18 ship, like Reliant would seem less capable in some ways than the series 17 ships... more so in others) but I'm left with from viewing the show that NCC-17:01 is supposedly the hotness all the time. I would think that should rule out the possibility that series 16 would be the liklier match against a new Klingon ship. Since Enterprise was the best-in-show for Star Fleet, and it was series 17, then we must conclude that Kirk was wondering how the new Klingon ship would fair against the current best Star Fleet had to offer, which, seems to me would be a series 17 ship, as those have already outclassed series 16. Therefore, it seems very unlikely to me that the Constitution-class of Roddenberry's TMP novelization refers to the series 16 ships.

Anyway, I'm goofing off at work right now typing this, so I better get back to business.

--Alex
__________________
Check out my website: www.goldtoothstudio.squarespace.com
Albertese is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 7 2013, 02:26 AM   #216
Robert Comsol
Commodore
 
Robert Comsol's Avatar
 
Location: USS Berlin
Re: Was the Enterprise A actually the Yorktown?

Albertese wrote: View Post
We get the idea throughout TOS that Enterprise (of series 17) is the top-of-the-line A-number-one type of vessel.
Agreed, but what exactly defines top-of-the-line? Armament or other qualities like versatility, improved sensor equipment, faster warp engines, third M/AM reactor, capability to perform independent long range missions ("5-year-mission") without fuel stops etc.?

There are several indications that the pre-TOS era saw its fill of armed conflict (e.g. Donatu V) and starships with better firepower might have been the preference of these days (i.e. 16th starship series).

At the beginning of TOS (starting with "The Cage") we see an era of relative peace, so the Enterprise might have been designed at a period were superior firepower was a lesser concern and other capabilities mattered (before tensions with the Klingons and Romulans became a major issue, again).

And if the Enterprise had been the strongest ship in Starfleet, why choose her for the M-5 test and send two "inferior" starships of the 16th design (Excalibur and Potemkin) against her?

Since the other four starships were prepared only for a simulation, why didn't that smart M-5 computer take out the lead ship Lexington (17th design) first and go after the other starships in the following confusion and chaos? To destroy the "inferior" starship first while you still got "bigger fish to fry" doesn't seem that smart, but if the if the M-5 considered the Excalibur to be a bigger threat its actions would make more sense to me.

Bob
__________________
"The first duty of every Starfleet officer is to the truth" Jean-Luc Picard
"We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them."
Albert Einstein
Robert Comsol is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 7 2013, 07:30 AM   #217
Avro Arrow
Captain
 
Location: Ontario, Canada
Re: Was the Enterprise A actually the Yorktown?

Robert Comsol wrote: View Post
And if the Enterprise had been the strongest ship in Starfleet, why choose her for the M-5 test and send two "inferior" starships of the 16th design (Excalibur and Potemkin) against her?

Since the other four starships were prepared only for a simulation, why didn't that smart M-5 computer take out the lead ship Lexington (17th design) first and go after the other starships in the following confusion and chaos? To destroy the "inferior" starship first while you still got "bigger fish to fry" doesn't seem that smart, but if the if the M-5 considered the Excalibur to be a bigger threat its actions would make more sense to me.

Bob
What? None of the ships in the task force had visible registries in the original version of the episode. As far as the original intent of the episode goes, Enterprise and M-5 were going up against four other ships that were each the same as Enterprise. Potemkin and Excalibur didn't get associated with 16xx registries until after the fact. So the order in which M-5 took out the other ships doesn't really matter, since they were all intended to be equal strength.

And even if we assume that Excalibur and Potemkin are inferior to Enterprise, why would that invalidate the M-5 test choice? They're still pitting the Enterprise against four "enemy" ships... on paper Enterprise should always lose that engagement, even if two of the ships are from the previous class of ship.

(And yes, I understand that your theory is that Excalibur and Potemkin were actually superior to Enterprise, but I'm addressing the question of why SF would send two "inferior" ships in the first quoted paragraph. If the 16th design was superior, sending one 17 against two 17s and two 16s would be even more unbalanced than if the 17th design was superior to the 16th. If they were even intended to be two different designs in the first place. Which they weren't. )
Avro Arrow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 7 2013, 07:50 AM   #218
Albertese
Commodore
 
Albertese's Avatar
 
Location: Portland, OR
Re: Was the Enterprise A actually the Yorktown?

I won't bother quoting the whole post, but I gotta side with Avro Arrow on this one. I really don't think an argument can be drawn from the M-5 experiment.

However, you may have a point regarding superior firepower in a series 16 ship over a series 17. At least in principle.

And, while I grant that you do indeed have a valid point, I'm still not sure it's a point that needs to be made. See my last paragraph in post #212 for an equally valid series of assumptions where the name Constitution still ends up on the series 17 ships. It also allows us to have our "Enterprise-class" cake and eat it too.

I must admit, you're about to inspire me to break out TMoST and try to suss out exactly when in the production timeline the Enterprise-class business happened and if it remained persistent after the "Space Seed" pre-production.

At any rate, I respect your right to hold your own opinion and I thank you for sharing it. It's been some interesting food for thought.

--Alex
__________________
Check out my website: www.goldtoothstudio.squarespace.com
Albertese is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 7 2013, 11:45 AM   #219
Robert Comsol
Commodore
 
Robert Comsol's Avatar
 
Location: USS Berlin
Re: Was the Enterprise A actually the Yorktown?

Avro Arrow wrote: View Post
None of the ships in the task force had visible registries in the original version of the episode. As far as the original intent of the episode goes, Enterprise and M-5 were going up against four other ships that were each the same as Enterprise.
Agreed. But IMO, we can't have cake and eat it, too, i.e. accept Greg Jein's conjectural "Constitution Class" but disregard his conjectural registries.

Let's not kid ourselves. Greg Jein's treatise is obviously the reason why "Constitution Class" made it into the Star Trek Concordance along with the registries in the first place which was adopted by the Okuda's Encyclopedia and therefore constitutes the "dogma" Dukhat found so funny (good, I'd rather be the reason for fun than agony).

"Millions" of fans accepted the content of these publications as canon and in good faith assuming that the "experts" had performed accurate research and would be able to provide evidence if ever asked for.

I can't possibly find fault with Jein's interpretation of the text in The Making of Star Trek that let him conclude there were only 12 starships in Starfleet and therefore the registries in the starship status chart from "Court Martial" belonged to these 12. Though I equally don't think that's what the producers had really wanted, my personal preference here is irrelevant.

The similar look of the 16th and 17th starship design would conveniently serve to explain the "Enterprise Class" (NCC-1701) vs. "Constitution Class" (NCC-1701-A) and be a historic precedent enabling the rationalization of the similar look of the 18th design (Miranda) vs. the 19th (Soyuz).

However, once we closely look for canon references on behalf of "Constitution Class" (and regardless of our interpretation of "canon"!), we will have to acknowledge that the only reliable one that suggests the TOS Enterprise to have been a Constitution Class starship is Sisko's remark in the DS9 episode "Trials and Tribble-ations".

Bob

P.S. Belay my "Trials and Trible-ations" assumption. I just realized we might be looking at a delicious inside joke only hardcore trekkers can understand and appreciate. More later, stay tuned!
__________________
"The first duty of every Starfleet officer is to the truth" Jean-Luc Picard
"We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them."
Albert Einstein

Last edited by Robert Comsol; September 7 2013 at 01:20 PM.
Robert Comsol is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 7 2013, 02:36 PM   #220
blssdwlf
Commodore
 
Re: Was the Enterprise A actually the Yorktown?

Robert Comsol wrote: View Post
Since the other four starships were prepared only for a simulation, why didn't that smart M-5 computer take out the lead ship Lexington (17th design) first and go after the other starships in the following confusion and chaos? To destroy the "inferior" starship first while you still got "bigger fish to fry" doesn't seem that smart, but if the if the M-5 considered the Excalibur to be a bigger threat its actions would make more sense to me.
Remember that M-5 did target Lexington (lead ship) first. When Lexington changed course, M-5 likely went after the next closest ship which was the Excalibur. After delivering a direct hit, she again turned on the Lexington. Potemkin and Hood were already withdrawing leaving the remaining ships at the mercy of M-5. Lexington was hit again and then Excalibur (the fatal hit). And then Potemkin.

All total, Lexington suffered at least 3 hits while the Excalibur 2 and Potemkin 1. M-5 was apparently putting more effort on the lead ship, the Lexington, but Excalibur was clearly the most unlucky when it came to receiving damage.


As to the "Constitution Class" issue, what's the problem again? Why can we not consider that the Enterprise when first built was a Constitution Class and then was modified to become a Starship Class and then later her own Enterprise Class? And then her sister ships were re-classified back to Constitution Class? Depending on when you describe the Enterprise, "Constitution Class" could be valid as a general class and "Starship/Enterprise" classes a sub-class.

If we look at the cruisers USS Boston and USS Canberra, they were originally Baltimore Class and then Boston was modified and became the lead ship of her own class (or subclass) which the Canberra joined. Both ships were then reclassified back to their original Baltimore class. And Starship Class isn't that odd when you think about the 18 ships and some classes named for "Cruiser Class" (as in HMS Cruiser).
blssdwlf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 7 2013, 06:12 PM   #221
Albertese
Commodore
 
Albertese's Avatar
 
Location: Portland, OR
Re: Was the Enterprise A actually the Yorktown?

Okay, hold on, I may have missed something here, but I have a few questions...

Robert Comsol wrote: View Post
...
IMO, we can't have cake and eat it, too, i.e. accept Greg Jein's conjectural "Constitution Class" but disregard his conjectural registries.
Isn't this this exactly what you're doing with your M-5 arguement? You are utilizing Jein's numbers for the these ships to advance the theory that series 16 ships were a more vital target to M-5's strategy. And yet, are also saying that series 17 can not be Constitution-class? Seems to be cherry-picking to me. Please correct me if I'm wrong.


Let's not kid ourselves. Greg Jein's treatise is obviously the reason why "Constitution Class" made it into the Star Trek Concordance along with the registries in the first place which was adopted by the Okuda's Encyclopedia and therefore constitutes the "dogma" Dukhat found so funny (good, I'd rather be the reason for fun than agony).
I'm not sure that's so obvious. Jein's "Jonathan Doe Star Ship" article wasn't published before 1973, while Trimble's first use of Constitution-class being applied to Enterprise was done in the 60's. In fact, one of the lines of argument that Jein used was that his system happened to line up the name Constitution with Commodore Stone's NCC-1700, which had already been assumed by that point. In fact, the whole argument hinges on the lining up of that bottom registry and NCC-1701 for Enterprise. I think we can say for a fact that Trimble's use of Constitution-class predates that of Jein's. In fact, the Concordance doesn't even bother with registry numbers at all. However, I concede that Jein's numbers were the basis of Okuda's work, as he comes out and says so in the Star Trek Encyclopedia.

I have another question for you: If NCC-1700 was not the Constitution, then what was it? Stone's chart from CM most certainly does contain NCC-1700. If indeed Enterprise is the first bird of the 17th series, then why is there a "00" ship at all? The concept that the "00" ship was the prototype of the series (being something other than Enterprise) and the Enterprise is indeed the first production version of the series, works nicely with the evidence of there even being an NCC-1700 and doesn't violate any quote of our much revered Mister Jefferies. I'm curious what you take NCC-1700 to be, given that it is obviously in the 17th series yet, being "00", would necessarily come before "01" in a sequence...

However, once we closely look for canon references on behalf of "Constitution Class" (and regardless of our interpretation of "canon"!), we will have to acknowledge that the only reliable one that suggests the TOS Enterprise to have been a Constitution Class starship is Sisko's remark in the DS9 episode "Trials and Tribble-ations".
I still wouldn't be so quick to discount Picard's line in "Relics" or the reference in "The Naked Now."

--Alex
__________________
Check out my website: www.goldtoothstudio.squarespace.com
Albertese is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 8 2013, 01:45 AM   #222
Robert Comsol
Commodore
 
Robert Comsol's Avatar
 
Location: USS Berlin
Re: Was the Enterprise A actually the Yorktown?

Albertese wrote: View Post
You are utilizing Jein's numbers for the these ships to advance the theory that series 16 ships were a more vital target to M-5's strategy. And yet, are also saying that series 17 can not be Constitution-class? Seems to be cherry-picking to me.
Fact is that he was the first (as far as I know) to attribute the NCC registries from the starship status chart to the ship's names and this has become popular and mostly accepted.

It didn't contradict TOS canon and he performed commendable conclusions in the first part of his treatise before he got intoxicated with his weird theory and then began to arrange the facts to conform to his theory.

The moment he said that starships beginning with "16" also belonged to the Constitution Class (beginning with "17" according to his theory) he could have noticed something had gotten wrong.

Usually you amputate the infected parts to save the patient, I don't think this is cherry-picking.

Albertese wrote: View Post
In fact, the whole argument hinges on the lining up of that bottom registry and NCC-1701 for Enterprise. I think we can say for a fact that Trimble's use of Constitution-class predates that of Jein's. In fact, the Concordance doesn't even bother with registry numbers at all. However, I concede that Jein's numbers were the basis of Okuda's work, as he comes out and says so in the Star Trek Encyclopedia.
In my old Concordance from the 1970's (the one with the saucer hull cover) Jein's registry numbers were attributed to all the starships (and I wondered where these had come from). I assumed Bjo Trimble had adapted both "Constitution Class" along with the registries. Looks like I stand corrected, thanks.

Albertese wrote: View Post
If NCC-1700 was not the Constitution, then what was it?
In the P.S. section of his treatise the function of the "complete" bars were discussed and Jein, apparently his old "self" again, suggested a low bar (NCC-1700 !!!) could indicate a ship being built. In this case the "00" may have simply indicated a placeholder for a yet to come two-digit contact code or shipyard release number.

Albertese wrote: View Post
I still wouldn't be so quick to discount Picard's line in "Relics" or the reference in "The Naked Now."
Not quick but thorough, here it comes:

The missing evidence that the TOS Enterprise is a “Constitution Class” starship

As I’ve tried to illustrate there is no evidence whatsoever that either the TOS or TMP Enterprise were ever anything else than a “Starship Class” and/or “Enterprise Class” ship.

During the next-gen of Star Trek “Constitution Class” references popped up, apparently referring to the TOS Enterprise, which therefore merit a closer examination:

“The Naked Now” (TNG without R as in Retroactive continuity)

Data is scanning data files and schematics show up on his station screen, one of those is showing a TMP-style Enterprise. Picard looks at it and says “The Constitution class Enterprise, Captain James T. Kirk commanding.”

Since they are looking up what happened on Kirk’s TOS Enterprise in “The Naked Time”, the TMP-style Enterprise on the screen seems out of place, but the one thing we do know about the “Constitution Class” from ST VI is that NCC-1701-A under the command of Captain James T. Kirk belonged to that class and matched the schematic on the screen.

For all we know this could just be a file cover for the history of the Enterprises under Captain Kirk and what we see is just the last one he did command. Considering Paramount Studios had used many TOS Enterprise screen graphics to inaccurately portray the TMP Enterprise it’s strange these didn’t come into use, now, where these might have been appropriate.

This is (correct) evidence that NCC-1701-A is a Constitution Class Starship and that’s what we clearly saw in ST VI. (but what’s up with these red marks Scotty put on the blueprint?)

“Relics” (TNG)

Here we have the pivotal scene where Scotty wants the Enterprise-D’s computer to recreate the command bridge of Kirk’s TOS Enterprise. Picard, like Scotty before him, enters through the viewscreen, chats with Scotty, has a quick look around and says “Constitution Class”.

There are several noticeable differences that tell me that this is not the bridge of the old USS Enterprise but in addition to this one could of course be the bridge of a starship of the 16th design series or Constitution Class. A layman couldn’t tell the difference so Picard merely mistakes the bridge of a Constitution Class starship with the one of a [Enterprise] Starship Class.

Where it gets interesting is Scotty’s reaction “Aye. You're familiar with them?”

Obviously he is happy that somebody from the 24th Century is familiar with some details of Scotty’s time. It’s inconclusive whether his “Aye” confirms that this is, indeed, the bridge of a Constitution Class starship (but not of “his” Enterprise, gotta be grateful for little things) or whether Scotty remembers that Kirk’s TOS Enterprise was a Constitution Class starship - which seems to be the general assumption.

But Scotty’s memory is an issue and although during “pattern buffer hibernation” for 75 years his pattern degradation only amounted to 0.003% it obviously affected his memory:

“The Enterprise? I should have known. I bet Jim Kirk himself hauled the old girl out of mothballs to come looking for me. Captain Montgomery Scott. Tell me, how long have I been missing?”

Scotty was the eye-witness of Jim Kirk’s apparent death in ST VII (Chekov “My God... Was anyone in there?” Scotty “Aye”), so he wouldn’t have forgotten the death of his former captain and longtime friend.
Because of the memory loss inflicted by the transporter hibernation, add to this the intoxicating effects of real alcohol, Scotty is anything but a reliable contemporary witness and therefore most assuredly not the one to be quoted as “canon” for purposes to make the TOS Enterprise a member of the Constitution Class.

“Trials and Tribble-ations” (DS9)

After the unsuccessful attempts in TNG to retro-convert the TOS Enterprise into a Constitution Class starship the “honors” were passed on to DS9 and Ben Sisko turned out to be the “lucky” guy: “This was the first Enterprise. Constitution class.” (so no one before, interesting! )

I really don’t understand this obsession in the 24th Century with the Constitution Class and why the post-TOS captains and Trills constantly mistake the TOS Enterprise for a starship of this class. Let’s “rewind” and see what Dax told Bashir and O’Brien:

“Chief, here are the coordinates. The Captain and I will start on Deck 4 and work our way aft. You and Julian should start on Deck 21.

What do we know about the USS Constitution? According to the blueprints Franz Joseph made of her there is no distinction between main and engineering decks, therefore she has 23 decks from top to bottom.

But with the TOS Enterprise there is a clear distinction between 11 main decks and 16 engineering decks, I illustrated the issue at the end of this post on page 12 of this thread.

Since the TOS Enterprise has by designation no more than 16 (engineering) decks, it is a logical conclusion that Dax and/or Sisko mistook the TOS Enterprise to be a Constitution Class starship – with some hilarious consequences:

O'BRIEN: Deck 21. Deck 21. I said, Deck 21.
BASHIR: Maybe if you said please.
O'BRIEN: What's wrong with this thing?
BASHIR: Don't look at me. I don't know anything about this time period.
O'BRIEN: Maybe it's jammed. Help me get this wall panel off.
(A crewwoman enters and turns one of the wall handles)
WATLEY: Deck 15.
BASHIR: I won't tell anyone if you don't.

Of course, for the average viewer and layman the joke was that they didn’t know how to use the turbo lift handles.

But hardcore trekkers know from various examples in TOS that it is possible to just say where you want to go without the necessity to hold onto the handles…so the ship’s computer simply didn’t understand where Bashir and O’Brien wanted to go because there is no “Deck 21” aboard the TOS Enterprise!

Of course both Sisko and Dax could have taken a history lesson by just looking at the TOS Enterprise’s bridge dedication plaque to understand she was a ship of the “Starship Class” and not of the “Constitution Class”, but they were busy locating the bombshell tribble.

“In a Mirror, Darkly” (ENT)

Frankly, I don’t know what the producers were thinking. That fans were blind or didn’t know that it said “Starship Class” on the Enterprise’s bridge dedication plaque?

As a sub-classification a name class would have been okay, IMHO, but if it shows up on the dedication plaque, as it did aboard the USS Defiant (NCC-1764), the logical conclusion could only be that Defiant was supposedly a member of the Constitution Class, but the Enterprise was not – because it was a member of the Starship Class, instead.

Summary:
The post-TOS producers successfully established the “Constitution Class” of starships in the canon of Star Trek. Once a footnote of a schematic on a small screen it become something much bigger.
But the attempts to retro-convert the TOS Enterprise into a member of the Constitution Class and establish it for canon based on solid facts rather than conjecture failed – not too surprising given the lackluster approaches and inadequate research efforts to successfully accomplish that mission goal.


Was the Enterprise-A actually the USS Yorktown?

I’d dare to say no. Both Jein and Joseph assumed her registry to begin with “17” which would be an “Enterprise Starship Class” vessel more or less according to Matt Jefferies.
Since she is obviously a Constitution Starship Class vessel, it should have been a registry that once began with “16”, IMHO.

(I guess that was the longest introduction before getting to the point of an original topic…)

Bob
__________________
"The first duty of every Starfleet officer is to the truth" Jean-Luc Picard
"We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them."
Albert Einstein

Last edited by Robert Comsol; September 8 2013 at 01:58 AM.
Robert Comsol is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 8 2013, 02:52 AM   #223
Albertese
Commodore
 
Albertese's Avatar
 
Location: Portland, OR
Re: Was the Enterprise A actually the Yorktown?

Okay, I follow your logic, but I still think it's an unnecessary stretch. Personally, I think I'm still comfortable with Enterprise and series 17 being Constitution-class ships.

Actually, I'm more for rejecting Jein's numbers all together. I realize later day Trek went with them and enshrined many of them in the on-screen canon, but I'm willing to ignore such business.

I won't bother preaching on behalf of FJ's Star Fleet Technical Manual, as I know many people here simply won't have it, but I always thought his registry numbers (especially for the Enterprise sister ships) seemed more sensible. The way the Status Chart is played in "Court Martial" suggests that those ships are at the Starbase "now" and it always rubbed me the wrong way that nearly all the Enterprise sister ships would be there at once, being worked on.

On the other hand, I am in favor of MJ notion of ship numbers being DDSS where D is the design series number and S is the individual hull number, which would make the status chart showing ships of three different classes being worked on. Make better sense to me.

Anyway, I feel I'm beginning to ramble, so I'll go away now.

--Alex

P.S. I was looking through my copy of the Concordance (which I expect is the same edition as yours, Robert Comsol) and you should look up the entry for NCC-1701. There's a little tidbit there I think you'll enjoy...
__________________
Check out my website: www.goldtoothstudio.squarespace.com
Albertese is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 8 2013, 03:27 AM   #224
Praetor
Vice Admiral
 
Praetor's Avatar
 
Location: The fine line between continuity and fanwank.
Re: Was the Enterprise A actually the Yorktown?

I think the thing that Bob may not be making fully clear (and do feel free to correct me, pal) is his desire to distinguish original intent of the TOS production from what's been established by the sequel series and her spinoffs. I share his desire to understand these things as separate entities. I don't presume to speak for Bob, but as we've seen he prefers to honor the original intent over what was later established. He prefers the rough draft to the final print, to extend Albertese's earlier metaphor.

Personally, I would really like to use the Jefferies numbering scheme, but I'm convinced that it's invalidated as early as TWOK, when we see the Reliant, a ship with an almost completely different type of design, with a registry that starts with 18. According to Jefferies, this would mean she's the 18th cruiser design. The only way I think there would be an out is if the Reliant was NCL-1864, or something along those lines.

Now, that still doesn't make Jein's retcon and fuzzy logic on the "Court Martial" screen right, and I still don't accept it, nor do I choose to accept any of the TOS-R uses of the 16xx numbers. But, I also still accept that there was a U.S.S. Constitution. Frankly, I can live with considering the 1701 Enterprise class all along, as a subtype of the Constitution class, primarily because it makes the "Starship Class" thing make a twinge of sense. It makes sense to me that laymen in-universe wouldn't remember that the 1701 was actually Enterprise subtype.

And I still don't think the Yorktown makes much sense as the A.
__________________
"If you can't take a little bloody nose, maybe you ought to go back home and crawl under your bed. It's not safe out here. It's wondrous, with treasures to satiate desires both subtle and gross; but it's not for the timid." - Q
Praetor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 8 2013, 03:38 AM   #225
Darkwing
Commodore
 
Location: This dry land thing is too wierd!
Re: Was the Enterprise A actually the Yorktown?

Albertese wrote: View Post
Okay, I follow your logic, but I still think it's an unnecessary stretch. Personally, I think I'm still comfortable with Enterprise and series 17 being Constitution-class ships.
I like the Mastercom class/subclass explanation here. Yeah, it's a minor retcon that they're all Connies, but various flavors thereof.

Actually, I'm more for rejecting Jein's numbers all together. I realize later day Trek went with them and enshrined many of them in the on-screen canon, but I'm willing to ignore such business.
I don't see a need for that at all. Just using what SOTSF gave us, with the refits, allows Jein's 16xx ships to be something Other-than-Connies that were remade into Connies.

won't bother preaching on behalf of FJ's Star Fleet Technical Manual, as I know many people here simply won't have it, but I always thought his registry numbers (especially for the Enterprise sister ships) seemed more sensible. The way the Status Chart is played in "Court Martial" suggests that those ships are at the Starbase "now" and it always rubbed me the wrong way that nearly all the Enterprise sister ships would be there at once, being worked on.
And as I mentioned before, FJ's registries might be the authorized, intended registries, but the pressures of a war forced them NOT to decom a bunch of 16xx ships that were supposed to make way for new 17xx ships. and after any war, the politicians find a "peace dividend" - they cut the military budget. Ships that ought to get decommissioned and replaced with new ships stay in commission, and more money gets spent keeping them working (just in smaller chunks), exactly as today's navy does, and so has any military since Sargon.

On the other hand, I am in favor of MJ notion of ship numbers being DDSS where D is the design series number and S is the individual hull number, which would make the status chart showing ships of three different classes being worked on. Make better sense to me.
If planning out a new verse, ala nu-Trek, sure. Real Trek is too sprawling and messy for that to make sense, and has been since at least the mid-80s.
__________________
If you don’t drink the kool-aid, you’re a baaad person - Rev Jim Jones
Almond kool-aid, anyone? Or do you prefer pudding?- Darkwing
Darkwing is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:23 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.