Connie - TOS canon nomenclature
- Thread starter Wingsley
- Start date
Yes, exactly, thank you for this.
In the late '70's and early '80's, Star Trek consisted only of TOS and the occasional film every three years. But at the same time there was a huge plethora of Trek merchandise such as the Pocket Book novels, Franz Joseph's Tech Manual, blueprints, comics, and the FASA Trek roll-playing games, all of which expanded on Trek far, far more than TOS and the movies ever could (think of it as Star Wars' "Expanded Universe"). Paramount (or Desilu, or whoever was in charge of Trek at the time) were giving licenses to all these people to produce this merchandise, because at the time "canon" was a nebulous term if it was even in the minds of the Paramount execs or Roddenberry at all. As long as Paramount was making money off the sales, everybody was happy. I fondly remember those FASA game books well and how they had so much info about this fictional universe in the form of stories, artwork, new ship designs, new aliens, and expanding on the old stuff we saw in TOS and the films. I still even own many of those manuals. A LOT of fans at the time felt that this stuff was so good that it actually should be incorporated into the Trek mythos as "canon."
And then TNG happened, and Roddenberry and Paramount decided that all that awesome stuff had to be invalidated because it didn't fit with what Gene wanted his "new" Trek universe to be. So that's where the idea of Star Trek canon being only televised and filmed Trek came from (which is ironic, because even then Gene didn't want TAS, the films, and even some elements of TOS to be part of that canon, which is why TNG looks so much like TOS and not logically like the progression of time after the films).
Do I still love all those novels, tech manuals, comics, and roll-playing games? Totally. Would I like talking about them? Definitely, if the subject ever came up here. Do I respect them? Absolutely, for giving the fans a greatly expanded playing field for their fictional universe. But do I consider them canon? No, because as I said before, that's not my choice to make. I can still love all that stuff and know that it's mostly invalidated by what's come after it. And strangely enough, I'm OK with that, because this is just make-believe, and I have much more important things to worry about in real life.
I wonder what man-years discussing the "Star Ship Status" chart divided by man-years spent creating it equals? Is it over a million yet?
Thanks, Dukhat.
Thanks, Dukhat.
About half right. It's not that any of that merchandise was ever canonical, it's that no one involved cared.
Truth is, no one in charge cares now what "canon" is - that's a fannish concept. They care about whatever notions of quality control they currently consider to best protect the value of their property.
When TNG happened TPTB started exercising some more control over the content of merchandise, but even when fully reviewed and approved none of it became part of any canon. The authors of several of the reference books acknowledged this in their introductory material.
No doubt.
I just had to match units with the numerator!
Doesn't this describe every single fan theory (not to mention official publication) released since the series began?
Second me on that, very eruditely put.
"Personal Continuity" is a bit more of a mouthful than "Personal Canon", but it steers us clear of them accursed oxmorons!
Difference being, most of the rest of us don't bring in "respecting the creators" to try and add more weight to our interpretations.
Read some of his other threads. He pretty much does exactly this while giving lipservice to "YMMV".
And don't forget a "
", to anything he doesn't agree with.
Why does every thread about starships seem to turn into arguing over Robert Comsol says and agues? The squeaky wheel gets the grease, but really...
How about this:
STARSHIP CLASS (broad class of deep space vehicle for extended duration)
CONSTITUTION SUBCLASS (specific model/design)
ENTERPRISE CLAS (more TWOK nonsense)
As to the NCC-1700. It was originally going to be the "Enterprise" until a bunch of fans of the musical 1789 petitioned to have it renamed "Constitution", but it ended up being just a test vehicle and never went into deep space service. Oh, the irony.
How about this:
STARSHIP CLASS (broad class of deep space vehicle for extended duration)
CONSTITUTION SUBCLASS (specific model/design)
ENTERPRISE CLAS (more TWOK nonsense)
As to the NCC-1700. It was originally going to be the "Enterprise" until a bunch of fans of the musical 1789 petitioned to have it renamed "Constitution", but it ended up being just a test vehicle and never went into deep space service. Oh, the irony.
We are wondering again.
It is clear that the ship generally known as the Constitution-class is referred to by that designation in the 24th century and at least as early as the 2290s, possibly as early at the 2260s. It is also clear that the USS Enterprise is considers to have be Constitution-class by various people on screen.
Does this invalidate the idea that it could have been a Enterprise-class starship at once point in time? No. Does this invalidate that is could have been a Starship class ship at one point in time? No.
However, I would like a good justification as to just what a "Starship-class" ship is, and why called it that. By most naming conventions, that is not a viable ship name, as there would have been a USS Starship to be the class ship for such a naming...by naval standards, which every other class in Starfleet after that point has followed to our knowledge.
But, prior to this point in time, we have evidence of ships-classes that are not named after ships. The NX-class, the DY-100 class, the Y-class, the J-class...all definitely not named after a class ship. The older ships seem more named by airplane designations than ships. Were you'd have a C-130 or a F-35, F-4U, DC-9 or a He111 or whatever designation a country used at one point or another. You also have the space program craft that would be named after the Program, like the Apollo capsules. The individual craft were given names, though the mission was still called like Apollo 10 or Apollo 15. The Space Shuttles are just called that instead of the Enterprise or Columbia-class shuttles.
So...what was the NCC-1701? It was the USS Enterprise. But what was it aside from that?
It is clear that the ship generally known as the Constitution-class is referred to by that designation in the 24th century and at least as early as the 2290s, possibly as early at the 2260s. It is also clear that the USS Enterprise is considers to have be Constitution-class by various people on screen.
Does this invalidate the idea that it could have been a Enterprise-class starship at once point in time? No. Does this invalidate that is could have been a Starship class ship at one point in time? No.
However, I would like a good justification as to just what a "Starship-class" ship is, and why called it that. By most naming conventions, that is not a viable ship name, as there would have been a USS Starship to be the class ship for such a naming...by naval standards, which every other class in Starfleet after that point has followed to our knowledge.
But, prior to this point in time, we have evidence of ships-classes that are not named after ships. The NX-class, the DY-100 class, the Y-class, the J-class...all definitely not named after a class ship. The older ships seem more named by airplane designations than ships. Were you'd have a C-130 or a F-35, F-4U, DC-9 or a He111 or whatever designation a country used at one point or another. You also have the space program craft that would be named after the Program, like the Apollo capsules. The individual craft were given names, though the mission was still called like Apollo 10 or Apollo 15. The Space Shuttles are just called that instead of the Enterprise or Columbia-class shuttles.
So...what was the NCC-1701? It was the USS Enterprise. But what was it aside from that?
Maurice crafted a joke after what happened with the Space Shuttle prototype. 1789. Pushing geek buttons.
But, yeah. Most of us think NCC-1700 was an actual ship, I'm sure.
How about an alternative approach:
(WARNING: this is just my conjecture)
The Constitution Class program of Federation Starship-class heavy cruiser space vessels began in the 2240s, with the U.S.S. Constitution (NCC registry unknown) gradually refit from a previous heavy cruiser class of vessel (non-canon, but I like to refer to this previous class as the Magna Carta Class), thus testing various modules and components before being totally refit in the mid-2240s to the final class spec. The first all-new Constitution Class vessel to be built to the new spec is the U.S.S. Enterprise, NCC-1701, circa 2245. The Constitution Class is seen is the culmination of Federation starship evolution, having finally perfected a "true Warp 7 engine", aka "warp drive" after more than 80 years of intense development. Maximum Warp for this new generation of cruisers is Warp factor 7.0, which can be sustained for at least 3 days. The previous heavy cruiser design, the Magna Carta, could only sustain Warp 7 for 24 hours.
15 years later, in 2260, a major revision to the Constitution Class spec is codified; this subclass, or Block 2, is called the Bonhomme Richard class. The aging Magna Carta-class U.S.S. Bonhomme Richard, one of the last surviving heavy cruisers of that previous era, is test-refit to the revised spec, known as the Bonhomme Richard Subclass. This Block 2 spec can reliably sustain Warp 8 for up to 2 days under ideal conditions.
Several years later, in 2268, the Constitution Class spec is again revised when the battered Magna Carta-class U.S.S. Achernar is found derelict in deep space, partially repaired, recovered and then refit. The revised Block 3 / Achernar Subclass spec can sustain Warp 8 for up to 5 days, or Warp 9 for 30 hours.
In 2277, the decommissioned U.S.S. Enterprise is refit/rejuvenated with the breakthrough fourth-power linear warp drive to the Constitution Class' Block 4, or Enterprise Subclass, spec. Maximum Warp for the heavily refit Block 4 ships is Linear Warp 7, seven times faster than old-scale Warp 7.
In 2280, the heavy cruiser program split into two tracks: one being the Enterprise Subclass, the other being an ambitious "great experiment" prototype Project Excelsior, which would eventually become the all-new Excelsior Class cruisers. Propulsion problems abound with the Excelsior, including the failed Transwarp Drive and Linear Warp Drive performance marginally better than the Enterprise Subclass. In 2286, limited production and testing is authorized for the Excelsior Class while refits and minor revisions are also authorized for remaining Constitution Class ships to the Enterprise Subclass. The Subclass Ship is self-destructed in the Mutara Sector, so one of the recent revised-spec refits, U.S.S. Tikopai, is re-christened U.S.S. Enterprise-A, though the massaged Block 5 spec is called Tikopai Subclass. Transwarp research is shelved, and work on perfecting the Excelsior Class prototype continues through 2290.
(WARNING: this is just my conjecture)
The Constitution Class program of Federation Starship-class heavy cruiser space vessels began in the 2240s, with the U.S.S. Constitution (NCC registry unknown) gradually refit from a previous heavy cruiser class of vessel (non-canon, but I like to refer to this previous class as the Magna Carta Class), thus testing various modules and components before being totally refit in the mid-2240s to the final class spec. The first all-new Constitution Class vessel to be built to the new spec is the U.S.S. Enterprise, NCC-1701, circa 2245. The Constitution Class is seen is the culmination of Federation starship evolution, having finally perfected a "true Warp 7 engine", aka "warp drive" after more than 80 years of intense development. Maximum Warp for this new generation of cruisers is Warp factor 7.0, which can be sustained for at least 3 days. The previous heavy cruiser design, the Magna Carta, could only sustain Warp 7 for 24 hours.
15 years later, in 2260, a major revision to the Constitution Class spec is codified; this subclass, or Block 2, is called the Bonhomme Richard class. The aging Magna Carta-class U.S.S. Bonhomme Richard, one of the last surviving heavy cruisers of that previous era, is test-refit to the revised spec, known as the Bonhomme Richard Subclass. This Block 2 spec can reliably sustain Warp 8 for up to 2 days under ideal conditions.
Several years later, in 2268, the Constitution Class spec is again revised when the battered Magna Carta-class U.S.S. Achernar is found derelict in deep space, partially repaired, recovered and then refit. The revised Block 3 / Achernar Subclass spec can sustain Warp 8 for up to 5 days, or Warp 9 for 30 hours.
In 2277, the decommissioned U.S.S. Enterprise is refit/rejuvenated with the breakthrough fourth-power linear warp drive to the Constitution Class' Block 4, or Enterprise Subclass, spec. Maximum Warp for the heavily refit Block 4 ships is Linear Warp 7, seven times faster than old-scale Warp 7.
In 2280, the heavy cruiser program split into two tracks: one being the Enterprise Subclass, the other being an ambitious "great experiment" prototype Project Excelsior, which would eventually become the all-new Excelsior Class cruisers. Propulsion problems abound with the Excelsior, including the failed Transwarp Drive and Linear Warp Drive performance marginally better than the Enterprise Subclass. In 2286, limited production and testing is authorized for the Excelsior Class while refits and minor revisions are also authorized for remaining Constitution Class ships to the Enterprise Subclass. The Subclass Ship is self-destructed in the Mutara Sector, so one of the recent revised-spec refits, U.S.S. Tikopai, is re-christened U.S.S. Enterprise-A, though the massaged Block 5 spec is called Tikopai Subclass. Transwarp research is shelved, and work on perfecting the Excelsior Class prototype continues through 2290.
Well, the parts that aren't conjecture of course! (there was a disclaimer, after all).
However, the story builds on the limited canon material in a very believable way, IMO. A starship class that is continually developing to take into account advances in technology has a more "real world" vibe to me than a design which just happened to get everything right first time and remained unchanged for 20 years. And we already know that there were changes to the ship from The Cage, through WNMHGB and to Corbomite.
"Canon Nomenclature" (if we're talking strictly canon) is limited to the Starship Class seen on the plaque in TCM. The simulator in ST2 has Enterprise Class on the door and Scott's paper diagram in ST6 has Constitution Class written on it. Beyond that we're into TNG territory, not TOS. As I said, the pickings are a bit slim.
However, the story builds on the limited canon material in a very believable way, IMO. A starship class that is continually developing to take into account advances in technology has a more "real world" vibe to me than a design which just happened to get everything right first time and remained unchanged for 20 years. And we already know that there were changes to the ship from The Cage, through WNMHGB and to Corbomite.
"Canon Nomenclature" (if we're talking strictly canon) is limited to the Starship Class seen on the plaque in TCM. The simulator in ST2 has Enterprise Class on the door and Scott's paper diagram in ST6 has Constitution Class written on it. Beyond that we're into TNG territory, not TOS. As I said, the pickings are a bit slim.
Concise summary, Mytran, there is nothing I can add. 
Incorrect. I use creators’ intent to fill gaps (admittedly rather late and just before the end in the Enterprise-C thread) and I also explain in detail why, so it’s pretty transparent. Other than that, will you please indicate one or some examples of "fabrication" you accuse me of?
Incorrect. Some of you explicitly stated that you only take for canon what you see and hear on the screen, other materials from the creators are meaningless and irrelevant. On the other hand I do respect these materials (see above) and use them. You make it sound as if I were abusing or manipulating these materials. Then, I’d like you to show us one or some examples, too.
Thank you for the recommendation! It's really the best for any reader to do that and then decide for him- or herself whether your accusations are true or not.
For Heaven's sake, "apparently", "possibly", probably" are among the most words you'll find in my texts. So give me a break trying to accuse me of absolutistic statements and look at your own texts and posts ("Canon states...").
I didn’t make that “wild” leap, Greg Jein – the fan who gave you the Constitution Class – did, apparently some time after his treatise had been published and discussed:
As some of you may remember we discussed this starship status chart last year passionately. I said that the idea that the starship status chart only reflects the workload at this Starbase doesn’t fly for me, because the Enterprise had apparently just arrived and Stone re-assigns a repair crew already assigned to the Intrepid to the Enterprise, instead. However, for a ship that just arrived for repairs, the repair bar of the Enterprise is already the second highest…
Therefore I suggested this might be a general Starfleet chart showing starships ranging from the stage of construction (NCC-1700) to starships (like the Enterprise) that are still in the pipeline to receive component upgrades before they are to be considered “complete”.
Well, is there a chance to get an answer to my straightforward question, i.e. does The Making of Star Trek with its “Enterprise [Starship] Class” remarks (twice) settle the question or not. Or does it remain meaningless and irrelevant?
Curiously, I do remember discussions I had with blssdwlf regarding how to design an accurate TOS Enterprise. He stated that he is doing it the Thermian way, i.e. only onscreen canon counts and nothing else. I agreed that this is one way to do it, but I prefer my own methodology where I also consider creator or designer intent wherever possible.
Consequently, this is how blssdwlf’s flight deck looks like and except for the conjectural extension it’s correct. The miniature was photographed in an “X-Ray-Vision” style, i.e. the back wall with the observation corridor looking aft wasn’t built to allow a better and more impressive view of the flight / hangar deck.
Wait a minute. What back wall?
Who could seriously suggest there was a back wall with another observation corridor facing aft / stern? It’s not in the actual footage / canon so obviously it doesn’t exist.
That's is the consequent and irrefutable conclusion of the 1984 canon methodology some of you are propagating.
The answer is Matt Jefferies hangar deck sketch featured in this book The Making of Star Trek. So either what we saw in the actual footage
If the “Enterprise [Starship] Class” remarks in The Making of Star Trek are meaningless and irrelevant, then Matt Jefferies’ hangar deck proposal must equally be meaningless and irrelevant because it didn’t make it to the screen.
Did I forget something? Yes …
Ben mentioned “idealistic crusades” of the Jedi Knights. It is my understanding that crusades mostly don’t take place on your own territory but usually in faraway lands, in this particular example apparently outside the Old Republic, i.e. territories that do not belong to the Old Republic.
It’s the idea of the “idealistic crusade” (to free slaves?) that Mr. Lucas threw under the bus because it became inconvenient for him. I never had any problems with that and accepted the original premise in good faith.
Bob
Incorrect. I use creators’ intent to fill gaps (admittedly rather late and just before the end in the Enterprise-C thread) and I also explain in detail why, so it’s pretty transparent. Other than that, will you please indicate one or some examples of "fabrication" you accuse me of?
Incorrect. Some of you explicitly stated that you only take for canon what you see and hear on the screen, other materials from the creators are meaningless and irrelevant. On the other hand I do respect these materials (see above) and use them. You make it sound as if I were abusing or manipulating these materials. Then, I’d like you to show us one or some examples, too.
Thank you for the recommendation! It's really the best for any reader to do that and then decide for him- or herself whether your accusations are true or not.For Heaven's sake, "apparently", "possibly", probably" are among the most words you'll find in my texts. So give me a break trying to accuse me of absolutistic statements and look at your own texts and posts ("Canon states...").
I didn’t make that “wild” leap, Greg Jein – the fan who gave you the Constitution Class – did, apparently some time after his treatise had been published and discussed:
As some of you may remember we discussed this starship status chart last year passionately. I said that the idea that the starship status chart only reflects the workload at this Starbase doesn’t fly for me, because the Enterprise had apparently just arrived and Stone re-assigns a repair crew already assigned to the Intrepid to the Enterprise, instead. However, for a ship that just arrived for repairs, the repair bar of the Enterprise is already the second highest…
Therefore I suggested this might be a general Starfleet chart showing starships ranging from the stage of construction (NCC-1700) to starships (like the Enterprise) that are still in the pipeline to receive component upgrades before they are to be considered “complete”.
Well, is there a chance to get an answer to my straightforward question, i.e. does The Making of Star Trek with its “Enterprise [Starship] Class” remarks (twice) settle the question or not. Or does it remain meaningless and irrelevant?
Curiously, I do remember discussions I had with blssdwlf regarding how to design an accurate TOS Enterprise. He stated that he is doing it the Thermian way, i.e. only onscreen canon counts and nothing else. I agreed that this is one way to do it, but I prefer my own methodology where I also consider creator or designer intent wherever possible.
Consequently, this is how blssdwlf’s flight deck looks like and except for the conjectural extension it’s correct. The miniature was photographed in an “X-Ray-Vision” style, i.e. the back wall with the observation corridor looking aft wasn’t built to allow a better and more impressive view of the flight / hangar deck.
Wait a minute. What back wall?
Who could seriously suggest there was a back wall with another observation corridor facing aft / stern? It’s not in the actual footage / canon so obviously it doesn’t exist.
That's is the consequent and irrefutable conclusion of the 1984 canon methodology some of you are propagating.
The answer is Matt Jefferies hangar deck sketch featured in this book The Making of Star Trek. So either what we saw in the actual footage
- is a deliberate, artistic use of “X-Ray-Vision” enabling audiences to understand the size of that deck or
- it’s a changed premise where Matt’s sketch was ignored and TPTB decided that the deck should extend much, much further into the ship.
If the “Enterprise [Starship] Class” remarks in The Making of Star Trek are meaningless and irrelevant, then Matt Jefferies’ hangar deck proposal must equally be meaningless and irrelevant because it didn’t make it to the screen.
Did I forget something? Yes …
Ben mentioned “idealistic crusades” of the Jedi Knights. It is my understanding that crusades mostly don’t take place on your own territory but usually in faraway lands, in this particular example apparently outside the Old Republic, i.e. territories that do not belong to the Old Republic.
It’s the idea of the “idealistic crusade” (to free slaves?) that Mr. Lucas threw under the bus because it became inconvenient for him. I never had any problems with that and accepted the original premise in good faith.
Bob
