Voyager Class
Robert Skinner
What class ship is Voyager? And are there any more of its class about?
Rob
Voyager is an Intrepid-Class starship. The first was the Intrepid prototype
(this was the 3rd starship named "Intrepid"--not to be confused with the USS
Intrepid from TOS or TNG). Voyager was the 2nd of 4 built.
Robert Skinner wrote in message
<63tbcs$3sl$1...@svr-c-01.core.theplanet.net>...
Kasey Chang (fix address before replying to me!)
>What class ship is Voyager? And are there any more of its class about?
Intrepid class. No other ships of Intrepid class had been seen in any
series.
Peter
Robert Skinner <rob...@yeoman.softnet.co.uk> napisał(a) w artykule
<63tbcs$3sl$1...@svr-c-01.core.theplanet.net>...
> What class ship is Voyager? And are there any more of its class about?
It's Intrepid class
c
Intrepid. No, it was the first one. Brand new design.
Jenny
Graham Ballantyne
Robert Skinner (rob...@yeoman.softnet.co.uk) wrote:
: What class ship is Voyager? And are there any more of its class about?
Voyager is an Interpid Class Vessel. Presumeably, there is a USS Intrepid, but
who knows?
Billtown
Derek Moore wrote:
> Actually, if it was the first one, it would be called the Voyager class.
> They take the old Navy tradition of naming a class of vessels after the
> first ship of that type. So, the first Intrepid class ship was the U.S.S.
> Intrepid.
> On another point, why is there no Enterprise class? Of all the ships,
> all the Enterprises have been legendary (they even made the Enterprise-D the
> flagship of the entire Federation). Just curious.
>
> Derek Moore
>
>
Actually you just answered your own question in that statement! The name the
classes (usually) after the first ship of it's kind! So, wouldn't you think
that whatever class the original enterprise was, because there was already a
class for that ship, they only needed a name for it!
--
_ ]__________________________________
(_)|||||||||_________________________________/
]
- Billtown (DALnet, #Newbies)
- jhn...@csrlink.net
_________________________________[ _
\________________________________||||||||||(_)
[
Derek Moore
Actually, if it was the first one, it would be called the Voyager class.
They take the old Navy tradition of naming a class of vessels after the
first ship of that type. So, the first Intrepid class ship was the U.S.S.
Intrepid.
On another point, why is there no Enterprise class? Of all the ships,
all the Enterprises have been legendary (they even made the Enterprise-D the
flagship of the entire Federation). Just curious.
Derek Moore
-----------------------------------------------
c wrote in message ...
>Intrepid. No, it was the first one. Brand new design.
>
>Jenny
>
Brian Barjenbruch
> Intrepid. No, it was the first one. Brand new design.
No. The USS Intrepid (NCC-74600) and USS Voyager (NCC-74656) are two
different ships.
The Intrepid appeared in one late TNG episode--"Force of Nature." Its
chief engineer was competing with Geordi to see whose ship had better
engines. BTW, this is the third Starfleet vessel to be named Intrepid.
The only way for Voyager to be the first of its class would be to have a
Voyager class. The term 'Intrepid class' dictates the existence of an
Intrepid to name the class after. Otherwise, the class name is
meaningless.
Brian
Jon Bourgault
> On Thu, 6 Nov 1997, Robert Skinner wrote:
>
> > What class ship is Voyager? And are there any more of its class about?
>
In article
<Pine.SUN.3.96.971106183123.9268B-100000@satie>,c<jsn...@arts.usf.edu>
wrote:
> Intrepid. No, it was the first one. Brand new design.
>
> Jenny
If it was the first one, it would be Voyager Class. There must be at
least an Intrepid.
Jon
Brian Barjenbruch
> Intrepid class. No other ships of Intrepid class had been seen in any
> series.
ST:TNG "Force of Nature." The third Intrepid, this one the class ship for
the Intrepid class, had registry number NCC-74600. Geordi talked about
it. He and the Intrepid's engineer (forget his name) were competing to
see whose ship had better engine efficiency.
The Intrepid and Voyager were two Intrepid-class ships, and there are at
least two others. This was stated as canon in Paramount's initial Voyager
promotional material (and was on their original web site, before Microsoft
gobbled it up).
Brian
J. Velasquez
Does anyone else remember from the very first episode that the Voyager hull
was composed of some new kind of techno-organic material that could repair
itself or something along those lines? Call me crazy but for some reason I
remember that...it should be taken advantage of more I think.
W. Benjamin Fletcher
I thought that it was some sort of neural-gel that the computer used
somehow, cause I remember an episode where Voyager got "sick"...
Ben
-={ To get my real email address, remove the NOSPAM }=-
SPAMMERS!!! Read this!!!
No spam for me! Unwanted, unsolicited commmercial email
WILL be dealt with.. And, why the hell do you even bother
sending the shit if you don't include your own return address?
Corbin E. Thomas
No, that's SeaQuest with the bio-skin!
(sorry, it's the only show on here after A&E shows Law & Order)
:)
J. Velasquez wrote in message <63ue1c$5tu$1...@nntp4.u.washington.edu>...
c
On Thu, 6 Nov 1997, Brian Barjenbruch wrote:
> The Intrepid and Voyager were two Intrepid-class ships, and there are at
> least two others. This was stated as canon in Paramount's initial Voyager
> promotional material (and was on their original web site, before Microsoft
> gobbled it up).
Oh..my bad. Still, how come Voyager looks so different from all the other
vessels in her class (or any class?) All the Enterprises looked remotely
alike. Jen
christian david inchauste
On Fri, 7 Nov 1997, c wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Nov 1997, Jon Bourgault wrote:
>
> > > Intrepid. No, it was the first one. Brand new design.
> > >
> > > Jenny
> >
> > If it was the first one, it would be Voyager Class. There must be at
> > least an Intrepid.
>
> HUH? Was the Enterprise-A ===>Enterprise class? Jen
> >
>
>
>
The Enterprise-A was a refit-Constution Class.
Lt.Cdr.Parent
Actually, the Ent-A is Constitution Class (2nd refit), the first being
the Enterprise launched in 2245.
Sam
Joseph J. Philbin III
Derek Moore wrote in message <63u00e$d...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>...
> Actually, if it was the first one, it would be called the Voyager
class.
>They take the old Navy tradition of naming a class of vessels after the
>first ship of that type. So, the first Intrepid class ship was the U.S.S.
>Intrepid.
> On another point, why is there no Enterprise class? Of all the ships,
>all the Enterprises have been legendary (they even made the Enterprise-D
the
>flagship of the entire Federation). Just curious.
The original Enterprise (NCC-1701, no bloody "A" "B" "C" or "D") was a
Constitution Class Starship and the first of those was the USS Constitution
(NCC-1700)
I think that's the way it was (will be)... oh these temporal events!
-Jay
one!
Robert Skinner wrote:
>
> What class ship is Voyager? And are there any more of its class about?
intrepid class!!!!.
c
On Fri, 7 Nov 1997, Lt.Cdr.Parent wrote:
> christian david inchauste wrote:
> >
> > > HUH? Was the Enterprise-A ===>Enterprise class? Jen
> > >
> > The Enterprise-A was a refit-Constution Class.
>
> Actually, the Ent-A is Constitution Class (2nd refit), the first being
> the Enterprise launched in 2245.
>
> Sam
ARGGGG! I'm getting so frustrated. Sorry....ah...now i feel better.
Anyway, to move on....by saying was the enterprise enterprise class i was
just trying to demonstrate my theory that the first new starship of a
class does not always have the same name as that class. So Voyager would
not necessarily have to be Voyager class were it the first ship in it's
class. I apologize for my mistake, i thought it was the first intrepid
class ship because i've never, ever seen a ship that looks anything like
Voyager. Okay, thanks for listening. Bubye
Jenny
c
I don't think so, i'm not positive. I have the book, and i've seen the
episode many times. I've never heard them say anything like that. They
do, however, talk about the bio nuero-processors that can operate at an
improved speed. Maybe you're thinking about that?
Jen
c
On Fri, 7 Nov 1997, c wrote:
> I don't think so, i'm not positive. I have the book, and i've seen the
> episode many times. I've never heard them say anything like that. They
> do, however, talk about the bio nuero-processors that can operate at an
> improved speed. Maybe you're thinking about that?
>
> Jen
Oops. Sorry. I meant bio-neural gelpacks
Brian Barjenbruch
> HUH? Was the Enterprise-A ===>Enterprise class?
No. Constitution class. Just like the last one.
Brian
Brian Barjenbruch
I> But since Voyager is an interpid class ship, that means
> there is at least a prototype ship somewhere by the name
> intrepid of the same class.
Yes, there is.
> I do think that Voyager is
> supposed to be the first production model of the ship class
> though.
No. There were initially four Intrepid-class ships built (source:
Paramount initial promotional material, plus their old web site before
Microsoft shut it down). The ships were the USS Intrepid (NCC-74600), USS
Voyager (NCC-74656), plus two others. More have probably been built since
then, though.
The class ship Intrepid is, by all accounts, a fully functional and
operational ship, not just a prototype. When we saw it in TNG (Force of
Nature), the Intrepid's chief engineer was competing with Geordi to see
whose ship had better engine efficiency. Kind of hard to do that with a
prototype.
Brian
Timothy L. Morgan
J. Velasquez wrote:
>
> Does anyone else remember from the very first episode that the Voyager hull
> was composed of some new kind of techno-organic material that could repair
> itself or something along those lines? Call me crazy but for some reason I
> remember that...it should be taken advantage of more I think.
You're thinking of seaQuest. It had the bio-skin.
Tim
Mark Nguyen
Rob wrote:
>
> Voyager is an Intrepid-Class starship. The first was the Intrepid prototype
> (this was the 3rd starship named "Intrepid"--not to be confused with the USS
> Intrepid from TOS or TNG). Voyager was the 2nd of 4 built.
Says who?
Mark
David
Get a dictionary and look up the word class. That should help you
understand the meaning of the word.
Brian Barjenbruch
> Says who?
Says Paramount.
Initial 'Voyager' promotional material, combined with Paramount's original
Voyager web site (the one with the Sickbay trivia test; Microsoft
eventually shut the site down and gobbled up its contents into
ST:Continuum), stated that Starfleet's initial production was for four
Intrepid-class ships: Intrepid (NCC-74600), Voyager (NCC-74656), and two
others. More could, of course, have been built since.
Brian
Captain Kenneth J. Pierson
> HUH? Was the Enterprise-A ===>Enterprise class? Jen
Exactly. The first interpid class ship was the U.S.S. Intrepid.
Just as the first sovereign class ship was the U.S.S. Sovereign, or the
defiant.
--
Admiral Kenneth J. Pierson
CO of The U.S.S. Apocolypse, NX-1357 Defiant Class, and Head of Deep Space
13
"You hit me! Picard never hit me."--Q "I'm not Picard."--Sisko
James Grady Ward
The dialoge in the intial show. Someone at one point says that it is
the first production model, or something to that effect while they are
at DS9 discussing what the ship can do.
--
buckysan
annapuma and unapumma in 98
44% of people think there is intelligent life besides earth
44% of people think there is intelligent life in washington DC
c
On 8 Nov 1997, Captain Kenneth J. Pierson wrote:
>
> > HUH? Was the Enterprise-A ===>Enterprise class? Jen
>
> Exactly. The first interpid class ship was the U.S.S. Intrepid.
> Just as the first sovereign class ship was the U.S.S. Sovereign, or the
> defiant
The Enterprise was Constitution class.
Jen
c
On Sat, 8 Nov 1997, David wrote:
> Get a dictionary and look up the word class. That should help you
> understand the meaning of the word.
Why are you insulting me, David? Yes, the Enterprise-A was Constitution
class. I was just trying to make a point, obviously I did not illustrate
it well enough. The definition of class (Star Trek Encylopedia) is:
Ancient naval term used to describe a group of ships sharing a common
basic design. GENERALL, a class of ships is named by Starfleet after the
first ship of that type built. Key word generally. For instance, the
U.S.S. Valiant was NOT Valiant class. So there.
Jenny
David
I'm sorry I insulted you. I didn't mean to do that. Sorry.
David
J. Velasquez wrote:
>
> Does anyone else remember from the very first episode that the Voyager hull
> was composed of some new kind of techno-organic material that could repair
> itself or something along those lines? Call me crazy but for some reason I
> remember that...it should be taken advantage of more I think.
The computer has bio-neural circuitry. It enables the computer to work
much faster.
David
c wrote:
>
> On Sun, 9 Nov 1997, c wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 8 Nov 1997, Brian Barjenbruch wrote:
> > >
> > > The third Intrepid, class ship for the Intrepid class, is NCC-74600. It
> > > was mentioned in TNG's "Force of Nature." This Intrepid's chief engineer
> > > was competing with Geordi to see whose ship had better engine efficiency.
> >
> > the Intrepid class called? Thanks
> >
> Never mind. I reread your post. New question. What were the following
> two ships in the Intrepid class called? How many were there in all before
> that? This might be kind of hard to tell, however, because we have never
> ever seen an intrepid class vessel on a ST series before Voyager.
>
> Jen
We only know the names of 2 of them , Voyager and Intrepid. The others
are unnamed.
Robert Skinner
Jeez! I should have kept my mouth shut!
Robert Skinner wrote in message
<63tbcs$3sl$1...@svr-c-01.core.theplanet.net>...
BSWL
No, Voyager has bio packs,or something to that effect. It was in the first
episode, and later mentioned because those packs became allergic to the
macroni and cheese Neelix was making.
Timothy L. Morgan <sttl...@erols.com> wrote in article
<3463FD...@erols.com>...
> J. Velasquez wrote:
> >
> > Does anyone else remember from the very first episode that the Voyager
hull
> > was composed of some new kind of techno-organic material that could
repair
> > itself or something along those lines? Call me crazy but for some
reason I
> > remember that...it should be taken advantage of more I think.
>
>
Michael L. Singer
On 8 Nov 1997 15:20:48 GMT, "Captain Kenneth J. Pierson"
<met...@preferred.com> wrote:
>
>> HUH? Was the Enterprise-A ===>Enterprise class? Jen
>
Nope... NCC 1701 and NCC 1701-A were both Constitution-class
starships.
c
c
On Sat, 8 Nov 1997, Brian Barjenbruch wrote:
>
> The third Intrepid, class ship for the Intrepid class, is NCC-74600. It
> was mentioned in TNG's "Force of Nature." This Intrepid's chief engineer
> was competing with Geordi to see whose ship had better engine efficiency.
This ship was called the U.S.S Intrepid? What were the first two ships in
the Intrepid class called? Thanks
jen
c
On Sat, 8 Nov 1997, David wrote:
>
> I'm sorry I insulted you. I didn't mean to do that. Sorry.
That's okay. No harsh feelings whatsoever. :-)
jen
c
> Nope... NCC 1701 and NCC 1701-A were both Constitution-class
> starships.
asking that question, though. I was just trying to get a point across.
Have a nice night :-)
jen
KNIGHT STAR
Voyager was newly commissioned when she got lost. When Voyager was
pulled into the rift after an encounter with a Federation time ship from
the future, they tried to stop a 20th century man from jumping 500 years
into the future. The president of Chronoworks raid the Voyager's
computer's memory and kidnapped the Doctor. Showing off, he reads "
U.S.S. Voyager, Interpid-Class; much smaller then I expected and much
less advanced." The Enterprise-A use to be the Yorktown. As a flash
back the USS Intrepid was a Constitution-Class manned by Vulcans. It
should have a letter in its registry unless this privilege is reserved
only for ships named Enterprise.
David wrote:
>
> c wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, 9 Nov 1997, c wrote:
> >
> > Never mind. I reread your post. New question. What were the following
> > two ships in the Intrepid class called? How many were there in all before
> > that? This might be kind of hard to tell, however, because we have never
> > ever seen an intrepid class vessel on a ST series before Voyager.
> >
> > Jen
>
McReynolds
KNIGHT STAR wrote in message <346683FE...@home.com>...
>Voyager was newly commissioned when she got lost. When Voyager was
>pulled into the rift after an encounter with a Federation time ship from
>the future, they tried to stop a 20th century man from jumping 500 years
>into the future. The president of Chronoworks raid the Voyager's
>computer's memory and kidnapped the Doctor. Showing off, he reads "
>U.S.S. Voyager, Interpid-Class; much smaller then I expected and much
>less advanced." The Enterprise-A use to be the Yorktown. As a flash
>back the USS Intrepid was a Constitution-Class manned by Vulcans. It
>should have a letter in its registry unless this privilege is reserved
>only for ships named Enterprise.
It is. Except for the retconned Yamato, which doesn't count...
-McReynolds
John Myers
>
> We only know the names of 2 of them , Voyager and Intrepid. The others
> are unnamed.
>
Except in the Comics. :-)
USS Stargazer (with a A)
USS Pathfinder
Steve Pugh
"^MaEsTrO" wrote:
> c wrote in article ...
>>The Enterprise was Constitution class.
>the original was, correct...
>BUT... after the extensive refit before/during the first movie...it was
>reclassified as a whole new design... ie...Enterprise Class... there are
>several pieces of officially sanctioned Trek literature that state this...
>
>as Scotty said..."18 months of redisign and refit"
Yeah, but in ST V and VI plans of the new craft are clearly labelled
'Constitution Class'.
Which is why a few people have adopted a system whereby it was always
Constitution class, but that after the refit it was Enterprise
sub-class.
And all the other treknical fandom variants (Bonhomme Richard,
Achernar, Constitution II, Endeavour, Tikopai and Enterprise II) are
also sub-classes, but can generally all be referred to as Constitution
class.
Steve
--
1. There is no such thing as canon.
2. William Shatner can't write.
3. It's Defiant class, dammit.
4. All Good Things... was an illusion created by Q.
James Grady Ward
^MaEsTrO wrote:
>
> c wrote in article ...
> >>
> >> > HUH? Was the Enterprise-A ===>Enterprise class? Jen
> >>
> >> Just as the first sovereign class ship was the U.S.S. Sovereign, or the
> >> defiant
> >
> >
>
> the original was, correct...
> BUT... after the extensive refit before/during the first movie...it was
> reclassified as a whole new design... ie...Enterprise Class... there are
> several pieces of officially sanctioned Trek literature that state this...
>
> as Scotty said..."18 months of redisign and refit"
Which makes it a constitution class refit, but still a constitution
class ship. That is by naval protocol and what has been said in
the movies.
Brian Barjenbruch
> BUT... after the extensive refit before/during the first movie...it was
> reclassified as a whole new design... ie...Enterprise Class...
No, it hasn't.
> there are
> several pieces of officially sanctioned Trek literature that state this...
None of which are canon.
> as Scotty said..."18 months of redisign and refit"
Irrelevant. Refits do not change the name of the class.
Brian
Steve Myers
Voyager is an Intrepid class starship. So there is at least 2, but I
believe in the 1st Voyager episode they said something about 4 of them.
Robert Skinner <rob...@yeoman.softnet.co.uk> wrote in article
FREE WAR GAMES CLUB
i see the the whole class as being of no real value: it just light
cruiser class the feds would
be starting heavy combat ship and missiles building by now
one!!
i saw akiras streamrunners and sabres in SOAs and plenty of Galaxies. i
did not see any norway class.plenty of Centaur class(????dunno the real
name of this classs)ships, mirandas and so on. anyone ??????????????
Steven P. McNicoll
^MaEsTrO wrote in message <647f0e$ss5$4...@news.dmv.com>...
>
> c wrote in article ...
>>
>>The Enterprise was Constitution class.
>>
>>Jen
>
>the original was, correct...
>BUT... after the extensive refit before/during the first movie...it was
>reclassified as a whole new design... ie...Enterprise Class... there are
>several pieces of officially sanctioned Trek literature that state this...
>
"The Star Trek Encyclopedia" by Michael & Denise Okuda and Debbie Mirek says
only that NCC-1701 was a Constitution class vessel, no mention of a new
"Enterprise class" after the refit. NCC-1701-A, which was nearly identical
to the reworked NCC-1701, was also a Constitution class vessel.
Steven P. McNicoll
Stargazer was a Constellation class vessel.
What episode was "Pathfinder" in?
one!!
it look like the JH battleCruiser is much bigger than GCS ! anyone?????
Steve Pugh
Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>John Myers wrote:
>> >
>> > We only know the names of 2 of them , Voyager and Intrepid. The others
>> > are unnamed.
>>
>> Except in the Comics. :-)
>>
>> USS Stargazer (with a A)
>> USS Pathfinder
>
>Stargazer was a Constellation class vessel.
The first one was.
This one is an Intrepid class.
Though I don't think it should have an A. That practice only applies
to the Enterprise, so far as anyone can tell.
> What episode was "Pathfinder" in?
No episode. As clearly stated above these two vessels are only
mentioned in the comics.
Steve
--
"Grab reality by the balls and squeeze." - Tempus Thales
Stephen Richard Pugh http://ds.dial.pipex.com/town/estate/ax16
Steve Pugh
John Griffin wrote:
>Where do you people get this Enterprise Class sh%^ from anyway!?? :)
Do you want all the sources?
The 'Ships of the Starfleet' books.
'Mr Scott's Guide to the Enterprise' book.
The FASA roleplaying game.
And so on.
In fact just about every source of information apart from the
'official' books.
James Grady Ward
Steve Pugh wrote:
>
> John Griffin wrote:
>
> >Where do you people get this Enterprise Class sh%^ from anyway!?? :)
>
> Do you want all the sources?
>
> The 'Ships of the Starfleet' books.
> 'Mr Scott's Guide to the Enterprise' book.
> The FASA roleplaying game.
> And so on.
>
> In fact just about every source of information apart from the
> 'official' books.
>
And every source besides the movies, which clearly show and state
that the refits are still consitution class ships. Naval protocol
also states that a refit that is only in terms of internal design
does not change the class name.
When the movies call it a Consitution class ship, what the hell
makes you think any silly non cannon and non offical source
that clearly has not done any reseach on the issue is more
correct?
James Grady Ward
Steve Pugh wrote:
>
> Brian Barjenbruch wrote:
>
> >> BUT... after the extensive refit before/during the first movie...it was
> >> reclassified as a whole new design... ie...Enterprise Class...
> >
>
> Rather depends on who you ask doesn't it?
>
> I go for the compromise. It was still Constitution class, but was now
> Enterprise sub-class. (Just as the changes between the pilots and the
> main run of the series changed it from a straight Constitution class
> to a Bonhomme Richard sub-class. But that's neither here nor there.)
That is just stupid. There is no such thing as a sub-class of a
naval ship class. You can have refits for specific mission prarmeters,
but there is no such thing as a sub-class. What would be the point?
Not to mention, a class name referes to the HULL of the ship not the
internal guts of it.
And as for who to ask, in the movies when they show the ship plaque
for E-A, it says it is a Consitution class ship. So anyone that claims
that the first two Enterprises where anything other than Consitution
class ships has done ZERO research on the show or naval protocol
in naming ship classes, since both clearly say that until the E-B
all of the enterprises where Consistution class ships.
>
> >> there are several pieces of officially sanctioned Trek literature
> >> that state this...
> >
> >None of which are canon.
>
> So what?
It means they don't mean a thing in terms of the show. Especially
when it is flat stated in the movies that the ship is a Consistution
class vessel until the very end.
>
> >> as Scotty said..."18 months of redisign and refit"
> >
> >Irrelevant. Refits do not change the name of the class.
>
> This was a tad more than an ordinary refit though, wasn't it? It was
> virtually a new ship. (As I believ a line of dialogue states.)
>
> Let's see: New warp drives. New bridge. Moved engineering from primary
> to secondary hull (aparrently, still open to debate). Moved the photon
> torpedo tubes from the primary hull to the neck. More than doubled the
> number of phasers. Increased the size of the primary hull. Increased
> the size of the secondary hull. I wonder how much of the old ship was
> left?
>
> Rather a case of: I've had this broom for 50 years. I've changed the
> handle 4 times and the bristles 12 times. But it's still the same
> broom, honest guv.
A ship class refers the the GENERAL DESIGN OF THE HULL. Now unless
you saw something that had the name Enterprise prior to Generations
in the time line, they all had the same hull. They refit updated
guts into it at least once and probably twice depending on what
you saw was done to make the E-A, but the hull design and size did
not change. Hence the ship class did not change. Riping out the
guts of a ship and putting in new guts makes it a refit of the
class. Actually even ripping out parts of the external hull and
putting new peices on in place of them occasionally does not change
the ship class.
The detail is your broom will looks like a pole with a wisk on the
end. Hence it is still the same tool as before, since you have not
changed anything about the design merely replaced some parts. Does
putting a VW bug engine in a Lexus make it a VW bug? Nope, it makes
it a very oddly modified Lexus. The problem with your example is that
no one is saying that it is the same ship, just that it is the same
ship class which only refers the the general design of the hull.
There is evidence in the show that even during the show major parts
of the ship were replaced at times.
Steve Pugh
James Grady Ward wrote:
>Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>>
>> "The Star Trek Encyclopedia" by Michael & Denise Okuda and Debbie Mirek says
>> only that NCC-1701 was a Constitution class vessel, no mention of a new
>> "Enterprise class" after the refit. NCC-1701-A, which was nearly identical
>> to the reworked NCC-1701, was also a Constitution class vessel.
>
I never called them 'official'.
Most of them were licensed, but that's not the same thing.
> Not a one
>of them is a cannon source or even an "offical" one.
Who cares? Trek is not a religeon. It does not have a canon. It ah
slots of cannons though. ;-)
> And either
>way as has been mentioned elsewhere, the ship plaque in the movies
>says that it is a Consitution class ship. So any offical explaination
>has to explain that detail.
Yes. So? Go away and read my view on class and sub-class. I've posted
it three times in the past two days, most recently in reply to a
message of yours so you should be able to find it.
It manages to explain both the 'official' and treknical fandom
viewpoints without contradicting either.
>Of course the obvious one is that simple resigning the interior of
>a ship DOES NOT change the ships class. That never has, it just makes
>it a refit of the class, ie they refit new guts of the ship to the
>same hull. And it is the hull design that determines a ships class,
>not its guts.
Same hull? How come the movie era Enterprise has a hull 15m longer
then? Or more tellingly, how come the saucer now has a noticably
larger radius? Same hull, my arse.
And two ships identical hulls but one fitted out with lots of weaponry
and the other fitted out with hospital equipment would be the same
class I suppose?
Steve Pugh
James Grady Ward wrote:
>Steve Pugh wrote:
>> John Griffin wrote:
>>
>> >Where do you people get this Enterprise Class sh%^ from anyway!?? :)
>>
>> Do you want all the sources?
>>
>> The 'Ships of the Starfleet' books.
>> 'Mr Scott's Guide to the Enterprise' book.
>> The FASA roleplaying game.
>> And so on.
>>
>> In fact just about every source of information apart from the
>> 'official' books.
>
>And every source besides the movies, which clearly show and state
>that the refits are still consitution class ships.
Have you actually bothered to read what I've posted on this subject?
Or do you just send out crap like this without any thought?
I said that the Enterprise was still Constitution class.
But that following its pre-TMP refit was upgraded to Enterprise
sub-class.
Just as the refit between the pilots and the main run of TOS changed
it from basic Constitution to Bonhomme Richard sub-class.
>Naval protocol
>also states that a refit that is only in terms of internal design
>does not change the class name.
Which Navy?
And the refit pre-TMP was hardly only in terms of internal design, was
it? The ship looks completely different from the outside. It's 15m
longer for starters.
>When the movies call it a Consitution class ship, what the hell
>makes you think any silly non cannon and non offical source
>that clearly has not done any reseach on the issue is more
>correct?
It's canon not cannon.
And the writers of these books were often writing before Star Trek V
came out, they didn't know that later movies would say that it was
still Constitution class.
As for research, while Shane Jonhnson and FASA were frequently guilty
of poor research or making stuff up to fit their personbal vision,
other writers have produced books that clearly rival any of thos eput
out by the 'official' team when it comes to detail and quality.
Steve
--
"When I want your opinion, I'll ask for it."
Stephen Richard Pugh http://ds.dial.pipex.com/town/estate/ax16/
James Grady Ward
Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>
> ^MaEsTrO wrote in message <647f0e$ss5$4...@news.dmv.com>...
> >
> > c wrote in article ...
> >>
> >>The Enterprise was Constitution class.
> >>
> >>Jen
> >
> >the original was, correct...
> >several pieces of officially sanctioned Trek literature that state this...
> >
>
> only that NCC-1701 was a Constitution class vessel, no mention of a new
> "Enterprise class" after the refit. NCC-1701-A, which was nearly identical
> to the reworked NCC-1701, was also a Constitution class vessel.
Someone else listed the supposed "offical" sources. Not a one
of them is a cannon source or even an "offical" one. And either
way as has been mentioned elsewhere, the ship plaque in the movies
says that it is a Consitution class ship. So any offical explaination
has to explain that detail.
Of course the obvious one is that simple resigning the interior of
a ship DOES NOT change the ships class. That never has, it just makes
it a refit of the class, ie they refit new guts of the ship to the
same hull. And it is the hull design that determines a ships class,
not its guts.
Steve Pugh
James Grady Ward wrote:
>Steve Pugh wrote:
>>
>> >> BUT... after the extensive refit before/during the first movie...it was
>> >> reclassified as a whole new design... ie...Enterprise Class...
>> >
>>
>> Rather depends on who you ask doesn't it?
>>
>> I go for the compromise. It was still Constitution class, but was now
>> Enterprise sub-class. (Just as the changes between the pilots and the
>> main run of the series changed it from a straight Constitution class
>> to a Bonhomme Richard sub-class. But that's neither here nor there.)
>
>That is just stupid. There is no such thing as a sub-class of a
>naval ship class.
Ah, I see you've found my explanantion of this discrepancy at last.
And you've checked this with every navy in the world?
And even if that is the case today, so what?
Starfleet does not exist today. It exists in the 22nd and onwards
centuries. It ahs more ships than any navy today. Its ships stay in
service for up to 100 years, which is longer than any ship in service
today. (Not counting living museums like the Victory or the
Constitution.) Why do you blindly assume that the same principles
apply?
Today Frigates and Destroyers are the roughly same size.
In WWII Destroyers were larger than Frigates.
In the age of sail, destroyers didn't exist and frigates were the next
size down from ships of the line.
Things change. Navies evolve.
> You can have refits for specific mission prarmeters,
>but there is no such thing as a sub-class. What would be the point?
>Not to mention, a class name referes to the HULL of the ship not the
>internal guts of it.
The point would be be to distinguish between different specifications
of the same basic design. When you have half of the existing
Constitutions at one level of specification and half at another, and a
new batch being built at a third specification it becomes easier to
assign a name to each specification. Or would you prefer we talk about
Type 1, type 2, type 3 and so on Constitution class ships?
>And as for who to ask, in the movies when they show the ship plaque
>for E-A, it says it is a Consitution class ship. So anyone that claims
>that the first two Enterprises where anything other than Consitution
>class ships has done ZERO research on the show or naval protocol
>in naming ship classes, since both clearly say that until the E-B
>all of the enterprises where Consistution class ships.
The plaque in the original series said "Starship Class" so maybe the
Enterprise didn't become Constitution class until after it was
refitted?
The Enterprise was built as a Constitution class.
Between the pilots and the main run of the series she was refitted as
Bonhomme Richard specification.
Between TOS and TAS she was refitted as Achernar specification.
Between the end of the five year mission and TMP she was the first
ship to be refitted to Enterprise specification.
The next Enterprise was the first ship of the very similar Enterprise
(II) specification.
There are also Endeavour, Constitution (II) and Tikopai sub-classes
around. But the Enterprise was never refitted to these specs.
Now isn't this so much more interesting than just having one big
Constitution class?
As for zero research, have you read the Starfleet Technical Manual or
Ships of the Starfleet or any of the other books you're attacking?
>> >> there are several pieces of officially sanctioned Trek literature
>> >> that state this...
>> >
>> >None of which are canon.
>>
>> So what?
>
>It means they don't mean a thing in terms of the show.
Wwell seeing as the show frequently doesn't been a thing in term sof
future episodes I wouldn't lose any sleep over that. What are you
expecting? Continuity?
>Especially
>when it is flat stated in the movies that the ship is a Consistution
>class vessel until the very end.
I'm not arguing with that. I'm just saying that the different
specifications each ahs its own name. Call them specifications or
sub-classes or refit levels or models or types or anything. They are
labelled sub-divisions of a class.
And just because the USN in the 1990s doesn't do that doesn't mean
that Starfleet in the 23rd and 24th century won't.
>> >> as Scotty said..."18 months of redisign and refit"
>> >
>> >Irrelevant. Refits do not change the name of the class.
>>
>> This was a tad more than an ordinary refit though, wasn't it? It was
>> virtually a new ship. (As I believ a line of dialogue states.)
>>
>> Let's see: New warp drives. New bridge. Moved engineering from primary
>> to secondary hull (aparrently, still open to debate). Moved the photon
>> torpedo tubes from the primary hull to the neck. More than doubled the
>> number of phasers. Increased the size of the primary hull. Increased
>> the size of the secondary hull. I wonder how much of the old ship was
>> left?
>>
>> Rather a case of: I've had this broom for 50 years. I've changed the
>> handle 4 times and the bristles 12 times. But it's still the same
>> broom, honest guv.
>
>A ship class refers the the GENERAL DESIGN OF THE HULL.
General design of hull. How general? As general as a saucer, two
nacelles and an engineering hull all connected by narrow pylons?
Or a bit more specific than that?
> Now unless
>you saw something that had the name Enterprise prior to Generations
>in the time line, they all had the same hull.
So the one in ST VI had the same hull as the one that blew up in ST
III? ;-) You must mean same general design of hull.
> They refit updated
>guts into it at least once and probably twice depending on what
>you saw was done to make the E-A, but the hull design and size did
>not change.
The size did. The new one was about 15m longer, about 4m wider and
about 1m taller.
You can check that the lengths are different in the 'official'
Encyclopedias. It's a 5% difference in length. That's quite large you
know.
>Hence the ship class did not change. Riping out the
>guts of a ship and putting in new guts makes it a refit of the
>class. Actually even ripping out parts of the external hull and
>putting new peices on in place of them occasionally does not change
>the ship class.
Never said it did. Changes the sub-class. Sometimes.
>The detail is your broom will looks like a pole with a wisk on the
>end. Hence it is still the same tool as before, since you have not
>changed anything about the design merely replaced some parts.
But if it was a ash-handled class broom and I put an oak handle on it.
It would still be a broom. But a different class of broom.
;-)
> Does
>putting a VW bug engine in a Lexus make it a VW bug? Nope, it makes
>it a very oddly modified Lexus. The problem with your example is that
>no one is saying that it is the same ship, just that it is the same
>ship class which only refers the the general design of the hull.
How general is general?
The Excelsior, Ambassador, Galaxy, Intrepid and Sovereign all have the
same general design but are different classes.
Is the Enterprise refit from All Good Things... a different class?
Or does adding a third nacelle not count as changing the general
design?
The Miranda and the Soyuz are of the same general hull design, yet
they are different classes.
>There is evidence in the show that even during the show major parts
>of the ship were replaced at times.
Yes. Between the two pilots and TOS and between TOS and TAS there were
fairly major refits that changed the spcification. There were other
minor refits all the time.
How big a refit does it have to be to change the sub-class? That's a
bureaucratic matter. Some are so minor as to hardly deserve the title.
Others are so major that calling it a new class would be easier. But
you know how bureaucracy is....
The beauty of using the class and sub-class system is that it unites
the 'official' and treknical fandom viewpoints and is flexible enough
to explain away nearly anything.
Steve
--
"My theories appal you, my heresies outrage you,
I never answer letters and you don't like my tie." - The Doctor
James Grady Ward
Steve Pugh wrote:
>
> James Grady Ward wrote:
> >Steve Pugh wrote:
> >>
> >> >Where do you people get this Enterprise Class sh%^ from anyway!?? :)
> >>
> >> Do you want all the sources?
> >>
> >> The 'Ships of the Starfleet' books.
> >> 'Mr Scott's Guide to the Enterprise' book.
> >> The FASA roleplaying game.
> >> And so on.
> >>
> >> In fact just about every source of information apart from the
> >> 'official' books.
> >
> >And every source besides the movies, which clearly show and state
> >that the refits are still consitution class ships.
>
> Have you actually bothered to read what I've posted on this subject?
> Or do you just send out crap like this without any thought?
>
I have read it. Your idea of sub-classes is just stupid and
makes the entire point of ship clases irrelevant, since the general
class name would not have any meaning in terms of what the ship
looks like.
> I said that the Enterprise was still Constitution class.
> But that following its pre-TMP refit was upgraded to Enterprise
> sub-class.
> Just as the refit between the pilots and the main run of TOS changed
> it from basic Constitution to Bonhomme Richard sub-class.
Only in your mind. This does not agree with ANYTHING that has
ever been on screen. Again, taking out the guts of a ship
and refiting new guts does not change the ship class, even if it
means putting a few bumps on the outer hull. Does putting a new
engine in a Lexus make it a different car? Nope, as long as the
basic frame is there it is still a Lexus with a modified engine
in it. This is a well established design naming convention
which you are tring to ignore. It is a good thing the people
that actually write the show know better.
>
> >Naval protocol
> >also states that a refit that is only in terms of internal design
> >does not change the class name.
>
> Which Navy?
Any of the current ones. Which means that the ones that starfleet
is losely based on use, which means that starfleet uses it. And
from everything on screen, starfleet has been shown to use. Until
the E-B, all of the Enterprises were Consitution class ships period.
No silly sub-classes have ever existed outside of your mind.
>
> And the refit pre-TMP was hardly only in terms of internal design, was
> it? The ship looks completely different from the outside. It's 15m
> longer for starters.
Which does not change the basic design. BTW, what was the cause of the
increase in length? It may well have simply been a longer sensor
antena on one end.
>
> >When the movies call it a Consitution class ship, what the hell
> >makes you think any silly non cannon and non offical source
> >that clearly has not done any reseach on the issue is more
> >correct?
>
> It's canon not cannon.
>
> And the writers of these books were often writing before Star Trek V
> came out, they didn't know that later movies would say that it was
> still Constitution class.
If they had a brain they would have know it would still be a consitution
class ship or if they had done ANY research at all they would have known
it. And you have just stated the EXACT reason that the books are NEVER
to be taken as sources of technical information, ie the writers are too
damn lazy to do any research to get the technical info right.
>
> As for research, while Shane Jonhnson and FASA were frequently guilty
> of poor research or making stuff up to fit their personbal vision,
> other writers have produced books that clearly rival any of thos eput
> out by the 'official' team when it comes to detail and quality.
In the case of the ship classes, they must have done ZERO research.
Anyone in the navy would have laughed in their faces if they tried
to present this silly notion to them. You have to change the
basic design of the outer hull of a ship to change its class period.
That is the way ship classes are defined. It is done that way so
that a minor change in the design during the production run does not
make a new ship class. And clearly what little outer desing changes
were made to the ship are extremely minor, so it is still the same
ship class. Basicly it requires the ship being striped down and
rebuilt before it would ever get a new class name.
Marc P. Oburg
And actually, The E-A was first another ship (read somewhere that it was
the USS Ti-Ho) and was re-commissioned as E-A. The original E 1701 (no
bloody A, B, C, or D, {or E}) was the ship that had the re-fit.
Brian Barjenbruch <bri...@home.com> wrote in article
<brianb1-0811...@cx31002-a.omhaw1.ne.home.com>...
> The Enterprise-A was still Constitution class. Refits don't change the
> name of the class. In Star Trek VI, watch Scotty as he reads the
> technical schematics. It clearly says CONSTITUTION CLASS STARSHIP on
> them.
>
> Also, it isn't exactly proven that the Ent-A was the first ship to
receive
> that refit. Other ships may have gotten it before. (In fact, the USS
> Eagle--one of the ships from the Operation Retrieve plan in ST VI--was, I
> believe, a refit Constitution class.)
>
> Brian
>
Steve Pugh
James Grady Ward wrote:
>Steve Pugh wrote:
>> James Grady Ward wrote:
>> >Steve Pugh wrote:
>> Have you actually bothered to read what I've posted on this subject?
>> Or do you just send out crap like this without any thought?
>
>I have read it. Your idea of sub-classes is just stupid and
>makes the entire point of ship clases irrelevant, since the general
>class name would not have any meaning in terms of what the ship
>looks like.
Starfleet is not the USN.
The general class is still the general class. That has not cahnged.
All I'm saying is that Enterprise sub-class is another way of saying
refit Constitution. And if there are more than one standard of refit
aroiund at the same time then just saying refit Constitution doesn't
tell me which type your talking about.
>> I said that the Enterprise was still Constitution class.
>> But that following its pre-TMP refit was upgraded to Enterprise
>> sub-class.
>> Just as the refit between the pilots and the main run of TOS changed
>> it from basic Constitution to Bonhomme Richard sub-class.
>
>Only in your mind.
And in the minds of other people. Timo? Clif? You here at the moment?
>This does not agree with ANYTHING that has
>ever been on screen.
But does it disagree with anything on screen? No.
>Again, taking out the guts of a ship
>and refiting new guts does not change the ship class, even if it
>means putting a few bumps on the outer hull. Does putting a new
>engine in a Lexus make it a different car? Nope, as long as the
>basic frame is there it is still a Lexus with a modified engine
>in it.
And if we started a production of such cars we would want to
distinguish them from ordinary Lexi wouldn't we?
Maybe we'd call it the Lexus+ or the Lexus 2478
or the Lexus Tarzan (randomly picked name) in which case to go back to
the starships, the Tarzan would be the equivalent of the sub-class
name.
But saying Constitution Enterprise is even dafter sounding than saying
Lexus Tarzan. (What is a Lexus, BTW? Some American car?)
So we say Constitution class most of the time and Enterprise sub-class
or Enterprise Specification when we want to be precise about which
sort of Constitution we're dealing with.
>This is a well established design naming convention
>which you are tring to ignore. It is a good thing the people
>that actually write the show know better.
Well established now. In the future? Could be considered outdated and
out of use.
Why are you so fixated with making Starfleet a clone of the USN. That
is so very, very boring.
If Starfleet was Navy then the CC in NCC would mean cruiser (As Gene
Rodenberry originally intended BTW) but it doesn't any more. All ships
regardless of type have the same registry letters. Where are the NFFs
or the NDDs? They don't exist!
>> >Naval protocol
>> >also states that a refit that is only in terms of internal design
>> >does not change the class name.
>>
>> Which Navy?
>
>Any of the current ones.
Any? Or just the NATO ones?
>Which means that the ones that starfleet
>is losely based on use, which means that starfleet uses it.
All the ones that got wiped out in the Eugenics war? Colonel Green's
War and World War III?
> And
>from everything on screen, starfleet has been shown to use. Until
>the E-B, all of the Enterprises were Consitution class ships period.
I'm not arguing with that. I'm just saying that the movie refit was
Enterprise specification and the A was Enterprise (II) specification.
>No silly sub-classes have ever existed outside of your mind.
I haven't invented a single piece of information here.
Most of it can be traced back to the Starfleet Technical Manual which
was personally approved by Gene Rodenberry in the early '70s.
>> And the refit pre-TMP was hardly only in terms of internal design, was
>> it? The ship looks completely different from the outside. It's 15m
>> longer for starters.
>
>Which does not change the basic design. BTW, what was the cause of the
>increase in length? It may well have simply been a longer sensor
>antena on one end.
Partly to do with the saucer having a larger radius and partly to do
with the totally new nacelle/pylon assemablies. Im case you haven't
noticed the TOS pylons don't slope backwards but the movie ones do.
>> >When the movies call it a Consitution class ship, what the hell
>> >makes you think any silly non cannon and non offical source
>> >that clearly has not done any reseach on the issue is more
>> >correct?
>>
>> It's canon not cannon.
>>
>> And the writers of these books were often writing before Star Trek V
>> came out, they didn't know that later movies would say that it was
>> still Constitution class.
>
>If they had a brain they would have know it would still be a consitution
>class ship or if they had done ANY research at all they would have known
>it. And you have just stated the EXACT reason that the books are NEVER
>to be taken as sources of technical information, ie the writers are too
>damn lazy to do any research to get the technical info right.
YAWN.
They researched a TV programme by watching the TV programme and
talking to Gene Rodenberry and Matt Jeffries and the other people who
had made that TV programme.
If you bothered to read these books you would find them full of the
sort of techno-militaristic wank that the real world navy spouts.
These books are much closer to Starfleet as working navy than anything
the TV series ever showed.
>> As for research, while Shane Jonhnson and FASA were frequently guilty
>> of poor research or making stuff up to fit their personbal vision,
>> other writers have produced books that clearly rival any of thos eput
>> out by the 'official' team when it comes to detail and quality.
>
>In the case of the ship classes, they must have done ZERO research.
>Anyone in the navy would have laughed in their faces if they tried
>to present this silly notion to them.
For the nth time Starfleet is not the
United-bloody-States-bloody-Navy, nor is it the Roayl-bloody-Navy or
any other bloody Navy currently extant.
It is an organisation that came into existence in the 22nd century and
had its roots in several military and civilain organisations on
several different planets.
Why not go and look at Vulcan naval proctices or Andorian ones? They
founded Starfleet along with the humans.
> You have to change the
>basic design of the outer hull of a ship to change its class period.
How basic is basic?
The Ambassador class has the same basic design.
The Soyuz and the Miranda are very similar.
Some of the Miranda variants ahve extra pods on the side and no
rollbar. Is that different enough?
What about the Challenger class?
>That is the way ship classes are defined.
In the USN and other NATO navies. That has nothing to do with
Starfleet.
> It is done that way so
>that a minor change in the design during the production run does not
>make a new ship class.
I have not said that it does. It makes a new specification. Which can
be given its own name if the authorities so desire.
>And clearly what little outer desing changes
>were made to the ship are extremely minor, so it is still the same
>ship class. Basicly it requires the ship being striped down and
>rebuilt before it would ever get a new class name.
Stripped down and rebuilt? That is exactly what happened to the
Enterprise between TAS and TMP. One of the crew said that she was
viurtually a whole new ship. And she didn't get a new class name. She
got a new sub-class name to go with her new specification.
If the USN changed it's policy tomorrow and started assigning names to
major variations within classes, would you write to them and tell them
they were doing it wrong?
Steve
--
"Grab reality by the balls and squeeze." - Tempus Thales
Stephen Richard Pugh http://ds.dial.pipex.com/town/estate/ax16
Steve Pugh
"Marc P. Oburg" <mob...@himark.com> wrote:
>And actually, The E-A was first another ship (read somewhere that it was
>the USS Ti-Ho) and was re-commissioned as E-A. The original E 1701 (no
>bloody A, B, C, or D, {or E}) was the ship that had the re-fit.
Ti-Ho, Yorktown, Levant. They've all been suggested in different
books. None of them have been confirmed on screen.
(NB. Looking at the evidence that is on screen, the one that is given
by the 'official' sources, The Yorktown, is actually the least likley.
Yorktown was a long way from Earth when disbled in ST IV and there was
a Yorktown in service at the time of ST VI according to 'Flashback'
which was only 5 years later. So possible but not likley. I prefer
Levant myself. But as it's never been stated on screen my choice, your
choice, anyone's choice is equally valid.)
The E-A was actually slightly different to the refitted E. Whether it
was another separate specification or merely a few minor yard changes
is harder to judge because we see so little of the E-A.
Steve
--
"My theories appal you, my heresies outrage you,
I never answer letters and you don't like my tie." - The Doctor
Stephen Richard Pugh http://ds.dial.pipex.com/town/estate/ax16
John Griffin
Steve Pugh wrote:
>
> Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> >> >
> >> > We only know the names of 2 of them , Voyager and Intrepid. The others
> >> > are unnamed.
> >>
> >> Except in the Comics. :-)
> >>
> >> USS Stargazer (with a A)
> >> USS Pathfinder
> >
> >Stargazer was a Constellation class vessel.
>
> The first one was.
> This one is an Intrepid class.
> Though I don't think it should have an A. That practice only applies
> to the Enterprise, so far as anyone can tell.
>
class ship inside the void, Riker Clearly States, "NCC-1305-E, Its the
Yamato our sister ship"!! So the Enterprise is not the only ship with
additional letters.
> > What episode was "Pathfinder" in?
>
> No episode. As clearly stated above these two vessels are only
> mentioned in the comics.
>
> Steve
>
> --
> "Grab reality by the balls and squeeze." - Tempus Thales
>
John Griffin
Steve Pugh wrote:
>
> Brian Barjenbruch wrote:
>
> >> BUT... after the extensive refit before/during the first movie...it was
> >> reclassified as a whole new design... ie...Enterprise Class...
> >
> >No, it hasn't.
>
> Rather depends on who you ask doesn't it?
>
> I go for the compromise. It was still Constitution class, but was now
> Enterprise sub-class. (Just as the changes between the pilots and the
> main run of the series changed it from a straight Constitution class
> to a Bonhomme Richard sub-class. But that's neither here nor there.)
>
> >> that state this...
> >
> >None of which are canon.
>
> So what?
>
> >
> >Irrelevant. Refits do not change the name of the class.
>
> This was a tad more than an ordinary refit though, wasn't it? It was
> virtually a new ship. (As I believ a line of dialogue states.)
>
> Let's see: New warp drives. New bridge. Moved engineering from primary
> to secondary hull (aparrently, still open to debate). Moved the photon
> torpedo tubes from the primary hull to the neck. More than doubled the
> number of phasers. Increased the size of the primary hull. Increased
> the size of the secondary hull. I wonder how much of the old ship was
> left?
The Space Frame.
>
> Rather a case of: I've had this broom for 50 years. I've changed the
> handle 4 times and the bristles 12 times. But it's still the same
> broom, honest guv.
>
James Grady Ward
Steve Pugh wrote:
>
> "Marc P. Oburg" <mob...@himark.com> wrote:
>
> >And actually, The E-A was first another ship (read somewhere that it was
> >the USS Ti-Ho) and was re-commissioned as E-A. The original E 1701 (no
> >bloody A, B, C, or D, {or E}) was the ship that had the re-fit.
>
> Ti-Ho, Yorktown, Levant. They've all been suggested in different
> books. None of them have been confirmed on screen.
>
> (NB. Looking at the evidence that is on screen, the one that is given
> by the 'official' sources, The Yorktown, is actually the least likley.
> Yorktown was a long way from Earth when disbled in ST IV and there was
> a Yorktown in service at the time of ST VI according to 'Flashback'
> which was only 5 years later. So possible but not likley. I prefer
> Levant myself. But as it's never been stated on screen my choice, your
> choice, anyone's choice is equally valid.)
Acutally if they took the current Consitution class ship that was
called Yorktown to make the E-A, it would stand to reason that the
name Yorktown would be fairly high up on the list of names to be
placed on the current( ie the one we see with the "transwarp"
drive) ship class being produced. Would actually make sense as
some of the sources refer to the ship that became the E-A as
a ship that was being decomissioned anyway/
>
> The E-A was actually slightly different to the refitted E. Whether it
> was another separate specification or merely a few minor yard changes
> is harder to judge because we see so little of the E-A.
>
Well as far as the discussion is concerned it is a Consitution class
reguardless.
James Grady Ward
Steve Pugh wrote:
>
> James Grady Ward wrote:
> >Steve Pugh wrote:
> >> James Grady Ward wrote:
> >> >Steve Pugh wrote:
>
> >> Have you actually bothered to read what I've posted on this subject?
> >> Or do you just send out crap like this without any thought?
> >
> >I have read it. Your idea of sub-classes is just stupid and
> >makes the entire point of ship clases irrelevant, since the general
> >class name would not have any meaning in terms of what the ship
> >looks like.
>
> Starfleet is not the USN.
>
> The general class is still the general class. That has not cahnged.
>
> All I'm saying is that Enterprise sub-class is another way of saying
> refit Constitution. And if there are more than one standard of refit
> aroiund at the same time then just saying refit Constitution doesn't
> tell me which type your talking about.
Starfleet is damn well modeled after the USN and the naval tradition
of the british navy that the USN traditions come from. That is actually
said by Rodenberry in some interview.
THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A SUB-CLASS. NEVER HAS BEEN. And it is
very damn well odd that all of the current major navies have no problem
with calling a ship that has been refited a refit of that class ship.
All of the Europena navies do this. The Russian navy does this as well.
And as to how it should be said, properly is 1st refit and 2nd refit.
And there would be a standard refit at any given time. The entire
point of refiting a ship is to replace outdated parts with the most
current parts that can fit in it. Not to mention, it takes more than
a little bit of effort to design out the refit of a ship. Scotty
claiming
it took 18 months to refit the Enterprise in the first movie is
about right for real ships.
Get it through your head. By all offical and sane accountings, there
has only been Consitution class( period, nothing further besides refit
number maybe for pure offical documentation) Enterprises until the E-B
was made.
>
> >> I said that the Enterprise was still Constitution class.
> >> But that following its pre-TMP refit was upgraded to Enterprise
> >> sub-class.
> >> Just as the refit between the pilots and the main run of TOS changed
> >> it from basic Constitution to Bonhomme Richard sub-class.
> >
> >Only in your mind.
>
> And in the minds of other people. Timo? Clif? You here at the moment?
None of which work at Paramount or have ever been near a real
naval yard. You tried to mention this sub-class idea of yours
to them and if you are lucky they will just ignore you. If you
presisted in saying it had to be you might well get into a
fist fight over your stupidity.
>
> >This does not agree with ANYTHING that has
> >ever been on screen.
>
> But does it disagree with anything on screen? No.
EVERYTHING ON SCREEN HAS ALWAYS CALLED THE SHIP ***CONSITITUION***(
PERIOD)
CLASS SHIPS. THERE HAS NEVER BEEN ANYTHING OTHER THAN THE WORD REFIT
EVER USED TO DESCRIBE THE CHANGES SINCE THE SAME HULL WAS USED.
Why can't you get that through your head. Sub-classes is
a meaningless and non-existant term in relation to naval
( and hence starfleet) ship classes.
> >Again, taking out the guts of a ship
> >and refiting new guts does not change the ship class, even if it
> >means putting a few bumps on the outer hull. Does putting a new
> >engine in a Lexus make it a different car? Nope, as long as the
> >basic frame is there it is still a Lexus with a modified engine
> >in it.
>
> And if we started a production of such cars we would want to
> distinguish them from ordinary Lexi wouldn't we?
> Maybe we'd call it the Lexus+ or the Lexus 2478
> or the Lexus Tarzan (randomly picked name) in which case to go back to
> the starships, the Tarzan would be the equivalent of the sub-class
> name.
NOPE IT WOULD NOT, AS THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A SUB-CLASS TO A
NAVAL SHIP CLASS. PERIOD, IT DOES NOT EXIST. And if you knew
how ship clases are named you would know that it would be meaningless
to make such, unless you want everyship to be its own class.
And each model in the Lexus series( note the car SERIES is what equates
to a SHIP CLASS) is still called a Lexus.
> But saying Constitution Enterprise is even dafter sounding than saying
> Lexus Tarzan. (What is a Lexus, BTW? Some American car?)
> So we say Constitution class most of the time and Enterprise sub-class
> or Enterprise Specification when we want to be precise about which
> sort of Constitution we're dealing with.
Lets, you realize that Consituttion Enterprise is DUMB AS HELL, but
you think that Consitution class, sub-class Enterprise makes more
sense? Now I know you are not thinking this through at all. Besides
what you are suggesting would make EVERY SINGLE SHIP IN THE FLEET a
seperate class and thus would negate the entire purpose of grouping
ships into clases to begin with. This is why it is not done by
any navy.
>
> >This is a well established design naming convention
> >which you are tring to ignore. It is a good thing the people
> >that actually write the show know better.
>
> Well established now. In the future? Could be considered outdated and
> out of use.
>
> Why are you so fixated with making Starfleet a clone of the USN. That
> is so very, very boring.
It is what the creator of the show said. It is what all of the
shows have shown without any error besides the suffixs on ship
names. It is VERY DAMN WELL CLEAR THAT THE NAMES ARE A CLONE OF
MODERN( NOT JUST THE USN) NAVIES. Any idiot that has ever done
any research would know that.
>
> If Starfleet was Navy then the CC in NCC would mean cruiser (As Gene
> Rodenberry originally intended BTW) but it doesn't any more. All ships
> regardless of type have the same registry letters. Where are the NFFs
> or the NDDs? They don't exist!
Odd you note that Rodenberry said that the naming is taken from
naval tradition and then procede to use that as evidence that they
are not using naval tradition. Think through what you are tring very
poorly to defend here. It is clear that the naming conventions with
the one expection of the suffixs on the enterprises is lifeted straigh
from ALL moderned navies, it is not just a USN thing. Acutally our
navy got it from the British navy. Learn some history at one point
HMS ships ruled the high seas and as a result all modern navies copy
most of thier structure and protocol.
And as far as NCC means, some real navy people have come on before
and pointed out that that means Naval Construction Contract. Where
you get Cruiser from I do not know.
>
> >> >Naval protocol
> >> >also states that a refit that is only in terms of internal design
> >> >does not change the class name.
> >>
> >> Which Navy?
> >
> >Any of the current ones.
>
> Any? Or just the NATO ones?
NATO, Russia, Japan. Can't verify off the top of my head if China
does, but they got most of their current naval stuff from the US,
England and Russia so I would put extremely high odds they use the
same convention just to agree with everybody else.
Any other navies big enough to matter how the classify thier
ships you can think of? Oh yeah Canada uses this as well.
Well I sure as hell have never heard of any current navy
not using it.
>
> >Which means that the ones that starfleet
> >is losely based on use, which means that starfleet uses it.
>
> All the ones that got wiped out in the Eugenics war? Colonel Green's
> War and World War III?
And they use the traditional naming convention that the British
Royal navy established and has been used be EVERYONE SENCE.
Rodenberry himself said that starfleet is modeled after this,
so just give up on this silly notition that is dead wrong.
The ships were always Constitution class *PERIOD*. Sub-classes
do not exist and would make the idea of ship classes meaningless
as EVERY SINGLE SHIP WOULD BE ITS OWN SUB-CLASS.
>
> > And
> >from everything on screen, starfleet has been shown to use. Until
> >the E-B, all of the Enterprises were Consitution class ships period.
>
> I'm not arguing with that.
THE HELL YOU ARE NOT, THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT YOU ARE ARUGEING ABOUT.
If you agree they were simply Consitution class ships then we would
not be having this discussion. The problem is you think this fictious
notion of sub-class exist, when it does not and never has.
> I'm just saying that the movie refit was
> Enterprise specification and the A was Enterprise (II) specification.
Nope, called everywhere even close to offical as simply Consitution
class *PERIOD*.
>
> >No silly sub-classes have ever existed outside of your mind.
>
> I haven't invented a single piece of information here.
>
> Most of it can be traced back to the Starfleet Technical Manual which
> was personally approved by Gene Rodenberry in the early '70s.
That is odd, considering that Rodenberry wanted to follow naval
traditions. And is even more odd that he made sure that the ships
in the movies were called Consitution class *PERIOD*.
>
> >> And the refit pre-TMP was hardly only in terms of internal design, was
> >> it? The ship looks completely different from the outside. It's 15m
> >> longer for starters.
> >
> >Which does not change the basic design. BTW, what was the cause of the
> >increase in length? It may well have simply been a longer sensor
> >antena on one end.
>
> Partly to do with the saucer having a larger radius and partly to do
> with the totally new nacelle/pylon assemablies. Im case you haven't
> noticed the TOS pylons don't slope backwards but the movie ones do.
Which would not make a new ship class. They tore off the entire flight
deck of one of the Forestal carriers and put a totally different
one on it and it was still a Forrestal class carier. Unless an entire
NEW hull is used, the class name is not going to change. Period,
get over it.
>
> >> >When the movies call it a Consitution class ship, what the hell
> >> >makes you think any silly non cannon and non offical source
> >> >that clearly has not done any reseach on the issue is more
> >> >correct?
> >>
> >> It's canon not cannon.
> >>
> >> And the writers of these books were often writing before Star Trek V
> >> came out, they didn't know that later movies would say that it was
> >> still Constitution class.
> >
> >If they had a brain they would have know it would still be a consitution
> >class ship or if they had done ANY research at all they would have known
> >it. And you have just stated the EXACT reason that the books are NEVER
> >to be taken as sources of technical information, ie the writers are too
> >damn lazy to do any research to get the technical info right.
>
> YAWN.
>
> They researched a TV programme by watching the TV programme and
> talking to Gene Rodenberry and Matt Jeffries and the other people who
> had made that TV programme.
>
> If you bothered to read these books you would find them full of the
> sort of techno-militaristic wank that the real world navy spouts.
>
> These books are much closer to Starfleet as working navy than anything
> the TV series ever showed.
Not if they screwed up something some simple as thinking that there
is such a thing as sub-classes of ships. Hand that idea to any
navay midshipman and they will tell you you are an idiot. This means
that they never talked to anyone that has ever been in the navy
when they wrote the books. Translation, ZERO research.
Sub-class do not exist. Period. All the ship up to the E-B were
simply Consitution class ships *PERIOD*. That is from Rodenberry
since he had control of the movies and did not try to change it.
At somepoint he may have been clueless about the protocol, but
someone sure as hell got it corrected before any silliness as
sub-classes ever hit the screen. They caught enough hell for
the E-A being named and numbered as it was.
>
> >> As for research, while Shane Jonhnson and FASA were frequently guilty
> >> of poor research or making stuff up to fit their personbal vision,
> >> other writers have produced books that clearly rival any of thos eput
> >> out by the 'official' team when it comes to detail and quality.
> >
> >In the case of the ship classes, they must have done ZERO research.
> >Anyone in the navy would have laughed in their faces if they tried
> >to present this silly notion to them.
>
> For the nth time Starfleet is not the
> United-bloody-States-bloody-Navy, nor is it the Roayl-bloody-Navy or
> any other bloody Navy currently extant.
But it BLOODY WELL IS MODELED AFTER THE TRADITIONS ESTABLISHED BY
the british royal navy in the 17th and 18th century, as have all
navies since. This is from Rodenberry himself in an interview.
>
> It is an organisation that came into existence in the 22nd century and
> had its roots in several military and civilain organisations on
> several different planets.
>
> Why not go and look at Vulcan naval proctices or Andorian ones? They
> founded Starfleet along with the humans.
Because Starfleet copied the british ones as has been stated and shown
consistently as far as the ship classes at least from episode one to
the most current episodes and everywhere inbewteeen.
Sub-clases do not exist. Those ships were simpy Consitutions
class *PERIOD*.
>
> > You have to change the
> >basic design of the outer hull of a ship to change its class period.
>
> How basic is basic?
>
> The Ambassador class has the same basic design.
The Ambassador class might well be a reappearence of the
design after all of the orignal Consitutions have been phased
out. They were something like 40 year old designs during TOS
I think.
>
> The Soyuz and the Miranda are very similar.
> Some of the Miranda variants ahve extra pods on the side and no
> rollbar. Is that different enough?
Never seen them enough to care. And missing the roll bar could
well make a major difference since that was the main weapons for
the ship, so changes in the weapons to the point that it requires
moving their location probably would require striping the ship
down to make the change.
>
> What about the Challenger class?
Never seen it. And still it does not change the fact that there
is not such thing as a sub-class and that all of the first enterprises
were Consitutions class ships to the E-B.
>
> >That is the way ship classes are defined.
>
> In the USN and other NATO navies. That has nothing to do with
> Starfleet.
It has everything to do with Starfleet, since its protocol is based
off of the British Royal Navy's traditions. Such has been said
by Rodenberry himself in interviews. Kirk's character is supposedly
modeled after Horatio Hornblower( I think that is the right name).
And that naming convention is used with more than just NATO. If you
had any clue as to why NATO used it you would know that. Clearly you
don't.
>
> > It is done that way so
> >that a minor change in the design during the production run does not
> >make a new ship class.
>
> I have not said that it does. It makes a new specification. Which can
> be given its own name if the authorities so desire.
Sub-classes do not exist though. So you are saying it is a new
class, which it is not. It remained a Consitution *PERIOD*.
>
> >And clearly what little outer desing changes
> >were made to the ship are extremely minor, so it is still the same
> >ship class. Basicly it requires the ship being striped down and
> >rebuilt before it would ever get a new class name.
>
> Stripped down and rebuilt? That is exactly what happened to the
> Enterprise between TAS and TMP. One of the crew said that she was
> viurtually a whole new ship. And she didn't get a new class name. She
> got a new sub-class name to go with her new specification.
New guts, not new hull. Important difference that will again go
over your head I am sure.
>
> If the USN changed it's policy tomorrow and started assigning names to
> major variations within classes, would you write to them and tell them
> they were doing it wrong?
That does not affect the FACT that starfleet's naming conventions
are based off the British Royal Navy traditions. As such there
are no sub-classes. And the USN would not change the convention
as it works, unlike the one you are suggesting would would make each
and EVERY ship a class unto itself and thus make the whole point
of ship classes pointless.
Steve Pugh
James Grady Ward wrote:
>Starfleet is damn well modeled after the USN and the naval tradition
>of the british navy that the USN traditions come from. That is actually
>said by Rodenberry in some interview.
Those Royal Naval traditions such as Rum, Sodomy and the lash? We see
a lot of them in Trek don't we?
>THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A SUB-CLASS. NEVER HAS BEEN. And it is
>very damn well odd that all of the current major navies have no problem
>with calling a ship that has been refited a refit of that class ship.
>All of the Europena navies do this. The Russian navy does this as well.
>
>And as to how it should be said, properly is 1st refit and 2nd refit.
>And there would be a standard refit at any given time.
Wrong. There are several different variants on the Miranda design in
service at the same time. All called Miranda class.
Not a variations are simple upgrades. Not all ships in a class are
upgraded to the same standard. 1st, 2nd, 3rd etc. starts to break down
when some go from 1st to 4th whilst other go to 3rd and never go to
4th.
>Get it through your head. By all offical and sane accountings, there
>has only been Consitution class( period, nothing further besides refit
>number maybe for pure offical documentation) Enterprises until the E-B
>was made.
I have never said that it is not constitution class.
I have merely said that it has a further label to distinguish between
variants.
>None of which work at Paramount or have ever been near a real
>naval yard. You tried to mention this sub-class idea of yours
>to them and if you are lucky they will just ignore you. If you
>presisted in saying it had to be you might well get into a
>fist fight over your stupidity.
Is that a challenge James?
Anyway, anyone who would get into a fist fight over Star Trek is
beyond hope.
>> But does it disagree with anything on screen? No.
>
>EVERYTHING ON SCREEN HAS ALWAYS CALLED THE SHIP ***CONSITITUION***(
>PERIOD)
>CLASS SHIPS. THERE HAS NEVER BEEN ANYTHING OTHER THAN THE WORD REFIT
>EVER USED TO DESCRIBE THE CHANGES SINCE THE SAME HULL WAS USED.
Well done. You've said that before and I've agreed with it before.
>Why can't you get that through your head. Sub-classes is
>a meaningless and non-existant term in relation to naval
>(and hence starfleet) ship classes.
It is not meaningless. I have explained the meaning to you several
times. I don't care that it ahs no realtionship to modern naval
practices.
>> >Again, taking out the guts of a ship
>> >and refiting new guts does not change the ship class, even if it
>> >means putting a few bumps on the outer hull. Does putting a new
>> >engine in a Lexus make it a different car? Nope, as long as the
>> >basic frame is there it is still a Lexus with a modified engine
>> >in it.
>>
>> And if we started a production of such cars we would want to
>> distinguish them from ordinary Lexi wouldn't we?
>> Maybe we'd call it the Lexus+ or the Lexus 2478
>> or the Lexus Tarzan (randomly picked name) in which case to go back to
>> the starships, the Tarzan would be the equivalent of the sub-class
>> name.
>
>NOPE IT WOULD NOT, AS THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A SUB-CLASS TO A
>NAVAL SHIP CLASS. PERIOD, IT DOES NOT EXIST.
NOW.
>And if you knew
>how ship clases are named you would know that it would be meaningless
>to make such, unless you want everyship to be its own class.
No. Whilst the Exeter and the Essex are both Constitution class, and
while they are both, say, Achernar sub-class they can still have minor
fit differenes. We are talking about a loose hierarchy of variation.
>And each model in the Lexus series( note the car SERIES is what equates
>to a SHIP CLASS) is still called a Lexus.
Never argued with that.
>> But saying Constitution Enterprise is even dafter sounding than saying
>> Lexus Tarzan. (What is a Lexus, BTW? Some American car?)
>> So we say Constitution class most of the time and Enterprise sub-class
>> or Enterprise Specification when we want to be precise about which
>> sort of Constitution we're dealing with.
>
>Lets, you realize that Consituttion Enterprise is DUMB AS HELL,
No, I said it sounded daft. It would be technically accurate, but it
is a bit of a mouthful to say.
> but
>you think that Consitution class, sub-class Enterprise makes more
>sense? Now I know you are not thinking this through at all. Besides
>what you are suggesting would make EVERY SINGLE SHIP IN THE FLEET a
>seperate class and thus would negate the entire purpose of grouping
>ships into clases to begin with. This is why it is not done by
>any navy.
Explained above.
>> >This is a well established design naming convention
>> >which you are tring to ignore. It is a good thing the people
>> >that actually write the show know better.
>>
>> Well established now. In the future? Could be considered outdated and
>> out of use.
>>
>> Why are you so fixated with making Starfleet a clone of the USN. That
>> is so very, very boring.
>
>It is what the creator of the show said. It is what all of the
>shows have shown without any error besides the suffixs on ship
>names. It is VERY DAMN WELL CLEAR THAT THE NAMES ARE A CLONE OF
>MODERN( NOT JUST THE USN) NAVIES. Any idiot that has ever done
>any research would know that.
And so? Do they have to stick slavishly to it in every detail?
We know that they don't.
>> If Starfleet was Navy then the CC in NCC would mean cruiser (As Gene
>> Rodenberry originally intended BTW) but it doesn't any more. All ships
>> regardless of type have the same registry letters. Where are the NFFs
>> or the NDDs? They don't exist!
>
>Odd you note that Rodenberry said that the naming is taken from
>naval tradition and then procede to use that as evidence that they
>are not using naval tradition. Think through what you are tring very
>poorly to defend here.
They originally wanted to have NDDs and NFFs and so on. But the budget
didn't allow any other models to be made and we never saw it. The
years passed and the idea died of apathy. So now we have all ships
being called NCC regardless of type. NCC doesn't stand for anything.
If Starfleet was the direct clone of the USN or RN or whatever then
there would be different prefixes for different types of vessel just
as we have DD, FF, CVH, SSBN, BB, CGN and so on today.
(And yes I do know what each of those stands for, I'm not totally
ignorant about Naval matters.)
>It is clear that the naming conventions with
>the one expection of the suffixs on the enterprises is lifeted straigh
>from ALL moderned navies, it is not just a USN thing. Acutally our
>navy got it from the British navy. Learn some history at one point
>HMS ships ruled the high seas and as a result all modern navies copy
>most of thier structure and protocol.
I'm British. I know very well what our navies did. And how most of the
world has copied them. And how the copies are all different. Navies
evolve.
Kirk: 'We're a combined service'.
>And as far as NCC means, some real navy people have come on before
>and pointed out that that means Naval Construction Contract. Where
>you get Cruiser from I do not know.
A meaning invented by the same fans who invented all the variants such
as Bonhomme Richard, Achernar, etc. Only they called them classes. I'm
improving matters by changing it to sub-class.
>> > And
>> >from everything on screen, starfleet has been shown to use. Until
>> >the E-B, all of the Enterprises were Consitution class ships period.
>>
>> I'm not arguing with that.
>
>THE HELL YOU ARE NOT, THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT YOU ARE ARUGEING ABOUT.
Can you actually read? I have said many times that the USS Enterprise
NCC-1701 was always a Constitution class. As was NCC-1701-A.
I could not argue with that.
>If you agree they were simply Consitution class ships then we would
>not be having this discussion. The problem is you think this fictious
>notion of sub-class exist, when it does not and never has.
Just because there is no evidence on screen that it exists does not
mean that it doesn't. Some of us have a less restricted view of Star
Trek.
>> I'm just saying that the movie refit was
>> Enterprise specification and the A was Enterprise (II) specification.
>
>Nope, called everywhere even close to offical as simply Consitution
>class *PERIOD*.
Who gives a flying fuck about 'official'?
>> >No silly sub-classes have ever existed outside of your mind.
>>
>> I haven't invented a single piece of information here.
>>
>> Most of it can be traced back to the Starfleet Technical Manual which
>> was personally approved by Gene Rodenberry in the early '70s.
>
>That is odd, considering that Rodenberry wanted to follow naval
>traditions. And is even more odd that he made sure that the ships
>in the movies were called Consitution class *PERIOD*.
As I said in the original sources they were classes.
Same hull but different classes.
The sub-class thing is an attempt to reconcile this with the on screen
evidence that the Enterprise remained Constitution class despite major
refitting. They were wrong. I don't want to throw away all their work
because they made that mistake. So I adopt a compromise position.
>> >> And the refit pre-TMP was hardly only in terms of internal design, was
>> >> it? The ship looks completely different from the outside. It's 15m
>> >> longer for starters.
>> >
>> >Which does not change the basic design. BTW, what was the cause of the
>> >increase in length? It may well have simply been a longer sensor
>> >antena on one end.
>>
>> Partly to do with the saucer having a larger radius and partly to do
>> with the totally new nacelle/pylon assemablies. Im case you haven't
>> noticed the TOS pylons don't slope backwards but the movie ones do.
>
>Which would not make a new ship class. They tore off the entire flight
>deck of one of the Forestal carriers and put a totally different
>one on it and it was still a Forrestal class carier. Unless an entire
>NEW hull is used, the class name is not going to change. Period,
>get over it.
I have never said that it made a new class.
Class is at the top end of the hierarchy.
Below that we have distinct recognisable variations, called
sub-classes, types, specifications or anything you like.
Below that we have individual ship variations.
Quite a simple, logical and practical hierarchy.
>> These books are much closer to Starfleet as working navy than anything
>> the TV series ever showed.
>
>Not if they screwed up something some simple as thinking that there
>is such a thing as sub-classes of ships. Hand that idea to any
>navay midshipman and they will tell you you are an idiot.
No he will tell you that it doesn't exist. I hope Naval midshipmen are
more polite than to tell total strangers that they are idiots. Some of
us hope that old traditions like 'Officer and Gentleman' still exist.
;-)
Explain to him that there are up to hundreds of ships of a given class
with several distinct variations in service side by side and he may
give the idea some consideration.
> This means
>that they never talked to anyone that has ever been in the navy
>when they wrote the books. Translation, ZERO research.
They didn't invent sub-classes.
They invented a vraiety of classes based on the same hull.
Evidence points to this being wrong.
So we invent sub-class as a compromise.
If you don't like it. Tough. We didn't invent it for you. we invented
it for fans. For people who see more to Trek than what's on the
screen.
>> For the nth time Starfleet is not the
>> United-bloody-States-bloody-Navy, nor is it the Roayl-bloody-Navy or
>> any other bloody Navy currently extant.
>
>But it BLOODY WELL IS MODELED AFTER THE TRADITIONS ESTABLISHED BY
>the british royal navy in the 17th and 18th century, as have all
>navies since. This is from Rodenberry himself in an interview.
When I watch Trek I see very little that is recognisable as coming
from the Royal Navy. We have USN (not RN) ranks, a few minor
traditions here and there, but nothing like the discipline,
>> It is an organisation that came into existence in the 22nd century and
>> had its roots in several military and civilain organisations on
>> several different planets.
>>
>> Why not go and look at Vulcan naval proctices or Andorian ones? They
>> founded Starfleet along with the humans.
>
>Because Starfleet copied the british ones as has been stated and shown
>consistently as far as the ship classes at least from episode one to
>the most current episodes and everywhere inbewteeen.
The most recent episode being the one that refers to 'wings' of
starships? Very traditional.
>> You have to change the
>> >basic design of the outer hull of a ship to change its class period.
>>
>> How basic is basic?
>>
>> The Ambassador class has the same basic design.
>
>The Ambassador class might well be a reappearence of the
>design after all of the orignal Consitutions have been phased
>out. They were something like 40 year old designs during TOS
>I think.
Correct. Though the 'official' books ignore Rodenberry on this as well
and say twenty years old.
>> The Soyuz and the Miranda are very similar.
>> Some of the Miranda variants ahve extra pods on the side and no
>> rollbar. Is that different enough?
>
>Never seen them enough to care.
Um, do you watch much Trek then? Mirandas are one of the commonest
designs.
>And missing the roll bar could
>well make a major difference since that was the main weapons for
>the ship, so changes in the weapons to the point that it requires
>moving their location probably would require striping the ship
>down to make the change.
Well Mirandas with rollbars and Mirandas without and Mirandas with
starnge pods on the side are all still Miarnda class, and all serve
alongside each at the same time. And that's why I think the idea of
sub-classes has merit.
>It has everything to do with Starfleet, since its protocol is based
>off of the British Royal Navy's traditions. Such has been said
>by Rodenberry himself in interviews. Kirk's character is supposedly
>modeled after Horatio Hornblower (I think that is the right name).
Yes, that's the right name.
There's a difference between 'modelled after' after 'slavishly
followed with no alterations or additions'
>> > It is done that way so
>> >that a minor change in the design during the production run does not
>> >make a new ship class.
>>
>> I have not said that it does. It makes a new specification. Which can
>> be given its own name if the authorities so desire.
>
>Sub-classes do not exist though. So you are saying it is a new
>class, which it is not. It remained a Consitution *PERIOD*.
I am not saying it is a new class. I am saying that the
variant/refit/wahtever has its own designator within the Constitution
class name.
Would it be easier for you if I called them Constitution/a
Constitution/b and Constitution/c?
>> >And clearly what little outer desing changes
>> >were made to the ship are extremely minor, so it is still the same
>> >ship class. Basicly it requires the ship being striped down and
>> >rebuilt before it would ever get a new class name.
>>
>> Stripped down and rebuilt? That is exactly what happened to the
>> Enterprise between TAS and TMP. One of the crew said that she was
>> viurtually a whole new ship. And she didn't get a new class name. She
>> got a new sub-class name to go with her new specification.
>
>New guts, not new hull. Important difference that will again go
>over your head I am sure.
Define hull.
The outer hull was certainly completely changed.
The inner spaceframe was the aprt left unchanged.
New guts, same keel would be a better analogy.
>> If the USN changed it's policy tomorrow and started assigning names to
>> major variations within classes, would you write to them and tell them
>> they were doing it wrong?
>
>That does not affect the FACT that starfleet's naming conventions
>are based off the British Royal Navy traditions. As such there
>are no sub-classes. And the USN would not change the convention
>as it works, unlike the one you are suggesting would would make each
>and EVERY ship a class unto itself and thus make the whole point
>of ship classes pointless.
You didn't answer the question.
I don't care that there are no sub-classes today. (But I agree that
there aren't and that they don't need them today.) But that is not a
written in stone restriction on them being used tomorrow.
I doubt that Starfleet needs them. But it is the simplest way to
reconcile the fandom and 'official' sources. You might not care about
doing that, and that's fine. But don't tell me I'm wrong when I
ahven't contradicted as single piece of on screen evidence.
And I haven't. Because I have never said that the Enterprise-A was not
Constitution class and I have never claimed that the concept of a
sub-class from on screen sources.
Steve
--
"And all I ask is a tall ship, and a star to steer her by."
"Though a cloaking device, pulsed phaser cannons
and a full load of quantum torpedoes would be quite nice too."
Stephen Richard Pugh http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Rampart/4173/
James Grady Ward
Steve Pugh wrote:
>
> James Grady Ward wrote:
> >Steve Pugh wrote:
> >> Brian Barjenbruch wrote:
> >>
> >> >> BUT... after the extensive refit before/during the first movie...it was
> >> >> reclassified as a whole new design... ie...Enterprise Class...
> >> >
> >> >No, it hasn't.
> >>
> >> Rather depends on who you ask doesn't it?
> >>
> >> I go for the compromise. It was still Constitution class, but was now
> >> Enterprise sub-class. (Just as the changes between the pilots and the
> >> main run of the series changed it from a straight Constitution class
> >> to a Bonhomme Richard sub-class. But that's neither here nor there.)
> >
> >That is just stupid. There is no such thing as a sub-class of a
> >naval ship class.
>
> Ah, I see you've found my explanantion of this discrepancy at last.
>
> And you've checked this with every navy in the world?
All the major ones use it. There may be some country with
only 4 ships that does not mind saying each one is its own
seperate class, as your idea of sub-clases would imply.
>
> And even if that is the case today, so what?
>
> Starfleet does not exist today. It exists in the 22nd and onwards
> centuries. It ahs more ships than any navy today. Its ships stay in
> service for up to 100 years, which is longer than any ship in service
> today. (Not counting living museums like the Victory or the
> Constitution.) Why do you blindly assume that the same principles
> apply?
Because they have never once varied from this on the show and
Rodenberry himself said the naming is based off the current
navies. If the two most important things to check on say
it, that makes it rather likely that it is true. Now in your
world millage may variy.
>
> Today Frigates and Destroyers are the roughly same size.
> In WWII Destroyers were larger than Frigates.
> In the age of sail, destroyers didn't exist and frigates were the next
> size down from ships of the line.
> Things change. Navies evolve.
Not the traditions of what a class represents. Please do
not try to go to the naval academy with the bullshit of yours.
They might get mad at you. Simply refiting a ship does not
change its class. And sub-classes do not exist for the
simple reason that if they did, every ship would be its
own class as over time each one will get refited a little
different. Not to mention each time the chief engineer rewired
some system the sub-class name would change. Think through
your stupid idea sometime, the reason it is not done should
be obvious as it would make a nightmare of keeping track
of a ships full class name. Just use the rule that current
navies and starfleet( since it is modeled after them) use
and keep the class name during refits. It is after all
what is shown on the show, without any of this silly
sub-class shit.
>
> > You can have refits for specific mission prarmeters,
> >but there is no such thing as a sub-class. What would be the point?
> >Not to mention, a class name referes to the HULL of the ship not the
> >internal guts of it.
>
> The point would be be to distinguish between different specifications
> of the same basic design. When you have half of the existing
> Constitutions at one level of specification and half at another, and a
> new batch being built at a third specification it becomes easier to
> assign a name to each specification. Or would you prefer we talk about
> Type 1, type 2, type 3 and so on Constitution class ships?
Actually the refits would have a number of mission designation.
It sure as hell would not be a ship name. It would be along the lines
of when the flight deck of a carrier is modified they are called
refited flight deack <class name>. Or in everything but maybe
the most absolute offical references simply refit <class name>.
>
> >And as for who to ask, in the movies when they show the ship plaque
> >for E-A, it says it is a Consitution class ship. So anyone that claims
> >that the first two Enterprises where anything other than Consitution
> >class ships has done ZERO research on the show or naval protocol
> >in naming ship classes, since both clearly say that until the E-B
> >all of the enterprises where Consistution class ships.
>
> The plaque in the original series said "Starship Class" so maybe the
> Enterprise didn't become Constitution class until after it was
> refitted?
>
> The Enterprise was built as a Constitution class.
> Between the pilots and the main run of the series she was refitted as
> Bonhomme Richard specification.
Where the hell is this shit from? Even if it is true, it does
not change the class name and sub-classes do not exist. It may
have went through a refit, but the class designtaion would not
change.
> Between TOS and TAS she was refitted as Achernar specification.
> Between the end of the five year mission and TMP she was the first
> ship to be refitted to Enterprise specification.
> The next Enterprise was the first ship of the very similar Enterprise
> (II) specification.
More shit that is in no canon references and you know it. They
were simply called refits on screen. Not to mention TAS is ingored
in all offical time lines.
>
> There are also Endeavour, Constitution (II) and Tikopai sub-classes
> around. But the Enterprise was never refitted to these specs.
I am sure it was not, as there is no SUCH THING AS A SUB-CLASS.
The existance of such would defeat the entire purpose of ship
classes as each ship would be its on class. Or do you think
each Essex Class carrier in our navy is an exact carbon
copy of the others. Each one will have little minor changes
made here and there, For you scheme to work, each one would
have to be considered a new class even if the change was just putting
in a backup waring light for low fuel. It would get just stupid
to work things that way. Which is why it is not done that way.
>
> Now isn't this so much more interesting than just having one big
> Constitution class?
It would be stupid. It would make each ship its own class, and
hence why even have a ship class in the first place then if each
ship is treated as a unique entity?
Think through the implication of what you are tring to say
and hopefully you will see why over time Naval tradition has
figured out this is a dumb as shit way to name classes.
>
> As for zero research, have you read the Starfleet Technical Manual or
> Ships of the Starfleet or any of the other books you're attacking?
The only book that is even close to being offical is the tech manual
and it clearly says it can not contradict the show. Since the show
has never once shown or mentioned the existance of your silly
sub-classes( thank god) they do not exist. And we have seen
the ship plaques, if these sub-clases exist it would be
mentioned there. IT is not. PERIOD. They are simply Consistution
class *PERIOD*.
>
> >> >> there are several pieces of officially sanctioned Trek literature
> >> >> that state this...
> >> >
> >> >None of which are canon.
> >>
> >> So what?
> >
> >It means they don't mean a thing in terms of the show.
>
> Wwell seeing as the show frequently doesn't been a thing in term sof
> future episodes I wouldn't lose any sleep over that. What are you
> expecting? Continuity?
In terms of the ship classes, in spite of stupid fans, they have
been consistant. Sub-clases no not exist. The enterprise were
Consitutions up until the E-B, with nothing but the word refit
after that ever.
>
> >Especially
> >when it is flat stated in the movies that the ship is a Consistution
> >class vessel until the very end.
>
> I'm not arguing with that. I'm just saying that the different
> specifications each ahs its own name.
Then you are argueing that. The class is Consistution with NOTHING
FOLLOWING THAT.
> Call them specifications or
> sub-classes or refit levels or models or types or anything. They are
> labelled sub-divisions of a class.
They are simply called refits with the date of the refit following
most likely if you really want to dig out offical naming.
>
> And just because the USN in the 1990s doesn't do that doesn't mean
> that Starfleet in the 23rd and 24th century won't.
It does when the one athurity on starfleet regulations
( Rodenberry) flat stats that the show is to follow Naval
traditions as close as possible. Just deal with it the ships
are simply Consitution class *PERIOD*.
>
> >> >> as Scotty said..."18 months of redisign and refit"
> >> >
> >> >Irrelevant. Refits do not change the name of the class.
> >>
> >> This was a tad more than an ordinary refit though, wasn't it? It was
> >> virtually a new ship. (As I believ a line of dialogue states.)
> >>
> >> Let's see: New warp drives. New bridge. Moved engineering from primary
> >> to secondary hull (aparrently, still open to debate). Moved the photon
> >> torpedo tubes from the primary hull to the neck. More than doubled the
> >> number of phasers. Increased the size of the primary hull. Increased
> >> the size of the secondary hull. I wonder how much of the old ship was
> >> left?
> >>
> >> Rather a case of: I've had this broom for 50 years. I've changed the
> >> handle 4 times and the bristles 12 times. But it's still the same
> >> broom, honest guv.
> >
> >A ship class refers the the GENERAL DESIGN OF THE HULL.
>
> General design of hull. How general? As general as a saucer, two
> nacelles and an engineering hull all connected by narrow pylons?
> Or a bit more specific than that?
It would actually depend on the admiralty. But if it can be done
without taking every peice of the hull apart and recasting them,
it generally will not change the class. If any of the base support
girders are still used, IT WILL NOT CHANGE THE SHIP CLASS. And
there is no such thing as sub-classes as they would defeat the
point of ship classes.
> > Now unless
> >you saw something that had the name Enterprise prior to Generations
> >in the time line, they all had the same hull.
>
> So the one in ST VI had the same hull as the one that blew up in ST
> III? ;-) You must mean same general design of hull.
It was a renamed consitution. Hence the same hull design. Minor
detail that I must admit is the first you have gotten right. It
still does not make for a new ship class.
> > They refit updated
> >guts into it at least once and probably twice depending on what
> >you saw was done to make the E-A, but the hull design and size did
> >not change.
>
> The size did. The new one was about 15m longer, about 4m wider and
> about 1m taller.
>
> You can check that the lengths are different in the 'official'
> Encyclopedias. It's a 5% difference in length. That's quite large you
> know.
The length change is most likely from changing the exact form of
the nacelles. That would not change the ship class. 4m meters agains
something that is over 100 wide..... That does not change a ship
class either. Sorry, but go to a real naval ship yard. Get laughed
at for suggesting this and learn something.
>
> >Hence the ship class did not change. Riping out the
> >guts of a ship and putting in new guts makes it a refit of the
> >class. Actually even ripping out parts of the external hull and
> >putting new peices on in place of them occasionally does not change
> >the ship class.
>
> Never said it did. Changes the sub-class. Sometimes.
No it does not, as SUB-CLASSES NO NOT EXIST. Their existance
would defeat the entire point of having a ship class, since each
ship would be its own class. The ships are Consitutions *PERIOD*.
>
> >The detail is your broom will looks like a pole with a wisk on the
> >end. Hence it is still the same tool as before, since you have not
> >changed anything about the design merely replaced some parts.
>
> But if it was a ash-handled class broom and I put an oak handle on it.
> It would still be a broom. But a different class of broom.
>
> ;-)
nope, you are still wrong.
>
> > Does
> >putting a VW bug engine in a Lexus make it a VW bug? Nope, it makes
> >it a very oddly modified Lexus. The problem with your example is that
> >no one is saying that it is the same ship, just that it is the same
> >ship class which only refers the the general design of the hull.
>
> How general is general?
>
> The Excelsior, Ambassador, Galaxy, Intrepid and Sovereign all have the
> same general design but are different classes.
They all clearly have different size ratios of the various parts
to each other. Hell, for the group you listed, the do not all
even have the same *shape* for the saucer section.
>
> Is the Enterprise refit from All Good Things... a different class?
> Or does adding a third nacelle not count as changing the general
> design?
Actualy since in that episode we are told it is just a refit,
guess what that means.......
>
> The Miranda and the Soyuz are of the same general hull design, yet
> they are different classes.
Were they in production at the same time. And as you have mentioned
elsewhere, if the change involves enough that they had move the
weapons placement, one can clearly assume that a lot more less
obvious changed had to be made to the design of the hull.
>
> >There is evidence in the show that even during the show major parts
> >of the ship were replaced at times.
>
> Yes. Between the two pilots and TOS and between TOS and TAS there were
> fairly major refits that changed the spcification. There were other
> minor refits all the time.
And yet after each and everyone of the it was still simply a
Consitution class *PERIOD*. Sub-class would defeat the entire
point of ship clases.
>
> How big a refit does it have to be to change the sub-class? That's a
> bureaucratic matter. Some are so minor as to hardly deserve the title.
> Others are so major that calling it a new class would be easier. But
> you know how bureaucracy is....
It would require recasting of major portions of the ships hull,
as a general rule. It also would require tha the ship is
clearly different in design that the previous ship. A refit
NEVER UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES changes the ship class. A ship
starts with one class and stays with it, unless the ENTIRE class
is renamed. Refiting sure as hell will never change the ship's
class.
>
> The beauty of using the class and sub-class system is that it unites
> the 'official' and treknical fandom viewpoints and is flexible enough
> to explain away nearly anything.
It unites nothing and makes the entire ship class system pointless
as every ship would be its own class. It explains away nothing of
the fact that on the shows the ships are refered as their class names
with nothing following either. This only makes sense in your head,
anyone that has thought it through realizes it would be a big mistake.
James Grady Ward
Steve Pugh wrote:
>
> James Grady Ward wrote:
> >Steve Pugh wrote:
> >>
> >> >way as has been mentioned elsewhere, the ship plaque in the movies
> >> >says that it is a Consitution class ship. So any offical explaination
> >> >has to explain that detail.
> >>
> >> it three times in the past two days, most recently in reply to a
> >> message of yours so you should be able to find it.
> >> viewpoints without contradicting either.
> >
> >It manages to prove that you have no idea what a naval ship
> >class is about. There is no such thing as a "sub-class" of
> >a ship class. There are refits for various reasons, but no
> >sub-classes. That actually makes no sense, since the class
> >name referes to the HULL and not the GUTS of the ship. And
> >it is the guts of the ship that we saw changed.
>
> Only in the modern USN.
>
> Which Starfleet is not.
>
> You have no idea what the class name in Starfleet refers to as we have
> never been told what it refers to in any episode or film. You're just
> jumping to conclusions based on your assumption that Starfleet follows
> USN practice in every regard.
Oh yeah and what Rodenberry said about starfleet following current
naval traditions. I guess that is not important. Nor is the detail
in terms of the ship class names they have followed it to the letter.
Just fact it, starfleet is modele on the current navy. Like
it or not. And as such their are no sub-classes, the very concept
as you describe would negate the point of ship clases as every
ship would be its own class. All the ship up to the E-B were
Consitutions *PERIOD*.
> >And besides, now are you going to say that the OFFICAL ship
> >plaque on the bridge of the Enterprise-A is wrong, just to
> >make you plainly stupid sub-class thing work? The plaque does
> >not mention some sub-class after the Consitution class, it
> >simply says Consitution class. Hence even if you made up
> >sub-classes existed the E-A is not one of them since it's
> >plaque clearly says it belongs to the straight Consitution
> >class.
>
> No, I'm not saying that. Sub-class is not included on the dedication
> plaque. If it was the ship would have to have a new dedication plaque
> after each major refit.
Then you are saying ( correctly) that they do not exist. Otherwise
they would be added to that plaque in some fashion. Sub-clases do
not exist, as they would be pointless.
>
> ADDING the sub-class designation does not alter the class designation,
> as correctly stated on the dedication plaque, in the slightest.
>
> It's an ADDITION not a SUBSTITUTION.
Call you fiction what you like, it does not exist and would be pointless
if it did since each single ship would be a seperate class under
such a system.
>
> And the TOS dedication plaque read "Starship class". I see that you're
> ignoring that piece of 'canon' evidence. Why?
>
> I'm ignoring it as well, but at least I'm admitting that I am up
> front.
Still it does not give you any sub-classes. Care to explain why
you oh so stupid to everyone else but sane to you system is never
once in anyway mentioned on any of the shows? Care to explain why
making each ship its own class makes any sense at all?
>
> >> >Of course the obvious one is that simple resigning the interior of
> >> >a ship DOES NOT change the ships class. That never has, it just makes
> >> >it a refit of the class, ie they refit new guts of the ship to the
> >> >same hull. And it is the hull design that determines a ships class,
> >> >not its guts.
> >>
> >> Same hull? How come the movie era Enterprise has a hull 15m longer
> >> then? Or more tellingly, how come the saucer now has a noticably
> >> larger radius? Same hull, my arse.
> >
> >DESIGN. Adding 15 meters on a ship that is over 600( or is 500)
> >does not change the basic design. And reguardless of what the
> >size numbers say, the ship in the first movie is the same one
> >as was in the show.
>
> You don't even know how long the Enterprise is?
> Not even within a factor of 2!
>
> The basic Constitution class is 289m in length.
> The Enterprise sub-class is 305m in length.
No, the Constituion refit you mean is 305m I got it confused
with the size of the TNG ship. There is no such thing
as a sub-class. It was still a Consitution class.
The very fact that you think there is a set in stone length for
the basic Constitution class ship proves you do not have a
clue as to what determins a ships class. Each individual member
of a ships class will ferqently being of slightly different
lengths. The differences are usually from slight changes to
engine housings and such in later models. They are still the
same class though.
>
> 16m in 300. That's 5%. That's a lot.
Not if it mostly from a chance in the nacelle housing, such as
a slight change in the support struct angle.
>
> And no one said it was a different ship. But it sure as hell was
> bigger. And it looked very different to me. Maybe you saw a gleaming
> white ship with cylindrical nacelles and a gold dish in the movieews
> but I didn't.
Gee, going to claim 15 years better effects changes over 300 years of
naval tradition now? Color is irrelevant, if you do not know that
there is no point in even tring to explain how stuipd you sub-class
idea is. Was the ship really bigger or was the naceles moved
back slightly. Such makes a difference.
>
> >It would take serious redesign of the outer hull to make it
> >a new class.
> >
> >And BTW, where is you source of numbers that say that the Enterprise
> >in the movies is a different size from the one in the show.
>
> The 'official' Encyclopedia. :-)
For the size differences you are suggesting, given that the overall
design has not changed, it is still the same class. And there is
still no such thing as sub-classes, such negate the point of ship
classes.
> > If you
> >are refering to the E-A, then you should know that current naval
> >pratice is to call ships that are slightly different in size but the
> >same design the same class. Or do you think we fly 4 different space
> >shuttle classes right now, since each one has different specifc numbers.
>
> What does current naval practice have to do with Starfleet?
Everything since everyone with the show SAYS that starfleet uses
them. It is actually British Royal navy traditions that are older
than this country you are tring to turn to mush with your sub-class
idea.
>
> As for space shuttles. Do we put space shuttles in classes at all? are
> they all Enterprise class space shuttles? Or all they all Columbia
> class space shuttles. I think that they're all just spsce shuttles.
You finally get it. Exactly the all have the same design, so what
if one is 10 meter longer than the other and one is slightly wider.
They are all the same class of vessel. You almost have it now, but
will you make a fool of yourself yet again.
>
> The choice of whether something comprises a sub-class or not is
> largely bureaucratic. We have all see how extremely bureaucratic
> Starfleet can be.
No it is not, since no such thing exists. If it did every ship would
be its own sub-class and thus its own class and then the entire point
of ship classes goes out the window.
> >> And two ships identical hulls but one fitted out with lots of weaponry
> >> and the other fitted out with hospital equipment would be the same
> >> class I suppose?
> >
> >That is what the current navy does. Take a CVA( an attack carrier) and
> >refit it to be a support carrier and it still belongs to the same
> >class of carrier. It now has a whole different set of mission
> >parameters, but it still is the same class. They do refer to it as a refit of
> >the orginal class, but that is as far as they go to mentioning the
> >changes.
>
> And in the 23rd century they do it differently.
>
> If the future is exactly like today then what is the point of
> anything?
According to every offical soruce on this, they use the exact same
naval traditions that our navy is coping from the old Royal navy.
Deal with it there are no sub-classes and the ships were Consistution
class *PERIOD*.
--
buckysan
annapuma and unapumma in 98
44% of people think there is intelligent life besides earth
44% of people think there is intelligent life in washington DC
.
the_dev...@hotmail.com
"one!!" <dum...@ou.edu> wrote:
>i saw akiras streamrunners and sabres in SOAs and plenty of Galaxies. i
>did not see any norway class.plenty of Centaur class(????dunno the real
>name of this classs)ships, mirandas and so on. anyone ??????????????
centaur class? norway class?
John Griffin
Brian Barjenbruch wrote:
>
> The "1305-E" registry number on the Yamato is a mistake. A typo. It has
> been ignored.
>
> The Yamato's "real" registry number is NCC-71807. As far as Trek
> continuity goes, the Yamato always had that number.
>
> Brian
A typo???? Where did this info come from? Not being a smart ass just
would like to know.
James Grady Ward
Steve Pugh wrote:
>
> >> The E-A was actually slightly different to the refitted E. Whether it
> >> was another separate specification or merely a few minor yard changes
> >> is harder to judge because we see so little of the E-A.
> >>
> >Well as far as the discussion is concerned it is a Consitution class
> >reguardless.
>
> Agreed. I've never said otherwise. I just want to be able to
> distinguish between the variants easily.
Then drop the dumb as shit sub-class junk and call them refits
like everyone else does.
James Grady Ward
Steve Pugh wrote:
>
> James Grady Ward wrote:
>
> >Starfleet is damn well modeled after the USN and the naval tradition
> >of the british navy that the USN traditions come from. That is actually
> >said by Rodenberry in some interview.
>
> Those Royal Naval traditions such as Rum, Sodomy and the lash? We see
> a lot of them in Trek don't we?
So you finally argue you have no point to stand on in terms
fo the ship name I see. Or why else the silly attempt to
change the subject?
>
> >THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A SUB-CLASS. NEVER HAS BEEN. And it is
> >very damn well odd that all of the current major navies have no problem
> >with calling a ship that has been refited a refit of that class ship.
> >All of the Europena navies do this. The Russian navy does this as well.
> >
> >And as to how it should be said, properly is 1st refit and 2nd refit.
> >And there would be a standard refit at any given time.
>
> Wrong. There are several different variants on the Miranda design in
> service at the same time. All called Miranda class.
Right, all called SIMPLY Miranda class. But each refit was
the standard for some time frame and would be refered to as
such.
>
> Not a variations are simple upgrades. Not all ships in a class are
> upgraded to the same standard. 1st, 2nd, 3rd etc. starts to break down
> when some go from 1st to 4th whilst other go to 3rd and never go to
> 4th.
That would depend on what the upgrade is and what the future missions
of the ship are. Not all refits are upgrades, some are acutally
down grades as the ship will be in less critical missions. Again
you show that you know nothing of the traditions that ST is basing
their naming conventions on.
>
> >Get it through your head. By all offical and sane accountings, there
> >has only been Consitution class( period, nothing further besides refit
> >number maybe for pure offical documentation) Enterprises until the E-B
> >was made.
>
> I have never said that it is not constitution class.
>
> I have merely said that it has a further label to distinguish between
> variants.
THEN YOU ARE SAYING THAT IT IS NOT A CONSITUTION CLASS. There would
be nothing following that besides maybe the number of the refit.
Sub-classes would defeat the entire point of ship classes.
> >None of which work at Paramount or have ever been near a real
> >naval yard. You tried to mention this sub-class idea of yours
> >to them and if you are lucky they will just ignore you. If you
> >presisted in saying it had to be you might well get into a
> >fist fight over your stupidity.
>
> Is that a challenge James?
>
> Anyway, anyone who would get into a fist fight over Star Trek is
> beyond hope.
Then please do not try to convince anyone at a naval ship yard
that sub-classes make sense. You just might find yourself in
one for insulting the navy's intelligence of keeping class
names general instead of specific to each ship as you are suggestsing.
>
>
> >> But does it disagree with anything on screen? No.
> >
> >EVERYTHING ON SCREEN HAS ALWAYS CALLED THE SHIP ***CONSITITUION***(
> >PERIOD)
> >CLASS SHIPS. THERE HAS NEVER BEEN ANYTHING OTHER THAN THE WORD REFIT
> >EVER USED TO DESCRIBE THE CHANGES SINCE THE SAME HULL WAS USED.
>
> Well done. You've said that before and I've agreed with it before.
Then drop the sub-class shit. As long as you keep tring to bring
up this sub-class shit you are not agreing with it. Since they
do not exist. The ships class stops with Consitutition, there is
NOTHING that follows that.
> >Why can't you get that through your head. Sub-classes is
> >a meaningless and non-existant term in relation to naval
> >(and hence starfleet) ship classes.
>
> It is not meaningless. I have explained the meaning to you several
> times. I don't care that it ahs no realtionship to modern naval
> practices.
Then you do not care that it is stated in several places that
starfleet follows those rules. And you still have not explained
how making each ship its own class makes one damn bit of sense?
And that is what you sub-class shit would create. They just
do not exist, when will you get that through your head. They
do not exist in the real navy( which starfleet is clearly and
stated to be modeled after) or in starfleet.
> >NOPE IT WOULD NOT, AS THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A SUB-CLASS TO A
> >NAVAL SHIP CLASS. PERIOD, IT DOES NOT EXIST.
>
> NOW.
OR IN STARFLEET. PLEASE GET THAT THROUGH YOU THICK SKULL.
>
> >And if you knew
> >how ship clases are named you would know that it would be meaningless
> >to make such, unless you want everyship to be its own class.
>
> No. Whilst the Exeter and the Essex are both Constitution class, and
> while they are both, say, Achernar sub-class they can still have minor
> fit differenes. We are talking about a loose hierarchy of variation.
Nope, that could not be members of something that DOES NOT EXIST.
Sub-class do not exist as their existance as you describe would
make each ship in the fleet its own class. That is the very reason
that such is not done.
>
> >And each model in the Lexus series( note the car SERIES is what equates
> >to a SHIP CLASS) is still called a Lexus.
>
> Never argued with that.
Yes you have, unless you are goint to say the name comes to a
full stop after Lexus. You keep bring up this silly sub-class
shit which has NEVER followed any naval ships class before and
does not in starfleet.
> >> But saying Constitution Enterprise is even dafter sounding than saying
> >> Lexus Tarzan. (What is a Lexus, BTW? Some American car?)
> >> So we say Constitution class most of the time and Enterprise sub-class
> >> or Enterprise Specification when we want to be precise about which
> >> sort of Constitution we're dealing with.
> >
> >Lets, you realize that Consituttion Enterprise is DUMB AS HELL,
>
> No, I said it sounded daft. It would be technically accurate, but it
> is a bit of a mouthful to say.
It would be techincally dumb as it makes each ship its own class.
>
> > but
> >you think that Consitution class, sub-class Enterprise makes more
> >sense? Now I know you are not thinking this through at all. Besides
> >what you are suggesting would make EVERY SINGLE SHIP IN THE FLEET a
> >seperate class and thus would negate the entire purpose of grouping
> >ships into clases to begin with. This is why it is not done by
> >any navy.
>
> Explained above.
Nope, you have just proven that you have not thought this through
at all. Sub-classes just are dumb and stupid which is the very
reason they are not used.
>
> >> >This is a well established design naming convention
> >> >which you are tring to ignore. It is a good thing the people
> >> >that actually write the show know better.
> >>
> >> Well established now. In the future? Could be considered outdated and
> >> out of use.
> >>
> >> Why are you so fixated with making Starfleet a clone of the USN. That
> >> is so very, very boring.
> >
> >It is what the creator of the show said. It is what all of the
> >shows have shown without any error besides the suffixs on ship
> >names. It is VERY DAMN WELL CLEAR THAT THE NAMES ARE A CLONE OF
> >MODERN( NOT JUST THE USN) NAVIES. Any idiot that has ever done
> >any research would know that.
>
> And so? Do they have to stick slavishly to it in every detail?
>
> We know that they don't.
We know they do. This is stated on many occasions. There are some
departures, but the ship classifications is clearly not one of them.
And what you suggest is just plain stupid anyway, since it makes
the entire idea of ship classes pointless.
> >> If Starfleet was Navy then the CC in NCC would mean cruiser (As Gene
> >> Rodenberry originally intended BTW) but it doesn't any more. All ships
> >> regardless of type have the same registry letters. Where are the NFFs
> >> or the NDDs? They don't exist!
> >
> >Odd you note that Rodenberry said that the naming is taken from
> >naval tradition and then procede to use that as evidence that they
> >are not using naval tradition. Think through what you are tring very
> >poorly to defend here.
>
> They originally wanted to have NDDs and NFFs and so on. But the budget
> didn't allow any other models to be made and we never saw it. The
> years passed and the idea died of apathy. So now we have all ships
> being called NCC regardless of type. NCC doesn't stand for anything.
>
> If Starfleet was the direct clone of the USN or RN or whatever then
> there would be different prefixes for different types of vessel just
> as we have DD, FF, CVH, SSBN, BB, CGN and so on today.
>
> (And yes I do know what each of those stands for, I'm not totally
> ignorant about Naval matters.)
If you think sub-clases would not defeat the entire point
of ship classe, you have to do a lot to prove this. And the
prefixs on a ships registry have NOTHING TO DO WITH ITS class.
They can actually change during its course of action. CVA carriers
become CVS carriers when refited from attack carriers to support
carriers. That is how such changes are noted if you really care
to look it up.
>
> >It is clear that the naming conventions with
> >the one expection of the suffixs on the enterprises is lifeted straigh
> >from ALL moderned navies, it is not just a USN thing. Acutally our
> >navy got it from the British navy. Learn some history at one point
> >HMS ships ruled the high seas and as a result all modern navies copy
> >most of thier structure and protocol.
>
> I'm British. I know very well what our navies did. And how most of the
> world has copied them. And how the copies are all different. Navies
> evolve.
>
> Kirk: 'We're a combined service'.
That uses the naval tradition for the ship clases. using sub-classes
would make the entier point of ship classes pointless.
>
> >And as far as NCC means, some real navy people have come on before
> >and pointed out that that means Naval Construction Contract. Where
> >you get Cruiser from I do not know.
>
> A meaning invented by the same fans who invented all the variants such
> as Bonhomme Richard, Achernar, etc. Only they called them classes. I'm
> improving matters by changing it to sub-class.
Nope, this was a retired salior that told me that. There have been
no sub-classes in anything even close to offical.
>
> >> > And
> >> >from everything on screen, starfleet has been shown to use. Until
> >> >the E-B, all of the Enterprises were Consitution class ships period.
> >>
> >> I'm not arguing with that.
> >
> >THE HELL YOU ARE NOT, THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT YOU ARE ARUGEING ABOUT.
>
> Can you actually read? I have said many times that the USS Enterprise
> NCC-1701 was always a Constitution class. As was NCC-1701-A.
>
> I could not argue with that.
Then drop the sub-class shit and we would be in agreance, since
as long as you keep bringing it up, you are not agreeing that
the class name is just Consitutition.
> >If you agree they were simply Consitution class ships then we would
> >not be having this discussion. The problem is you think this fictious
> >notion of sub-class exist, when it does not and never has.
>
> Just because there is no evidence on screen that it exists does not
> mean that it doesn't. Some of us have a less restricted view of Star
> Trek.
No evidence on screen and CLEAR comments from the producers that
the show follows current naming pratices, means NO SUB-CLASSES.
>
> >> I'm just saying that the movie refit was
> >> Enterprise specification and the A was Enterprise (II) specification.
> >
> >Nope, called everywhere even close to offical as simply Consitution
> >class *PERIOD*.
>
> Who gives a flying fuck about 'official'?
Obviously you do not when it does not agree with you. It matters
since only idiot fans have ever called them sub-classes. The show
NEVER has. Nor have the producers of the show.
>
> >> >No silly sub-classes have ever existed outside of your mind.
> >>
> >> I haven't invented a single piece of information here.
> >>
> >> Most of it can be traced back to the Starfleet Technical Manual which
> >> was personally approved by Gene Rodenberry in the early '70s.
> >
> >That is odd, considering that Rodenberry wanted to follow naval
> >traditions. And is even more odd that he made sure that the ships
> >in the movies were called Consitution class *PERIOD*.
>
> As I said in the original sources they were classes.
>
> Same hull but different classes.
>
> The sub-class thing is an attempt to reconcile this with the on screen
> evidence that the Enterprise remained Constitution class despite major
> refitting. They were wrong. I don't want to throw away all their work
> because they made that mistake. So I adopt a compromise position.
No such is needed. It is standard pratice for a ship to keep
its class no matter what is done to it unless it is taken apart
and divided up into seperate ships or something on that level.
There is no mistakes made. You are the one inventing a mistake
because you have no clue about naval tradtions. A ship starts out
as a certain class, and until it is decomissioned that class name
stays put. Very rarely the entire class name might be changed,
but nothing is ever changed about an individual ships. And there
are no sub-classes, since that would make each ship a seperate
ship class.
>
> >> >> And the refit pre-TMP was hardly only in terms of internal design, was
> >> >> it? The ship looks completely different from the outside. It's 15m
> >> >> longer for starters.
> >> >
> >> >Which does not change the basic design. BTW, what was the cause of the
> >> >increase in length? It may well have simply been a longer sensor
> >> >antena on one end.
> >>
> >> Partly to do with the saucer having a larger radius and partly to do
> >> with the totally new nacelle/pylon assemablies. Im case you haven't
> >> noticed the TOS pylons don't slope backwards but the movie ones do.
> >
> >Which would not make a new ship class. They tore off the entire flight
> >deck of one of the Forestal carriers and put a totally different
> >one on it and it was still a Forrestal class carier. Unless an entire
> >NEW hull is used, the class name is not going to change. Period,
> >get over it.
>
> I have never said that it made a new class.
YOur sub-class shit is the equvilant of sasying that
>
> Class is at the top end of the hierarchy.
> Below that we have distinct recognisable variations, called
> sub-classes, types, specifications or anything you like.
> Below that we have individual ship variations.
Which means each individual ship is its own class. Hence there is
no point in the ship classes to start with.
>
> Quite a simple, logical and practical hierarchy.
Quite stuipd as it makes each entry unique and thus negateing the
need for the hierarchy to begin with.
>
> >> These books are much closer to Starfleet as working navy than anything
> >> the TV series ever showed.
> >
> >Not if they screwed up something some simple as thinking that there
> >is such a thing as sub-classes of ships. Hand that idea to any
> >navay midshipman and they will tell you you are an idiot.
>
> No he will tell you that it doesn't exist. I hope Naval midshipmen are
> more polite than to tell total strangers that they are idiots. Some of
> us hope that old traditions like 'Officer and Gentleman' still exist.
If you are polite and sane to them, they will be, try and insist
that sub-classes make any sense and they will determine you to
be an idiot.
>
> ;-)
>
> Explain to him that there are up to hundreds of ships of a given class
> with several distinct variations in service side by side and he may
> give the idea some consideration.
Nope, real ships just change the 3 or 4 letter mission prefix when
they get refit. Since the enterprise maintained the same mission
after each refit, nothing about its class name would need to change.
>
> > This means
> >that they never talked to anyone that has ever been in the navy
> >when they wrote the books. Translation, ZERO research.
>
> They didn't invent sub-classes.
>
> They invented a vraiety of classes based on the same hull.
> Evidence points to this being wrong.
> So we invent sub-class as a compromise.
All evidence points to their not doing any reasearch.
As any individual hull is a single class and sub-class
do not exist since they negate the point of ship classes.
>
> If you don't like it. Tough. We didn't invent it for you. we invented
> it for fans. For people who see more to Trek than what's on the
> screen.
The fans invited this shit, since the show clearly has never showed
any of it. And a ships class does not change unless it is
DECOMMISSIONED
and rebuilt from the ground up. And that probably would not be
sufficent.
And Starfleet follows current traditions on this, tough for you.
>
> >> For the nth time Starfleet is not the
> >> United-bloody-States-bloody-Navy, nor is it the Roayl-bloody-Navy or
> >> any other bloody Navy currently extant.
> >
> >But it BLOODY WELL IS MODELED AFTER THE TRADITIONS ESTABLISHED BY
> >the british royal navy in the 17th and 18th century, as have all
> >navies since. This is from Rodenberry himself in an interview.
>
> When I watch Trek I see very little that is recognisable as coming
> from the Royal Navy. We have USN (not RN) ranks, a few minor
> traditions here and there, but nothing like the discipline,
So the rank names are changed, the sturcture of the ranks positions
are not. ANd in the case of the names, they do damn well follow
the traditions, and do not use you silly sub-class idea.
>
> >> It is an organisation that came into existence in the 22nd century and
> >> had its roots in several military and civilain organisations on
> >> several different planets.
> >>
> >> Why not go and look at Vulcan naval proctices or Andorian ones? They
> >> founded Starfleet along with the humans.
> >
> >Because Starfleet copied the british ones as has been stated and shown
> >consistently as far as the ship classes at least from episode one to
> >the most current episodes and everywhere inbewteeen.
>
> The most recent episode being the one that refers to 'wings' of
> starships? Very traditional.
So a few changes are made to deal with the detail that it is
a comgbination of air-force and navy. Small hint, the classifing
of air-craft is done the same way the classifing of ships is.
Not getting anywhere with that line of thought. Though the air force
does call refits modified instead. But they do not call a diffent
strip on a plane a different type of plane.
>
> >> You have to change the
> >> >basic design of the outer hull of a ship to change its class period.
> >>
> >> How basic is basic?
> >>
> >> The Ambassador class has the same basic design.
> >
> >The Ambassador class might well be a reappearence of the
> >design after all of the orignal Consitutions have been phased
> >out. They were something like 40 year old designs during TOS
> >I think.
>
> Correct. Though the 'official' books ignore Rodenberry on this as well
> and say twenty years old.
Either way, by the last movie, the class is clearly on the
way out. It is not just the enterprise they are retiring, but
probably the entire class with the enterprise probably being
the last of the class in service.
Hence a few years later a new class is made to replace the mission
profile of the now exentict Consitution class. This has been done
before.
>
> >> The Soyuz and the Miranda are very similar.
> >> Some of the Miranda variants ahve extra pods on the side and no
> >> rollbar. Is that different enough?
> >
> >Never seen them enough to care.
>
> Um, do you watch much Trek then? Mirandas are one of the commonest
> designs.
Acutally I have never heard of a Soyuz class before, I do know
about the Miranda's.
>
> >And missing the roll bar could
> >well make a major difference since that was the main weapons for
> >the ship, so changes in the weapons to the point that it requires
> >moving their location probably would require striping the ship
> >down to make the change.
>
> Well Mirandas with rollbars and Mirandas without and Mirandas with
> starnge pods on the side are all still Miarnda class, and all serve
> alongside each at the same time. And that's why I think the idea of
> sub-classes has merit.
Nope, you have no clue what the point of ship classes are is that
you are saying. The idea of sub-class has no merit as it would
undermine the entire point of ship classes.
Modifing a ship just makes a modifed version of that class *PERIOD*.
> >It has everything to do with Starfleet, since its protocol is based
> >off of the British Royal Navy's traditions. Such has been said
> >by Rodenberry himself in interviews. Kirk's character is supposedly
> >modeled after Horatio Hornblower (I think that is the right name).
>
> Yes, that's the right name.
>
> There's a difference between 'modelled after' after 'slavishly
> followed with no alterations or additions'
Well in the case of the names, they did follow the tradtion to the
leter, sorry about that.
> >> > It is done that way so
> >> >that a minor change in the design during the production run does not
> >> >make a new ship class.
> >>
> >> I have not said that it does. It makes a new specification. Which can
> >> be given its own name if the authorities so desire.
> >
> >Sub-classes do not exist though. So you are saying it is a new
> >class, which it is not. It remained a Consitution *PERIOD*.
>
> I am not saying it is a new class. I am saying that the
> variant/refit/wahtever has its own designator within the Constitution
> class name.
Then you are saying it is a seperate class, that or you have no
clue what a ship class really refers to.
>
> Would it be easier for you if I called them Constitution/a
> Constitution/b and Constitution/c?
Nope, they should be refered to as Consitution refit< insert date>.
Sub-classes would not exist as no two ships would be modified in
EXACTLY the same way since each memeber of a ship class is not
an EXACT carbon copy of the rest.
>
> >> >And clearly what little outer desing changes
> >> >were made to the ship are extremely minor, so it is still the same
> >> >ship class. Basicly it requires the ship being striped down and
> >> >rebuilt before it would ever get a new class name.
> >>
> >> Stripped down and rebuilt? That is exactly what happened to the
> >> Enterprise between TAS and TMP. One of the crew said that she was
> >> viurtually a whole new ship. And she didn't get a new class name. She
> >> got a new sub-class name to go with her new specification.
> >
> >New guts, not new hull. Important difference that will again go
> >over your head I am sure.
>
> Define hull.
>
> The outer hull was certainly completely changed.
> The inner spaceframe was the aprt left unchanged.
>
> New guts, same keel would be a better analogy.
What ever, as long as they never decomissioned the sturcture
during the overhaul, it is still a Consitution clas ship with
nothing following that.
>
> >> If the USN changed it's policy tomorrow and started assigning names to
> >> major variations within classes, would you write to them and tell them
> >> they were doing it wrong?
> >
> >That does not affect the FACT that starfleet's naming conventions
> >are based off the British Royal Navy traditions. As such there
> >are no sub-classes. And the USN would not change the convention
> >as it works, unlike the one you are suggesting would would make each
> >and EVERY ship a class unto itself and thus make the whole point
> >of ship classes pointless.
>
> You didn't answer the question.
Yes I did, you just do not like the answer. Starfleet is modeled
after the current navy like it or not. And they follow the current
traditions about naming of ship classes, which means NO SUB-CLASSES.
>
> I don't care that there are no sub-classes today. (But I agree that
> there aren't and that they don't need them today.)
They would never be needed.
> But that is not a
> written in stone restriction on them being used tomorrow.
> I doubt that Starfleet needs them.
They need for the same reason they are used now, to lump general
designs of ships together in one list since generally similar
designed ships can replace each other. Your sub-class idea
would make each ship an unique creation.
> But it is the simplest way to
> reconcile the fandom and 'official' sources. You might not care about
> doing that, and that's fine. But don't tell me I'm wrong when I
> ahven't contradicted as single piece of on screen evidence.
IT IS NOT NEEDED. THERE IS NOTHING THAT IS NOT RECONCILED ABOUT THE
SHIP CLASSES. AND THERE IS NO POINT IN TRING TO RECONCILE EVERY IDIOTS
IDEAS THAT HAVE ZERO MERIT AND ZERO EVIDENCE WITH THE SHOW, WHEN EVERY
OFFICAL OR EVEN CLOSE TO OFFICAL SOURCE SAYS THE SHIP CLASSES FOLLOW
CURRENT NAVAL CONVENTIONS.
>
> And I haven't. Because I have never said that the Enterprise-A was not
> Constitution class and I have never claimed that the concept of a
> sub-class from on screen sources.
That is good, because it would be silly to ever introduce it and
it is in contradiction to the observed detail that there is no mention
ever of ship classes having any kind of divisions aside from refits
verses non-refits.
--
buckysan
annapuma and unapumma in 98
44% of people think there is intelligent life besides earth
44% of people think there is intelligent life in washington DC
.
.
.
Adam Farlinger
Centaur class is whatever class the U.S.S. Centaur (from "A Time to
Stand") is; Norway class is one of the new designs seen in First Contact.
Corbin E. Thomas
I saw Constellation, Galaxy, Miranda, Excelsior(if that's the class), but
it's been stated several times that no Sovereign's (or Intrepid) would be
seen in the battles. I know that I never saw any Sovereign class ships.
Can you give the particular scene in which you claim to have seen a
Sovereign? And please do this quickly, b/c I really don't want to have to
scroll past the ump-teen thousand posts that are sure to come at you for
this ;)
----------------------------------------------------
Corbin Thomas
c...@netdoor.removethis.com
----------------------------------------------------
Mike wrote in message <64bjni$h...@nr1.calgary.istar.net>...
>There was at least two Sovereign's. A lot of Galaxy's. Some Nebula's,
>Excelsior's, etc. I think there may even have been some Constellation
class
>ships in there. I looked up USS Centaur in my ST Encycolpedia, no mention
>of that ship. I also looked up the episode and no mention of that either.
>Norway class isn't mentioned in the chronology which contains info from
>First Contact
>
>
Timothy M Mc Fadden
Tim McFadden
sky...@gladstone.uoregon.edu
541-346-9446
"It must be a homer, Simpson, 'cause the pitcher just went "d'oh!""
On Tue, 11 Nov 1997, Brian Barjenbruch wrote:
> Where was there ever mentioned an Intrepid-class Stargazer?
>
> Brian
>
>
The recent Marvel comics Star Trek Unlimited #6 and the Telepathy War
special mention the Stargazer-A. A very good storyline, should be read
by Trekkies.
Steven P. McNicoll
James Grady Ward wrote in message <34688E...@eos.ncsu.edu>...
>Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>>
>> "The Star Trek Encyclopedia" by Michael & Denise Okuda and Debbie Mirek
says
>> only that NCC-1701 was a Constitution class vessel, no mention of a new
>> "Enterprise class" after the refit. NCC-1701-A, which was nearly
identical
>> to the reworked NCC-1701, was also a Constitution class vessel.
>
>Someone else listed the supposed "offical" sources. Not a one
>of them is a cannon source or even an "offical" one. And either
>way as has been mentioned elsewhere, the ship plaque in the movies
>says that it is a Consitution class ship. So any offical explaination
>has to explain that detail.
>
"The Star Trek Encyclopedia: A Reference Guide to the Future" was licensed
by Paramount Pictures, they "OWN" Star Trek. It was co-written by Michael
Okuda, who was the scenic art supervisor on TNG and holds the same position
on DS9. He also worked on three of the ST feature films. Co-writer Denise
Okuda is a graphic designer and video playback coordinator on DS9. She also
worked on ST VI. Co-writer Debbie Mirek worked as a researcher with the
Okudas on their previous work' "Star Trek Chronology: The History of the
Future". This book is about a fictional future but it is not a work of
fiction, the writers provide references from the shows and films for every
entry.
>
>Of course the obvious one is that simple resigning the interior of
>a ship DOES NOT change the ships class. That never has, it just makes
>it a refit of the class, ie they refit new guts of the ship to the
>same hull. And it is the hull design that determines a ships class,
>not its guts.
>
In other words, you agree with what I posted.
Steven P. McNicoll
John Griffin wrote in message <3468BD...@telepath.com>...
>
>In the Episode Where Silence has lease, when they encounter the Galaxy
>class ship inside the void, Riker Clearly States, "NCC-1305-E, Its the
>Yamato our sister ship"!! So the Enterprise is not the only ship with
>additional letters.
>
That's correct, but in the episode "Contagion" (which appeared just nine
episodes after "Where Silence Has Lease"), the "Yamato" had registration
number NCC-71807. This continuity error was probably done deliberately in
"Contagion", after the writers realized that giving "Yamato" an "E" in its
registry number meant that there had been more "Yamatos" than "Enterprises"
in Starfleet. That just wouldn't be right!
The writers blundered when the second Enterprise was given registry number
NCC-1701-A. It is not unusual for the names of naval ships to be used again
and again, but hull numbers are never used twice. For example, the original
USN aircraft carrier "Lexington" was given hull number CV-2 when it was
commissioned in 1927. That ship was sunk at the Battle of the Coral Sea in
May 1942. In February 1943 the second carrier Lexington was commissioned,
but its number was not CV-2-A, it was CV-16.
Steven P. McNicoll
Steve Pugh wrote in message <3468d573...@news.dial.pipex.com>...
>James Grady Ward wrote:
>
>>Starfleet is damn well modeled after the USN and the naval tradition
>>of the british navy that the USN traditions come from. That is actually
>>said by Rodenberry in some interview.
>
>Those Royal Naval traditions such as Rum, Sodomy and the lash? We see
>a lot of them in Trek don't we?
>
No we don't, nor do we see them any more in the Royal Navy. (Well, probably
we would see the rum. Perhaps a bit of sodomy.)
>>THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A SUB-CLASS. NEVER HAS BEEN. And it is
>>very damn well odd that all of the current major navies have no problem
>>with calling a ship that has been refited a refit of that class ship.
>>All of the Europena navies do this. The Russian navy does this as well.
>>
>>And as to how it should be said, properly is 1st refit and 2nd refit.
>>And there would be a standard refit at any given time.
>
>Wrong. There are several different variants on the Miranda design in
>service at the same time. All called Miranda class.
>
And none of them referred to as any sub-class.
>>Get it through your head. By all offical and sane accountings, there
>>has only been Consitution class( period, nothing further besides refit
>>number maybe for pure offical documentation) Enterprises until the E-B
>>was made.
>
>I have never said that it is not constitution class.
>
But you did say that it was Enterprise sub-class. It isn't.
>I have merely said that it has a further label to distinguish between
>variants.
>
>
Yes, you did say that. You were wrong.
>>Why can't you get that through your head. Sub-classes is
>>a meaningless and non-existant term in relation to naval
>>(and hence starfleet) ship classes.
>
>It is not meaningless. I have explained the meaning to you several
>times. I don't care that it ahs no realtionship to modern naval
>practices.
>
But it isn't found in Star Trek either.
>>And if you knew
>>how ship clases are named you would know that it would be meaningless
>>to make such, unless you want everyship to be its own class.
>
>No. Whilst the Exeter and the Essex are both Constitution class, and
>while they are both, say, Achernar sub-class they can still have minor
>fit differenes. We are talking about a loose hierarchy of variation.
>
Exeter was Constitution-class, Essex was Daedalus-class. There are no
sub-classes.
>>
>>Lets, you realize that Consituttion Enterprise is DUMB AS HELL,
>
>No, I said it sounded daft. It would be technically accurate, but it
>is a bit of a mouthful to say.
>
Technically accurate?
>>It is what the creator of the show said. It is what all of the
>>shows have shown without any error besides the suffixs on ship
>>names. It is VERY DAMN WELL CLEAR THAT THE NAMES ARE A CLONE OF
>>MODERN( NOT JUST THE USN) NAVIES. Any idiot that has ever done
>>any research would know that.
>
>And so? Do they have to stick slavishly to it in every detail?
>
>We know that they don't.
>
True, if they did, there would have been no NCC-1701-A, -B, -C, -D, or -E.
>>And as far as NCC means, some real navy people have come on before
>>and pointed out that that means Naval Construction Contract. Where
>>you get Cruiser from I do not know.
>
>A meaning invented by the same fans who invented all the variants such
>as Bonhomme Richard, Achernar, etc. Only they called them classes. I'm
>improving matters by changing it to sub-class.
>
Fans are not the creators of Star Trek. If Paramount adopts your
"sub-class" scheme then "sub-classes" will be part of Star Trek, but not
before.
>
>Just because there is no evidence on screen that it exists does not
>mean that it doesn't. Some of us have a less restricted view of Star
>Trek.
>
But it does mean exactly that. Your fantasies do not become part of Star
Trek when you have them, they become part of Star Trek when and if Paramount
adopts them.
Steven P. McNicoll
Brian Barjenbruch wrote in message ...
>The "1305-E" registry number on the Yamato is a mistake. A typo. It has
>been ignored.
>
>The Yamato's "real" registry number is NCC-71807. As far as Trek
>continuity goes, the Yamato always had that number.
>
No, in the TNG episode "Where Silence Has Lease", Yamato definitely had
registry number NCC-1305-E. Nine episodes later in episode "Contagion"
Yamato had registry number NCC-71807.
Steve Pugh
James Grady Ward wrote:
>Then drop the dumb as shit sub-class junk and call them refits
>like everyone else does.
Okay it's 'Enterprise refit'. The word doesn't matter. That they are
uniquely labelled after the first ship to be so converted is what
matters.
And the only thing that's 'dumb as shit' is the inablity of some
people to cope with new ideas.
Steve
--
"My theories appal you, my heresies outrage you,
I never answer letters and you don't like my tie." - The Doctor
Stephen Richard Pugh http://ds.dial.pipex.com/town/estate/ax16
Jeremy Jenkins
In article <346868ac...@news.dial.pipex.com>,
maf...@dial.pipex.com. (Steve Pugh) wrote:
:The first one was.
:This one is an Intrepid class.
:Though I don't think it should have an A. That practice only applies
:to the Enterprise, so far as anyone can tell.
:
Ships with the same name do not get letter suffixes (this is true even in
today's navies). The reason that the _Enterprise_ vessels get a suffix is
because the same *registry* number (NCC-1701) is used. These numbers are
unique, like serial numbers, hence the need for a suffix.
The only time that the name itself should get a suffix (aside from the
shorthand use, i.e. Enterprise-D) is when more than one ship uses the name at
the same time. Obviously a rare and unwieldy occurance, though it happens.
(The only example I can think of was when a new Navy warship was named
"Constitution" and the historical frigate was temporarily renamed
"Old Constitution".)
- Jeremy
Brian Barjenbruch
> On Star Trek they didn't follow the pattern except for the Excellsior Class.
Wrong. They follow the pattern for ALL classes.
> The Enterprise was the first Constitution Class ship,
No, it wasn't. The USS Constitution was first.
> and the USS
> Constitution was built later and was named after the class
No, it was not. Constitution was built first, then Enterprise. If this
had not happened, the term 'Constitution class' could not exist. All ship
classes are named after the first ship of the class that is built. That
is the way it is done.
Face it, the rule still applies--even in Starfleet. We have seen many,
many 'class ships' which have been used in Trek. Some examples:
USS Constitution, NCC-1700 (TOS 'Space Seed,' 'Court Martial')
USS Constellation, NCC-1974 (ST VI; TNG 'The Battle')
USS Excelsior, NCC-2000 (ST III and VI)
USS Challenger, NCC-2032 (ST VI)
USS Oberth, NCC-602 (ST VI)
USS Ambassador, NCC-10521 (TNG Tech Manual, which is canon)
USS Galaxy, NCC-70637 (ditto)
USS Intrepid, NCC-74600 (TNG 'Force of Nature')
USS Defiant, NX-74205 (DS9)
USS Bradbury, NX-72307 (TNG 'Menage a Troi')
Brian
Brian Barjenbruch
> No, in the TNG episode "Where Silence Has Lease", Yamato definitely had
> registry number NCC-1305-E.
Like I said, that was a mistake. A typo. As far as official continuity
goes, it never happened. (It was an 'illusion' Yamato, anyway; obviously
Nagilum made a mistake in creating it.)
Brian
William & Mary Searfoss
Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>
> ^MaEsTrO wrote in message <647f0e$ss5$4...@news.dmv.com>...
> >
> > c wrote in article ...
> >>
> >>The Enterprise was Constitution class.
> >>
> >>Jen
> >
> >the original was, correct...
> >BUT... after the extensive refit before/during the first movie...it was
> >several pieces of officially sanctioned Trek literature that state this...
> >
>
> only that NCC-1701 was a Constitution class vessel, no mention of a new
> "Enterprise class" after the refit. NCC-1701-A, which was nearly identical
> to the reworked NCC-1701, was also a Constitution class vessel.
Enterprise A is listed as a Constitution Class (refit)
Paul Sweeney
(snip snip snip)
just my two cents..
I've seen this little debate over and over for more than ten years (about
the Constitution Class anyways--that sub-class stuff is simple not right,
and I have to agree with the dissenters on that one)
This is where all the developers from years past involved in the Star Trek
universe made a slight mistake, and still hate to admit it.
according to my humble information (take it for what you think it worth):
1. ONSCREEN: the NCC 1701, and 1701-A have always been Constitution class
2. However, in other "official" or "canon" sources, there were a few
OFFSCREEN publications where the class was referred to as Enterprise class.
Many of us at FASA (where I was working at the time doing development work
on Star Trek: the RPG, and Doctor Who RPG) spotted this immediately when we
contacted Paramount, and Gene's production company for accuracy data on
ships and so forth (the RPG was given the "official" stamp of approval from
both companies at the time, making it an official licensed product, but
often still not considered a canon source. The reasoning we were given on
this (historical note: the game was developed shortly after the release of
ST II WOK) was that since the Constitution refit in TMP, there was, in
Decker's words, "Very little of the original Enterprise left" or some such,
and to honor the Enterprise being the only of the original class production
runs to finish the infamous "five year mission", and being the first of
refit, that the class would be renamed Enterprise class, and in the source
manuals for the game, we listed it as the following : Enterprise Class
(Constitution Refit)
Somehow, it didn't feel right to us
I also have a copy of a limited run updated Technical Manual, Wrath of Kahn
era) that lists the same thing...
of course, by Star Trek III, it remained Constitution Class onscreen, and
the whole affair has been cleared up
my opinion: (as if anyone cares) Developers thought it nice to "tribute" the
Enterprise, but later upon learning that "renaming a class" generally has
not been done in the present day navies, it would traditionally not be done
in the 23rd Century either
okay, enough of my spewing, feel free to flame me out for this intrusive,
unprovoked interloping
Paulie
Manny Green
"Ahhh...Much better!" thought Zohar Ris <zr...@ic.sunysb.edu> siping on the
now hot steaming cup of fresh coffee and clicking the send button.:
>Are you an Idiot or what???!?!!
>THe Constitution was the first STAR SHIP period. Constitution calss ships
>were the first ever ships that were worthy of the designation,
>As for the Galaxy Class, Hello!!! THe USS Galaxy was the fist Of its kind
>then cam the Yamato (i Believe) if you recall it was destroyed on TNG.
>This you can find out in the TNG Technical Manual, just because we
>haven't seen them, DOES NOT mean they don't exist
I am uncertain why it is necessary, or desireable, to talk down to, rather than
to, the other posters here.
The Constitution was not the first starship. The U.S.S. Archon (Return of the
Archons--TOS), the U.S.S. Essex (Power Play--TNG), and the U.S.S. Horizon (Piece
of the Action--TOS) (all presumably Daedalus class and so presumably also the
U.S.S. Daedalus) were all refered to as Starships well before the commissioning
of the Constitution Class Starships.
--Manny Green
Mike
I apologize. I was mistaken, it was an Excelsior class. But the ship I
thought was a Sovereign was at the beginning after Sisko reiterates his
"Fortune Favors The Bold" line from the previous episode. A group of four
fighters passes at the bottom of the screen and then a ship comes in after
them. This is the one that I thought was a Soveriegn. But closer
examination showed it to be Excelsior. Sorry people
Corbin E. Thomas wrote in message <64bmnm$aep$1...@axe.netdoor.com>...
Manny Green
"Ahhh...Much better!" thought John Griffin <jgri...@telepath.com> siping
on the now hot steaming cup of fresh coffee and clicking the send button.:
>Phillip Windell wrote:
>>
>> >Why are you insulting me, David? Yes, the Enterprise-A was Constitution
>> >class. I was just trying to make a point, obviously I did not illustrate
>> >it well enough. The definition of class (Star Trek Encylopedia) is:
>> >Ancient naval term used to describe a group of ships sharing a common
>> >basic design. GENERALL, a class of ships is named by Starfleet after the
>> >first ship of that type built. Key word generally. For instance, the
>> >U.S.S. Valiant was NOT Valiant class. So there.
>> >
>> >Jenny
>>
>> You are correct ecept for the last statement. The Valiant would be also
>> called a "Valiant Class vessel" and may also be referred to as the "Lead
>> Ship of the Class". This is the way it works in the US Navy today as well.
>>
>> On Star Trek they didn't follow the pattern except for the Excellsior Class.
What do you base this assertion on?
>> The Enterprise was the first Constitution Class ship, and the USS
>> Constitution was built later and was named after the class instead of the
>> class named after the first ship.
Not so. If you are accepting the highly dubious proposition as laid out in one
of the novels (not a good place to go looking for authoritative information) it
still says that the Constitution's "keel" was laid before the Enterprise's and
Enterprise was only completed first.
With the Galaxy Class, the Enterprise
>> *may* have been the first ship of the class, but unsure, and I don't recall
>> there even being a ship called USS Galaxy with in the Galaxy Class. Star
>> Trek also didn't assign new Hull Numbers as with Navy practice, although
>> they did add the letters after the number.
>>
>> Enterprise 1701---------------------------------------- Constitution Class
>> Enterprise 1701 (after refit in first movie with V'Ger)--- Constellation
>> Class
>> Enterprise 1701-A ---------------------------- also a Constellation Class
>> Enterprise 1701-B --------------------------------------- Excellsior Class
>> Enterprise 1701-C ------------------- probably "Galaxy Class" but unsure
>> Enterprise 1701-D,E --------------------------------------- Galaxy Class
>The 1701-1701 A were all Constitution Class Vessels
>The C was not a Galaxy
C was Ambassador Class
>The D was a Galaxy
>The E is a Sovereign
--Manny Green
Graham Kennedy
Brian is definitely correct. This is part of what the Encyclopedia
reference on the USS Yamato says.
"Although the Yamato's registration number was established in
contagion to NCC-71807, an earlier, incorrect number was given in
'Where Silence has Lease,' when an illusory version of that ship
was seen. An early draft for that episode gave the number as
NCC-1305E, which didn't fit into the numbering scheme developed for
starships in The Next Generation. Mike Okuda wrote a note to the
producers, requesting the number be changed, but didn't send the
memo because a later draft of the scrips dropped the reference to
the Yamatos registry number. Mike wasn't aware that an even later
draft of the script restored the scene and the incorrect number.
By the time he found out (when he saw the completed episode on
the air), he had already prepared the markings for the
USS Yamato's saucer, for the scene when that ship blew up in
'Contagion' (TNG). Named for the Japanese World War II battleship.
The dedication plaque for the bridge of the Yamato bore a motto
from Thomas Jefferson: 'I have sworn eternal hostility against
every form of tyranny over the mind of man.'"
So there!
--
Graham Kennedy
James Grady Ward
Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>
> Brian Barjenbruch wrote in message ...
> >> would like to know.
> >
> >air, pretty much at random. Mike Okuda noticed that this doesn't fit into
> >how starships are supposed to be numbered (most new ships, and definitely
> ><all> Galaxy-class ships, have five-digit numbers starting with 7, and the
> >'letter' suffix is for Enterprises only). Unfortunately, this error was
> >not caught until the episode had already aired, so there was no time to
> >fix it.
> >
> >Besides, it doesn't really matter. Nagilum simply made a mistake in the
> >Yamato's number when he recreated it in the episode. The real Yamato was
> >never seen until 'Contagion' when it had its correct number.
> >
>
> So he got everything right but the number?
That and the bridge being a self contained space. That ship
is clearly not meant to be the real ship. Or do you think that
if you leave the bridge by the left doors, that you immediately
come back onto the right side of the bridge?
Lonsdale
In article <Pine.SUN.3.96.971107145024.17784C-100000@satie>, c
<jsn...@arts.usf.edu> writes
>On Thu, 6 Nov 1997, Brian Barjenbruch wrote:
>
>> The Intrepid and Voyager were two Intrepid-class ships, and there are at
>> least two others. This was stated as canon in Paramount's initial Voyager
>> promotional material (and was on their original web site, before Microsoft
>> gobbled it up).
>
>Oh..my bad. Still, how come Voyager looks so different from all the other
>vessels in her class (or any class?) All the Enterprises looked remotely
>alike. Jen
>
Exactly how many vessels in Voyager's class have we seen. Anyway as far
as I know Voyager is Intrepid-class as that is how it was described to
Tom Paris at DS9. when he first saw her.
--
Adrian Lonsdale
James Grady Ward
Steve Pugh wrote:
>
> >>>And if you knew
> >>>how ship clases are named you would know that it would be meaningless
> >>>to make such, unless you want everyship to be its own class.
> >>
> >>No. Whilst the Exeter and the Essex are both Constitution class, and
> >>while they are both, say, Achernar sub-class they can still have minor
> >>fit differenes. We are talking about a loose hierarchy of variation.
> >>
> >Exeter was Constitution-class, Essex was Daedalus-class. There are no
> >sub-classes.
>
> There was also an Essex consitution class. It appeared in the TOS
> episode 'The Ultimate Computer'.
You mean there is a Consitution class ship that is named Essex.
You really should do a little research on this. The names and
registries of the 12 Consitution class ships in TOS are listed
in a few places.
>
> >>Just because there is no evidence on screen that it exists does not
> >>mean that it doesn't. Some of us have a less restricted view of Star
> >>Trek.
> >>
> >But it does mean exactly that. Your fantasies do not become part of Star
> >Trek when you have them, they become part of Star Trek when and if Paramount
> >adopts them.
>
> They are not MY fantasies. I have not invented a single concept
> presented here.
>
> And there is more to Trek than what the suits at Paramount say so.
>
> All the novels, the animated series, the comics, the fan produced
> work, the games. All of this is a part of Trek. You are free to ignore
> it if you like, but to attack me because I won't ignore it is contrary
> to the very spirit of Star Trek.
What you are suggesting is contrary to the spirit of ST. The creator
of the show, said that the ship classifications are based off of the
USN, just deal with it. And if we even tried to reconcil even a the
GOOD fan work, it would be impossible. So why should we toss out
the stated rules of classifing ships just to please some fan that did
zero research?
--
buckysan
annapuma and unapumma in 98
44% of people think there is intelligent life besides earth
44% of people think there is intelligent life in washington DC
.
Steve Pugh
James Grady Ward <jgw...@eos.ncsu.edu> wrote:
>Steve Pugh wrote:
>> >Exeter was Constitution-class, Essex was Daedalus-class. There are no
>> >sub-classes.
>>
>> There was also an Essex consitution class. It appeared in the TOS
>> episode 'The Ultimate Computer'.
>
>You mean there is a Consitution class ship that is named Essex.
That's what I said.
>You really should do a little research on this. The names and
>registries of the 12 Consitution class ships in TOS are listed
>in a few places.
14.
Constellation, Reopublic, Constitution, Enterprise, Lexington,
Farragut, Yorktown, Excalibur, Exeter, Hood, Intrepid, Valiant, Kongo,
and Potemkin.
All of these (with the sort of exception of the Valiant have been
mentioned on screen, though some only on a computer display in ST VI).
All the other ones mentioned on screen, (Defiant, Eagle, Endeavour and
Essex) were part of the second batch. What fandom erroneously calls
the Bonhomme Richard class and what I would like to call the Bonhomme
Richard sub-class. You can call it the 1st upgrade or the 2nd batch or
anything you like.
>> All the novels, the animated series, the comics, the fan produced
>> work, the games. All of this is a part of Trek. You are free to ignore
>> it if you like, but to attack me because I won't ignore it is contrary
>> to the very spirit of Star Trek.
>
>What you are suggesting is contrary to the spirit of ST.
The spirit of Star Trek is tolerance and open mindedness.
That is more important to Trek than anything to do with ship classes.
>The creator
>of the show, said that the ship classifications are based off of the
>USN, just deal with it.
As I pointed out I my post yesterday, the Royal Navy uses a rather
different system. I hope that the RN survives the wars of the 21st
century and contributes something to the foundation of Starfleet.
> And if we even tried to reconcil even a the
>GOOD fan work, it would be impossible. So why should we toss out
>the stated rules of classifing ships just to please some fan that did
>zero research?
We're talking about THE fan work. The Franz Joseph 'Starfleet
Technical Manual' that was personally approved by Gene Rodenberry
himself. That was even used as a source in the making of the first few
movies. (Where do you think the starships names Columbia, Revere and
Entente came from, complete with registries?)
But it lists each batch of Constitutions as a separate class. This is
wrong. I am trying to reconcile that.
Steve
--
"And all I ask is a tall ship, and a star to steer her by."
"Though a cloaking device, pulsed phaser cannons
and a full load of quantum torpedoes would be quite nice too."
Stephen Richard Pugh http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Rampart/4173/
Steve Pugh
Steve Pugh wrote:
>>Exeter was Constitution-class, Essex was Daedalus-class. There are no
>>sub-classes.
>
>There was also an Essex consitution class. It appeared in the TOS
>episode 'The Ultimate Computer'.
My goof. The Essex was just about the only Constitution not to appear
in 'The Ultimate Computer' (Hood, Excalibur, Potemkin and Lexington
did, plus the Enterprise of course.)
Essex was on a display in ST VI. It's listed as Constitution in the
'official' Encyclopedia.
Sorry for any confusion.
Steve
--
"Grab reality by the balls and squeeze." - Tempus Thales
Steven P. McNicoll
>Why are you insulting me, David? Yes, the Enterprise-A was Constitution
>class. I was just trying to make a point, obviously I did not illustrate
>it well enough. The definition of class (Star Trek Encylopedia) is:
>Ancient naval term used to describe a group of ships sharing a common
>basic design. GENERALL, a class of ships is named by Starfleet after the
>first ship of that type built. Key word generally. For instance, the
>U.S.S. Valiant was NOT Valiant class. So there.
>
How do you know that? It was never said what class ship USS Valiant was.