We know TOS season 1 was 15 years before ("Space Seed" - WoK), and "The Cage" 13 years before that. So the Enterprise should be a minimum of 28 years old at the time. But if you include the animated series, there was April before Pike. The Encyclopedia puts the Enterprise launch in 2245, but that assumes 5-year missions, which Into Darkness established (for the Kelvin universe, at least) that the first five year mission launched was under Kirk.
I think it would be super cool if the Discovery had a case filled with previous ships called Discovery.. love to see an NX class in there too..
I am not sure how to interpret that answer -other then that you disagree with me- since I wrote that they are named for people, places, events, and actions. Except that the people, places, events, and actions have to fit the purpose. NASA would not name an exploratory craft Revenge, or Vanguard, since that would make no sense what so ever. However Revenge, and Vanguard fit the Royal Navy perfectly of course. I am willing to give you the argument if can give me an example of a ship built as a weapon of war that is named Discovery. There actually was a British Navy ship called Discovery but that was built as an exploratory craft, it only saw service when the shit hit the fan and it was pressed into action.
Strictly speaking you are right. It is a shame that Enterprise did not use that computer display they apparently had created for In a Mirror Darkly.
Can we just mention the HMS Dainty, a destroyer, the planned HMS Delight, also a destroyer, the HMS Rainbow, a patrol submarine, the HMS Shakespeare, also a destroyer, HMS Brilliant, a destroyer, HMS Excellent a warship in the Georgian Era. Hardly names, by your criteria, that would fit a warship.
But did it see action? The Battle of Peppermint Bay? * seriously though, thanks to many years of old movies with my grandma, I must point out that the 'good ship Lollipop' is actually a plane.
Why are we arguing if "discovery" is a good warship name? Almost every damned ship Starfleet has is a warship. The fact they pull names from everywhere has little to do with if a ship is a fighting ship or not.
Hmm, I will have to give you Dainty. Rainbow was a symbol of good luck for maritime crews, Shakespeare was full of warfare, and Brilliant, and Excellent make uhm brilliant, and excellent names for warships. They are 50/50 warships, and science ships are they not? Except for specialist ships like the Defiant, and Grissom.
No anything with a warship designation or can go toe to toe with another nations warship is a warship. Even the Grissom had freaking torpedo tubes and could likely have glassed a planet.
A large number of Imperial Japanese navy destroyers are named after types of weather. One class was named after the months of the year. Many of their carriers were named after fantasy birds or dragons. There battleships after provinces. Their cruisers after rivers or mountains. US Navy cruisers use to be named after cities. Battleships after states. Carriers after famous battles. Destroyers after people, usually naval personnel. Ammunition ships after volcanos or explosive related words (like Pyro and Nitro). Royal navy ships are all over the place. Usually it is because a particular class would have a naming convention to itself. Be it named after counties, rivers, admirals, kings, dominions, or sometimes just all the ship names having to start with the same letter of the alphabet.
So what do they mean TOS universe then? even Enterprise the series showed that the classic Constitution class in a mirror darkly was far more advanced then the NX class ships. The nacells in the movie era seem to be more in line with those in the Discovery look and feel. But still, you would think 5 years out from the TOS kirk era and his 5 year mission would have more of that bulbous nacell look..
So we are heading toward the refit at Warp 9! Seriously, I would have no problem accepting that Discovery, as a much newer ship then the Constitution class, already uses many of the refit elements. What I would personally love for them to do is show us a Cage Connie, the TOS one, and a Phase II Connie, to represent different sub classes. It does not have to be prominent they could sneak it in the background, the way Battlestar Galactica showed the TOS Enterprise, and Serenity. Oh, and could I have a Constitution Luxury Class, as an Admiral's Yacht? https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/eb/00/81/eb00815546c796f69f25b2960099a1c6.jpg
The TOS universe is the stories, the events , not how it looked on a 50 year old TV show. "In a mirror darkly" was an anniversary show, and it shows why this fails. The TOS ship looked dated, campy and out of place next to the advanced and far more modern NX. They tried to update the outside but it failed, as did believably once it showed the campy, dated and 1960's inside and uniforms. To quote a non trek friend " Looks like a low budget fan film that some how roped in real actors" They are ditching the dated 1960's TOS look. That look is the lameduck, we see it once and never again, the series creator ditched that look. The Shouzhon(sp?) and Discovery are clearly ships drived from the look of the ENT series and not the dated 50 year old 1960's era TOS look. Who knows what and ENT version of the Constitution looks like, but it will not be a 1960's TV show.
IAMD did it fine. I thought the Connie looked more advanced, at least on the outside, the uniform help up.
How you thought the clearily dated Connie looked newer and more advanced is beyond me. No non trekkie is gonna ever think the NX is the less advanced and older of the two