And the TOS Enterprise was referred to as Starship Class.
Why no Enterprise class?
- Thread starter Commodore_Rook
- Start date
...We can also argue that the E-nil and the E-A were from different subclasses: the former may have launched her own subclass, but the latter may instead have represented a standard that was spearheaded by the refitting of the old USS Constitution, hence she'd represent the "Constitution subclass" (or perhaps "Constitution (II)" or something like that, but if there were no surviving original models, the Roman numeral may well have been dropped).
Starfleet did seem to believe in careful sub-categorizing of ships back then, as the Soyuz class was considered its own entity while the various Miranda configurations in the TNG era all obeyed the same generic class name.
Did the E-A launch receive publicity? I saw no reporters. Which may suggest that Kirk's fame as Earth-saving hero may already have waned at that point, or even that Starfleet carefully suppressed all information about his role, lest all sorts of villains and well-meaning folks attempt that time-tampering trick, too.
The E-B launch events may in turn have cast that ship in eternal infamy, forcing Starfleet to drop its plans on making the E-B an important PR vessel or flagship and to adopt USS Insufferable in that role instead.
The only Enterprise canonically known to have held "UFP flagship" status was the E-D, while none of the ships was credited with "Starfleet flagship" status officially although the E-D at times hosted flag officers or was supposed to command formations of ships. It's not really clear if either of these flagship statuses would have warranted a mention in the case of E-nil, E-A, E-B, E-C or E-E, so the lack of such mention doesn't really clarify things. Also, for all we know, the UFP always has at least sixty flagships and the Starfleet at least 200. The alt-universe Enterprise from the latest film was credited as the "newest flagship", without distinction as to whether she represented the UFP or Starfleet, and whether she replaced her predecessor(s) or just supplemented her or them.
Timo Saloniemi
In the bizarro Trek alternate universe, ALL the starships are the flagship
of the peacekeeping armada that is the United Federation of Planets.
It's only fair, equal and all inclusive.
Then why did they put the Enterprise name on a Galaxy? Yes they were big, but a Klingon Bird of Prey took it down, which shouldn't be possible for a ship that size.
The Galaxy was a dud design.
It would have happened to any ship once the enemy learned what her deflector shield frequency was. It doesn't matter how powerful your ship is if the enemy can neutralize your shields and render you a sitting duck.
In your opinion.
Otherwise, they were the most powerful ships of their day. Only three have been lost onscreen (two to extraordinary circumstances), while more were seen serving as Starfleet's heavy hitters during the Dominion War. In that capacity, they seem to have a better onscreen track record than the Constitution-class.
And just because the Enterprise-E was was a Sovereign-class doesn't mean the Galaxy-class was a failure. It just means that Starfleet gave the name to the newest big "hero ship" design to come along, IMO.
The Galaxy is Starfleet's big special class of starship. It was the be all and end all for Starfleet. Therefore it only seemed natural that one should be named Enterprise.
Not really. Considering how many Galaxy class starships we've seen, only three were confirmed destroyed. And considering what it took to destroy those three, an alien computer virus, a ship ramming into the engineering section, and an enemy ship with inside access to the shield frequencies, I'd say it's a solid enough design. And besides, the Enterprise-D did maintain some dignity in its destruction by keeping the entire crew alive. After a warp core breach the saucer section crashes down a planet and ends up carving a nice path through an alien forest, yet no one is killed. That is an impressive accomplishment.
More of a dud than, say, the TMP Enterprise, which killed two people transporting to it, and created a wormhole because of improperly balanced warp drive? Or more of a dud than the Enterprise-A, which constantly had problems throughout STV? Or more of a dud than the Enterprise-B, which left spacedock without any major systems being installed (until Tuesday)? Or more of a dud than the Enterprise-C, which was of a class that seemed to be unpopular as we hardly ever saw another ship of that class, as opposed to the tons of Excelsiors we saw?
I like it better when the Ent is one of many, just because it seems less t.v.-ish. How odd, eh?
But it seems just fakey that the one ship we happen to be watching a show about is "the BEST, man!"
I like when Kirk goes into the bar in Court Martial and sees other officers, addresses them by first name, and they, him. He isn't GodEmperor Kirk of the BEST ship ever.
Yet. Then there's Genesis, then the whale, then peace w/ the bumpyheads and GREATNESS.
Then . . . THE PICARD and the FLAGSHIP!
Ok I'm rambling now. Be well. Just my opinions.
But it seems just fakey that the one ship we happen to be watching a show about is "the BEST, man!"
I like when Kirk goes into the bar in Court Martial and sees other officers, addresses them by first name, and they, him. He isn't GodEmperor Kirk of the BEST ship ever.
Yet. Then there's Genesis, then the whale, then peace w/ the bumpyheads and GREATNESS.
Then . . . THE PICARD and the FLAGSHIP!
Ok I'm rambling now. Be well. Just my opinions.
I always figured that the "Constitution II Class" business basically meant something like "Constitution Class, Block II" or something.
They use similar terminology on American Naval vessels. For example, the USS Los Angeles (SSN-688) is the Class Type for the Los Angeles Class subs. Yet some of the subs in that class are called "688-I" or "688 improved". They are still considered Los Angeles class boats, but they have significant differences. For example, the 688-I boats have bow planes instead of sail planes.
They use similar terminology on American Naval vessels. For example, the USS Los Angeles (SSN-688) is the Class Type for the Los Angeles Class subs. Yet some of the subs in that class are called "688-I" or "688 improved". They are still considered Los Angeles class boats, but they have significant differences. For example, the 688-I boats have bow planes instead of sail planes.
Remember, too, that in TUC we see Scotty looking at a schematic of the Enterprise-A, and that clearly identifies it as "Constitution Class." Now that's a different ship than the refit in TMP, but clearly the same class as the refit with some upgrades. One could argue that the original TOS ship was Constitution class, then they renamed it Enterprise class after the refit, and then went back to Constitution class for the E-A, but that doesn't seem to make a lot of sense.
So since the "Enterprise Class" designation was only ever seen in a simulator, and the Constitution Class designation was clearly printed on blueprints of the actual ship, I prefer to think that it's been Constitution Class all along and the "Enterprise Class" designation refers to the simulator itself.
So since the "Enterprise Class" designation was only ever seen in a simulator, and the Constitution Class designation was clearly printed on blueprints of the actual ship, I prefer to think that it's been Constitution Class all along and the "Enterprise Class" designation refers to the simulator itself.
I've always had a hard time swallowing the argument that the "Enterprise Class" designation referred to the students and not the vessel being simulated. I spent nearly six years in the Air Force working on flight simulators, and never once did I hear anyone (either students, instructors, or technicians) refer to the sims by anything other than they type of aircraft they represented. Renaming a piece of equipment for whatever group of cadets is training on it makes about as much sense as would a university renaming its basketball arena for the captain of the varsity team every year.
In a universe where there are matter/antimatter warp drives and matter/energy transporters, putting a sign on a door at a school doesn't seem that much of a stretch...
Given that every ship's bridge seems to be fairly different, maybe "the bridge of the Enterprise" *is* the "type of aircraft they [the simulation] represented."
Conversely maybe the Enterprise is more equivilent to a campus at this point. Maybe that same display ten minutes later would read "San Fransisco class" to show the campus being tested.
dJE
The movie itself seems to suggest that an entire crew is trained for a specific vessel and mission, not just for a specific vessel type or mission type - remember McCoy's line about putting the old crew back in the Enterprise? It's more like the astronaut corps, then: people get trained for a specific flight (plus as backup for another specific flight), not for general astronautical duties.
Basically, that's what's done on university classroom doors every day, or at least every week. All that's needed is a printer...
Timo Saloniemi
Basically, that's what's done on university classroom doors every day, or at least every week. All that's needed is a printer...
Timo Saloniemi
That.
The layout, markings, and computer simulation are all of the USS Enterprise, a Constitution class vessel. They can't call the simulator Constitution class, since there are so many variants within the class. So it's called Enterprise class, since it's a simulation of the Enterprise.
Since the Enterprise was Starfleet Academy's cadet training ship, it makes sense that the Academy would have a ground-based simulator based on its bridge.
OTOH, simulators might be the affordable way to represent non-Enterprise ships the Academy didn't possess, while there'd be less reason to have a simulator for a starship that the Academy actually possessed...
Why have that infamous plaque outside the simulator? Either because the Academy has multiple simulators and needs signage to guide the students to the right place (in which case the plaque might indicate the class that's going to study for USS Enterprise - or because the Academy reconfigures its one and only simulator for various classes as needed, in which case the plaque identifies the current configuration and thus establishes that one of Starfleet's starship classes in the 2280s was the Enterprise class.
The way the sign reads "MARK IV SIMULATOR" on large font and "enterprise class" on much humbler font beneath makes less sense as a study class identifier (because why repeat the SIMULATOR part every time they print the new schedule?) and more as a permanent fixture (which may support the latter rather than the former interpretation).
Timo Saloniemi
Why have that infamous plaque outside the simulator? Either because the Academy has multiple simulators and needs signage to guide the students to the right place (in which case the plaque might indicate the class that's going to study for USS Enterprise - or because the Academy reconfigures its one and only simulator for various classes as needed, in which case the plaque identifies the current configuration and thus establishes that one of Starfleet's starship classes in the 2280s was the Enterprise class.
The way the sign reads "MARK IV SIMULATOR" on large font and "enterprise class" on much humbler font beneath makes less sense as a study class identifier (because why repeat the SIMULATOR part every time they print the new schedule?) and more as a permanent fixture (which may support the latter rather than the former interpretation).
Timo Saloniemi
Is there any reason to believe it's not?
Similar threads
