Connie - TOS canon nomenclature

[sojourner]

If you think that shows I “believe the wildest, wackiest chain of events” I’d say it would be about darn time for you to elaborate why.

Bob

<points to Robert Comsol's Enterprise - C threads> 'Nuff said.

And hey, those images you posted are great examples of canon. The thing you have to remember is that canon =/= consistent. Feel free to conjecture about that inconsistency.

And congratulations for getting through a post without using the "".

 

[Sean_McCormick]

[...]
NCC-1631 USS Intrepid is not there and why
[...]

As you know, the 1631 comes from that chart and is a misread 1831.

"The first duty of every Starfleet officer is to the truth"

Obviously only, when it fits your theories.

 

[GSchnitzer]

The names and numbers of generations in the genealogy of Jesus Christ in Matthew:1-6 is different from the genealogy for Jesus Christ in Luke 3:32-34. So which version is actually in the Bible? They both are. Which one is "canon?" They both are. Which one is the one we with great confidence will decide is the one that actually took place? I think you might be missing the point of the Gospels. I'd be reluctant to state "Matthew had a great idea on Jesus' genealogy but Luke came along later and changed Matthew's premise."

As has been said numerous times, "canon" doesn't mean "consistent;" it means, basically "official." Kirk can say he was born in Iowa, and then, later in the same episode, that he was born on Mars and has never been to Iowa. Which one is "canon?" They both are. Which one "really" happened? It sounds a lot like people arguing. "I'm so knowledgeable about Star Trek that my fictional speculation can beat up your fictional speculation." It's fun I suppose, but eventually you need to get back to your counter at "The Android's Dungeon" and sell more Radioactive-man comic books.

"Canonicity is the beginning of Star Trek wisdom, not the end."

 

[Ithekro]

History time for context: Via Jane's Fighting Ships

First we will look at the Essex-class aircraft carriers as seen in 1949-50, 1958-59, 1971-72, and 1987-88.

As you may know, the Essex-class was built through World War II as the main fleet carrier for the United States Navy. 24 of these were completed.

In 1949-50:
All 24 of these completed ships are classified as Essex-class even though there are some hull differences between long and short hulls and the USS Oriskany, being delayed and the last completed that year, would be more different. They are all listed as CV with 9 - 21 being the first order, 31 - 40 being the second order, 45 - 47 being the third order, and 50 - 55 being the fourth order. Eight ships from the three later orders were cancelled. 22-30 were taken by light carriers (CVL) of the Independence-class and 41-44 (as well as 56 and 57) by the heavier carriers of the Midway-class (CVB). 48 and 49 were two more light carriers of the Saipan-class (CVL).

Jane's Fighting Ships does not use the sometimes used designator "Ticonderoga" class for the long hulled ships. the U.S. Navy never maintained any institutional distinction between the long-hull and short-hull members of the Essex class.

In 1958-59:
These ships are now listed into two groups. The 11 "Oriskany" type (Improved "Essex" Class), with have angled flight decks and enclosed hurricane bows. These are attack carriers listed with the letters CVA.

The second group is the less modified "Essex"-class, of which there are 13. A few have angled flight decks. These are assigned for anti-submarine duty and listed as CVS. This group also includes the ships that are basically inactive, like USS Franklin and USS Bunker Hill, which were not fully returned to service after damage sustained in 1945.

In 1971-72:

The old Essex-class is being retired. Six are still in active service and ten more still exist in reserve out of the 24 completed.

Three are listed as Hancock-class attack carriers. These use the CVA designation (USS Hancock CVA-19, USS Bon Homme Richard CVA-31 -reserve, and USS Oriskany CVA-34)

Twelve are listed as Essex-class, with 11 being ASW Support carriers and one being a training carrier. The 11 are listed with the CVS while the training carrier (USS Lexington) is listed as CVT-16. Active ships are: USS Intrepid CVS-11, USS Ticonderoga CVS-14, USS Lexington CVT-16, and USS Wasp CVS-18.

The one remaining existing carrier not on this list is USS Bunker Hill (AVT 9, ex-CVS 17). She is listed as Ex-Aircraft Carrier, Electronics Test Ship. A former Essex-class aircraft carrier.

A small number of these carriers were converted to Landing Platform Helicopter (LPH) for the US Marines between 1959 and 1970. These were USS Boxer (LPH 4 ex-CV 21, ex-CVA 21, ex-CVS 21), USS Princeton (LPH 5, ex-CV 37, ex-CVA 37, ex-CVS 37), and USS Valley Forge (LPH 8, ex-CV 45, ex-CVA 45, ex-CVS 45). These were the three active carriers that did not get an angled flight deck. I don't have a Jane's Fighting ships from the 1960s. The 1971 book calls them Essex-class under the Amphibious Assault Ships section, but have been decommissioned.

In 1987-88:
There are three of the old Essex-class ships left in the US Navy. These are listed as being from the Hancock and Intrepid classes. What is left is USS Lexington AVT 16 (training carrier - active), USS Bon Homme Richard CVA 31 - reserve, and USS Oriskany CV 34 - reserve. USS Hancock, USS Shangri-La, and USS Intrepid have only just been removed from the Navy list from the reserve fleet the year before.

USS Lexington will remain in service as a training carrier until 1991.

Today when one wants to search for any of these ships, one looks up "Essex-class", rather than any of the other class designations the had over the years.

Wikipedia lists the following Essex-class ships into that it calls the final assignments of the classes in the Naval Vessel Registry:

CVS-10 Yorktown class (SCB-27A): Essex, Yorktown, Hornet, Randolph, Wasp, Bennington, Kearsarge, Lake Champlain

CVS-11 Intrepid class (SCB-27C + SCB-144): Intrepid

CVA-19 Hancock class (SCB-27C): Ticonderoga, Hancock, Bon Homme Richard, Oriskany, Shangri-La

AVT-8 Franklin class (unreconstructed ships): Franklin, Bunker Hill, Leyte, Antietam, Tarawa, Philippine Sea

AVT-16 Lexington class (training carrier): Lexington

LPH-4 Boxer class (helicopter assault conversions): Boxer, Princeton, Valley Forge

I might do this again for a cruiser class and a destroyer class or two, but the Essex-class should be enough for now.

 

[BillJ]

^^ This canon image shows us the bridge of a Constitution Class Starship

^^ This canon image proves that NCC-1701-A is a refit Constitution Class Starship.

I think it is a bit disingenuous to use the most physically different picture you can find. This is also a picture of a "1701-A" bridge, which is very much like the earlier bridges except in color scheme:



It's tough to try and use productions that had more money and better technology as proof for this type of debate. That also ignores the fact that there are forty-years of in-universe evolution.

"I know engineers. They love to change things." - Leonard McCoy.

Plus, I thought someone said we should keep our examples to TOS? I know that if I was making season four, episode one today of TOS, the sets would only resemble those of the sixties series in the most superficial of ways.

 

[Mytran]

Man, those floor panels sure took a beating between ST1 and ST4! They spruced up everything else for the final scene, would it have been so hard to straighten up and glue down the floor rubber as well?

 

[BillJ]

Man, those floor panels sure took a beating between ST1 and ST4! They spruced up everything else for the final scene, would it have been so hard to straighten up and glue down the floor rubber as well?

Agreed!

 

[Robert Comsol]

No, it doesn't. It says the simulation bridge is from the Enterprise-class. That doesn't mean anything.

It doesn't read "Mark IV Simulator Enterprise Class Bridge" it reads "Mark IV Simulator Enterprise Class". The Enterprise isn't an airplane where you just need the cockpit simulator ("bridge") and that's it. The Enterprise is a ship, so there should also be an engine room simulator for engineering cadets etc. Since the Mark VI Simulator doesn't state "Bridge" it stands to reason that you'll also find other Enterprise Class related simulators in there behind the doors.

As you know, the 1631 comes from that chart and is a misread 1831.

Obviously, because I've mentioned it repeatedly in other threads. I still find it interesting that Mr. Okuda saw the raw scans of the original negatives, should have noted the "1831" but the Intrepid is still "1631". But for those who believe NCC-1631 is the Intrepid it's crystal clear that she is not on that starship status chart.

"The first duty of every Starfleet officer is to the truth"

Obviously only, when it fits your theories.

I find your remark offensive. Can you please state examples to substantiate your implication?

I think it is a bit disingenuous to use the most physically different picture you can find. This is also a picture of a "1701-A" bridge, which is very much like the earlier bridges except in color scheme.

Actually I tried to find an image of both bridges taken from the same angle for better comparison. And I'm confident that the other footage of the bridge from ST V:TFF and ST VI:TUC clearly shows that this is not nearly the same bridge as in the first three films.

Considering that we saw the "Enterprise Class" (simulator) bridge prominently featured in the first three films and the Constitution Class bridge prominently in the last two, I'd say that even an average viewer notices the differences. But your screencap from ST IV:TVH is a good point, so we can ignore the different bridge layouts.

This still leaves the two hangar decks which are obviously completely different, correct?

Plus, I thought someone said we should keep our examples to TOS?

I thought that the TOS movies are still acceptable as a means to shed some light on the issue, since the TNG and DS9 references are somewhat inconclusive as I tried to illustrate at the beginning of this thread.

But what I find really interesting is this:

The canon determining philosophy I apply yields that the we are dealing with a "Constitution Starship Class" and an "Enterprise Starship Class" (because the latter is stated for the Enterprise in The Making of Star Trek which BTW is also compatible with the TOS bridge dedication plaque).

But even the 1984 canon determining philosophy shows that we are dealing with a "Constitution Class" and an "Enterprise Class".

So both exist, and I think it's obvious to which class a starship named "Enterprise" with the registry NCC-1701 would belong to...

Bob

 

[BillJ]

This still leaves the two hangar decks which are obviously completely different, correct?

Which, much like the bridge, could have underwent an overhaul between Star Trek IV and Star Trek V. Or it could be different and still be of the same class as the earlier version. Two ships don't have to be identical to be of the same class.

But even the 1984 canon determining philosophy...

I've got to tell you, this honestly makes no sense as no one is trying to destroy any materials in regards to TOS. I have so much material on this show and I treasure it all, even where it contradicts my thoughts on a particular subject.

I do think the majority of people recognize Star Trek and the greater franchise for what it is: a group of TV series made by many different people over a number of decades. From that point-of-view, there is a lot of conflicting material. Even in TOS, there was an evolution of the universe that surrounded it. Things came and went: we traded lithium for dilithium (which if we play hardcore canon would indicate another major modification of the Enterprise during the series proper) and UESPA for Starfleet.

So both exist, and I think it's obvious to which class a starship named "Enterprise" would belong to...

I don't. I think it's open to interpretation.

 

[sojourner]

But even the 1984 canon determining philosophy...

I've got to tell you, this honestly makes no sense as no one is trying to destroy any materials in regards to TOS. I have so much material on this show and I treasure it all, even where it contradicts my thoughts on a particular subject.

Don't let it get to you. It's part of his martyr complex to paint everyone else as some monolithic group trying to hide the truth as he sees it.

 

[Ithekro]

Next on the list of history being used as comparisons for the Constitution-class: The Baltimore-class heavy cruiser.

In 1949-50:

The Baltimore-class heavy cruiser was a class of 8 inch armed heavy cruisers built during World War II for the United States Navy. 14 were completed in two orders. CA 68 - 75 and CA 130 - 136 (with CA 134 being the lead ship of another class of heavy cruiser, USS Des Moines, a larger ship with rapid fire 8 inch guns). There was also the similar Oregon City-class of three ships (CA 122 - 124) that are sometimes considered improved Baltimores.

In 1958-59:

Jane's Fighting Ships keeps them more together as Baltimore-class cruisers, thought this is at the time some of them are under conversion to guided missile cruisers. Two of the class (USS Boston and USS Canberra are listed as Converted Baltimore class Guided Missile Cruisers (CAG 1 ex-CA 69 and CAG 2 ex-CA 70), while the other 12 are still listed as Baltimore class (with 10 listed as heavy cruisers CA and two listed as guided missile cruisers CG) The two undergoing conversion to CG are listed as USS Fall River (CG 12 ex-CA 131) and USS Chicago (CG 11 ex-CA 136). All 14 ships are still in service in some capacity.

USS Boston and USS Canberra have there aft guns removed and replaced with missile launchers. The other ships being converted are suppose to have all there guns removed and replaced with missiles of one type or another.

The three similar Oregon City-class ships are still listed though one of them, USS Albany (CG 10 ex-CA 123) is under conversion to become a guided missile cruiser.

In 1971-72:

The remaining Baltimore-class ships are being retired from the US Navy. It turns out that USS Fall River was not converted, but instead USS Columbus (CG 12 ex-CA 74) was converted into a guided missile cruiser along with USS Chicago. These two ships joined the Oregon City-class USS Albany to become the three ships of the Albany-class Guided Missile Cruisers. These three ships are the only ships of these two classes still in active service.

The "Boston-Canberra" type heavy cruisers have been placed in reserve after getting their old heavy cruiser numbers back in 1968 (CA 69 ex-CAG 1 and CA 70 ex-CAG 2)

The Oregon City-class heavy cruiser USS Rochester (CA 124) is in reserve.

Seven Baltimore-class heavy cruisers are left in reserve. These will be scrapped along with the two "Boston-Canberra" type ships and USS Rochester by 1980.

The three Albany-class ships will be retired by 1980 and the last one scrapped, USS Chicago, in 1991.

Here we have an instance of two similar classes having a merge within the refits on a small scale. More cruisers were going to be converted, but were not.

 

[GSchnitzer]

It doesn't read "Mark IV Simulator Enterprise Class Bridge" it reads "Mark IV Simulator Enterprise Class". The Enterprise isn't an airplane where you just need the cockpit simulator ("bridge") and that's it. The Enterprise is a ship, so there should also be an engine room simulator for engineering cadets etc. Since the Mark VI Simulator doesn't state "Bridge" it stands to reason that you'll also find other Enterprise Class related simulators in there behind the doors.

Well, I recollect that in addition to the "Mark VI Simulator--Enterprise Class" signage, there was also some dialogue. too.

Right after the cadets successfully destroy the simulator, Captain Spock orders all the cadets to a post-Kobayashi Maru debriefing.

Captain Spock
"Trainees--to the Briefing Room."

Immediately followed by some off-screen voice:

Voice
"Maintenance Crew--report to the bridge simulator. Maintenance crew--report to the bridge simulator."

(it's clear that the Maintenance Crew is now needed in this simulator to patch up the cadets' damage.)

I'm not sure exactly what the difference would be between a "Mark IV Simulator, Enterprise Class Bridge," and a "Mark IV Simulator Enterprise Class" that simulates a Bridge. It's not only, well, I don't even know what the subtle difference is, but it's a pretty flimsy difference.

I wonder if the convention of underlining/italicizing ship names means that the bridge simulator in this scene in question must not of be a particular ship (as would be the case if Enterprise were underlined/italicized on the signage). Perhaps it's some generic brand/type/class of simulator and necessarily reflective of some class of Starfleet starship. after all, it doesn't say "Mark IV Simulator Enterprise Class."

 

[Ithekro]

One hopes they don't have, essentially, a full sized Starship on Earth, as a simulator, or a simulator that is roughly the size of a starship.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Just because there's a simulator modeled after the Enterprise, or more specifically a bridge simulator modeled after the Enterprise's bridge, that doesn't mean that the Enterprise herself is a class ship. I think this point has been made in-thread already.

Note that the Enterprise bridge layout was changed between TMP and TWOK. Maybe the Constitution kept the original upgrade bridge layout, say because her captain just preferred it that way. The simulator they were using in TWOK would then be appropriate for those ships that changed to this other layout the way the Enterprise did.

 

[Mudd]

Considering the obvious discrepancies / differences, the truly unbiased viewer and 1984 canon disciple has to admit that it stands to reason...

...that canon contains any number of willy-nilly contradictions.

Anyone's entitled to make up any explanations that make them comfortable, but such has nothing to do with divining the "truth" about anything...and another person can fairly reject such explanations and believe differently for any reason or for no reason at all.

 

[Ithekro]

It would make sense to have a simulator of the Enterprise itself, as it was the training ship at that time. Following naval procedures at that time (1982), she might be listed as her own class because she'd been modified as a training ship, just like the Essex-class USS Lexington (AVT 16) is sometimes listed as her own class of ship in her final days as a training carrier.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

It would make sense to have a simulator of the Enterprise itself, as it was the training ship at that time. Following naval procedures at that time (1982), she might be listed as her own class because she'd been modified as a training ship, just like the Essex-class USS Lexington (AVT 16) is sometimes listed as her own class of ship in her final days as a training carrier.

Excellent.

 

[Nerys Myk]

One hopes they don't have, essentially, a full sized Starship on Earth, as a simulator, or a simulator that is roughly the size of a starship.

They had one on Gideon.

 

[BillJ]

It would make sense to have a simulator of the Enterprise itself, as it was the training ship at that time. Following naval procedures at that time (1982), she might be listed as her own class because she'd been modified as a training ship, just like the Essex-class USS Lexington (AVT 16) is sometimes listed as her own class of ship in her final days as a training carrier.

Excellent.

Works for me.

 

[Ithekro]

One hopes they don't have, essentially, a full sized Starship on Earth, as a simulator, or a simulator that is roughly the size of a starship.

They had one on Gideon.

Which was also weird given the extreme population problems. But it was to "correct" that issue that it was built.