Which 12 Constitution class starships in "Tomorrow is Yesterday"?

[Dukhat]

So NX-01 was a "starship" and that's it?

Archer repeatedly refers to his ship aloud as "the starship Enterprise." However, the ship's dedication plaque states that it is "Spacecraft number NX-01."

Then they still hadn’t been doing their homework because the dedication plaque of the Enterprise-D is very specific that the “D” is the fifth starship to bear the name.

That's just semantics. Archer can call his ship anything he wants, but as far as the Earth Starfleet is concerned (and the Federation Starfleet for that matter), it is Spacecraft number NX-01.

However, by the time the Columbia NX-02 was built, the plaque's information changed. It now reads "Starship number NX-02." But this doesn't apply to the NX-01.

 

[Lance]

USS Republic is certainly depicted as a Connie when she appeared in the Star Trek: 25th Anniversary computer game by Interplay (which is non-canon I know, but when it comes to these things we've only really got non-canon and semi-canon sources to go on anyway).

 

[yenny]

At the time the episode Court Martial, it wasn't plan for the Republic to be a Constitution class starship. It was after the episode Doomsday Machine. Cause of the USS Constellation having a lower registry then the Constitution NCC-1700. Which made it no longer the first of her class, but a replacement. Cause of the Constellation registry and it was a Constitution class. It was believe that there was another Constitution class name USS Constitution that was lost sometime before 2240. Which allow the Republic to become a Constitution. Which allow the USS. Eagle to have a lower registry and also the USS. Valiant NCC-1223 to become one, even though the Valiant herself isn't listed as Constitution class. Cause the Eagle registry was NCC-956, the USS. Constitution registry drop down to NX-950 or NCC-950.

Do you have a source for all this, or is this just your opinion? (And I'm aware of what classes Okuda made the ships for the Star Trek Encyclopedia, but I'm not aware of his rationale for doing so.)

It to do with a article that I had read in a Star Trek Magazine back in the 90s or early 2000s of a interview of someone that had work on the Constellation model. He said that the production department went ahead in calling the starship class that the Enterprise was part of Constitution class and that all starships of that class will start out with the Registry number 17. He also said that starting number 17 in registry was decided when they were in the early planing stage of the series. He also talk about the reason why the Constellation gotten it registry number.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

However, by the time the Columbia NX-02 was built, the plaque's information changed. It now reads "Starship number NX-02." But this doesn't apply to the NX-01.

But since the NXes 01 and 02 are of an identical class, then logically speaking, if one of them is a starship the other must also be. (Same goes for the various Constitution-class ships.) Never mind what the dedication plaque - which is not clearly visible anyway - says.

@yenny: There is no actual evidence that the Eagle is a Constitution-class ship. It was represented by a generic starship icon on the Operation Retrieve chart, but that generic icon just happened to look like a Connie. It doesn't mean the ship actually is of that class - it was just a placeholder, to refer to ANY starship, for purposes of the chart. Any resemblance to actual ship classes, living or dead, is purely coincidental.

 

[Dukhat]

But since the NXes 01 and 02 are of an identical class, then logically speaking, if one of them is a starship the other must also be. (Same goes for the various Constitution-class ships.) Never mind what the dedication plaque - which is not clearly visible anyway - says.

That may be true, but the argument was made that the information on the Enterprise-D's plaque referred to five "starships" that bear the name, and that the producers of ENT didn't do their homework in this regard. But if one goes by dedication plaque information alone, that is not the case.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

But if one goes by dedication plaque information alone, that is not the case.

Technically, no, but like I just said - that'd be a bad idea anyway, since plaques can't be clearly read. And if you start going by that, then you'd have to take into account things like the hamster-on-a-wheel in the Ent-D.

 

[Dukhat]

But if one goes by dedication plaque information alone, that is not the case.

Technically, no, but like I just said - that'd be a bad idea anyway, since plaques can't be clearly read. And if you start going by that, then you'd have to take into account things like the hamster-on-a-wheel in the Ent-D.

Technically, yes, because the person who made the argument was using dedication plaque information as its basis, so I counter-argued using the same logic. But for the record, I agree about barely-illegible stuff not needing to be heavily scrutinized.

It to do with a article that I had read in a Star Trek Magazine back in the 90s or early 2000s of a interview of someone that had work on the Constellation model. He said that the production department went ahead in calling the starship class that the Enterprise was part of Constitution class and that all starships of that class will start out with the Registry number 17. He also said that starting number 17 in registry was decided when they were in the early planing stage of the series. He also talk about the reason why the Constellation gotten it registry number.

I'm pretty sure you're referring to Matt Jefferies, who designed the TOS Enterprise, and came up with that "17" registry scheme. But I'm also pretty sure that he had nothing to do with the AMT model that was used as the Constellation, because if he did, the registry wouldn't have been 1017.

 

[Robert Comsol]

Technically, yes, because the person who made the argument was using dedication plaque information as its basis, so I counter-argued using the same logic. But for the record, I agree about barely-illegible stuff not needing to be heavily scrutinized.

Barely-illegible stuff? I do believe this scene says otherwise (and I don't see hamster wheels or the like).

And I wasn't using the dedication plaque as a basis, rather as a Rosetta Stone enabling us to translate the statements of the ship's computer in "Relics" and the investigator in "Trials and Tribble-ations" into the proper context (post # 67).

Bob

P.S. And unless Memory Alpha is incorrect, the dedication plaques of the "A", the "B" and the "E" also state the corresponding starship numbers to "bear the name".

 

[Dukhat]

^Either way, dedication plaque information can't be used as a basis for arguing that the ENT producers didn't do their homework, because the plaque info for all Federation starship Enterprises which state the number of "starships" still jibes with what was printed on the NX-01's plaque. It was never a "starship," but rather a "spacecraft." So no one got anything wrong in this case.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

^ I still think that was just a production mistake. It doesn't make any kind of logical sense for the NX-02 to be a starship but the NX-01 not be, because the ships are identical. Logically speaking, either they're both starships or neither one of them are.

 

[Dukhat]

...because the ships are identical.

They're not completely identical. There are differences in the bridge interior, and the Columbia has a different deflector dish. There could also be other changes that we aren't aware of between the prototype and the NX02 to justify the change in nomenclature

 

[Robert Comsol]

Either way, dedication plaque information can't be used as a basis for arguing that the ENT producers didn't do their homework.

I never used that as a basis, my basis was Timo's information that the NX-01 was designated as a "starship". You cleared this up by referring to the dedication plaque which said "spacecraft". So the ENT producers did their homework, apparently.

With the NX-01 being a "spacecraft" everything is just fine. We then have the Enterprise "starships" starting with NCC-1701 - and the conference lounge wall display on the "D" which illustrates these 5 mentioned in "Relics" and "Trials and Tribble-ations".

Bob

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

...because the ships are identical.

They're not completely identical. There are differences in the bridge interior, and the Columbia has a different deflector dish.

Still, those are extremely minor details. Hardly worth changing a ship's classification over.

 

[Dukhat]

...because the ships are identical.

They're not completely identical. There are differences in the bridge interior, and the Columbia has a different deflector dish.

Still, those are extremely minor details. Hardly worth changing a ship's classification over.

True enough, but we still don't know what Starfleet's rationale is for determining what is a starship and what is a cruiser, spacecraft, etc. In "The Cage" Pike refers to his ship as the "space vehicle" Enterprise. The ship also physically changed between that episode and the rest of TOS. Why did Pike call his ship a space vehicle, while Kirk called the same ship (after minor modifications) a starship? Unless we know how Starfleet makes these determinations, then any theory is plausible.

To be honest however, I think this particular topic is more of a "much ado about nothing" situation, and it doesn't have anything to do with the OP, so I'm going to go ahead and drop it since the dedication plaque distinctions which started this segue have been answered.

And on topic, everyone has forgotten about the U.S.S. Carolina, mentioned in "Friday's Child" and was referred to as a starship. Was she a Constitution class too, or not?

 

[Enterprise1701]

They're not completely identical. There are differences in the bridge interior, and the Columbia has a different deflector dish.

Still, those are extremely minor details. Hardly worth changing a ship's classification over.

True enough, but we still don't know what Starfleet's rationale is for determining what is a starship and what is a cruiser, spacecraft, etc. In "The Cage" Pike refers to his ship as the "space vehicle" Enterprise. The ship also physically changed between that episode and the rest of TOS. Why did Pike call his ship a space vehicle, while Kirk called the same ship (after minor modifications) a starship? Unless we know how Starfleet makes these determinations, then any theory is plausible.

Well is there really a significant difference between referring to the Enterprise as a "space vehicle" and a "starship"? The only difference I see is that the latter implies dedicated interstellar travel capability. And I think we can retroactively justify the early use of the term "space vehicle" as Pike's personal choice of synonyms.

 

[Nerys Myk]

They're not completely identical. There are differences in the bridge interior, and the Columbia has a different deflector dish.

Still, those are extremely minor details. Hardly worth changing a ship's classification over.

True enough, but we still don't know what Starfleet's rationale is for determining what is a starship and what is a cruiser, spacecraft, etc. In "The Cage" Pike refers to his ship as the "space vehicle" Enterprise. The ship also physically changed between that episode and the rest of TOS. Why did Pike call his ship a space vehicle, while Kirk called the same ship (after minor modifications) a starship? Unless we know how Starfleet makes these determinations, then any theory is plausible.

To be honest however, I think this particular topic is more of a "much ado about nothing" situation, and it doesn't have anything to do with the OP, so I'm going to go ahead and drop it since the dedication plaque distinctions which started this segue have been answered.

And on topic, everyone has forgotten about the U.S.S. Carolina, mentioned in "Friday's Child" and was referred to as a starship. Was she a Constitution class too, or not?

The USS Archon is also a "starship" and from the same era as the NX-01.

Captain's Log. Stardate 3156.2. While orbiting planet Beta Three trying to find some trace of the starship Archon that disappeared here a hundred years ago, a search party consisting of two Enterprise officers were sent to the planet below. Mister Sulu has returned, but in a highly agitated mental state. His condition requires I beam down with an additional search detail.

Or course the question remains why would the UFP would include an Earth ship in it's list starships of a certain name? As mentioned the NX-01 is not a Federation starship/space craft/space ship/space vessel so its not on the UFP's "list" of ships called "Enterprise" in it's Starfleet.

 

[T'Girl]

And I think we can retroactively justify the early use of the term "space vehicle" as Pike's personal choice of synonyms.

Might be a simple case of terminology changing over time, we are talking about labels altering after decades or a century.

The NX-01 being a spacecraft, and then the NX-02 being a starship, could have been a political decision. An effort to have the populace see Starfleet as something more, an image change.

 

[Timo]

With the NX-01 being a "spacecraft" everything is just fine.

No, she's definitely a starship. She carries a spacecraft number, but that doesn't change the fact of what sort of spacecraft she is, as established in dialogue.

And on topic, everyone has forgotten about the U.S.S. Carolina, mentioned in "Friday's Child" and was referred to as a starship.

She wasn't referred to as a starship. She did get addressed by that "Youessess" prefix explicitly, suggesting she might have been a Starfleet vessel, but that's it.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Robert Comsol]

Thanks for the clarification regarding the USS Carolina. There is really not a lot to learn other that she is "registered in this sector".

The captain can refer to his ship and in crew's lingo to anything he want, like "our lady" or whatever else. Maybe Archer was the one who coined the term "starship" for the yet to come capital ships of the UFP?

Anyway, in my reality the dog wags the tail, and not the other way round (5 starships named Enterprise prior to “Trials and Tribble-ations” and ST VIII).

Bob

 

[Timo]

The captain can refer to his ship and in crew's lingo to anything he want, like "our lady" or whatever else. Maybe Archer was the one who coined the term "starship" for the yet to come capital ships of the UFP?

Umm, no - everybody (such as the Vulcans) used the same terminology.

Since the term "starship" was extensively used for foreign vessels in that show, we might just as well deduce that it is an originally alien expression. Whether it refers to all stargoing ship types (as in TNG), or to a special top-of-the-line collection of them (as in TOS), we don't know, because from Archer's viewpoint, everything he ever encountered would have been top-of-the-line if his own vessel was!

I don't really see the benefit of shoehorning ships of foreign navies into these "six of them" or "five of them" lists when there is no semantic need. For all we know, Vulcans have had sixteen starships named Enterprise before joining the UFP. I mean, if Intrepid is a good, traditional Vulcan name...

On a separate note, NX-01, much like every vessel out there, got called a number of things. "NX class" was one of them, "starship" was another. This doesn't mean that there would have been a contradiction, or that one name would be less official than the other. Just like Kirk's ride can be Constitution class, heavy cruiser class and starship class at the same time (and perhaps also of H class, WTF class or whatever to boot, to keep with the occasional letter theme for Starfleet hardware in TOS).

Timo Saloniemi