Correct. Grammatically, the actual statement includes the Enterprise within the 12.
"Only twelve like it in the fleet."
- Thread starter JonnyQuest037
- Start date
Pg. 163 of my copy of The Making of Star Trek, the first sentence in a memo from D.C. Fontana to Gene Roddenberry:
"We have, in the course of a season and a half, established that Star Fleet includes 12 ships of the starship class."
Bob Justman replies to the memo a couple of pages later, and he reiterates the figure of 12 ships. And the book was cowritten by Gene Roddenberry.
Really, short of Captain Kirk beaming directly into your living room to tell you that there were 12 starships total, I don't think it gets more authoritative than that.
Now, you can certainly argue that Starfleet includes more types of ships than just those 12 starships, but considering that this was the opinion held by the story editor, the producer, and the creator of the show, I don't really see how you can believe that that line was supposed to mean that there were 13 starships total.
"We have, in the course of a season and a half, established that Star Fleet includes 12 ships of the starship class."
Bob Justman replies to the memo a couple of pages later, and he reiterates the figure of 12 ships. And the book was cowritten by Gene Roddenberry.
Really, short of Captain Kirk beaming directly into your living room to tell you that there were 12 starships total, I don't think it gets more authoritative than that.
Now, you can certainly argue that Starfleet includes more types of ships than just those 12 starships, but considering that this was the opinion held by the story editor, the producer, and the creator of the show, I don't really see how you can believe that that line was supposed to mean that there were 13 starships total.
On the other hand, one probably should also assume Kirk was referring to a total of twelve ships in service at the time he was speaking (well, that is, at the moment the Enterprise had just arrived from....he was speaking during the 20th century, but ... well ... you know what I mean).
The point is that there may have been a good deal more than twelve Enterprise sister ships built in total. Some were destroyed or lost prior to his conversation with Captain Christopher and some may have not yet been built or launched yet. The "twelve like her" line would have been correct with reference to that particular stretch of 2266 (or the appropriate year in your chronology of choice) and still leave room for a total of, say, twenty perhaps total builds before the class was retired.
This is exactly what we see in the FJTM, where the first batch of ships (which includes theEnterprise) was fourteen, two of which are lost by the time Kirk chats with Christopher, and over a hundred more being ordered at later dates. For my money, that seems like a lot, especially given that we never see old Connies plying the space lanes in TNG+ era shows, unlike the venerable Miranda and Oberth type hulls and the Excelsiors. But I see no need to limit the grand-total-of-Enterpirse-sisters-ever to being just twelve.
--Alex
The point is that there may have been a good deal more than twelve Enterprise sister ships built in total. Some were destroyed or lost prior to his conversation with Captain Christopher and some may have not yet been built or launched yet. The "twelve like her" line would have been correct with reference to that particular stretch of 2266 (or the appropriate year in your chronology of choice) and still leave room for a total of, say, twenty perhaps total builds before the class was retired.
This is exactly what we see in the FJTM, where the first batch of ships (which includes theEnterprise) was fourteen, two of which are lost by the time Kirk chats with Christopher, and over a hundred more being ordered at later dates. For my money, that seems like a lot, especially given that we never see old Connies plying the space lanes in TNG+ era shows, unlike the venerable Miranda and Oberth type hulls and the Excelsiors. But I see no need to limit the grand-total-of-Enterpirse-sisters-ever to being just twelve.
--Alex
Wrong universe.
True, but the USS Carolina could be a 23rd century version of a runabout.
The Enterprise ( "it"), and twelve like "it."
Unless you mean twelve like the Enterprise, and the Enterprise is like the Enterprise.
If you'd bothered to read beyond the ship name, you would have seen my explanation for including it.
If Kirk beams into my living room, and it's not onscreen, it's not canon.
In the quoted dialog, the "It" is categorically meant to be the Enterprise, and mean the Enterprise, so twelve like the Enterprise, and the Enterprise is like the Enterprise, so twelve.
Evidence has been quoted establishing that the rules of English (such as they exist) fully support both the 12 and 13 interpretations. But it's not really a matter of grammar - it's a matter of the time of the week. Are there 13 ships today, or did one get lost (or built) and Kirk just hasn't heard yet? Both 12 and 13 must be blink-and-you-miss-it statistics in the hectic life of the Constitution class.
Timo Saloniemi
Timo Saloniemi
Also, are we REALLY going to split hairs over it? TOS is full of contradictory statements. It's ironic how people get hung up on the 12 or 13, and feel strongly about it one way or the other, yet completely ignore the statement Kirk makes in "Our authority is the United Earth Space Probe Agency." This is never mentioned before, or since, and it is commonly accepted the real authority that should have been mentioned is either the UFP or Starfleet Command. That is why I don't think the fleet is necessarily limited to 12 Constitution class ships (and it is likely more when you count other classes), neither by Kirk's statement, nor do I exclude the possibility that the fleet of Constitution class ships increases or decreases depending on the time you are talking about in TOS (new builds coming online, others getting destroyed, etc).
Full? Not really.
UESPA can easily be rationalized.
A) It's an agency still in existence during TOS, and
B) It's more familiar sounding to a 20th person than Starfleet Command (which we hear reference to at the end of "Tomorrow Is Yesterday")
Finally I don't accept there being an absolute definitive list of Constitution-class ships. We have suggested lists (TMoST) and even what we saw onscreen might not all be Connies despite having apparently similar configurations.
The Constellation is a case in point. TOS-R took the route the AMT model in the original version of TDM was really supposed to be identical to the Enterprise. But for decades many argued the differences in the AMT model along with the much lower registry number suggested the Constellation could have been of a different class than the Enterprise. It's not a ridiculous rationalization.
Then there is the Defiant that never appears on any previously suggested list of names unless you count it as a variation of Defiance.
A) It's an agency still in existence during TOS, and
B) It's more familiar sounding to a 20th person than Starfleet Command (which we hear reference to at the end of "Tomorrow Is Yesterday")
Finally I don't accept there being an absolute definitive list of Constitution-class ships. We have suggested lists (TMoST) and even what we saw onscreen might not all be Connies despite having apparently similar configurations.
The Constellation is a case in point. TOS-R took the route the AMT model in the original version of TDM was really supposed to be identical to the Enterprise. But for decades many argued the differences in the AMT model along with the much lower registry number suggested the Constellation could have been of a different class than the Enterprise. It's not a ridiculous rationalization.
Then there is the Defiant that never appears on any previously suggested list of names unless you count it as a variation of Defiance.
Last edited:
I'd say really.
What is this "Constitution" class you speak of? I don't recall it being mentioned in TOS. Could you be meaning a Starship? >
Oh, and UESPA is mentioned in Charlie X.
...You two were on your high school debate teams, weren't you?
It's also mentioned in "Tomorrow Is Yesterday."
I was replying to the notion that it was never mentioned before or again.
OK you got me. Charlie x it's mentioned, too. However, I don't recall it being referenced after TIY. And it doesn't take away from my main point: it's a term that was dropped pretty early on in the franchise.
A Constittion class? Does that count as one of the twelve or is it a subclass?
She's a full Connie, built after the Enterprise, but for some reason only commissioned as S.S.
So there may be 12 U.S.S. that are assigned 5 year missions on the front line, with some only listed as S.S. that are kept closer to the core of the Federation with shorter, several month long assignments (occasionally swinging out to relay stuff to the U.S.S. fleet).
Then there's the Constellation and Eagle, infering older saucers (from Saladin/Hermes?) bolted to new stardrives to increase the fleet capacity, building only half what a full keel up ship would need.
Honestly, we could go on about this for years more, we really need Discovery to answer some of this.
So there may be 12 U.S.S. that are assigned 5 year missions on the front line, with some only listed as S.S. that are kept closer to the core of the Federation with shorter, several month long assignments (occasionally swinging out to relay stuff to the U.S.S. fleet).
Then there's the Constellation and Eagle, infering older saucers (from Saladin/Hermes?) bolted to new stardrives to increase the fleet capacity, building only half what a full keel up ship would need.
Honestly, we could go on about this for years more, we really need Discovery to answer some of this.
Similar threads
