Names of the Original Series Starships ?
- Thread starter Bones1864
- Start date
- Status
^ You would. 
I think one of them was called Toy Boat Toy Boat Toy Boat.
EDIT: Oops, my mistake. I've done a little checking and Spock says it was lost 50 years ago. That's how I remembered that number. No mention is made of the number of crew lost. Franz Joseph considered the Valiant to be a Constitution Class ship.
I think one of them was called Toy Boat Toy Boat Toy Boat.
Weren't there only 50 people lost fromt the Valiant on Eminar VII? And there were no survivors (Spock says they were never heard from again). Obviously not a Constitution Class or anything close. More the size of a Nova Class a hundred years later. Maybe even smaller.
EDIT: Oops, my mistake. I've done a little checking and Spock says it was lost 50 years ago. That's how I remembered that number. No mention is made of the number of crew lost. Franz Joseph considered the Valiant to be a Constitution Class ship.
Last edited:
Because "The Making of Star Trek" and the AMT decal sheet list Valiant as one.
If aircraft cockpits today had that many "small differences", they'd each require a separate flight simulator...
Sure, we don't know whether it is a "small" or a "large" difference when one ship has a different layout of turbolifts than the other - perhaps this has no practical significance, perhaps it is a radical difference because it displaces the Type 24 AS/QIK -84 subspace scanner console and replaces it with the small Type 12 AS/QIK-3B that has vastly different capabilities?
In the TOS movies, we saw the Enterprises (four quite distinct bridges for two ships), the Reliant, the Grissom and the Excelsior (two very distinct bridges), and glimpsed at the Yorktown; TNG added the Stargazer configuration (plus some modernized TFS-era bridges). Lots of variation there, with differently shaped and positioned consoles and screens; no doubt lots of need for special training.
Timo Saloniemi
The Valiant listed in TMoST and other places need not be the very same one(s) mentioned in WNMHGB and "A Taste Of Armageddon." There's no reason the name couldn't be reused. The ship referenced is WNMHGB is obviously pre Federation and the one mentioned in AToA could be an early Starfleet vessel, and then the name was reused.
Indeed, I'm less irked by the idea that every cool name ever heard in Star Trek would be a Constitution name in addition to being something else, than I am by the concept that the Valiants or Intrepids or Fearlesses we hear about in the episodes would be the first or only ships by that name.
We know indirectly that Kirk's ship was the first starship Enterprise in UFP Starfleet service, because this was explicated in the spinoff shows. We have no idea how many Defiants or Voyagers this Starfleet has operated, though. And just because we hear the name Valiant three times doesn't mean only three such vessels ever existed.
It would be a nice running gag if all the Valiants ever launched into space suffered a gruesome end on their first voyage to deep space.
Timo Saloniemi
We know indirectly that Kirk's ship was the first starship Enterprise in UFP Starfleet service, because this was explicated in the spinoff shows. We have no idea how many Defiants or Voyagers this Starfleet has operated, though. And just because we hear the name Valiant three times doesn't mean only three such vessels ever existed.
It would be a nice running gag if all the Valiants ever launched into space suffered a gruesome end on their first voyage to deep space.
Timo Saloniemi
The name "Valiant" certainly seems to be, at best, unlucky.
Yep..
SS Valiant: Crew members turned into Psychic Wackjobs; ship self destructed
USS Valiant (TOS): Destroyed at Eminiar VII
USS Valiant (DS9): Destroyed by Stupid Cadets
USS Valiant (ST:Generations): Unknown, but probably destroyed also, since it's a crappy Oberth-class ship
USS Valiant (ST:Nemesis): Probably the only one that hasn't met a gruesome end.
Hell, it's the Kenny of the Star Trek universe.
"You destroyed the Valiant! You bastards!"
Yeah it did.. it was in Nemesis, for cryin' out load.
And, Mallory, can you switch your avatar OFF of your butt in a lace thong? Ew!
I just watched "Tomorrow is Yesterday" before coming back to the board this afternoon (not knowing this thread was here). Kirk tells Capt. Christopher that there are only 12 such vessels in the fleet.
EDIT- My apologies, Wingsley, you did a much better job of saying what I just did. I hadn't seen your post.
NOTE TO SELF- Read ALL posts before rushing to answer.
Last edited:
I think the best way to interpret that line is that there were only twelve like it in the fleet at that time.
I just watched "Tomorrow is Yesterday" before coming back to the board this afternoon (not knowing this thread was here). Kirk tells Capt. Christopher that there are only 12 such vessels in the fleet.
EDIT- My apologies, Wingsley, you did a much better job of saying what I just did. I hadn't seen your post.
NOTE TO SELF- Read ALL posts before rushing to answer.
In 1968? 
Yes, certainly the Federation would have built more than 12-13 of the ships if their attrition rate was the same as during TOS. Perhaps three dozen originals might have been thinned down to one dozen by the 2260s. And some sort of a refitting spree might also have several ships of that ilk out of commission during Kirk's statement, only to return to service a year or two later.
However, overall I think it best if we take Kirk's words in the spirit of any operator of a fine machine: he would try and make it sound even more unique and excellent than it factually is, even through using dubious "distinctions" such as "no other ship save for these twelve has five proton microscopes at Botanics and red doors on Transporter Room Three".
Timo Saloniemi
Yes, certainly the Federation would have built more than 12-13 of the ships if their attrition rate was the same as during TOS. Perhaps three dozen originals might have been thinned down to one dozen by the 2260s. And some sort of a refitting spree might also have several ships of that ilk out of commission during Kirk's statement, only to return to service a year or two later.
However, overall I think it best if we take Kirk's words in the spirit of any operator of a fine machine: he would try and make it sound even more unique and excellent than it factually is, even through using dubious "distinctions" such as "no other ship save for these twelve has five proton microscopes at Botanics and red doors on Transporter Room Three".
Timo Saloniemi
I think the best way to interpret that line is that there were only twelve like it in the fleet at that time.
I just watched "Tomorrow is Yesterday" before coming back to the board this afternoon (not knowing this thread was here). Kirk tells Capt. Christopher that there are only 12 such vessels in the fleet.
EDIT- My apologies, Wingsley, you did a much better job of saying what I just did. I hadn't seen your post.
NOTE TO SELF- Read ALL posts before rushing to answer.
I remember thinking as a kid that the line meant there were only 12 starships in the whole Starfleet! But I agree that it simply meant that at the time Kirk said the line, there were only 12 "like it" -- those being the operative words -- in the fleet. So that must mean the class vessel. And as I recall, They showed 8 of them. We never saw Intrepid, for example. That's why I like to think there were other class vessels like the Miranda-class flying around even during TOS, and the first time we see one is in TWOK. -- RR
darkwing_duck1
Vice Admiral
There is. I've seen it, but the labeling is not clear on screen (established after the artwork was found latter), and I don't know what ep it is from.
That refers to the REFIT Enterprise, which was identified in Proberts plans as the Enterprise class, not her launch configuration, which was "Starship" class, latter retconned as "Constitution" class in blueprints (ST VI),
dialogue (TNG "The Naked Now", "Relics"), and finally signage (ENT "In a Mirror Darkly").
Last edited:
darkwing_duck1
Vice Admiral
If you mean the simulator room, that doesn't necessarily have to refer to the ship. (Which, given what we would later learn in ST VI, I think it does not.) It could just be the simulator itself: since it was built to resemble the Enterprise, it's an Enterprise-class simulator.
Actually I like the idea that somebody else here (it wasn't me, I can't remember who though) suggested: the phrase refers to an Academy class of cadets, and that room was used to train the group of cadets that would be posted to Enterprise. Hence, Enterprise class.
Except that that idea goes against all logic and real military parlance as well...a simulator is not named after a training class, it is named after the equipment it is intended to simulate. The idea is to train in an environment that, while controlled, is as close to actual field conditions as possible.
I'm sure Starfleet has its own rules on that point.
Of course. No one is arguing that. The simulator is probably very accurate. But since we've established that there is no "Enterprise class" of starships, as such, then this must mean something else. I don't think it's that unusual to suggest that it might refer to the Academy class in question.
darkwing_duck1
Vice Admiral
I'm sure Starfleet has its own rules on that point.
Of course. No one is arguing that. The simulator is probably very accurate. But since we've established that there is no "Enterprise class" of starships, as such, then this must mean something else. I don't think it's that unusual to suggest that it might refer to the Academy class in question.
At the time, there WAS, just like in the early TOS eps, Enterprise was a "Starship class" starship. It's called "retconning" and has NOTHING to do with my logic.
Although writer intent means little when things get changed either in rewrites or for the expediency in producing a television show, and what is on screen is what counts, fwiw, D. C. Fontana, in her April 20, 1967 first draft of "Friday's Child" (which I just glanced through as I read the posts here), states that the first two fake distress calls come from the UES Deidre and Larkin, both of which claim to be freighters in a five-ship convoy carrying topaline from refineries on the planet Lorigan to Federation colonies.
When Scotty realizes that they call for the Enterprise by name, he contacts the topaline refineries on the planet Lorigan and they tell him that the Deidre and Larkin are not among the five freighters in the actual convoy.
The next distress call comes from the UES Carolina, which, Lorigan officials confirm, is indeed one of the freighters in the convoy. Scott decides that he will take his chances that it is a fake message as well.
So, the original intent was that the Carolina was a freighter, but these scenes were heavily rewritten and reduced before filming. Hell, Chekov was originally a character named Frost.
Again, fwiw, to those interested in early drafts of scripts.
Sir Rhosis, one of the least Treknical fans ever who couldn't tell a Franz Joseph drawing from a Matt Jeffries drawing
When Scotty realizes that they call for the Enterprise by name, he contacts the topaline refineries on the planet Lorigan and they tell him that the Deidre and Larkin are not among the five freighters in the actual convoy.
The next distress call comes from the UES Carolina, which, Lorigan officials confirm, is indeed one of the freighters in the convoy. Scott decides that he will take his chances that it is a fake message as well.
So, the original intent was that the Carolina was a freighter, but these scenes were heavily rewritten and reduced before filming. Hell, Chekov was originally a character named Frost.
Again, fwiw, to those interested in early drafts of scripts.
Sir Rhosis, one of the least Treknical fans ever who couldn't tell a Franz Joseph drawing from a Matt Jeffries drawing
- Status
