The Constellation's registry number

[blssdwlf]

Consequently, you have a sub-classification, that's proven canon by the (long range) primary phaser schematic seen in "The Trouble With Tribbles".
It's a phaser of a "starship" (= Starship Class) which obviously belongs to the "Constitution Class".

All the ships of the 16th design (Constitution Class), 17th design (Enterprise Class) and of the 18th design (Miranda Class) are "starships".

Let's say the TOS Enterprise belonged to the Constitution Class. That again negates the "1st bird of the 17th design" idea. The USS Constitution would've been the 1st ship.

What we do have in TOS is the bridge plaque with "Starship Class" and the tech diagram with "Constitution Class" but nothing about Nth design. The Enterprise doesn't get to be the "1st bird" or lead ship until her big moment in TMP and confirmed in TWOK that she's her own class (or subclass of the Constitution Class). That puts suspect to the whole "Nth design" idea, IMHO.

I'm a bit surprised, what happened to your "Thermian" approach?

My "Thermian" approach would've stuck to the Enterprise being "Starship Class".

My response to your comment (in bold) was a hypothetical following the line of reasoning and evidence you presented that she "obviously belonged to the Constitution Class" instead.

edit: Basically the idea of a class name other than Enterprise Class conflicts with the idea of the Enterprise being the 1st ship of the 17 design.

I should've been more clear on that.

 

[Robert Comsol]

My "Thermian" approach would've stuck to the Enterprise being "Starship Class".

Yes, according to the bridge dedication plaque.

My response to your comment (in bold) was a hypothetical following the line of reasoning and evidence you presented that she "obviously belonged to the Constitution Class" instead.

Excuse me, what evidence actually is there that "she" (i.e. the Enterprise) "obviously" belongs to the Constitution Class because of the viewscreen schematic? That's been my whole point during this and the other debate

All we see is a Mark 9/01 primary phaser that belongs to a starship of a Constitution Class.

If you felt that there is only one "starship class" than "Constitution Class" would be totally redundant or even illogical unless there were several starship design differences as a sub-classification.

Bob

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

And so the TOS Enterprise can easily fit into three classifications at the same time.
- Star Ship class (primary mission profile)
- Heavy Cruiser class (type of vessel)
- Constitution-class (ship's configuration)

I have no problem with that.

In fact we know that all three of those apply, because various canon sources have said so. The numerous 'starship' references in TOS, ditto for 'Heavy Cruiser', and (if I may mention TNG here) Picard flat-out says that the 1701 is Constitution class in "The Naked Now" and "Relics".

So they can be, and in fact are, all true.

 

[BK613]

And so the TOS Enterprise can easily fit into three classifications at the same time.
- Star Ship class (primary mission profile)
- Heavy Cruiser class (type of vessel)
- Constitution-class (ship's configuration)

I have no problem with that.

In fact we know that all three of those apply, because various canon sources have said so. The numerous 'starship' references in TOS, ditto for 'Heavy Cruiser', and (if I may mention TNG here) Picard flat-out says that the 1701 is Constitution class in "The Naked Now" and "Relics".

So they can be, and in fact are, all true.

The curious thing about Relics will be when this scene becomes legible. Will it say Constitution or Starship?

 

[blssdwlf]

My response to your comment (in bold) was a hypothetical following the line of reasoning and evidence you presented that she "obviously belonged to the Constitution Class" instead.

Excuse me, what evidence actually is there that "she" (i.e. the Enterprise) "obviously" belongs to the Constitution Class because of the viewscreen schematic? That's been my whole point during this and the other debate

I'm quoting what you wrote.

It's a phaser of a "starship" (= Starship Class) which obviously belongs to the "Constitution Class".

You wrote, "Starship Class which obviously belongs to the Constitution Class." If the Enterprise is a Starship Class, by the logic in your writing, she's a "Constitution Class".

And to recap, if the Enterprise was either "Starship Class" or "Constitution Class" she cannot be the "1st bird of the 17th design" as she is not the lead ship.

 

[blssdwlf]

And so the TOS Enterprise can easily fit into three classifications at the same time.
- Star Ship class (primary mission profile)
- Heavy Cruiser class (type of vessel)
- Constitution-class (ship's configuration)

I have no problem with that.

In fact we know that all three of those apply, because various canon sources have said so. The numerous 'starship' references in TOS, ditto for 'Heavy Cruiser', and (if I may mention TNG here) Picard flat-out says that the 1701 is Constitution class in "The Naked Now" and "Relics".

So they can be, and in fact are, all true.

The curious thing about Relics will be when this scene becomes legible. Will it say Constitution or Starship?

Dang!

 

[BK613]

Here's a thought: What if Starship Class was used initially because it was politically neutral: no member world could therefore claim either extra pride or exaggerated slight at the naming of the first fully-Federation vessel class (and given how touchy the Andorians and Tellarites are portrayed, a believable consideration.)

 

[MarsWeeps]

The curious thing about Relics will be when this scene becomes legible. Will it say Constitution or Starship?

It wouldn't matter since that recreation of the bridge wasn't accurate to begin with.

 

[blssdwlf]

The curious thing about Relics will be when this scene becomes legible. Will it say Constitution or Starship?

It wouldn't matter since that recreation of the bridge wasn't accurate to begin with.

Or it is accurate and the TNG continuity is different from TOS continuity.

@BK613 - The politically neutral class name idea does sound plausible.

 

[BK613]

The curious thing about Relics will be when this scene becomes legible. Will it say Constitution or Starship?

It wouldn't matter since that recreation of the bridge wasn't accurate to begin with.

Or this one from DS9: Trials and Tribble-ations.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

no member world could therefore claim either extra pride or exaggerated slight at the naming of the first fully-Federation vessel

Come again?

By the time the Constitution class was first built, the Federation had been in existence for almost a century. Somehow I think that there would be many Starfleet classes built after the Federation was first founded; I doubt the Connie was the first.

The curious thing about Relics will be when this scene becomes legible. Will it say Constitution or Starship?

It wouldn't matter since that recreation of the bridge wasn't accurate to begin with.

Or this one from DS9: Trials and Tribble-ations.

In what way are those scenes not accurate?

 

[MarsWeeps]

In what way are those scenes not accurate?

Compare the Relics bridge with the actual TOS bridge. Aside from the carpet color, the location of the bridge railings (and stairs) on the Relics bridge don't match the original. There may be other minor nits but the partial Relics bridge served its purpose in the TNG episode.

 

[blssdwlf]

In what way are those scenes not accurate?

The "Trials and Tribbleations" would likely be accurate for some parts because they re-used previous footage. However, when it goes HD, the question is will someone overlay something different on the plaque.

The "Relics" holodeck bridge has two differences that I see. The plaque looks larger (IMO) and the deck is carpeted over.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

In what way are those scenes not accurate?

Compare the Relics bridge with the actual TOS bridge. Aside from the carpet color, the location of the bridge railings (and stairs) on the Relics bridge don't match the original. There may be other minor nits but the partial Relics bridge served it's purpose in the TNG episode.

There's always going to be inconsistencies when re-creating something like this from scratch. I don't see the point of being upset about this.

Besides, some shows were not consistent unto themselves, let alone another show trying to re-create them, so I say just live and let live.

 

[MarsWeeps]

In what way are those scenes not accurate?

Compare the Relics bridge with the actual TOS bridge. Aside from the carpet color, the location of the bridge railings (and stairs) on the Relics bridge don't match the original. There may be other minor nits but the partial Relics bridge served it's purpose in the TNG episode.

There's always going to be inconsistencies when re-creating something like this from scratch. I don't see the point of being upset about this.

I'm not upset about it, I'm just pointing out the fact that it doesn't matter what the dedication plaque on the Relics bridge says since it's already established that it's not an accurate representation of TOS bridge.

Here are some screenshots. You can see the differences.

 

[MarsWeeps]

In what way are those scenes not accurate?

The "Relics" holodeck bridge has two differences that I see. The plaque looks larger (IMO) and the deck is carpeted over.

See my previous pics, the stairs behind the Captain's chair on the Relics bridge don't exist in the original and the railings in the Relics bridge don't extend in front of the turbolift like they do in the original.

 

[BK613]

no member world could therefore claim either extra pride or exaggerated slight at the naming of the first fully-Federation vessel

Come again?

By the time the Constitution class was first built, the Federation had been in existence for almost a century. Somehow I think that there would be many Starfleet classes built after the Federation was first founded; I doubt the Connie was the first.

84 years. I'm thinking that, initially, Federation defense would be of a militia or UN Peacekeeper fashion, with members worlds supplying a portion of their existing fleets to operate under the moniker of "Starfleet." Maybe half a century or more of that.

Later, after time has passed and trust has been established (not going to be quick among the longer lived races) comes the single-entity defense of UFP Starfleet (along with the prerequisite subjugation to its authority.) Then they start building Federation starships. IOW, I see it as something that would be evolutionary and not, "Today we founded the Federation, tomorrow we build Federation starships!"
Funny, because it was musing about the patches thread and how they could be some sort of member world legacy that made think of this Starship Class quasi-solution.

It wouldn't matter since that recreation of the bridge wasn't accurate to begin with.

Or this one from DS9: Trials and Tribble-ations.

In what way are those scenes not accurate?

Hmm that should have been "OK this one..." not "Or this one..."

 

[EliyahuQeoni]

And to recap, if the Enterprise was either "Starship Class" or "Constitution Class" she cannot be the "1st bird of the 17th design" as she is not the lead ship.

Not necessarily. After all, the HMS_Afridi was the lead ship of the Tribal-Class yet neither she nor any of her sister ships were called the "HMS Tribal".

 

[blssdwlf]

And to recap, if the Enterprise was either "Starship Class" or "Constitution Class" she cannot be the "1st bird of the 17th design" as she is not the lead ship.

Not necessarily. After all, the HMS_Afridi was the lead ship of the Tribal-Class yet neither she nor any of her sister ships were called the "HMS Tribal".

Timo referred to the British River and Town Classes earlier where the class of ships are defined by a theme and not the lead ship's name so I get your point.

If "Starship Class" was a theme that was replaced temporarily by "Enterprise Class" from TWOK and then again replaced as "Constitution Class" in TUC it would suggest a shift from naming by theme to naming by actual lead ship.

With Picard calling the TOS bridge "Constitution Class" and Scotty acknowledging him, then we can assume then in the TNG version that "Starship Class" was either a theme that encompassed the "Constitution" sub-Class or vice-versa, IMHO.

 

[Marcus Porcius Cato]

I like to think NCC-1017 was a Pre-Constitution frame which was canceled/delayed during construction.

After a while either as a testbed, or to make up numbers or some other reason, building on the frame resumed and was completed on spec as Constitution-Class.

As for the name, she could have been named Constellation from the beginning or was assigned the name when she was completed.