Is the Luna-class an improvement?

[Vance]

*NCC-1017 may have originally been intended for a different ship class and was re-allocated to the new Constitution class before construction began on her.

Or despite it's external appearance, the Constellation wasn't a Constitution Class starship, but rather a different (older) class that used a similar design philosophy. Might explain why Kirk initially had a small problem finding the auxiliary control room.

True, but even ships of the same class could have some variations within their designs for one reason or another. It could be stated that the Constellation is an older ship that was uprated to Constitution specifications, but it's also possible that as part of a later appropriation, she just got some minor variances in layout as opposed to the Enterprise.

 

[Unicron]

That would also fit with subclasses like the Achernar and Endeavor, which were improved Constitutions. Same with the Miranda family of frigate designs.

 

[SicOne]

Regarding the Luna...

(1) Are all Luna sensor pods one-size-fits-all (as shown in the schematics in the "Sword Of Damocles" gatefold) with sensors AND weaponry (such as the triangular Nebula pod), or are there also separate tactical pods with minimal sensors and sensor pods (a la the Nebula AWACS-type) with no weaponry?

(2) AFAIK, we've only seen the two pods (triangular and oval) on the Nebula-class, which would suggest that that the final Nebula design was dictated by the two pod designs...would the Luna-class be able to manage different-sized or -shaped pod designs, or would future Luna pod enhancements be restricted to whatever would fit into a pod of that shape and/or size due to warp field dynamics or some related Treknobabble?

I guess a third question also arises...

(3) If the sensor pods are able to be swapped out, could also the supporting struts be removed to minimize the ship's profile if the mission called for it?

 

[Saquist]

*NCC-1017 may have originally been intended for a different ship class and was re-allocated to the new Constitution class before construction began on her.

Or despite it's external appearance, the Constellation wasn't a Constitution Class starship, but rather a different (older) class that used a similar design philosophy. Might explain why Kirk initially had a small problem finding the auxiliary control room.

That makes more sense.

 

[DEWLine]

As it also does for me. The idea of the old Constellation as a test-bed for some of the tech that went into the Constitutions works very well.

 

[Vance]

*NCC-1017 may have originally been intended for a different ship class and was re-allocated to the new Constitution class before construction began on her.

Or despite it's external appearance, the Constellation wasn't a Constitution Class starship, but rather a different (older) class that used a similar design philosophy. Might explain why Kirk initially had a small problem finding the auxiliary control room.

Unfortunately that doesn't quite work because the defining characteristics of a class (armament, general shape, capabilities) are the same between the two ships. So, yes, they are the same class, even if the aux control room is in a different spot.

You can't use the 'fandom' definitions for ship classes, nomenclature, and all that to come up with the 'answers' to Trek's oddities. You have to use the experience that the designers, writers, et al, were drawing from. In this case, the US Navy circa 1945 - 1965. A LOT of things about TOS Trek, in particular, make a lot more sense when looking at things from that perspective.

 

[C.E. Evans]

So NCC-1700 would had to be the second Constitution-class starship with that name, or we simply ignore that registry number for the Constitution since there isn't a clear and definfitive listing of it onscreen, only a hard to read one that conforms with behind-the-scenes information...

 

[Saquist]

*NCC-1017 may have originally been intended for a different ship class and was re-allocated to the new Constitution class before construction began on her.

Or despite it's external appearance, the Constellation wasn't a Constitution Class starship, but rather a different (older) class that used a similar design philosophy. Might explain why Kirk initially had a small problem finding the auxiliary control room.

Unfortunately that doesn't quite work because the defining characteristics of a class (armament, general shape, capabilities) are the same between the two ships. So, yes, they are the same class, even if the aux control room is in a different spot.

You can't use the 'fandom' definitions for ship classes, nomenclature, and all that to come up with the 'answers' to Trek's oddities. You have to use the experience that the designers, writers, et al, were drawing from. In this case, the US Navy circa 1945 - 1965. A LOT of things about TOS Trek, in particular, make a lot more sense when looking at things from that perspective.

This could all be the results of retrograde registry. Constitution still could be the prototype ship while Constellation and the others that hae lower nubers than 1700 were constructed after but aloted.

It's kinda crazy why they would do that but it's not out of the realm of possibility.

 

[Vance]

So NCC-1700 would had to be the second Constitution-class starship with that name, or we simply ignore that registry number for the Constitution since there isn't a clear and definfitive listing of it onscreen, only a hard to read one that conforms with behind-the-scenes information...

No, it just means that the NCC-1017 was appropriated after the NCC-1700. As I explained in an earlier post, there could be a myriad of reasons for this, nearly all of which are political.

The most common explanation is that the series the NCC-1017 came in actually wasn't originally intended as a Constitution series, but was re-allocated as such (from whatever CA that they were going to be) before the ships were laid down.

Of course we know the real reason, which is just plain ol' decal swapping...

 

[C.E. Evans]

You can't use the 'fandom' definitions for ship classes, nomenclature, and all that to come up with the 'answers' to Trek's oddities. You have to use the experience that the designers, writers, et al, were drawing from.

So NCC-1700 would had to be the second Constitution-class starship with that name, or we simply ignore that registry number for the Constitution since there isn't a clear and definfitive listing of it onscreen, only a hard to read one that conforms with behind-the-scenes information...

No, it just means that the NCC-1017 was appropriated after the NCC-1700. As I explained in an earlier post, there could be a myriad of reasons for this, nearly all of which are political.

The most common explanation is that the series the NCC-1017 came in actually wasn't originally intended as a Constitution series, but was re-allocated as such (from whatever CA that they were going to be) before the ships were laid down.

But wouldn't that contradict with what you said earlier about using "the 'fandom' definitions for ship classes, nomenclature, and all that to come up with the 'answers' to Trek's oddities?"

The only thing we can truly say with 100% certainty onscreen is that the Constellation's hull registry is NCC-1017. Any explanation for why it has a lower registry than the "supposed" first ship of the Constitution-class would fall under the category of a fandom explanation for one of Trek's oddities, because there really isn't a canonical one.

NCC-1700 may have been what was intended by the writers or whoever for the USS Constitutuion, but this was never really ever established onscreen--we get this really because of Franz Joseph and various offscreen works said so.

 

[ProwlAlpha]

Why re-appropriate old un-used registry numbers? Is it a political move by Starfleet to help get funding or materials allocated for more Constitution-class vessels without making them look like Constitution-class vessels on paper?

 

[Saquist]

Why re-appropriate old un-used registry numbers? Is it a political move by Starfleet to help get funding or materials allocated for more Constitution-class vessels without making them look like Constitution-class vessels on paper?

You wouldn't. You'd just move on to the next number.
In engineering filing conventions if a project is started but left unfinished it has official place in the records, tracking all the changes that this particular model may have been modified, upgraded or changed (even minutely) Every bolt and every alteration must catalog and no one expects the original template to permeate all the models because it seems starships are still mostly man made constructions not automated construction (which at this point in the future and 80,000 ship I don't know why it isn't)

 

[Vance]

But wouldn't that contradict with what you said earlier about using "the 'fandom' definitions for ship classes, nomenclature, and all that to come up with the 'answers' to Trek's oddities?"

In canon, there is NO answer at all. In fact, the Constellation isn't even identified as the same class as the Enterprise in the first place. However, we do know writer and designer's intent.

We also know what Star Fleet was modelled after, the US Navy of the 1945-1965, albeit heavily idealized at points. So, if we're going to look for a sensible answer to the registry issue, knowing full well that this is an attempt to rationalize a Hollywoodism, we do have our starting point.

Why would NCC-1017 be a Constitution class ship, despite the Constitution being NCC-1700? (The latter eventually established on screen.)

There are, as I said, numerous reasons for this. I'll give a couple here:

STC 2243, a group of CAs from the NCC-1015 range are appropriated with funding and resources set aside by comittee for construction in the following years.

STC 2245, CA NCC-1700 and NCC-1701 complete trials, the NCC-1015 series design is now considered obsolete. The series has not yet been constructed. The resources are kept 'in commitee' for the time being.

STC 2248, with the initial batch of 12 Constitution class ships constructed, Star Fleet expands the class with existing resources. The resources allocated but not spent for the NCC-1015 are then allocated to the new ship design.

STC 2250, the NCC-1017 is launched, a minor variant of the Constitution class, due to her different construction period.

STC 2256, a third group of Constitution class vessels is appropriated, the NCC-1760 series.

Etc.

Remember, the NCC references not a ship, but the contract, construction, refit, rigging, and uprating information around that ship, all starting with initial appropiation. For Star Fleet, so long as the registry number (or code, really) has not already been allocated, it's fair game.

If we to assume that the USS Eagle (NCC-956) really was a Constitution class ship, we really only know that the NCC-956 had not already been used by 2245 STC and that someone really wanted to use that number (for whatever reason, maybe even a really OLD CA contract that was in limbo for 100 years). That's really all that's required.

 

[ProwlAlpha]

Well that doesn't make any sense. Why would you allocate materials and manpower to a obsolete design knowing that a newer one is being used. It would be like building Kidd Class DDGs even though the train of thought is that the Arleigh Burke DDGs are the ones being designed and laid down, yet still build a few Kidd Class because the registries have already been allocated. That is a waste of material, it would be easier to just cancel those contracts and assign them to the newer design.

Besides, the Post-WWII US Navy was all about getting the better ship out before the Soviets, and that included fully stopping one program to go to the next one.

 

[C.E. Evans]

But wouldn't that contradict with what you said earlier about using "the 'fandom' definitions for ship classes, nomenclature, and all that to come up with the 'answers' to Trek's oddities?"

In canon, there is NO answer at all. In fact, the Constellation isn't even identified as the same class as the Enterprise in the first place. However, we do know writer and designer's intent.

Which still basically amounts to no official proof of NCC-1700 being the registry of the Constitution, though. As far as canon/onscreen material goes, there's really nothing that says she didn't have a lower registry than the Constellation--which would then eliminate/clear up that NCC-1017 "oddity" right away. If anything, the Constitution should have a lower registry than the Constellation if she was a Constitution-class starship. Anything else would be a fandom excuse as you said earlier.

 

[Vance]

Well that doesn't make any sense. Why would you allocate materials and manpower to a obsolete design knowing that a newer one is being used.

Simple, they didn't know if the new design was going to pan out, or the allocation was made just before the new designs were approved - but ship construction was delayed, etc...

Look at it like this. The Senate appropriates a handful of new Kidd DDGs. Meanwhile, the DON approves the Arleigh Burke design and sends that along to the Senate. Now, construction of the remaining Kidds are put on hold and would be re-allocated as new DDGs of the Arleigh Burke class. Registration would be updated accordingly. (And, as we know, indeed it was). The contract isn't cancelled per se, but re-appropriated.

So the approval for DD-997 and DD-998 gets politicked around to get DDG-53 and DDG-54. (Which is precisely what happened). This is because the naval registrar assigns class/type information as part of the schema.

However, Star Fleet registration is a bit odd. All mainline vessels are merely NCC registrations, with the numerical value having no discernable meaning other than a root database entry. The registrations wouldn't need to change because the registration schema doesn't require it. NCC-1700, for instance, has no deeper meaning in ship type, age, what have you than just saying 'there is a ship with this registration, all data and material on it can be looked up in the registrar with that number'.

 

[Vance]

Which still basically amounts to no official proof of NCC-1700 being the registry of the Constitution, though.

Actually, there is. The NCC-1700 as the class ship is established in graphics (re-used from the technical manual) on screen from TMP through TSFS. The Constitution is established as the class ship in "The Naked Now" in TNG. The NCC-1700 and the Constitution are established as the same ship in graphics in TUC.

This is, of course, to ignore the information in "The Making of Star Trek".

So yes, the Constitution is indeed the NCC-1700, making the Constellation, Eagle, and a few NCC-16XX ships odd outliers. So either all those ships are similar-to but not Connies, or the registration scheme for Federation ships does not and cannot require a linear progression. Considering all we see of registrations from TNG and onward, the latter option makes the most sense.

Anything else would be a fandom excuse as you said earlier.

Other than ships having unique numbers, any discussion on starship registries is 'fanon'.

 

[ProwlAlpha]

Well that doesn't make any sense. Why would you allocate materials and manpower to a obsolete design knowing that a newer one is being used.

Simple, they didn't know if the new design was going to pan out, or the allocation was made just before the new designs were approved - but ship construction was delayed, etc...

Look at it like this. The Senate appropriates a handful of new Kidd DDGs. Meanwhile, the DON approves the Arleigh Burke design and sends that along to the Senate. Now, construction of the remaining Kidds are put on hold and would be re-allocated as new DDGs of the Arleigh Burke class. Registration would be updated accordingly. (And, as we know, indeed it was). The contract isn't cancelled per se, but re-appropriated.

So the approval for DD-997 and DD-998 gets politicked around to get DDG-53 and DDG-54. (Which is precisely what happened). This is because the naval registrar assigns class/type information as part of the schema.

However, Star Fleet registration is a bit odd. All mainline vessels are merely NCC registrations, with the numerical value having no discernable meaning other than a root database entry. The registrations wouldn't need to change because the registration schema doesn't require it. NCC-1700, for instance, has no deeper meaning in ship type, age, what have you than just saying 'there is a ship with this registration, all data and material on it can be looked up in the registrar with that number'.

Thats not what happened with the Kidd Class, they were built for the Shah of Iran's navy, and in 1979, the US cancelled them and took them over. They didn't receive the hull registries in the 50s because at the time, the Ticonderoga Class were considered the large DDGs and had precedence, so they just continued from the Spruance numbers, which were DD registries rather than DDGs.

In the US Navy, the hull numbers are assigned per type than mission. Hence, DD for destroyers and DDG for missile destroyers.

Starfleet seems to follow shipyard construction numbers rather than just type/mission identifier.

So yes, the Constitution is indeed the NCC-1700, making the Constellation, Eagle, and a few NCC-16XX ships odd outliers. So either all those ships are similar-to but not Connies, or the registration scheme for Federation ships does not and cannot require a linear progression. Considering all we see of registrations from TNG and onward, the latter option makes the most sense.

The Constellation, Eagle, and the other Constitution-claimed vessels, I agree they are probably uprated older types, which is similar to what the US Navy practiced in the Post-WWII era.

 

[C.E. Evans]

Which still basically amounts to no official proof of NCC-1700 being the registry of the Constitution, though.

Actually, there is.

Acutally, there isn't.

The NCC-1700 as the class ship is established in graphics (re-used from the technical manual) on screen from TMP through TSFS. The Constitution is established as the class ship in "The Naked Now" in TNG. The NCC-1700 and the Constitution are established as the same ship in graphics in TUC.

But in all those cases, NCC-1700 is not clearly identified onscreen as the USS Constitution, however. All we can gather is that NCC-1700 is a Constitution-class ship, but nowhere--by your own admisision in your earlier post--has it ever been clearly said or shown onscreen that NCC-1700 correlates with the USS Constitution.

This is, of course, to ignore the information in "The Making of Star Trek".

Which is easy to do as its in the same league as the TNG and DS9 Technical Manuals, as well as the Star Trek Encyclopedia. Nice reference books, but also containing a lot of stuff not really seen or proven onscreen.

So yes, the Constitution is indeed the NCC-1700, making the Constellation, Eagle, and a few NCC-16XX ships odd outliers.

Since it can't be proven onscreen, not really at all. For all intents and purposes--i.e, going with onscreen material alone--there's nothing that shows the Constitution is NCC-1700. Conventional wisdom would therefore have the Constitution's hull registry be lower than the Constellation's.

Anything else would be a fandom excuse as you said earlier.

Other than ships having unique numbers, any discussion on starship registries is 'fanon'.

Exactly. The Constitution being NCC-1700 is really fanon since it only is listed as such in books.

 

[Vance]

Acutally, there isn't.

You are factually wrong in this case. Sorry, but you are. The NCC-1700 is shown as the Constitution on screen. The Enterprise is called a Constitution-class ship, on screen. Only the most vocal canonista will refuse to link the names on the same display, despite 40 years of evidence to the contrary.

All we can gather is that NCC-1700 is a Constitution-class ship, but nowhere--by your own admisision in your earlier post--has it ever been clearly said or shown onscreen that NCC-1700 correlates with the USS Constitution.

No, I said that Constellation was never referenced as a Constitution class ship on screen. And, it isn't, despite it being an AMT model kit of the Enterprise herself.

I also said that the mindset and attributes of the Star Fleet Registrar are all fanon. And, well, they are. We can play with that all we want. But you do not get to say that things which are established on screen and in the writer's bibles, etc. didn't happen because you don't personally like them.

Exactly. The Constitution being NCC-1700 is really fanon since it only is listed as such in books.

TNG: "The Naked Now". Other displays have it marked, though not as clearly. Just because you don't personally like it, doesn't mean that's not what it all says. You don't get to browbeat other people with 'canon' and then convieniently ignore it when you want.