constitution class?

[Michael]

WHAT is the original 1701? Is it substantially the same ship between April and Pike and Kirk?

Yes.

If Jeffries had said it was a connie, fine. But as far as I know, it was only GR who said that, and well after the fact.

Short answer: I don't care.

Well, I don't really care either. You are the one arguing it wasn't a Constitution class. And you yourself said in this thread:

the intent of the designers is not [meaningless]

But who are the designers? Is it Jefferies — because he designed the ship? Is it Roddenberry — because he designed the series. Or is it one of the authors?

Well, I don't know. But I call it a Constitution class, because that's what all later series called the ship.

 

[trevanian]

I'm only interested in the topic so far as crediting the designers, which is why I make a point of mentioning Enterprise Class whenever this topic pops up.

In the late 70s, GR said he didn't want the shuttle orbiter named Enterprise because he thought constitution would have been the right choice. For all I know, constitution class may have backdated from there to TOS. But even that is self-serving, because he is trying to sound humble, instead of being elated that a write-in campaign CAUSED the name change to Ent, and that increased the likelihood of TREK coming back to life. So he could be magnanimous about the name, because he'd won.

 

[Nerys Myk]

What's "real" in Star Trek was/is constantly evolving. Even early on nothing was nailed down 100%. They changed terminology as they went. When they found something they liked they kept it. So James R. kirk becomes James T Kirk, Vulcanis becomes Vulcan, UESPA becomes Star Fleet and Starship Class becomes Constitution Class. Roll with it.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

That would conflict with the onscreen indication in TWOK that the refit is an ENTERPRISE-CLASS ship

The Enterprise-A is Constitution class, we've all seen it (Scotty's deck plans in ST VI). And since the original refit was identical in appearance, then all indications are that *it* was also of that class.

I still think the Enterprise class could refer to the simulator (which was obviously built to resemble the Enterprise), or to the "Enterprise class" of cadets who would soon be posted to that ship (doesn't it make sense for a group of cadets to be trained together, in anticipation of being posted to a given ship?).

As for the term "starship class": Poor choice of words on their part. Taken literally, that term doesn't make a whole lot of sense (otherwise you'd have to have a ship called the USS Starship ). It's a starship *type*, though.

 

[erastus25]

I believe the first onscreen mention of "Constitution Class' was in TNG's 2nd episode "The Naked Now".

And TNG's Relics IDs the old bridge as a Connie Class bridge.

This is one example of retconning that actually makes sense to me!

 

[Timo]

The Enterprise-A is Constitution class, we've all seen it (Scotty's deck plans in ST VI). And since the original refit was identical in appearance, then all indications are that *it* was also of that class.

Alternately, we might argue that the two movie ships are externally similar but internally dissimilar, and that the E-A has innards closer to the TOS original (shuttlebay, for example). It might be that the E-A represents the "standard" refit of TOS type vessels (including the venerable USS Constitution), while the ship from ST:TMP was a one-off conversion experiment that never panned out and remained a single-ship class (named Enterprise class, naturally) till her demise in ST3.

OTOH, I'd like to think that from the 24th century perspective, the minor variants within the broader Constitution class would all sort of blend together and people like Picard would no longer refer to the unique refits and modifications by those "subclass" names that the contemporary operators might have used.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[jayrath]

Agreed. "Starship class" has been ignored by all retcon. What did it once mean? Why did the original plaque and anyone refer to it at all, unless it meant something? And apparently once something very different and very special?

Respect to Timo, but the Archon's being an early "starship" does not mean that 12 active-service others did not later have that label.

 

[trevanian]

That would conflict with the onscreen indication in TWOK that the refit is an ENTERPRISE-CLASS ship

The Enterprise-A is Constitution class, we've all seen it (Scotty's deck plans in ST VI). And since the original refit was identical in appearance, then all indications are that *it* was also of that class.

So the later declaration in TUC takes precedence? If that is your idea of legitimacy (or canon) That might also mean starships don't maneuver at warp, they only go straight, right (I mean VOYAGER barfed that up, even though the TOS and TMP E was always making turns at warp.)

If you back a couple years, there are plenty of debates with ENT class being a subclass of CON, and all sorts of other justification/rationalizations. But embracing Okuda over earlier stuff is almost (not quite) like accepting John Byrne's rethink of SUPERMAN and tossing out decades of what went before --

 

[robjkay]

I was watching a few tos episodes the other day and it got me thinking. not once when they said about the enterprise did they mention she was a constitution class star ship. not that i can remember. So I was wondering when was the first cannon or on screen mention of the enterprise being a connie?.

The first canon on screen mention of the Constitution Class was (TOS: "The Trouble with Tribles") from an technical journel that Scotty was looking at! http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Image:Constitution_primary_phaser.jpg

 

[Nerys Myk]

That would conflict with the onscreen indication in TWOK that the refit is an ENTERPRISE-CLASS ship

The Enterprise-A is Constitution class, we've all seen it (Scotty's deck plans in ST VI). And since the original refit was identical in appearance, then all indications are that *it* was also of that class.

So the later declaration in TUC takes precedence? If that is your idea of legitimacy (or canon) That might also mean starships don't maneuver at warp, they only go straight, right (I mean VOYAGER barfed that up, even though the TOS and TMP E was always making turns at warp.)

If you back a couple years, there are plenty of debates with ENT class being a subclass of CON, and all sorts of other justification/rationalizations. But embracing Okuda over earlier stuff is almost (not quite) like accepting John Byrne's rethink of SUPERMAN and tossing out decades of what went before --

What's wrong with that? Byrne wasn't the first person to change Superman's history. It was constantly evolving. Things were added and other removed. Trek has followed that path as well. Far too many fans are locked into the idea of rigid unchanging continuity (usually starting when they "discovered" the property) which IMO leads to stagnation. A good barnacle scraping can do some good from time to time.

 

[trevanian]

The Enterprise-A is Constitution class, we've all seen it (Scotty's deck plans in ST VI). And since the original refit was identical in appearance, then all indications are that *it* was also of that class.

So the later declaration in TUC takes precedence? If that is your idea of legitimacy (or canon) That might also mean starships don't maneuver at warp, they only go straight, right (I mean VOYAGER barfed that up, even though the TOS and TMP E was always making turns at warp.)

If you back a couple years, there are plenty of debates with ENT class being a subclass of CON, and all sorts of other justification/rationalizations. But embracing Okuda over earlier stuff is almost (not quite) like accepting John Byrne's rethink of SUPERMAN and tossing out decades of what went before --

What's wrong with that? Byrne wasn't the first person to change Superman's history. It was constantly evolving. Things were added and other removed. Trek has followed that path as well. Far too many fans are locked into the idea of rigid unchanging continuity (usually starting when they "discovered" the property) which IMO leads to stagnation. A good barnacle scraping can do some good from time to time.

I don't know much about comics, but I do recall the tremendous anger over Byrne's throwing out the whole species with the bathwater (Ellison writes about it somewhere in an essay.)

There's a difference between change and pissing in something to make it better, or pulling the plant out of the ground and hoping it will reroot itself.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

That would conflict with the onscreen indication in TWOK that the refit is an ENTERPRISE-CLASS ship

The Enterprise-A is Constitution class, we've all seen it (Scotty's deck plans in ST VI). And since the original refit was identical in appearance, then all indications are that *it* was also of that class.

So the later declaration in TUC takes precedence?

In this case, yes. Not the least of reasons why, is that I don't accept Enterprise class as it refers to the ship. I interpret it as either the *simulator*'s class, or the Academy class of cadets that was training there (and would later be posted to the Enterprise - hence the term Enterprise class). So in this case, there's nothing else to take precedence over.

If you back a couple years, there are plenty of debates with ENT class being a subclass of CON

Which I also don't buy. Occam's Razor and all that.

and all sorts of other justification/rationalizations. But embracing Okuda over earlier stuff is almost (not quite) like accepting John Byrne's rethink of SUPERMAN and tossing out decades of what went before --

Two things: 1) Unlike many people here, I actually respect Okuda's contributions to Trek and do not believe he is evil incarnate; 2) "Decades of what went before" is not always irrefutable, immutable gospel.

 

[Nerys Myk]

So the later declaration in TUC takes precedence? If that is your idea of legitimacy (or canon) That might also mean starships don't maneuver at warp, they only go straight, right (I mean VOYAGER barfed that up, even though the TOS and TMP E was always making turns at warp.)

If you back a couple years, there are plenty of debates with ENT class being a subclass of CON, and all sorts of other justification/rationalizations. But embracing Okuda over earlier stuff is almost (not quite) like accepting John Byrne's rethink of SUPERMAN and tossing out decades of what went before --

What's wrong with that? Byrne wasn't the first person to change Superman's history. It was constantly evolving. Things were added and other removed. Trek has followed that path as well. Far too many fans are locked into the idea of rigid unchanging continuity (usually starting when they "discovered" the property) which IMO leads to stagnation. A good barnacle scraping can do some good from time to time.

I don't know much about comics, but I do recall the tremendous anger over Byrne's throwing out the whole species with the bathwater (Ellison writes about it somewhere in an essay.)

There's a difference between change and pissing in something to make it better, or pulling the plant out of the ground and hoping it will reroot itself.

Interesting metaphors.

Nor sure any one has uprooted Superman or Trek. Both are solidly in the ground. Of course there was some anger. Mostly from folks who were obsessed over continuity minutia and professional curmugeons like Ellison. But at the end of the day Superman is still from Krypton. He is still Clark Kent. He works at the Daily Panet with Lois, Jimmy and Perry. Krypton still explodes. At At best the changes were mild & cosmetic. Only those whose "stature" rests on the details of issue 114 were truly bothered because they might not win a trivia constest on the color of Jor-Els socks.

Shifting the 1701's class from "Starship" to "Constitution" doesn't "uproot" Star Trek or piss on any ones work. I doubt Matt Jefferies cared that the change was made.

 

[trevanian]

Two things: 1) Unlike many people here, I actually respect Okuda's contributions to Trek and do not believe he is evil incarnate; 2) "Decades of what went before" is not always irrefutable, immutable gospel.

1. I respect Okuda's contributions (and I respect his need to toe a company line at times, which may explain some of the incomprehensibly WRONG 'facts' he presents on commentaries.) In fact, I am in his debt a bit, as he helped me out with getting in touch with a few folk on an INSURRECTION article at a time when paramount folks were not exactly forthcoming. But that doesn't give him a free ride.

2.If "decades of what went before" constitutes a pile of manure, then of course it is disputable / dismissable. If that were the case for TOS, however, I doubt any of this would exist.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Who is saying its manure? Trek is always growing and changing. And some times what went before might get modified, updated or over written. (Though not always for the better) Any on going and vital entertainment property has to so this. That's why Superman no longer leaps an eighth of a mile, with only a bursting shell able to pierce his skin. That why he works for thr Daily Planet and not the Daily Star. It doesn't mean that Siegle and Schuster got it wrong. Or that those early stories were manure. Same for Trek.

 

[Timo]

Respect to Timo, but the Archon's being an early "starship" does not mean that 12 active-service others did not later have that label.

No, but it does establish that Kirk thinks of at least one previous design as worthy of the designation starship.

From this it probably follows that Kirk would accept the design immediately preceding Constitution as starship, too, and that he would accept the newest hot design succeeding his own decades-old type as starship as well. It is highly likely, even inevitable, that Constitution would overlap with at least one predecessor class and one successor class (say, the ships on that famous "Court Martial" Star Ship Status Chart that have registries about 100 numbers below and above Kirk's).

Hence Kirk's statement that there are 12 ships like his would actually imply that there are more than 12 starships at the time.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[erastus25]

I was watching a few tos episodes the other day and it got me thinking. not once when they said about the enterprise did they mention she was a constitution class star ship. not that i can remember. So I was wondering when was the first cannon or on screen mention of the enterprise being a connie?.

The first canon on screen mention of the Constitution Class was (TOS: "The Trouble with Tribles") from an technical journel that Scotty was looking at! http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Image:Constitution_primary_phaser.jpg

That's extremely interesting to me because it implies that the graphic design guys on TOS were under the impression that the E was a constitution class ship. We can still debate the canonical value of this graphic, but it at least tells us that the producers were thinking of it as a Constitution class by season 2 and acting accordingly when producing the episodes. Maybe the plaque on the bridge is a holdover from the days of the pilot before they decided what class the ship was?

 

[Michael]

^ It is debatable though, if Scotty's diagrams really refer to the Enterprises class.

 

[Unicron]

In this case, yes. Not the least of reasons why, is that I don't accept Enterprise class as it refers to the ship. I interpret it as either the *simulator*'s class, or the Academy class of cadets that was training there (and would later be posted to the Enterprise - hence the term Enterprise class). So in this case, there's nothing else to take precedence over.

I'm kind of the opposite personally. I prefer the Enterprise Class designation because Andrew Probert initially came up with it to show that the movie-era ship was effectively a new design and not a simple refit. It also makes sense to me that this design was meant as successor to the Constitutions, and the USS Enterprise was the testbed (hence the name). The notion that the simulator sign refers specifically to the cadets who might serve on the Enterprise makes far less sense to me than having it refer to a specific ship.

As far as the TUC blueprints, I think the reason Constitution Class was still used is because that's what Gene insisted on. The crew was originally supposed to get a brand new ship in TMP, but he nixed that idea because he felt not copying the name Enterprise, the registry, and the class name would somehow make the audience "forget" the classic ship. Same reason why no other ships of this design have appeared in modern Trek; there seems to be a weird sort of paranoia that no similar ships should be represented.

 

[Bill Morris]

In TOS: Space Seed a displayed page of a tech manual refers to the U.S.S. Constitution NCC-1700.