Is the Luna-class an improvement?

[C.E. Evans]

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.

Um, no. Nowhere onscreen has NCC-1700 ever been clearly identified as the USS Constitution. Now that's simply a fact. You may not like it, but that's actually the real truth.

The Enterprise is called a Constitution-class ship, on screen.

Huh? When did I contest this? I don't believe I ever did.

Only the most vocal canonista will refuse to link the names on the same display, despite 40 years of evidence to the contrary.

No, what I think what it is is that a long-held fan belief has actually never been really proven or verified onscreen.

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.

Hmph. My bad. But by that same token, though, why should we really assume that the Constellation isn't a Constitution-class starship? Why we should we assume that the USS Constitution has a higher hull registry than the Constellation if there isn't really any onscreen material to prove that?

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.

Actually, I could care less about it, but I'm pertaining to things established onscreen--and NCC-1700 as the USS Constitution is not one of them. As far as the writer's bible is concerned, it falls under the same category as the various offscreen reference books and technical manuals.

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.

It's not even marked at all, really.

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.

First of all, you don't know me to make that claim. And secondly, it's false. And thirdly, it's simply wrong.

For your information, I do go with the idea of NCC-1700 as the Constitution, and that other Constitution-class ships with lower registries were upgrades from earlier designs, but I also recognize such a thing is a way to explain away a Trek oddity.

But you said that "You can't use the 'fandom' definitions for ship classes, nomenclature, and all that to come up with the 'answers' to Trek's oddities."

And that is where I'm coming from. Upon investigation of the matter of NCC-1700, I discovered it's not really an oddity at all. The registry has never been decisively confirmed onscreen as belonging to the USS Constitution. The only way we really know this is from offscreen sources. And indeed, if you do ignore those offscreen sources, there is no reason whatsoever for anyone to assume the USS Constitution has a higher registry than the USS Constellation. Yes or no?

 

[Vance]

Um, no. Nowhere onscreen has NCC-1700 ever been clearly identified as the USS Constitution. Now that's simply a fact. You may not like it, but that's actually the real truth.

Checking, the TWOK loop actually does, though you can't make it out. Of course, this is just because it's recycling the tech-manual pages, but there it is. It's easy to debate how important to 'canon' such a display really is (I would tend to write these things off, myself), but if you're arguing 'canon' to this degree, that's what you're stuck with.

If you're going to accept the Bluesmobile as a Federation starship due to a display, then the Constitution MUST be NCC-1700. I don't personally consider that compelling, but 40 years of production notes, etc, pretty much drive it home for me.

Hmph. My bad. But by that same token, though, why should we really assume that the Constellation isn't a Constitution-class starship? Why we should we assume that the USS Constitution has a higher hull registry than the Constellation if there isn't really any onscreen material to prove that?

Like I said, there are a myriad of plausible explantions for the Constellation's odd number. One possibility is that she's just NOT a Constitution class ship to begin with, and could be a CC variant, which would explain why a Commodore is on board as her captain.

First of all, you don't know me to make that claim. And secondly, it's false. And thirdly, it's simply wrong.

Again, I checked the TWOK loop, so it's on screen in three movies. I normally don't go that far for 'proof', as I usually look at 'canon' with derision, but there's really no arguing its use at this point.

But you said that "You can't use the 'fandom' definitions for ship classes, nomenclature, and all that to come up with the 'answers' to Trek's oddities."

No, I said, effectively, that you (in the generic sense, not you specifically) can't use 'fandom' to browbeat other posters into what's right in 'canon'. Everything we're doing, past the 'canon' (which is problematic anyway) is automatically fanon.

And that means that, at best, we're looking for what may make the most sense to us, but it's also impossible to determine the right answer. There just isn't one.

And indeed, if you do ignore those offscreen sources, there is no reason whatsoever for anyone to assume the USS Constitution has a higher registry than the USS Constellation. Yes or no?

The TWOK loop and Data's display gives that information. So it's there, just not something I would normally escalate to 'canon' (but others most decidedly will). If you really want, the barely-readable text is safe to ignore, but then you're in the unenviable position of ignoring 40 years of lore since...

And this is to say nothing of several ships in TNG and up which have class vessels with higher registries than other ships in their class. (Or other oddities such as having new Excelsiors with much higher numbers than Galaxy class ships?)

 

[C.E. Evans]

Um, no. Nowhere onscreen has NCC-1700 ever been clearly identified as the USS Constitution. Now that's simply a fact. You may not like it, but that's actually the real truth.

Checking, the TWOK loop actually does, though you can't make it out.

That's my point, you can't make it out. It's just a ship with "NCC-1700" on the hull and nothing else.

Of course, this is just because it's recycling the tech-manual pages, but there it is. It's easy to debate how important to 'canon' such a display really is (I would tend to write these things off, myself), but if you're arguing 'canon' to this degree, that's what you're stuck with.

Well, as far as canon goes, it doesn't really prove anything other than an unnamed Constitution-class ship with NCC-1700 on the hull.

If you're going to accept the Bluesmobile as a Federation starship due to a display, then the Constitution MUST be NCC-1700.

Not necessarily. There's no real concrete proof that ship is the Constitution. We're relying more on offscreen sources than onscreen sources for this.

I don't personally consider that compelling, but 40 years of production notes, etc, pretty much drive it home for me.

But perhaps not for others. Looking at it strictly from an objective viewpoint--and ignoring 40 years of offscreen material--there really isn't any concrete evidence to support it onscreen.

Hmph. My bad. But by that same token, though, why should we really assume that the Constellation isn't a Constitution-class starship? Why we should we assume that the USS Constitution has a higher hull registry than the Constellation if there isn't really any onscreen material to prove that?

Like I said, there are a myriad of plausible explantions for the Constellation's odd number. One possibility is that she's just NOT a Constitution class ship to begin with, and could be a CC variant, which would explain why a Commodore is on board as her captain.

Or that the USS Constitution's registry is lower than NCC-1017.

Again, I checked the TWOK loop, so it's on screen in three movies. I normally don't go that far for 'proof', as I usually look at 'canon' with derision, but there's really no arguing its use at this point.

Yeah, it's a moot point since the images still don't prove anything.

But you said that "You can't use the 'fandom' definitions for ship classes, nomenclature, and all that to come up with the 'answers' to Trek's oddities."

No, I said, effectively, that you (in the generic sense, not you specifically) can't use 'fandom' to browbeat other posters into what's right in 'canon'. Everything we're doing, past the 'canon' (which is problematic anyway) is automatically fanon.

I think we're coming from different chapters of the same book.

I'm coming from the position that (particularly in the case of the USS Consitution being NCC-1700) some things that we think are wrong in Trek may not be if you look at them very closely. Some of the contradictions lie more with stuff established offscreen than onscreen.

And indeed, if you do ignore those offscreen sources, there is no reason whatsoever for anyone to assume the USS Constitution has a higher registry than the USS Constellation. Yes or no?

The TWOK loop and Data's display gives that information. So it's there, just not something I would normally escalate to 'canon' (but others most decidedly will). If you really want, the barely-readable text is safe to ignore, but then you're in the unenviable position of ignoring 40 years of lore since...

I don't think it's so much a case of ignoring 40 years of lore, but in re-examining specific pieces of it where there is a supposed conflict:
http://images.wikia.com/memoryalpha/en/images/5/57/Constitution_class,_NCC-1700,_Datalore.jpg

http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/_...alpha/en/images/1/1b/Constitution_diagram.jpg

I'm totally playing devil's advocate here--I mean, if those offscreen reference manuals didn't exist, NCC-1700 then just becomes an unnamed Constitution-class ship that came before the Enterprise, and the oddity with the Constellation immediately disappears.

And this is to say nothing of several ships in TNG and up which have class vessels with higher registries than other ships in their class. (Or other oddities such as having new Excelsiors with much higher numbers than Galaxy class ships?)

Or the discrepancies may be based more in fanon than canon.

 

[Vance]

That's my point, you can't make it out. It's just a ship with "NCC-1700" on the hull and nothing else.

With the page header of "Constitution Class Starships". Tech guides (and I own many) always show the 'class ship' under that header. Again, you have to really reach to say that on those displays, the "USS Constitution" and "NCC-1700" aren't supposed to be related.

Or that the USS Constitution's registry is lower than NCC-1017.

There's far, far, far less to support this theory, of course. Some fans may push it, but if they're going to stretch to say that the on-screen tech diagrams have labels not matching the ship on the same screen... eh, there's not going to be much hope of consensus anyway.

I'm coming from the position that (particularly in the case of the USS Consitution being NCC-1700) some things that we think are wrong in Trek may not be if you look at them very closely. Some of the contradictions lie more with stuff established offscreen than onscreen.

Depends on what you interpret as a 'contradiction'. The NCC-1017 really doesn't contradict anything, since there has never been an established pattern for registry naming. We can make some fairly-safe assumptions based on what real registries are for, but it's not entirely a safe bet, either.

I'm totally playing devil's advocate here--I mean, if those offscreen reference manuals didn't exist, NCC-1700 then just becomes an unnamed Constitution-class ship that came before the Enterprise, and the oddity with the Constellation immediately disappears.

I think most people would still look at it for what it is.. an AMT model with the numbers swapped in a hurry. Without that additional lore, I don't think many - if any - of us would be talking about it anyway, to be honest.

Or the discrepancies may be based more in fanon than canon.

Nah, ask Rick. They screwed up numbers and spellings, et al, on the models all the time. The Lantree had three different registries on it! It's part of dealing with a weekly production schedule, these things happen.

 

[C.E. Evans]

That's my point, you can't make it out. It's just a ship with "NCC-1700" on the hull and nothing else.

With the page header of "Constitution Class Starships". Tech guides (and I own many) always show the 'class ship' under that header. Again, you have to really reach to say that on those displays, the "USS Constitution" and "NCC-1700" aren't supposed to be related.

Supposed to be in some offscreen book, but really isn't onscreen.

Or that the USS Constitution's registry is lower than NCC-1017.

There's far, far, far less to support this theory, of course.

Actually, onscreen evidence would support it. Since NCC-1700 isn't genuinely confirmed onscreen as the USS Constitution, the only real validation comes from knowledge gleaned in offscreen books rather than onscreen material. Quite a few "facts" we cling to as official fall in that category, IMO.

Some fans may push it, but if they're going to stretch to say that the on-screen tech diagrams have labels not matching the ship on the same screen... eh, there's not going to be much hope of consensus anyway.

It's not even really an issue of trying to get a consensus or anything, but if you genuinely look at the matter--without what is said in an offscreen book--then there is really nothing to suggest a problem with the Constellation being NCC-1017.

I'm coming from the position that (particularly in the case of the USS Consitution being NCC-1700) some things that we think are wrong in Trek may not be if you look at them very closely. Some of the contradictions lie more with stuff established offscreen than onscreen.

Depends on what you interpret as a 'contradiction'. The NCC-1017 really doesn't contradict anything, since there has never been an established pattern for registry naming. We can make some fairly-safe assumptions based on what real registries are for, but it's not entirely a safe bet, either.

In a real sense, I'm saying that but from a different perspective. NCC-1017 really doesn't contradict anything either, because the NCC-1700 registry for the Constitution really can't be proven onscreen. There's a conflict with offscreen information, but not really with onscreen information.

I'm totally playing devil's advocate here--I mean, if those offscreen reference manuals didn't exist, NCC-1700 then just becomes an unnamed Constitution-class ship that came before the Enterprise, and the oddity with the Constellation immediately disappears.

I think most people would still look at it for what it is.. an AMT model with the numbers swapped in a hurry. Without that additional lore, I don't think many - if any - of us would be talking about it anyway, to be honest.

And that's really the heart of what I'm saying. Yes, exactly that.

Or the discrepancies may be based more in fanon than canon.

Nah, ask Rick. They screwed up numbers and spellings, et al, on the models all the time. The Lantree had three different registries on it! It's part of dealing with a weekly production schedule, these things happen.

True, but it's because we're privy to this behind-the-scenes information that we're aware of them. For someone who doesn't know that offscreen stuff and are simply going by what they see, some screwups aren't even noticeable.

 

[ProwlAlpha]

This conversion has degenerated into a CANON vs canon debate. Yes, the Constitution NCC-1700 hasn't been on screen buuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuutttttttttttttttttt it is accepted by the fan base and authors. Do we really need a yes its the Constitution NCC-1700 because everyone and their mother accept vs its not onscreen so it doesn't exist argument.

 

[Saquist]

This conversion has degenerated into a CANON vs canon debate. Yes, the Constitution NCC-1700 hasn't been on screen buuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuutttttttttttttttttt it is accepted by the fan base and authors. Do we really need a yes its the Constitution NCC-1700 because everyone and their mother accept vs its not onscreen so it doesn't exist argument.

No we really don't but some people enjoy pointing out the obvious or...have nothing more to contribute but the obvious as criticism.

It's logical to accept 1700 as the USS Constitution despite the lack of Officialism. We chose to accept that or disregard it individually.

 

[C.E. Evans]

This conversion has degenerated into a CANON vs canon debate.

Actually, it hasn't. Simply pointing out one supposed problem may not actually be one if you solely go by onscreen material alone. That's basically it in a nutshell--pointing out a possibility.

Whether people believe NCC-1700 is the Constitution isn't really the issue, it's just that we don't have to when we look at it without offscreen material. It may be heresy against 40 years of Trek reference materials, but the possibility can't be ignored.

 

[ProwlAlpha]

Its a CANON vs canon debate.

 

[C.E. Evans]

Its a CANON vs canon debate.

How can it be when both sides do think the USS Constitution is NCC-1700?

 

[Vance]

CE, at this point I'm dropping it. I've given you the evidence, stated my opinion.. and I've got no idea what you're trying to say or argue at this point.

 

[C.E. Evans]

CE, at this point I'm dropping it. I've given you the evidence, stated my opinion.. and I've got no idea what you're trying to say or argue at this point.

There was really nothing to argue over in the first place. I was simply presenting a possibility in the lack of concrete evidence to the contrary. People here do it all the time.

 

[Rulius]

I just wonder why they didn't make the Constellation 1710?
Sounds to me like the Luna class would make a great AWACS kinda ship.

 

[Titan Designer]

Sounds to me like the Luna class would make a great AWACS kinda ship.

That is exactly what I had in mind when I designed here.

 

[F. King Daniel]

I just wonder why they didn't make the Constellation 1710?
Sounds to me like the Luna class would make a great AWACS kinda ship.

The shitty picture quality on TVs of the era. A fuzzy "10" could have been mistaken for "01"

 

[SicOne]

Sounds to me like the Luna class would make a great AWACS kinda ship.

That is exactly what I had in mind when I designed here.

Sean, are you at liberty to comment on my questions regarding the Luna sensor pods?

 

[Titan Designer]

Sounds to me like the Luna class would make a great AWACS kinda ship.

That is exactly what I had in mind when I designed here.

Sean, are you at liberty to comment on my questions regarding the Luna sensor pods?

As far as I know there are no Luna Classes with a different Sensor Pod (Yet). That is not to say that there couldn't be. I know In the STO Universe you can swap out pods, but when designed the Luna was to be a Exploration vessel not a Frigate. That is why marco and myself agreed that the launches housed in the Pod were only to be probe launchers and not Photon Launchers.

 

[SicOne]

That is exactly what I had in mind when I designed here.

Sean, are you at liberty to comment on my questions regarding the Luna sensor pods?

As far as I know there are no Luna Classes with a different Sensor Pod (Yet). That is not to say that there couldn't be. I know In the STO Universe you can swap out pods, but when designed the Luna was to be a Exploration vessel not a Frigate. That is why marco and myself agreed that the launches housed in the Pod were only to be probe launchers and not Photon Launchers.

I am not clear on the difference between the two types of launchers. IIRC, the ship itself has four torpedo launchers as-is, not including the pod, but wouldn't a threat see the Luna as being equipped with seven torpedo launchers altogether, including the pod?

 

[Timo]

It might well be that a key part of a torpedo launcher, as opposed to a probe launcher, is a big and complex piece of machinery that injects antimatter into the warhead.

That is, even probes might have some antimatter aboard, to power their evident warp drives. But the device needed for arming a combat-capable torpedo might be in a wholly different category, and not to be found next to just any launcher.

Similarly, a massive piece of dedicated technology might be needed for priming a quantum torpedo, explaining why on screen, q-torps and p-torps always emerge from different tubes.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Vance]

I just wonder why they didn't make the Constellation 1710?

It was done to make it stand out more from the NCC-1701, so you could tell the two ships apart from the big label on the hull. It makes some sense, particularly when you're dealing with 1960s television sets and pathetic broadcast signals. (How I do not miss those days.)