Topic: constitution class question

[Don Karnage]

as everyone know the USS constitution is NCC 1700 constitution class,  there are 3 prototypes the constellation NCC 1017, the eagle NCC 956, republic 1371 and other ship with number below 1700, so if they are all constitution class why some of them have a  number below 1700?, should the constitution class have a lower number or should they be called eagle class or something like that?, if they are prototypes for the constitution class why do they have a lower number?, where they another class similar to the constitution or did they use another class and convert them to the constitution for testing?

[Clark Kent]

I don't know about the others, but the constellation was 1017 as a cost measure because it was easier for them to just rearrange the numbers rather than try to make a new model with new numbers.  I don't remember seeing any of the others in the series though.

[Chris Johnson]

Canon-wise, the other Constitution-class ships you mentioned aren't prototypes.  Also, there's no canon explination of the registries, but they're roughly-chronological.  I figured the first Constitution-class Starship was, well, the U.S.S. Constitution!  Like how the U.S.S. Excelsior was the first Excelsior-class Starship, how the U.S.S. Galaxy was the first Galaxy-class Starship, etc.  Traditionally in Starfleet, it seems the first of a new class of starship's name is also the name of that specific class of starship.

[Pestalence_XC]

as everyone know the USS constitution is NCC 1700 constitution class, there are 3 prototypes the constellation NCC 1017, the eagle NCC 956, republic 1371 and other ship with number below 1700, so if they are all constitution class why some of them have a number below 1700?, should the constitution class have a lower number or should they be called eagle class or something like that?, if they are prototypes for the constitution class why do they have a lower number?, where they another class similar to the constitution or did they use another class and convert them to the constitution for testing?

Actually, if you go by canon referencing.. the ship design from TOS is "Starships Class" as denoted on the bridge dedication plaque seen in many of the TOS episodes.. the actual first canon reference of Constitution Class is the NCC-1701-A as seen in ST V.

In TNG, Canon was altered a bit in "Relics" when Piccard stated "Constitution Class" for the TOS bridge in the holodeck.. this is explained generaly as I can infer (since there is no canon reference for accuracy) as such :

the U.S.S. Enterprise was already over 40 years old when Kirk got command of her.. approx 14 years after Captain Pike's first trip to Talos IV (cira "The Managerie" and "The Cage")...

After the Romulan / Terran war, Starfleet turned back to deep space exploration and assigned 12 of it's Starship Class vessels to a 5 year exploration mission.. it is supposed that the U.S.S. Constitution was the first assigned to this role and by Federation history, may have footnoted Constitution Class to the Starship Class hull design because of the assignment... in later years, since ship class was started to be given to first of line ships (starting in TMP and TWOK with "Enterprise Class" for the NCC-1701 refit), the Starship Class hull designed was nicknamed Constitution Class because of the 5 year mission and it stuck in people's minds over the course of time..

See, in TOS, the ships were classified by Duty Roll and not First of Line... also the hull design is very old.. the Enterprise was 40 when Kirk got her... first captained by Robert April, then Christopher Pike, then James Kirk.. as such, proving a long life of the ship.. now another assumption is that before the federation started grouping registry numbers to specific hull designs or classes, the registries were put out by order of commissioning.. as such, the Constitution was the 1700th ship to be comissioned into service, thus NCC-1700.. then the Enterprise was the 1701th ship to be comissioned, thus NCC-1701.. and so forth.. when the Federation started making specific classes based off the build of the first of line for a ship hull, they also grouped the hull registries as well to match the hull... as such, the Excelcior class ships all have 2000's in the registry.. as such, NCC-2000 USS Excelcior, Excelcior Class.. the only exception to this rule ws the major event of honoring Kirk by keeping the Enterprise legacy alive.. and keeping the hull registry alive as well.. as such the only Excelcior to cary a non 2000 numbering is the USS Enterprise NCC-1701-B, Excelcior Class starship, same goes for all the other Enterprise name carrying ships.. if you notice on screen if they show 2 ships side by side ofthe same class, or more than 2 ships, the Enterprise is the only one with an odd hull registry for the hull design.. the Enterprise is the flagship for the Federation, thus the honoring.. basically given to this particular ship name because of the Starship Class Enterprise being the first, if not only ship of the 12 to return intact from the 5 year mission with successful completion of the directives, thus earning the Enterprise ship emblem, the delta, to become the symbol of Starfleet and the Enterprise to always be the Federation Flagship... also the return of only 1 Starship Class vessel intact after the 5 year mission proved to the Federation and Starfleet that Deep Space travel was far more dangerous than any of their leaders had first thought.. thus driving home the importance of the NCC-1701 USS Enterprise being the symbol of Starfleet and being Starfleet's flagship.. it makes an unspoken statement that no matter what, we will persevere over obsticles and strive for knowledge even if the persuit of the knowledge is dangerous.

anyhow, that is my interpretation that best befalls into the established canon as seen onscreen...

Books are non canon.. as such, any quotes from books in conjectural.. and what I stated above, though logical is conjectural, but it best fits into established canon of Star Trek.

[Chris Johnson]

Actually, if you go by canon referencing.. the ship design from TOS is "Starships Class" as denoted on the bridge dedication plaque seen in many of the TOS episodes.. the actual first canon reference of Constitution Class is the NCC-1701-A as seen in ST V.

If you truely want canon, turn to Paramount and powers-that-be.  No offense intended whatsoever (and I stress it because my post may be interpreted otherwise, and if I offended you I apologize for doing so), but like it or not, Enterprise is canon Trek too, and the U.S.S. Enterprise (NCC-1701)--original and refits--is a Constitution-class Starship and the Enterprise herself (by 2285 in Star Trek III) is 40, not 60, if we go by the 2245 canon launch date.  20 if we go by an Admiral's explination of Enterprise's decommisioning in 2285, but it can be said that he made an error and the crew self-noted that but chose not to speak out.  The U.S.S. Defiant, in the soon-to-come episode "In a Mirror, Darkly" [ENT], is also a Constitution-class Starship.  But we've gone down this road before.  And as I keep saying, canon isn't everyting.

Interesting though that Morrow (Was that the Admiral's name when he was in Star Trek III?  The admiral explaining why Enterprise is being decomissioned.) was right on the Enterprise's age since her first incarnation in "The Cage" [TOS] in 1964, and that Star Trek III came out in theaters in 1984.

[Pestalence_XC]

Where on screen is it stated the 2245 launch date?

Enterprise is not titled Star Trek... all Canon references are to Star Trek, Star Trek: TMP, Star Trek II: TWOK, Star Trek III: TSFS, Star Trek IV: TVH, Star Trek V: TFF, Star Trek VI: TUC, Star Trek: TNG, Star Trek: Generations, Star Trek: First Contact, Star Trek: Deep Space 9, Star Trek: Voyager, Star Trek: Insurrection, Star Trek: Nemisis.

notice the patttern for the Star Trek series listed...

now what makes this different than Enterprise?

Enterprise is not titled Star Trek : Enterprise.. thus it is not Star Trek.. it is listed as "Based on Star Trek created by Gene Roddenberry".. as such, an extrapolation of a possible pre history.. since Star Trek is not a direct title name, the series Enterprise can be dismissed easily...

Also, if you go back to Gene Roddenberry and / or his wife, Majel Barret.. Gene stated that canon is what is shown on screen and what is FIRST SHOWN onscreen is establised canon,, anything after the establised canon is someone who can not do their research and should be disreguarded...

Also, B & B stated that they were going to do their best to change Trek into thier image and completely wipe out the Trek of Gene's dream, which is why Majel Barret refuses to have anything to do with Enterprise and Paramount refused to allow the series to be titled "Star Trek: Enterprise".. as such, Enterprise, since it is not titled Star Trek, and because it violates previous established canon, and because Majel, Gene's widowess, spits on the series.. it again can be easily dismissed...

but I'll not argue that point again..

Canon is establised in Trek as when first aired on TV... since TOS was first aired, the NCC-1701 is Starship Class, the NCC-1701 Refit is Enterprise Class, the NCC-1701-A is Constitution Class, the NCC-1701-B is Excelcior Class, the NCC-1701-C is Ambassador class, the NCC-1701-D is Galaxy Class, the NCC-1701-E is Soverign class.. as canonized by order of first airing and in accordance with Gene Roddenberry's dictation of how Trek canon is established... Anything else is pure fandom and conjectural.

[Age]

   They B&B  later threw in Star Trek though not at the wishes of Paramount but at the orders of Viacom to get the ratings back up so much for that idea.That was Viacoms decision and anything that Viacom as to do with Trek turns to rot just look at the Trek gaming industry still going no where and they are still looking for staff to make the MMORPG.They Viacom are in it for the money not for the that is what it all boils down does it not.

[IndyShark]

Pestalence, you said that the Enterprise was the only ship to return from her 5 year mission. Was she the first or the only? I don't think I have heard that the other 11 were lost, but at least three or four that I can think of were.

[Clark Kent]

Also, if you go back to Gene Roddenberry and / or his wife, Majel Barret.. Gene stated that canon is what is shown on screen and what is FIRST SHOWN onscreen is establised canon,, anything after the establised canon is someone who can not do their research and should be disreguarded...

Also, B & B stated that they were going to do their best to change Trek into thier image and completely wipe out the Trek of Gene's dream, which is why Majel Barret refuses to have anything to do with Enterprise and Paramount refused to allow the series to be titled "Star Trek: Enterprise".. as such, Enterprise, since it is not titled Star Trek, and because it violates previous established canon, and because Majel, Gene's widowess, spits on the series.. it again can be easily dismissed...

Isn't she in charge of that God awful show andromeda?  Best not to use her as a reference point, depsite her marital relationships.

[FPF-Tobin Dax]

Age got you Pesty. Star Trek: Enterprise has been on the opening credits for awhile.

[Chris Johnson]

I believe canon is rubbish from Paramount and the behind-the-scenes people doing Trek since the late-1980s on what's official.  It's some overhyped thing that, although was good at first for starting points in defining your own ideal Trek universe, where it goes should depend on how you view it.  After all, there's going to be some turns on the road to canon that you might not think is a good idea to turn onto...  And that's where Pestalence does his own different turns down the road on where he disagrees.  There's some areas where he's even got perfect traffic (very little if any other "cars") down the road.  Where he goes on assumptions or beliefs at times can be canonical, but others at times are roads he turn onto where Canon just went another path.
Where am I going with this metaphor, Pest?  Well, just because what you view as some originally-intended idea in names and events of Trek doesn't make it any more canon than, say, Atrahasis's view or Masao Okazaki's view or even my own view.  But that doesn't mean we can't continue on thinking in our ways of what Trek is... I subscribe to one way, you with another.  Although I believe at times that it could seem that you're defining your way as the way (For example, by saying sometimes that this is canon and that isn't, etc.), I still have respect for it as another ideal way of viewing Trek.  So it's just a simple disagreement we have.

I'd like to end my post by quoting Gene Roddenberry's son: "Star Trek has been something that I've learned from you guys, not from watching it on TV.  You guys have told me some of the most amazing stories and I've met some of the most amazing people." -- Eugene "Rod" Roddenberry addressing a crowd of fans.

[FPF-Tobin Dax]

Check out startrek.com for registries based on the show and manuals. The ship class numbers were not confined to the 1700s and that idea of them all being 17-something should be eliminated. In the TOS episode court martial, there is a graphic on the wall that is somewhat ledgible showing the varied numbers of the"starships" Including the republic and Intrepid below.

At any rate, from the paramount liscenced sources:

 956 - Eagle
1017- Constellation
1371- Republic
1631- Intrepid
1647- Farragut
1657- Potemkin
1664- Excalibur
1672- Exeter
1700- Constitution
1701- Enterprise
1703- Hood
1709- Lexington
1717- Yorktown
1764- Defiant

If you like, assume an available registry number was available when being built, until someone came up with the A-alpha designation for a rebuild which we could assume, started with the Enterprise-A due to the outstanding accomplishments of her Captain and crew.

[Chris Johnson]

Check out startrek.com for registries based on the show and manuals. The ship class numbers were not confined to the 1700s and that idea of them all being 17-something should be eliminated.

No.  No it shouldn't.  Why?  Let me quote myself here:

I believe canon is rubbish from Paramount and the behind-the-scenes people doing Trek since the late-1980s on what's official.  It's some overhyped thing that, although was good at first for starting points in defining your own ideal Trek universe, where it goes should depend on how you view it.  After all, there's going to be some turns on the road to canon that you might not think is a good idea to turn onto...

[FPF-Tobin Dax]

Check out startrek.com for registries based on the show and manuals. The ship class numbers were not confined to the 1700s and that idea of them all being 17-something should be eliminated.

No.  No it shouldn't.  Why?  Let me quote myself here:

I believe canon is rubbish from Paramount and the behind-the-scenes people doing Trek since the late-1980s on what's official.  It's some overhyped thing that, although was good at first for starting points in defining your own ideal Trek universe, where it goes should depend on how you view it.  After all, there's going to be some turns on the road to canon that you might not think is a good idea to turn onto...

Um, read carefully yourself. You say cannon is rubbish "since the late-1980's". I actually quoted  a classic trek episode, "court martial" from the 66-67 season and the numbers and ship names on the wall chart behind Commodore Stone whom Kirk is talking to. Therefore there is no reason for anybody to assume that they all have to be numbered in the 1700s. The voyage home in 1986 starts the A, B, C, D trend, possibly to allow for the enterprise D in the Next generation series coming on the heels of the 4th trek movie. Go have fun with the alphabet part, 1986 and on, but not TOS 66-69.

[Chris Johnson]

Why don't we start assuming that there is no UFP, but just some Earth organization such as the UESPA?  Why don't we go with the fact that Phasers are also proximity-based torpedo-like weapons as well?  Vulcan isn't the name of the Vulcan homeworld, it's Vulcanis.  Pest was right about the Enterprise being a Starship-class!

Do you see where I'm going about canon?  I'm trying to imply that it's rubbish, plain and simple, and that discussions like this can get out of hand due to one person's interpretation being different than another, and it might've happened before the late-1980s, but I think that since TNG, canon became a Star Trek fan's daily issue.  Why?

[FPF-Tobin Dax]

TOS is the basis of all things trek. The thread question relates back to TOS. Now you are expanding your previous canon is rubbish from the late 80's on, to all trek is rubbish. If that's your view, why are you even bothering to respond to Don's thread here? Whether starship class or constitution class, TOS shows these ships to be of the same class and firmly establishes via a few episodes that there is a wide range in numbering. It's undeniable . Enjoy trying to explain why it's this way if you like.

[Captain Pierce]

The chart in "Court-Martial" makes it canon that there are starships with those registries, yes; however, it links no names with said registries.

"Court-Martial" aired one week after Kirk told Captain Christopher "there are only twelve like it in the Fleet."  There are 10 registries on that chart in "Court-Martial."  To assume, as Greg Jein or Mike Okuda (or whoever it was) did, that they all belong to Constitution-class ships is to assume that all but two (or three, if you want to assume that Kirk meant twelve others) of the Constitution-class ships was at one Starbase at one time.  IMHO, that is a highly unlikely scenario. 

The only registry on the chart that we know belongs to a Constitution-class ship (other than 1701, of course ) is NCC-1700, and that's only because a diagram of a Constitution-class ship labeled NCC-1700 appeared on a console in a TNG episode.  Intrepid is mentioned in dialogue, but do we even know from any canon source that Intrepid was a Constitution?  I know it's widely been assumed, but we never actually saw her in the episode where she got destroyed, so it really could have been any class of ship unless there's something in the dialogue that I'm forgetting...  (I really have to get TOS Season 2 on DVD soon...  )

[Chris Johnson]

Tobin, like Pest, I interpret your message as if your way of seeing Trek was ideal and the way and the many other ways were wrong.  If I'm right, then why?  If I'm wrong, then I apologize.  Also in my second post you refered to, I re-worded for better understanding.  My view hadn't changed one bit.  I'm sorry for not being clear enough on how I view Trek and how I view canon.

[Capt_Bearslayer_XC]

Check out startrek.com for registries based on the show and manuals. The ship class numbers were not confined to the 1700s and that idea of them all being 17-something should be eliminated. In the TOS episode court martial, there is a graphic on the wall that is somewhat ledgible showing the varied numbers of the"starships" Including the republic and Intrepid below.

At any rate, from the paramount liscenced sources:


1672- Exeter

When the hell did the Exeter become NCC-1672?!?!?!?

The USS Exeter will always be NCC-1706 to me.

Screw the inconsistencies of Paramount 'canon'.

Not to mention that some of these ships are now commisioned BEFORE the lead ship of the class?!?!?!?

[Pestalence_XC]

Pestalence, you said that the Enterprise was the only ship to return from her 5 year mission. Was she the first or the only? I don't think I have heard that the other 11 were lost, but at least three or four that I can think of were.

That was never specified.. we know she was the first to return intact.. whether she was the only one or not is unknown in onscreen canon