Original 12 Constitution class ships
- Thread starter garak1
- Start date
- Status
And the USS Carolina! But everyone forgets that one.
Absolutely. That's why I qualified it as a weaker argument. But it works well for me.
Carolina was mentioned once, but no one ever implied it was a Connie, did they? I never assumed that. The Star Trek Encyclopedia calls it a Deadalus-class, ship (though it couldn't be as when we learn about that class in "Power Play [TNG]," it's clear that the class was retired well before the 2260's). The Star Trek Concordance lists it as a "Federation vessel" and leaves off the "starship" moniker... though I forget whether it was actually called a starship in "Friday's Child."
--Alex
I don't believe it was.
I feel 100% confident that no one writing or producing The Doomsday Machine intended anything other than that the Constellation was a sister ship to Enterprise, what we are now calling a Constitution class vessel.
People want there to be so many ships in the fleet and so many different classes. Kirk talks about there being 12 ships like Enterprise in the fleet, one of which is surely Constellation. Okay, how many classes of ships do we think make up that fleet of 12 or so ships? I'm thinking one.
People want there to be so many ships in the fleet and so many different classes. Kirk talks about there being 12 ships like Enterprise in the fleet, one of which is surely Constellation. Okay, how many classes of ships do we think make up that fleet of 12 or so ships? I'm thinking one.
It's specified as the USS Carolina, and at least in the Original Series we don't have examples of USS ships not being Constitution-class starships. And that prefix can't merely be a script oversight, since the episode also has a mention of an SS Deirdre, specified as an Earth vessel and freighter.
The only evidence against it being a starship is that since it was in the same sector as the Enterprise that would violate the USS Pauli Exclusion Principle.
Yes we do. USS Carolina for example!
That's kind of circular, isn't it? Yes, the ships that Kirk mentions are "like" Enterprise are probably going to be ones that are of the same class as Enterprise. So, sure, only one class makes up that group of twelve... by definition.
You're not proposing that that group of twelve ships is the entirety of Starfleet, are you?
Sure, USS is the prefix for a Starfleet ship. It sounds like you're also proposing that all Starfleet vessels in TOS were Constitution class... am I reading that correctly? That doesn't seem realistic that all vessels in a space navy were all the same class.
Wow... all this has been covered before, in this very thread.
It is too bad there isn't anything new to any of these arguments that hasn't been address before.
Honestly, the best way to approach this stuff is to take everything that fans put together since TOS and throw it all out. Start with raw data...
Seen-
Constellation (NCC-1017)Not seen-
Defiant
Enterprise (NCC-1701)
Exeter
Excalibur
Lexington
Hood
Potemkin
CarolinaOlder unseen-
Farragut
Intrepid
Republic (1371)
Valiant
Yorktown
ArchonStone Numbers-
Horizon
Valiant
NCC 1709Diagram text-
NCC 1631
NCC 1703
NCC 1672
NCC 1864
NCC 1697
NCC 1701
NCC 1718
NCC 1685
NCC 1700
PRIMARY PHASER L,RAnd what do we know about the models... four models were made (33 inch, 11 foot, 3 inch and 18 inch), all different from each other. The first model to be build that was a good approximation for the 11 foot model's physical features wasn't built until 1996 (by Greg Jein for the DS9 episode "Trials and Tribbleations"), and this wasn't due to a lack of efforts by model makers during the 30 years between 1966 and 1996. So the Constellation was the same type/class starship as the Enterprise because that was the intent AND no model replicating the 11 foot model was built in the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s or the first half of the 1990s.
STAR SHIP MK IX/01
CONSTITUTION CLASS
U.S.S. ENTERPRISE
STARSHIP CLASS
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF.
For me, I look at it this way... we had eight ships seen (Constellation, Defiant, Enterprise, Exeter, Excalibur, Lexington, Hood, and Potemkin) and three known active from dialog (Carolina, Intrepid, and Yorktown). We know the Valiant was lost, and the Farragut and Republic were at least active in recent history. And of all of those only three had assigned numbers... Constellation (NCC-1017), Enterprise (NCC-1701) and Republic (1371, the "NCC" has always been assumed).
Keep in mind guys... Okuda, Jein and Drexler have no more connection to TOS than you guys. THEY ARE JUST FANS! Not one of them worked on TOS, so they really have no better information (or ideas) than the rest of us. And they make mistakes.
And why is this the first post in this thread to acknowledge the existence of the USS Carolina?
It is too bad there isn't anything new to any of these arguments that hasn't been address before.
The problem I have noted on interweb bulletin boards, especially in long threads, is people only "live on the page". If it isn't on the current page, it didn't happen. Hence, the same questions get asked over and over again, and there is a general "petering out" effect as those with real knawledge or something interesting to say tend to give up and move on.
I'm 50, been on the internets for about 20 years now - long enough to know the deal, but somehow I thought it might be different with my fellow Trek fans (I am fairly new to discussing Trek online). Its a bit disappointing to see the relatively low signal-to-noise ratio in most discussions. Sorry if that sounds judgmental. Just sayin'.
I'm 50, been on the internets for about 20 years now - long enough to know the deal, but somehow I thought it might be different with my fellow Trek fans (I am fairly new to discussing Trek online). Its a bit disappointing to see the relatively low signal-to-noise ratio in most discussions. Sorry if that sounds judgmental. Just sayin'.
Well, in this particular case, there's also the issue that the thread was dormant for over a year, and then resurrected this weekend. So when you click on it, it's going to take you to the new posts, and not many of us are going to remember what was posted in 2014 before the hiatus.
Just sayin'.
Doesn't that present an argument for not posting any new or valuable information to this forum. After all, you are suggesting that it isn't like you're going to remember any of it anyways. And if that is what one can expect, it just makes sharing seem like it would be a wasted effort.
And this is why I'm hesitant to share information at TrekBBS...
Just sayin'.
People don't remember what was said in a particular thread from a year ago. Damn, sometimes I can't remember what I wrote yesterday. No reason to be sore over it. None of us are perfect.
I'm not sore... it is just as much a waste of effort to get emotional about this as it is to care enough to post.
I actually like sharing... but TrekBBS (members and admins) often don't make it worth the effort. Every so often I'll test the waters around here to see if things have changed... I'm testing right now and will most likely take another vacation from this place based on what I've seen.
Oh well.
Martyrdom is so three days ago.
I'm not sure how to even respond to this. But since it was directed at me, I feel that I should, even though such things never seem to work out very well.
This is a discussion board. We're here to discuss things. Will some of those discussions go around in circles? Sure, just like in real life. And people are going to forget things that were said. Just like in real life. Does that mean we shouldn't contribute or get involved in discussions, either here or in real life?
As far as I recall, I have enjoyed your contributions to threads I have seen. It would be a shame to see you stop posting. But ultimately, everyone must make their own decisions as to what they are going to share and contribute. If you decide it's not worth your effort to share, that's your choice.
Perhaps a bulletin board is not the best format for you to present the information you want to share? Perhaps a blog or a website would be better suited for your needs? Then you wouldn't have to worry about older discussions getting lost. And for me personally, I'm more likely to remember things through repetition... if I could read an article through a few times, I'd be more likely to remember the contents of it, than a random discussion that I read once and forget shortly thereafter. (If you already have a blog or a website, please feel free to post it here. I'd certainly check it out.)
Not sure what else to say.
Exactly... thanks for that commentary!
Well, in fact I have a copy of the shooting script, and the Constellation is actually described as being "an Enterprise-class starship." So yes, the intention was they they be sisters. One of the memos from Gene Coon to Norman Spinrad actually suggests the ships be identical in design so that they could use the standing sets to double for the Constellation's interior spaces... thus fulfilling GR's desire to have the episode shot on standing sets to save money.
Which is one reason why I don't like resurrecting old threads (along with all the other reason we have listed over the years).
This forum is about a 50 year old TV show. How much "new" is there really to discuss?
I'm trying not to be such a hard-ass when it comes to this issue. Please don't make me regret it.
- Status
Similar threads
