Another fan attempt at TOS deck plans

[Shaw]

If we go by the remastered version of "The Doomsday Machine", yeah, Constellation appears to be a Constitution class ship, and we're back to trying to wrap our heads around the wacky registry number...

Well, the use of an AMT model kit wasn't to represent a different class of ship from the Enterprise, it was used to show that the two ships were of the same class.

Further, if the differences of the AMT kit are enough to represent a different class, then one would have to say that the Enterprise herself is a Transformer as she went from 33" to 11' to (AMT) 18" versions on the screen. After all, in the second season an 18" AMT model replaced the original 33" model.

Usually when people aren't able to wrap their head around things it is because they are unwilling to open said head to anything other than preconceived notions.

Unlike the US Navy, which gives out numbers according to ship type (so that any number of ships can have the same hull number as long as it isn't the same type of ship), Star Fleet assigns a new (and unique) number to each new ship. To assume that these numbers have to be in order or even near each other... specially looking only at TOS by itself, is pretty far fetched. Even without seeing other Star Fleet ships, one could envision that maybe these ships take a long time to build and that there would be a vast number of other ships built in between the commissioning of each new Starship.

Think about it, what numbers do you guys think the carriers of the Nimitz Class would have if the navy used a unique number for every ship built? If the Nimitz (with it's number from this type of numbering) came along side the Bush (with it's number from this type of numbering), would you guys be making the same wild statements that you are about the Constellation and Enterprise? The Nimitz and Bush would have numbers that would differ by hundreds, so are you saying that you wouldn't be able to wrap your head around something like that? Why not?

We had three numbers associated with three ships, only two of which were seen on screen as being Starship Class. Based on that, pretty much all other numbering ideas that attempt to apply some additional logic are wrong. And attempts to change what we saw in TOS (like calling the Constellation some other class) to make bad concepts work is worse than just not attempting to apply ideas at all.

 

[Captain Robert April]

The analogy would fit if there was some scheme by which the Nimitz (class ship, built thirty some years ago) had a higher hull number than the Bush (still being built as of this date).

 

[Shaw]

The analogy would fit if there was some scheme by which the Nimitz (class ship, built thirty some years ago) had a higher hull number than the Bush (still being built as of this date).

The analogy works perfectly until you attempt to include data points which aren't there in TOS (like a ship named Constitution, that it was the class ship or that it has registry number of 1700). But when taking TOS at face value, everything works just fine.


As for the list of registry numbers in Stone's office, there are only four things that can be said for sure about it... (1) that the Enterprise is on that list (because 1701 appeared, (2) that the Intrepid was also on that list, (3) that the Constellation was not on the list, and (4) that the Republic was not on the list. As for which of the remaining numbers might be that of the Intrepid, you've got a 1-in-9 chance of picking the right one. Anything beyond that would be to apply a lot of assumptions.

 

[aridas sofia]

If we go by the remastered version of "The Doomsday Machine", yeah, Constellation appears to be a Constitution class ship, and we're back to trying to wrap our heads around the wacky registry number...

Well, the use of an AMT model kit wasn't to represent a different class of ship from the Enterprise, it was used to show that the two ships were of the same class.

Further, if the differences of the AMT kit are enough to represent a different class, then one would have to say that the Enterprise herself is a Transformer as she went from 33" to 11' to (AMT) 18" versions on the screen. After all, in the second season an 18" AMT model replaced the original 33" model.

Usually when people aren't able to wrap their head around things it is because they are unwilling to open said head to anything other than preconceived notions.

Unlike the US Navy, which gives out numbers according to ship type (so that any number of ships can have the same hull number as long as it isn't the same type of ship), Star Fleet assigns a new (and unique) number to each new ship. To assume that these numbers have to be in order or even near each other... specially looking only at TOS by itself, is pretty far fetched. Even without seeing other Star Fleet ships, one could envision that maybe these ships take a long time to build and that there would be a vast number of other ships built in between the commissioning of each new Starship.

Think about it, what numbers do you guys think the carriers of the Nimitz Class would have if the navy used a unique number for every ship built? If the Nimitz (with it's number from this type of numbering) came along side the Bush (with it's number from this type of numbering), would you guys be making the same wild statements that you are about the Constellation and Enterprise? The Nimitz and Bush would have numbers that would differ by hundreds, so are you saying that you wouldn't be able to wrap your head around something like that? Why not?

We had three numbers associated with three ships, only two of which were seen on screen as being Starship Class. Based on that, pretty much all other numbering ideas that attempt to apply some additional logic are wrong. And attempts to change what we saw in TOS (like calling the Constellation some other class) to make bad concepts work is worse than just not attempting to apply ideas at all.

Anyone that advances the "preconceived notion" that the numbers are sequential is just echoing Jefferies, who said they were sequential. It is a "preconceived notion", that's true. But, so what?

Also, how is advancing the notion that the Constellation is not of the Constitution-class a "preconceived notion"? I don't recall anyone ever suggesting that idea before I did, right here on this BBS. On the one hand, the different models representing Enterprise are clearly meant to represent the same ship at the same time period. On the other hand, Constellation, represented by the (yet again) differing AMT model, and having a very different number from Enterprise, might mean that the number scheme is non-sequential (thus further distancing it from Jefferies intent). Or, it might mean Constellation is of a different class. Given that Greg Jein advanced the former "non-sequential number scheme" notion in 1974, I'd say that is the "preconceived notion" and that the idea that Constellation is an earlier class is fresh, different, and adds depth to the TOS universe.

This part of your post...

Usually when people aren't able to wrap their head around things it is because they are unwilling to open said head to anything other than preconceived notions.

...is particularly troubling. It has been my experience that usually, when people aren't able to wrap their head around things it is because they haven't been convinced, usually because of some deficiency in the argument they've heard.

 

[Shaw]

...is particularly troubling. It has been my experience that usually, when people aren't able to wrap their head around things it is because they haven't been convinced, usually because of some deficiency in the argument they've heard.

Maybe... but most research starts out with looking at what we know and working forward from there. I don't know how historians do things, but in mathematics we isolate what is known and apply logical arguments from there. I stated the knowns (which didn't include the Constitution), and April tried to apply things that weren't known and that is where the troubling part started... not in deficiencies in the argument, but outside information being introduced.

Can you look at this without introducing stuff? Lets see...

Try this (if you can), list only what TOS gives us... and nothing else. Drop all preconceived Jefferies/Jein/Joseph ideas, and just start with what is known and list that for us.

Don't interpret (so forget your AMT ideas)... just list where we are starting from.

After that, if we can all agree on the validity of those starting points being of TOS origin... we can all then attempt to wrap our heads around this, but without any additional information beyond what we start with.

I have faith that this is within your abilities, just as I have faith that April will, in the end, be able to wrap his head around these ideas (though I doubt it'll change anyone's minds in the end).



Also, and I realize this is off topic, but why do you feel the need to assert ownership (or take credit) of so many ideas? If any of these things (with regards to the Enterprise plans) work out, aren't they actually things that should be credited to Jefferies rather than any of us?

You've done incredible work... work that speaks for itself. So I don't see why (specially here) you would feel any need for additional self-promotion. As far as I can see, you are already a legend.

 

[aridas sofia]

...also, and I realize this is off topic, but why do you feel the need to assert ownership (or take credit) of so many ideas?

"So many"? I attributed one idea to me, and that is because, as far as I know, I should be the one taking responsibility for it, for better or worse. I don't know of anyone else that suggested that the AMT model might amplify the odd NCC number and the preferred Jefferies scheme to result in an older but similar class. I would never pin that on Jefferies or anyone else. Because, as you know, that would be inaccurate.

As for sticking to TOS alone, and ignoring production documents or artist's intent... that smacks too much of canon worship for me. Others can and should try that route. Vive la difference and all that. But I am interested in what the designer intended, before it was adapted for the screen or the story or whatever. Now that I know you are sticking to onscreen alone, I won't critique what you do on the wrong basis.

Finally, historians don't start from what we know. We start from what we think we know. That is but one way that mathematics and the liberal arts are different.

 

[Cary L. Brown]

Guys, guys, guys... not that I haven't occasionally gotten "too involved" in conversations, but you guys all need to take a step back and get some perspective... and keep the personal stuff out of the conversation.

This is a GOOD conversation... I'd hate to see it go downhill by getting all personal and confrontational.

As far as I'm concerned, the Constellation is the same configuration as the Enterprise at the time we see her... but she was refit to that configuration through multiple, fairly dramatic refits (similarly to how the 1701 was still allowed to keep her registry number even though virtually no elements of the ship were left over after the pre-TMP refit (supported not just by visual evidence but also by scripted dialog, remember!)

I personally rather like the idea that Constellation may have started out life with, say, a spherical primary hull, then been used as a test-bed for the disk saucer design, then (after successfully proving out that element) was converted the rest of the way.

The main advantage to doing that is that you don't have to get congressional (or in this case "federation-counsel-al") permission to build a new ship... so the money flows a bit more freely.

But ya know, that's just my personal opinion, and it's no more or less "valid" than anybody elses. This is all FICTION, remember!

 

[Captain Robert April]

I personally rather like the idea that Constellation may have started out life with, say, a spherical primary hull, then been used as a test-bed for the disk saucer design, then (after successfully proving out that element) was converted the rest of the way.

Now, that is where I think the notion goes too far.

The only differences I see with the Constellation when she launched and when she met the Sno-Cone From Hell, is spikes on the Bussard domes and a higher bridge dome. And another couple hundred casualt-- uh, crewmembers.

As for introducing the idea that the Constellation was, in actuality, not a Constitution class ship, I am well aware of the intent, that she was supposed to be of the same class as the Enterprise, but the fact remains that there are significant, albeit subtle, differences between the filming models and the AMT version. Plus, there's that whacky registry number.

So, we take what I refer to as the Marvel No-Prize approach, i.e., take an apparent discrepancy and explain why it isn't a discrepancy after all.

In fact, a lot of Star Trek makes more sense when you take less of an Isaac Asimov approach and more of a Stan Lee view.

 

[Shaw]

"So many"? I attributed one idea to me, and that is because, as far as I know, I should be the one taking responsibility for it, for better or worse. I don't know of anyone else that suggested that the AMT model might amplify the odd NCC number and the preferred Jefferies scheme to result in an older but similar class. I would never pin that on Jefferies or anyone else. Because, as you know, that would be inaccurate.

What I was eluding to was the couple times that you've pointed out that you were the first to really attempt something like this. While my attempt is coming from many of the same initial conditions that yours has... I would like to think that some aspect of my attempt is unique, even if only in what things I want to leave open for others.

As for sticking to TOS alone, and ignoring production documents or artist's intent... that smacks too much of canon worship for me. Others can and should try that route. Vive la difference and all that. But I am interested in what the designer intended, before it was adapted for the screen or the story or whatever. Now that I know you are sticking to onscreen alone, I won't critique what you do on the wrong basis.

Lets not get overly broad... I was talking about just this case of registry numbers, it isn't dogma of any type. When looking at any problem, I generally start by isolating certain elements, look for a pattern, and then move forward by adding in less direct elements and repeat the process. For me, all of this stuff and it's interrelationships is approached best with the tools of set theory. Isolate different sets of elements and look for the intersections as a form of data analysis.

For me, the idea of canon or worship seems rather odd for this type of thing... it is a TV show after all. But what we have is a large pool of data, and what I am trying to do is absolutely isolate TOS from everything after. Within that pool of data, I will isolate different sets of elements (on-screen elements from off-screen elements as in this example) as a first pass at the data. It seems like the logical approach to me, which is why it is strange to find emotional resistance when all I'm doing is attempting to look at it from a different angle... I'm not even attempting to state any conclusions at this point, just suggesting ways to view the topic differently.

Finally, historians don't start from what we know. We start from what we think we know. That is but one way that mathematics and the liberal arts are different.

Maybe that's why I seem to run into resistance from time to time. My first approach to any problem is to remove anything that might be questionable for a first look, while here everyone seems to be emotionally bound to different points of view to the point of attacking anything that differs. I can divorce myself from emotional attachments at least long enough to study any point of view... even those I don't agree with. I guess I sort of expect people to give every idea at least a first look before dismissing anything... after all, looking at this stuff from different perspectives isn't blasphemy (that I know of ).

As far as I'm concerned, the Constellation is the same configuration as the Enterprise at the time we see her...

-and-​

Now, that is where I think the notion goes too far...

See, this is the type of thing I'm talking about... sure these are all great ideas (some of which I subscribe too myself), but a lot of this type of thing requires adding in a lot of extra stuff that I wouldn't even consider when studying this type of issue for the first time. The end result might end up in the same general direction as any of the current theories, but to start with, why can't we all divorce ourselves from our favorite ideas long enough for a fresh view at a small subset of the elements that might be making up most of the larger theories.

Frankly, I think that if we could do this type of exercise, we would all gain more respect for the many differing theories that eventually arise with the introduction of other elements of Trek. And respect for other theories doesn't mean giving up those we each hold dear, it is just an understanding that from a different point of view people often see things differently.

 

[U.S.S. Republic]

I have to ask why M. Jefferies "intent" is always mangled by fans?

I mean, if the "intent" is for the Enterprise to be the 17th major Federation cruiser design, and the numbering convention (by M. Jeffereis "intent") is No. 1 = 1701, No. 2 = 1702, why is the mythical U.S.S. Constitution regarded as the class ship? This is completely against the "intent" so highly spoken of. But then. so is the other information from the same source regarding "1st modernize or modification = 1701A". Guess Pike's Enterprise and Kirk's Enterprise had no modernize or modifications (by intent).

Thanks Shaw!
Appreciate the effort.
Hoping to see some TAS elements as options later on.

Question: why do Enterprise floorplans always have the ring corridors?
Wouldn't half-moon corridors satisfy the set requirements and the cross-section at centerline?
Or, are ring corridors simply a F. Joseph fanon hold-over?

 

[Reverend]

I think the main reason some people try to come up with crazy ideas about how the Constellation was a different class has nothing to do with the AMT model but everything to do with the registry number. Now as Shaw pointed out, at no time during TOS is the USS Constitution mentioned or is any name linked with NCC-1701 (although I think there is some diagram of a ship's phaser that's labelled "constitution-class") and indeed TOS gives us very little to go on.
Having said that, it is generally accepted (for whatever reason) that NCC-1701 is a Constitution-Class starship, (partly due to people who like to take screen shots of tiny details in the background of TMP) that NCC-1700 is the reg for the Constitution herself and yes since TOS, registry numbers have been (broadly speaking) sequential. Of course the problem with that arises when we have apparent anomalies like NCC-1017 (hence the crazy class juggling.) No maybe it's because I used to work in stock control, but I really don't see any contradiction here. To me it's perfectly reasonable that 1700 was constructed BEFORE 1017 in a sequential system, here's how...

To me the most likely way this works is that certain ranges are pre-assigned for planned production runs, with certain ranges assigned to specific ship yards, so it'd be up to the yards themselves to assign the registries available to them.

So, for the sake of argument, say in the 24th century (because the numbers are bigger, which makes this easier) Starfleet command gives out the construction orders the next 2 years as follow:-


Utopia Planita is assigned ranges NCC-77200 -> NCC-77358 and NCC-77780 -> NCC-77999
San Francisco is assigned ranges NCC-77359 -> NCC-77779

In which time UP is ordered to build 24 Galaxys, 50 Akiras, 70 Novas and say 150 Danubes
So the yard commander assigns the registries available to him as he sees fit.
Say NCC-77780 -> NCC 77804 for the Galaxy class ships; NCC-77805-77855 for the Akiras, NCC-77856 -> NCC-77926 for the Novas and NCC-77208 -> NCC-77358 for the Danubes.

Now he still has NCC-77927 -> NCC-77999 which can be tacked in front of the next batch of Novas that gets ordered and NCC-77200 -> NCC-77207 which he intentionally left to one side because he knows the NXP-2765WP/T pathfinder is being fast tracked and will likely go into production as an official prototype for the new Yorktown-Class, which will probably require an additional order of six hulls after the prototype, for which he "pencils in" NX-77200. That still leaves NCC-77207 without a ship to go with, so he either leaves it unallocated, possibly to be used years later as a "filler" when he find's he doesn't have a "block" of numbers big enough to neatly take a whole order, or he ends up assigning it the experimental Icarus Project as NX-77207 along with several other "scrap" numbers he has on file to cater for the five or so prototypes they have been cleared to order.

Now if we apply that to the Constellation/Constitution issue, then we simply have San Francisco applying a block of say NCC-1700 - 1759 that's been allocated to them to the first order of Constitutions, which uses up the first ten numbers (Constitution through to Lexington.) Now other yards are also ordered to build varying numbers of the new class and as usual they use whatever number that have been allocated to them. So let's say Utopia Planitia still has some gaps in the the 1600-99 range to use up and assigns them to the Intrepid, Potemkin, Excalibur & Exeter while Tranquility Base decides to use up 1760 - 64 on the order of five that has been ordered from them. Now for the sake of argument let's say that the Proxima Yards were only asked to build one Constitution (as they are already near capacity building the new Soyuz class) and the yard commander assigns a stray number (NCC-1017) that was originally going assigned to an old order but was cut short leaving a bunch of regs allocated to his yard, but unassigned to any hulls.

That's how I see things working anyway. Like I said, if you work in manufacturing or stock control you see this kind of anomaly in serial numbers quite often. I shan't give an example as it's even more tedious than the post above, but that is the basic gist of it. Feel free to come up with your own interpretations, but lets not pretend a less than perfect AMT model requires the invention of a totally new class.

...Now back to deck plans!

 

[therealfoxbat]

If we go by the remastered version of "The Doomsday Machine", yeah, Constellation appears to be a Constitution class ship, and we're back to trying to wrap our heads around the wacky registry number.

Go by the original version, with the AMT model, then we have a case for an earlier, albeit similar, unnamed starship class, which most likely includes the Valiant and the Republic (and if you go by Riker's recitation of the Yamato's registry of NCC-1305-E, a USS Yamato NCC-1305 in that early ship class).

It's likely something similar to what Star Fleet Battles came up with for their background history. They have an earlier heavy cruiser design called the Republic class. When the Constitution was built, several Republics were refitted to match Constitution specs while retaining their hull numbers.

 

[aridas sofia]

I have to ask why M. Jefferies "intent" is always mangled by fans?

I mean, if the "intent" is for the Enterprise to be the 17th major Federation cruiser design, and the numbering convention (by M. Jeffereis "intent") is No. 1 = 1701, No. 2 = 1702, why is the mythical U.S.S. Constitution regarded as the class ship? This is completely against the "intent" so highly spoken of. But then. so is the other information from the same source regarding "1st modernize or modification = 1701A". Guess Pike's Enterprise and Kirk's Enterprise had no modernize or modifications (by intent).

I completely agree. This is clearly Jefferies intent -- Enterprise is the first of her class, and the first modification of that frame would be -A, and the second -B, and so on (possibly at the eighteen-year intervals mentioned as defining the ship's endurance in TMoST). If the ship was forty years old, as the class is mentioned as being in that book, then it has gone through one, or maybe two of these modifications since launch. Since there was no "-A" on the hull of this ship -- that was planned from the start to have some age on her -- either the "-A" wasn't meant to be affixed to the hull registry and was a clerical thing, or it was a later idea that was for Phase II and wasn't meant to apply to TOS. This last possibility probably means that when Jefferies was designing the Phase II ship, he intended those modifications to be the first that warranted a registry change. The ship was launched in more or less the configuration we saw in the series, and at eighteen year intervals the modifications were minor enough not to cross some threshold that would require an "-A" be affixed.

This isn't the way it developed onscreen, and I don't in any way mean to diminish what anyone is doing when they stick to what is onscreen, by calling such devotion "canon worship". It's tiresome and irritating to read the incessant berating of posters for expressing any view that is extrapolation, or that reflects an original intent of a writer or artist versus what was forced upon the production by considerations of time, money or ratings, and my irritation with such berating sometime shows.

From the perspective of adhering to what is onscreen, and using it, as a set of original and limiting assumptions, Reverend's schema works well. So do others that I've seen. You don't have to go outside the onscreen stuff to make it make sense. That's just my preference, because I like to imagine "what if?"

I agree wholly with the notion of starting with a set of a posteriori conclusions, and that in this case, starting with what was onscreen in TOS is the best place to start. From there I would modify using other considerations in order to make the design make some conceptual sense. But the idea of leaving blank spaces is an equally valid, and perhaps more elegant approach.

 

[aridas sofia]

Shaw wrote:

What I was eluding to was the couple times that you've pointed out that you were the first to really attempt something like this. While my attempt is coming from many of the same initial conditions that yours has... I would like to think that some aspect of my attempt is unique, even if only in what things I want to leave open for others.

I flattered myself to think that some aspect of what I'd done had contributed to what I was witnessing, and to work I thought might end up being a superior effort to the work I'd carried out. The fact that you failed to make any such attribution, and the similarities between our approaches, might have left my ego... wanting. I apologize for any inconvenience I might have caused by remarking on several occasions that we started from a common basis but proceeded in different directions. However, to say that I "feel the need to assert ownership (or take credit) of so many ideas" is way, way over the top, and a total mischaracterization. And it is one I find offensive, and without basis. Coupled with your accusation that posters can't "wrap their head around things"... "because they are unwilling to open said head to anything other than preconceived notions," I was motivated to respond. These accusations tell me that 1) you are possessive of what you are doing to the point of being unwilling to credit anyone else that might have contributed to your understanding, and 2) you are unwilling to consider contrary points of view, to the point of characterizing those that possess such views as being close minded. Because I think you are doing truly exceptional -- nay, extraordinary -- work, and don't want to see it poisoned with such unnecessary and uncomfortable offensive defenses, I'm offering this friendly advice.

Go back through the thread and substantiate your charge if you believe it to be true, and if anything I have posted can be legitimately taken by any but the most thin-skinned person in the way you've characterized it, I'll be happy to either clarify my meaning, and/or apologize for the mistaken impression I might have left. Otherwise, I suggest you work in the spirit of collaboration, unhindered by such considerations of who did what and who believes what, and let the remarkable art speak for itself.

 

[therealfoxbat]

Try this (if you can), list only what TOS gives us... and nothing else. Drop all preconceived Jefferies/Jein/Joseph ideas, and just start with what is known and list that for us.

A question regarding this part of the discussion...

Is information from the TNG era concerning the TOS era considered valid for the subject of ship names? If so, that's the point where "Constitution Class" actually becomes canon.

 

[Tallguy]

Where was "Constitution class" first put forward OFF screen? Is that in TMOST? I'm still rather taken with my sudden (and obvious) realization that they never referred to any interstellar vessel as a STARSHIP except for the Enterprise and her kin.

I love the designation "Constitution class" and always will. It's part of my Trek DNA. But I'm starting to lump it into the category of "made up after the fact".

Not that it has anything to do with the deck plans, of course...

 

[Shaw]

I flattered myself to think that some aspect of what I'd done had contributed to what I was witnessing, and to work I thought might end up being a superior effort to the work I'd carried out.

Well, I've stated on a number of occasions that much of your work has been an inspiration for me. But in this case (just as in the case of my 11 foot model plans), your work is actually too similar to even be looked at. And I'm finding that some sources aren't as reliable as I thought for sticking to TOS (and I've sequestered elements from both Joseph and the Okudas now as well).

As for being a superior effort, I still have to face the fact that no matter how good any of the ideas are that I put together, they are going to be hidden behind my amateurish drawing abilities.

The fact that you failed to make any such attribution, and the similarities between our approaches, might have left my ego... wanting. I apologize for any inconvenience I might have caused by remarking on several occasions that we started from a common basis but proceeded in different directions. However, to say that I "feel the need to assert ownership (or take credit) of so many ideas" is way, way over the top, and a total mischaracterization. And it is one I find offensive, and without basis.

Well, I guess what I would have to say is that I was just asking why. From my point of view though, wanting attribution for Jefferies' deck placements would be like me wanting attribution for the use of Jefferies' pressure compartments as an organizational tool. In the end, it was Jefferies' artwork, so shouldn't the credit go to him for the ideas?

As for over the top or mischaracterization, if only one person felt that those original terms might have applied, then neither was offensive in nature. They were a simple expression of what you were conveying (from that persons perspective). If I had said you are __________, then sure, you would have every right to take offense. I was pointing out that you were starting to come across that way, when it is absolutely unnecessary. But as you had already formed the impression that I was not giving people credit or accepting of other's ideas, it is easy to see why you would take a friendly question so completely out of context.

But yeah, yours was the first time I had ever seen anyone attempt this type of thing before (and I've stated so in this thread), but for this project, I've stayed completely away from your work in an effort to see what could be learned from the raw data.

Coupled with your accusation that posters can't "wrap their head around things"... "because they are unwilling to open said head to anything other than preconceived notions," I was motivated to respond.

The term wrap my head around this was first put forward by April, and I have used that term in italics ever since as I don't believe that anything put forward here is outside what he (or anyone else) could wrap their heads around.

These accusations tell me that 1) you are possessive of what you are doing to the point of being unwilling to credit anyone else that might have contributed to your understanding, and 2) you are unwilling to consider contrary points of view, to the point of characterizing those that possess such views as being close minded. Because I think you are doing truly exceptional -- nay, extraordinary -- work, and don't want to see it poisoned with such unnecessary and uncomfortable offensive defenses, I'm offering this friendly advice...

Both points are untrue, with plenty of examples throughout the thread to prove otherwise. And infact, the presence of even a single counter example to those two points is enough to show them baseless.

Do I need to show an example? Lets look at a few, just for the fun of it...

Cary pointed out that while the idea of having a loop for the turbolift was a good idea, the fact that it was on a single deck wasn't. He suggested that the loop be broken up between multiple decks, and I've tried to make of point of the fact that I intend to (specially any time that I make use of the original drawing with the layout). In this case I have (1) given him credit and (2) changed my views on the subject.

I had originally put Sickbay on deck 7 (which I realized now was due to the Okudas' reference to it being there). Wingsley asked the fateful question "I'm curious; why did you choose this particular deck for Sickbay?" When looking back at my reasoning for it, I had no good answer. So I started searching for any references in the show. I am now going to be moving Sickbay to deck 5. While I haven't as yet solidified that, I will (1) credit him for causing the (2) change in my outlook on this.

Even though it was too small to tell that they were his, I used Warped9's shuttlecraft when looking at room around the shuttlecraft bay. I (1) credited him for this on my sketch.

My first look at engineering, specially the back wall, made use of MGagen's back wall diagram as a reference, to which I (1) credited him. I wasn't originally going to make use of his diagram for what was behind the screen, but he put forward a very good argument, and I have (2) changed my mind in this matter.

TIN_MAN asked if I had any plans on taking the engineering forced perspective into account (which I hadn't), and I'm still working out the details of it, so nothing is finalized, but I did (2) change the position of engineering to take this into account.

April had put two engine rooms in his plans (and I have (1) credited him for it on a number of occasions), one at either end of the tube room, and with the move of engineering forward, I (2) now plan on leaving the area behind the tube room open for a second engine room of different configuration.​

So while any single counter example of what you said should have been enough, here we have five counter examples of your first point and five counter examples of your second.

Now maybe you didn't see any of these examples because you haven't been following the thread very closely, but you might want to double check stuff like this before throwing it out there.

And for the record, I'm neither hurt nor offended that you thought I was overly possessive, unwilling to give credit or unwilling to accept the ideas of others. If that is what you think of me, there isn't much I can do to change that... specially as the record shows that those were inaccurate descriptions of me to begin with. If I've already been doing exactly what you accused me of not doing, then there is no way that future examples would make any more difference to you than the past ones.

__________________​

A question regarding this part of the discussion...

Is information from the TNG era concerning the TOS era considered valid for the subject of ship names? If so, that's the point where "Constitution Class" actually becomes canon.

Actually, I wasn't concerned with (or wanted any part of) a canonical discussion, this was more a historic view... so for this question, it was based only on what we saw or heard in TOS.

Sure, Jefferies had his ideas about what the 1701 meant, but for much of the first and second season he wasn't really in a position to push that type of thing (unlike preproduction were he had much of the Trek universe to himself). As such, his ideas where most likely (to one degree or another) discarded, and we are left with what was given to the original audiences.

So yeah, I was just trying to collect those data points and have everyone consider them for a moment without any additional factors (like Jefferies, TMoST or TAS, TNG or the like). What ideas could we come up with if that small collection of data was all we had to work with.

 

[therealfoxbat]

Where was "Constitution class" first put forward OFF screen? Is that in TMOST? I'm still rather taken with my sudden (and obvious) realization that they never referred to any interstellar vessel as a STARSHIP except for the Enterprise and her kin.

I love the designation "Constitution class" and always will. It's part of my Trek DNA. But I'm starting to lump it into the category of "made up after the fact".

Not that it has anything to do with the deck plans, of course...

I believe "Constitution class" was first mentioned in Star Fleet Technical Manual. Digital copies of that page are displayed on some of the small viewscreens on the bridge of the Enterprise during Search For Spock, but I think the first time anyone on screen actually says the words "Constitution class" is Captain Picard in the sixth season of TNG.

Actually, I wasn't concerned with (or wanted any part of) a canonical discussion, this was more a historic view... so for this question, it was based only on what we saw or heard in TOS.

In that case, what we're left with is 13 ships in the class (during TOS First Season). Eight names are visually confirmed in TOS episodes, and there are five more names mentioned during TOS episodes which COULD be members of the class. Other ship names mentioned during TOS episodes belong to vessels which are not Starships (cargo vessel, etc.) or are at least 50 years old and unlikely to be part of the class.

How's that?

 

[Unicron]

But the SFTM wasn't published until the 70's, right? After the series went off the air but was still being rerun? There were definitely several instances of the name appearing onscreen in TOS - "Space Seed" is the only one I can remember at the moment. What's not clear is if that was intended to actually represent the Enterprise, and I can't think of any FJ pages that appeared in TOS. They did appear as background schematics in TWOK and TSFS though.

 

[Irishman]

If we go by the remastered version of "The Doomsday Machine", yeah, Constellation appears to be a Constitution class ship, and we're back to trying to wrap our heads around the wacky registry number...

Well, the use of an AMT model kit wasn't to represent a different class of ship from the Enterprise, it was used to show that the two ships were of the same class.

Further, if the differences of the AMT kit are enough to represent a different class, then one would have to say that the Enterprise herself is a Transformer as she went from 33" to 11' to (AMT) 18" versions on the screen. After all, in the second season an 18" AMT model replaced the original 33" model.

Usually when people aren't able to wrap their head around things it is because they are unwilling to open said head to anything other than preconceived notions.

Unlike the US Navy, which gives out numbers according to ship type (so that any number of ships can have the same hull number as long as it isn't the same type of ship), Star Fleet assigns a new (and unique) number to each new ship. To assume that these numbers have to be in order or even near each other... specially looking only at TOS by itself, is pretty far fetched. Even without seeing other Star Fleet ships, one could envision that maybe these ships take a long time to build and that there would be a vast number of other ships built in between the commissioning of each new Starship.

Think about it, what numbers do you guys think the carriers of the Nimitz Class would have if the navy used a unique number for every ship built? If the Nimitz (with it's number from this type of numbering) came along side the Bush (with it's number from this type of numbering), would you guys be making the same wild statements that you are about the Constellation and Enterprise? The Nimitz and Bush would have numbers that would differ by hundreds, so are you saying that you wouldn't be able to wrap your head around something like that? Why not?

We had three numbers associated with three ships, only two of which were seen on screen as being Starship Class. Based on that, pretty much all other numbering ideas that attempt to apply some additional logic are wrong. And attempts to change what we saw in TOS (like calling the Constellation some other class) to make bad concepts work is worse than just not attempting to apply ideas at all.

Anyone that advances the "preconceived notion" that the numbers are sequential is just echoing Jefferies, who said they were sequential. It is a "preconceived notion", that's true. But, so what?

Also, how is advancing the notion that the Constellation is not of the Constitution-class a "preconceived notion"? I don't recall anyone ever suggesting that idea before I did, right here on this BBS. On the one hand, the different models representing Enterprise are clearly meant to represent the same ship at the same time period. On the other hand, Constellation, represented by the (yet again) differing AMT model, and having a very different number from Enterprise, might mean that the number scheme is non-sequential (thus further distancing it from Jefferies intent). Or, it might mean Constellation is of a different class. Given that Greg Jein advanced the former "non-sequential number scheme" notion in 1974, I'd say that is the "preconceived notion" and that the idea that Constellation is an earlier class is fresh, different, and adds depth to the TOS universe.

This part of your post...

Usually when people aren't able to wrap their head around things it is because they are unwilling to open said head to anything other than preconceived notions.

...is particularly troubling. It has been my experience that usually, when people aren't able to wrap their head around things it is because they haven't been convinced, usually because of some deficiency in the argument they've heard.

I think that, to my reading, what Shaw has suggested very persuasively, if one takes the original TOS episodes as a body of work, leaving out Jefferies musings, then the idea that the Constellation being of the same class (Starship class) as the Enterprise, is tenable, regardless of the out-of-sequence registry.

What if Starfleet had issued numbers like that on more than one occasion? It was later done to the E-nil herself as a memoriam, but where did we get the idea that that was the first time? Maybe what was unique for the E-nil was the letter suffix following the registry (NCC-1701-A). Perhaps SF had commemorated other vessels and crews in similar ways. Surely the crew of the Enterprise weren't the only ones to distinguish themselves in such a valorous manner? If we understand NCC-1017 of the Constellation to be the retention of an earlier registry that had likewise distinguished itself BEFORE the idea of letter suffices had been adopted, then it's tenable.

Of course, they had the good graces to give it a lower registry # than Enterprise. If it had been higher than 1701, I'd have a harder time explaining it in Trekverse terms.