USS Kelvin

[Vance]

Out of curiousity, what did TMOST say was the Enterprise's class? Starship class?

Constellation class.

 

[Christopher]

Okay, Christopher, I ceded your argument twice now... so what the fuck do you want from me at this point?

I don't want anything from you; it's not personal. I just care about accuracy. And it's inaccurate and anachronistic to criticize TMoST based on inconsistencies with concepts that weren't established until years later.

 

[Vance]

I don't want anything from you; it's not personal. I just care about accuracy. And it's inaccurate and anachronistic to criticize TMoST based on inconsistencies with concepts that weren't established until years later.

When you're attempting to define the 'canon purpose' of something, as it relates to TOS, then, yes, TMoST is fair game to criticize for its weaknesses. I shouldn't have to tell you this, but criticism is not an insult. It's very fair to point out TMoST's inaccuracies (and even those who worked on the book openly admit their faults), particularly when someone is going to cite it as 'proof' of anything.

I dismiss the book as a 'definitive guide' on Star Trek's fictional technology because a) that wasn't the point of the book, and b) the people who made the book weren't really all that interested in that aspect of things. For his part, Franz Joseph was and went to the exact same sources that TMoST did.

 

[Christopher]

When you're attempting to define the 'canon purpose' of something, as it relates to TOS, then, yes, TMoST is fair game to criticize for its weaknesses. I shouldn't have to tell you this, but criticism is not an insult. It's very fair to point out TMoST's inaccuracies (and even those who worked on the book openly admit their faults), particularly when someone is going to cite it as 'proof' of anything.

It's fair to point out that its assertions have been contradicted by later creative decisions. It's dismissive and misleading to phrase that in terms that suggest its author was misinformed or incompetent.

Besides, I'm not citing it as proof of anything within the fictional Trek reality, merely as proof of when, in actual, real reality, the big dish on the front of the fictional starship Enterprise was first referred to as a deflector dish. This is merely a matter of textual citation. You stated that the earliest citation thereof was in a 1987 text, and I demonstrated the existence of three earlier citations going back to September 1968. You seem to be confusing that simple assertion with some kind of argument about what's "real" inside the fictional Trek universe, and that's making this discussion more contentious than it has to be.

I dismiss the book as a 'definitive guide' on Star Trek's fictional technology because a) that wasn't the point of the book, and b) the people who made the book weren't really all that interested in that aspect of things.

I didn't say it is a definitive guide. I used the past tense, not the present. I'm merely making a point about the history of Trek tie-in literature, namely that at the time it was published, it was a seminal and authoritative work. It deserves to be respected for the quality of research and creativity that went into it. The fact that its assertions have been superseded by later creators does not mean that its author was lazy, inept, or misinformed. You're right that its assertions are no longer applicable, but you insist on expressing that in a way that dismisses the intrinsic worth or competence of the book, and that's just unfair.

 

[Vance]

The problem is that you attributed it to malice, and continued to argue the point after I had already ceded it. I personally do not use TMoST as a resource because of the numerous well-documented inaccuracies, so I was unaware that the cited the dish as such, even though it conflicts with Franz Joseph, who was using the exact same sources. It really is that simple.

So, yes, the first licensed Trek 'behind the scenes' product refers to the dish both as a sensor and a deflector. This is somewhat at odds with how the deflectors are represented later, both in licensed materials, as well as in the movies (as part of the shield grid), but also somewhat reconsilable. The other part is whether or not the dish is neccessary for Federation ships to operate, which we already know not to be the case.

 

[Unicron]

Did TMOST refer to the ship as being Constellation class, or are you thinking of Bjo Trimble's Star Trek Concordance? I know it's referred to as such in that work, because Bjo was working off the Constellation's lower registry number.

 

[Vance]

Did TMOST refer to the ship as being Constellation class, or are you thinking of Bjo Trimble's Star Trek Concordance? I know it's referred to as such in that work, because Bjo was working off the Constellation's lower registry number.

Going off memory, I'm pretty sure that TmoST did as well. But, it's been a long time since I had the book (which, I admit, I didn't find useful for my needs, so it got put into the 'trade' bin long ago).

 

[Praetor]

From The Making of Star Trek - 'Part II An Official Biography of a Ship and Its Crew' p 163 in a memo from D.C. Fontana to GR regarding the names of the members of the class:

Dear Gene,
We have, in the course of a season and a half, established that Star Fleet includes 12 ships of the starship class.

And more interestingly, from another memo on page 165:

Dear Gene:
I am in receipt of a memo from someone using the pseudonym of D.C. Fontana. This character suggests that we establish the names of the 12 ships of the Enterprise Starship Class.

I can't find a mention of 'Constellation class' used.

And from Chapter 2, Page 171, just for fun while I have the thing out:

The unit compenents were built at the Star Fleet Division of what is still called the San Francisco Navy Yards, and the vessel was assembled in space. The Enterprise is not designed to enter the atmosphere of a planet and has never landed on a planet surface.