Was the Enterprise A actually the Yorktown?

[Albertese]

Okay, hold on, I may have missed something here, but I have a few questions...

...
IMO, we can't have cake and eat it, too, i.e. accept Greg Jein's conjectural "Constitution Class" but disregard his conjectural registries.

Isn't this this exactly what you're doing with your M-5 arguement? You are utilizing Jein's numbers for the these ships to advance the theory that series 16 ships were a more vital target to M-5's strategy. And yet, are also saying that series 17 can not be Constitution-class? Seems to be cherry-picking to me. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Let's not kid ourselves. Greg Jein's treatise is obviously the reason why "Constitution Class" made it into the Star Trek Concordance along with the registries in the first place which was adopted by the Okuda's Encyclopedia and therefore constitutes the "dogma" Dukhat found so funny (good, I'd rather be the reason for fun than agony).

I'm not sure that's so obvious. Jein's "Jonathan Doe Star Ship" article wasn't published before 1973, while Trimble's first use of Constitution-class being applied to Enterprise was done in the 60's. In fact, one of the lines of argument that Jein used was that his system happened to line up the name Constitution with Commodore Stone's NCC-1700, which had already been assumed by that point. In fact, the whole argument hinges on the lining up of that bottom registry and NCC-1701 for Enterprise. I think we can say for a fact that Trimble's use of Constitution-class predates that of Jein's. In fact, the Concordance doesn't even bother with registry numbers at all. However, I concede that Jein's numbers were the basis of Okuda's work, as he comes out and says so in the Star Trek Encyclopedia.

I have another question for you: If NCC-1700 was not the Constitution, then what was it? Stone's chart from CM most certainly does contain NCC-1700. If indeed Enterprise is the first bird of the 17th series, then why is there a "00" ship at all? The concept that the "00" ship was the prototype of the series (being something other than Enterprise) and the Enterprise is indeed the first production version of the series, works nicely with the evidence of there even being an NCC-1700 and doesn't violate any quote of our much revered Mister Jefferies. I'm curious what you take NCC-1700 to be, given that it is obviously in the 17th series yet, being "00", would necessarily come before "01" in a sequence...

However, once we closely look for canon references on behalf of "Constitution Class" (and regardless of our interpretation of "canon"!), we will have to acknowledge that the only reliable one that suggests the TOS Enterprise to have been a Constitution Class starship is Sisko's remark in the DS9 episode "Trials and Tribble-ations".

I still wouldn't be so quick to discount Picard's line in "Relics" or the reference in "The Naked Now."

--Alex

 

[Robert Comsol]

You are utilizing Jein's numbers for the these ships to advance the theory that series 16 ships were a more vital target to M-5's strategy. And yet, are also saying that series 17 can not be Constitution-class? Seems to be cherry-picking to me.

Fact is that he was the first (as far as I know) to attribute the NCC registries from the starship status chart to the ship's names and this has become popular and mostly accepted.

It didn't contradict TOS canon and he performed commendable conclusions in the first part of his treatise before he got intoxicated with his weird theory and then began to arrange the facts to conform to his theory.

The moment he said that starships beginning with "16" also belonged to the Constitution Class (beginning with "17" according to his theory) he could have noticed something had gotten wrong.

Usually you amputate the infected parts to save the patient, I don't think this is cherry-picking.

In fact, the whole argument hinges on the lining up of that bottom registry and NCC-1701 for Enterprise. I think we can say for a fact that Trimble's use of Constitution-class predates that of Jein's. In fact, the Concordance doesn't even bother with registry numbers at all. However, I concede that Jein's numbers were the basis of Okuda's work, as he comes out and says so in the Star Trek Encyclopedia.

In my old Concordance from the 1970's (the one with the saucer hull cover) Jein's registry numbers were attributed to all the starships (and I wondered where these had come from). I assumed Bjo Trimble had adapted both "Constitution Class" along with the registries. Looks like I stand corrected, thanks.

If NCC-1700 was not the Constitution, then what was it?

In the P.S. section of his treatise the function of the "complete" bars were discussed and Jein, apparently his old "self" again, suggested a low bar (NCC-1700 !!!) could indicate a ship being built. In this case the "00" may have simply indicated a placeholder for a yet to come two-digit contact code or shipyard release number.

I still wouldn't be so quick to discount Picard's line in "Relics" or the reference in "The Naked Now."

Not quick but thorough, here it comes:

The missing evidence that the TOS Enterprise is a “Constitution Class” starship

As I’ve tried to illustrate there is no evidence whatsoever that either the TOS or TMP Enterprise were ever anything else than a “Starship Class” and/or “Enterprise Class” ship.

During the next-gen of Star Trek “Constitution Class” references popped up, apparently referring to the TOS Enterprise, which therefore merit a closer examination:

“The Naked Now” (TNG without R as in Retroactive continuity)

Data is scanning data files and schematics show up on his station screen, one of those is showing a TMP-style Enterprise. Picard looks at it and says “The Constitution class Enterprise, Captain James T. Kirk commanding.”

Since they are looking up what happened on Kirk’s TOS Enterprise in “The Naked Time”, the TMP-style Enterprise on the screen seems out of place, but the one thing we do know about the “Constitution Class” from ST VI is that NCC-1701-A under the command of Captain James T. Kirk belonged to that class and matched the schematic on the screen.

For all we know this could just be a file cover for the history of the Enterprises under Captain Kirk and what we see is just the last one he did command. Considering Paramount Studios had used many TOS Enterprise screen graphics to inaccurately portray the TMP Enterprise it’s strange these didn’t come into use, now, where these might have been appropriate.

This is (correct) evidence that NCC-1701-A is a Constitution Class Starship and that’s what we clearly saw in ST VI. (but what’s up with these red marks Scotty put on the blueprint?)

“Relics” (TNG)

Here we have the pivotal scene where Scotty wants the Enterprise-D’s computer to recreate the command bridge of Kirk’s TOS Enterprise. Picard, like Scotty before him, enters through the viewscreen, chats with Scotty, has a quick look around and says “Constitution Class”.

There are several noticeable differences that tell me that this is not the bridge of the old USS Enterprise but in addition to this one could of course be the bridge of a starship of the 16th design series or Constitution Class. A layman couldn’t tell the difference so Picard merely mistakes the bridge of a Constitution Class starship with the one of a [Enterprise] Starship Class.

Where it gets interesting is Scotty’s reaction “Aye. You're familiar with them?”

Obviously he is happy that somebody from the 24th Century is familiar with some details of Scotty’s time. It’s inconclusive whether his “Aye” confirms that this is, indeed, the bridge of a Constitution Class starship (but not of “his” Enterprise, gotta be grateful for little things) or whether Scotty remembers that Kirk’s TOS Enterprise was a Constitution Class starship - which seems to be the general assumption.

But Scotty’s memory is an issue and although during “pattern buffer hibernation” for 75 years his pattern degradation only amounted to 0.003% it obviously affected his memory:

“The Enterprise? I should have known. I bet Jim Kirk himself hauled the old girl out of mothballs to come looking for me. Captain Montgomery Scott. Tell me, how long have I been missing?”

Scotty was the eye-witness of Jim Kirk’s apparent death in ST VII (Chekov “My God... Was anyone in there?” Scotty “Aye”), so he wouldn’t have forgotten the death of his former captain and longtime friend.
Because of the memory loss inflicted by the transporter hibernation, add to this the intoxicating effects of real alcohol, Scotty is anything but a reliable contemporary witness and therefore most assuredly not the one to be quoted as “canon” for purposes to make the TOS Enterprise a member of the Constitution Class.

“Trials and Tribble-ations” (DS9)

After the unsuccessful attempts in TNG to retro-convert the TOS Enterprise into a Constitution Class starship the “honors” were passed on to DS9 and Ben Sisko turned out to be the “lucky” guy: “This was the first Enterprise. Constitution class.” (so no one before, interesting! )

I really don’t understand this obsession in the 24th Century with the Constitution Class and why the post-TOS captains and Trills constantly mistake the TOS Enterprise for a starship of this class. Let’s “rewind” and see what Dax told Bashir and O’Brien:

“Chief, here are the coordinates. The Captain and I will start on Deck 4 and work our way aft. You and Julian should start on Deck 21. “

What do we know about the USS Constitution? According to the blueprints Franz Joseph made of her there is no distinction between main and engineering decks, therefore she has 23 decks from top to bottom.

But with the TOS Enterprise there is a clear distinction between 11 main decks and 16 engineering decks, I illustrated the issue at the end of this post on page 12 of this thread.

Since the TOS Enterprise has by designation no more than 16 (engineering) decks, it is a logical conclusion that Dax and/or Sisko mistook the TOS Enterprise to be a Constitution Class starship – with some hilarious consequences:

O'BRIEN: Deck 21. Deck 21. I said, Deck 21.
BASHIR: Maybe if you said please.
O'BRIEN: What's wrong with this thing?
BASHIR: Don't look at me. I don't know anything about this time period.
O'BRIEN: Maybe it's jammed. Help me get this wall panel off.
(A crewwoman enters and turns one of the wall handles)
WATLEY: Deck 15.
BASHIR: I won't tell anyone if you don't.

Of course, for the average viewer and layman the joke was that they didn’t know how to use the turbo lift handles.

But hardcore trekkers know from various examples in TOS that it is possible to just say where you want to go without the necessity to hold onto the handles…so the ship’s computer simply didn’t understand where Bashir and O’Brien wanted to go because there is no “Deck 21” aboard the TOS Enterprise!

Of course both Sisko and Dax could have taken a history lesson by just looking at the TOS Enterprise’s bridge dedication plaque to understand she was a ship of the “Starship Class” and not of the “Constitution Class”, but they were busy locating the bombshell tribble.

“In a Mirror, Darkly” (ENT)

Frankly, I don’t know what the producers were thinking. That fans were blind or didn’t know that it said “Starship Class” on the Enterprise’s bridge dedication plaque?

As a sub-classification a name class would have been okay, IMHO, but if it shows up on the dedication plaque, as it did aboard the USS Defiant (NCC-1764), the logical conclusion could only be that Defiant was supposedly a member of the Constitution Class, but the Enterprise was not – because it was a member of the Starship Class, instead.

Summary:
The post-TOS producers successfully established the “Constitution Class” of starships in the canon of Star Trek. Once a footnote of a schematic on a small screen it become something much bigger.
But the attempts to retro-convert the TOS Enterprise into a member of the Constitution Class and establish it for canon based on solid facts rather than conjecture failed – not too surprising given the lackluster approaches and inadequate research efforts to successfully accomplish that mission goal.


Was the Enterprise-A actually the USS Yorktown?

I’d dare to say no. Both Jein and Joseph assumed her registry to begin with “17” which would be an “Enterprise Starship Class” vessel more or less according to Matt Jefferies.
Since she is obviously a Constitution Starship Class vessel, it should have been a registry that once began with “16”, IMHO.

(I guess that was the longest introduction before getting to the point of an original topic…)

Bob

 

[Albertese]

Okay, I follow your logic, but I still think it's an unnecessary stretch. Personally, I think I'm still comfortable with Enterprise and series 17 being Constitution-class ships.

Actually, I'm more for rejecting Jein's numbers all together. I realize later day Trek went with them and enshrined many of them in the on-screen canon, but I'm willing to ignore such business.

I won't bother preaching on behalf of FJ's Star Fleet Technical Manual, as I know many people here simply won't have it, but I always thought his registry numbers (especially for the Enterprise sister ships) seemed more sensible. The way the Status Chart is played in "Court Martial" suggests that those ships are at the Starbase "now" and it always rubbed me the wrong way that nearly all the Enterprise sister ships would be there at once, being worked on.

On the other hand, I am in favor of MJ notion of ship numbers being DDSS where D is the design series number and S is the individual hull number, which would make the status chart showing ships of three different classes being worked on. Make better sense to me.

Anyway, I feel I'm beginning to ramble, so I'll go away now.

--Alex

P.S. I was looking through my copy of the Concordance (which I expect is the same edition as yours, Robert Comsol) and you should look up the entry for NCC-1701. There's a little tidbit there I think you'll enjoy...

 

[Praetor]

I think the thing that Bob may not be making fully clear (and do feel free to correct me, pal) is his desire to distinguish original intent of the TOS production from what's been established by the sequel series and her spinoffs. I share his desire to understand these things as separate entities. I don't presume to speak for Bob, but as we've seen he prefers to honor the original intent over what was later established. He prefers the rough draft to the final print, to extend Albertese's earlier metaphor.

Personally, I would really like to use the Jefferies numbering scheme, but I'm convinced that it's invalidated as early as TWOK, when we see the Reliant, a ship with an almost completely different type of design, with a registry that starts with 18. According to Jefferies, this would mean she's the 18th cruiser design. The only way I think there would be an out is if the Reliant was NCL-1864, or something along those lines.

Now, that still doesn't make Jein's retcon and fuzzy logic on the "Court Martial" screen right, and I still don't accept it, nor do I choose to accept any of the TOS-R uses of the 16xx numbers. But, I also still accept that there was a U.S.S. Constitution. Frankly, I can live with considering the 1701 Enterprise class all along, as a subtype of the Constitution class, primarily because it makes the "Starship Class" thing make a twinge of sense. It makes sense to me that laymen in-universe wouldn't remember that the 1701 was actually Enterprise subtype.

And I still don't think the Yorktown makes much sense as the A.

 

[Darkwing]

Okay, I follow your logic, but I still think it's an unnecessary stretch. Personally, I think I'm still comfortable with Enterprise and series 17 being Constitution-class ships.

I like the Mastercom class/subclass explanation here. Yeah, it's a minor retcon that they're all Connies, but various flavors thereof.

Actually, I'm more for rejecting Jein's numbers all together. I realize later day Trek went with them and enshrined many of them in the on-screen canon, but I'm willing to ignore such business.

I don't see a need for that at all. Just using what SOTSF gave us, with the refits, allows Jein's 16xx ships to be something Other-than-Connies that were remade into Connies.

won't bother preaching on behalf of FJ's Star Fleet Technical Manual, as I know many people here simply won't have it, but I always thought his registry numbers (especially for the Enterprise sister ships) seemed more sensible. The way the Status Chart is played in "Court Martial" suggests that those ships are at the Starbase "now" and it always rubbed me the wrong way that nearly all the Enterprise sister ships would be there at once, being worked on.

And as I mentioned before, FJ's registries might be the authorized, intended registries, but the pressures of a war forced them NOT to decom a bunch of 16xx ships that were supposed to make way for new 17xx ships. and after any war, the politicians find a "peace dividend" - they cut the military budget. Ships that ought to get decommissioned and replaced with new ships stay in commission, and more money gets spent keeping them working (just in smaller chunks), exactly as today's navy does, and so has any military since Sargon.

On the other hand, I am in favor of MJ notion of ship numbers being DDSS where D is the design series number and S is the individual hull number, which would make the status chart showing ships of three different classes being worked on. Make better sense to me.

If planning out a new verse, ala nu-Trek, sure. Real Trek is too sprawling and messy for that to make sense, and has been since at least the mid-80s.

 

[yenny]

If you use numbers as reference for different starships design? Which would not really make any since, and that a real space organizing would never have name a spaceship/starship class after a number. They will not name a starship, USS Starship. If a rich person and a few space organization decided together and decided to build the Enterprise 1701? They will build two ships. the USS Constitution and USS Enterprise. Both ships probably would been built at the same time? The Constitution would be LRRMS-1 and the Enterprise would be LRRMS-2. Or Nuclear Cosmologies Craft, Constitution NCC-1 and Enterprise NCC-2.

 

[Albertese]

Okay, I follow your logic, but I still think it's an unnecessary stretch. Personally, I think I'm still comfortable with Enterprise and series 17 being Constitution-class ships.

I like the Mastercom class/subclass explanation here. Yeah, it's a minor retcon that they're all Connies, but various flavors thereof.

Yeah, I'm actually completely behind the Mastercom stuff. As a spiritual successor to FJ's TM, their take really ties it all together very nicely.

won't bother preaching on behalf of FJ's Star Fleet Technical Manual, as I know many people here simply won't have it, but I always thought his registry numbers (especially for the Enterprise sister ships) seemed more sensible. The way the Status Chart is played in "Court Martial" suggests that those ships are at the Starbase "now" and it always rubbed me the wrong way that nearly all the Enterprise sister ships would be there at once, being worked on.

And as I mentioned before, FJ's registries might be the authorized, intended registries, but the pressures of a war forced them NOT to decom a bunch of 16xx ships that were supposed to make way for new 17xx ships. and after any war, the politicians find a "peace dividend" - they cut the military budget. Ships that ought to get decommissioned and replaced with new ships stay in commission, and more money gets spent keeping them working (just in smaller chunks), exactly as today's navy does, and so has any military since Sargon.

Also makes sense.

On the other hand, I am in favor of MJ notion of ship numbers being DDSS where D is the design series number and S is the individual hull number, which would make the status chart showing ships of three different classes being worked on. Make better sense to me.

If planning out a new verse, ala nu-Trek, sure. Real Trek is too sprawling and messy for that to make sense, and has been since at least the mid-80s.

Oh, allow me to clarify. I should have mentioned this above... in fact I had intended to, but forgot to actually type it. I like the spirit of the MJ DDSS registry format, but I feel the after the start of the 24th Century it is necessarily something else. IMHO, I figure that sometime after the year 2300, maybe around the time that "Starfleet" became one word, they switched to a strictly sequential five-digit number beginning with NCC-10000 and giving every ship from Runabouts on up its own sequential number. This would have to be a fundamentally different system than that suggested by MJ for 23rd Century (and possibly earlier) use.

Then we have Star Trek Enterprise which seems to show us a starfleet which the first part of the registry is in fact a simple letter designation for a ship class more like Yenny seems to be suggesting. This seems to be another totally different system in use.

Just thought I'd clarify that.

--Alex

 

[CDR6]

Hi all! Thought I'd throw this one in for general discussion. It was suggested that the Enterprise A could not have been built in so quick a time that the ship was actually the Yorktown renamed. This theory however was put forth by Gene Roddenberry and I actually don't consider him the utmost authority on these matters Tbh lol. He also suggested that only a few Galaxy classes would ever be built and well we know that turned out to be untrue. Also it is very likely that Starfleet had many Constitution refits on the assembly line by the time of Star Trek IV-VI (such as the Endeavor, Ahwahnee and Emden so I'm think it was most likely a new ship and not refurbished as Roddenberry suggested. What say you all?

Old universe Star Trek had a fondness for things WWII-ish. In real life Enterprise CV6 and Yorktown CV9 were sister ships, laid down at about the same time and followed one another into commission. So the possibility of them being tied together in the old "prime" universe is not beyond reason.

Regards

 

[Robert Comsol]

@ Albertese

Sorry, I do not have the 1970's Star Trek Concordance any more, just the latest one. So please feel free to tell us about that little "tidbit" you noticed.

I think the thing that Bob may not be making fully clear (and do feel free to correct me, pal) is his desire to distinguish original intent of the TOS production from what's been established by the sequel series and her spinoffs. I share his desire to understand these things as separate entities. I don't presume to speak for Bob, but as we've seen he prefers to honor the original intent over what was later established. He prefers the rough draft to the final print, to extend Albertese's earlier metaphor.

Essentially correct. But the "final print" is what the TOS producers had settled for TOS and its Enterprise which is most assuredly "Starship Class" and most likely "Enterprise Starship Class".

This is what applies for the context of 79 episodes and the "microcosm" of TOS, but then came 4 post-TOS episodes shortly relating to events in TOS which supposedly revised, altered and rewrote the original context.

Personally, I would really like to use the Jefferies numbering scheme, but I'm convinced that it's invalidated as early as TWOK, when we see the Reliant, a ship with an almost completely different type of design, with a registry that starts with 18. According to Jefferies, this would mean she's the 18th cruiser design. The only way I think there would be an out is if the Reliant was NCL-1864, or something along those lines.

I'm unable to see the problem. First of all, the original classification was not "starship" but "cruiser" class and I think Matt Jefferies pre-production sketch reflects the original idea.
"Cruiser Class" then became "Starship Class", thus it's credible to assume that we are looking at design series of Federation starships.

Reliant is a Federation starship, obviously of the 18th design.
I do not understand why it should not be NCC-1864.

@ yenny

I think you're making the mistake of applying retroactive thinking.
The original classifications were "Starship Class", "Destroyer Class" and presumably "Scout Class" (ST III) with only alphabetic numbers (e.g. J-Class starship) to provide distinctions next to the obvious design series digits on the ship's exterior hulls.
For all we now "J-Class" could have stood for "Jefferson-Class" or something like that and Constitution Class may have read "C-Class".

But then it was a sub-classification from which we cannot derive that there had to have been a "USS Starship".

Bob

 

[Albertese]

@ Albertese

Sorry, I do not have the 1970's Star Trek Concordance any more, just the latest one. So please feel free to tell us about that little "tidbit" you noticed.

Enjoy:

NCC-1701: the identifying number used for the starship Enterprise. Originally thought to be a memorial reference to the early twentieth-century Earth amphibious aircraft, the Navy Curtis Craft, it has recently been revealed that the numbering system for starships was the responsibility of two men: Matt Jefferies (See Jefferies Tube), a twentieth-century inventor responsible for the design of early starships, and the Constitution-type ship, including the Enterprise and Gene Roddenerry, an inventive television executive. They used "N" because it was a 1928 adoption by the United States as an identifying letter, "C" for "commercial," and the second "C" for esthetic balance--hence "NCC" as the call-letter identification for all Enterprise-class starships.

I thought it interesting that both Constitution and Enterprise are used here as the class type of our favorite starship in the same paragraph. What's THAT all about?

--Alex

 

[Robert Comsol]

I thought it interesting that both Constitution and Enterprise are used here as the class type of our favorite starship in the same paragraph. What's THAT all about?

Must be the "Question Mark IX/01 Starship Class".

That paragraph is obviously written from a weird in-universe point of view.
Today, we know from Matt Jefferies that the extra "C" was derived from the third "C" in Soviet designations, so the "esthetic balance" has a rather interesting ring to it.

So apparently the Enterprise and her sister ships (the only TOS vessels seen with an "NCC" registry) belong to the "Enterprise Class" (correct) - but are "Constitution-type" space cruisers?!?

So Bjo Trimble considered [then] undisputed information from The Making of Star Trek but discarded it later on behalf of Constitution Class exclusively.

Bob

 

[137th Gebirg]

Yeah...

This all muddies the waters quite nicely.

Starship/Constitution/Enterprise Class - very close to the source. Anyone still not think that a couple of these things should be forceably decanonized like "Vulcanians"? Personally, I think "starship" should not ever be considered a class-name again, but rather a generic ship type, like "xxxx-class starship" is fine. We've heard this combination of words in relation to space-faring vessels for a much longer duration than "starship class" (a phrase which has never been voiced on-screen in dialog). Think about it - is anyone ever REALLY going to call the Enterprise a "Starship-Class Starship"? That's like calling today's Enterprise a "Carrier-Class Carrier"! Are we going to say that one piece of set dressing (original bridge plaque w/ "Starship Class") that was never meant to be seen that clearly is any more or less authoritative than another piece of set dressing (technical journal w/ "Constitution Class")? It's time to collectively kill "Starship Class" once and for all. It is a meaningless pairing of words. At least "Constitution Class" makes sense and, even though never spoken on-screen in TOS, it was spoken on screen (satisfying most people's definition of the word "canon") in relation to that specific type of vessel in TNG and beyond. Any confusion or debate about what class the TOS Enterprise belonged to should have evaporated with that.

I kind of miss the old days of debating whether or not the refit was called a Connie or its own new "Enterprise Class" (based on the TWOK bridge simulator signage). I'm an "Enterprise-class" guy m'self.

 

[Robert Comsol]

I kind of miss the old days of debating whether or not the refit was called a Connie or its own new "Enterprise Class" (based on the TWOK bridge simulator signage). I'm an "Enterprise-class" guy m'self.

Apparently and according to ST II NCC-1701 was a member of the "Enterprise Starship Class" (the refit according to the Official TMP Blueprints was a "Starship II Class" Enterprise) and NCC-1701-A was a member of the "Constitution Starship [II] Class" according to ST VI.

I think it's rather simply and there's really nothing wrong with the TOS dedication plaque, as it contains the vital information: "(U.S.S.) Enterprise Starship Class".
I don't know what the dedication plaque of the sister ships would read, but for the class leader all the information is contained.

All we have on the "Consitution Class" in TOS is a screen schematic belonging to one manual of several starships.

As for the post-TOS canon "evidence" I tried to illustrate how conjectural it basically is. We might just go for the producers' intentions, instead, and then we'd have their word from The Making of Star Trek versus statements to the opposite from the post-TOS producers I am not aware of, yet.

We could then discuss whether the authority of the TOS producers regarding one of their creations can possibly be revised, altered or overwritten by the post-TOS producers.

Bob

 

[Jerikka Dawn]

As for the post-TOS canon "evidence" I tried to illustrate how conjectural it basically is. We might just go for the producers' intentions, instead, and then we'd have their word from The Making of Star Trek versus statements to the opposite from the post-TOS producers I am not aware of, yet.

We could then discuss whether the authority of the TOS producers regarding one of their creations can possibly be revised, altered or overwritten by the post-TOS producers.

Bob

Picard referring to the ship as "Constitution Class" in The Naked Now (first run computer FX production error notwithstanding), and referring to the Enterprise bridge in Relics as "Constitution Class", and Sisko referring to the actual NCC-1701 as "Constitution Class" aren't just "evidence" of canon. They're the very definition.

I forgot what this has to do with whether the -A was the Yorktown.

 

[Robert Comsol]

Picard referring to the ship as "Constitution Class" in The Naked Now (first run computer FX production error notwithstanding), and referring to the Enterprise bridge in Relics as "Constitution Class", and Sisko referring to the actual NCC-1701 as "Constitution Class" aren't just "evidence" of canon. They're the very definition.

I forgot what this has to do with whether the -A was the Yorktown.

Because I adressed ALL these issues in post 222 I have to assume that you didn't read it.

But using the occasion here is an addendum to the particular issue of "Relics":

COMPUTER: Please enter programme.
SCOTT: The android at the bar said you could show me my old ship. Let me see it.
COMPUTER: Insufficient data. Please specify parameters.

(this makes it clear for Scotty and the audience that the ship’s computer cannot read Scotty’s mind and what ship he is thinking of. He has to provide specifications)

SCOTT: The Enterprise. Show me the Bridge of the Enterprise, you chattering piece of…
COMPUTER: There have been five Federation ships with that name. Please specify by registry number.
SCOTT: NCC-1-7-0-1. No bloody A, B, C, or D.
COMPUTER: Programme complete. Enter when ready.

What’s missing here? THIS:

COMPUTER: There have been several modifications of the Bridge of Enterprise NCC-1701. Please specify era by captaincy.
SCOTT: Up your shaft! Captain James T. Kirk. No Captain April, Pike, Decker, … or Spock.

Because the ship’s computer did not require the necessary specifications to show Scotty the TOS bridge (Scotty could have also wanted to see the bridges from “The Cage”, TMP or ST II for all the computer could know) the logical conclusion has to be, that these bridges were not stored in the holodeck memory banks.

The ship’s computer just provided Scotty with what was available and the closest approximation was a Constitution Class bridge because what we saw in the episode was obviously not a correct replica of the Enterprise’s TOS bridge.

I don’t know how drunk Scotty was, but I give him the benefit of a doubt that the moment he realized that the ship’s computer was not capable to read his mind, but required specifications, he understood these were necessary to give him what he wanted.

After stating the registry “NCC-1701” and getting a result (without providing specifications of captaincy to help determine which bridge) he probably just went along whatever the computer had come up with and was happy with what he got.

Obviously not the Enterprise TOS bridge, but at least one (Constitution Class) that resembled it far more closely than the one of Pike’s, Decker’s or Spock’s Enterprise!

Bob

 

[Manticore]

Which completely goes against the creator intent here. They clearly intended it to be the Enterprise's bridge, and budgetary concerns prevented it from being wholly accurate.

The rationalizations to justify it as a rationalization are most amusing though.

Speaking for myself, I have an easier time dismissing background details from when the series and its universe was still in flux (UESPA vs. Star Fleet, Earth vs. the Federation, and exactly what the devil "class" actually meant) than I do when the universe was fully developed and realized. In the early days of the show, they didn't have these details settled at all, and I find it faintly ridiculous to uphold the unsettled details as divine truth over the settled ones.

 

[Robert Comsol]

Which completely goes against the creator intent here. They clearly intended it to be the Enterprise's bridge, and budgetary concerns prevented it from being wholly accurate.

Agreed, the TNG producers (none from the original production) probably intended this to be the TOS Enterprise's bridge, but since the intentions of the original creators are considered null and void because onscreen "canon" takes precedence, so are the intentions of the next-gen producers.

Or would you seriously say, that your kids know better than yourself why you were doing something when they were still babies in the cradle?

Next-gen canon did not deliver the evidence that the TOS Enterprise is a Constitution Class ship, just more conjectural assumptions.

The rationalizations to justify it as a rationalization are most amusing though.

I'm glad you had a good time. It's nitpicky, yes, but if we are made to believe an assumption becomes "fact" than an in-depth analysis is warranted, IMHO.

Speaking for myself, I have an easier time dismissing background details from when the series and its universe was still in flux (UESPA vs. Star Fleet, Earth vs. the Federation, and exactly what the devil "class" actually meant) than I do when the universe was fully developed and realized. In the early days of the show, they didn't have these details settled at all, and I find it faintly ridiculous to uphold the unsettled details as divine truth over the settled ones.

There is a new an interesting thread that deals exactly with these issues and suggests we are looking at an evolution into what becomes Star Fleet. All the details had admittedly not been settled yet, but one that had been settled from the very first episode on is that the TOS Enterprise belonged to the "(Enterprise) Starship Class" according to the bridge plaque.

Bob

 

[Darkwing]

Life is messy. I like "Vulcanian" as an early form, no longer used. Language changes over time, so I think such terms should be acknowledged, and even used in appropriate context.
I also dislike retcon vocabulary, such as "warp core" in relation to pre-TNG-era ships. It makes a lot of sense, gets the idea across easily and succinctly, but should never be used in-universe much before 2364.

It's all a matter of what makes sense in what context. Fans discussing the warp core of Archer's Loknarprise? Sure! Scotty discussing the warp core of the Antares from Charley X? Hell no, that's as anachronistic as a 1940's PI saying "LOL, doll! LMAO while yer on yer way to the pen!". Harry Mudd calling Spock a Vulcanian, yes. The Outrageous Okona saying it, no.

 

[Avro Arrow]

This is (correct) evidence that NCC-1701-A is a Constitution Class Starship and that’s what we clearly saw in ST VI. (but what’s up with these red marks Scotty put on the blueprint?)

Think about it... what does Scotty need with a outboard profile of his ship while conducting a search of the interior? As he has said himself, he knows this ship like the back of his hand. The pictures can't actually be helping with his search. And it's even on *paper*, no less. So the red marks are all over the page because... in this scene, Scotty is critiquing fan art of the Enterprise that someone has sent him! He just hasn't yet got to the part where he scratches out the title and writes in "the refit design is Enterprise class"... and he gets distracted by the air vent before he can get to it!

Actually, I'm more for rejecting Jein's numbers all together. I realize later day Trek went with them and enshrined many of them in the on-screen canon, but I'm willing to ignore such business.

Yeah, this is pretty much how I feel as well.

I won't bother preaching on behalf of FJ's Star Fleet Technical Manual, as I know many people here simply won't have it, but I always thought his registry numbers (especially for the Enterprise sister ships) seemed more sensible.

I like FJ's numbers as well, with a slight modification for Intrepid so that her number actually appears on the "Court Martial" chart. The only major sticking point for me is that darn 1017, which makes even less sense than Jein's 16xx numbers. That's why I tend to think that Constellation was an older, smaller ship that only superficially looked like the Constitution class. The old AMT model kit in the original version helped with this. Of course, TOS-R *didn't* help with this, but if I'm already ignoring the Jein registries used in TOS-R...

The way the Status Chart is played in "Court Martial" suggests that those ships are at the Starbase "now" and it always rubbed me the wrong way that nearly all the Enterprise sister ships would be there at once, being worked on.

Agreed.

Actually, I'm more for rejecting Jein's numbers all together. I realize later day Trek went with them and enshrined many of them in the on-screen canon, but I'm willing to ignore such business.

I don't see a need for that at all. Just using what SOTSF gave us, with the refits, allows Jein's 16xx ships to be something Other-than-Connies that were remade into Connies.

From an in-universe perspective, why would Starfleet bother remaking these older ships to look like Constitution class ships, rather than just installing upgraded weapons/sensors/whatever into their existing spaceframes?

Starship/Constitution/Enterprise Class - very close to the source. Anyone still not think that a couple of these things should be forceably decanonized like "Vulcanians"? Personally, I think "starship" should not ever be considered a class-name again, but rather a generic ship type, like "xxxx-class starship" is fine. We've heard this combination of words in relation to space-faring vessels for a much longer duration than "starship class" (a phrase which has never been voiced on-screen in dialog). Think about it - is anyone ever REALLY going to call the Enterprise a "Starship-Class Starship"? That's like calling today's Enterprise a "Carrier-Class Carrier"! Are we going to say that one piece of set dressing (original bridge plaque w/ "Starship Class") that was never meant to be seen that clearly is any more or less authoritative than another piece of set dressing (technical journal w/ "Constitution Class")? It's time to collectively kill "Starship Class" once and for all. It is a meaningless pairing of words. At least "Constitution Class" makes sense and, even though never spoken on-screen in TOS, it was spoken on screen (satisfying most people's definition of the word "canon") in relation to that specific type of vessel in TNG and beyond. Any confusion or debate about what class the TOS Enterprise belonged to should have evaporated with that.

I'm on board with this. "Starship Class" works much better as a generic type designator. Starfleet just went from using the generic type class on their plaques in the 2240s, to using the actual nominal class of the ship on their plaques by whenever the Defiant was commissioned.

I kind of miss the old days of debating whether or not the refit was called a Connie or its own new "Enterprise Class" (based on the TWOK bridge simulator signage). I'm an "Enterprise-class" guy m'self.

 

[Robert Comsol]

@ Albertese & Avro Arrow

Is there any good reason to assume that the starship status chart from "Court Martial" only shows starships being repaired in orbit of the starbase?

NCC-1831 (formerly assumed to be Intrepid) is almost done, so why pull the repair crew off to start work on the Enterprise?

For all we know this is just the general Starfleet chart to indicate all starships that are still in need to receive essential upgrades.

Commodore Stone may be well aware of Intrepid's condition but a look at the "upgrade" chart tells him Enterprise badly needs these in addition to the repair work following the severe "ion storm".

I don't believe Mike Okuda was making a conscious decision showing Intrepid as NCC-1631 in TOS-R, but the moment he did he accidentally gave this starship status chart a different and, IMHO, better meaning.

Bob