Dynaverse.net
Taldrenites => General Starfleet Command Forum => Topic started by: Don Karnage on March 05, 2005, 09:48:29 pm
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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. (http://www.dynaverse.net/forum/index.php/topic,163352251.0.html) 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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Age got you Pesty. Star Trek: Enterprise has been on the opening credits for awhile.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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...
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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... :D )
-
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.
-
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, 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
-
Hull Registries were never in order from 1700 up... Here is the listing as officiated by Canon onscreen and cross confirmation by Paramount where we neve got to see the actual ship.. these are the only ones confirmed to be a Starship Class vessel..
U.S.S. Constellation NCC-1017 TOS "The Doomsday Machine"
U.S.S. Constitution NCC-1700 (identified by wall status display) TOS "Court Martial", Seen on Computer display TNG "DataLore", Seen on Computer display Star Trek III: The Search for Spock, TOS "Space Seed" (Medical Display panel in the infirmiry).
U.S.S. Defiant NCC-1764 TOS "The Tholian Web"
U.S.S. Enterprise NCC-1701 TOS All Episodes
U.S.S. Essex NCC-1697 (identified by wall status display) TOS "Court Martial" Crossed with Paramount Studios
U.S.S. Excalibur NCC-1664 TOS "The Ultimate Computer", (identified by wall status display) TOS "Court Martial"
U.S.S. Excelsior NCC-1718 (identified by wall status display) TOS "Court Martial" Crossed with Paramount Studios
U.S.S. Exeter NCC-1672 TOS "The Omega Glory", (identified by wall status display) TOS "Court Martial"
U.S.S. Farragut NCC-1647 TOS "Obsession"
U.S.S. Hood NCC-1703 TOS "The Ultimate Computer", (identified by wall status display) TOS "Court Martial"
U.S.S. Intrepid NCC-1631 TOS "Court Martial", TOS "The Immunity Syndrome"
U.S.S. Kongo NCC-1710 Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country (Identified on a computer display panel and crossed with Paramount Studios).
U.S.S. Lexington NCC-1709 TOS "The Ultimate Computer", (identified by wall status display) TOS "Court Martial", DS9 "Trials and Tribble-ations"
U.S.S. Potemkin NCC-1657 TOS "The Ultimate Computer", TOS "Turnabout Intruder"
U.S.S. Republic NCC-1371 (identified by wall status display) TOS "Court Martial" Crossed with Paramount Studios
U.S.S. Yorktown NCC-1717 TOS "Obsession"
Given this listing, It is easy to extrapolate that the ships were registered in build order of all ships and not just ship class... which means according to this listing, the U.S.S. Republic was built years before the Constitution...
As such, how could the class of ship be Constitution off of Design build when several ships have pre-1700 registries....
Again in TOS the ships were classed by Duty Roll and not First of Line.. as such the TOS Enterprise Hull Design is Starship Class for her Duty roll... in St V, she was classed as a Constitution Class under the hull registry of NCC-1701-A.. She had already gone through Enterprise Class (referenced TWOK).. so the first Constitution Class was the hull desigh with the onboard equipment matching that of the NCC-1701-A.. not the NCC-1701 designs (First Starship Class, then Enterprise Class).. the NCC-1700 Constitution was the first assigned to the 5 year deep sapce mission, as such, the Starship Class was honorarialy nicknamed Constitution Class.. however it is not the True class name.
-
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?!?!?!?
U.S.S. Exeter NCC-1672 TOS "The Omega Glory", (identified by wall status display) TOS "Court Martial"
The canon was never changed.. just the book you got the registry from was wrong.
-
Pest, your definition of canon never truely specified if Enterprise was the first to return from a five-year mission or if she was the only of the "original twelve" Constitution-class Starships to survive in a five-year mission between 2264 and 2269. We're uncertain of her true age other than possibly the early-2250s (if we make sense of the years)... Your definition of canon also never specified what the registry numbers of the starships truely belong to in "Court Martial" [TOS]. You're using non-canon references and tie-ins as to what the registry numbers of other Constitution-class Starships are. We're uncertain if all of those ships on that chart are really Constitution-class Starships (other than three or four).
Here's the aforementioned chart:
(http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/schematics/starbase11-wallchart.jpg)
Unless that chart had names beside the registry numbers, we can only identify a few ships: Mainly the Enterprise, Constitution, and Constellation. We've seen the Constellation and her registry number, the Constitution from schematics seen on-screen, and the Enterprise frequently-seen on-screen in TOS and the first three movies.
Also, consider what Bearslayer stated:
Screw the inconsistencies of Paramount 'canon'.
Not to mention that some of these ships are now commisioned BEFORE the lead ship of the class?!?!?!?
I believe this implies that, like myself, Bearslayer doesn't subscribe to your canon nor Paramount's canon. *shrug* Despite the fact that we're in this conversation about canon.
-
From EAS...
"The registry of the class ship U.S.S. Constitution was NCC-1700, according to a computer monitor in TOS: "Space Seed" and it should be the lowest of the class if registries are chronological. The U.S.S. Constellation, however, was seen on screen as a Constitution-class ship with the lower registry NCC-1017. The "Operation Retrieve" chart in the extended version of "Star Trek VI" shows the U.S.S. Eagle NCC-956, another Constitution-class ship according to the Encyclopedia. Furthermore, the Encyclopedia lists the following five Constitution-class ships whose registries are apparently too low: U.S.S. Essex NCC-1697, U.S.S. Excalibur NCC-1664, U.S.S. Exeter NCC-1672, U.S.S. Potemkin NCC-1657, U.S.S. Republic NCC-1371. The latter ships were taken from the wall display in TOS: "Court Martial" and the ship list in Stephen Whitfield, The Making of Star Trek. Their names, registries and classes were never seen together. Anyway, at least the problem of the Constellation registry remains, and there are several approaches to explain it.
- 1. Some theories suggest that several of the ships were originally of a different, older class and later converted to Constitutions. Read about one of them, the conjectural Declaration class, on Joshua Bell's website.
- 2. The class name might change with each upgrade of the class, so the U.S.S. Constitution could have been the first ship of a later, improved batch of the class which was named after her. The theory is popular among fans who also use to call the Constitution upgrade of 2271 "Enterprise class".
- 3. There is no evidence that registries are assigned strictly chronologically. Maybe the Constitution class ships with lower registries were just given numbers which were unoccupied at the time they were commissioned. It is also possible that new ships were given the same names and registries as destroyed or retired vessels. Thus, the U.S.S. Constellation NCC-1017 might replace a ship of a different class, but with the same name and registry.
- 4. The U.S.S. Constitution NCC-1700 was not the class ship of the Constitution class. The actual namesake was an earlier ship of the same name and a registry below NCC-956 which had been destroyed some time prior to 2245, when probably both the NCC-1700 and NCC-1701 were commissioned.
Theory #1 is quite complicated, since it extends a simple registry problem to a matter of ship designs. It would raise the problem that the basic construction of the Constitution and eventually the Miranda likewise would be much older, and therefore aggravate the problems of ship building periods. There is no reason to refute the theory, though. The idea #2 of changing class names is popular in fandom, but there is no evidence for it in canon Trek. It is still another question why the class name that should have been "Constitution class" actually seemed to be "Starship class" during the 2260's. There are some more facts to support theory #3 that registries are not always chronological, but a definite proof is missing. Theory #4 is quite simple and obvious, but like theory #1 it raises the problem of the Constitution class being much older. Considering that the upgraded class might have been still around as late as 2366, everything should be done to render the basic class as new as possible."[/i]
...and from the Encyclopedia itself...
"About the starship chart: This is a compilation of (almost) all the Federation starships seen or mentioned in the Star Trek episodes and movies. As such, this is not a definitive list of all of Starfleet's ships, merely a list of the ships that have been on the show in one form or another. May of the class designations and registry numbers are somewhat conjectural, although most of them have been used in various background charts and readouts (such as Starfleet status displays seen in the Enterprise-D observation lounge, the "Operation Retrieve" chart in Star Trek VI, Commodore Stone's office chart in "Court Martial" [TOS], and the ship listings in bridge graphic displays on the Enterprise-A, Enterprise-C, and Enterprise-D).
...personally, I don't believe in "canon"...
-Wanderer
-
OK.. let me ask this then..
After 3 years of TOS.. 78 episodes plus "The Cage" where the Dedication Plaque was on the set stating "Starship Class Spaceship" is all of a sudden NON CANON because of 1 TNG episode and an unaired episode of Enterprise????
Man, Because 1 person makes a book and people forget what is shown on screen for 3 years, all this carp happens.
-
I guess SFB got it right right.Will I earn good Karma for this I wonder maybe not.Then agian I would say we hijacked Dons thread.
-
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?!?!?!?
SFB having it's own take doesn't make it official at all...and I'll give you +1 Karma anyway Age. thanks for wading in Wanderer, I enjoyed reading your post and appreciate your effort and thoughts. Perhaps with the 4 theories we should put this baby to sleep. Hey Karma for all.
-
OK.. let me ask this then..
After 3 years of TOS.. 78 episodes plus "The Cage" where the Dedication Plaque was on the set stating "Starship Class Spaceship" is all of a sudden NON CANON because of 1 TNG episode and an unaired episode of Enterprise????
Man, Because 1 person makes a book and people forget what is shown on screen for 3 years, all this carp happens.
Here's a bit of how I view it:
I guess TNG sort-of reimagined the Trek universe in its own way when Gene striked lightning with Trek a second time. Probably not everything in TOS we saw happened, etc. Sort-of like a less-drastic way of changing a sci-fi universe, compared to the very-drastic changes of BSG with the new series. Considering that I'm slightly older than TNG and grew up with it, my ideal trek universe revolves around the majority of TNG canon, meaning I don't care for the plaque that identifies the Enterprise (no bloody A, B, C, or D) a "Starship-class Starship" when it became more-established that a starship class would be named after the first prototype. Because I was into TNG more as a kid, it grew to me that the original Enterprise (fun as she may seem in TOS) is a Constitution-class Starship. So forgive me for being young and seeing things differently, Pest.
I tend to think that TOS at the time could be percieved that, as its own sci-fi universe, was taking "baby steps" from concepts of types of starships, how they operate and travel and combat, etc. From pulse-like proximity phasers to "United Star Ship" to Starship-class to UESPA to hyper drives ("The Cage" [TOS]) to intentional time-traveling ("Assignment: Earth" [TOS]), it's just original unrevised concepts of what it became today in many aspects viewed from fans.
With that said, I stress, stress, stress, stress to you Pest, to read the quote on my signature and follow the link. I just think that at times you seem to press your idea of Trek on people as if it was the only official Trek or what not. Of course, I probably did so myself, but is a mistake we shouldn't repeat if we did so. Everyone has their ideal Trek universe, and we've expressed our own ideal ST universes once again. I don't know a whole lot on canon anyhow, and I don't care much for it, so I wonder why I continued in discussing it. *sigh*
-
Umm... my post had nothing to do with SFB... FASA and the books... oh... and the Exeter guys making TOS episodes too... ;D
-
Speaking of that, Bearslayer, the first Starship Exeter episode was sort-of cheesy, in my opinion. But nice though. I await their second episode of Starship Exeter, but wished they wouldn't release it one part at a time, feeling as if they should've pushed back the release date from a week after my birthday to next month. But oh well, you can't rush art! But I digress... Even though I do so to raise everyone's spirits after some silly debate Pest, I, and a couple others have participated in when posting on this thread.
-
If you noticed in my first posting in this thread, I stated that anything that I post is conjectural.. I go by what Gene stated as canon should be.. as such UESPA was never defigned completely.. It may hyave been a branch of Starfleet.. and if so, then it is still in line with canon...
Anyhow, I stated logically, as I am an avid TOS fan, the best way to depict why there are ships prior to NCC-1700 and why the Constitution name was given as a nickname to the Starship Class, why the ship was a Starship Class because of her duty roll since they did not name after first of Line until TMP, and so forth...
Again it is conjectural.. IE not canon.. but what I posted is logical if you stick with what was shown only on the screen in the order in which it was released ignoring errors made to promote ratings or to ease a plot.
-
Thank You for all your respond (don't shoot each other for that) ;D
in a way there no way to know what class they are realy and what name goes with what ship, beside enterprise 1701, constellation 1017, the republic 1371 is a unknow class, kirk serve aboard as a ensigne but he never says what class it was, so we only know what we have see on the original episode, the movies, tng,ds9,voyager are base on startrek, so all we know is that the rest is just what we want it to be, yes there books, there sfb and fasa but there not what we would call "cannon" since the consider the reilant as a reliant class, the reliant is a miranda class, anyway we just have to think that the first constitution was not the 1700 and was never build, the gave it the number 1700 and built it later for some unknow reason, that would explain the lower number, or we can say it was another class and the became constitution class after a refit after the constitution was build like the enterprise 1701 was a enterprise class after the refit, so one way or another no one know about it beside is creator gen rodenbery, unless he ever wright anything about that.
it might have ben the "asia class" that was refit as a constitution class ???
-
If you want some really bad acting Find the Star Trek: Hidden Frontier fan series online. The "first seaon" acting of all the cast isn't too good, but looks great in comparison to the acting of the guy playing the captain of the Galaxy Class Dreadnought Excelsior.