The next mind-numbing thread... "Is it 'Starship' or 'Star Ship' Class?"
*ducks and runs*
Connie - TOS canon nomenclature
- Thread starter Wingsley
- Start date
Pretty much what every one of these "debates" comes down to.
I myself like to think of a "batch" system, where a given design is assigned a registry series and that number can be changed as needed depending on how Starfleet chooses to build the numbers in the assigned class. Should it not choose to build all of the original construction bid, it might choose to reassign the remaining batch numbers to a new class as one option. It might also build ships in the same batch series as an upgraded class, as happened with Mastercom's Surya/Coventry frigates (TOS era) and their Avenger/Miranda etc (TMP era) refits). FASA based the Reliant/Miranda on their older Anton class cruisers, which had an 1800 series registry that carried over to the first refitted ships. The remaining new builds had a completely different batch number (26226-26302) to better distinguish them.
The original system proposed by MJ is very interesting and I think we'd all agree it would rock had it been used more consistently. Since it wasn't, and many later numbers especially don't seem to have the best range of consistency, I feel this is the best system for trying to reconcile the numbers that have shown up both in canon materials and various tie-ins and fan works. I agree that for practical purposes, it has some issues in application and it's much harder to make outside ships fit into the system in a sensible way.
I don't need to assume what the first two registry digits stand for, because the creator of the Enterprise, Walter Matt Jefferies made that obvious in his TOS pre-production sketch, IMHO:
I'd say Matt Jefferies was contradicting his own drawing (or someone was). As the ship went through major modifications between the pilot episodes and the series proper, yet was never rechristened as the "1701-A" as shown in the drawing.
Yep, it's an error to treat MJ or GR as ultimate authorities on any aspect of Trek continuity or tech. Simply incorrect.
You know, if you go by GR's ORIGINAL "Mr. Spock" concept in Star Trek - Spock is a Martian.
Yes, yes we have.
Once it has been decided by the Pantheon of Greats, not even the Pantheon of Greats can change their minds. "Let's change it from Yorktown to Enterprise. Let's change it from 'Star ship class' to 'Constitution-class'." Letting them get away with that would be madness. As Trek fans, we should put our collective foot down.
It's a TV Show. It's a TV show. It's a TV Show.
And this is supposed to explain the reactions in the past 12 hours in this thread? I'm astonished but fascinated what I'm reading here.
This. You predicted this rather well, my compliments!
Why is everybody so keen on getting me misunderstood? On the contrary, I like the idea that he added the Constitution Class to give the fictional universe a taste of diversity (= authenticity). According to the ship phaser schematic there is a Constitution Class and NCC-1701-A was a Constitution Class starship according to Scotty's blueprint in ST VI:TUC.
That is the working premise, BUT the graphic doesn't call the Enterprise a Constitution Class starship. Khan said he studied the manuals of various starships and obviously the Constitution Class is one of these. Nothing less, but nothing more.
I'm referring to the name finding corresponence from August 1967 where D.C. Fontana mentioned "Starship Class" and Bob Justman (co-creator and continuity guru) replied with "Enterprise Starship Class". Apparently a courteous and subtle correction. The "Enterprise-class" quote is in one of the texts, written by Whitfield with or without Gene Roddenberry. But since both share the credits it must have had Roddenberry's approval. YMMV.
So you have a problem with Greg Jein supposedly being the one that changed the class of the Enterprise but no issue with David Carson saying that "Yesterday's Enterprise" is an alternate timeline?
Yes. Greg Jein ]published his treatise in April 1975[ but then, he was just a fan like everyone else around here and had never been involved with the actual TOS production (like Franz Joseph). It wasn't his prerogative (I don't think he had the faintest idea how influential his innocent treatise would become).
David Carson (director) and Ronald D. Moore (final screenplay) created both "Yesterday's Enterprise" and "Redemption". So if anybody in the world would have been entitled to relocate events from YE's alternate time line of our universe into a parallel time line or universe it would have been them. You realize the difference? (same question goes to Dennis and sojourner).
I don't think this has anymore anything to do with the Enterprise-C or the Constitution Class, it's a question of principle how thouroghly to do research to arrive at canon which has properties of an absolute authority or an idol.
"Rick Sternbach's Enterprise-C is canon, period" "Canon says the Enterprise is a Constitution Class starship".
All I've ever done is to research the validity of such claims and to see for myself if such claims are valid or debatable (something that's usually considered a recommended method for anything we hear or read and start to believe). I have stated the sources, I've stated the quotes etc. in detail and found these claims debatable.
Frankly, it starts to look to me that the ST Encyclopedia is the Holy Bible and anything that threatens this monotheistic belief system is met with all kinds of reactions I would expect from fundamentalist Christians but not - I'm sorry I have to say that - from people that call themselves fans of Star Trek.
Considering the longevity of Star Trek vessels - what happened in the TOS era to older "cruiser designs" that no longer qualified as starships or destroyers? A downgrade to "scout class" and/or science vessel? In this ]thread[ I examined the possibility that the Oberth Class might actually be a much older (and original starship) design from the late 22nd or early 23rd Century. To my own surprise a couple of fans weighed in and stated that they had felt the same. Apparently examples of the 5th and 6th Federation cruiser design series, IMHO.
I have seen the original trilogy dozens of times, thanks for asking. And thanks to both of you for just providing an illustration what I mean by "inaccurate research".
Fact # 1: "It's a period of civil war" - As a military commander Vader's actions will result in casualties. Nothing to write home about, IMHO.
Fact # 2: Vader didn't blew up Alderaan, Governor Tarkin ordered its destruction. Did Vader approve? Look at he scene where Tarkin is just about to voice this despisable idea and Vader apparently senses it. This is one of the few times his had jerked (body language) apparently being astonished himself that Tarkin would choose innocent civilians as a target like ]Butcher Harris[ before him.
Fact # 3: One could argue that Vader's son killed more people than Vader himself, from the Trek BBS: ]http://www.trekbbs.com/showpost.php?p=9689029&postcount=39[
Fine, I'll use a less drastic example. According to Ben Kenobi the Jedi knights were he guardians of peace and justice in the Old Republic. According to the retcon of the sequels the Jedi never cared about justice (freeing slaves). In 1984 one guy was a war hero but then the Party declared him to be a traitor because it suited their needs. That's the essential problem of retroactive continuity: You can never be sure what's happening to your favorite characters once somebody thinks it's cool or dark to give the character a different spin, even if that's not what the original creators might have had in mind.
It can betray and alter the original context and intentions.
But we know and can all accept it - as one of several starship manuals Khan had been reading and explicitly said so. And how can we know it was a manual about another starship class? Because Bob Justman referred to the "Enterprise Starship Class" and not the "Constitution Starship Class" in TMoST.
In real life and within century nomenclatures can change, I just don't get it why some people insist Jefferies nomenclature was wrong just because it didn't work anymore from the late 23rd Century on.
Obviously, in the Pike era (or even earlier), a starship undergoing modernization or modification would have gotten an alphabetic appendix which was dropped by the beginning of the regular series (and it would explain why the Constellation, possibly named and numbered to honor the achievements of the starship of the 10th design didn't get the "A" - at that time they used the "A" for a different purpose).
To cut a long story short:
This is a TOS thread and the original nomenclature of the TOS Enterprise is the topic.
I haven't seen any evidence that established that by the end of TOS, TAS, TMP or TWOK the original creators' premise "[Enterprise] Starship Class" had been changed.
This has nothing to do with wishful thinking on my part, it's a simple fact.
Maybe Harvey eventually discovers the rest of the name finding correspondence from August 1967 that could shed more light on the issue.
Bob
Captained by Robert April on the Cruiser-class space vehicle S.S. Yorktown.
Since Khan takes over the Enterprise, I'm pretty sure the intent was for him to be reading up on that ship's specs.
IIRC Gene never got around to proofing the book. Gene's contributions are clearly noted, either as memos or in bold.
"These are the voyages of the starship Enterprise..."
My assumption is that "starship" in-series refers to any vessel that is capable of warp drive/FTL travel--it can fly "to the stars" at least much more quickly and practically than a sub light speed vessel, which would arguably be limited to travel within a single solar system.
But since the Enterprise is a "starship" it can boldly go etc., the boldly going is due to being warp-capable.
So in a Taste of Armageddon, the war is between two planets in the same solar system. I think there is reference to actual spaceship battles prior to it turning into a computer war, but these implicitly are not warp-capable vessels. That's why there's such awe at the presence of the Enterprise.
Similar inference exists as to the interplanetary warfare alluded to in "Patterns of Force" (e..g. the Nazi planet episode). Also I believe the two planets at odds in Elaan of Troius were in the same system so no need for FTL capable ships.
In one of the shows about the Romulans, maybe it was the first one with Mark Lenard as the Romulan commander, I think they even state the Romulan ship is not warp-capable.
As far as finer gradations of ship class, as I recollect other than the Enterprise originally there was no mention of different types of "starship" at all. You had things like "freighters" but there wasn't a different category of "starship."
Romulans had birds of prey and Klingons had "battle cruisers."
The distinction between "starship" (Federation) and "battle cruiser" (Klingon empire) was an important one because the Klingons were supposed to be the aggessive warlike race while the Feds were not supposed to be militaristic and warlike (in theory anyway). The Enterprise was a scientific and research vessel which just so happened to have some fierce armaments on it. But the Enterprise was the good guys with peaceful intentions (America analog from American cold war point of view) and the Klingons were the evil warlike ones (Soviet analog from American point of view).
When the Klingons refer to the Enterprise as a battle cruiser, that is meant to show the in-world Klingon perspective of the actual purpose of the Enterprise--i.e. from their point of view it IS a battle cruiser. That Klingon perspective does not mean it is the in-world Federation's designation.
As far as nomenclature in the U.S. Navy the first vessel of the particular type typically designates the entire class. So the Enterprise would be a "Constitution class" vessel if the first keel laid down of that particular type of "starship" was called the "Constitution."
Calling the "Enterprise" a "Constitution" class vessel in some places and an "Enterprise" in other places (implying that Enterprise not Constitution was the first of its type) has to be chalked up to a continuity error.
My assumption is that "starship" in-series refers to any vessel that is capable of warp drive/FTL travel--it can fly "to the stars" at least much more quickly and practically than a sub light speed vessel, which would arguably be limited to travel within a single solar system.
But since the Enterprise is a "starship" it can boldly go etc., the boldly going is due to being warp-capable.
So in a Taste of Armageddon, the war is between two planets in the same solar system. I think there is reference to actual spaceship battles prior to it turning into a computer war, but these implicitly are not warp-capable vessels. That's why there's such awe at the presence of the Enterprise.
Similar inference exists as to the interplanetary warfare alluded to in "Patterns of Force" (e..g. the Nazi planet episode). Also I believe the two planets at odds in Elaan of Troius were in the same system so no need for FTL capable ships.
In one of the shows about the Romulans, maybe it was the first one with Mark Lenard as the Romulan commander, I think they even state the Romulan ship is not warp-capable.
As far as finer gradations of ship class, as I recollect other than the Enterprise originally there was no mention of different types of "starship" at all. You had things like "freighters" but there wasn't a different category of "starship."
Romulans had birds of prey and Klingons had "battle cruisers."
The distinction between "starship" (Federation) and "battle cruiser" (Klingon empire) was an important one because the Klingons were supposed to be the aggessive warlike race while the Feds were not supposed to be militaristic and warlike (in theory anyway). The Enterprise was a scientific and research vessel which just so happened to have some fierce armaments on it. But the Enterprise was the good guys with peaceful intentions (America analog from American cold war point of view) and the Klingons were the evil warlike ones (Soviet analog from American point of view).
When the Klingons refer to the Enterprise as a battle cruiser, that is meant to show the in-world Klingon perspective of the actual purpose of the Enterprise--i.e. from their point of view it IS a battle cruiser. That Klingon perspective does not mean it is the in-world Federation's designation.
As far as nomenclature in the U.S. Navy the first vessel of the particular type typically designates the entire class. So the Enterprise would be a "Constitution class" vessel if the first keel laid down of that particular type of "starship" was called the "Constitution."
Calling the "Enterprise" a "Constitution" class vessel in some places and an "Enterprise" in other places (implying that Enterprise not Constitution was the first of its type) has to be chalked up to a continuity error.
You're saying we should hold as sacred some scribbles on a piece of paper but ignore other scribbles on the same exact piece of paper. You're desperately trying to tap dance around much that doesn't agree with your ideas about the subject.
I love much of the work Matt Jefferies did on Star Trek. The fact that there is a canon "NCC-1700" (See: "Court Martial"), kills the "first bird" theory. Jefferies may have come up with that framework, but for whatever reason, it ended up either not being practical or preferred. Who killed it? Don't know. It may have been Roddenberry, it may have been Jefferies. But it wasn't something that any other creator was held to going forward.
In the episode "Bread and Circuses", it is established that the SS Beagle is a "small class four stardrive vessel" but not a starship. She is evidently a merchant vessel, since her captain, Merik, had dropped out of the academy and had gone into the merchant service.
That doesn't really prevent it from being a starship. It just clarifies that it either has class 4 engines or is a class four vessel with stardrive engines. In either case, for all we know it could still be considered a starship in the generic sense.
I side with the theory that the generic term "starship" is used as interchangeably as the term "car" is today.
Except that Merik admits in dialog that he was never a starship captain. So...
I like Maurice's interpretation of the term, which he gave yesterday upthread.
That meshes well with what's presented in "Bread and Circuses" about the caliber expected in a person to command a starship as opposed to just a spaceship.
That meshes well with what's presented in "Bread and Circuses" about the caliber expected in a person to command a starship as opposed to just a spaceship.
