You're thinking of the Valiant from WNMHGB. That's not the ship I'm talking about. There was a Starfleet Valiant that was destroyed at Eminiar in 2217.
Which 12 Constitution class starships in "Tomorrow is Yesterday"?
- Thread starter Enterprise1701
- Start date
You're thinking of the Valiant from WNMHGB. That's not the ship I'm talking about. There was a Starfleet Valiant that was destroyed at Eminiar in 2217.
Ok, but then next in the book we see:
The following names have been established for starships: Enterprise, Exeter, Excalibur, Lexington, Yorktown, Potemkin, Republic, Hood, Constitution, Kongo, Constellation, Farragut, Valiant, and Intrepid. The latter four are listed as destroyed in various episodes.
My thoughts:
1. This whole effort was started to name the 12 starships. Lo and behold, the official list counts 14, not 12. Yes, at least two (but probably not four; more on that presently) are known to have been destroyed, and 14-2=12. But when Kirk told Captain Christopher there were 12 starships, the Constellation and Intrepid had not as yet been destroyed.
2. What about the Defiant? If this is the definitive list, why is she missing? Or by the third season, are there 13 starships?
3. Common sense dictates the two-centuries older S.S. Valiant discussed in WNMHGB can't have been a starship of similar class or capability to the Enterprise. If there is a starship class vessel with this name, it must have been built much later than its aforementioned namesake.
4. Also, the Farragut is never said to be destroyed in "Obsession." Yes, half the crew was killed, but if the ship were destroyed, how did Lt Kirk escape death? And wouldn't more than half the crew have died?
Forgot all about that one!
SPOCK: We know very little about them. Their civilization is advanced. They've had space flight for several centuries, but they've never ventured beyond their own solar system. When first contacted more than fifty years ago, Eminiar Seven was at war with its nearest neighbor.
KIRK: Anything else?
SPOCK: The Earth expedition making the report failed to return from its mission. The USS Valiant. Listed as missing in space.
I suppose it could be....
Greg Jein used the "Enterprise class starships" sentence from TMoST in his treatise which further stated that the Enterprise starships were 40 years of age.
He correctly concluded that the Valiant in "A Taste of Armageddon" which had visited Eminiar VII 50 years ago, must have therefore been another kind of ship but not one like the Enterprise and her sisters.
Bob
Last edited:
...Bob Justman's proposals. We never learn how Gene Roddenberry felt about the issue or how long the name finding process took, just the final result (no offense intended, but the details are important, IMHO):
The following names have been established for starships: Enterprise, Exeter, Excalibur, Lexington, Yorktown, Potemkin, Republic, Hood, Constitution, Kongo, Constellation, Farragut, Valiant, and Intrepid. The latter four are listed as destroyed in various episodes.
My thoughts:
1. This whole effort was started to name the 12 starships. Lo and behold, the official list counts 14, not 12. Yes, at least two (but probably not four; more on that presently) are known to have been destroyed, and 14-2=12. But when Kirk told Captain Christopher there were 12 starships, the Constellation and Intrepid had not as yet been destroyed.
It's a can of worms (otherwise we would have probably stopped a long time ago discussing this
). By the time of TY, the "Starship Valiant" no longer existed and for some untold reason the "Starship Farragut" had been destroyed in the past, too (Kirk, you are sure you told us everything?
).For all we know, two starships on that list were in the process of still being built by the time of TY.
2. What about the Defiant? If this is the definitive list, why is she missing? Or by the third season, are there 13 starships?
Apparently the final compilation was made prior to the screenplay of "The Tholian Web". The Defiant could have taken the place (and contact code) of the Excalibur, apparently destroyed in "The Ultimate Comuter".
In-universe it would appear that Starfleet finally grasped that at the rate they were loosing starships it might be wiser to have replacements ready.
Bob
This is quite tangential to the thread at hand, but yes, in the broader Trek universe context, ENT "retroactively" confirms that the term "starship" was already being used for both foreign and domestic spacegoing vessels in the 2150s; the hero ship of the show was of that designation, too.
TOS itself refers to past spacecraft such as the Archon as "starships", which is only logical, as nothing indicates that the class of ships to which Kirk's first Enterprise belonged would have been the very first starship class ever. It follows that by the time of TOS, there probably were several classes of starship in operation: "current", "past" and "future" (and not necessarily just a single class in each category). This is also kinda supported by "Court Martial" where the famous Star Ship Status chart lists registries in the 1600, 1700 and 1800 ranges.
In "Doomsday Machine", Spock uses the phrase "by configuration, a starship stopped in space". This can be taken to mean that all starships share a "configuration", whatever that is. Or it can be taken to mean that the "configuration" of the Constellation fit within the diverse library of known starship "configurations".
All in all, it seems a bit unsatisfactory to try and argue that Kirk's (baker's?) dozen would be the entire Starfleet arsenal of starships as of the late 2260s. Whenever starships are name-dropped, we should be free to decide whether they are part of the bunch Kirk mentioned or not, unless compelling visual evidence points us in one direction or another.
Timo Saloniemi
From "Relics":
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 1701. No bloody A, B, C, or D.
COMPUTER: Programme complete. Enter when ready. (...and stop your lamentations because this is the only holodeck Bridge recreation of NCC-1701 I have to offer
)From "Trials and Tribble-ations":
DULMUR: Be specific, Captain. Which Enterprise? There've been five.
LUCSLY: Six.
(Apparently a reference to the Enterprise-E, ST VIII-FC was released 16 days after the broadcast of the DS9 Episode, so at least the latest starship with that name was known to the Lucsly character and several people at Paramount).
As a compromise I would say that both TNG and DS9 references meant "starships", and the creator's of ENT simply didn't do their homework.
Bob
What are you talking about? The ship commanded by Archer wasn't a Federation vessel at any point - she was in fact retired before the Federation came to be. Why would she be included in the list of Federation starships any more than, say, the Space Shuttle or the aircraft carrier?
We can't deduce that NX-01 would have been the first starship named Enterprise, either. No such claim has been made in ENT, and the name does appear to be a likely one for early spacecraft considering it was used for the Space Shuttle and the fancy ringship already.
Whether there are other, non-starship Federation spacecraft named Enterprise, we don't know...
(Personally, I would have preferred a prequel show where the hero vessel wasn't a "starship", was not named Enterprise and looked nothing like Kirk's vessel. But there we have it... Without massive contradictions.)
Timo Saloniemi
We can't deduce that NX-01 would have been the first starship named Enterprise, either. No such claim has been made in ENT, and the name does appear to be a likely one for early spacecraft considering it was used for the Space Shuttle and the fancy ringship already.
Whether there are other, non-starship Federation spacecraft named Enterprise, we don't know...
(Personally, I would have preferred a prequel show where the hero vessel wasn't a "starship", was not named Enterprise and looked nothing like Kirk's vessel. But there we have it... Without massive contradictions.)
Timo Saloniemi
Sorry about the confusion (I admit that my knowledge of ENT is somewhat limited, but hopefully I don’t need to feel ashamed in a TOS forum).
So NX-01 was a "starship" and that's it?
Then they still hadn’t been doing their homework because the dedication plaque of the Enterprise-D is very specific that the “D” is the fifth starship to bear the name.
It follows that the reference in "Relics" equally applied to Federation ships that simultaneously had been starships.
And that's what the Dulmur character in the DS9 episode apparently had in mind, too.
Bob
So NX-01 was a "starship" and that's it?
Then they still hadn’t been doing their homework because the dedication plaque of the Enterprise-D is very specific that the “D” is the fifth starship to bear the name.
It follows that the reference in "Relics" equally applied to Federation ships that simultaneously had been starships.
And that's what the Dulmur character in the DS9 episode apparently had in mind, too.
Bob
I believe that the "Valiant" being referred to here is not the same as the one mentioned in "Where No Man Has Gone Before". The one being discussed here is the Federation Starship U.S.S. Valiant, as mentioned by Spock in Act 1 of "A Taste of Armageddon":
In the late 1970's, there was a notion that arose from STAR TREK fandom publications, bolstered by "Star Trek Maps" that the Constitution-class of starships was over 50 years old, stemming from the notion that the U.S.S. Valiant was one of the original Connies.
This notion stemmed (indirectly) from Franz Joseph's 1975 Tech Manual, that suggested the United Federation of Planets itself arose from the Axanar Peace Conference ("Whom Gods Destroy"), gave rise to "Articles of Confederation", which included granting authorization for the construction of Federation starships.
Sorry about the confusion (I admit that my knowledge of ENT is somewhat limited, but hopefully I don’t need to feel ashamed in a TOS forum).
So NX-01 was a "starship" and that's it?
Then they still hadn’t been doing their homework because the dedication plaque of the Enterprise-D is very specific that the “D” is the fifth starship to bear the name.
It follows that the reference in "Relics" equally applied to Federation ships that simultaneously had been starships.
And that's what the Dulmur character in the DS9 episode apparently had in mind, too.
Bob
Jonathan Archer's NX-01 Enterprise was a vessel of the Earth Starfleet, operating prior to the existence of the United Federation of Planets. IIRC, in "These Are the Voyages...", the ENT finale, it was briefly mentioned that Archer's ship was going to be decommissioned and replaced with a new generation of Warp 7-capable Federation starships.
I think they were referring to the registry number of the Enterprise, not the name itself. Why would they do that with the Enterprise, but not with the Defiant? If you look at the Dedication Plaque of the USS. Defiant NX-74205, it doesn't mention that it is the second to bear the name. Same with the Valiant and the Prometheus. even though both the Defiant and Prometheus were first of there class, they were not the first to bear the name.Sorry about the confusion (I admit that my knowledge of ENT is somewhat limited, but hopefully I don’t need to feel ashamed in a TOS forum).
So NX-01 was a "starship" and that's it?
Then they still hadn’t been doing their homework because the dedication plaque of the Enterprise-D is very specific that the “D” is the fifth starship to bear the name.
It follows that the reference in "Relics" equally applied to Federation ships that simultaneously had been starships.
And that's what the Dulmur character in the DS9 episode apparently had in mind, too.
Bob
About what class the Enterprise is part of? It was plan that the Enterprise would be part of the 17 type starship class. They plan that the starship with the registry of NCC-1700 would be the same class of starship as the Enterprise, and the starship that has that registry would be the name of the class that the Enterprise is part of. That the Enterprise was the second of the 17 type starship class built. That all starships of the 17 type starship class built after the Enterprise would have a higher registry number.
Of the Constitution class starships that were in service when Kirk mention it to Captain Christopher were.
Enterprise
Constitution
Constellation
Eagle
Essex
Excalibur
Exeter
Hood
Intrepid
Lexington
Potemkin
Republic
Yorktown.
The USS. Valiant even though it may or may not had been a Constitution class, was destroy.
USS. Farragut, even though it wasn't destroy during obsession, may have been after the event.
Both USS. Defiant and USS. Endeavour haven't been commission yet,even though the Defiant was being built at the time.
What was the Republic's registry number?
Kirk almost walked past the auxiliary control room that he was looking for, suggesting that it wasn't in the same place as the ACR on the Enterprise.
Actually, he was walking toward the alcove where Washburn wound up doing work. He stopped when he saw Decker slumped over the workstation.
And I'm sticking to it.
NCC-1371. At the time the episode Court Martial, it wasn't plan for the Republic to be a Constitution class starship. It was after the episode Doomsday Machine. Cause of the USS Constellation having a lower registry then the Constitution NCC-1700. Which made it no longer the first of her class, but a replacement. Cause of the Constellation registry and it was a Constitution class. It was believe that there was another Constitution class name USS Constitution that was lost sometime before 2240. Which allow the Republic to become a Constitution. Which allow the USS. Eagle to have a lower registry and also the USS. Valiant NCC-1223 to become one, even though the Valiant herself isn't listed as Constitution class. Cause the Eagle registry was NCC-956, the USS. Constitution registry drop down to NX-950 or NCC-950.
"Cruiser" has multiple meanings today - and in TOS, it was used in the common meaning of "pleasure cruiser" in the episode "Way to Eden". This doesn't contradict the other common usage, that of the military cruiser (which we know is a TOS term, too, as there are dialogue references to battle cruisers). Or the possible use in the "police cruiser" sense, denoting a small law enforcement vessel or vehicle, even if those are never quite referred to in dialogue or graphics.
I trust Scotty worked on a civilian pleasure cruiser, albeit one a bit larger than the Aurora of "Way to Eden" fame. I also trust the freighters here were non-Starfleet ships, as a military organization would not operate "freighters" - it would operate "transports".
Timo Saloniemi
I trust Scotty worked on a civilian pleasure cruiser, albeit one a bit larger than the Aurora of "Way to Eden" fame. I also trust the freighters here were non-Starfleet ships, as a military organization would not operate "freighters" - it would operate "transports".
Timo Saloniemi
UPDATE/CORRECTION: I asked Harvey for help. He told me that according to the UCLA finding aid, the date of D.C. Fontana's first draft for "Journey to Babel" is listed as 8-8-1967 (I took the 9-30-1967 figure above from Greg Jein's treatise).
It would appear, then, that her motivation, to bring this name finding issue up, had practical reasons because she had just "created" the Starships Essex and Eagle on that very same day.
It now looks that reproducing Fontana's memo from 8-8-1967 for printing TMoST the Eagle got somehow lost.
Fontana explicitly recommends 12 starship names but her prime proposal only features 11.
Bob
Last edited:
Do you have a source for all this, or is this just your opinion? (And I'm aware of what classes Okuda made the ships for the Star Trek Encyclopedia, but I'm not aware of his rationale for doing so.)
Unless, of course, a similar editing goof to the goof that caused the Eagle to get inadvertently omitted from Fontana's "list of twelve ships" memo also resulted in a wrong memo date to be assigned to the memo in the TMoST book.
