Matt Jefferies and NCC-1017

[Green Shirt]

"Starship Class", just like it says on the bridge plaque (surprised nobody has mentioned that yet, unless I missed it), as opposed to "Constitution Class", "Enterprise Class", "Enterprise-Type" or any other nomenclatures mentioned here.

Some of us have backed "Starship Class" as the proper class designation for TOS Enterprise in a previous thread for the reason you stated.

Many however, have preferred the use of other class designations due to their appearance in on screen episode schematics (which are assumed to be of Enterprise), fan produced material, or other sources.

I'll go with what I've seen on screen, as opposed to what somebody wrote down on a piece of paper saying that is what they think it is.

Every excruciating detail wasn't thought out in advance like today's TV audience expects. The show was produced to the best of the ability of cast, crew and staff as time and money allowed.

Waiting to be rebutted into oblivion.

 

[137th Gebirg]

^^^ Heh, yes, there will always be such conversations, I'm afraid. There's another lively one regarding the old "where's main engineering" that you may have seen here as well. Every so once in a while it gets brought up. I look at it as a fun exercise in debate as, like you said, they didn't get into that level of detail back then and there's really no right or wrong to any of it.

 

[throwback]

The suggestion that the Carolina is a starship is supported by her name, USS Carolina. In the original series, only starships bore the prefix: USS. The Enterprise, the Exeter, the Farragut, the Republic, and the Yorktown were addressed with this prefix. Some ships, such as the Beagle and the Woden, were addressed with the prefix SS, or some other ships, like the Antares, were addressed with no prefix. It wasn't until the first movie that every ship in Starfleet had the prefix USS.

Dialogue from the episode "Friday's Child":

Uhura:

Mister Scott, another distress call from the USS Carolina.

Timo, I think your suggestion is correct, and is supported by the canon. In the episode "Emissary", there is this line of dialogue.

Sisko:

They're scheduled to depart at zero-five hundred hours after offloading three runabout class vessels.

Later, in "Hippocratic Oath", we learn that the runabout class vessels assigned to DS9 were Danube-class runabouts.

Then, in "Non Sequitor", a Voyager episode,, in an alternate timeline, we learn that Starfleet was working on the Yellowstone-class runabouts.

So, I think it's possible that in the time of TOS that Starfleet had at least two classes that belonged to the "Starship Class" family: the Constitution-class and the Enterprise-class.

In "The Making of Star Trek", we learn that prior to his service aboard the USS Enterprise that Captain Kirk had commanded a Destroyer Class vessel.

In the film "Star Trek III: The Search for Spock", there is a reference to a fourth class: Scout Class vessels.

Chekov:

For an instant...a scout class vessel.

Kirk:

Could be Grissom.

 

[TIN_MAN]

Tin Man,

I believe you are making an assumption. I believe you are making the same mistake that Greg Jein did in his article for T-Negative.

Am I?

The intraoffice memos listed at least three different lists of starship. The Constitution was on at least one of these memos. The production staff were going on memory for the named ships, and were identifying each of the named starships to the Enterprise-type.

Yes, they were trying to come up with names for other ships "Like" the Enterprise, one of which was the Constitution. It would be a mistake to confuse “Enterprise-type” as used in the memos –which merely indicates ships that look like the Enterprise- with an official designation of “Enterprise class” as if that’s the name of the class, which is what I believe you’re doing, if I understand you correctly?

The production staff had to name 13 starships that were like the Enterprise, and they had 11 names established by the episodes to work with. The production staff missed one ship - the USS Carolina - but this was understandable. This starship was mentioned very briefly in the episode "Friday's Child". So they had to fill in the gaps.

Actually, they only had to come up with 12, the Enterprise was the thirteenth. This is consistent with Kirk’s statement in “Tomorrow is Yesterday” (if memory serves) in which Kirk says there are “only twelve like her in the fleet”.

As for the Carolina, she was never established on screen as a ship like the Enterprise was she? A starship perhaps, yes, but not necessarily of the same class as the Enterprise?

The phaser diagram wasn't mentioned in the book, and wasn't included in the illustrations provided with the book.

Yes, but my point is that some person or persons in the official chain of command in the Star Trek production favored "Constitution" as a name for one of the ships "like the Enterprise" and since this name is used onscreen along side the term “Star Ship”, which we know is the term used for Enterprise-type vessels (on the dedication plaque) then it’s logical to conclude that the same person or persons intended for these two uses of “Constitution” to be a reference to the same type/class vessel, namely, ships that look like the Enterprise.

April 17, 1967 - 3rd Edition of Writer's Guide is published
* The USS Enterprise is classified as a "Starship Class" vessel.

Yes. As per the dedication plaque

Oct. 10, 1967 - "The Doomsday Machine" aired
* In the script for this episode, the Enterprise and her sister ship, the Constellation, are classified as Enterprise-class starships.

Ah, but Spinrad was not a staff writer, and can't be expected to be up on all the correct terminology of the show. It would be a mistake to take "Enterprise-class” too literally in this instance. All that is implied here by this one-off incorrect usage is simply "ship of the same class".

Dec. 19, 1967 - "The Trouble with Tribbles" aired
* This is the first mention of a Constitution-class starship. There is no canonical connection between the Enterprise and this class of ship.

Correct, not at this time, that came later.

Sept. 1968 - "The Making of Star Trek" is published
* In this book, the Enterprise is classified as an Enterprise-type starship. A list of sister ships is included in this book.

Once again, "Type" is not synonymous with "class". But where in that book exactly is the Enterprise classified as an Enterprise-type starship anyway?

Sometime in 1968 - The first edition of the "Star Trek Concordance" is published as a private product (fanzine) for fans.
* In this book, the Enterprise is classified as a Constitution-class starship.

Yes.

April 1973 - "The Case of Jonathan Doe Starship" is published in the fanzine T-Negative Nr. 27.
* In this article, the Enterprise is classified as a Constitution-class starship. This is the first time that an effort is made, afaik, to link the registries seen in "Court Martial" to the list of starships first mentioned in "The Making of Star Trek". This is also the first time, afaik, that a connection is made between the phaser diagram first seen in "The Trouble with Tribbles" and the Enterprise.

Yes. But wasn't Bjo Trimble working at Lincoln Enterprises -which sold slides of the said diagram- at about this time? So she was probably the first one to see the diagram up close and make the connection between the Constitution class and the Enterprise?

April 1975 - "Star Trek Blueprints" is published by Ballantine.
* In this set of blueprints, the Enterprise is classified as a Constitution-class starship.

November 1, 1975 - The "Star Trek Star Fleet Technical Manual" is published by Ballantine.
* In this book, the Enterprise is classified as a Constitution-class starship.

And for what it's worth, FJ also used the "MK-IX/01" from the phaser diagram. The "01" being his designation for his "class one fleet". In his scheme MK-VIII = Destroyer, MK-VII = Scout, MK-VII = Transport/tug and MK-X = Dreadnaught.

June 4, 1982 - "Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan" is released.
* In this film, the Enterprise is classified as a Enterprise-class starship.

This is largely irrelevant to the discussion here, since it refers only to the uprated movie era ship, not the TOS version. However, there is some debate in fandom as to whether the movie “E” is an "Enterprise Class" or a "Constitution II Class", but that’s a whole 'nother flame war.

June 1, 1984 - "Star Trek III: The Search for Spock" is released.
* In this film, there is a diagram which classifies the Enterprise as a Constitution-class starship. The diagram is either from the Star Trek Blueprints or the Star Trek Star Fleet Technical Manual.

October 5, 1987 - Lt. Cmdr. Data classifies the Enterprise as a Constitution-class starship in the episode "The Naked Now".

Yes, Two unambiguous canon references for the Enterprise being a "Constitution class" starship, so why are we still debating this?

 

[Dukhat]

1. U.S.S. Enterprise NCC-1701, referred to as "Starship Class" according to the dedication plaque. (from TOS)

2. U.S.S. Defiant NCC-1764, referred to as "Constitution Class" according to the dedication plaque. (from ENT)

3. Holographic representation of U.S.S. Enterprise NCC-1701, referred to as "Constitution Class" in dialogue.


So it seems that at some point between the construction of the Enterprise and the construction of the Defiant, Starfleet decided that the class was "Constitution" and not "Starship" when creating dedication plaques. Whether the class was always known as Constitution class seems to be implied by Picard's comment.

That was easy

 

[137th Gebirg]

^^^ Well, if the registry numbers are any indication, there may be 63 other ships between Enterprise and Defiant, which could indicate several years between the two. In that time, it makes sense that they might have changed the nomenclature standards.

This begs an additional question, then. If there are only "12 others like her in the fleet", there must be other class types in there, unless they skip numbers (does the Navy do that?)

Heh...come to think of it - to muddy the waters even more, perhaps the Constellation (NCC-1017) was a "Constitution Class". Then, somewhere along the way, probably 1600 or 1700's, they changed the nomenclature type to "Starship Class", then by Defiant's day, they decided that was stupid and put it back to "Constitution".

Ugh...

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

adding to the conundrum is this bit of dialog suggesting a letter based classification for starships:

MENDEZ: Inspection tour of a cadet vessel. Old Class J starship. One of the baffle plates ruptured.

Maybe it was an old leftover J-class freighter, like the ECS Horizon?

 

[Timo]

Or then "J class" is a very popular designation, and often reused. The Royal Navy has had more Town Classes or County Classes than one bothers to remember, and is currently piling up on the Daring Classes as well, and never mind how many R Classes you get when your big ships are all Royal this and Royal that...

Somewhat amusingly, we could use the latest movie as proof that "Starship Class" is a general umbrella designation that in no way contradicts the Constitution Class identity of Kirk's old ship. After all, we now have two dedication plaques from dissimilar ships, both declaring the ships Starship Class ones...

For all we know, the Reliant plaque also said Starship Class back in the 2250s, and so did the plaques of all those large older starships in STXI.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Dukhat]

^^^ Well, if the registry numbers are any indication, there may be 63 other ships between Enterprise and Defiant, which could indicate several years between the two. In that time, it makes sense that they might have changed the nomenclature standards.

Well, registries have never proven to be strictly chronological, much less that there needs to be exactly the same number of ships built between two different numbers. Both the Excelsior NX-2000 and the Hathaway NCC-2593 were commissioned in the same year, but that doesn't necessarily mean that 592 other ships were built that year as well.

Maybe it was an old leftover J-class freighter, like the ECS Horizon?

I doubt it. There's no reason to assume that they're the same ship just because they share the same class letter. The Bajorans have an Antares class ship and Starfleet has an Antares class ship. They're not the same ship.

 

[137th Gebirg]

There's no reason to assume that they're the same ship just because they share the same class letter. The Bajorans have an Antares class ship and Starfleet has an Antares class ship. They're not the same ship.

Heh... 5 known canonical variants, to be precise:

 

[Dukhat]

Heh... 5 known canonical variants, to be precise:

And to be an even bigger nerd, the top diagram from the Fact Files is in fact inaccurate...the Norkova always looked exactly like the Xhosa in the second pic.

 

[137th Gebirg]

Ahh...I see your Geek-Fu is greater than mine!

But do you know what part they used to make the propulsion emitters on all the miniatures?

 

[Timo]

To nitpick, none of these was ever called Antares.

To nitpick further, none of these was ever indicated to be a Bajoran ship; the bottom design was hired by Bajorans, but indicated to be owned by Petarians, with a human skipper. It did happen to have a dedication plaque saying "Antares class", though. But off focus, and without dialogue to back it up.

Two designs have been referred to as Antares class onscreen. One was a Corvallen freighter ("Face of the Enemy"; recycled footage from "Outrageous Okona" IIRC) that was space dust by the time our heroes got there; the identification may have been incorrect, then. The other was indeed a Bajoran triangle-ship ("Ensign Ro"), but whether it was an Antares class vessel or a N'taaris class one, we don't know, because this time there is no written evidence.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Dukhat]

To nitpick, none of these was ever called Antares.

To nitpick further, none of these was ever indicated to be a Bajoran ship; the bottom design was hired by Bajorans, but indicated to be owned by Petarians, with a human skipper. It did happen to have a dedication plaque saying "Antares class", though. But off focus, and without dialogue to back it up.

Two designs have been referred to as Antares class onscreen. One was a Corvallen freighter ("Face of the Enemy"; recycled footage from "Outrageous Okona" IIRC) that was space dust by the time our heroes got there; the identification may have been incorrect, then. The other was indeed a Bajoran triangle-ship ("Ensign Ro"), but whether it was an Antares class vessel or a N'taaris class one, we don't know, because this time there is no written evidence.

That's all correct. The only ships we know of that were referred to by the name "Antares" (whether a class or a ship name) were the Corvallen and Bajoran ships (dialogue), the Xhosa (dedication plaque), the S.S. Antares (Charlie X, dialogue and CGI model for TOS-R), and the U.S.S. Hermes (Antares class from the ST Encyclopedia). I also seem to recall some muddled reference in the Encyclopedia about the Batris, but I don't think it was ever confirmed.

(There's also a U.S.S. Antares from Star Trek '09, but that doesn't count...)

BTW Timo, does the closed-captioning for "Ensign Ro" state that the ship is "Antares?" Because that would be some kind of evidence that it wasn't "N'taaris," or something else.

 

[Timo]

BTW Timo, does the closed-captioning for "Ensign Ro" state that the ship is "Antares?" Because that would be some kind of evidence that it wasn't "N'taaris," or something else.

No idea - the closed-captioning around here is a local job that I wouldn't consider relevant to the canon of the Trek universe. (I don't have any commercial Trek DVDs, just recordings of broadcasts. Plus some old commercial TOS and TNG VHS tapes. Sorry!)

Then again, even the Paramount bits are dubious at best. We don't want to believe in opening and end credits, now do we? Those are untrustworthy in two ways: Martok in DS9 may be a Dominion double agent, but he isn't a human triple agent whose real name is Hertzler... And Uhura doesn't spell or pronounce her name "Uhuru".

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Dukhat]

Then again, even the Paramount bits are dubious at best. We don't want to believe in opening and end credits, now do we?

Credits are not the same as captions. Captions are a written translation of the spoken dialogue. Credits are a list of the actors and production personnel, which have nothing to do with the fictional universe the show is about. So if the captions state that the ship is an Antares class vessel and not an N'Taaris class vessel, then an Antares class vessel it is.

Now with that said, I am fully aware that snafus happen during closed-captioning. The best one I can recall is when Kai Opaka says something to the effect of "Your pagh is strong," and the captioning reads "Your power is strong." (Unless she happened to lapse into a super-thick American southern accent when saying this word )

But do you know what part they used to make the propulsion emitters on all the miniatures?

That I don't know. Care to enlighten me?

 

[137th Gebirg]

^^^ The rear engine nozzle of a Draconian Marauder model from Buck Rogers.

 

[throwback]

There is another USS Antares (NCC-9844). It was built by the model maker Adam Buckner. This Antares was a Miranda-class variant with a Nebula-class type pod. Allegedly, this model was shot for scenes with Starbase 375.

http://flare.solareclipse.net/ultimatebb.php/topic/6/2781.html

In the apocrypha, there was a further USS Antares, an Oberth-class scout, that was the setting for the Star Trek: Orion Rendezvous planetarium show. (Memory Alpha article - Antares, Apocrypha section)

Classes
* Antares-class Cruiser - Bajoran
* Antares-class Cruiser - Federation (SS Xhosa, Norkova)
* Antares-class Freighter - Corvallen
* Antares-class Starship - Federation/Starfleet

Starships
* Antares - 2260's cargo ship in service to Starfleet
* USS Antares - lead ship of the Antares-class starships
* USS Antares - Oberth-class scout (apocrypha)
* USS Antares (NCC-9844) - Miranda-class/Nebula-class variant
* USS Antares - starship set in an alternate reality

Historical Note: The lunar module for Apollo 14 was named Antares.

 

[Timo]

Hmm.. What's the reason for calling the Bajoran ship a "cruiser"? Picard refers to a "carrier" in the dialogue of TNG "Ensign Ro".

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Dukhat]

^^^ The rear engine nozzle of a Draconian Marauder model from Buck Rogers.

Huh. That definitely looks to be the case. I'm surprised I never noticed that before, being the nerd that I am