Topic: Dumb Question, BUT...

[Smiley]

Where are the aft firing torpedo tubes on a Connie?

[Vipre]

Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr


 

[Wicked Zombie]

It depends on which version. The TOS Enterprise most likely didn't have aft tubes, or at the least, never had a reason to use them onscreen. The TOS Defiant on Ent fired from the neck/saucer connection area. The TMP Connie obviously doesn't have aft tubes. Then there's the designs from other sources which gives even more options to choose from.

Some people get rather militant about the Defiant firing aft weapons, regardless of the fact that no two ships are ever going to be identical. It basically just comes down to which variant you prefer and whether or not you care about the dozens of fan designs and publications floating around.

[Smiley]

I was chatting to Atolm about this and apparently, as you suggest, there are no aft firing torpedo launchers on a Constitution. [If the TMP refit did not have them, it is logical to assume that the TOS version definitely did not have them - why remove something instead upgrading it when upgrading the whole ship? Simple, they were never there to upgrade in the first place.]

Apparently they are fired from the forward launchers in the neck and track around to targets at the rear like on a nautical submarine.

The funny thing is that I didn't think that the torpedos in TMP tracked...? Seems like most games go on the 'direct-fire' philosophy, i.e. it has to be within the facing arc of the weapon mount before it can get a target lock?

[Vipre]

I was chatting to Atolm about this and apparently, as you suggest, there are no aft firing torpedo launchers on a Constitution. [If the TMP refit did not have them, it is logical to assume that the TOS version definitely did not have them - why remove something instead upgrading it when upgrading the whole ship? Simple, they were never there to upgrade in the first place.]

Apparently they are fired from the forward launchers in the neck and track around to targets at the rear like on a nautical submarine.

The funny thing is that I didn't think that the torpedoes in TMP tracked...? Seems like most games go on the 'direct-fire' philosophy, i.e. it has to be within the facing arc of the weapon mount before it can get a target lock?

Correct and correct. Photon torpedoes do in fact track targets like on a nautical submarine, they suck at it however before TNG. Right again that they can only track in the forward arc. At best they can lock on in a 120 degree arc left or right and a 60 degree down. Ent can sod off for all I care, there is no way a standard torpedo can fire at a target to the rear of the ship. I would allow for a special torpedo that can be 'dropped' like a probe facing aft then activate it's engine, but it'd probably only be useful for hitting stationary targets.

Oh yeah, As for 'In a Mirror Darkly', before this there wasn't an aft firing tube. I offer 3 options for this stupidity 1) That Defiant is from an alternate reality and isn't really the one seen in the TOS episode, 2) The FX guys screwed the pooch or 3) The writers just needed the ship to fire a torpedo at something behind the ship and did the best they could. In any case I think it should be an exception and not used to rewrite all that came before it.

[Greenvalv]

I like these blueprints: http://www.cygnus-x1.net/links/lcars/blueprints-main2.php
 
This one show's the torp launcher below the bridge...
 

[Vipre]

That's a sweet pic. I myself pulled out my first edition copy of the Starfleet Technical Manual to see why on earth In a Mirror Darkly's Defiant was firing phasers from a Homing Beacon and Navigational Array. 

http://www.cygnus-x1.net/links/lcars/blueprints/federation-starship-uss-enterprise-sheet-13.jpg

[Smiley]

Ok so the pic that has been just been posted has contradicted all of the talk? The item labelled as 'X' is the Aft Torpedo Launcher.....?

[Vipre]

Ok so the pic that has been just been posted has contradicted all of the talk? The item labelled as 'X' is the Aft Torpedo Launcher.....?

That picture is wrong, that area is smooth on the model. I dont know why everthing else on it is correct, but trust me there has never been a rear firing torpedo tube on the TOS Constitution clas starship.

[Hexx]

Heh basically either realize that "Star Trek Continuity" is a complete oxymoron.
Or simply (as mentioned) go with the fact that (even today) different ships of the same class have different layouts
including different weapons.
If it really bothers you just go with the fact that all the Consitution Class schematics are for the original, and the Defiant was
a Constitution-b or something

[Greenvalv]

From the episode...
 

 
See the phaser nodes (As small as they are)?
 

[Vipre]

He basically either realize that "Star Trek Continuity" is a complete oxymoron.
Or simply (as mentioned) go with the fact that (even today) different ships of the same class have different layouts
including different weapons.
If it really bothers you just go with the fact that all the Constitution Class schematics are for the original, and the Defiant was
a Constitution-b or something

That's what I've been saying. Thank you. Look a the Defiant as an exception. The TOS Enterprise couldn't fire torpedoes aft, the TMP Enterprise couldn't fire a torpedo aft, that picture is from a schematic booklet done in 2001, The Franz Joseph Technical manual made no mention of aft tubes in '75 but listed all the other weapon hardpoints. If you want to make a Constitution variant with an aft tube go for it, but it wasn't part of the standard package.

[Vipre]

From the episode...
 

 
See the phaser nodes (As small as they are)?
 

Thanks Greenvalv, I haven't seen that second shot before, only the one that's showing the beams. That clearly shows the phaser node next to the Nav array and clears my confusion.

[Tus-XC]

wz had the best response, as it is the one that most closely represents real world, no two ships are made the same, who is to say the the defiant was not a variant that had rear torps on it.  Anything else is purely speculation (and i do believe onscreen they said photon torpedoes... so what you are going to tell me is that they hit the wrong button right? )

[Vipre]

wz had the best response, as it is the one that most closely represents real world, no two ships are made the same, who is to say the the defiant was not a variant that had rear torps on it.  Anything else is purely speculation (and i do believe onscreen they said photon torpedoes... so what you are going to tell me is that they hit the wrong button right? )

Naaahhh not me    I agree with you and WZ but see my 3 options post as that's workable as well. Anyone remember the multiverse TNG episode with the solar system full of Ent-D's?

The only thing that really irks me is that for near 30 years the weapons loadout of the quote unquote stock Constituion has been accepted to be 6 phaser banks (3x2 top of the saucer & 3x2 bottom) and two torpedo tubes (forward arc). Now because of lazy writers everyone's trying to rewrite the past. I say loudly 'Keep your stinking history rewriting hands off my starship!  '

[Greenvalv]

They did fire torpedos...
 

 
Left the tube...
 

 
Close up of torpedo (Interesting looking)...
 

 
EDIT:  Thought I'd add this pic as well (Phaser nodes on the saucer, again small)...
 

[Vipre]

I've a question, with all the time travel stuff in ENT is it possible they pulled a Babylon 4 with the defiant? The Tholians drug it through a rift into an alternate diminsion and then refit the ship with additional weapons? The TOS Connie didn't have a phaser bank above the shuttle bay either and those are really strange looking torpedoes. I stick with the 'It's a Defiant from an alternate reality that closely resembles TOS but isn't'  to all

[Atolm-Rising]

the Connie is a class, each ship for the most part are variants...lets review the on screen evidence:
original Connies Ent vs later Ent, vs later than that Ent, vs Constellation
TMP Refit Ent vs ST:4/5 Ent-A
Then Ent-A ST:6 retro-fit
TNG Galaxy Ent vs Galaxy classed Challenger, Yamato, Odessey, Venture
Nebula-class Phoenix vs Sutherland, Endeavor
All the Miranda classes are different
All the Oberths are different
damn even the Excells are different, and Defiants
Oh and of course the Constellation Hathaway vs the Stargazer....
So it would seem that all the fed ships follow (on screen wize) actual Naval vessel ideology

oh damn I forgot...
All the Rom ships and Klink ships do it too
Oh and the Spoonhead Cardassians do aswell

And best of all this our favored game SFC follows this ideology too, a connie hull as a CA, FCA, CC, etc...
so most likely and in all likely-hood the ships were made to show differences in advancement, ease of differenciating to same-class vessels from each other for the viewer, time and budgeting, lazyness...etc...

I personally subscribe to WZ's and Tus' accessments of the ships (no surprise there) as it makes the most sense in an "if Trek was real setting".

[intermech]

I design major components of ships for a living (seagoing). Generally, a company will take an existing design, and closely emulate those features in the next design, however, component price and availablity is always changing. In addition, there is always a wishlist of improvements for the next design.  As a result, you get several ships that look nearly exactly the same to the untrained eye and have the same class name, but they may act and perform differently. There are even several instances where I have seen purposely scaled-down versions of the same class ship. While this messes with the rigid ship classing concepts used by order-loving Trekkers, it is certainly realistic to see two "Constitution Class" starships performing very different tasks and sprouting new components when "convenient." So, I would go with Atolm, WZ, and TUS; no two ships are exactly alike, and further more, a single ship itself is an evolving entity, hopefully ever increasing its efficiency and productivity. SFC series is great about getting this concept across with all of the varients available.

[Lieutenant_Q]

Well, Here's my take on it.

The first 12 Connie Cruisers were similar to the Enterprise.  When Kirk said there was twelve like them in the fleet (to Captain Christopher), it meant that there was twelve Constitution Class Cruisers at the time.  Which would be 1071 Constellation, 1371 Republic, 1700 Constitution, 1701 Enterprise, 1703 Lexington, 1704 Yorktown, 1705 Excalibur, 1706 Exeter, 1707 Hood, 1710 Kongo, 1711 Potemkin, theres another one but I can't find/nor remember the hull number and name.

The next set was 1712 Bonhomme Richard, which while still looking like a Constitution, had some subtle difference that may or may not have included rear firing torpedoes.  1764 Defiant obviously belongs to this subclass.

(Of course, MY take on it is going to be completely thrown out most likely when TOS remastered gets to The Omega Glory or The Ulitmate Computer)

[Vipre]

I design major components of ships for a living (seagoing). Generally, a company will take an existing design, and closely emulate those features in the next design, however, component price and availablity is always changing. In addition, there is always a wishlist of improvements for the next design.  As a result, you get several ships that look nearly exactly the same to the untrained eye and have the same class name, but they may act and perform differently. There are even several instances where I have seen purposely scaled-down versions of the same class ship. While this messes with the rigid ship classing concepts used by order-loving Trekkers, it is certainly realistic to see two "Constitution Class" starships performing very different tasks and sprouting new components when "convenient." So, I would go with Atolm, WZ, and TUS; no two ships are exactly alike, and further more, a single ship itself is an evolving entity, hopefully ever increasing its efficiency and productivity. SFC series is great about getting this concept across with all of the varients available.

I'm totally on-board with this concept. From a TOS fan perspective or more so from a gaming standpoint a "base" class must be decided on. It's been long accepted in gaming that the Enterprise 1701 has only two forward arc firing torpedoes and 6 banks of phasers on the primary hull and I hold this to be the standard. Refits allow for changes such as aft firing phasers and so on. There's no conflict in this. Only when attempts are made to say "well this new episode of a new series shows X so all of those ships now have X where they didn't before" As a variant fine, as a concept based on how things work in the real world fine, but only as an exception to the existing standards and not a replacement of them.

God I'm such a geek.

[Vipre]

Well, Here's my take on it.

The first 12 Connie Cruisers were similar to the Enterprise.  When Kirk said there was twelve like them in the fleet (to Captain Christopher), it meant that there was twelve Constitution Class Cruisers at the time.  Which would be 1071 Constellation, 1371 Republic, 1700 Constitution, 1701 Enterprise, 1703 Lexington, 1704 Yorktown, 1705 Excalibur, 1706 Exeter, 1707 Hood, 1710 Kongo, 1711 Potemkin, theres another one but I can't find/nor remember the hull number and name.

The next set was 1712 Bonhomme Richard, which while still looking like a Constitution, had some subtle difference that may or may not have included rear firing torpedoes.  1764 Defiant obviously belongs to this subclass.

(Of course, MY take on it is going to be completely thrown out most likely when TOS remastered gets to The Omega Glory or The Ulitmate Computer)

Farragut 1702, Intrepid 1708 <all Vulcans killed by space ameoba wasn't it? Valiant 1709 Pick 1, I think the Farragut had been decomissioned before 2265

[Don Karnage]

Well, Here's my take on it.

The first 12 Connie Cruisers were similar to the Enterprise.  When Kirk said there was twelve like them in the fleet (to Captain Christopher), it meant that there was twelve Constitution Class Cruisers at the time.  Which would be 1071 Constellation, 1371 Republic, 1700 Constitution, 1701 Enterprise, 1703 Lexington, 1704 Yorktown, 1705 Excalibur, 1706 Exeter, 1707 Hood, 1710 Kongo, 1711 Potemkin, theres another one but I can't find/nor remember the hull number and name.

The next set was 1712 Bonhomme Richard, which while still looking like a Constitution, had some subtle difference that may or may not have included rear firing torpedoes.  1764 Defiant obviously belongs to this subclass.

(Of course, MY take on it is going to be completely thrown out most likely when TOS remastered gets to The Omega Glory or The Ulitmate Computer)

Farragut 1702, Intrepid 1708 <all Vulcans killed by space ameoba wasn't it? Valiant 1709 Pick 1, I think the Farragut had been decomissioned before 2265

the Constellation is 1017 or the correct number 1710, the lexinton might be the 1709, the yorktown 1717, excalibur 1711, exeter 1672, hood 1703, potemkin 1657, eagle 1738, farragut 1647, intrepid 1707, krieger 1726, valiant 1223, ticonderoga 1736, archernar 1732, endeavor 1716.  the number are from eras of war and other ship.

[Lieutenant_Q]

I don't agree with those hull numbers Don Karnage.  Because it would indicate that the Exeter, Valiant and Potemkin are all ships that are older than the Consitution, despite being Constitution Class.

I also don't agree with the Farragut being a Consitution Class Vessel.  If it was a Constitution, Kirk was serving on a brand new ship right out of the academy.  Possible, yes, but then the hull number would be 1702 and it wouldn't have been decommisioned in 2265. (the Connie was still in its heyday then)

The Constellation is seen on screen with the Hull Numbers 1071.  That can be explained this simple way.  Starfleet can issue a special dispensation to rename a new ship after an older one if the older ship acheived something very significant.  The best example is the Sao Paulo being renamed to Defiant.  The Constellation was an older starship (possibly Baton Rouge Class) that achieved something spectacular, and thus when they were building a new Consitution, they gave it the Constellation's name and old registry.

[ModelsPlease]

Credits: This timeline chronology was originally compiled by James Dixon. Modifications and additions by Liam Collins and Ian Dickson.
 
2217, March 16
The U.S.S. "Constitution" (NCC-1700) cruiser is launched
[U.S.S. Enterprise Officers Manual, Ships of the Star Fleet, U.S.S. Enterprise Heavy Cruiser Evolution Blueprints]

2217, June 30
- The "Constitution" class cruisers are reclassified as heavy cruisers. Note that "Starship Class" designation will by synonymous with this class' type and/or nominal classification for over 70 years [Ships of the Star Fleet, Star Trek IV: "The Voyage Home"].
 
2218, May 3
The U.S.S. "Constitution" (NCC-1700) heavy cruiser is commissioned. This starship class will total 14 ships and, as other heavy cruisers of similar design are constructed over the next century, this class will be uprated to match the current state-of-the-art technologies. The "Constitution" will be be the first ship to apprehend the smuggler Kojiro Vance, captain of the S.S. "Kobayashi Maru" (ex-"Gas'Tath") in orbit around Ti'Ruben, confiscating the contraband merchant ship. The U.S.S. "Constitution" will also be credited in verifying the existence of the D-7 "Klolode" class Klingon warships "Klothos" ("Carnage," KL 99970) and "Tabor" ("Powerful," KL 85269) on stardate 4517.23, and later the "Marta" ("Corona," ChR 333) in Romulan service on 6348.17. Later on, the U.S.S. "Constitution" will be the first starship to encounter a prototype Klingon "K't'inga" class battlecruiser, "Ykir" ("Usurper," KL 17675) in 2264 near Gamma Canaris and will sustain considerable hull damage. She will later serve as the lead vessel, again, for a new heavy cruiser variant named the "Constitution (II)" class, be recommissioned in 2271 and assigned to Fleet Subquadrant 3 South. The uniform insignia of the U.S.S. "Constitution" may take the form of a circle overlaid upon a horizontal ellipse
[U.S.S. Enterprise Heavy Cruiser Evolution Blueprints, Ships of the Star Fleet, S.S. Kobayashi Maru Blueprints, From the Files of Star Fleet Command, Federation Reference Series, Starfleet Uniform Recognition Manual].

2218, July 16
- The "USS Enterprise" is laid down at UESPA in San Francisco Yards on Earth [U.S.S. Enterprise Heavy Cruiser Evolution Blueprints, Ships of the Star Fleet].
 
2220, July SECOND LYRAN-KZINTI WAR BEGINS 
- The U.S.S. "Enterprise" (NCC-1701) is launched from Earth. Captain Robert April takes her out on a shakedown cruise, following her christening by the U.F.P.'s President Samuel Solomon Qasr. The "Enterprise's" First Officer is Shundresh, Chief Engineer is Kursley, Navigator is Lt. Po, and her Helmsman is Lt. Nobis [Star Trek Log 7, [Ships of the Star Fleet, U.S.S. Enterprise Heavy Cruiser Evolution Blueprints, The Making of Star Trek, Starfleet Handbooks]
- Captain Krenn in command of the I.K.V. "Fencer" captures a Willall ship. Analysis of the captured starship will give the Klingons dilithium-focused warp drive. Captain Krenn is later ordered to serve as an ambassador to the U.F.P., a long-duration voyage of over a year [TOS 16: "The Final Reflection"].
 
2220, September
- On September 8, the U.S.S. "Farragut" (NCC-1702) "Constitution" class heavy cruiser is laid down at Star Fleet Division, Puget Sound Yards, Earth [Ships of the Star Fleet, U.S.S. Enterprise Heavy Cruiser Evolution Blueprints]
- On September 13, The U.S.S. "Lexington" (NCC-1703) "Constitution" class heavy cruiser is laid down at Star Fleet Division, Puget Sound Yards, Earth [Ships of the Star Fleet, U.S.S. Enterprise Heavy Cruiser Evolution Blueprints]
2220, October 19
The U.S.S. "Yorktown" (NCC-1704) "Constitution" class heavy cruiser is laid down at Star Fleet Division, San Francisco Yards, Earth [Ships of the Star Fleet, U.S.S. Enterprise Heavy Cruiser Evolution Blueprints]
2221, January
- On January 3, the U.S.S. "Excalibur" (NCC-1705) "Constitution" class heavy cruiser is laid down at Star Fleet Division, San Francisco Yards, Earth [Ships of the Star Fleet, U.S.S. Enterprise Heavy Cruiser Evolution Blueprints]
- On January 5, the U.S.S. "Enterprise" (NCC-1701) heavy cruiser is commissioned with two (4680 TEV rarium) laser banks, monotronic computers, and a complement of 403. Captain Robert T. April takes her out on her first deep-space mission: galaxy exploration and investigation, beginning with the patrol of the 9th quadrant, from Alpha Centauri to the outer Pinial Galaxy limit. Captain April's "Enterprise" officers at this stage may consist of: Chief Engineer Charles Fourrier, Communications Officer Karen Van Fleet, Helmsman Luis Ferarra, Science Officer Gregor Allinsky, and Medical Officer Sarah April. Easily the most famous "Constitution" class starship, in her long service life she will be commanded by Captains Pike, Kirk, and Spock before her self-destruction in 2287. Her normal patrol zone will eventually be Fleet Subquadrant 3 South throughout most of her service life. A residence hull will honor the "Enterprise's" name at the First Fleet Star Fleet Academy. The "Enterprise" might be the first ship to utilize the classic arrowhead uniform insignia. The insignia's design is based upon the energy expenditure curves associated with normal space and warp drive travel established by Zefram Cochrane in the 21st Century [U.S.S. Enterprise Heavy Cruiser Evolution Blueprints, Ships of the Star Fleet, The Making of Star Trek, Star Trek Maps, Starfleet Academy Student Handbook, Starfleet Uniform Recognition Manual, TOS Giant Novel 18: "Federation"].

2222 FEDERATION-KLINGON WAR ENDS
- The U.S.S. "Farragut" (NCC-1702) heavy cruiser is commissioned. A longlived ship, she will be assigned to Fleet Subquadrant 1 South. Christopher Pike will serve aboard her as an Ensign in the 2230s and James Kirk will likewise serve aboard her in the 2250s (then under the command of Captain Garrovick). Garrovick will die with half his crew during the attack of a Vampire Cloud creature but the ship will remain in service. Captain Kelly Bogle will be in command of the "Farragut" c. late 2262 shortly before being assigned to Star Fleet's Plans and Policy commission. Captain Phillips will assume command of the "Farragut" in 2264 in time for the warp-powered shield test wargames with the "Enterprise." The "Farragut" will be one of three (then-reclassified) command cruisers in 2278 to be converted to a strike carrier. The ship will be refitted many times, and in the late 2280s to "Enterprise (II)" specs and assigned to Fleet Subquadrant 2 North. In the 24th Century she will continue as an active starship, rechristened the U.S.S. "Centurion" and crewed by Magna Romans, she will be commanded by Captain Lucius Aelius Sejanus. One of the residence hulls at the (Home Fleet) Star Fleet Academy in San Francisco will be named in honor of this ship, eventually lost in the line of duty. The uniform insignia of the "Farragut" may be two overlaid vertical circles with two inset horizontal circles [Ships of the Star Fleet, U.S.S. Enterprise Heavy Cruiser Evolution Blueprints, TOS: "Obsession", TOS 78: "The Rings of Tautee", TOS 75: "First Frontier", Starfleet Battles, Star Trek Maps, TNG 8: "The Captain's Honor", Starfleet Academy Student Handbook, Starfleet Uniform Recognition Manual].

 

[Vipre]

The first problem I spot with that is the launch date of the Enterprise. The ship was launched in 2245 not 2220 on this I won't back down. Kirks graduation from the Academy is somewhere around 2250 though I'm not sure the exact date. He served on the Farragut in 2257 around the same time Spock was on the Enterprise with Pike. So it's very likely it was a Constitution.

One assumption however is that in TOS any reference to starfleet ships is referring to a Constitution vessel.

Conjecture is Kirk may have commanded two 5 year missions from 2265-2275/7, Pike from 2255-2265 and April from 2245-2255. Who was in command for the other 24 years? Granted most of my information comes from the Omnipedia but seeing as Mark Leonard is the narrator I do lend it some credence.

[ModelsPlease]

Conjecture is Kirk may have commanded two 5 year missions from 2265-2275/7, Pike from 2255-2265 and April from 2245-2255. Who was in command for the other 24 years?

2245 Captain Robert April was the first Captain of the Enterprise, then Pike, then Kirk.

2250 Captain Christopher Pike assumes command of the Enterprise

2263
Captain James T. Kirk assumes command of the Enterprise

The Enterprise undergoes a major refit to the point where it's considered almost a brand new starship.
Conjecture. This would help explain Admiral Morrow's "The Enterprise is 20 years old" line in Star Trek III, which took place in 2283. However, there is also a good theory that Admiral Morrow was merely smoking crack that day.

2266 The Enterprise gets a minor refit at some point before the beginning of the series.

2271

The Enterprise ends its five-year mission during the summer of 2271.

The crew of the Enterprise splits up and everyone goes their own seperate ways.

Kirk is promoted to Admiral and put in command of Starfleet Operations.

Spock leaves Starfleet and returns to Vulcan in order to undergo the Kholinar.

McCoy leaves Starfleet and decides to leave a civilian life.
There's some debate as to whether or not the five-year mission actually ended right after the third season, or continued for two more years. It most likely continued for two more years. Had the original series not been cancelled, there would definitely have been a fourth and fifth season (as stated earlier). Not only that, but in the pilot episode Where No Man Has Gone Before the opening stating the five-year mission is not there. This implies that the episode takes place before the beginning of the five-year mission. How different everything looks in this episode, compared to the rest of the series, would support this. Also consider that at the end of For the World is Hollow and I Have Touched the Sky, Kirk tells McCoy that he can arrange to have the Enterprise meet Yonada when it reaches its destination 390 days after that episode. Bear in mind that this is a third season episode so the Enterprise would've rendevouzed with the Yonada during the fourth season, which would have been the sixth year of the five-year mission if it had indeed begun two years before the first season. This is why it's more likely that the five-year mission went from 2266 to 2271 and not 2264 to 2269. In The Motion Picture, Kirk says he spent "five years out there dealing with unknowns like this", but he was most likely referring to the five-year mission, NOT how long he'd been in command of the Enterprise. This is supported by the novel adaptation of the movie, written by Gene Roddenberry, which states that Kirk had taken command of the Enterprise nine years before The Motion Picture. If it's been two-and-a-half years after the mission ended then the five-year mission began seven-and-a-half years ago, meaning that Kirk was still in command another year-and-a-half before the five-year mission began. Where No Man Has Gone Before could've taken place during that year-and-half.

2272 Captain William Decker assumes command of the Enterprise

2274 Admiral Kirk takes command of the USS Enterprise as Captain (TMP)
Conjecture: Assuming that the Enterprise completed its five-year mission in the middle of the year, which would have coincided with the end of a television season, the earliest this movie could take place would be December 2273 or January 2274, since it's supposed to be two-and-a-half years after the five-year mission. In the novel adaptation of The Motion Picture, Gene Roddenberry says that Spock had been undergoing practice for the Kholinar for 2.8 years, so it's most likely 2274

2274 The Enterprise embarks on a second five-year mission under the command of Captain Kirk.
Conjecture: This is taken from the chronology (the fact that there was a second five-year mission after the movie, NOT the date), but also consider this: originally The Motion Picture was supposed to be the first episode of Phase 2 which would've chronicled the adventures of Kirk's second five-year mission. Since that is what Starfleet probably would assigned to Kirk to another five-year mission after the movie anyway, it's logical to go with the Chronology. Note that you can find adventures during this second five-year mission in an older comic book series by Marvel Comics.

[Scottish Andy]

I thought a Voyager ep stated Kirk's mission ended in 2270, and all other canon dates stemmed from there? That is, as opposed to the conjectural dates we've been dealing with up until that ep?

I always thought 2271 was way too early for TMP, as it was based on Scotty's line of spening 18 months refitting the Enterprise, but completely failed to take into account Decker's line of Kirk not having logged a single star hour (probably an evolution from "flight hour") in 2 and a half years.

I go by the 5YM ending on SD 6987.31 according to J.M Dillard's book 'The Lost Years'. By my adopted SD system, that is the 16th of November 2269. 2.5 years after that is approx. May 2272. Thus, by my lights, the 5YM started in January 2265 (or November 2264). You could, of course, fudge the dates. Maybe Enterprise stayed out a few extra months, or came home early. It doesn't need to be 5 years exactly, and when people in general say "x years", they usually don't mean exactly  1,825 days.

[Don Karnage]

The first problem I spot with that is the launch date of the Enterprise. The ship was launched in 2245 not 2220 on this I won't back down. Kirks graduation from the Academy is somewhere around 2250 though I'm not sure the exact date. He served on the Farragut in 2257 around the same time Spock was on the Enterprise with Pike. So it's very likely it was a Constitution.

One assumption however is that in TOS any reference to starfleet ships is referring to a Constitution vessel.

Conjecture is Kirk may have commanded two 5 year missions from 2265-2275/7, Pike from 2255-2265 and April from 2245-2255. Who was in command for the other 24 years? Granted most of my information comes from the Omnipedia but seeing as Mark Leonard is the narrator I do lend it some credence.

kirk also serve abort the USS republic NCC 1371, don't know what date he serve aboard but for what he says he was out of the academy or not, but he was on enginery and because of what the other one who was replace by kirk gave him the place next on the list to be give command of the enterprise (episode court martial)

[Vipre]

kirk also serve abort the USS republic NCC 1371, don't know what date he serve aboard but for what he says he was out of the academy or not, but he was on enginery and because of what the other one who was replace by kirk gave him the place next on the list to be give command of the enterprise (episode court martial)

The guess is Kirk was still in the academy while serving on the Republic because Kirk said outright he served under Garrovic from the day he left the academy. It's possible Garrovic commanded both the Republic and the Farragut but eh who knows. McCoy did however say outright that Kirk's first deep space assignment was aboard the Farragut.

[Lieutenant_Q]

The Republic is set as a Academy Training Vessel.  Jake mentions it in a DS9 episode.  And one of the Red Squad crew mentions that it hasn't left the Sol system in a century.  But it still serves.  Again, some question whether it IS a Consititution, although the Star Trek: Techincal Manual does state that it is.

[Vipre]

Conjecture is Kirk may have commanded two 5 year missions from 2265-2275/7, Pike from 2255-2265 and April from 2245-2255. Who was in command for the other 24 years?

2245 Captain Robert April was the first Captain of the Enterprise, then Pike, then Kirk.

2250 Captain Christopher Pike assumes command of the Enterprise

2263
Captain James T. Kirk assumes command of the Enterprise

The Enterprise undergoes a major refit to the point where it's considered almost a brand new starship.
Conjecture. This would help explain Admiral Morrow's "The Enterprise is 20 years old" line in Star Trek III, which took place in 2283. However, there is also a good theory that Admiral Morrow was merely smoking crack that day.

2266 The Enterprise gets a minor refit at some point before the beginning of the series.

2271

The Enterprise ends its five-year mission during the summer of 2271.

The crew of the Enterprise splits up and everyone goes their own seperate ways.

Kirk is promoted to Admiral and put in command of Starfleet Operations.

Spock leaves Starfleet and returns to Vulcan in order to undergo the Kholinar.

McCoy leaves Starfleet and decides to leave a civilian life.
There's some debate as to whether or not the five-year mission actually ended right after the third season, or continued for two more years. It most likely continued for two more years. Had the original series not been cancelled, there would definitely have been a fourth and fifth season (as stated earlier). Not only that, but in the pilot episode Where No Man Has Gone Before the opening stating the five-year mission is not there. This implies that the episode takes place before the beginning of the five-year mission. How different everything looks in this episode, compared to the rest of the series, would support this. Also consider that at the end of For the World is Hollow and I Have Touched the Sky, Kirk tells McCoy that he can arrange to have the Enterprise meet Yonada when it reaches its destination 390 days after that episode. Bear in mind that this is a third season episode so the Enterprise would've rendevouzed with the Yonada during the fourth season, which would have been the sixth year of the five-year mission if it had indeed begun two years before the first season. This is why it's more likely that the five-year mission went from 2266 to 2271 and not 2264 to 2269. In The Motion Picture, Kirk says he spent "five years out there dealing with unknowns like this", but he was most likely referring to the five-year mission, NOT how long he'd been in command of the Enterprise. This is supported by the novel adaptation of the movie, written by Gene Roddenberry, which states that Kirk had taken command of the Enterprise nine years before The Motion Picture. If it's been two-and-a-half years after the mission ended then the five-year mission began seven-and-a-half years ago, meaning that Kirk was still in command another year-and-a-half before the five-year mission began. Where No Man Has Gone Before could've taken place during that year-and-half.

2272 Captain William Decker assumes command of the Enterprise

2274 Admiral Kirk takes command of the USS Enterprise as Captain (TMP)
Conjecture: Assuming that the Enterprise completed its five-year mission in the middle of the year, which would have coincided with the end of a television season, the earliest this movie could take place would be December 2273 or January 2274, since it's supposed to be two-and-a-half years after the five-year mission. In the novel adaptation of The Motion Picture, Gene Roddenberry says that Spock had been undergoing practice for the Kholinar for 2.8 years, so it's most likely 2274

2274 The Enterprise embarks on a second five-year mission under the command of Captain Kirk.
Conjecture: This is taken from the chronology (the fact that there was a second five-year mission after the movie, NOT the date), but also consider this: originally The Motion Picture was supposed to be the first episode of Phase 2 which would've chronicled the adventures of Kirk's second five-year mission. Since that is what Starfleet probably would assigned to Kirk to another five-year mission after the movie anyway, it's logical to go with the Chronology. Note that you can find adventures during this second five-year mission in an older comic book series by Marvel Comics.

Yes that's the timeline I was refering to, in the first timeline you posted the launch date of the Enterprise was January 5, 2221, totaly wrong unless that was related to SFB

[ModelsPlease]

Yes that's the timeline I was refering to, in the first timeline you posted the launch date of the Enterprise was January 5, 2221, totaly wrong unless that was related to SFB

Nope the first timeline I posted was compiled by James Dixon. Modifications and additions by Liam Collins and Ian Dickson.

[Vipre]

Yes that's the timeline I was refering to, in the first timeline you posted the launch date of the Enterprise was January 5, 2221, totaly wrong unless that was related to SFB

Nope the first timeline I posted was compiled by James Dixon. Modifications and additions by Liam Collins and Ian Dickson.

Of course. I never meant to imply you wrote it, I just said you posted it. Or do you mean it isn't related to SFB?

[ModelsPlease]

I couldn't say for sure if it's SFB related 

[Don Karnage]

hmm good question, there no info about that, for what i know it should be is 2nd 5 years mission, i can view the episodes and see if he mention it.

i was wondering why checkov was not part of the crew in tas?

[Vipre]

Ok heres a dumb question as i know people dont really count TAS as canon but where exactly would that fit in, is it part of Kirk's First 5 Year mission or the second that also gives That crack smoking Admiral and excuse to call the enterprise 20 years old

It's the first. Two reasons for that. 1) The Enterprise is still in the TOS style 2)After Trek was cancelled it was intended to be the completion of the 5-year mission.

Chekov was not part of the crew because all the characters were voiced by the original cast and there wasn't enough money in the budget to include Walter.

Also Gene originally intended and even said TAS was canon but later said if he'd know at the time that there was going to be a 2nd series made he never would have let the writers do some of the storylines they did.

[ModelsPlease]

OK I did some research and yes James Dixon's Timeline does take into account SFB and all I feel it's the most accurate.........

The Ultimate Star Trek Timeline
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Orion/5535/timeline/trek7-notes.html#1

[Smiley]

I wish I never asked the original question! However, returning to the original topic I would like to add that I am puzzled by the lack of a rear facing heavy weapon mount on the Constitution, or for that matter - any vessel!

[Lieutenant_Q]

The same reason why the NX-01 left space dock with nothing more than "Spatial Torpedoes" (aka Drones) as armament.  Naive Idealism.

[Vipre]

I wish I never asked the original question! However, returning to the original topic I would like to add that I am puzzled by the lack of a rear facing heavy weapon mount on the Constitution, or for that matter - any vessel!

Can't fault you there. Why you would build a ship that can't fire all of it's weapons in a 360 degree range makes no sense. I can only guess it's because of Gene's involvement with aircraft. Wasn't he a pilot or air crew member or something in WW2 or Korea? Get in behind a fighter and poof, he's in for a bad day. The phasers could fire in a 270 degree combined arc but couldn't fire anything aft and torp only forward . Really large oversight.

Regarding the dates of TOS, it is assumed that the characters are the same age as actors themselves during the series. This is the main reason why 300 was just added to the actual date Nineteen Sixty Watever to get the future dates of Twenty-two Sixty Whatever. As in Actor A born in 1930 and he's 35 so character A was born in 2230 and is 35 hence 2265.

[Rod ONeal]

Of course it all depends on the given perspective, but in SFC it's concentration of firepower that matters. In almost every circumstance, with heavy weapons you'd be better off if all of the torps were aiming in the same direction. Typically forward. Phasers are different because they are used for point defense as well. Which brings the one reason for dividing your firepower up, if you can be outmaneuvered by your enemy so you can't bring them into you concentrated firing arc. That's why, in SFC, it's the really large and unmaneuverable ships that have rear firing torps, generally BBs and Tugs.
There are racial exceptions. The Gorn and ISC, but they are seeking weapons and their ships, by and large, are less maneuverable. The ISC were also designed to fight in the Echelon Formation.
The ships that were added as canon ships (the Miranda for example) that have their torps divided between the front and rear get easily outclassed by comparable ships (the NCA in the instance of the Miranda) that concentrate their firepower in one direction.
In reality the ships in Trek would be armed more like wet navy ships, not fighters, as they more or less are now. That's the obvious layout. Like the FRAX, for those of you who are familiar with them from SFB.

[Don Karnage]

when the enemy ship sneak behind you you can't fire with foward weapons, some ship have rear waepons and the should, fighter might be good if you have a lot of them, more that 10 cause ther not efficient, the enemy will get rid of them and you have not many weapons for defence.

[Scottish Andy]

The ships that were added as canon ships (the Miranda for example) that have their torps divided between the front and rear get easily outclassed by comparable ships (the NCA in the instance of the Miranda) that concentrate their firepower in one direction.

Rod, I don't find so. When I take a canon BCE or NCM or CAI against a comparable "standard" SFB/C ship, I can beat them up pretty good. You can't fight like an SFB/C-er, that's all. Different tactics because of different armament.

You can't just alpha-strike someone in a canon ship because it has no SFB defences. You cannot fire off all your phasers or you're defenceless against drones, PFs or fighters. But the canon ships have more phasers than normal for their class, and stronger shields as well. If you time it right, an alpha strike from a canon ship is devastating, and by unmasking the aft torps into the down shield gets great Mizia weapons hits.

Those ships are hard to fight well, I grant you, but if you have the skill and luck, you'll win just as well as with a standard SFB/C ship.

[Rod ONeal]

Ships don't sneak up behind you in space. Although we tend to fight in open space in our game, in reality it would rarely if ever occur that way. Battles would occur around fixed points in space. Planets and bases where ships/fleets would drop out of warp to do battle.

Scottish Andy, The BCE can't stand in with any other Fed BC when flown by 2 competent pilots. The NCM can't either against an NCL. Never mind an NCA, which is really the canon equivalent. I'm afraid that I'll just have to respectfully disagree with you on that, my friend.
With that said, both those ships were designed for movies where capabilities are made up as you go along, not wargaming.
Just simple math - You have 2 torps aiming at him - he has 4 torps aiming at you... Who's got the advantage? If you should manage to get behind him and gain the advantage, he gets what he deserves.

[Lieutenant_Q]

The OP shiplist makes all four torpedoes fire FA and RA arcs.

[Rod ONeal]

Yes, you're right. It's been awhile since I looked at the stock NCM where they have the fa/ra arcs added to the game. My bad. The BCE doesn't though, although it's 4 forward and 2 back. Is there anything that suggests that it's possible to have a photon launcher fire both fore and aft?

[Scottish Andy]

Hehe, you haven't been playing them properly, Rod. The canon ships also have more engine power. With more power, you can overload the forward torps and still keep good speed if you shut down aft torps. Get into overload range... 

The BCE can keep ahead of the enemy and just keep spinning around, keeping the enemy shields raw all round, where as SFB/C ships have to keep facing you to use heavy weapons. So they're always trying to close. Use your longer legs to keep them at a distance and proxy them to death. You fight on your terms, you have a far better chance of winning. You fight on theirs, odds are you will lose unless you are better at their game than they are.

Anyway, I'd love to try a match up with you to test this theory in the only way that matters. Do you have EAW 2.0.3.6? I don't have OP. Just tried to buy it on eBay, got outbid...   

As for a fore-&-aft photon launcher on the Excelsior, that's a big no-no. The Miranda can manage it because it's a short photon pod with FA-RA arcs. The Excelsior has two seperate 2-shot FA photon tubes beside the nav deflector, and 2 seperate 1-shot RA tubes, under the cargo bay fantail. They're almost the entire length of the ship apart, so no FA-RA there. It would be possible for the Constitution, though. Put in a single (or double) photon tube at the back of the standard torpedo bay... the tube(s) would be a bit long, but it's doable--if perhaps not tactically sound. 

[Scottish Andy]

Oh, I just re-read your post, Rod, and I think I got you wrong. My Miranda-class deck plans (by Alex Rosenweig) show 4 separate tubes serviced by a central loader. I suppose you could have the tubes enclosed and fed like cartridges into a breach in the fore-&-aft tube, but I cannot see it as being feasible or sensible. There's the whole "which way is the warhead pointing, which end has the warp sustainer engine" problem. You load it to fire forward. The enemy gets behind you, how do you turn the torp around? If you can, when do you decide?

The FA-RA arc is a nice idea, but I can't see it being practical.

[Vipre]

Ships don't sneak up behind you in space.

Tell that to the Romulans and the Klingons
Guess no one ever did get the use of a cloaking device down correctly. 

Just kidding. I agree though that if you can manage to stay in your opponents blind spot or weak arc spot he does deserves his fate.

[Don Karnage]

if you battle more that one ship the other can get behind you and fire at your weekest shield, with the miranda you have front and back torpedo arc so if the enemy sneak behind you you can shoot at him, the rear phaser is good for drone defence, unless you have "A", "B" or "Y" phaser and causing heavy damage to the enemy ship, droping a mine is good if you can go fast and the enemy is not too close so the mine can detonate.

as for sfc op try this link: http://cgi.ebay.ca/Star-Trek-Starfleet-Command-Orion-Pirates-NEW-PC-Game_W0QQitemZ250074567035QQihZ015QQcategoryZ62053QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem