That Starbase 11 wall chart - noe in slide form

[aridas sofia]

“1697” is a really interesting number. It’s as if someone were trying to say, “almost like Enterprise”.

THAT’S the kind of number I bet Jefferies would have used to differentiate Constellation, had he the time or decals.

I would agree he was saying with his system- “this is a small fleet of special, hard to build ships. We never get to a hundred in one generation”,

But then, he picks one that is 97, which goes against that idea.

He’s either telling us the numbers don’t matter, or they matter in some other way. After all, “1697” IS almost 1700, so that probably isn’t an accident.

 

[Tallguy]

THAT’S the kind of number I bet Jefferies would have used to differentiate Constellation, had he the time or decals.

On the one hand: I'm sure you're right. OTOH (and I don't know if MJ would have thought the same way we / I do on this) would he have implied that the Constellation was older?

I know fan lore has kind of taken up this notion for various reasons (not the least of which being the Connie's Captain).

He’s either telling us the numbers don’t matter, or they matter in some other way. After all, “1697” IS almost 1700, so that probably isn’t an accident.

That's what I meant by "not thinking the same way we do". They might matter (if they do) "in some other way".

 

[BK613]

For those interested, airhistory.net has a write up of the somewhat convoluted serial and tail numbers the US Army Air Corps/Air Force used over its history. Something MJ would have been aware of with his background as WWII veteran and aviation illustrator.

 

[Dukhat]

“1697” is a really interesting number. It’s as if someone were trying to say, “almost like Enterprise”.

THAT’S the kind of number I bet Jefferies would have used to differentiate Constellation, had he the time or decals.

I would agree he was saying with his system- “this is a small fleet of special, hard to build ships. We never get to a hundred in one generation”,

But then, he picks one that is 97, which goes against that idea.

He’s either telling us the numbers don’t matter, or they matter in some other way. After all, “1697” IS almost 1700, so that probably isn’t an accident.

On the one hand: I'm sure you're right. OTOH (and I don't know if MJ would have thought the same way we / I do on this) would he have implied that the Constellation was older?

I know fan lore has kind of taken up this notion for various reasons (not the least of which being the Connie's Captain).

I'm still not understanding this need to make the Constellation an older ship of a different class, just because of its registry. Putting aside the number which doesn't conform to Jefferies' standard, everything else in the episode seems to indicate that the Constellation is the same class as the Enterprise. I mean, I desperately wanted the SS Tsiolkovsky from "The Naked Now" (and the Oberth class in general) to have been a new design contemporary to the Enterprise-D, as was originally intended by its registry number and launch date from its dedication plaque, but they used the Grissom model instead, and there's just no way around that now. Unfortunately, wishful thinking isn't going to change what's show on screen.

 

[Tallguy]

I'm still not understanding this need to make the Constellation an older ship of a different class, just because of its registry. Putting aside the number which doesn't conform to Jefferies' standard, everything else in the episode seems to indicate that the Constellation is the same class as the Enterprise. I mean, I desperately wanted the SS Tsiolkovsky from "The Naked Now" (and the Oberth class in general) to have been a new design contemporary to the Enterprise-D, as was originally intended by its registry number and launch date from its dedication plaque, but they used the Grissom model instead, and there's just no way around that now. Unfortunately, wishful thinking isn't going to change what's show on screen.

I don't see a reason (or an intent) for the Constellation to be a different class from the Enterprise. Just like all of the second season Starships that we see the intention is clearly that it's "another Enterprise".

She might be (might be) older than the E just because of the registry. But that's nothing that's implied by the episode.

Sheesh. All of the attention given to this wall chart over the years and now there are people who want to say "You know, the size of the Enterprise was never REALLY shown on screen in TOS. Not REALLY."

(Yes, it's my windmill and I shall tilt at it!)

 

[Dukhat]

Sheesh. All of the attention given to this wall chart over the years and now there are people who want to say "You know, the size of the Enterprise was never REALLY shown on screen in TOS. Not REALLY."

(Yes, it's my windmill and I shall tilt at it!)

Well, that's more of an argument for the SNW forum...

 

[Tallguy]

Well, that's more of an argument for the SNW forum...

It'll leak! Mark my words!

 

[Crewman Commander]

This is the Trek Tech forum, not the TOS/TAS forum, anyway.

 

[DSG2k]

“1697” is a really interesting number. It’s as if someone were trying to say, “almost like Enterprise”.

THAT’S the kind of number I bet Jefferies would have used to differentiate Constellation, had he the time or decals.

If everyone knew that there were only so many 1600s, like fifty, and would be no more, starting from 1699 and working your way down would be a nice way of differentiating refits.

 

[aridas sofia]

If everyone knew that there were only so many 1600s, like fifty, and would be no more, starting from 1699 and working your way down would be a nice way of differentiating refits.

That’s an interesting thought.

As for why Jefferies might have wanted to use 1697 instead of 1017, it’s precisely for the reasons being indicated. 1017 seems to say “different kind of ship”. 1697 at least says, “pretty close”. They were trying to communicate to a TV audience, mind you. One that might not know or care about the relationship between say, SBC-127 and 160 and the plans for the Forrestal and Kitty Hawk class carriers and the nuclear Enterprise CVAN-65. (A complicated story for another time but suffice to say, Enterprise started out to be a nuclear powered Forrestal, and Kitty Hawks started out as more Enterprises. And yet they all ended up looking different.)

In other words, the number can be confusing. The fact some people took away from 1017 “must be an older ship” when the intent was to say “just like Enterprise” means it was numbered wrong for the general audience. It needed to have a number that would be visually distinct from 1701 and yet not so different as to infer to a general audience “very different”. And since we are talking about the Stone chart and it had 1697 on it, I’m saying that woulda done the job.

None of this in any way touches upon complications in production and the (iirc) early desire to make the other ship look different. Or the differences between the AMT model and the 11-foot model. It’s just dealing with an intent to say it was just like Enterprise but had to be distinguished in some way beyond being totally wrecked with a lighter.

 

[Dukhat]

As for why Jefferies might have wanted to use 1697 instead of 1017, it’s precisely for the reasons being indicated...

In other words, the number can be confusing. The fact some people took away from 1017 “must be an older ship” when the intent was to say “just like Enterprise” means it was numbered wrong for the general audience. It needed to have a number that would be visually distinct from 1701 and yet not so different as to infer to a general audience “very different”. And since we are talking about the Stone chart and it had 1697 on it, I’m saying that woulda done the job.

I'm still a bit confused as to why you're making a correlation between what registry number Jefferies might have wanted to use, and what was printed on the actual model. Because as far as I am aware, Jefferies had nothing whatsoever to do with the construction or labeling of the Constellation. And they used 1017 because those were the numbers available on the decal sheet. They didn't have a 6 or a 9. Or am I misunderstanding you?

As for the idea that it's an older ship based solely on that number...I mean, sure, it could have been older. But that's really not all that relevant when the ship looks just like the Enterprise.