Discussion in 'Star Trek - The Original & Animated Series' started by ZapBrannigan, Mar 8, 2013.
^You have a funny way of counting.
But wouldn't that make 1700 number one hundred?
I liked the completely made up notion that Constitution started out as NX-1700, then Enterprise really is the "first" fully operational model. And the Constellation and Republic were earlier "saucer" ships that were built up to Constitution class with a new engineering hull and nacelles.
I'm sorry but it isn't as cut and dried as you are making it seem. The MK designator is used for all sorts of military gear, naval guns etc. But Matt Jefferies, a military pilot in the European Theater during WW II, would have been familiar with the British use of the term for aircraft. The MK designator was used by them for British military aircraft such as Typhoons, Hurricanes, Hellcats, Spitfires, Lancasters etc. Spitfires were produced in a MK IX generation. In fact, IIRC they were further broken down as MK IX/01, 02 etc.
I think Jefferies is responsible for assigning the term to that phaser illustration. But it is just as likely that he is referring to a starship as it is he is referring to the phaser type. There is simply no way to tell beyond inference from the fact that as a pilot it is more likely he was referring to the starship than some naval gun.
You joined this BBS just last year so you might not be aware of the fact that I was arguing the "Enterprise-class" argument ten years ago. Just out of sheer orneriness.
The first of about 100 Mark I Swift Boats became operational with the U.S. Navy in August 1965. Fourty-six Mark II Swift Boats went into service in late 1967. Thirty-three more Mark III Swift Boats went into service from 1969 to 1972. Clearly, actual craft had "Mk" designation with the U.S. Navy--not just armaments on craft. With these new Mark I and Mark II Swift Boats being the newest and hottest things in use in Viet Nam, it wouldn't be too surprising if Matt Jefferies had selected a "futuristic" "Mk IX" for his "Constitution Class" display for "Space Seed."
Must be why I like him. I'm pretty sure I took a couple warnings defending him in 05 or thereabouts. Don't always agree but usually am at least on the same page with him.
Maybe I should have changed my user name to Enterprise-Class instead of Trevanian ...
Yeah, Lenny's gone already.
His profile speaks to his attitude:
Then what changed your mind as you are apparently advocating that the (TOS) Enterprise is a member of the Constitution Class, now?
You may believe whatever you want, of course, but since the focus of the schematic in "The Trouble With Tribbles" (and originally "Space Seed") is the "Primary Phaser L.R" and not a starship of the Constitution Class the "MK IX/01" obviously refers to the primary phaser (to tell you what generation and model you are looking at).
If Scotty or Khan would have wanted technical details of a starship of the Constitution Class they would have opened the corresponding file...
Jein reinterpretated the phaser designation as a starship designation because he needed the "01" to manufacture a connection to the "1701" to be able to "conclude" that the Enterprise belonged to the Constitution Class.
I don't believe that two separate people at the same time came up with the same "exotic" conclusion, thus I'm confident that Franz Joseph merely copied the "MK IX" from Greg Jein's article - and of course the idea that "NCC-1700" referred to the USS Constitution.
This is very frustrating. If Franz Joseph saw Jein's "Doe" article before drafting his blueprints, he could have used Jein's NCC numbers and the whole ST universe would have been in agreement.
But Jein's article is dated April 1975 (as reprinted at TrekPlace.com), and the blueprints were made in 1973.
Edit: Jein's article actually refers to the Booklet of General Plans. Was the first edition missing FJ's NCC numbers, or was Jein just ignoring them?
Is there no "MK IX" reference in The Making of Star Trek, maybe in the chapter on the Enterprise? I'm at work now and can't check. That would be FJ's source then.
I'm pretty sure there's no such reference in TMoST having read the book many times. And I've always thought Jein's reasoning to be way too fannish and simplistic. It doesn't wash for me that the chart in Stone's office is referring to only ships like the Enterprise rather other ships of other classes.
Bit by bit TOS' creators were trying to world-build something of a coherent universe "beyond the hull" so to speak. As war veterans they likely would have drawn from past and (then) present military experience and knowledge. It's not impossible, but I find it hard to believe their thinking would be so simplistic as Jein proposes with his assumptions.
Sadly no one is around who could tell us exactly what those visual onscreen references were meant to represent or even suggest. And I don't recall hearing of Matt Jefferies answering such a direct question either.
@ Zap Brannigan
If I recall correctly the Booklet of General Plans aka Constitution Blueprints didn't have the "MK IX" designation, it did not have a list of ships, but it assigned NCC-1700 to the USS Constitution.
In this case Jein might have been further inclined to assign NCC-1700 to the Constitution. He may have written his treatise earlier (before it got published) and sent it to Roddenberry from where it passed to Franz Joseph, who then adopted the "MK IX" in the Technical Manual on the pages illustrating the Enterprise starships. That's also where we have the Franz Joseph name listing with all the "17" prefixes and names.
There is no "MK IX" reference in The Making of Star Trek, only some Roddenberry statements dealing with the general use of "Mark" for the series (but not in the context for vessels).
I think you are being to harsh. Kirk's "12 like it" statement in "Tomorrow Is Yesterday" suggested that there are only 12 starships identical to the Enterprise's appearance. The Making of Star Trek suggested (the way one could read and understand it) that Starfleet has only 12 starships (i.e. ships of the Starship Class).
Since the status display in "Court-Martial" explicitly said "starship" status, Jein correctly concluded (the way he read and understood it) that the numbers seen here must belong to the 12 starship names listed in TMoST.
Had that peculiar Jefferies production sketch (17th design etc.) been already published in TMoST back then, things probably would have taken quite a different path...
This would have meant that Kirk's statement in "Tomorrow Is Yesterday" exclusively referred to the 12 starships of the Enterprise Class while the "Court Martial" display would have also shown starships of the 16th design (presumably Constitution Class).
Interestingly, TOS-R left the door to that interpretation "open", suggesting Constitution Class starships underwent a refit or upgrade and "now" look like Enterprise Class starships. The one thing that obviously would have to "go" is "NCC-1700" for the Constitution...
^^ Still doesn't support Jein's assumption. And the MK-IX reference is indeed in the notations block at the corner of each sheet of FJ's Booklet of General Plans. I have it right at hand and just checked to confirm my memory of it.
The Booklet of General Plans: U.S.S. Constitution Class does indeed have fourteen starship names (and some numbers that have been assigned to them) on Page 1 of the Plans:
(You can see a little comment that that the Constitution is identifed as the "Class Ship.")
The legend on these blueprints also shows a "Model MK-IX" comment as well as a "Type: Heavy Crusiser" comment.
Although Greg Jein's article might not even have been written when Schnaubelt generated the list of Starship Numbers in September of 1973, Matt Jefferies' STAR SHIP MK-IX CONSTITUTION CLASS" screen diagram film clip might have already been making the rounds. It looks like Schnaubelt just grabbed twelve sequential numbers from 1700 to 1711--and then also listed the known 1017 and 1371 exceptions. Greg Jein attempted to shoehorn the various "known" Star Ship names into the numbers seen in "Court Martial," instead of generating his own numbers.
That's a shame. I know he was banned previously and is somewhat fractious, but he has a unique view of Trek.
If what he said on another site about writing a book is true, I'd read it!
My knowledge of Lenny (whoever he may be), and James Dixon for that matter, began with this thread, I grant that.
But even allowing for what I don't know, I'm shocked and saddened if a member can be banned for so little.
An intelligent guy who's thought things out (almost to a fault), and who's articulate, should be tolerated for being doctrinaire. I mean, even if you don't buy into his manifesto-like dissertations on starship design, can't he be read for entertainment value?
I was getting a kick out of seeing so much detail on an entirely ficticious subject. If I had known a Lenny when I was 14 and the blueprints were new, I would NEVER have grown up.
I saw this from Lenny posted on another website yesterday:
"This is a little bit off-topic, but I don't know where to put it and I would like to make a general announcement to anyone who has tried to contact me on The Trek BBS... Trying to log-in there today, I got this message on my screen:
You have been banned for the following reason:
No reason was specified.
Date the ban will be lifted: Never
Apparently I wasn't up to snuff to be accepted by that particular website's clique... Where you either bow down to those "greats" who made names for themselves through books or websites, or you shut up and blindly agree without voicing any criticism that might upset their jointly accepted vision of Star Trek... "
Whether it was Dixon or not he wasn't quite as intense as he was in the past. Still the deliberately combative as well as dismissive attitude was similar.
Lenny is a sock puppet account of James Dixon. James was perma-banned from the site long ago, hence the sock puppet was banned once tptb noticed it.
Since I don't know all the history involved, I don't presume to know why he was banned. I'm certainly not inclined to accept narratives, either posted on the Internet at large or by regular members here, as true and complete, merely on face value.
There is a fine line. You can have a dissenting viewpoint, but it's all in how you put it across. If they found out who he really is and he was perma-banned in the past then he surely knows why he's been banned now.
Separate names with a comma.