Original 12 Constitution class ships

[CrazyMatt]

^ It's a symptom of our love of Trek.... we tend to want to fill in the holes in "the history of the future" in our mind out of passion for the subject. And all the glorious contradictions we dig up make that impossible.

AND.... while I understand the hesitation to resuscitate old threads, many of these attempts to "fill in the holes" simply can't be resolved.... they burn brightly in our minds until they burn down to embers, and then just smolder... waiting for a fresh burst of oxygen to rekindle.

Fancy words aside, what I'm saying is, "old thread, new thread, whatever.... many subjects which can't ever truly be resolved will resurface here, if only for the new people who are continually joining this board."

 

[1001001]

Understood. I guess I'd rather have new people start new threads, for the reasons stated in this thread: http://www.trekbbs.com/threads/official-policy-on-resurrecting-old-threads.279368/

Sorry, back to the topic at hand (which never goes away...).

 

[Ithekro]

(Never ever go away)

One thing about this topic is that you get people with different takes on just what the idea of "Original 12 Constitution class ships" means. Some say there were 12 originally, some say that there were only 12 other than Enterprise left at one point during the Five Year Mission. Though that would mean there were 13 ships (12 plus Enterprise).

Then there are the issues with the registry numbers and potential of multiple classes or subclasses. The whole "Starship-class, Constitution-class, Enterprise-class and beyond" theories. Multiple takes on them based on different point in both Star Trek and history. Both Naval and Aviation history is used here to make points and it make for a lively topic. And from multiple countries when it comes to Naval history.

 

[E-DUB]

I've always thought that the "twelve like it in the fleet" line referenced Earth's fleet (under UESPA auspices), later Enterprise was reassigned to UFP much as a present-day US military outfit can be given duty under UN auspices. Just my take.

 

[Poltargyst]

That's kind of circular, isn't it? Yes, the ships that Kirk mentions are "like" Enterprise are probably going to be ones that are of the same class as Enterprise. So, sure, only one class makes up that group of twelve... by definition.

You're not proposing that that group of twelve ships is the entirety of Starfleet, are you?

When I was a kid watching in the 70's, it was indeed my belief that the Enterprise and her 11 sister ships were indeed the entirety of starfleet. I believe that was the original intention of the producers as well unless something about other classes of ships was mentioned in TOS.

But that's not what I'm talking about with that post. I was refuting the idea that the Constellation is somehow of a different class than the Enterprise.

 

[BillJ]

When I was a kid watching in the 70's, it was indeed my belief that the Enterprise and her 11 sister ships were indeed the entirety of starfleet. I believe that was the original intention of the producers as well unless something about other classes of ships was mentioned in TOS.

Not sure you could defend interstellar space with multiple running cold wars with only 12 starships. I'll be the first to admit that the Connies are badass, but not quite that badass. Plus, in "The Ultimate Computer", Starfleet had nearly 50% of the Connies engaged in a war game. Doesn't seem very smart to pull that many ships away from patrol routes.

 

[FleetCommodoreCarver]

I'm kinda new around here, but I saw this thread and just had to respond. According to the TOS Technical Manual from '75 (yes, I still have my copy) there were actually 14 ships in the first set of Constitution Class Heavy Cruisers. For those who are interested, there were:
14 in the MK-IX Class as of Stardate 0965.
16 in the MK-IX-A Class as of Stardate 3220.
4 replacements as of Stardate 4444.
111 ships in the MK-IX-B class as of Stardate 5930.
Not sure if this answers your question, but it should help a bit...

 

[Avro Arrow]

14 in the MK-IX Class as of Stardate 0965.

I always assumed that "MK IX" thing was just something that FJ had made up for the Tech Manual. Turns out it was actually something from the show itself, from the same graphic that gave us "Constitution Class", as GSchnitzer detailed in this earlier post in the thread.

 

[FleetCommodoreCarver]

I'd post a pic of the page from the Tech Manual showing the complete list, if only I could figure out how... I never was very good at these message boards.

 

[1001001]

PASS ON TO YOUR F---ING ASSHOLE OF A MODERATOR
Mutai Sho-Rin
THAT HIS RUDE RESPONSE SHOWS HIS ARROGANCE AND SNOBBISHNESS CLEARLY. I HOPE THAT WAS WHAT HE WAS GOING FOR. AS FAR AS I'M CONCERNED HE CAN EAT SH-T.

There are ways for posters who are unhappy with moderator decisions to be heard. This is not one of them.

Infraction for flaming.

 

[Forbin]

Well, we all love the Tech Manual, but the stuff in there was made up by the author with no connection to the production of the show.

 

[Warped9]

Well, we all love the Tech Manual, but the stuff in there was made up by the author with no connection to the production of the show.

Way back when FJ's blueprints and tech manual were released I don't think there had been anything like them before. These were significant publications for a television show that had been no longer in production for some years no less. They were tapping into something that people were only beginning to realize--that Star Trek (in reruns no less) was generating a following that went far beyond what NBC's original ratings had suggested.

FJ's works filled in a lot of detail that was "beyond the bulkhead" so to speak in terms of what we actually saw onscreen. It didn't really matter at the time that a lot of it was only tenuously connected to the original series. For a lot of us of a particularl age it was as good as official, until the passage of years began to reveal the work's inconsistencies with what we had actually seen on the show.

There are still a lot of interesting ideas in FJ's works that can be rationalized into the TOS universe without contradicting what was actually established onscreen. And it's those things that allow me to still value FJ's work. That and the nostalgia element.

It can also be said that FJ's blueprints and tech manual fired the imagination of countless would be starship and hardware designers. Kids and the young-at-heart have long imagined and drawn ships and planes and all manner of imagined and real world hardware. But FJ's work set something of a template for us to follow, build on and refine. I suspect I am like a lot of other kids of that time in that so much of what I've imagined and done over the years right up to the 3D modeling I do today was directly inspired by FJ's work.

 

[Doug Otte]

Not sure you could defend interstellar space with multiple running cold wars with only 12 starships. I'll be the first to admit that the Connies are badass, but not quite that badass. Plus, in "The Ultimate Computer", Starfleet had nearly 50% of the Connies engaged in a war game. Doesn't seem very smart to pull that many ships away from patrol routes.

I agree with your comments about the war game.

But, during Star Trek, I find it plausible that there might have been only 12 starships equivalent to the Enterprise. After all, they were state-of-the-art, and the Federation might have only allocated resources for 12 of them. There would have been many more smaller ships.

Having 12 starships exploring the galaxy seems more romantic to me, enforcing the notion that Kirk and his colleagues were brave pioneers in an unknown frontier. How many cold wars existed during that era? I can only think of two - Klingons and Romulans.

Later in TNG etc. the Federation had expanded its reach and penetration of the known galaxy, and there were more cold wars to manage as a result.

 

[Shawnster]

Which is one reason why I don't like resurrecting old threads (along with all the other reason we have listed over the years).

This forum is about a 50 year old TV show. How much "new" is there really to discuss?



I'm trying not to be such a hard-ass when it comes to this issue. Please don't make me regret it.

I, for one, have found interesting ideas about TOS from this forum that I'd never thought of or heard before. I've been surprised at the "new to me" ideas that others have floated here about a show I've literally watched all my life.

For example, in one of our many discussion about the Constellation, someone suggested it was really a different class that only superficially looked like the Enterprise or Constitution Class. I rather liked that idea and choose to imagine that the Constellation was the same class as the Bonaventure.

 

[INACTIVEUSS Einstein]

I was curious about the Constitution class ships from TOS. As I understand it, there were only 12 Constitution class starships during TOS.

Is there a definitive list of which 12 were the original ships?

Further to this, why were there only 12? Was this number chosen for a reason?

I think 12 were chosen to roughly reflect the number of top of the line ships are in a navy, such as the WW2 US Navy Iowa class battleship, or perhaps the WW2 carriers after which most Constitution class ships were named - Enterprise, Exeter, Yorktown, etc.

The expanded material says they were expanded upon in number later, but I like to keep the number small, because ships in Star Trek are not a disposable asset like in some shows/film; when they go down, it should matter - a Constitution class ship or a Galaxy class ship is the Federation's equivalent of the Apollo program in my mind.

 

[PhaserLightShow]

There are ways for posters who are unhappy with moderator decisions to be heard. This is not one of them.

Infraction for flaming.

I wish I didn't have to see what was said to you.

 

[PhaserLightShow]

I'm kinda new around here, but I saw this thread and just had to respond. According to the TOS Technical Manual from '75 (yes, I still have my copy) there were actually 14 ships in the first set of Constitution Class Heavy Cruisers. For those who are interested, there were:
14 in the MK-IX Class as of Stardate 0965.
16 in the MK-IX-A Class as of Stardate 3220.
4 replacements as of Stardate 4444.
111 ships in the MK-IX-B class as of Stardate 5930.
Not sure if this answers your question, but it should help a bit...

I have my copy too! And I believe we are referring to the MK-IX class (the original).

 

[BillJ]

But, during Star Trek, I find it plausible that there might have been only 12 starships equivalent to the Enterprise. After all, they were state-of-the-art, and the Federation might have only allocated resources for 12 of them. There would have been many more smaller ships.

I agree that there may have only been 12 "best of the best" starships. But it is a mighty big universe and I have a tough time imagining that is the whole of Starfleet.

 

[alensatemybuick]

I wish I didn't have to see what was said to you.

Yeah, right? All posts by "DanSpockWorf" have been wiped from TREKBBS, so I guess he was banned altogether - begs the question why we have to see his obscenities quoted, and by a moderator no less.

 

[PhaserLightShow]

I have a list. It is from the FASA Star Trek roleplaying game scenario manual. Has 13 starships.

Link:
https://mail-attachment.googleuserc...DBzke-HkftWKnEkkz3l-fTZ24xiASMuRKRuM2QPGrrxX8

Image: