# Refit Class designation



## Raist3001 (Oct 23, 2003)

I have always thought that the refit Enterprise was a constitution class ship. We see Scotty reading blue prints in ST:VI which clearly say constitution class. I have also seen her referred to as Enterprise class. So which classification is correct?


----------



## rossjr (Jun 25, 2001)

I was pretty sure that it was Constitution Class Refit....


----------



## klgonsneedbotox (Jun 8, 2005)

I think that people referred to the "Enterprise Class" as essentially a shorter way of saying "Constitution Class Refit", since we never really get to see another re-fited constitution class ship. It's where the lines between "reality" and "movie reality" are blurred. Star Trek generated so much "not in the movies or TV series" information and written work that it's difficult to say sometimes what's what.

To the best of my knowledge, there is no Enterprise class...but everybody knows what you mean if you say it...that's why the term is used.

I'm sure there is someone out there with more knowledge than me concerning this subject...


----------



## Krako (Jun 6, 2003)

Wasn't the term "Enterprise Class" used by the old FASA game manuals of the 80's? Did Shane Johnson's "Mr. Scott's Guide to the Enterprise" also refer to it as Enterprise Class? I'm at work, so obviously I don't have my stash of Star Trek reference materials handy.


----------



## Raist3001 (Oct 23, 2003)

Well, according to various books on starfleet ships, there is an Enterprise class. We even see an Enterprise class wall sign outside the simulator room in ST II. There is great thought that the refit Enterprise was an Enterprise class vessel until the Yorktown was redesignated 1701-A. The Yorktown was a Constitution class vessel.


----------



## Raist3001 (Oct 23, 2003)

Krako said:


> Wasn't the term "Enterprise Class" used by the old FASA game manuals of the 80's? Did Shane Johnson's "Mr. Scott's Guide to the Enterprise" also refer to it as Enterprise Class? I'm at work, so obviously I don't have my stash of Star Trek reference materials handy.


You are correct


----------



## Krako (Jun 6, 2003)

I always thought that none of the original Constitution class ships made it home, except Enterprise. I wonder where I picked that up?


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

You see an Enterprise class SIMULATOR in ST:II, not an Enterprise class starship. 

You want a good discussion, go to www.trekbbs.com, go to the Trek Tech section, and ask that question. You'll have Alex Rosensweig, James Dixon, Aridas Sofia, Todd Guenther, _and _Rick Sternbach's opinions on the matter.


----------



## klgonsneedbotox (Jun 8, 2005)

These are always fun discussions because there are only so many "authorized" books or sources of information and then there are TONS of other "interpretations" and unauthorized works. Somewhere in the middle are the more "widely accepted" facts or theories. It's all part of the fun when dealing with a made up reality.


----------



## wpthomas (Apr 28, 2005)

Krako said:


> I always thought that none of the original Constitution class ships made it home, except Enterprise. I wonder where I picked that up?


Might've gotten it from the novel of The Motion Picture. Not sure it says that no Connie's survived, but it does say that no other vessel returned from a five year mission like the Enterprise. Take that to mean what you will.

And I'm old school enough to say that 1701 AND 1701-A were Enterprise class ships. Why would the refitting the Enterprise make it an Enterprise class, but refitting or building the Yorktown make it a Constitution class. I suppose it comes down to "Were the designers drunk when they made II or VI?"


----------



## spe130 (Apr 13, 2004)

My thought - the refitted Connies were "Constitution-class refits." New construction ships based on the refit design were "Enterprise-class."


----------



## 1701ALover (Apr 29, 2004)

Okay...several of you are right, at least partly. The original TOS Enterprise was, indeed, a Constitution Class vessel...no debate there. NOW, according to the information in Shane Johnson's "Mr. Scott's Guide to the Enterprise" (which was based on then-official information from Andrew Probert and several other people associated with "Trek" at the time), the refitted Enterprise was redesignated Enterprise Class, in honor of the fact that, as stated in both "Mr. Scott's Guide", the Enterprise was the ONLY Constitution Class vessel to return from her five-year mission fully intact. At the same time, Starfleet also adopted the Enterprise's command-grade insignia for ALL of Starfleet, dropping the long-standing tradition of each ship having its own. Yes, we do see the Enterprise Class Bridge Simulator in STII, also, which feeds the debate over this issue. But, yes, in STVI, we see Scotty looking at (PAPER?!!) schematics of the Enterprise, and it's designated as Constitution Class. In an online conversation I had with Shane Johnson, he stated that his take is that, since the refitted Enterprise in TMP was an upgrade of an existing design, she was, essentially, an entirely new starship, thus a new class of vessel to be used as a test-bed for new designs and technologies, etc. Once these technologies and designs were proven, they were then applied to NEW vessels, and the Constitution Class designation was reinstated for all NEW vessels of that design, even though we really never actually saw any aside from the Enterprise...maybe that's why she was always the only ship in the Quadrant?!  Thus, since (as has been canonized) the Enterprise-A was, in fact, the Yorktown prior to being rechristened 1701-A, she was a NEW Constitution Class vessel, so Scotty's schematics would, then, be correct.

At any rate, no "canon" explanation for this discrepancy has ever been given, but Shane did say that if he were ever given the green light to do an update to "Mr. Scott's Guide", he would probably use this explanation. Paramount and Pocket Books, however, have been wholly uncooperative in his attempts to do an update, so it's not likely we'll ever see one, at least by him.

But, yes, as someone else pointed out, there is always a certain measure of "conjecture" and "assumption" in these things. I guess, in this case, it's a matter of personal preference.


----------



## sbaxter (Jan 8, 2002)

wpthomas said:
 

> Might've gotten it from the novel of The Motion Picture. Not sure it says that no Connie's survived, but it does say that no other vessel returned from a five year mission like the Enterprise. Take that to mean what you will.


If I remember correctly (and we are talking a good 10 years at least since I last read the novel), it says something to the effect that _Kirk_ was the only captain to return from his five-year mission with both his ship _and_ his crew "largely intact." Or something like that.

Qapla'

SSB


----------



## Bot The Farm (Jan 13, 2005)

From The Novel by Gene Roddenberry, in Admiral Kirks Preface

" ...Kirk commanded the U.S.S. Enterprise on its historic five-year voyage and became the first starship captain in history to bring back both his vessel and his crew relatively intact after such a mission."


----------



## RBM (Aug 21, 2004)

1701ALover said:


> Thus, since (as has been canonized) the Enterprise-A was, in fact, the Yorktown prior to being rechristened 1701-A, she was a NEW Constitution Class vessel, so Scotty's schematics would, then, be correct.


 To the best of my knowledge, there is no canon (i.e. onscreen) reference for this, only Roddenberry's speculation which was carried forward by Okuda in some of his works.


----------



## spe130 (Apr 13, 2004)

Quick question...which came first? TNG's "Relics" or ST:VI?

When they referred to Kirk & co. in TNG's "The Naked Now" didn't they say something about the logs of the Constitution-class Enterprise? I'm trying to pin down the first on-screen reference to the 1701 as a Constitution-class ship.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

I think Relics was first. Picard referred to Scotty' holodeck recreation of the original bridge as "Constitution Class. I saw one in the fleet museum."


----------



## Commander Dan (Mar 22, 2001)

For me, the refit 1701 and the 1701-A have always been, and will always be, an Enterprise-class vessel. As I understand it, this class designation is what Andrew Probert intended, (not to mention that simulator sign seen in TWOK). Yeah, I know, it is simply a sign for a simulator, but I think it is clear to everyone what the intent was.

Additionally, it simply makes more sense that the ship be given a new class designation. While the Star Trek Encyclopedia would have you believe that it was merely a matter of replacing the warp drive and plugging in a new bridge module, it is obvious that the “refit” was a great deal more than that.

Sure, naval ships that undergo some kind of refit almost always retain their original class designation. But let’s be realistic: How many ships have been stripped down to the keel, had their keel rebuilt and reshaped, and then retained the same class name?

Simply compare the structure and “lines” of the original Enterprise and the refit-Enterprise. Mr. Scott’s Guide to the Enterprise points out, quite correctly, that only a few of the original bulkheads remain. And given a general comparison of the old ship and the new, it is apparent that very little of the original Enterprise could possibly remain. Even Decker said in TMP that she is a “totally new Enterprise. You don’t know her a tenth as well as I do.” If that doesn’t warrant a new class designation, then I don’t know what does. I simply consider Scotty’s paper schematic in TUC to be apocryphal, much like the “Deck 78” sign in TFF.

It is a shame that folks like Shane Johnson aren’t given the opportunity to produce more technical Star Trek publications. Gone seem to be the days of truly fantastic publications such as Ships of the Star Fleet, the Starstation Aurora comparison charts, and Shane’s Mr. Scott’s Guide; just to name a few. I cherish all of these works, and often fail to understand why more fans don’t own them.

For those of us that do have these publications, it is obvious that a great deal of love, heart, and soul was devoted to them. As such, I have become more and more angered with the-powers-that-be that refuse to take note of them when applicable. There is really no reason why the refit Enterprise cannot be an Enterprise-class ship; or the Reliant an Avenger-class vessel.

As I understand it (and I am sure someone will correct me if I am mistaken) folks like Shane Johnson and even FASA, (among many others) designated the refit Enterprise as Enterprise-class because that is what the production crew that produced TMP and TWOK thought the ship to be (as evidenced by the infamous simulator sign). Even The Motion Picture Blueprints make a reference to the new Enterprise-class. It wasn’t until TUC and TNG Technical Manual (by Pocket Books) that the notion of the refit-Enterprise being a Constitution-class vessel was even put forth. 

To my knowledge, the schematic in TUC is the only definitive on-screen evidence that promotes the notion that the 1701-A is a Constitution-class ship. In the TNG episode The Naked Now, the exploits of TOS episode The Naked Time are referenced. Strangely, the ship shown accompanying that information was an Enterprise-class profile. I don’t recall if “Constitution-class” was actually part of the dialog in the episode.

So, all of that said (and I have probably said too much), I say Long Live the Enterprise-class!

...


----------



## lastguardian (May 20, 2005)

Regarding this issue, the following is a copy of my post on the TrekBBS board (to which 1701ALover referred):

"I'm with Andy Probert on this one -- the refit was Enterprise Class, and the subsequent 1701-A (launched more than thirteen years later) was a Constitution. This best takes into account the on-screen evidence (the posted simulator sign in ST II and Scotty's schematic in ST VI). One can dismiss the ST II evidence if he chooses, but it is what it is.

"If I were ever to revise _Mr. Scott's Guide_ (which already gives the refit's class as Enterprise), those are the designations I would cite. At the time of its original writing (1986), 'Enterprise' was the class name I was given, and I agreed with the rationale behind the choice.

"This approach makes the most sense to me, since the Enterprise was the first ship with its configuration and experimental drive system, and hence was unique at the time of its encounter with Vejur. Any other such vessels apparently came much later (following Enterprise's proving that the design concept was valid), by which time none of the earlier Constitution Class vessels presumably still flew, thus freeing the class name for reassignment. Who knows how much of the near-decade-and-a-half interval between TMP and ST II passed before other such ships were created (whether via refit or new construction), but it's a good bet the Enterprise was a one-of-a-kind test bed for a good while.

"I personally take issue with the idea of TOS-style and TMP-style 'Constitutions' flying simultaneously with the same class designation. Beyond the simple confusion this would create, the ships are so vastly different from each other (dissimilar lengths/beams, profiles, deck layouts, drive systems, weapons systems, shielding systems, maneuvering systems, etc) that there is no real commonality to link them beyond the most basic of design philosophies.

"With all that said, I really don't think this should be the point of contention so many have made it out to be. As Mike Okuda once offered, Star Trek 'canon' is what each fan perceives it to be, so one position is as valid as any other. Some embrace TAS and TFF while others disregard them, just as some maintain the refit was Enterprise Class while others say not. Whatever view one holds, enjoyment should be the primary criterion."

* * *

Myself, I don't think the 'Mark IV Simulator -- Enterprise Class' we saw in ST II can be properly dismissed as not representing the bridge of an Enterprise class vessel. It makes little sense to give simulators 'class' names, and the natural reading is that it was the fourth version of a simulator of an Enterprise class starship's bridge. Simulators are always named after the things they are meant to represent (as in 'Lunar Module simulator' or '747 Cockpit simulator').

The 'fact' of Kirk's U.S.S. Enterprise being the only Constitution class ship _of the original thirteen_ to return intact from her last five-year mission was given to me directly by the Star Trek offices, and I was told to include it in _Mr. Scott's Guide_. This is why no standard Constitution class vessels were seen in TMP, and was a plot device intended to emphasize the dangers of space exploration, especially in the latter years as the Federation (with improved technologies) greatly expanded its borders. As was pointed out earlier on this board, this was the reason behind Starfleet adopting the Enterprise's ship's emblem for all of its vessels -- Kirk and his crew had become almost legendary at that point, and with that move were honored within their own lifetimes.


Shane Johnson


----------



## Raist3001 (Oct 23, 2003)

This is a great discussion. Thank you all for replying. You have all given great points. I would just like to reiterate that (in RELICS) when Scotty asked the holodeck computer to show him the bridge of the Enterprise, he says he wants to see the "NCC-1701...no bloody 'A,' 'B,' 'C' or 'D.'" The computer creates for him the bridge of the TOS vessel. How come the computer did not show him the bridge of the refit? The only way this makes sense to ME is if the refit was a different class such as an Enterprise class.


----------



## klgonsneedbotox (Jun 8, 2005)

I think what you see in the movies, unfortunately, is that the writers, directors, producers, etc. SOMETIMES don't pay as much attention to the details as the CRAZED fans do...OR they take artistic liberties.

If you look closely enough you will find contradictions and fuzzy points all over the place. As an example...in TMP when the Enterprise (C-refit or Enterprise class, whichever you choose...) is moving within the VGER cloud, the warp engines appear to be engaged (at least you can see the purple/blue lights are on). This would seem to be inaccurate as the ship was not preparing to go into or comming out of warp. Either someone forgot this detail or maybe for that particular effects shot, the ship looked better with those lights on!!! (someone correct me if I am wrong here...)

I think when Scotty says "NCC-1701...no bloody 'A,' 'B,' 'C' or 'D.'" it's another example of some sort of artistic liberty or someone not paying close enough attention to the details. He should have been shown the refit bridge and then annoyingly said "Computer, please show me the bridge PRIOR to refitting!"


----------



## justinleighty (Jan 13, 2003)

Here's an in-universe explanation for you. The people in Starfleet have this same argument all the time, with some calling it "Constitution (Refit) Class," and others calling it "Enterprise Class."


----------



## wpthomas (Apr 28, 2005)

klgonsneedbotox said:


> I think when Scotty says "NCC-1701...no bloody 'A,' 'B,' 'C' or 'D.'" it's another example of some sort of artistic liberty or someone not paying close enough attention to the details. He should have been shown the refit bridge and then annoyingly said "Computer, please show me the bridge PRIOR to refitting!"


And then it should have shown him the black and grey bridge from the Cage.  Wow, this episode is getting more expensive all the time!


----------



## lastguardian (May 20, 2005)

klgonsneedbotox said:


> ...in TMP when the Enterprise (C-refit or Enterprise class, whichever you choose...) is moving within the VGER cloud, the warp engines appear to be engaged (at least you can see the purple/blue lights are on). This would seem to be inaccurate as the ship was not preparing to go into or comming out of warp. Either someone forgot this detail or maybe for that particular effects shot, the ship looked better with those lights on!!! (someone correct me if I am wrong here...)


The ship's warp engines were indeed engaged during the Vejur cloud fly-through. 

As Enterprise approached Vejur, she assumed a conic section flight path -- basically, she swept around _behind_ the intruder, with her nose always facing the center of the cloud. She then approached from the rear, entering the cloud and slowly overtaking the intruder. Since Vejur was doing warp speed, so was Enterprise as she passed through the cloud and over the top of the huge vessel.

Only as Enterprise had 'passed' Vejur and was pulled inside through its bow aperture did she drop out of warp.


Shane


----------



## Bryancd (Jun 4, 2005)

lastguardian said:


> "I'm with Andy Probert on this one -- the refit was Enterprise Class, and the subsequent 1701-A (launched more than thirteen years later) was a Constitution. This best takes into account the on-screen evidence (the posted simulator sign in ST II and Scotty's schematic in ST VI). One can dismiss the ST II evidence if he chooses, but it is what it is.
> Who knows how much of the near-decade-and-a-half interval between TMP and ST II passed before other such ships were created (whether via refit or new construction), but it's a good bet the Enterprise was a one-of-a-kind test bed for a good while.
> 
> Shane Johnson


Regarding the Enterprise class sign posted on the simulator, in the novel of ST II, there is a "classroom scene" with Enterprise Class on the door signifying , well, that the class if for the Enterprise cadets. The signage in the film may have been created for that purpose and a sequence which was never shot. Just a thought.
Also, was it really meant to be almost 15 years between TMP and TWOK?


----------



## lastguardian (May 20, 2005)

Bryancd said:


> Also, was it really meant to be almost 15 years between TMP and TWOK?


According to the 'official' timeline, yes.


----------



## Bryancd (Jun 4, 2005)

So that would have made Kirk 55 or so, yes?


----------



## lastguardian (May 20, 2005)

I think they were trying to compensate for the actual passage of time between the cancellation of TOS in 1969 and the making of ST II in 1982. TMP had been set only a couple of years or so after the end of the five-year mission, which would have been only four years or so (Trek time) after the events of _Turnabout Intruder._

Placing ST II almost a decade and a half after TMP allowed the actors to portray their actual ages.

It was also necessary to allow a sufficient passage of time for Khan's exile to Ceti Alpha. From 1967 (when _Space Seed_ aired) to 1982 was fifteen years, the length of time I believe Khan said he'd been stranded.


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

Khan also said "On Earth, three hundred years ago, I was a prince...." How does that fit in with the "official" timeline? (Anywhere in the ballpark of 300 years, e.g., 275 years, would satisfy me.)


----------



## Krako (Jun 6, 2003)

Well, here's some more interesting factoids to consider in this discussion...

There's an almost identical thread to this over on Starship Modeler. Shane Johnson posted over there that he was, "...asked by the book's publisher to use the dating system in their Star Trek Spaceflight Chronology, which was 'official' at the time." I had fogotten completely about that book, so I pulled out my dusty, dog-eared copy of the Space Flight Chronology and to my surprise...

that book designates the refit as a "*Constitution II Class*". Ugghhhhh!!!!

Not only that, but it paints an alternate history of the Enterprise including the following paragraph:

"After completing three years of its last five year mission, the much-used Enterprise was returned to Earth dry dock, where it has recently completed extensive refitting and uprating. From one-third better engine performance to warp-powered phasers, from improved medical facilities to faster turbo-lifts, the refitted Enterprise has solidified its position as flagship for the UFP Star Fleet."

The book also indicates that the original Enterprise, as captained by Robert April, was the first Constitution class vessel. Weird, as I thought the U.S.S. Constitution would have been the first Constitution class ship.

Oh well, the "Star Trek Spaceflight Chronology" is definitely worth a few chuckles if you can find a copy, but I don't think it did a very good job with continuity. I'd take Shane's work over it any ol' day.


----------



## lastguardian (May 20, 2005)

Krako said:


> Oh well, the "Star Trek Spaceflight Chronology" is definitely worth a few chuckles if you can find a copy, but I don't think it did a very good job with continuity. I'd take Shane's work over it any ol' day.


Well, thank you. 

Actually, I like a lot of what the _Spaceflight Chronology_ laid down. Their histories of the early Federation and the development of several technologies (transporters, phasers, etc) are quite interesting and well thought through. They apparently weren't given a lot of reference data though concerning the refit Enterprise (which I can believe, having repeatedly dealt with Paramount myself) and had to improvise, but you can't really fault them for that.

And I'm not sure they were entirely amiss in having named April's Enterprise as the first of her class. Seems to me (and I may be wrong), one of the _Star Trek Logs_ written by Alan Dean Foster (and based on TAS) made the same claim, so perhaps that was the 'official' line back then.

The _Spaceflight Chronology_ is a fun read, but one that has been almost completely contradicted by later works.

Shane


----------



## 1701ALover (Apr 29, 2004)

lastguardian said:


> Well, thank you.
> 
> Actually, I like a lot of what the _Spaceflight Chronology_ laid down. Their histories of the early Federation and the development of several technologies (transporters, phasers, etc) are quite interesting and well thought through. They apparently weren't given a lot of reference data though concerning the refit Enterprise (which I can believe, having repeatedly dealt with Paramount myself) and had to improvise, but you can't really fault them for that.
> 
> ...


I first read the "Spaceflight Chronology" in Junior High...my school's library had a well-worn copy of it in the NON-FICTION section...what a hoot! I recently happened upon a copy of it in excellent shape at a used book store here in Iowa City and paid $10 for it. It is still a fun read, even knowing that TPTB have completely ignored something they sanctioned 25 years ago as correct. A few VERY interesting pictures and pieces of "history".


----------



## lastguardian (May 20, 2005)

1701ALover said:


> It is still a fun read, even knowing that TPTB have completely ignored something they sanctioned 25 years ago as correct. A few VERY interesting pictures and pieces of "history".


One thing I like about it is that it includes the Jefferies 'ringship' Enterprise concept, as well as a few other of his designs. I believe it also properly documents the development of phaser technology and presents a TOS-consistent account of the First Romulan War, something later efforts failed to do.

Shane


----------



## mactrek (Mar 30, 2004)

IIRC, there was a novel out in the late '80's that also said the Enterprise was the first ship in the class ... I don't remember the name of the book though. The book was placed in the early days of the Constitution Class, and Robert April was the captain. The First Officer was George Samuel Kirk Sr. There was also an audio version which was read by James Doohan.

Another reference to the the refit being of the Constitution Class was made in a computer display in the opening of TSFS while isolating a life form reading in Spock's quarters. It was a graphic coppied right out of F/J's Starfleet Technical Manual.

Welcome to our board Shane!!


----------



## aridas sofia (Feb 3, 2004)

I don't think it's too hard to reconcile. Per the only existing onscreen references -- ST II and ST VI -- the refit 1701 was _Enterprise_-class, and the new 1701-A was _Constitution_ refit-class. Though externally very similar, the differences are apparently enough to warrant different classifications. 

That would be the "canon" explanation, per onscreen evidence. YMMV, of course. 

One interesting fact is that per both *Matt Jefferies* and *TMoST*, the original _Enterprise_ from *TOS* was intended to be the class vessel. The numbering scheme -- 1701 -- was meant to indicate the first ship of the seventeenth design built. At least that's the explanation *Jefferies* applied to it after he'd selected the numbers purely because they could be made out easily onscreen. Later, apparently following *Jefferies'* explanation, *Stephen Whitfield* wrote that the 'vessels of the _Enterprise_-class had been in existence for forty years.' It wasn't until the painfully intense scrutinizing (by both *Greg Jein* and *Franz Joseph*, apparently simultaneously) of a piece of art made up for "The Trouble With Tribbles" that the name "_Constitution_-class" took hold. Up to then -- 1973 -- fans assumed it was either _Enterprise_-class per *TMoST* or _Constellation_-class per that ship's low NCC number.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

^ Let's not forget Bjo Trimble's first version of the Star Trek Concordance in 1969, which is the first time in print that the Enterprise was referred to as a Constitution class vessel.

Frankly, prior to the mid 70's, I don't think it was a big deal. It was just the Enterprise, and we all loved her as she was.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

As for the topic at hand, I categorize it thusly:

The refit was a subset of the Constitution class. Depending on how different the Enterprise was from later refits, I suppose they might've given the Enterprise her own class designation. 

I'm thinking of the current aircraft carrier Enterprise, which I've seen referenced as a Kitty Hawk class carrier (a non-nuclear power ship), while the Navy considers her an Enterprise class, and the only ship of her class. While the Kitty Hawk designation is almost certainly an error, it probably comes the assumption that Enterprise is, basically, a Kitty Hawk class ship fitted with nuclear reactors (again, probably in error, but that's my theory).

So, following that line of reasoning, it may very well be that the refit Enterprise may have been so different from subsequent refit Constitution class ships that she was given her own class designation (it's all paperwork anyway, so what the hell....).


----------



## Capt_L_Hogthrob (Apr 28, 2005)

One thing I would like to add is this, Scotty himself said in TMP "We have just spent 18 months redesigning and refitting The Enterprise! How in the name a hell can they expect me to have her ready in 12 hours?" With this said it is my impression that the Enterprise was the first redesign of this class making it Enterprise class. Keyword being REDESIGNED.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Captain April said:


> As for the topic at hand, I categorize it thusly:
> 
> The refit was a subset of the Constitution class . . .


I agree 100%. There are real-life USN parallels. The submarine, _James Madison _was constructed as a _Lafeyette _class. In a major refit, the stern planes and rudder (IIRC) were replaced by broader versions, the missile system upgraded and some other parts were changed. After that, it was technically known as the _James Madison_ class. Other ships in the _Lafayette _class were modified in the same way and became part of that class as well. However, it and other subs were continually referred to as _Lafayette _class and they continue to be listed in that category as well (currently most, if not all, have been scrapped). For all intents and purposes, the designation, _James Madison _class is a subclass of the _Lafayette _class.

As for the arrowhead symbol being just for the _Enterprise _during _TOS_, that is a non-canon explanation since the episode, "Court Martial" showed several other officers from other ships wearing the same insignia. At the very least, the insignia designated an area command which comprised several ships. (Again, this parallels modern naval practice.) The fact that the arrowhead insignia was adopted fleetwide could have easily been due to the heroic exploits of the _1701 _but the _Enterprise _was clearly and *canonically *_not _the only ship with that insignia.


----------



## USSCassiopeia (Jun 9, 2005)

I like that parallel, Perfessor. Makes sense, too.

A precedent in favor of the refit still being a Connie would be the Essex-class carriers. I mean, the post-SCB-125 refit ships look altogether different than they did when originally completed - angled flight deck, new island, wider beam, hurricane bow, etc. The first ship to be refit was the Shangri-La, but you won't hear the refits referred to as "the Shangri-La class"...

OTOH, some sources refer to all the carriers as Essex-class, and other sources differentiate between the short-hulled and long-hulled variants, calling them Essex'es and Ticonderoga's, respectively.

I guess it all depends on which Navy or Starfleet officer you talk to!


----------



## lastguardian (May 20, 2005)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> As for the arrowhead symbol being just for the _Enterprise _during _TOS_, that is a non-canon explanation since the episode, "Court Martial" showed several other officers from other ships wearing the same insignia. At the very least, the insignia designated an area command which comprised several ships.


This is the first I'm hearing of this.  Can anyone give me more specific details concerning which characters and in what scenes?

Shane


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Check out a couple of the other captains in the bar scene soon after Kirk is accused and set to be tried.


----------



## trevanian (Jan 30, 2004)

Well, the writer bible for phase 2 that I remember circulating in the early 80s was specific in saying that the Enterprise insignia from TOS has been adopted for ALL of Starfleet by the time of the second series (and presumably TMP.) So I'd guess Povill and GR had forgotten about this COURT MARTIAL thing, assuming they even knew about it in the first place.

But their research folk, Kellam Deforest, should have caught that, that's for sure (and they were retained for phase 2 - I remember seeing memoes from them in either the MAKING OF TMP or the Ed Gross TREK THE LOST YEARS book.) don't know how they got shut out of TNG though, they'd have probably helped with some of the early 'howlers' that got by there.


----------



## lastguardian (May 20, 2005)

trevanian said:


> Well, the writer bible for phase 2 that I remember circulating in the early 80s was specific in saying that the Enterprise insignia from TOS has been adopted for ALL of Starfleet by the time of the second series (and presumably TMP.) So I'd guess Povill and GR had forgotten about this COURT MARTIAL thing, assuming they even knew about it in the first place.


Since _Court Martial_ was one of the first episodes shot, they likely just didn't know yet how they wanted to treat the insignia issue. Clearly, in later episodes we saw different insignias for different starships (_Omega Glory, Ultimate Computer, Doomsday Machine_).

While writing my book, I was told directly by the Star Trek offices about the Enterprise insignia being adopted by Starfleet in commemoration of Kirk's successful five-year mission. So, whatever _Court Martial_ showed, the 'official' intent was clear and is far from non-canon. I'd say one has to place the _Court Martial_ bar scene in the same league as 'James R. Kirk' on the tombstone, dialogue describing "one to the fourth power," and the statement that Engineering was on B deck -- sometimes a mistake is just a mistake.

Good catch though, Perfessor. 

Shane


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

What's on screen is canon according to TPTB. There's never been an official on-screen explanation for the insignia adoption so the matter is far from closed.

I don't think you could call it a mistake at that stage of the game. It may have been before they came up with the different insignias idea (probably just to make it very clear to viewers that these were not Enterprise crewmembers) but I don't think it should be ignored. Unlike the technical stuff that changed from episode to episode sometimes, uniforms were easily visible and identifiable. In such a case where something is so blatantly obvious, an explanation has to made for the uniform insignia being there. I think mine is a good one.


----------



## lastguardian (May 20, 2005)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> In such a case where something is so blatantly obvious, an explanation has to made for the uniform insignia being there.


Then I think I'll go with 'there was a mix up at the cleaners.' 

I just modified my prior post to mention a few other on-screen errors, two of which were in _Court Martial_. 

Shane


----------



## lastguardian (May 20, 2005)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> What's on screen is canon according to TPTB.


The last 'official' statement we heard from TPTB was from Mike Okuda, who stated that canon is in the eye of the viewer. Since there is no way to perfectly account for everything seen on-screen (contradictions will always be inevitable), it's up to each viewer to decide which aspects carry the most weight, with personal enjoyment being the prime factor.

Some folks love TAS and ST V, while others dismiss them entirely. Others hold that _Star Trek: Enterprise_ depicts true Federation history, while others point to myriad continuity violations and think it better forgotten.

So, you make the call, and so shall I.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

I'm currently going through a bit of a Star Trek marathon, with the DVD sets I checked out from the library. When I get to "Court Martial", I'll post an opinion, but as far as I recall at the moment, the other officers at the bar weren't exactly sitting in such a way that you could get a clear, straight-on look at the insignia on their uniforms (if you look closely, yeah, they're the same arrowhead insignia that Kirk is wearing, but it's conceivable that they're trying to obscure the view as best they could without being obvious).

After all, that starburst insignia on the various starbase personnel we'd already seen to this point show pretty clearly that not _everyone_ has the same insignia as the Enterprise folks.


----------



## aridas sofia (Feb 3, 2004)

IIRC it was *Franz Joseph* that recommended there be one insignia for the entire fleet, to better conform with current international practice and treaties. He claimed the multiple insignias and the insignia-less dress uniforms both violated established norms and that it would be unlikely such norms, evolved over millenia of international conflicts, would be easily abandoned.

Here -- his explanation is in this 1976 interview:

http://www.trekplace.com/fj-fjwilliamsint01.html


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Just started "Court Martial", waiting for the bar scene....


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

...and the insignias are in full view, so never mind.


----------



## lastguardian (May 20, 2005)

aridas sofia said:


> IIRC it was *Franz Joseph* that recommended there be one insignia for the entire fleet, to better conform with current international practice and treaties.


In this particular interview (if I'm reading it correctly  ), I think FJ was referring to the _departmental_ emblems, not the ship insignias per se. His only real beef with insignias themselves apparently came with the dress uniforms, which bore no insignia at all. As for the issue of 'international convention,' Starfleet was never intended to be military in nature but only _paramilitary_, borrowing some measure of form and function for the sake of order but not operating fully within the parameters that govern a military organization (which is why we never saw anyone salute Kirk in TOS, and a major reason I believe ST II stepped _way_ outside the established boundaries defining Starfleet).

Beats me. The TOS uniforms seem pretty recognizable (even iconic) both in style and substance, so I'm not sure where FJ's problem with them lies. He states that the Romulan and Klingon uniforms "were definitely recognizable as part of a military force," yet they also bore no insignia (other than a shoulder pin denoting rank, in the case of the Klingons). I don't see that they adhere to 'military convention' any more than do those of Starfleet.

I do wonder how much influence FJ could have had on Theiss' (and later Fletcher's) approach to the costumes for Phase II/TMP, given that he was not on the show's production staff, had no willingness to be involved and apparently had little communication with Roddenberry by the time this interview took place (1976).

Shane

PS -- I just noticed in 'The Enemy Within' that Kirk has no insignia on his uniform _at all_ in the first scene as he's on the planet surface, nor after he beams up, nor does his 'evil double.' But two minutes later, there it is. Ah, well -- that's show biz.


----------



## lastguardian (May 20, 2005)

Captain April said:


> ...and the insignias are in full view, so never mind.


Mix-up at the cleaners. That's my story and I'm stickin' with it. 

It is an interesting scene to consider though, as a window into an evolving TV series. There were many little details from show to show, season to season that were altered as the producers changed their minds about one thing or another. They had no idea anyone would ever notice, let alone be sitting around forty years later analyzing them all.

Again, good catch, Perfessor. If I ever noticed that detail, I forgot it -- I haven't seen that episode in a good twenty years.

Shane


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

lastguardian said:


> . . . Since there is no way to perfectly account for everything seen on-screen (contradictions will always be inevitable), it's up to each viewer to decide which aspects carry the most weight, with personal enjoyment being the prime factor . . .
> 
> So, you make the call, and so shall I.


Couldn't agree more. :thumbsup:


----------



## Krako (Jun 6, 2003)

It's possible that other officers on Enterprise at the time of "Court Martial" had achieved the rank of captain, but were serving under Kirk, isn't it? I mean, in the later movies, Kirk Spock and Scotty had all attained the rank of captain, but Kirk was in command. Perhaps those are some of Kirk's other department heads in that scene from "Court Martial". Just a thought...


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Krako said:


> It's possible that other officers on Enterprise at the time of "Court Martial" had achieved the rank of captain, but were serving under Kirk, isn't it? I mean, in the later movies, Kirk Spock and Scotty had all attained the rank of captain, but Kirk was in command. Perhaps those are some of Kirk's other department heads in that scene from "Court Martial". Just a thought...


There would be a conflict of interest there and that just wouldn't happen. These officers would (potentially) sit in judgement of Kirk (IIRC) and the dialogue during introductions makes it clear they are from other commands.


----------



## Commander Dan (Mar 22, 2001)

Just for fun:









http://home.comcast.net/~commander-dan/Enterprise-refit.gif


----------



## Ohio_Southpaw (Apr 26, 2005)

Naval tradition has it that the class of a vessel is designated per the first ships' name commissioned in that class. Therefore you have the Arleigh Burke class destroyers, Nimitz class carriers, Ohio class submarines...etc. Even as improvements are made to each new subsequent ship, it is still in that class because it still retains the basic physical characteristics of the parent vessel.
Given the strong Naval tradition of Starfleet, you can figure that this tradition carried on. One this note you have the Constitution class starships from TOS. Once Enterprise went through the refit, she had changed enough technologically and visually to be recognizeably different from her parent class and therefore Starfleet decreed that the ships of this design were now "Enterprise" class.
All starships built after TMP of the new design would be Enterprise class vessels, not Constitution.
Now, here my logic fails me because Enterprise-D was the first vessel of her class, but she is referred to as an Ambassador Class starship. Those Hollywood guys really know how to screw up hundreds of years of fine Naval tradition!


----------



## Krako (Jun 6, 2003)

I think the E-D was a Galaxy class, and there was a U.S.S. Galaxy, wasn't there?


----------



## aridas sofia (Feb 3, 2004)

lastguardian said:


> In this particular interview (if I'm reading it correctly  ), I think FJ was referring to the _departmental_ emblems, not the ship insignias per se...


You could be right, *Shane*. But remember, the first place we saw the _Enterprise_ emblem applied to all of Starfleet was in his *Technical Manual*. I think he's commenting on that fact here, and elaborating to include the even more egregious (in his view) issue of the dress uniforms. Note that there too, his influence must have been felt. Or else serendipity happens. Because never again do we see dress uniforms without the fleet emblem.


----------



## Ohio_Southpaw (Apr 26, 2005)

Krako said:


> I think the E-D was a Galaxy class, and there was a U.S.S. Galaxy, wasn't there?


 Yes, you are right.. I suffered some cerebral flatulance there.....


----------



## Ohio_Southpaw (Apr 26, 2005)

Krako said:


> I think the E-D was a Galaxy class, and there was a U.S.S. Galaxy, wasn't there?


 Not sure about the U.S.S. Galaxy, and I am rusty on Star Trek history, but I thought Picard mentioned in Encounter at Farpoint that Enterprise was the first vessel of that class.... please someone correct me if I am in error.


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

You're in error.


----------



## Ohio_Southpaw (Apr 26, 2005)

Hell, I am the Mayor of Error! (say that 5 times fast!). Case in point though, the Navy is currently in the design process for the next generation aircraft carrier. It is currently being referred to as the CV-X. The Nimitz class hull numbers are CVN-68, etc... It is unclear whether the new class will be nuclear powered or not, but once the ship is approved and her name is known, that will designate the new class of ships. Personally I would love to see the current Enterprise retired and the new ship christened Enterprise, but lately they have been going with President's... I swear if I ever see a USS Bill Clinton, I will scream and disown the Nay.


----------



## lastguardian (May 20, 2005)

aridas sofia said:


> ...the first place we saw the _Enterprise_ emblem applied to all of Starfleet was in his *Technical Manual*. I think he's commenting on that fact here, and elaborating to include the even more egregious (in his view) issue of the dress uniforms. Note that there too, his influence must have been felt. Or else serendipity happens. Because never again do we see dress uniforms without the fleet emblem.


You know, I remember seeing that in his book back in 1975 and wondering why he'd done it that way, instead of designating the emblem as Enterprise's exclusively. I considered it in error (as were his phaser and communicator renderings, along with a few other items), but overlooked such things in light of the overall coolness and continuity of the Technical Manual.  I still love that book, and I wonder sometimes if the whole 'Trek tech' phenomenon would have come about if not for that one man.

Perhaps his influence was indeed felt, or as you say perhaps it was coincidence. I guess we'll never know. But whatever the initial motive, as I mentioned earlier, I do know that the producers' rationale behind Starfleet's adopting the Enterprise insignia was as is stated in _Mr. Scott's Guide_. 

Shane


----------



## El Gato (Jul 15, 2000)

Ohio_Southpaw said:


> I swear if I ever see a USS Bill Clinton, I will scream and disown the Nay.


Why not? There's a USS Reagan.. 

On the issue of class designations named after the first ships, is it possible that the class is named after the first ship even though that ship's not in operation? I'm thinking of the first shuttle orbital being named "Enterprise" but was not a shuttle that made it out into space. Could it be that the Constitution class and Galaxy class were named after "test ships" that never saw action (although I do recall a reference to the USS Galaxy in some episode of TNG and DS9)?

José


----------



## wpthomas (Apr 28, 2005)

El Gato said:


> I'm thinking of the first shuttle orbital being named "Enterprise" but was not a shuttle that made it out into space. Could it be that the Constitution class and Galaxy class were named after "test ships" that never saw action (although I do recall a reference to the USS Galaxy in some episode of TNG and DS9)?


It makes me sad to think that there is no U.S.S. Constitution running about out there. So I will choose to believe that there is, just as I will consign Scotty's "Constitution Class" plans to the same graphical trash heap as "Deck 78". I am Trekker, see me quibble! 

Mind you: "Enterprise, the first Space Shuttle Orbiter, was originally to be named Constitution (in honor of the U.S. Constitution's Bicentennial). However, viewers of the popular TV Science Fiction show Star Trek started a write-in campaign urging the White House to rename the vehicle to Enterprise."

So there is historical precedent! (Ain't that a kick in the pants?)


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Krako said:


> It's possible that other officers on Enterprise at the time of "Court Martial" had achieved the rank of captain, but were serving under Kirk, isn't it? I mean, in the later movies, Kirk Spock and Scotty had all attained the rank of captain, but Kirk was in command. Perhaps those are some of Kirk's other department heads in that scene from "Court Martial". Just a thought...


Those other officers that Kirk was having the dispute with weren't captains. They ranged in grade from lieutenant to lt. commander.

Most of them looked a good deal older than Kirk, too, but that's another quibble.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Ohio_Southpaw said:


> Case in point though, the Navy is currently in the design process for the next generation aircraft carrier. It is currently being referred to as the CV-X. The Nimitz class hull numbers are CVN-68, etc... It is unclear whether the new class will be nuclear powered or not, but once the ship is approved and her name is known, that will designate the new class of ships. Personally I would love to see the current Enterprise retired and the new ship christened Enterprise, but lately they have been going with President's... I swear if I ever see a USS Bill Clinton, I will scream and disown the Nay.


Considering the disdain in which the military holds Bubba, I would think any ship that would bear his name would be something on the order of a garbage scow.

Regarding the CVX project, it is, in fact, due to come on line at around the same time as the Enterprise (CVN-65) is due to be retired, so in all likelihood, yes, one of the first, if not _the_ first ship of that class will be named Enterprise (the Navy has a stated policy that there will always be an Enterprise in the fleet; it's been a pretty lucky name going all the way back to the Revolutionary War). My guess is the new ships will also be nuclear powered, simply because of the power demands of a major aircraft carrier.


----------



## lastguardian (May 20, 2005)

Captain April said:


> Those other officers that Kirk was having the dispute with weren't captains. They ranged in grade from lieutenant to lt. commander.


Odd that men of lower rank would openly scorn or accuse a captain. What sort of things were they saying?

And since they were of lower rank, are we sure they didn't serve aboard the Enterprise? I've read that they were from Kirk's graduating class (and therefore approximately his age), but did they necessarily have to be serving aboard other ships?

As I said, I haven't seen this episode in forever, so please forgive my questions. 

Shane


----------



## aridas sofia (Feb 3, 2004)

Kirk: Timothy, I haven't seen you since the Vulcanian expedition. Well, I see our graduating class from the academy is well represented. Argan, Heller. How you doing, Mike?
Mike: I'll get by,Jim. I understand you're laying over for repairs. Big job?
Kirk: Couple of days.
Kirk's classmate: You moving out then?
Kirk: In a hurry to see me go? 
Kirk's classmate: I just wondered how long it'd take to get a new records officer.
Kirk: You can talk plainer than that.
Kirk's classmate: I can, but I think the point's been made. Ben was a friend of ours.
McCoy: Jim, let's--
Kirk: Go on. Finish. Ben was a friend of yours, and--
McCoy: Jim.
Kirk: Go on. I'm waiting to hear the rest.
Kirk's classmate: Why don't you tell us?
Kirk: What would be the point? You've already made up your minds. Excuse me, Bones.


----------



## lastguardian (May 20, 2005)

aridas sofia said:


> Kirk: Timothy, I haven't seen you since the Vulcanian expedition. Well, I see our graduating class from the academy is well represented. Argan, Heller. How you doing, Mike?
> Mike: I'll get by,Jim. I understand you're laying over for repairs. Big job?
> Kirk: Couple of days.
> Kirk's classmate: You moving out then?
> ...


Thank you for researching that, aridas. 

Interesting. Sounds perhaps as if Timothy served on the Enterprise, and Kirk had not seen him (it's a big crew) since a landing party expedition on Vulcan. Timothy also didn't say anything to challenge Kirk, further suggesting he served under him. The others I assume were on other ships ("you're laying over," "You moving out, then?").

Shane


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Ohio_Southpaw said:


> . . . I swear if I ever see a USS Bill Clinton, I will scream and disown the Nay.


I saw a Sci-Fi original (IIRC) movie a couple of weeks ago that was set in the future and had a _USS Jimmy Carter_ submarine. That, however, makes a little more sense since he was once a sub commander. Personally, I have a problem with full names or plural (_USS The Sullivans_) being used for a ship's name due to the awkwardness of having to go through the entire name every time you mention the ship in an offical manner (radio, etc.).

I think a president should be dead at least 200 years before he gets a ship named after him. I can't take hearing about the _USS Abraham Lincoln_.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Captain April said:


> Those other officers that Kirk was having the dispute with weren't captains. They ranged in grade from lieutenant to lt. commander.
> 
> Most of them looked a good deal older than Kirk, too, but that's another quibble.


They would still be referred to as captains if they have been given a command. It seems that most ships in the USN have lower ranking officers LTCs or COMs as captains and they are addressed as 'Captain' at least by lower ranking officers and enlisted men.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

lastguardian said:


> Sounds perhaps as if Timothy served on the Enterprise, and Kirk had not seen him (it's a big crew) since a landing party expedition on Vulcan.


Nah! I'm not buying that! The impression intentionally given was that they were all from different ships.


----------



## BJ_O (May 2, 2005)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> I saw a Sci-Fi original (IIRC) movie a couple of weeks ago that was set in the future and had a _USS Jimmy Carter_ submarine.


http://www.news.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=17173 

B.J.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

BJ_O said:


> http://www.news.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=17173
> 
> B.J.


Thanks! I wasn't aware of that!  

A sure sign of our being an empire is that we give 'triumphs' such as this to still lliving men.  Politicians will sell their souls to get a bridge, building, highway, etc. named after them.


----------



## wpthomas (Apr 28, 2005)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> I saw a Sci-Fi original (IIRC) movie a couple of weeks ago that was set in the future and had a _USS Jimmy Carter_ submarine. That, however, makes a little more sense since he was once a sub commander.


Not just sci-fi! http://navysite.de/ssn/ssn23.htm

edit: Erm, like he said!


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> They would still be referred to as captains if they have been given a command. It seems that most ships in the USN have lower ranking officers LTCs or COMs as captains and they are addressed as 'Captain' at least by lower ranking officers and enlisted men.


Nobody referred to these guys as "captain".


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

And Jimmy Carter was never a sub commander (the highest he got was Lieutenant). He did work with Admiral Rickover on the development of the nuclear sub fleet, and as the senior officer of the precommissioning crew of the USS Seawolf, the Navy's second nuclear submarine, and apparently served on other subs in both the Pacific and Atlantic fleets.

The sub that now bears his name is, appropriately enough, the last of the Seawolf class.


----------



## wpthomas (Apr 28, 2005)

Captain April said:


> And Jimmy Carter was never a sub commander (the highest he got was Lieutenant). He did work with Admiral Rickover on the development of the nuclear sub fleet, and as the senior officer of the precommissioning crew of the USS Seawolf, the Navy's second nuclear submarine, and apparently served on other subs in both the Pacific and Atlantic fleets.
> 
> The sub that now bears his name is, appropriately enough, the last of the Seawolf class.


He was on the fast track for sub command, though. As I recall he retired and went home to run the farm when his father died.


----------



## wpthomas (Apr 28, 2005)

Captain April said:


> Nobody referred to these guys as "captain".


This is a case of intent, I think. The impression is meant to be that these are Kirk's peers, the other men who can stand in judgement of his actions. And in TV shorthand that would be "other captains", IMHO.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

wpthomas said:


> This is a case of intent, I think. The impression is meant to be that these are Kirk's peers, the other men who can stand in judgement of his actions. And in TV shorthand that would be "other captains", IMHO.


 :thumbsup: Exactly what I meant. I didn't mean to say that they were definitely captains as referred to in the script, just that they could have been captains despite their paygrades.

As for Jimmy Carter, I must have misremembered or read a news source that got the facts incorrect. It's been _so_ very long since I read about him . . . :freak:


----------



## aridas sofia (Feb 3, 2004)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> :thumbsup: Exactly what I meant. I didn't mean to say that they were definitely captains as referred to in the script, just that they could have been captains despite their paygrades.


Yeah... it would go against the idea that Kirk was something special for having this big, capital ship command at his age if other guys from his class had achieved the same thing. If anything, they command smaller vessels.


----------



## wpthomas (Apr 28, 2005)

aridas sofia said:


> Yeah... it would go against the idea that Kirk was something special for having this big, capital ship command at his age if other guys from his class had achieved the same thing. If anything, they command smaller vessels.


True. If there were only 12 other Starships (Constitution class by implication) it'd be silly to have that many of them hanging out at the same starbase at the same time. If they were, no wonder the Enterprise was always the only ship around.

Straight shot from Klingon space to Earth: Who we got? Anyone? Hello? Darn...

Several hours out from Earth on impulse: Anyone else around? HELLO?!? *Sigh*


----------



## lastguardian (May 20, 2005)

wpthomas said:


> This is a case of intent, I think. The impression is meant to be that these are Kirk's peers, the other men who can stand in judgement of his actions. And in TV shorthand that would be "other captains", IMHO.


They established that the men were of Kirk's graduating class and thus his peers in that regard, I suppose. If they'd come up together, they'd all likely feel a familiarity for that simple reason. I noticed nothing in the dialogue that implied they were of equal rank. As was mentioned here, Kirk's command was an unusual one at his age, so it's possible the other men all were of lower station.

Did the scene happen to show any of their uniform braid, or was it all head shots? If they were indeed captains (or even commanders), their rank stripes would show that. Just wondering. 

In any case, the dialogue would seem to imply that at least a couple of them were from ships other than the Enterprise.

Shane


----------



## Commander Dan (Mar 22, 2001)

As is the case with many modelers lately, I have found myself perusing my copy of _Mr. Scott’s Guide to the Enterprise_. I then found myself thinking, “You know, it seems like I have something else by Shane Johnson in my Star Trek book collection...

Sure enough, Mr. Johnson also penned _Worlds of the Federation_, the _Weapons and Field Equipment Technical Reference Manual_, Starlog’s _The Next Generation Technical Journal_, and even the _Star Wars Technical Journal_. Great stuff, Shane! I only wish you could produce even more material! _Mr. Scott’s Guide_ and _Worlds of the Federation_ are among some of my most favorite Star Trek reference manuals! 

Just what would I have to do to get these signed?

Dan


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

^^I've got a lot of those books, too, along with some blueprints of his--incredible work!


----------



## aridas sofia (Feb 3, 2004)

Commander Dan said:


> Great stuff, Shane! I only wish you could produce even more material! _Mr. Scott’s Guide_ and _Worlds of the Federation_ are among some of my most favorite Star Trek reference manuals!


Agreed. *Shane's* 1980s works were a real inspiration to *Todd Guenther* and me. In many ways, he is the *Franz Joseph* of that period.


----------



## wpthomas (Apr 28, 2005)

aridas sofia said:


> Agreed. *Shane's* 1980s works were a real inspiration to *Todd Guenther* and me. In many ways, he is the *Franz Joseph* of that period.


So would that make you guys the Mike McMasters of the 80's?

(I just ran accross Shane's 2001: Discovery plans the other night. What a coincedence!)


----------



## aridas sofia (Feb 3, 2004)

wpthomas said:


> So would that make you guys the Mike McMasters of the 80's?
> 
> (I just ran accross Shane's 2001: Discovery plans the other night. What a coincedence!)


I would never presume to be anywhere near the giant *McMasters* was. His bridge plans are still one of the most impressive achievements of science fiction fandom. Also, we were much more into extrapolation than literal documentation. *McMasters* more than any of the rest of us -- *Geoff Mandel, Allen Everhart* -- hell, even *Franz* himself -- was the documentarian. The only other guy that really tried to do that kind of accurate rendering of what was shown that I can think of was *Shane* himself. 

Maybe that means *he's* also the *McMasters* of the 80s! :thumbsup:


----------



## lastguardian (May 20, 2005)

wpthomas said:


> I just ran across Shane's 2001: Discovery plans the other night.


Of all the blueprint sets I've done, I'm most pleased with that one. The Discovery is one of my favorite movie spacecraft, and going in I was afraid the ship would suffer badly from the 'Snoopy's Doghouse Effect' (the inside being bigger than the outside). But I was pleasantly surprised to discover that, with a minimum of tweaking, the whole was made to work pretty well. 

I sent a set of those drawings to Arthur C. Clarke about 15 years ago, and he graciously replied with a very kind letter. His praise of the blueprints means a lot to me, and I keep that particular piece of mail in a place of honor. 

Shane


----------



## lastguardian (May 20, 2005)

aridas sofia said:


> The only other guy that really tried to do that kind of accurate rendering of what was shown that I can think of was *Shane* himself. Maybe that means *he's* also the *McMasters* of the 80s! :thumbsup:


Thank you, but I don't know about that. Mike McMasters' work remains among the best with which we've been graced (right alongside that of Franz Joseph), and his Romulan vessel and Enterprise bridge blueprints fascinate me to this day.

I'm grateful to have been able to contribute to the technical realm of Star Trek, and am honored that you guys would even mention me in the same breath as these other fellows. 

Shane


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

wpthomas said:


> This is a case of intent, I think. The impression is meant to be that these are Kirk's peers, the other men who can stand in judgement of his actions. And in TV shorthand that would be "other captains", IMHO.


I took exactly the opposite meaning. Kirk was a full captain, both in rank and position, while his classmates were still languising as lieutenant commanders and below.

Sort of an extra layer of resentment added to what apparently happened to Ben Finney.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

lastguardian said:


> They established that the men were of Kirk's graduating class and thus his peers in that regard, I suppose. If they'd come up together, they'd all likely feel a familiarity for that simple reason. I noticed nothing in the dialogue that implied they were of equal rank. As was mentioned here, Kirk's command was an unusual one at his age, so it's possible the other men all were of lower station.
> 
> Did the scene happen to show any of their uniform braid, or was it all head shots? If they were indeed captains (or even commanders), their rank stripes would show that. Just wondering.
> 
> ...


The highest grade I saw was lieutenant commander, with a couple of the guys being lieutenants.

Nothing in the dialogue indicated that any of them had a command of their own. Their attitudes, however, seemed to play into the idea that Kirk was the wunderkind that they all kind of hated all along and now the little snot was gonna get it in the shorts.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Captain April said:


> Nothing in the dialogue indicated that any of them had a command of their own.


That may be so but they assuredly were not 1701 crew.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Yeah, that was the impression I got as well.

Let's just ignore the insignia for now, 'kay?


----------



## wpthomas (Apr 28, 2005)

Captain April said:


> Yeah, that was the impression I got as well.
> 
> Let's just ignore the insignia for now, 'kay?


Maybe they were all part of a starfleet program to honor the U.S.S. Enterprise for her heroic service under Captain PIKE? It was met with a luke-warm response (bureuacracies existing even in the 23rd century) and it was not until the FURTHER stellar record under Kirk that the deal was clinched? Huh? Huh? Good, eh?


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Well, gang, it looks like we've solved another one of the world's vexing Trek problems! :devil:


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

I'm beginning to like that "screwup at the laundry" scenario...


----------



## lastguardian (May 20, 2005)

Commander Dan said:


> Just what would I have to do to get these signed?


Send me an email at author(at)shanejohnsonbooks.com 

Shane


----------



## justinleighty (Jan 13, 2003)

lastguardian said:


> Thank you, but I don't know about that. Mike McMasters' work remains among the best with which we've been graced (right alongside that of Franz Joseph), and his Romulan vessel and Enterprise bridge blueprints fascinate me to this day.
> 
> I'm grateful to have been able to contribute to the technical realm of Star Trek, and am honored that you guys would even mention me in the same breath as these other fellows.


Well, for what it's worth, Mr. Scott's Guide was the first Trek book I ever owned, and still have it handy. It then got me into the Franz Josef stuff and later some other ship publications, tech manuals, etc. But your work was my starting point and it's still my favorite.


----------



## soloboy5 (Jun 18, 2003)

I dont mean to get the thread off track or anything, but is this the same Shane Johnson who wrote the Star Wars Technical Journal? Because if it is My god, I have aways wanted to say thank you for that! I've read the book back to front dozens of times and hauled it everywhere with me! Of course it's old and dog eared now, but its probably my favorite Star Wars book...I can remember spending practicaly my entire savings in 5th grade to buy it.


----------



## lastguardian (May 20, 2005)

soloboy5 said:


> ...is this the same Shane Johnson who wrote the Star Wars Technical Journal? ... I have aways wanted to say thank you for that!


You are quite welcome, and I'm glad you liked the book. It was a fun one to write and illustrate, and I hope I did right by the SW universe. 

Shane


----------



## lastguardian (May 20, 2005)

justinleighty said:


> Well, for what it's worth, Mr. Scott's Guide was the first Trek book I ever owned, and still have it handy. It then got me into the Franz Josef stuff and later some other ship publications, tech manuals, etc. But your work was my starting point and it's still my favorite.


Thanks for sharing that, and for the kind words.  

I remember how I felt back in 1975, the first time I laid eyes on Franz Joseph's technical manual -- to this day I can recall how fascinated I was as I pored over its pages. What a great can of worms he opened...

Shane


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

> What a great can of worms he opened...


^ That is probably the best statement about this subject that I've ever seen.


----------

