RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 145,381
Posts: 5,724,607
Members: 25,779
Currently online: 548
Newest member: GregroxMun

TrekToday headlines

Star Trek Uniform Laptop Bag And Fanny Pack
By: T'Bonz on May 26

Star Trek: The Fifty Year Mission
By: T'Bonz on May 26

Where No Garden Gnome Has Gone Before
By: T'Bonz on May 22

Scotland Yard Trekkie Fear
By: T'Bonz on May 22

Koenig Joins Captain Pike Project
By: T'Bonz on May 22

Retro Review: Ex Post Facto
By: Michelle on May 22

Smallwood: Creating The Xindi
By: T'Bonz on May 21

Greenwood Joins O.J. Simpson Series
By: T'Bonz on May 21

The USS Enterprise Building
By: T'Bonz on May 20

Wheaton Guests On Mission Log Podcast
By: T'Bonz on May 20


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 May 30 2012, 10:00 AM   #76
Maurice
Vice Admiral
 
Maurice's Avatar
 
Location: Maurice in San Francisco
View Maurice's Twitter Profile
Re: Matt Jefferies and NCC-1017

throwback wrote: View Post
...The production staff had to name 13 starships that were like the Enterprise, and they had 11 names established by the episodes to work with. The production staff missed one ship - the USS Carolina - but this was understandable. This starship was mentioned very briefly in the episode "Friday's Child".
I think the episode merely calls out the ship as the USS Carolina and never identifies it as a "starship".
__________________
* * *
"There are three kinds of men. The one that learns by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence for themselves.
—Will Rogers
Maurice is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 30 2012, 12:32 PM   #77
BK613
Fleet Captain
 
BK613's Avatar
 
Location: BK613
Re: Matt Jefferies and NCC-1017

adding to the conundrum is this bit of dialog suggesting a letter based classification for starships:
MENDEZ: Inspection tour of a cadet vessel. Old Class J starship. One of the baffle plates ruptured.
__________________
-------------------
"The single biggest problem with communication is the illusion that it has taken place." - George Bernard Shaw
BK613 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 30 2012, 01:08 PM   #78
Timo
Admiral
 
Re: Matt Jefferies and NCC-1017

All sorts of possibilities there, besides retroactively deciding that Starfleet in the 2260s used ENT-era transport ships for training of cadets. Perhaps starship classes fall into further categories designated with letters (possibly by mission - perhaps J stands for training ships?), and "Class J" encompasses the Ranger, Kearsarge and Miranda classes, with Pike serving on one of the older ones (which happens to be a Ranger, but nobody cares)? Or perhaps Class J refers to a class of starships where each ship has a name beginning with J, just like with the Royal Navy R class battleships? Or perhaps "Class J" is outdated terminology, but the aged Mendez insists on using it, even if yielding to calling his terminology "old" for the benefit of whippersnappers like Kirk?

In the end, though, it's clear that Starfleet operates a reasonably wide variety of ship types it officially considers "starships", even back in the time of TOS. Or at least that some of the wide variety of types operated by Starfleet at various times are at the time of TOS being considered "starships", even if such a thing perhaps is a bit of a "retcon" for vessels like the older Valiant or the Archon. None of which needs to contradict the idea that starships are a special and exalted category among the various spaceships operated by Starfleet.

...It should also be rather clear that none of the terminology was carefully thought out by a collective of writers, much less affected by the considerations of the art department. It just sorta happened.

Timo Saloniemi
Timo is online now   Reply With Quote
Old May 30 2012, 03:39 PM   #79
137th Gebirg
Rear Admiral
 
137th Gebirg's Avatar
 
Location: Who is John Galt?
Re: Matt Jefferies and NCC-1017

^^^ And then there is Merek's statement (in Bread & Circuses) about the glaring differentiation of power and status between being a commander of a spaceship and that of a starship. The writers back then seemed to view the designation as more than just a throw-away descriptive word --- almost as if the class name of the Enterprise actually was simply "Starship Class", just like it says on the bridge plaque (surprised nobody has mentioned that yet, unless I missed it), as opposed to "Constitution Class", "Enterprise Class", "Enterprise-Type" or any other nomenclatures mentioned here.
__________________
Gebirgswick - Ind, Tra, Sec & Env.
137th Gebirg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 30 2012, 03:44 PM   #80
Timo
Admiral
 
Re: Matt Jefferies and NCC-1017

...But in that case, the class name of several other ships, of older or newer design, was Starship, too.

Which is of course quite possible. We might well call both the Iowa class and South Dakota class vessels "battleship class" ships, or the Essex class and Independence class ships "carrier class" vessels. The Constitution and Ranger classes might both be "starship class", as opposed to the Gapfiller class which is a "corvette class" of vessels.

Timo Saloniemi
Timo is online now   Reply With Quote
Old May 30 2012, 05:50 PM   #81
Green Shirt
Rear Admiral
 
Green Shirt's Avatar
 
Location: More than slightly off center
Re: Matt Jefferies and NCC-1017

137th Gebirg wrote: View Post
"Starship Class", just like it says on the bridge plaque (surprised nobody has mentioned that yet, unless I missed it), as opposed to "Constitution Class", "Enterprise Class", "Enterprise-Type" or any other nomenclatures mentioned here.
Some of us have backed "Starship Class" as the proper class designation for TOS Enterprise in a previous thread for the reason you stated.

Many however, have preferred the use of other class designations due to their appearance in on screen episode schematics (which are assumed to be of Enterprise), fan produced material, or other sources.

I'll go with what I've seen on screen, as opposed to what somebody wrote down on a piece of paper saying that is what they think it is.

Every excruciating detail wasn't thought out in advance like today's TV audience expects. The show was produced to the best of the ability of cast, crew and staff as time and money allowed.

Waiting to be rebutted into oblivion.
__________________
Its not easy being green.
Green Shirt is online now   Reply With Quote
Old May 30 2012, 06:03 PM   #82
137th Gebirg
Rear Admiral
 
137th Gebirg's Avatar
 
Location: Who is John Galt?
Re: Matt Jefferies and NCC-1017

^^^ Heh, yes, there will always be such conversations, I'm afraid. There's another lively one regarding the old "where's main engineering" that you may have seen here as well. Every so once in a while it gets brought up. I look at it as a fun exercise in debate as, like you said, they didn't get into that level of detail back then and there's really no right or wrong to any of it.
__________________
Gebirgswick - Ind, Tra, Sec & Env.
137th Gebirg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 30 2012, 11:22 PM   #83
throwback
Captain
 
Re: Matt Jefferies and NCC-1017

The suggestion that the Carolina is a starship is supported by her name, USS Carolina. In the original series, only starships bore the prefix: USS. The Enterprise, the Exeter, the Farragut, the Republic, and the Yorktown were addressed with this prefix. Some ships, such as the Beagle and the Woden, were addressed with the prefix SS, or some other ships, like the Antares, were addressed with no prefix. It wasn't until the first movie that every ship in Starfleet had the prefix USS.

Dialogue from the episode "Friday's Child":

Uhura:
Mister Scott, another distress call from the USS Carolina.
Timo, I think your suggestion is correct, and is supported by the canon. In the episode "Emissary", there is this line of dialogue.

Sisko:
They're scheduled to depart at zero-five hundred hours after offloading three runabout class vessels.
Later, in "Hippocratic Oath", we learn that the runabout class vessels assigned to DS9 were Danube-class runabouts.

Then, in "Non Sequitor", a Voyager episode,, in an alternate timeline, we learn that Starfleet was working on the Yellowstone-class runabouts.

So, I think it's possible that in the time of TOS that Starfleet had at least two classes that belonged to the "Starship Class" family: the Constitution-class and the Enterprise-class.

In "The Making of Star Trek", we learn that prior to his service aboard the USS Enterprise that Captain Kirk had commanded a Destroyer Class vessel.

In the film "Star Trek III: The Search for Spock", there is a reference to a fourth class: Scout Class vessels.

Chekov:
For an instant...a scout class vessel.
Kirk:
Could be Grissom.
throwback is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 31 2012, 12:08 AM   #84
TIN_MAN
Fleet Captain
 
TIN_MAN's Avatar
 
Re: Matt Jefferies and NCC-1017

throwback wrote: View Post
Tin Man,

I believe you are making an assumption. I believe you are making the same mistake that Greg Jein did in his article for T-Negative.
Am I?

The intraoffice memos listed at least three different lists of starship. The Constitution was on at least one of these memos. The production staff were going on memory for the named ships, and were identifying each of the named starships to the Enterprise-type.
Yes, they were trying to come up with names for other ships "Like" the Enterprise, one of which was the Constitution. It would be a mistake to confuse “Enterprise-type” as used in the memos –which merely indicates ships that look like the Enterprise- with an official designation of “Enterprise class” as if that’s the name of the class, which is what I believe you’re doing, if I understand you correctly?

The production staff had to name 13 starships that were like the Enterprise, and they had 11 names established by the episodes to work with. The production staff missed one ship - the USS Carolina - but this was understandable. This starship was mentioned very briefly in the episode "Friday's Child". So they had to fill in the gaps.
Actually, they only had to come up with 12, the Enterprise was the thirteenth. This is consistent with Kirk’s statement in “Tomorrow is Yesterday” (if memory serves) in which Kirk says there are “only twelve like her in the fleet”.

As for the Carolina, she was never established on screen as a ship like the Enterprise was she? A starship perhaps, yes, but not necessarily of the same class as the Enterprise?

The phaser diagram wasn't mentioned in the book, and wasn't included in the illustrations provided with the book.
Yes, but my point is that some person or persons in the official chain of command in the Star Trek production favored "Constitution" as a name for one of the ships "like the Enterprise" and since this name is used onscreen along side the term “Star Ship”, which we know is the term used for Enterprise-type vessels (on the dedication plaque) then it’s logical to conclude that the same person or persons intended for these two uses of “Constitution” to be a reference to the same type/class vessel, namely, ships that look like the Enterprise.

April 17, 1967 - 3rd Edition of Writer's Guide is published
* The USS Enterprise is classified as a "Starship Class" vessel.
Yes. As per the dedication plaque

Oct. 10, 1967 - "The Doomsday Machine" aired
* In the script for this episode, the Enterprise and her sister ship, the Constellation, are classified as Enterprise-class starships.
Ah, but Spinrad was not a staff writer, and can't be expected to be up on all the correct terminology of the show. It would be a mistake to take "Enterprise-class” too literally in this instance. All that is implied here by this one-off incorrect usage is simply "ship of the same class".

Dec. 19, 1967 - "The Trouble with Tribbles" aired
* This is the first mention of a Constitution-class starship. There is no canonical connection between the Enterprise and this class of ship.
Correct, not at this time, that came later.

Sept. 1968 - "The Making of Star Trek" is published
* In this book, the Enterprise is classified as an Enterprise-type starship. A list of sister ships is included in this book.
Once again, "Type" is not synonymous with "class". But where in that book exactly is the Enterprise classified as an Enterprise-type starship anyway?

Sometime in 1968 - The first edition of the "Star Trek Concordance" is published as a private product (fanzine) for fans.
* In this book, the Enterprise is classified as a Constitution-class starship.
Yes.

April 1973 - "The Case of Jonathan Doe Starship" is published in the fanzine T-Negative Nr. 27.
* In this article, the Enterprise is classified as a Constitution-class starship. This is the first time that an effort is made, afaik, to link the registries seen in "Court Martial" to the list of starships first mentioned in "The Making of Star Trek". This is also the first time, afaik, that a connection is made between the phaser diagram first seen in "The Trouble with Tribbles" and the Enterprise.
Yes. But wasn't Bjo Trimble working at Lincoln Enterprises -which sold slides of the said diagram- at about this time? So she was probably the first one to see the diagram up close and make the connection between the Constitution class and the Enterprise?

April 1975 - "Star Trek Blueprints" is published by Ballantine.
* In this set of blueprints, the Enterprise is classified as a Constitution-class starship.

November 1, 1975 - The "Star Trek Star Fleet Technical Manual" is published by Ballantine.
* In this book, the Enterprise is classified as a Constitution-class starship.
And for what it's worth, FJ also used the "MK-IX/01" from the phaser diagram. The "01" being his designation for his "class one fleet". In his scheme MK-VIII = Destroyer, MK-VII = Scout, MK-VII = Transport/tug and MK-X = Dreadnaught.

June 4, 1982 - "Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan" is released.
* In this film, the Enterprise is classified as a Enterprise-class starship.
This is largely irrelevant to the discussion here, since it refers only to the uprated movie era ship, not the TOS version. However, there is some debate in fandom as to whether the movie “E” is an "Enterprise Class" or a "Constitution II Class", but that’s a whole 'nother flame war.

June 1, 1984 - "Star Trek III: The Search for Spock" is released.
* In this film, there is a diagram which classifies the Enterprise as a Constitution-class starship. The diagram is either from the Star Trek Blueprints or the Star Trek Star Fleet Technical Manual.

October 5, 1987 - Lt. Cmdr. Data classifies the Enterprise as a Constitution-class starship in the episode "The Naked Now".
Yes, Two unambiguous canon references for the Enterprise being a "Constitution class" starship, so why are we still debating this?

Last edited by TIN_MAN; May 31 2012 at 09:22 PM.
TIN_MAN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 31 2012, 01:05 AM   #85
Dukhat
Rear Admiral
 
Dukhat's Avatar
 
Location: Baltimore, MD
Re: Matt Jefferies and NCC-1017

1. U.S.S. Enterprise NCC-1701, referred to as "Starship Class" according to the dedication plaque. (from TOS)

2. U.S.S. Defiant NCC-1764, referred to as "Constitution Class" according to the dedication plaque. (from ENT)

3. Holographic representation of U.S.S. Enterprise NCC-1701, referred to as "Constitution Class" in dialogue.


So it seems that at some point between the construction of the Enterprise and the construction of the Defiant, Starfleet decided that the class was "Constitution" and not "Starship" when creating dedication plaques. Whether the class was always known as Constitution class seems to be implied by Picard's comment.

That was easy
__________________
“Don’t believe everything you read on the internet.”
– Benjamin Franklin
Dukhat is online now   Reply With Quote
Old May 31 2012, 03:27 AM   #86
137th Gebirg
Rear Admiral
 
137th Gebirg's Avatar
 
Location: Who is John Galt?
Re: Matt Jefferies and NCC-1017

^^^ Well, if the registry numbers are any indication, there may be 63 other ships between Enterprise and Defiant, which could indicate several years between the two. In that time, it makes sense that they might have changed the nomenclature standards.

This begs an additional question, then. If there are only "12 others like her in the fleet", there must be other class types in there, unless they skip numbers (does the Navy do that?)

Heh...come to think of it - to muddy the waters even more, perhaps the Constellation (NCC-1017) was a "Constitution Class". Then, somewhere along the way, probably 1600 or 1700's, they changed the nomenclature type to "Starship Class", then by Defiant's day, they decided that was stupid and put it back to "Constitution".

Ugh...
__________________
Gebirgswick - Ind, Tra, Sec & Env.
137th Gebirg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 31 2012, 05:46 AM   #87
Mr. Laser Beam
Fleet Admiral
 
Mr. Laser Beam's Avatar
 
Location: The visitor's bullpen
View Mr. Laser Beam's Twitter Profile
Re: Matt Jefferies and NCC-1017

BK613 wrote: View Post
adding to the conundrum is this bit of dialog suggesting a letter based classification for starships:
MENDEZ: Inspection tour of a cadet vessel. Old Class J starship. One of the baffle plates ruptured.
Maybe it was an old leftover J-class freighter, like the ECS Horizon?
__________________
"Pitching is simple -- cheese for the kitchen and a yakker for the kudo." - Dennis Eckersley
Mr. Laser Beam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 31 2012, 07:57 AM   #88
Timo
Admiral
 
Re: Matt Jefferies and NCC-1017

Or then "J class" is a very popular designation, and often reused. The Royal Navy has had more Town Classes or County Classes than one bothers to remember, and is currently piling up on the Daring Classes as well, and never mind how many R Classes you get when your big ships are all Royal this and Royal that...

Somewhat amusingly, we could use the latest movie as proof that "Starship Class" is a general umbrella designation that in no way contradicts the Constitution Class identity of Kirk's old ship. After all, we now have two dedication plaques from dissimilar ships, both declaring the ships Starship Class ones...

For all we know, the Reliant plaque also said Starship Class back in the 2250s, and so did the plaques of all those large older starships in STXI.

Timo Saloniemi
Timo is online now   Reply With Quote
Old May 31 2012, 02:26 PM   #89
Dukhat
Rear Admiral
 
Dukhat's Avatar
 
Location: Baltimore, MD
Re: Matt Jefferies and NCC-1017

137th Gebirg wrote: View Post
^^^ Well, if the registry numbers are any indication, there may be 63 other ships between Enterprise and Defiant, which could indicate several years between the two. In that time, it makes sense that they might have changed the nomenclature standards.
Well, registries have never proven to be strictly chronological, much less that there needs to be exactly the same number of ships built between two different numbers. Both the Excelsior NX-2000 and the Hathaway NCC-2593 were commissioned in the same year, but that doesn't necessarily mean that 592 other ships were built that year as well.

Mr. Laser Beam wrote: View Post
Maybe it was an old leftover J-class freighter, like the ECS Horizon?
I doubt it. There's no reason to assume that they're the same ship just because they share the same class letter. The Bajorans have an Antares class ship and Starfleet has an Antares class ship. They're not the same ship.
__________________
“Don’t believe everything you read on the internet.”
– Benjamin Franklin
Dukhat is online now   Reply With Quote
Old May 31 2012, 02:40 PM   #90
137th Gebirg
Rear Admiral
 
137th Gebirg's Avatar
 
Location: Who is John Galt?
Re: Matt Jefferies and NCC-1017

Dukhat wrote: View Post
There's no reason to assume that they're the same ship just because they share the same class letter. The Bajorans have an Antares class ship and Starfleet has an Antares class ship. They're not the same ship.
Heh... 5 known canonical variants, to be precise:








__________________
Gebirgswick - Ind, Tra, Sec & Env.
137th Gebirg 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 07:14 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.