Enterprise Class or Constiution-refit?

[Timo]

...But in the real world (in USN at least) the practice really is as follows:

- Class names are given according to the first ship built or refitted to a distinct standard.
- Interior differences such as different powerplants do warrant separate class designations.

Hence we e.g. have a long line of Essex class carriers, of which some slightly different ones are separated into the Ticonderoga class, until a few were refitted in a manner pioneered by the last newbuild Oriskany, resulting in that new class designation (at least in some circles).

So by real-world precedent, the ship in ST:TMP should indeed be Enterprise class while the one in ST4-6 probably should not.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[trevanian]

Do you really think Starfleet Academy has bridge simulators for every class starship?

Gee, y'know ... yeah, obviously. If you have a dozen of each class ship, you might have mulitple simulators for each class of starship. What, you think 240 people go to starfleet academy, and they all have to line up to take turns at the same simulator, once the crews have torn up the bridge to make it resemble the ship tthey're being assigned to?

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

...But in the real world (in USN at least) the practice really is as follows:

- Class names are given according to the first ship built or refitted to a distinct standard.

There is no indication that Enterprise was the first Connie to get a refit like we saw in TMP.

 

[Timo]

...OTOH, this was almost certainly writer intent.

It pretty much is spelled out for us. The engines are untested, the configuration of the ship is alien to Kirk, Scotty finds the process a challenge, the capabilities of the new shields are unknown, etc.

Also, if many other ships (of any class) were refitted in this manner, we'd probably have run into one of them in TOS, which really backends into TMP in current chronological interpretation (although it probably was separated from TMP by a decade in original 1979 thinking).

No solid proof, of course. And I like to think that Starfleet tried out at least bits and pieces of that technology on humbler vessels before going for the big gamble.

But the idea of a sole Enterprise class conversion is sound enough, and nicely reflects the history of the real Enterprises, too: the first CVN was supposed to be the beginning of a long line of nuclear-configured Forrestals (even if a new keel, she was essentially a refit by design), but ended up being too radical a step and was burdened by compromises as the result. The series production Nimitz ships were of a different, improved design, resulting in the single-ship Enterprise class.

In the Trek universe, we also have reason to think that the Enterprise nuclear carrier actually underwent a refit from Forrestal to Enterprise outward specs or perhaps vice versa, given how the ship is portrayed by the full-blooded Forrestal, USS Ranger, in ST4...

Timo Saloniemi

 

[nx1701g]

But the idea of a sole Enterprise class conversion is sound enough, and nicely reflects the history of the real Enterprises, too: the first CVN was supposed to be the beginning of a long line of nuclear-configured Forrestals (even if a new keel, she was essentially a refit by design), but ended up being too radical a step and was burdened by compromises as the result. The series production Nimitz ships were of a different, improved design, resulting in the single-ship Enterprise class.

Which still has the distinction of being the largest ship on patrol in the oceans. Sadly she's being decommissioned soon.

 

[cardinal biggles]

^Hopefully one of the Gerald R. Ford-class carriers will get to carry the name.

 

[137th Gebirg]

Oh no. Not again...

 

[Unicron]

- It was in TOS, and why would a refit change the name of the class?

Because the modified Enterprise clearly looks different from its TOS incarnation, both internally and externally. And even with whatever standards of building and refitting they use in Trek, I honestly don't see how they could "refit" a ship to be altered so much. I much prefer that it's a new class, and a successor to replace the original one. And I like the idea that the Enterprise, being the most distinguished member of the original class, would become the testbed for the new design.

- The Enterprise-A is clearly Constitution class, as per ST VI. Since it and the TMP Enterprise are visually identical...I'd believe they are the same class.

That's true. But it's also worth keeping in mind that Gene was very strict on keeping the original class name and registry, regardless of how the physical model looked, because he seemed to think that giving the crew a new ship would somehow cause the audience to forget the Enterprise. That is one reason why the Constitution name is still used as the official term.

Oh no. Not again...

 

[CaptainHawk1]

The sign in ST II either means the *simulator* is Enterprise class (since that's the ship it was built to resemble) or the Academy class that's training there. I could go with either, really.

As for the ship itself: It seems clear that it's still Constitution class. For two reasons:

- It was in TOS, and why would a refit change the name of the class?

- The Enterprise-A is clearly Constitution class, as per ST VI. Since it and the TMP Enterprise are visually identical...I'd believe they are the same class.

You're right and there's no argument to it. It's a Constitution Class... period. The only reason we even bother slapping refit to the end of the title is to distinguish it from the TOS version in polite discussion.

I don't care what the Mark IV simulator plaque said, it wasn't the ship, it was the simulator. In all of Star Trek, canon and semi-canon (and when I say semi-canon, I'm referring to reference materials written by Trek production staff like the Star Trek Chronology and Encyclopedia) there is no reference to an Enterprise Class. This is completely fan-contrived. The only reference I've ever seen to an Enterprise Class is in Shane Johnson's book Mr. Scott's Guide to the Enterprise and Mr. Scott's Guide to the Enterprise, although well researched and very entertaining, is not even close to canon.

What I still can't figure out after being on this board for 8 years is why Trek fans make canon more difficult and more debatable than it really is.

I'm out.

-Shawn

 

[trevanian]

In all of Star Trek, canon and semi-canon (and when I say semi-canon, I'm referring to reference materials written by Trek production staff like the Star Trek Chronology and Encyclopedia) there is no reference to an Enterprise Class. This is completely fan-contrived. :

You are quite mistaken. The original STAR TREK SPACEFLIGHT CHRONOLOGY very specifically uses Probert's ENTERPRISE CLASS designation, and it should be considered as semi-canonical as any of this other crap you seem to buy into.

Canon is superfluous to me, because you've got too many authorized parties messing with it or ignoring it, so therefore it hasn't got any weight.
(like you can't turn while in warp according to VOYAGER, which would wipe out a lot of previously aired TOS as well as TMP, since they wouldn't have been able to intercept vger without warp maneuvering.)

 

[CaptainHawk1]

In all of Star Trek, canon and semi-canon (and when I say semi-canon, I'm referring to reference materials written by Trek production staff like the Star Trek Chronology and Encyclopedia) there is no reference to an Enterprise Class. This is completely fan-contrived. :

You are quite mistaken. The original STAR TREK SPACEFLIGHT CHRONOLOGY very specifically uses Probert's ENTERPRISE CLASS designation, and it should be considered as semi-canonical as any of this other crap you seem to buy into.

I'm sorry, but could you tell me what Star Trek series or film Fred and Stan Goldstein worked on? The book you're referring to is completely non-canonical. It doesn't seem to make much sense to suggest that a book written in 1979 by two guys with no credentials would have as much credence by materials written by actual Trek Production Staff (specifically Michael and Denise Okuda who are considered the Trek historians even by Paramount).

Besides, I'm not buying into anything. I accept the fact that no Star Trek publications are officially considered canon (as of 2004, anyway), only what's seen on-screen, but the ones I mentioned are certainly universally considered far more legitimate sources than the one you mentioned.

The fact is that the term "Enterprise Class" has never been uttered in Star Trek, period. The only reason I even mention the Encyclopedia or the (real) Chronology is to prove the point that the concept of the Enterprise Class hasn't even been considered by Trek writers. Where the publications screw up is either through omission or contradiction (which is usually addressed in the publications and noted as a contradiction in on-screen Trek, itself). The fact is that many accepted vessel classes in Star Trek have never been mentioned on-screen but have been accepted because that was the intention of the writers. These classes have been categorized in the publications I mentioned and assigned accordingly to different types of vessels. Are the classes that weren't ever mentioned on-screen but in those publications technically canon? No, they are not, but the Enterprise E is certainly accepted as a Sovereign Class and the Grissom an Oberth Class and the Reliant a Mrianda Class. There is no omission or contradiction regarding the Enterprise Class. The refit is referred to as a Constitution Class on-screen and has never been contradicted on-screen or in print.

My point was that it could actually be given some credence if it had actually been mentioned in a legit publication. As much respect as I have for Mr. Probert (who I've had the pleasure of speaking with on more then one occasion), the fact that he conjectured that the refit was an Enterprise Class and two writers who never spent a day in a studio ran with it doesn't make it legit. By your logic, every other piece of speculation in that publication (which has since been dismissed) should be accepted as well. This reminds me of when people cling to the notion that the Akira Class has 15 photorp launchers because Alex Jaeger, the guy who designed it said so. This is just plain foolish, number one. Number two, photorps have only been shown coming out of three launchers on that ship.

Canon is superfluous to me, because you've got too many authorized parties messing with it or ignoring it, so therefore it hasn't got any weight.
(like you can't turn while in warp according to VOYAGER, which would wipe out a lot of previously aired TOS as well as TMP, since they wouldn't have been able to intercept vger without warp maneuvering.)

I can't argue with you on that but the attempt should be made to be as consistent as possible. You seem to suggest throwing the baby out with the bathwater. If there are contradictions among the 700 plus episodes and 10 films then we should simply ignore all of it and make up our own canon. That's just chaotic. The Enterprise Class is a complete contradiction of canon with nothing legitimate to support it.

Also, for the record, your tone and attitude leaves a lot to be desired. You wouldn't address your boss or your family and friends in the aggressive tone you addressed me so why do you do it here? I don't have a problem with someone challenging my opinion and a lively debate, but I would appreciate the courtesy of civility. My goodness, we're not curing cancer, here. We're talking about the minutae of Star Trek.

-Shawn

 

[trevanian]

When my boss is out of line (as he has been this very week), you'd better believe I use 'tone' on him. I have enormous respect for him, but when his large clanging 'Nam-tempered balls retract up inside him like landing wheels on a 747 because some idiot further up the chain makes a nonesense call that we are forced to live with, I definitely call him on it.

Probert is an originating source, and as such carries significant weight in my view. Okuda is an after-the-fact source on many aspects (especially since he didn't get in on things till TVH), and as such, even though I respect him enormously (he did me a favor when I did my INS article), I don't consider after-the-fact should override more credible sources, just to get things all lined up in a row.

 

[CaptainHawk1]

When my boss is out of line (as he has been this very week), you'd better believe I use 'tone' on him. I have enormous respect for him, but when his large clanging 'Nam-tempered balls retract up inside him like landing wheels on a 747 because some idiot further up the chain makes a nonesense call that we are forced to live with, I definitely call him on it.

Probert is an originating source, and as such carries significant weight in my view. Okuda is an after-the-fact source on many aspects (especially since he didn't get in on things till TVH), and as such, even though I respect him enormously (he did me a favor when I did my INS article), I don't consider after-the-fact should override more credible sources, just to get things all lined up in a row.

That's where you and I differ but that's OK. I personally feel that you have to make the after-the-fact re-arrangements in order to get things to line up. There's another thing to consider too and that is despite the originating source, Gene Roddenberry had the final say and he wanted the refit to continue to be a Constitution Class. Just like the Alex Jaeger issue I pointed out earlier, artists aren't given free reign to go outside the established storyline and history and make up whatever they want to in Trek and never have been.

Still, the point really is moot. On-Screen it's the Constitution Class and has never been called an Enterprise Class.

-Shawn

 

[C.E. Evans]

Pretty much throughout the entire '80s, I called it Enterprise-class. Before the whole issue of canon got silly, most of the books I was reading called it Enterprise-class, and I saw nothing wrong with it.

But after Star Trek VI labeled it as a Constitution-class, I wasn't horribly upset or anything because I could still see why it could be referred to as such. I've never been of the opinion that Starfleet did things the exact same way as today's navies do, so I had no problems that even all after the changes made to Enterprise, the ship would still be a Constitution-class.

Since then, we've seen variants of the Miranda-, Excelsior-, and even Galaxy-classes, so it's even easier for me now to believe that...

 

[CaptainHawk1]

This is a very good point as canon didn't become an issue until TNG, really. That's when there started to become standards on what was considered canon and what wasn't. That being said I can certainly see why the Enterprise Class has been clung to.

-Shawn

 

[Unicron]

* shrugs * Personally I kind of like how Mastercom's Ships of the Starfleet did it, with a Constitution II design that was sort of an intermediate upgrade (and based on the early conceptual design of the TMP Enterprise), with the majority of ships being refitted to Enterprise class as the new cruiser standard shortly thereafter. Even if it hadn't originated with Probert himself, I still like it better than "Constitution refit."

As far as Okuda goes, I give him credit for the ships that he helped design and also supplied details for. I consider most of the W359 models to be canonical in that respect.

 

[Red Ranger]

Well, call me a canon stickler. When someone says on screen that it's Enterprise-class, then I'll believe it. So let's all lobby for the next Enterprise to be called Enterprise-class, how about it? -- RR

 

[Squiggy]

It was also called "Constitution Class" in TNG's "The Naked Now".

 

[RyanKCR]

It was also called "Constitution Class" in TNG's "The Naked Now".

But that wasn't the refit. They were refering to the time of the original 5 year mission.

 

[Timo]

It's a bit ambiguous. The dialogue specifically refers to the ship as she was in "The Naked Time", but the onscreen graphics accompanying those records show the refitted ship, as they are reprints of Shane Johnson's Mr Scott's Guide.

Of course, it's quite likely that the graphics don't directly relate to the old records. For all we know, a picture of the TOS configuration of the ship flashed by when the camera was centered on Picard's face, and was replaced by a picture of the TMP configuration just before the camera turned. Data loves to browse computer records in such an annoying manner...

Timo Saloniemi