Memory Alpha

Talk:Constitution class/archive

Back to page | < Talk:Constitution class

Revision as of 14:12, July 31, 2013 by SulfBot (Talk | contribs)

40,422pages on
this wiki
Past and special-purpose discussions related to this article can be found on the following subpages:
Help icon

Memory Alpha talk pages are for improving the article only.
For general discussion on this subject, visit the forums at The Trek BBS.

Featured nomination

  • Constitution class. I don't think I've missed any information. Especially an extended interior design tour, and extensive background and design information. Ottens 16:27, 15 Feb 2005 (GMT)
    • Supported Tyrant 17:10, 15 Feb 2005 (GMT)Tyrant
    • Supported - All the important points seem to be there; the article is well-written. -- Balok 18:36, 15 Feb 2005 (GMT)
    • Support. Good, well rounded article. -- SmokeDetector47 00:53, 16 Feb 2005 (GMT)

12 vs 13 ships

Most people in half memory of a line from "Tomorrow is Yesterday" believe there were only 12 ships as of that episode. The truth is Kirk's line says there are 13 Constitution Class ships. The line excludes the Enterprise in the 12 "12 like it in the fleet". Because of this keeping this article accurate might be hard, especially with new members coming in. So I am going to add a note to the article, even though it might appear an unnecessary note. --TOSrules 07:18, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

"There are twelve like it in the fleet", Capt. Kirk does indeed say in "Tomorrow Is Yesterday". He also says their authority comes from the United Earth Space Probe Agency. With the exception of the U.S.S. Intrepid, most of the original list of supposedly Constitution-class vessels appear to be manned by human crews (or mostly human crews) from Earth, therefore supposedly sponsored by U.E.S.P.A. Presumably, all Constitution-class vehicles are Starfleet vessels (it is unknown if the Vulcans continue to maintain their own separate fleet of front-line cruisers in the 23rd century) but therein lies the quandary: Were all (or nearly all) Constitution-class starships of the 2360's (and before, and after?) manned and sponsored by Terrans?
Note that, canonically speaking, Kirk does not precisely say "there are only twelve Constitution class starships in the Federation fleet". Rather, it is reasonable to conclude Kirk is talking about twelve Federation starships (presumably Constitution-class) from Earth. If every major player/council member-world in the Federation sponsored a similar number of vessels (12 from Vulcan, including Intrepid; 12 from Andor, 12 from Tellar, etc.) and other worlds and colonies sponsored or joint-sponsored at least one ship, the Starfleet of "classic" Trek would easily encompass at least a couple hundred starships, including several dozen Constitution-class vessels.
This would also mean the loss of the starships Intrepid, Defiant and the loss of the crews of the Exeter and Excalibur would not be a crippling blow to Starfleet at that time. Otherwise, the later half of the 2260's was devastating to the Federation, causing the pool of their best top-line starships to be gutted. Ol' Horta Face 01:43, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I think it should be considered here that Gene Roddenberry, along with everyone on the production team of the Original Series seemed to consider the line to mean that the Enterprise was one of the twelve ships. And that it was the whole Starfleet, not just an Earth originating fleet. According to The Making of Star Trek (pg. 163-165, 204, etc.) --Pseudohuman 21:23, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

more than 2 photon tubes?

In Wrath of Khan, we see a shot that seems to establish that there are FOUR torpedo bays on the enterprise. in most shots, the bays are labelled 1 and 2, but in one shot, just after the enterprise leaves orbit and heads to the nebula, we see a shot with a Torpedo bay 3 and 4. for more details see here: perhaps the Refit Constitution has a pair of torpedo tubes that fire rearwards, out a common port in the back of the neck? (in that black 'cut-out' perhaps?) -Mithril 21:58, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

This is interesting, but before it is included in the article, I think we need someone to confirm these shots on their own DVDs (sorry, I am poor and don't have any). I feel this needs to be checked because some of the shots on the external link are obviously doctored (expecially that last one). Once it is confirmed, we should change the article to reflect 4 torpedo tubes for the refit. --OuroborosCobra 22:44, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
It is made perfectly clear in the Trekplace article that the existene of these Torpedobays 3 and 4 is practically impossible. It should be noted in the article, though, preferably as a mistake in the Background section. Ottens 06:53, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

it's made clear that the articles author beleives the existance of bay's 3 and 4 is impossible. and it's true that it makes little sense if they fire foreward. thus why i suggested rear fireing tubes. bays 3 and 4 would then be behind 1 and 2, facing the opposete way. -Mithril 15:10, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I have to say that that would not jibe with what we have seen of the refit constitution. Here is a rear shot:
USS Enterprise refit, aft
It does not look like the module with the forward tubes has rear firing ones. --OuroborosCobra 18:26, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
It could be that the "3" and "4" bays are part of an unbuilt design -- they have labeled access ports should they ever be grafted on, but do not exist as such. Seems like the kind of signs that would end up being in place after a military appropriations discussion. -- Captain M.K.B. 18:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

that small black section on the neck looks like a torpedo port. the 3rd and 4th tubes might be in a > arrangement, exiting out a single port. -Mithril 21:50, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

We've never seen an arrangment likie that on any other ship. Without more evidence, I'd have to say they aren't there. --OuroborosCobra 22:04, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Also, the black thing is located above the module the other launch tubes are in. --OuroborosCobra 22:06, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
But did anyone consider there may only be one aft launcher? Like the guy above, I'm broke, and can't get my hands on the DVDs, but it might make sense there was only room fore one aft launcher, which makes sense to me. Just throwing it out there.--CaptainCaca 17:34, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
The little black thing is smaller than the both of the other two tubes. It just isn't big enough. Look at the picture. --OuroborosCobra talk 17:40, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
I posted the torpedo bay pic below it. It looks to me, like it is big enough to house a single bay to me. Otherwise, why is it there?"--CaptainCaca 17:57, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
My apologies, it didn't come out. I'm new at pictures. But take another look at the refit torpedo launcher anyways. --CaptainCaca 18:11, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Regarding the little black thing on the back of the neck. Quality pictures of the refit-Enterprise show it to have no port, but rather a ribbed grill surface. In the "Mr. Scott's Guide to the Enterprise" -book it's function is explained. Supposedly the torpedoes give a slight recoil when they are launched, so this little aft port acts like a specialized thruster that counteracts the recoil. However the same book claims there is a rear torpedo launcher added in the Enterprise-A's design but mentions no location for it. (Pseudohuman 15:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC))

Can the warp core of a Constitution-class vessel be ejected?

can the warp core of a constitution class vessel be ejected?? The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk).

Possibly, but it's never been established in canon. For future reference, please sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). Also, this type of question is better suited for out reference desk. --From Andoria with Love 16:26, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
I doubt it. It's just my personal opinion. The NX class before it did not seem to have one, given that it wasn't an option on situations where it could have been easily needed. It was probably not considered given the warp speeds at the time... anyways, I'm rambling. It's just been my believe that older ships like the original 1701 had their cores fixed in the hull. I imagine that warp core designs weren't as modular as ones seen in Intrepid, Galaxy, and Sovereign class ships. The warp core of the 1701-A seemed to be directly tied closer to the pylons and nacelles. Also, there is no physical evidence that I know of on the outer hull. Majorthomme 00:33, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Interestingly enough, it was capable of ejecting the Warp Nacells... -- Terran Officer 09:43, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Could be the reason for having a saucer seperation in the old style connie, the forced perpective engine was probably supposed to go back the length of the engineering hull, thus saucer seperation was the same thing as ejecting the core-- 16:56, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
The warp core of the 1701 was obviously removable, as the engineering section changed appearance and so did the warp core in the times it was seen. So... I don't think they were "fixed" as such. As far as "physical evidence" on the outer hull, considering the unusual and dramatic circumstances of having to eject a warp core, there might not be any obvious sign on the hull. Conjecture: an emergency core ejection could have a series of shaped charges placed to blast a special hole in the hull to eject the core through. If you were designing from the idea that ejecting the core would be a last chance move and would require scuttling the ship or at best months of refits, it would be a reasonable design to destructively create a path for it. They never said it, but if you wanted to create a story set just before the first movie (where the ship took 18 months to refit) you could have them do it then... thus necessitating major reworking of everything. --JCoyote 19:33, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
In the TOS Episode, "That Which Survives", Scotty attempts to repair the magnetic field that contains the antimatter in the warp core that was sabotaged by the Losira hologram. Spock orders Lt. Uhura to monitor the magnetic field as Scotty makes repairs. Apparently Uhura is given the responsibility of ejecting the antimatter pods. Perhaps, due to the construction of that particular warp core, the pods could be ejected separately from the core. Also, if you notice in scenes taking place in Engineering on the original 1701, the bulk of the core seemed to be in an isolated room. Maybe that secion of the core was isolated specifically to allow for emergency ejection. On the refit 1701, specifically on ST2, when the engineering hull was breached by Khan, the isolation doors intersected the main plasma feed to the nacelles. That may imply that the horizontal section can of the core can be detached from the main reaction chamber, allowing it to be ejected in a controlled way. There was also evidence of other isolation doors in engineering compartments so the crew can be protected during the ejection sequence. --Davisn456 02:18, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Dunno about the warp core of an original ("prime universe") Constitution-class ship can be ejected, but we now know that the warp core(s) of a Constitution-class in the alternate reality can be ejected. :) —Josiah Rowe 07:08, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


the ship is listed as massing 1 million metric tons. thats something of a major increase in density over the NX class with its 80,000, given that the Constitution is only slightly larger. it also means the Consituition is 1/4th the mass of the Galaxy class, while being nearly 10x smaller in volume. i'm just having a hard time seeing such a dense ship. (IIRC, the old TOS tech manual, albeit non-canon, had 190,000 tons. as did the starship spotter.) where did the 1 million ton figure come from? -Mithril 02:36, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Not sure where it came from. We need to check on that. Unfortunetly, there is a good chance that it is from an episode. The writers sometimes don't stop and think when they are writing these masses. Take a look at Borg scout ship, for example. The thing looks to be about the size of a runabout, but in the episode they say it has a mass of about 2.5 million metric tons. --OuroborosCobra talk 02:42, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

i agree as to the odd masses we sometimes get. i would really like to find out where the million tons came from though. the borg scout was intended to be a factual statement (perhaps borg tech is just really high mass and density), but some lines might be hyperbole, inflated stats to make what they're saying sound more impressive. it would be nice to see which one this stat came from. (i also double checked my starship spotter. original model Constitution listed as 190,000 tons, and the refit at 210,000 tons. they left off half the armaments of the original connie, but it was done before "In a Mirror, Darkly", so all you had to go on were the foreward phasers and torp tube seen in TOS.) -Mithril 18:43, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

The Borg Scout ship stat comes from dialogue in the episode "I Borg":
  • DATA: "The vessel is traveling at warp seven-point-six. Mass: two-point-five million metric tons, configuration: ...cubical."
  • RIKER: "The Borg..."
  • DATA: "Its dimensions indicate that it is a scout ship similar to the one that crashed."
Something that small weighing that much would have probably sunk into the ground at the crash site, yet shown on screen, it did not. --OuroborosCobra talk 18:52, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

ah, i guess i wasn't clear on my statement. i wanted to know the line about the enterprise mass came from, and if it was hyperbole or factual. i've seen "I Borg" several times, though i never noticed that line. -Mithril 19:54, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

The mass of the Enterprise was stated to be "almost a million gross tons" in "Mudd's Women". A gross ton is 2240lbs, or 1016kg. More on the matter can be found on my Volumetrics page at ST-v-SW.Net DSG2k 19:52, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

a little wikipedia search finds , which indicates that 'gross tonnage' for ships is a measure of Displacement, not mass. so the Constitution-class volume would take up the same volume as 1 million tons of water. from the Tonnage article on wikipedia- Gross Tonnage refers to the volume of all ship's enclosed spaces (from keel to funnel) measured to the outside of the hull framing.-Mithril 20:04, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I've discussed the issue of gross tonnage to death elsewhere, hence the text on my site I linked to, which includes reference to the use for gross ton of 100 cubic feet or so. However, that use is invalid in this context, because the ship would have to be huge for that to be the case. For kicks, let's do the math ... the ship's volume which I estimate in the text to be 211,248 cubic meters indicates a gross tonnage of 74,600. Let's say you're right, and that Scotty indicated the ship's gross tonnage to be 900,000 or so. That's 900,000,000 cubic feet of volume, or 25,485,161.9 cubic meters. Using the volume coefficient based on 289 meters and 211,248 cubic meters for the normal ship, your re-imagined Constitution's length would be 1,428 meters . . . or almost 4,700 feet. That's over twice as long as the Sovereign Class.
So our choices are to assume an unnecessary context for Scotty's statement, one which runs contrary to everything else we know of the Constitution Class starship, or we accept his statement for what it logically refers to. Your call. - DSG2k 22:51, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

with no better alternative, we'll leave it as is. i still beleive that 1 million tons is probably not accurate either however. the line could still be hyperbole, or the result of the poorly defined size of the ship in TOS. -Mithril 00:38, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Screen vs. Turbolift On the Centerline

The statement that "mounted into the room's forward bulkhead, on the ship's centerline, was the main viewscreen," is simply wrong. The visual evidence first seen in "The Cage" clearly indicates that the command module is offset. The turbolift shaft can be seen outside the ship and, once inside, we see a crewman walk out of the lift.- GNDN 17:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

The issue of whether or not the bridge is offset has been the subject of much debate. On the one had there are those who say it is, while others say it isn't. At TrekBBS, for example, proponents of both have waged war with massive threads featuring various scalings, diagrams, and argumentation. "The Cage" supports neither view explicitly, since the scene would not only indicate a turbolift not lined up with the so-called turboshaft, but further the bridge would not be level with the saucer.
Personally I favor the notion that the bridge is centered and not cattywompus, but given the excessive struggles over the matter perhaps an NPOV viewpoint would be preferred. -- DSG2k 00:25, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Originally, the turbolift was to line up center right behind the captain's chair, and the bridge module was set front to back. The model of the Enterprise was lined up accordingly. However, during the initial filming of "The Cage", the directors noted that Chris Pike was blocking the view of the lift. Seeing this as a problem, the turbolift was swapped with another part of the modular bridge, scooting it over. The model was not changed. This is what led to the 'offset' problem.
The first 'official' explanation for this came in the Constitution Class Deck Plans, from Franz Joseph, and authorized by Gene Roddenberry. In those plans, the offset is indicated to exlpain the discrepancy between the bridge set and the filming model. This is repeated in the Tech Manual a couple of years later.
So, officially, and since there's been nothing official to refute this, the only 'canon' answer possible is that the bridge is, in fact, rotated for some reason. (Vanguard)
In the original bridge set, only a few of the sections were removeable, or "wild". The turbolift doors were not one of those wild sections, so the alleged shuffling of stations described above is impossible.
As for which way the bridge faced, as far as Matt Jefferies and everyone else on the set was concerned, it faced forward. How it all lined up with the model wasn't a concern at the time, because 1) it's just a tv show, and 2) who the hell was gonna care in forty years? (Captain Robert April)

The command module cannot be placed off center due to the danger this presents to the vessel. It is physically and physcologically unsound to do so. The command offficers would feel uncomfortable during flight, which leads to distraction, which leads to mistakes, which leads to a really big and bright fireball.

The command module is not mounted off center. The turbolift door is. The turbolift system has the ability to store the systems cars in a waiting area for high demand areas to keep up with the traffic load. The cars for the bridge are stored in the outer hull area of the bridge module. They move into postion off the centerline to access the bridge. Then they enter the main tube on the centerline to lower the cars into the system. Once this happens another car from right or left storage goes off center to serve the bridge. The turboshaft outer hull can be seen behind the bridge outer hull on the Constitution class. Two tubes service the bridge module on the refit. It has a car storage feature as well. The new design is for system redundancy in case of failure due to battle damage, system failure or unforeseen circumstances encountered during the ships mission. It is a mistake to think of the turbolift as an terrestrial elevator. Terrestrial elevators do not move side to side as well as up and down. The responce time seen on the bridge is beyond that of an elevator. What you see on the bridge is a docked turbolift car. You have to physically hold a handle to let the car know you are there and conscience. If you let go it stops, the system computer evaulates your status and then takes action. The computer also controls traffic in the systems. The bridge module is organized from the inside out. First is the command module and flight deck, then a circular service corridor to access the bridge systems, next is the innerhull wall, then the turbolift/ engineering ring areas of the outer hull and finally the hard vacuum of space.

The Making of Star Trek, The Starfleet Technical Manual, and the official blueprints all show that the turbolift is on the centerline and the viewscreen is offset. I know of no canonical source that states that the viewscreen is on the centerline. Unless someone can cite an example, like it or not, the line "mounted into the room's forward bulkhead, on the ship's centerline, was the main viewscreen" is incorrect and is counter to canon. Stekev 21:40, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Battle cruiser? only if you are a klingon

The article was just changed from "Heavy cruiser" to "Battlecruiser", citing Star Trek III. The problem is that it was called a "battle cruiser" (two words, in the script) by the Klingons, and MA is written as Federation database. I am looking for a reference to Heavy cruiser, and may be reverting this. --OuroborosCobra talk 21:51, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I believe Gene Roddenberry or Matt Jefferies or someone in the production staff designated it as a Heavy Cruiser. What the Klingons call it is irrelevant, since they are most likely expressing an opinion or a misconception in calling it a battlecruiser. And I can assure you Starfleet wouldn't have designated a ship built for exploration as a "battlecruiser". --From Andoria with Love 01:44, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Indeed, the Enterprise was labeled as a heavy cruiser on the bridge layouts in Star Trek III, according to the background at Heavy cruiser. Reverting. --From Andoria with Love 01:47, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Although I added the Paramount Pictures copyright petty-fogging to the recently added image, I am not at all convinced that the ship depicted here is a refit, much less a USS Constitution refit. And since we are on the record, this USS Enterprise-A could well be another refit re-commissioned, or an entirely new vessel. A well-lighted image of the refit Enterpise from Star Trek: The Motion Picture would be most welcome. --GNDN 04:02, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
it says it is Constitution-class, not the USS Constitution... the term "refit" refers to the fact that it is of the same configuration as the refit Constitution-class Enterprise vessel, not that it has been refit itself.
I'd love to speculate and "make-up" imaginative histories of whether these ships were refit in any specific way, based on their registries and age, but if we didnt see or hear about it onscreen, its really not Memory Alpha's business to say. -- Captain M.K.B. 04:17, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
To bring this discussion to an end: This is what the Enterprise's bridge display says: Heavy Cruiser -- Kobi 13:55, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, there is even a picture of this on MA. --OuroborosCobra talk 13:58, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Constitution diagram

canon evidence

Joseph Franz works aren't considered canon.
"For many years, these reference works formed the backbone for treatments of the Star Trek setting. Their general assumptions about Starfleet and the galaxy as a whole were the basis of the Star Fleet Universe and FASA's version of Star Trek, as well as most novels about Star Trek. This book was one of the materials that was stripped of its canonical status at around the same time as FASA's version of Star Trek and its ideas about Star Trek were ignored from that point on." The preceding unsigned comment was added by JeanLucPicard1 (talk • contribs).

While it was taken from a Franz work, it was seen on screen, and by content and resource policies, it is considered canon. If you don't like the policy, then get it changed at the talk page for the policy. This is not the way to do it. Please follow the rules here, or propose a rule change in the proper place. --OuroborosCobra talk 14:12, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't need a lecture from you. I was watching Star Trek before you were born. You call it what you want. Although that image was captured on screen, it was taken from Joseph Franz works, a non-canon reference. I finished here, but I am sure you spend 99.9% of your time on Star Trek. The preceding unsigned comment was added by JeanLucPicard1 (talk • contribs).

Nice knowing you, and your disregard for something on screen being canon. --OuroborosCobra talk 17:02, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Yet another one bites the dust. Geez, you'd think these people would know better... personally, I'm getting sick of it. Yet another user can't handle our policies so they have a temper-tantrum, leave and bang the door on the way out. Oh, so you've been watching Star Trek since before we were born? That's great -- well, keeping with the cocky mood, allow me to retort by saying that we've been working on Memory Alpha a lot longer than you. The policies and Gene Roddenberry himself stated that anything on-screen is canon. Apparently, you can't handle that, which is kind of pathetic, really. So, farewell to thee, and such. --From Andoria with Love 17:18, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
I apologize in advance if this discussion has become too uncomfortable for others to continue. During "A Taste of Armageddon", Anan 7 orders Eminiar VII's planetary defense system to open fire on the Starship Enterprise, repeatedly referring to it as a "star cruiser". (Whether this was two separate words or a compund word, I cannot determine; I have no script to site, just what the viewer sees and hears.) Whether Anan 7's "star cruiser" reference was arbitrary, or maybe an historic throwback to the old U.S.S. Valiant of 50 years before, or maybe derived from Eminian monitoring of Federation subspace chatter about the Enterprise, we have no idea. I would point out that while "battle cruiser" is a more militaristic reference, there really is not that much difference between the various terms "battle cruiser", "heavy cruiser", and "star cruiser". I would also point out that Gene Roddenberry's novelization of "Star Trek: The Motion Picture" also features a brief passage in which he waffles (my opinion) between referring to the newly refit Enterprise as a "heavy cruiser" and a "battleship".
This also prompted me to consider some of his other musings and philosophies through the years. It has been written that Roddenberry adamantly opposed revisiting "The Enterprise Incident" in ST:TNG, and when a fan wrote into the official fan club magazine after the broadcast of "The Defector" in Jan., 1990, asking why the Romulans still had the cloak as an "advantage" after Kirk stole one from the Empire at least three-quarters of a century before, Roddenberry responded "our people are explorers... they don't sneak around". This seemed silly, given the use of a cloak-like holographic blind in "Who Watches the Watchers" just a couple months earlier. Later, after Roddenberry's death, Mr. Berman apparently had no problem realizing a new Star Trek series as a full-fledged war drama, including a Federation warship (the Defiant), complete with super-phasers, uber-torpedoes and a cloaking device. Then there was the semi-apocryphal future-tense Enterprise-D of "All Good Things...", glistening with more weapons and a third nacelle. (Note the new and improved Enterprise-E and other newer ships have only two) All this shows the schism in Star Trek's principles. Is the Enterprise, of any era, a warship, a battleship, or just a plain old starship? It really depends on how you feel about the direction Star Trek has taken since Mr. Roddenberry passed away. I'd say that canon backs me up on the notion that, third nacelle or no, the Enterprise of any era (except possibly the NCC-1701-E) represents the best and biggest in terms of ability, versatility, and outright prowess. While the relatively (to her era) smaller Enterprise-E may be the exception, just about any other Enterprise in her own respective era could be called a "Star cruiser", a "battle cruiser", a "heavy cruiser" or perhaps most aptly, a *dreadnought*. In fact, if the Federation Starfleet of the mid-23rd century wanted to apply a label to their top-line starships which could have multiple meanings, military and otherwise, it could be "cruiser" as easily as it could be dreadnought. That would certainly cast a new light on the nature of Starfleet naval force, wouldn't it? Maybe even the late Mr. Roddenberry might approve. His novelization of "TMP" seems to suggest as much... Ol' Horta Face 05:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
You know I don't belive that Saddam Hussein named the missle of choice for his country (during the first Gulf War) the SCUD. I am certain that it was a name assigned by NATO. My point is that us and our enemies name each others equipment. Who knows there might not be a word for Heavy Cruiser in Klingonese. By the way I have been watching Star Trek since I was 6 years old. That was 1966. The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gimmeyourphaser (talk • contribs).
My take on this issue is that, "Officially" Star Fleet classifies this ship as a Heavy Cruiser. In the TV series we often see the Enterprise administering its far flung colonies and outposts as well as projecting Federation influence on its distant allies, this more closely resembles the profile of a Heavy Cruiser NOT a Battle Cruiser so I think in that sense the classification is sound. However, the class may be better armed than a typical Heavy Cruiser to the point where it is regarded by hostile aliens as a Battle Cruiser. There is a precedent for this in the United Sates Navy, the Alaska Class Heavy Cruisers were for all intents and purposes Battle Cruisers despite their official designation. -Mister Atoz

First Heavy Cruiser

What the fudge? Where the hell is this coming from? We don't know all the classes of Federation Starships, and have nothing (IIRC) between Daedalus class and this one. Why in gods name would we speculate on what happened in starship design over that entire century? --OuroborosCobra talk 16:49, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

New Class of Constitution-class

Why don't you list the Enterprise-A and the ships built after her as a new class, like Constitution-class Mark II. This is a common designation in the US Navy, example the Aegis cruisers with the new equipment are MK II flights. Someone has said that we can't use the US Navy as a basis for how Starfleet works, but this is exactly what Gene Roddenberry did. He served, and used naval names from through out history(Enterprise, Yorktown, Lexington,Exeter, etc). Also about the Enterprise-A being the Yorktown before being renamed, is in my opinion bogus. Again, Naval Tradition dictates that you never rename a ship after its finished construction. Its considered bad luck, this goes back hundreds of years. My understand of the comment by Roddenberry about this was that he originally was going to name the ship in Star Trek, Yorktown. Then he jokingly in the same interview, said that the Enterprise may have been the Yorktown mentioned earlier in the film, since he doubted Starfleet could have built a brand new ship so fast. Plus in ST 5, Scotty clear says "This new ship must have been put together by monkeys. Oh she's got a fine engine, but half the doors won't open." My argument would be that by ST 2,3,and 4 Starfleet would have been making the Constitution Refit design brand new from the keel up, making it a new class(Enterprise-class or Constitution II) with new equipment like that on the Excelsior-class. This may be why all of the original Con refits were being decommissioned by ST III.

First off, there is no canon evidence to do this. Second off, as far as I know, the Navy does not call it "Ticonderoga Mk. II" (Ticonderoga being the Aegis cruiser), they simply split them into different "flights". All of this has already been discussed on this very talk page at Talk:Constitution class/archive#The Constitution refit/ Enterprise class.. Please see that discussion. --OuroborosCobra talk 19:46, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

"Also about the Enterprise-A being the Yorktown before being renamed, is in my opinion bogus. Again, Naval Tradition dictates that you never rename a ship after its finished construction." This quote is incorrect. As evidence, see the original USS Midway, CVE-63. Named in honor or the recently-won Battle of Midway, the escort carrier was renamed (eleven months after commissioning and service), so that the name "Midway" could be assigned to a new Midway-class fleet carrier.

Main Bridge in 2254

Constitution class bridge 2250s

A much better screencap that both shows and compliments the scope of the original bridge

The picture we have for the bridge in 2254 shows a small portion of the area. It is also a early test photograph as it shows the unfinished floor and not-so-refurbished command chair. I'd like to replace the picture with this one, once the protection lock is lifted of course. AC84 20:50, 10 September 2006

I agree.Capt Christopher Donovan 03:48, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Please add this picture, if only for the view of the "door mat" in front of the turbolift. --GNDN 11:55, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
You know, there was nothing stopping you from using the new image. The article was protected, not the image files. I simply uploaded the image you guys wanted (File:Originalbridge.jpg) over the image in the article (File:Constitution class bridge 2250s.jpg). Just before anyone tries to tell me you needed to be an admin to do this, I'm not an admin, and I did it. --OuroborosCobra talk 13:32, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

New Image of Primary Hull

With the release of images of the new model of the Enterprise for the remastered TOS, we finally have a good image to replace that problematic one we were all scratching our heads about a few weeks ago. I went ahead and uploaded it, so that's THAT problem solved... :) Capt Christopher Donovan 07:52, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Type of Launcher

For what reason is it necessary to specify that they are exactly 'photon torpedo launchers'? The connotation is that all the only thing they can launch are photon torpedoes, and nothing more. The term 'torpedo launcher' (especially when backed up by the appropriate article) better describes the capability of the system (although I admit that for me 'torpedo launcher' is still not generic enough.) Kv1at3485 06:22, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Have we ever seen them launch anything but photons? --OuroborosCobra talk 06:25, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Spock and coffin. Unless all things with that particular type of casing are automatically deemed as 'torpedoes'. That would be an interesting method to determine nomenclature. Kv1at3485 06:34, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Because we wouldn't want people to think the ship can fire spatial torpedoes, photonic torpedoes, or quantum torpedoes. :P --From Andoria with Love 06:39, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
As far as I remember, Spock in a coffin was a hollowed out photon torpedo. --OuroborosCobra talk 06:43, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

It used the same type of [i]casing[/i], but I can't see how the casing by itself makes it a torpedo. As for not being able to fire other types of devices: if the device can fit into the tube (a matter of the dimensions of the casing, not what's in the casing) why not? We already know that such things have happened before, two differently shaped casings fired out of the same launcher (spatial and photonic torpedoes.on ENT, torpedoes and probes in TNG and probably DS9 and VOY...) Kv1at3485 06:51, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Since they were photon torpedo launchers, and since the article needs to specify what the ship fired from those launchers (only photon torpedoes, as far as we know), I'm not sure what the big issue is here. Maybe that's just 'cause it's late and I'm tired... --From Andoria with Love 06:57, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Warp factor, again...

In the archive, we stated that the Enterprise reached Warp 14 and that there would have been several warp factors mentioned that went far beyond that speed. What changed so that we noted Warp 9 by now?

There is also a difference to all Constitution class articles through the different languages - even they are different to each other:

  • the Spanish one states Warp 8 for both versions
  • the Dutch one states Warp 8 for the original configuration and Warp 12 for the Refit
  • the German one "agrees" to MA/nl with Warp 8 for the original configuration but gives Warp 9 for the Refit.

I guess here's definitely going something wrong, eh? : [defchris] :: [ talk ] : 22:38, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

There's definitely a legitimate issue here of how to interpret the specs for the original-series Starship Enterprise. Much of the rationale that gave rise to Star Trek technical fiction such as Franz Joseph's 1975 "Technical Manual" was actually confirmed in canon; if you look at "Obsession", it does appear to confirm that a Constitution-class starship's "emergency speed" is Warp factor 8 (witness Scotty's warning "...we'll blow up any second!") and the "maximum safe cruising speed" as Warp 6. The hot pursuit in "Balance of Terror", "Arena" and "Operation: Annihilate!" seemed to confirm this, and "The Making of Star Trek: The Motion Picture" by Gene Roddenberry and Susan Sackett also seemed to back that up.
It is true that the Enterprise exceeded Warp 8 on other occasions. The speed went "off the dial" in "Tomorrow Is Yesterday" during their re-creation of a time warp, but it wasn't until Nomad came along in "The Changeling" that an outside force started messing with the Enterprise's engines to produce what were clearly extraordinary results (double-digit warp factors, which Scotty dismissed as "Impossible!"). It looks like whatever the Kelvans might've left behind after "By Any Other Name" (remember, Rojan said they would modify the engines to achieve inter-galactic velocities "far beyond the reach of your science") had a lasting effect on Federation technology. Kirk told Nomad that double-digit warp factors would cause a dangerous structural strain on the Enterprise when he asked the "spacehappy" robo-monster to discontinue. Apparently, whatever modifications the Kelvans made gave Scotty enough clues to allow the Enterprise to sprint away from the Romulans briefly at Warp 9 ("The Enterprise Incident") and keep the ship together long enough to travel 990.7 light-years at speeds between Warp 8.7 and Warp 14.1 before powering down ("That Which Survives").
As for the notion of the refit "TMP" Enterprise listing specs of Warp 8 cruise and Warp 12 redline, I used to accept those myself. But studio politics that can be traced right back to Mr. Roddenberry himself caused a schism between what is "canon" and what is "licensed works" from Paramount. Please believe me, I beat my head against the wall trying to understand this one and finally gave up. My rationale for accepting the notion that the refit Enterprise cruises at Warp 7 (as seen in "TMP") and redlines at Warp 9 (supported by Roddenberry in both the "Making of" and the "TMP" novelization) is that Warp factors are geometric quanta and if it took 30 years for Archer's Starfleet to come up with a "Warp 5 engine", it doesn't seem credible that Constitution-class ships could leap from a top speed of Warp 8 to one of Warp 12 so easily, and in so little time.
So the best way to make sense of this warp speed issue is to say that while Constitution-class starships of the era of 2268 and beyond were capable of sprinting at speeds exceeding Warp 8 under their own power, and could even exceed Warp 14, such speeds could just as easily result in the ship's self-destruction from either superheated reactor or structural strain. This does not even begin to deal with the "time continuum" catapult issue ("Is There In Truth No Beauty?") that high warp speeds apparently risk as well. Ol' Horta Face 05:05, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
First off, I hate to say this, but I think these really long comments have to stop soon. Remember that these talk pages are not just general forum threads, they have to apply directly to discussion on the contents of the article, particularly to changing it. I don't see that happening with most of these extremely long comments. See Help:Talk pages for details.
Now, as for the sudden speed change, let me remind yo of another bit of history. It took us more than 40 years to get from flying at 30 miles per hour to flying at 500 miles per hour. 10 years later we were flying at 1,900+ miles per hour. Less than ten years after that, 4,500+ miles per hour. Then it took 40 years to go much faster. Point being, technology and advancements can come in spurts.--OuroborosCobra talk 05:37, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Well ... I just had doubts on which MA uses the "right" max. speed, because our article was about to become a featured article so is the MA/en's (it actually is by now btw). I didn't want any of those "almost canonical reference literature" because most of them are considered falsified by later series and movies.

Federation technology sure does advance and ships are getting faster and faster but wasn't my point. Are there any issues for the regular maximum speed? Which MA version is right? : [defchris] :: [ talk ] : 15:17, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

See my comments under "Speculation" near the top of this talk page. I don't know if it will help, but that's my take on it. Ol' Horta Face 20:06, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

"modified constitution refit"

I noticed that someone added a reference to a "modified Constitution refit" under the Constituition refit section of the article. Beside it is a picture of a model from Booby Trap. Is this really canon, considering the model may have just been a depiction of a ship that doesn't exist? 20:08, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

The model itself is canon, meaning that, whether the ship existed or not, the design is canon. -- Captain M.K.B. 20:19, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, but the text states that the blacks hatches on the saucer were shuttle bays. I don't think those were ever called shuttle bays on screen, so maybe we should reword the reference? -- 21:47, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

agreed.--!Captain M.K.B. 17:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Ok done. 18:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


The following was moved from User talk:Shran.

First we have the "Starship Class" dedication plaque on Enterprise's bridge establishing class. Then we have Merrik in "Bread and Circuses" stating that Kirk commands not a "spaceship", but a STARship "a very special kind of vessel". That term is a specific reference to Enterprise and her sisters. Later on we have Scotty's "Constitution class" phaser diagrams on his display screen, as other's have noted PLUS the "Constitution class plans he studies in ST VI PLUS Picard's identification of the Enterprise as "Constitution class" in "Relics" PLUS we have Defiant's plaque in IAMD SHOWING "Constitution Class".

Thus we have sufficient canon to establish that Starship=Connie in TOS reference. Now, we have quotable dialoge in "Court Martial" and "The Immunity Syndrome" esablishing Republic and Intrepid as "starships". Those are canon data points, buttressed by the Encyclopedia entries as supporting evidence, if you must include them (the canon data is sufficient).

I'll refrain from doing any further reverting until we thrash this out.Capt Christopher Donovan 04:51, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I have to disagree. All that is evidence that the Connie is considered a starship, not that all starships are Connies. --OuroborosCobra talk 04:54, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, that's not really sufficient canon... seems more like circumstantial evidence or personal observation. Nothing was directly stated. Don't get me wrong, I've heard of the theory before stating "Starship Class equals Constitution Class therefore all references to Starship are references to the Constitution Class", but nothing has been firmly established in canon. Now, if we had someone behind-the-scenes on record as stating that all references to a "Starship" were meant as a reference to the same type of class as the Enterprise, that would be something. As far as I know, though, it's only a theory. --From Andoria with Love 04:59, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I had a different response typed out at Shran's column, but lost it when I went to save so I'll take a different tack.

You admit I have canon support for my contention, Shran. You say I have "not sufficient canon"...either it's canon or it isn't. Never, not once in TOS is the term starship used to describe ships other than Enterprise and her class-sisters. They use terms like "star cruisers", "freighters", "survey vessels", or the generic "spaceship".

Every time the word "starship" is mentioned in TOS where we have a visual of said ship, it is a ship like Enterprise. Every time. So, if you accept that Enterprise-nil is a Connie, then so must all ships mentioned as "starships" in TOS are also Connies.

Even as late as TMP, other ships identified by type are "scouts" or "dreadnoughts", while Ent-nil is still referred to as a "starship". The first canon use of "starship" on a non-Connie is the Reliant in TWOK.

Put aside the last 3 decades worth of other series' use of the term as a generic and look at what the TOS writers meant at the time.Capt Christopher Donovan 05:30, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

What other Federation starship classes do we even see in TOS? I'm still not seeing lines that say "Starship is only the Connie" as opposed to "Connies are starships". Yes, no others were mentioned, but that doesn't mean they did not exist, and none of the lines seem to preclude others existing. --OuroborosCobra talk 05:46, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
"You admit I have canon support for my contention, Shran." I did? Where? I said it wasn't "sufficient canon" (a term you used). And just because we've seen visual evidence of Constitution-class starships that are referred to as starships doesn't mean there were not non-Connie classes out there that were also called starships... if that makes sense. As for what the the TOS writers meant at the time – again, do we have any source for that? If so, great! If not, then, well... :/ --From Andoria with Love 06:15, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, new supporting evidence just in (thanks to Psion and a few others over at TrekBBS who did the look up for me as I can't find my copy of this book:

The names of the ships of the same class as Enterprise are rostered in "The Making of Star Trek", by Stephen Whitfield (I was 99% certain they were, but I wanted to get specific citations before I said anything). Whitfield took his information directly from production materials he had access to.

I quote Psion's post, complete with page cites:

The August 8, 1967 memo from D.C. Fontana to Gene Roddenberry entitled "STAR FLEET -- 12 STARSHIPS" is reproduced on page 163 of the thirteenth printing. It lists the following vessels:

El Dorado

The memo continues, "Alternates include the names of some famous fighting ships of the past, plus a couple of international variations we migh consider, Star Fleet being composed of a united service.

Farragut Mentioned as destroyed in "Obsession"
Bonhomme Richard
Monitor or Merimac, depending upon your loyalties
Tori (bird)
Ari (lion)
Krieger (warrior)

Please consider."

Bob Justman then replies with his list of preferences from Fontana's list: Enterprise, Essex, Excalibur, Lexington, Yorktown, Endeavor, Eagle, Constellation, Hornet, Wasp, Lafayette.

He mentions other nations that might be worthy of having candidates and even suggests a ship with a name that sounds of Vulcan origin.

Finally, on page 165, the list of names for starships is established as: Enterprise, Exeter, Excalibur, Lexington, Yorktown, Potemkin, Republic, Hood, Constitution, Kongo, Constellation, Faragut, Valiant, and Intrepid. "The latter four are listed as destroyed in various episodes."

Note that these ships aren't considered to be of the "Enterprise" class, but, according to the Fontana memo referenced above, part of the "Starship" class.

The last line is apparently the result of me mentioning ships of "the Enterprise's class" which he took to mean "Enterprise class" thus his restatement that this roster is for "Starship class" vessels, per Fontana above.

We obviously also have to add the Defiant to that list, but that's irrelevant to this particular discussion. The linkage is now complete, with Republic and Intrepid as members of the Starship class, later to be known as the Constitution class...Capt Christopher Donovan 07:02, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Awesome! I can't believe I didn't think of checking that... Now that we know that it was their intention that ships referred to as Starships were supposed to be of the same class as Enterprise, I don't think there's any reason not to go by that. Nonetheless, I think we should wait it out a day or two to see if anyone objects to it or has any further input on this subject. Nice work! :) --From Andoria with Love 07:56, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

No worries, and I agree. Sorry if I came of as being nasty about the whole situation. I thought this was "common knowledge" information, so I honestly didn't expect there to be a big "sturm und drang" about it.

Btw, I just remembered a line from "Relics" that ALSO supports the idea of "starship" as an entirely seperate classification of vessel.

From the scene between Scotty and Picard on the recreation of the Enterprise-nil's Bridge:

SCOTT: You know, I served aboard eleven ships in my career...freighters, cruisers, starships,... but this is the only one I ever think about... the only one I miss.

When things settle down and we "fix" the articles in question, I suggest we "carbon copy" this discussion to their talk pages in order to not have this problem crop up again.

Once more, apologies if I came across as a jerk.Capt Christopher Donovan 09:29, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm still not sure if that piece of behind-the-scenes info is valid. I don't see anything that stops the term "starship" from referring to top-of-the-line Starfleet heavy cruisers, such as the Constitution-class, the Miranda-class (mentioned as a starship in the Star Trek IV script), the yet-to-be-built Excelsior-class and undoubtedly other starship classes of the day.
In the behind-the-scenes memo, they refer to those ships as "Starship class" ships, but I always took that to mean the type of ship that Constitution class ships belong to. Obviously, the definition had changed from the 22nd century when Enterprise was considered a starship, as it wouldn't be in the late 23rd and 24th centuries, but there's nothing in canon that refers to the Constitution class as equal to all "starships." In fact, it does prove the contrary, even if you limit it to TOS. In "The Return of the Archons", the USS Archon is specifically referred to as the "starship Archon." Should that be included as a Constitution-class vessel, from 100 years before?--Tim Thomason 20:45, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'll admit that that reference slipped by me (the ep not being one of my favorites). My response would be that that is ONE reference (which can be easily dismissed as a production error, like the infamous "phaser firing torpedo tube" in TNG). That the term became "genericized" later, even as early as TMP/TWOK and carrying through modern Trek, has no bearing on what the producer intent was in '67-'69.

Even if we grant that "starship" is used as a generic designator via the Archon reference (which I do not), the Fontana/Justman memos make it clear that the list they are working on is for the names of "Starship class" vessels, ie Enterprise (whose dedication plaque flat out says "Starship class") and her class-sisters, the "twelve like her in the fleet". Republic and Intrepid are on that final list. Therefore they are Starship-class vessels, later redesignated Constitution-class.

The article already supports Starship class=Constitution class anyways. See the first paragraph of the article, and the fact that "Starship class" redirects to the "Constitution class" article.Capt Christopher Donovan 21:50, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I think we might consider broadening the scope of this discussion beyond the "Constitution class" page and frame of mind. As I recall, a similar discussion debating the finer points of what a starship is can be found on talk:starship, that was never resolved. With that said, it might be necessary to explore more dialog than what is stated above that helped describe the factors used in TOS (and beyond) in defining a starship:
General Descriptors:
*"Starship?" / "That supposed to mean it flies through space?" / "That's right." (VOY: "The 37's")
*"The Enterprise is a starship, capable of traveling through space." (TNG: "Ship in a Bottle")
*"Are we going to fly in your ship?" / "He said it was a shuttle, not a ship." (VOY: "Innocence"; ok, so not specific to this conversation, but notable in terms of defining distinctions between spacecraft.)
Configuration: TOS: "The Doomsday Machine" suggests this as a factor in defining the USS Constellation:
* "I have it on the sensors, Captain. By configuration -- a starship. stopped in space. She appears to be drifting."
Power utilization: TOS: "Journey to Babel" suggests this as a factor in defining a starship:
* "The thing that confused me was the power utilization curve. It made them seem more powerful than a starship or anything known to us. That ship was constructed for a suicide mission. Since they never intended to return to their home base, they could use 100% power on their attacks."
Mission: TOS: "The Cloud Minders" suggests this as a factor in defining a starship:
* "Starships do not transport cargo." / * "In times of emergency, they do anything, and believe me, botanical plague is an emergency."
Authority: TOS: "Mudd's Women" had several lines suggesting that "a starship" was simply an authoritative vessel, "failure to answer a starship's signal", perhaps something akin to a military-type vessel, or police vessel.
* "Well, how the devil am I supposed to know this is a starship, Captain? A strange ship comes alongside. Naturally I tried to evade you. Starship captain, you exceeded your authority when you drove me and mine into a shower of asteroids."
* "Mr. Mudd, you're charged with galaxy travel without a flight plan, without an identification beam, and failure to answer a starship's signal, thus a menace to navigation."
* "You'll need medical help, cargo runs, starship protection."
There are various other similar references about 'misusing a starship's authority' in TOS: "The Conscience of the King", "The Trouble with Tribbles". TNG: "Peak Performance" had a reference in a similar context too, and I'm pretty sure it wasn't in reference to a Constitution class:
* "Leader, there is another Federation ship closing. A starship!"
In terms of contradicting evidence, that does not seem to support "starship" being synonymous with "Constitution class", but as well, other classes (in terms of TOS usage of the nomenclature, and in addition to the Archon reference):
*"Inspection tour of a cadet vessel. Old Class J starship. One of the baffle plates ruptured." (TOS: "The Menagerie, Part I"; which seems to contradict "Mudd's Woman" dialog, as Mudd's ship was also apparently a "J class")
*"I must fight to remember that this is an intelligent, highly advanced individual, the Captain of a starship, like myself, undoubtedly a dangerously clever opponent." (TOS: "Arena")
While I'm sure there are more, these were what quickly came to mind, and so what can be taken from this is that there is something more unique about the term "starship" versus spacecraft, space cruiser, star cruiser, space ship, there just isn't enough evidence to support what that difference is exactly, nor to peg it on a single class of ship.
Also, regarding the references from "The Making of Star Trek", I am familiar with that reference as well, and I'm not sure if that really shouldn't be treated any differently than the Star Trek Encyclopedia as a source, which is why we removed all class references to various unseen ships from the main section of those respective ship's articles. Quickly browsing through that section of the book, the memos never made it clear that this is how it was going to be. They simply come across more as a "wish list" than an "official list". --Alan 22:42, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Alan you are muddying the waters unneccesarily by continuing to bring in post-TOS references as they are 100% IRRELEVANT to the discussion as to producer intent in 67-69. But I'll let that go.

We still have a valid production source that states "Starfleet - 12 Starships", seperating out a particular group of ships, including Enterprise (and Republic and Intrepid) in that group. Enterprise is canonically a Starship class vessel (or, if you insist, a Starship class starship) per her dedication plaque (as was the E-A at launch, per HER plaque, but that's beside the point). Every single ship whose name is on that list who also made a visual appearance on screen was the same class ship as Enterprise. Dialoge aside, those two data points are strong evidence that the list represents a single class of ship (which again, was the stated intent of the producers at the time the list was drafted).

For our purposes, that's ALL we need do on this point: establish that all those ships were "class sisters". Now we can move on to examine the evidence that "Starship class" became "Constitution class". Well, we can (again), if you insist, but it's been done to death. The real piece of the puzzle we needed was the one above (that the named ships were "Starship class" to begin with). It became obvious early on that "Starship class" sounded silly, and they began to drop hints (like Scotty's monitor screen), then later flat out stated it (even as blatantly as putting "Constitution class" on Defiant 's plaque in IAMD.Capt Christopher Donovan 00:33, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I hardly think exploring all relevant possibilities as "muddying the waters" because I am being thorough. The term "starship" is simply much too general, and based on the various datapoints that I explored from TOS, which I noticed you completely ignored. There is more to it than simply the association with the designation of "starship class". This is especially of interest then you throw the "Peak Performance" reference into the mix, which was related to what I was discussing with regards to the use of terminology in TOS. Then again, had you read what I wrote, instead of stopping at the first non-TOS reference, you would have realized that.
I'd reply to your "valid production source that states 'Starfleet - 12 Starships'" comment, but I would again be repeating myself, except for the fact that relying solely on Whitfield's analysis, one can find two flaws, the Republic was never stated as being destroyed, and if we choose to accept that the Valiant, you should keep in mind that it was never referenced as a "starship", but a "star cruiser." And again, what of the other TOS-era references to "starship" that clearly were not in reference to a Connie? How does those points keep getting conveniently "forgotten"?
So instead of repeating myself anymore, there is absolutely no reason not to list a class name to a ship that did not appear on screen in the main content of the article. Canon policy alone supports this. This is why they are already mentioned in the background section of their respective articles, because the information is speculative, even if by the production staff. --Alan 01:09, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict) All of his references are TOS except for the first section that is admittedly "not specific to this conversation" and a later TNG reference that is similar to the TOS references. Regardless, this is important to help understand what "starship" means in Star Trek which does need to be solved, and where he was moving the discussion towards. We should never "ignore" Post-TOS references. That goes against what the site is about.
Hypothetically, if the USS Yorktown was later referred to in canon as a Federation class vessel, then that's what we would say it was, even if Justman wrote a memo stating that the Republic "is and ever shall be a Starship (e.g. Constitution) class starship." The memo is excellent background information, but the fact that 4 different classes of vessels are referred to as "starships" in TOS leads me to believe that the memo was used for any Federation ships mentioned, and the ones seen were only "Connies" because they couldn't or wouldn't afford to make a Constitution-like model. If Pike's "Class J starship" was named, I wouldn't be surprised if they called it the El Dorado.
Since TOS seems to use 4 or 5 different definitions for Starfleet as Alan pointed out above, I'd say that any time the term "starship" is used, we shouldn't automatically assume it's to a Constitution-class vessel, even if it's named after one of the "planned" ones. Plus there's the whole matter that we've tried to limit the amount of Constitutions as much as possible.--Tim Thomason 01:16, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

"Starship Class"

I think it's important for people to realize that the "Starship Class" as it appears on Kirk's original dedication plaque does NOT refer to the actual "model" of starship that Kirk commanded. In TOS there were several "types" of Federation ships, classified under Spaceship or Starship (and non-canonically, Dreadnaught). The SS Beagle commanded by Captain Merrick was classified as a Spaceship, whereas Kirk's ship is classified as a Starship, for example of a canon usage. That's the "class" the plaque is referring to; the classification of the ship, not the actual "model" name. It's easy to go in armed with the high-and-mighty TNG knowledge, assume that TOS simply made mistakes because it wasn't "fully developed" or what-not, and assume that such "mistakes" need to be fixed in order to conform to a different style...but it's not a mistake, it was an intentional decision on the part of the production crew. --Alex Munro 06:53, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

This has really been talked into the ground in the discussion right above this one. --OuroborosCobra talk 07:05, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
The interesting discussion above covers a lot of ground, but I still don't see any canon evidence which justifies the conjecture in the main article that the refit from large dish/large bridge module version to smaller dish/smaller bridge version was reflected in a change of class name from Starship to Constitution. This seems to be purely conjectural and should be removed.--Skon 19:35, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
I never said that the "model" name was changed from Starship to Constitution; the TOS Era Enterprise was a Constitution-model ship then, too. It's just that in Kirk's time the style was NOT to put the ship's model name on the plaque, but instead to put the ship's type, or classification ("class" for short). For example, if the Enterprise was a Dodge Neon car, his plaque would say "Car Class" or something, since it would be classified as a car, as opposed to a van or a truck (driver's licenses do the same thing). It wouldn't say "Neon Class," which is the specific model name. Now, obviously by the time of TMP they changed the style so they WOULD put the model name on the plaque rather than the ship's classification, so in essense, they did decide to put "Constitution Class" (similar to putting "Neon Class" on there, to continue our example) instead of the generic classification "Starship" (similar to putting "Car Class" on the plaque). Hopefully I've explained it better now. :) --Alex Munro 16:21, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Ah, I see. :) Anyway, my focus here was more on what was in the article text.--Skon 16:39, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Apocrypha speculation

Although not stated explicitly, Vulcan and other alien design elements such as from the Vahklas (ENT: "Fusion") apparently went into the original construction of Constitution-class ships. The 2260s marked the last mention of UESPA, suggesting that the various defense and exploration agencies of Federation member worlds were finally combined around this period.

I am removing this note. The first half had been requesting a citation for quite some time, and quite frankly I can't think of one. The second part does not seem to be apocrypha at all, just speculation. --OuroborosCobra talk 04:57, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Landing feet

Landing feet: The Constitution class starship was equipped with landing feet (those two, darker triangle shapes on the underside of the saucer section). However, since they were never used on screen, many believe that they were nonexistent.

This note has gone uncited for 4 months. If it can be cited, it can be returned. --OuroborosCobra talk 05:00, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Phaser power and main reactor post refit

The problem cropped up again to bite them in the ass during the Khan incident when his attack took main power off line, reducing the phasers to "a few shots" (Scotty's words) which Spock proclaimed insufficient to pierce Reliant's shields.Capt Christopher Donovan 03:53, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


I removed:

NCC-1770: The latter starship is seen on a display from The Voyage Home which was sold at It's A Wrap! sale and auction.

Correct me if I am wrong, but looking at the second image here I see an "NX-200" next to an Excelsior icon, and a "NC-177" next to a Constitution icon. Where are we getting "NCC-1770" out of this, or rather, where are we getting the final "0"? --Alan del Beccio 19:28, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Before someone says it, I KNOW "it's speculation", but the "NX-200" obviously has to be Excelsior (it's only 3-4 months since the events in III, and she's the prototype, after all), so the dropped "0" is assumed. Likewise I would with the "0" on the Connie.Capt Christopher Donovan 09:53, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
And the missing second "C" is assumed as well? That's an awful lot of assumptions, and you know what they say about those. :) Let's better not go there... -- Cid Highwind 10:48, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't think it's unreasonable at all...the panel IS a screen used prop...any errors must be the result of a production mistake. You can clearly SEE Excelsior in the FX footage in the film, after all.
I've said it before, and I say it again: reason and logic are our friends...we need to dump this "can't say it without a 'perzact quote' to justify it" mentality.Capt Christopher Donovan 07:31, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't really see how we can assume that the starship is NCC-1770. For all we know, a 0 was dropped from the Excelsior and a 2 from the Conny. Why do mistakes have to be logical?
If anything, I think NC-177 should be created, with a note explaining the obvious mistake in registry, and possibility of it being "NCC-1770".– Cleanse 10:10, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
You make it sound as if "reason and logic" absolutely lead to your result - but that just isn't the case. "NCC-1770" isn't even consistent with the "dropped-zero-theory" you suggest, because the second "C" would still be missing. I could think of a dozen other theories, both "in-universe" and production-wise, that would lead to other assumed registries. -- Cid Highwind 11:09, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Forgive me for saying this bluntly, but Occam's Razor tells us that the simplest explanation is likely the truest. What is simpler, two dropped 0s and a dropped C or inventing even MORE phantom starships?Capt Christopher Donovan 11:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
The "simplest explanation" surely isn't the one that leads to a registry number that hasn't been seen anywhere, not even on this barely visible display graphic we're talking about. -- Cid Highwind 11:52, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
The "simplest explanation" is that it was meant to read NCC-1701 and someone made a typo. -- 12:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
This week's auction [1] has a similar display with NX-2000 and NCC-1707 on it. --James Cody 07:40, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, so much for Occam's Razor. thanks Cody. --Alan 12:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Btw. Why is the NCC-1707 listed as a certain constitution but the ones from op.retrieve are uncertain. Aren't they all really only represented as "constitution icons", for certain. The panels seem to show programmed departure routes for the two ships, and this suspiciously reminds me of the scene scripted for the two controllers in ST4. Where Excelsior and Intrepid are ordered to launch but neither can power up and the doors cant be opened. We all ready speculate the Intrepid to be the Miranda-class ship shown in the beginning of the film. So it really doesn't seem like a 100% certain deal to me. --Pseudohuman 06:57, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Text removed

I removed the following speculative text:

It may be speculated that the major refit of 2266 was the reason the presumably previous Starship-class was renamed Constitution-class while the original dedication plaques were kept, maybe out of a sense of tradition. This would make the USS Constitution the first refitted vessel. This conjecture could also explain the discrepancy between the USS Constitution's NCC-1700 registry and the registry NCC-1017 of the USS Constellation.

-- Renegade54 15:47, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Pre-refit Enterprise

USS Enterprise leaving galactic barrier, remastered
Original Configuration
USS Enterprise (NCC-1701), DS9
Refit 1 Configuration
USS Enterprise-A quarter
Refit 2 Configuration

On the page you see the sidebar saying original configuration............. but that wasn't the original disign. It should be the one next to this. --From TrekkyStar Open Hailing Frequencies 14:17, 26 March 2008 (UTC) So should I add this new sidebar or is it not needed. --From TrekkyStar Open Hailing Frequencies 16:53, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd hold off on it until we have more comments. Personally, I am against. The differences between the first two configurations were extremely minor, and mostly cosmetic. I don't see that as warranting a huge side bar entry. The second refit, the one regarding the TMP configuration, was a major one. Minor cosmetic changes don't need a huge sidebar, just look at Galaxy class, where we do not have all of the various configurations with minor changes that we have seen listed. --OuroborosCobra talk 17:09, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe just the picture of the original? So you can find the different one here. --From TrekkyStar Open Hailing Frequencies 17:58, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

There really is no need to create a sandbox for a sidebar. In fact, you could just mention the original original version in the history, or on the Enterprise page, seeing as it has been noted that there are several subtle variations in the various ships shown from that class. Besides, what appears to the right, the first two are barely indistinguishable, at least compared to the refit. --Alan 18:23, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Just saying it wasn't the original. --From TrekkyStar Open Hailing Frequencies 23:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm willing to sound obtuse... but I'm curious. Can you explain the visual differences between the "prefit", and "refit 1"? I'm not saying I'm for, or against anything, I just don't see a difference. Hossrex 05:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

PNA Tactical Section

Someone really made a mess of the Tactical Section for the original configuration...they started counting every place phaser fire came from and counted that as an emitter, for example. They also tried to pin down exactly which torp tube was where without any evidence I could see for what they claimed and dropped two tubes off the count entirely.

I straightened out what I felt comfortable with right at this juncture. I'd like to see the rest fixed, but the whole section may be better off being rewritten in toto at this point.

What we KNOW, and can prove from dialoge, is at least 6 torp tubes (Elaan of Troyius) w/at least one aft firing (IAMD), and forward, aft, port, and starboard phasers (2 banks each). I may do some digging into the cited references for yet MORE banks, but it will take me some time.

I invite anyone who has the time and reference material to help out as they can...Capt Christopher Donovan 04:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

And what of:
"Given the history of the particle beam weapons established in Star Trek: Enterprise, it must be inferred that all subsequent (early) Earth and Federation starships were mounted with some form of phase weapons. While it was clear in "The Cage" that laser technology was commonplace at that time, the addition of shipboard phaser technology was not known to exist aboard Constitution-class starships until "The Corbomite Maneuver"." (?)
That was removed as well, without reason, nor was it archived (until now), along with everything else that was removed. --Alan 05:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

A) The material you mention is speculation with no canon support, so there is little need to save it.

B) The original texts are saved in the "History" section.

C) It's irrelevant because I broke down and completely rewrote that section to be compliant with what we can SUPPORT in canon (and made a realization that changed things up a bit.

Check out the updated section for changes and full citations.Capt Christopher Donovan 06:11, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know, visual effects ARE CANON, and should NOT be simply ignored. I agree with the argument that the article looks less messy when only sparse information is given in a condensed way, but is that really the point of Memory Alpha, or are we here to give accurate and detailed information. I feel there is a wealth of information concerning the locations of the phaser emitters and torpedo tubes available. Of course there is inconsistency, but I feel the two forward emitters clearly established in "In a Mirror Darkly, Part II" and the two in the remastered episodes of TOS establish where the four forward emitters mentioned in "The Paradise Syndrome" are located. Claiming that there are 8 forward phasers would be speculation and inconsistent with BOTH dialogue and effects.
As for the port and starboard phaser emitters, I don't feel a mention of the emitter locations from the Star Fleet Technical Manual diagram should be totally ignored when that SAME image was prominently used on-screen in ST III (screencap: clearly showing these exact locations. It deserves at least a background note. It would not be right to interpret that the "phaser bank p/s" text in this picture really refers to the refit weapons in similar locations, as a comparison would clearly place them in different positions.
I can accept that "helm phaser" and "forward phaser" may refer to the same thing. Although I have no idea where a line was spoken about "helm phasers" as no citation is given by Capt Christopher Donovan. Is it possible he has mistaken some dialogue, as "helm" is the station on the bridge that fires the phasers... anyway, when the phaser control room tecs give the lines "port weapons show ready" "starboard and midship weapons show ready" in "Balance of Terror", it does NOT make sense that p/s emitters ARE the midship phasers. There is also nothing canonical to indicate there are exactly two banks to cover each flank.
I feel only five torpedo launchers have been definately established in a very clear way. 1 aft launcher above shuttlebay, 1 central forward launcher in the forward nudge of the ring "In a Mirror Darkly Pt. II", two side by side forward launchers on the ring in all the effects of remastered TOS. 1 ventral launcher in the lit bulge at the bottom of the saucer from "More Tribbles, More Troubles". In that same episode a launcher in the ring fires a torpedo, so it is definetly not a "mistake", as they could have just as easily reused the previous shot.
I don't feel that we necessarely need to interpret the dialogue " photon torpedoes 2, 4 and 6. Widest possible scatter" from "Journey to Babel" as indicating that these refer to separate torpedo launchers, as they may JUST AS WELL refer to the armed torpedoes available for rapid fire launch from a single torpedo launcher. Six torpedoes are fired in sequence in "Elaan of Troyus" but again there is NOTHING to indicate they come from more than the three launchers that have been established, as even the effects would indicate this.
I urge anyone to correct the tactical section back to a more accurate form who feels the same way I do. (Pseudohuman 05:33, 17 April 2008 (UTC))

I'll start with the torpedo arguement because it is the easiest: Torpedoes "2, 4, and 6" CANNOT be in a single launcher, as they would have to launch PAST other torpedoes in the same tube, a physical impossibility. We don't see multiple torpedo volleys from a single tube until ST III, when the Enterprise fired 2 from her starboard tube against Kruge's BoP, and later TNG, when the E-D' can fire up to 10 from her tubes.

[Aside from "in universe", 1 topedo = 1 tube would also correspond with the real Navy, which was the main paradigm the writers were working from, particularly submarines, but that is a logic arguement that need not be made in face of the canon facts that already support my statement.]

Now, "IAMD" shows us that Connies DO have aft torpedoes, so we have at least 1 aft firing tube to fire those torpedoes. I COULD have ADDED that tube to the forward tubes and called it a minimum of 7 tubes (note I used the word MINIMUM, because we don't know if there are any other tubes or not. It took the conservative (and in keeping with the evidence) route of allowing that the aft tube could be 1,3, or 5, thus a "minimum of 6 torpedo tubes, one firing aft". On to the phasers. First I wrote this:

A bank actually consisted of a single emitter and it's power supply, though it was common practice to fire two banks at a time and refer to it as a single firing . (TOS: "The Corbomite Maneuver", "The Doomsday Machine", "The Paradise Syndrome")

This accounts for the fact that Constellation fired ONE beam for one bank in "TDM", AND the more typical paired firings seen elsewhere. It also incorporates Sulu's dialogue and the FX from "TPS" ("Phaser One fired" [two beams] "Phaser Two fired" [again two beams], until after "Phaser Four fired" he announces "All phasers fired".

The remainder of what I wrote lays out the numbers and locations:

In the original configuration, eight forward phaser banks are located on the ring structure on the ventral side of the saucer section. Two banks are located above the shuttlebay on the secondary hull. There are also port, starboard, "helm" and "midship" phasers. (ENT: "In a Mirror, Darkly, Part II"; TOS: "Balance of Terror", "The Paradise Syndrome", "Arena", "Friday's Child"; TAS: "The Ambergris Element").

I then restate my logic and evidence as a background note in the article:

It is not clear where the additional banks mentioned in background dialogue and in several episodes are located, and there may be some overlap ("helm"/forward, "midship"/port-starboard, for example). "The Doomsday Machine" establishes that one bank=one emitter, so using that as a basis, the total number of banks on an original configuration Constitution class is a minimum of 12.

I should have made it clear I was allowing 1 emitter each for "port" and "starboard" and assuming that port/starboard = the "midships" weapons and that helm = "forward". So we have 8 forward, 2 aft, and 1 port and 1 starboard bank, for a total minimum of 12 (again note the use IN the article of the word "minimum").

Now, for Pseudohuman's arguement that every little inconsistent FX detail (and the FX for the unremastered Trek ARE horribly inconsistent at times, with beams coming out of every which place, different textures, even different COLORS) is an excuse for adding more and more weapons...I just don't think that adds up, especially in the face of the fact we now have the Remastered versions with corrected FX work.

The only "fly in the ointment" I can see is that if the remastered "Doomsday Machine" shows Constellation firing TWO beams from her 1 charged bank. I haven't seen the remastered ep, nor any screencaps of that particular fx shot. If someone who has the remastered ep could check, we could settle that issue, and I could correct my numbers accordingly...Capt Christopher Donovan 08:45, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

THE FACT IS we have no idea how torpedo launchers are constructed and work in the original Constitution class. We don't even know what a torpedo really looked like during The Original Series. Starships ARE NOT submarines and torpedoes in space have VERY LITTLE to do with torpedoes in the sea, so "real Navy to Star Trek" comparisons are pure SPECULATION and do not belong in an article. If effects show torpedoes 2, 4 and 6 launched from two front tubes, there is no reason to claim PHYSICAL IMPOSSIBILITIES to disregard what is shown on-screen, as those impossibilities rise from SPECULATION. Also, concerning your statement that we dont see a rapid fire launch until STIII, this is also incorrect, as we clearly see a rapid fire launching of torpedoes from a single tube in "In a Mirror Darkly, Part II"
Claiming the effects as PROOF, that 2 beams fire each time when a "phaser" is fired in "The Paradise Syndrome", falls "flat on its ass" as when all four (eight as Capt Christopher Donovan now claims) are simultaneously fired and we ALSO SEE 2 phaser beams firing in both the original and remastered versions of that episode. It is extremely inconsistant to claim there are 8 forward phasers, as you would need to see these 8 phasers firing simultaneously to have proven EFFECTS CONSISTENCY in that episode all the way through! An analysis that manages to contradict both the EFFECTS in the end and the DIALOGUE that speaks of only four phasers is not the one I would vote for. It certainly does not belong in the article as a supposed FACT without as much as a mention of the MASSIVE INCONSISTENCY it spawns from.
The fact that port, starboard and midship phaser weapons ARE established as separate in the dialogue of "Balance of Terror" is clear. It should not be a part of any SPECULATION on an article to say they might all three just be the same two emitters.
Also, let me restate my argument. I don't believe every little TOS original FX inconsistency concerning phaser colors and locations should be taken seriously. (The text I had written included some notes on some of those, as I thought they were important in the context, as they still are canonical.) I do believe that the remastered versions of TOS FX should be regarded as the TRUE version. BUT as there are in addition the "In a Mirror Darkly, Part II" high quality effects and the "More Tribbles, More Troubles" torpedo launch scene that are NEITHER a part on The Original Series, NOR obscurely inconsistent, and as they are CANON, they should be counted in on the Tactical Systems article. --Pseudohuman 21:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I have just completed an edit that I feel is a reasonable balance of specificity and avoids bogging down in too much nitpicking. It is ~80% Psuedohuman's last edit, and ~20% reworked.

This represents an edit I can live with...what say you, Psuedohuman?Capt Christopher Donovan 01:26, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Otherwise It looks okay, but I still DO NOT agree with the SPECULATIVE interpretation that AT LEAST 6 torpedo tubes must exist. Even though naval terminology is heavily used its still just on the word level. Similar numbering of torpedoes was used later on in DS9 "For the Uniform". First firing torpedoes 1 and 2, and then orders to prepare torpedoes 3 and 4. Also the plasma warheads and sefety unlatchings on torpedoes 3 and 4 for example are mentioned, so it's safe to assume they are talking about the actual TORPEDOES and NOT the TUBES. Both interpretations are basically valid BUT again it falls either into the arena of "effects not correcting inconsistancies even in the remastered version" if we interpret them in your way, and NO INCONSISTANSIES WHAT SO EVER if we interpret them my way. And as the policy of Memory Alpha reads: "The presumption should be that a conflict does not exist unless no other explanation is reasonable under the circumstances." I see no support for your interpretation here. --Pseudohuman 05:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Just as a side note, where are Alan, OC, and the others? I thought they were going to chime in on this arguement...

Anyways, Pseudohuman, as a last resort, we can always pull the specific numbers and go with "many" or "multiple" for the quantities. The general preference here is for maximum specificity, BUT it it fends off an edit war, I'd be willing to "go vague".Capt Christopher Donovan 20:27, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

One step in the direction of solving some disputes here would be if we considered the Michael McMaster USS Enterprise Bridge Blueprints (reproduced in their entirety in here. [2]) as a valid background source, unfortunately they seem pretty apocryphical to me. For example there the top row on the helm station panel has the 6 buttons for torpedo tube select according to McMasters, and in the left hand side of the weapons sub-sys station there are again 6 tube controls (although only four controls for tube loading and four for torpedo generators, suggesting that at least two of the generators and loaders might supply two separate tubes, or some other combination...) A wall-screen showing torpedo status has again 6 separate lights (possibly indicating a loaded tube) and a group of 85 lights next to them (possibly suggesting the complete torpedo complement of the ship). Concerning phasers, MacMasters gives us 6 phaser banks (the second row of buttons on the helm). The weapon sub-sys station somehow apparently divides them to primary and secondary phasers both sets with 4 separate energy storage units, totaling in 8. How they would be divided amongs the banks is a mystery. --Pseudohuman 09:09, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Heavy Cruiser Classification

Constitution diagram

Consitution diagram from ST:III

In responce to GhorkovKing's edit, the Connie is definately a heavy cruiser, not a medium cruiser, as can be seen in the image here. Tanky 01:31, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Refit crew

In Star Trek: The Motion Picture refit crew is given by the computer reading out crew status for Decker as: 172 on duty, 248 off duty and 11 in sickbay, that with the 3 dead (the initial transporter accident + Illia, of which we know Sonak was not replaced but i'm assuming the female transporter victim was) plus 1 coming aboard (Spock) would seem to make the standard crew for refit connies as a total of 432 in 2272 and reduced down to 300 by 2293 --Pseudohuman 14:33, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Two torpedoes?

Umm. "Each tube could fire at least two torpedoes before reloading." was added to the tactical section. As far as I know, the original configuration torpedo launchers seemed to simply have a rapid fire capability of single torpedoes at a time as established in "In a Mirror, Darkly, Part II". I know of no canon or even non-canon reference to two torpedo loadings. --Pseudohuman 17:46, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I removed this note as no one has stated where it comes from. --Pseudohuman 16:35, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

The information covers the refit configuration. The Enterprise demonstrated this capacity against Kruge's BoP in ST III.Capt Christopher Donovan 05:15, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah. As I recall, when automation was working they simply had rapid fire capability in both configurations. The fact that they fire two torpedoes while automated to disable a BoP doesn't really count as a fact like this. IMO it's speculation. Scotty specifically stated "All systems automated..." that includes the torpedo reload. No matter how many manual loadings they did in ST2, it was never stated only manual loadings are possible in the refit-configuration. --Pseudohuman 05:37, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

The automation was put in place by Scotty AFTER the events in WoK as a response to the ship's crew being reassigned.
Either way, in TSFS, the torpedoes were fired ONCE, firing TWO torpedoes. Both came from the starboard tube, meaning two casings were in the tube when fired.Capt Christopher Donovan 05:44, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't mean that. Kirk gave the order to fire (torpedoes) and two torpedoes were fired in rapid fire one after the other. Nothing else is known. We do not know if an automated reload happened between the firings or not. Therefore there is no basis to speculate rapid fire can only be accomplished with torpedoes that are loaded into a tube simultaneously. --Pseudohuman 15:55, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Engineering image

Is the use of File:Constitution original engineering.jpg appropriate given the fact that the image of the replica Enterprise? --JemHadar359 06:41, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

It was still identical to the real thing in appearance. and I think thats all that matters. --Pseudohuman 06:50, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Deck Count

In the side-box about the original configuration, it shows a deck count of 30. Virtually every reference I've ever seen or used gives the Constitution class a deck count of either 21 or 23 decks (discounting the rather silly "Deck 78" sign in STV:TFF). Where did this number come from? --Antoniemey 04:38, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

See: this discussion or this topic specific article. --Alan 05:25, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Length, crew complement, and mass of Alternate Reality version

Guys, the length, crew complement, and mass of the Alternate Reality (new movie) configuration make no sense. The length as of now (Monday, May 11, 2009, 9:38 AM EST) is listed as 757m, compared to 289m for the TOS version and 305M for the movie version. Perhaps 757 *feet* is meant? (But that would make it only 230m long...) Also, the crew complement is given as 1100, compared to ~300-450 for the various TOS/movie versions. But more ridiculously still, the mass given is around HALF of that of the TOS/movie versions. What is going on, people?

I have to agree, that size figure is ridiculous. No matter what the "official" size is, the film clearly demonstrates that the ship is more or less the same size as the Constitutions from the original universe. For one thing, when the shuttle carrying Pike, Kirk, Sulu and Olsen leaves the shuttlebay, you can see that the shuttle bay is about the same size as the TOS Constitution. If the ship were 757m long, the shuttlebay would be about 46ft tall. It clearly isn't that tall.
Furthermore, the bridge would be about 75ft across on a 757m ship, which again, it clearly isn't in the film.
Finally, the mass figure would make the ship impossibly "light", as in, it would quite easily float in an ocean at that mass. Clearly, whomever provided that information for those figures didn't do much research, nor know much about Star Trek ships.
I think at least, some notation needs to be made the the size figure is unknown, because of the conflict between the "official" size and the size demonstrated on screen. Rogue Vulcan 02:45, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
What is the source for these dimensions, anyways? We don't even put technical manual stuff in the main article section, I can't imagine some promotional website should be held higher than that. --OuroborosCobra talk 03:06, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
The 757m size comes from here:
And even more ridiculous size of 914m comes from ILM themselves, here: Rogue Vulcan 07:01, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Needs to get removed or put in background only, then. --OuroborosCobra talk 07:03, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

separate page ?

can you explain me, why not a separate page ? C-IMZADI-4 18:29, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree, this is what's being done with the U.S.S. Enterprise articles: USS Enterprise (NCC-1701) vs. USS Enterprise (alternate reality). Seems to me the two Constitution classes are very different ships. Stekev 02:19, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Actually, referencing the new Enterprise as Constitution-class anywhere outside a BtS section is contrary to policy, as there is no IU source for her class yet. What probably needs to happen is all info on the Alternate Constitution class needs to get taken out of the main article and put under BtS, definitely no new article. Dangerdan97 14:57, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
It looks like there's been an edit war and a page protection over this issue, yet no discussion about it. The "alternate reality" (ie, new movie) information is briefly mentioned in the article. What is the current decision on how to handle this, or has a decision not been reached? Stekev 01:49, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Simply because there's no information in the movie that there is an alternate reality constitution class - it's all speculation, though a production source has confirmed it is the constitution class that can only go in the background note. Hence, no page for Constitution class (alternate reality) so there's really nothing to discuss. — Morder 02:21, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Actually, No. If it is stated as being a constitution class in an official bg source, then it can have its own article as an alternate reality. --Alan 20:54, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
In any event, all the Alternate-E info's now in one place in the Background section. Dangerdan97 21:01, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Which absolutely makes no sense... so thanks for complicating things. --Alan 21:03, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Oh, you're quite welcome. Care to season your gratitude with an explanation? Honestly, every time I try to do right by this place, I get slapped in the face. I'll keep trying if I can get a little guidance, though. Dangerdan97 21:08, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
I think there should be a separate page. The Constitution-class page is already an insanely huge mammoth of a read, we should separete a lot of stuff to their own articles, to make this page more readable. such as a "weapon systems of the constitution-class" etc. Because there is a lot of details more on that subject that could be noted in MA. --Pseudohuman 13:40, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Looks like it's been moved out to a seperate article. Good call. Stekev 16:27, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Ejecting the Nacelles?

It has been suggested that both The Apple and The Savage Curtain reference the ability of the nacelles to be ejected. However, that word is never used. In the Apple, Kirk says, "discard" the nacelles and "crack out of there with the main section", which Scotty describes as dangerous. In the Savage Curtain, Kirk says "disengage the nacelles and jettison them if possible". In both cases, there is no clear indication that the nacelles can be separately jettisoned from the secondary engineering hull and in the case of the The Savage Curtain, doing so may not even be possible. In the case of the Apple, with the background of the early script draft including a saucer separation, it seems clear that "discard the nacelles" meant "saucer separation", especially in light of the complete dialogue exchange between Kirk and Scotty. Savage Curtain presents a more complicated analysis in that disengage and jettison can be interchangeable. Rather than assume Kirk is being redundant, the most logical assumption is that he means "turn off" the warp nacelles so as to nullify the explosive build-up and try to jettison them in some way failing that, the actual possibility of which being in question. Certainly saucer separation is one dangerous possibility suggested in the Apple which does not specifically come up here, though he does not have the time to go into great detail before he is cut off. Of course, Kirk could just as well be referring to turning off the warp drive (nacelles) and separating from them (the secondary hull) using impulse power alone of the saucer section, which is essentially the same procedure proposed in the Apple. About the only thing that can actually be concluded from these two episodes is that 1) separating any of the sections of the ship is dangerous, and 2) separating the nacelles from the secondary engineering hull may not be possible -- 07:27, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Suggested article split

I'm thinking it is getting to be time to split off the sections regarding the various studio models into their own article. While I greatly appreciate the recent additions by Sennim, the background section (especially studio model) info is getting longer than the whole of the rest of the article, including the canon section. --OuroborosCobra talk 02:06, October 11, 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. If there is so much information about it, it deserves to have its own article, not only to make this one clearer, but to make the information more prominent.--31dot 02:18, October 11, 2009 (UTC)
Greetings, I'm glad you like my contributions. I've to admit I was as surprised as you to discover that there was that much to tell about the Constitution-class models (and I have yet to cover the TMP-model). While in this specific case it is true that a split is certainly worthwhile thinking about, I wonder if we should enter this path. If we do it in this case then, for internal consistency, we must do this for all ship-classes and for those the story is a whole lot shorter. My personal opinion is: let it be it is a one-off situation, but if a majority decides otherwise, I'll comply...--User:Sennim
First off, I agree with the split. Second, I'm of the opinion that all the "hero" ship classes could have this type of information split off, but the rest really aren't long enough to warrant it. An article for model information on all ship classes could be an option. - Archduk3:talk 03:01, October 11, 2009 (UTC)

edit conflict I don't think so (on the "must be done to all ship class articles" thing). Splits can be done on a case by case basis where enough material warrants it. This is done on Wikipedia all the time, where (for example) an article on one region may include the complete history text, as there isn't much of it, while another article will have its history section split off. We do that on Memory Alpha already as well. See Ktarian, which has its entire history section internal to the article, while Klingon has history split off into Klingon history. Different articles with different volumes of information often require different solutions. Now, we may see the need to apply this elsewhere to other articles, sure, but we don't have to apply it universally for consistency's sake. YMMV --OuroborosCobra talk 03:04, October 11, 2009 (UTC)

Greetings, I had a couple of days to let this topic run through my mind. I'm still not convinced a split is really warranted. As I already stated, this particular case is an exception concerning its length (it is remarkable what little there is too tell about the Intrepid-class model for example), secondly this being a "featured article" it is kinda nice to show that there is so much to tell both about the fictional existence of the class as well as it "real life" existence. In my mind at least it has truly become a show-piece article, well researched by all contributors and well-balanced, but again that's only my opinion.
I appreciate the suggestions of Archduke3, but I foresee problems with his suggestions. A first one he has already mentioned himself: some articles would be extremely short, others extremely long, when put in a separate article concerning model-information. A separate entry under "hero-models" has not only this problem also, but an additional one concerning the term "hero-model" itself, it would open the path to endless discussion which model to include and which not. My opinion is; let's not open this can of worms...Still if the webmasters find a split from a practical standpoint worthwhile, I'll have no qualms about it, but my suggestion would be a split along the lines of the fictional history (in-universe) and a real-world history (from a production point-of-view). I think this then would be the most elegant option...Have a nice day all.--User:Sennim
I don't think the idea was to create an article "Hero models", but just to restrict separate model articles to those cases where it would be sensible to do a split. So, we would have a real-world article Constitution class model (or similar), but not an article Oberth class model because there's not enough information for that. -- Cid Highwind 14:44, October 14, 2009 (UTC)
Completely agree with a split and agree that it should be limited as Cid suggests. — Morder (talk) 23:43, November 6, 2009 (UTC)
Well, I'm still of the opinion that this article, being a "featured article" is the very best Memory Alpha can offer; i.e. a very well researched in-universe part versus a very well researched Production POV, and as such should not be split. Yes, it is very long but where is the harm in that? As of now the "in-universe" part is roughly as long as the "real-universe" part...Is this bad, methinks not, it only shows that that it matters. Splitting off, let's say the the model-parts is acknowledging those who consider us nutcases, like it or not. And if a split is in order, I cannot stress enough the need to do this along "logical" lines, which is in-universe versus "out-universe", for if anything else you WILL open a can of worms you'll live to regret.Sennim 02:25, November 7, 2009 (UTC)

First off, the slippery slope argument is a logical fallacy to start with, and you haven't established what type of can of worms you'd be opening. The only one I've seen you suggest is the "everything or nothing" approach, which we've already said would not happen. There isn't even anything logical about doing that. Splitting this off doesn't treat you as a nutcase, deleting it would treat you as a nutcase. Splitting it off, if anything, elevates its importance. It could be a featured article in its own right. Hell, I think it should be a featured article. The fact is that MA is, first and foremost, a canon wiki written from an in-universe POV. That is the harm, here. This article isn't a real world article, it is an in-universe article, but half of it (possibly more than half, soon) is not in-universe. We could have the majority of the Jadzia Dax article be about the real world person that was on screen, Terry Farrell, but we don't. This is pretty much the same thing, the majority of this article has become not about the Constitution class, but about models made by people in the 20th century to play the part of Constitution class on camera. --OuroborosCobra talk 02:47, November 7, 2009 (UTC)

The "harm" in this article being long is that both parts of it are drowned out by each other, and no one can appreciate or learn about either. Separating them helps people read them, and as Cobra said, both could and probably should be featured articles individually.--31dot 02:51, November 7, 2009 (UTC)
If we split this, I'm seconding what OuroborosCobra said above, in that we nominate the model article for FA status at the same time, since by itself it's already one of the best articles we have. - Archduk3:talk 03:26, November 7, 2009 (UTC)
I do see the point you make OuroborosCobra, and to a large degree I go along with your reasoning. "The can of Wurms"-scenario was intended for future reference...I myself will not resist splitting the article as I have stated before (though it has not my preference, but hey, I'm entitled to my opinion is it not?), what I merely intended to say was we need to have a sort of guideline when and how to do this in order to avoid ambiguity in future cases. But I do not go along with your comparison of Terry Farrell, she was born as such and no matter what she'll always be Terry Farrell...Not so the model of the Enterprise, even in Real Life she was always intended to be the Enterprise...(not a nasty remark, if I could have inserted smileys I've would have, in abundance)Sennim 04:19, November 7, 2009 (UTC)
Oh, before I forget, on behalf of William McCullars, David Shaw and myself thank you for your kind words OuroborosCobra and Archduk3--Sennim 05:02, November 7, 2009 (UTC)
There is a serious need for some removal of unnecessary information, such what could be interpreted as "original research" presented below (Nevermind the awful formatting):
*In two instances the suspected saucer separation capabilities of the Constitution-class came very close to becoming canon. The first instance occurred in footage of the debris field shown in "The Best of Both Worlds, Part II"; Both the engineering hull and the saucer section separated from each other have been positively identified as belonging to the Constitution-class [3]. However since it can also be argued that this could have resulted from battle damage it remains non-canonical. The second instance concerned the USS Olympia whose crashed saucer section could be seen in "The Sound of Her Voice" along with a severed nacelle from a Constitution-class starship (those two parts already having been used as debris of the exploding USS Odyssey in "The Jem'Hadar"). A behind-the-scenes photo clearly showed that the saucer landed in the same fashion as the Enterprise-D in Star Trek Generations [X]wbm (the model landscape build by Gregory Jein). But again, since the visuals are open to multiple interpretations and since the ship is not further commented upon (neither in dialogue or computer read-outs), the capability remains debatable. In both instances (parts of) the battle-damaged version of the studio model, slightly modified, of the Enterprise from Star Trek III: The Search for Spock were used (photos in Cinefantastique Vol.28, No4/5, page 64 and Vol.25/26, No.6/1 page 109).
Also the section in the background about the NCC origin is irrelevant to this article (especially when going as far as to cite a MA forum as a source of debate) and can be presented on NCC. --Alan 15:53, December 1, 2009 (UTC)
I'm am not so sure about the unnecessary nature of those two remarks. In case of the saucer separation, while no statement can be made either way, as reflected in the text, the visual imagery is there and thus canon. Simply ignoring that is a bit too easy a way out, in my view. In the case of the registry, I understand the reasoning behind that, but this, in my view is a specific case, it is the very first such number and was specifically designed for the Enterprise which happened to be a Constitution-class vessel.--Sennim 09:23, December 2, 2009 (UTC)
...but still nevertheless irrelevant to the Constitution class, in as far as MA operates...or any encyclopedia or wiki would, for that matter. Build the web, and all that jazz. Second, visual imagery is that of wreckage, at least in canon. --Alan 15:39, December 3, 2009 (UTC)
<blockqoute>On occasion, it is necessary or appropriate to include commentary about an unusual or contested point of information in an article. If there is a sufficient amount of information, it should be contained in a separate section, named:==Background Information==Alternatively, comments and information may be described in a short paragraph (no longer than three sentences) </blockquote>...This text is literally from the MA style guidelines. So since the "separation" text was contained in a background article, the "in-universe" argument Alan put forth is void in my view, though he makes a very strong point were the article put in a "in-universe" POV, which it was not. After some consideration I've come to agree with him on the registry-issue. Though it was originally designed for the NCC-1701, it has become a generic denomination for Star Fleet vessels. Transferral of the text to the entry "Registry number" seems to be in order.--Sennim 04:14, December 6, 2009 (UTC)


So the studio models and designing sections are even larger now then before, so split to Constitution class model (as suggested above)? Any other issues with these sections could be sorted out after the split. - Archduk3 20:29, February 12, 2010 (UTC)

I'm no longer resisting a split, I've to agree that the article is becoming cumbersome, especially since I know that there are some additions forthcoming. I only hope y'll treat my baby gently. The suggestion I would like to make is to have only section 4.3 separated and put that under the heading Constitution class studio models and leave the rest in place. - Sennim 21:04, February 12, 2010 (UTC)

Lost image?

In the section Designing the Motion Picture Enterprise interiors, the following sentence seems to have lost its referent:

The image to the right shows the plate of the cargo deck scene, filmed from Kirk's perspective as he enters the new Enterprise.

I presume there was an image there at one point, and it's since been removed or deleted. I haven't been through the article history to see when it was lost, because I thought somebody might remember what happened. If we can figure that out and restore the image, that would be great; otherwise, the sentence should be removed or reworded. —Josiah Rowe 03:17, September 12, 2010 (UTC)

PNA on a Featured Article?

This is supposed to be a Featured Article yet there is a PNA on it at the bottom of the page. Is this intentional or a mistake? -- TrekFan Open a channel 20:01, January 28, 2011 (UTC)

The PNA is on information that was added post-FA. Fix it and we're all good. It stays, someone should eventually put it up for FA removal. -- sulfur 20:04, January 28, 2011 (UTC)
To be quite honest, I do see the confusion on TrekFans part, I've no idea what the PNA is referring to...Sennim 22:18, January 28, 2011 (UTC)

That was my point. It's just...there. Usually, they are located in specific sections which made me think this one was there by mistake. Can anyone see what this might be referring to? If not, should we remove it? -- TrekFan Open a channel 22:20, January 28, 2011 (UTC)

I don't have a clue what it is referring to. Zeta1127 of the 89th Legion (talk) 22:24, January 28, 2011 (UTC)
It was added here. Having said that, the user didn't add anything to the talk page about it. Instead, it was added to a different page, apparently by accident. It's now been added immediately below this section. -- sulfur 22:32, January 28, 2011 (UTC)

PNA formatting

I started working on getting rid of the ugly and kludgy "image dump" galleries and formatting the images into the article more organically. That way the image supports the text it illustrates better and makes the article more pleasing to the eye. As this is such a core page, I would think those qualities would be of great importance.

However, my browser is fighting with MA right now, esp on these BIG articles. Any help in advancing this project would be very appreciated.Capt Christopher Donovan 08:43, September 12, 2010 (UTC)

I've adressed Capt. Donovans concerns about the "imagedumps" as best as I could...In my opinion the article is now aesthetically pleasing (that is until the next skin change of course :))...Any thoughts about warranting the PNA, which I think is now resolved?---Sennim 12:56, April 21, 2011 (UTC)

Citations needed

The following notes have been in the article without citation for a few months now. Removed here pending citation:

  • One issue with the bridge design is the single offset turbolift. The location does not line up with the Enterprise model, which shows a turbolift alcove directly behind the main bridge. According to Jefferies, this offset placement was necessary to allow characters to walk onto the bridge and photographed without being blocked by actors sitting in the command chair.
  • Jefferies also mentioned that Spock's sensor hood is a tip of the hat to early RADAR used by World War II battleships. Ambient room light would wash out the weak signals of early RADAR imagery, so hoods were used to cover RADAR screens. Because modern RADAR imagery is brighter, viewing hoods are no longer needed.

Cleanse ( talk | contribs ) 23:22, December 6, 2011 (UTC)

Citation found for note 3--Sennim (talk) 10:25, July 25, 2012 (UTC)

Split to Constitution class and Constitution (Refit) class ?

Do we not think it's about time there were separate articles for the Constitution class and the Constitution (Refit) class?

For all intents and purposes, they're entirely different designs and systems. At the moment the article is very long and often confusing, having to mention features multiple times because of their differences. For instance the tactical systems section is messy - it's hard enough to describe the original Constitution class' weapons since cannon is so hazy on it, never mind combining that with the refit. Systems such as the impulse engines are unclear as to if the information listed refers to the original or refit.

While they are the same class in name, they're so very different. For ease of reading and finding out information about each version, shouldn't they be split?

Thanks, Millionsknives (talk) 20:42, January 15, 2013 (UTC)

Oppose a split. This has been discussed at least once before. As Cobra said on that discussion, modern naval vessels are not considered part of a different class if they are upgraded or refitted, and I don't see a reason to do so here. Starfleet has apparently designed its vessels to be easily upgraded (replaceable bridge modules, computer upgrades, for starters) so separating out upgrades into a different article would draw a distinction that Starfleet doesn't. 31dot (talk) 22:15, January 15, 2013 (UTC)
Oppose; For very much the same reasons as 31dot states. Furthermore, even if this was considered, consistency would then dictate a further split between the Pilot Connie and the revised Connie of the regular series, which would be too much of a stretch IMHO..--Sennim (talk) 14:11, January 16, 2013 (UTC)
Oppose; i also agree with 31dot. They are Constitution class starships, one with old tech and one with upgraded tech.--TyphussJediVader (talk) 15:07, January 16, 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to just clear up that the debate is not *if* they're the same class; cannon states they are so there's no debate there. (I think my "For all intents and purposes, they're entirely different designs and systems." has been misunderstood as doubting if they're the same class or not. Sorry!)

But instead we should focus on what is best for the wikia - in terms of navigation, finding out information, and clarity of subject matter. This article is unique that is has so much to cover on one class of ship, which had two radically different designs in its life cycle. Cramming this all under one extremely lengthy article seems detrimental, when there's such an obvious divide where the article could be split in two. It would make it much neater/clearer/easier to describe each design. Surely this outweighs keeping it as one page purely for its namesake?

For a standard wikipedia page where items are summarised it would make sense to keep it all under one page, but being a dedicated Star Trek wikia, where we describe elements in such detail, it would seem prudent to split it?

Thanks for discussing! Millionsknives (talk) 13:20, January 17, 2013 (UTC)

Just FYI, it's "canon", not "cannon".
I'm not convinced that it would aid in navigation and finding information; splitting it up makes it harder to find, not easier, aside from giving the impression that it is something separate(even if that's not the intent). 31dot (talk) 13:30, January 17, 2013 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I think this suggestion should not be opposed based solely on a nearly seven years old discussion. At the time, the article was just 2/3 of what it is now, and, as has been explained, the split was suggested for a completely different reason then. Looking at the article, I see that it already uses two sidebars (suggesting that there are, in fact, two different topics to talk about) and, skimming through parts of the article, it seems as if the prose is switching from original to refit design and back again a little too often. On the other hand, parts of the article can't really be restricted to either one of the suggested sub-articles (to name just one example, where would the list of "Ships commissioned" go?), so that, in case of a split, it would probably be necessary to keep one "main" article that also has information that is common to both designs, and a "sub" article just talking about the other design. I think it is not that easy to tell whether that would make things more or less complicated - perhaps a temp-page split of the current article is in order, so that we can see what we're talking about? -- Cid Highwind (talk) 14:02, January 17, 2013 (UTC)
I'm certainly open to a temp page to see any proposed changes; I think a subpage could work if done right. 31dot (talk) 14:15, January 17, 2013 (UTC)
I think the best solution would be to have two main sections in the article (one for original, one for refit) with both sections having their own sub-sections each of technical information, ships comissioned, etc. - Mitchz95 (talk) 16:37, January 17, 2013 (UTC)
How exactly would you perform the split of the current "Ships commissioned" section, then? Take the USS Emden, for example: it is listed as an "uncertain" member of this class because it had a refit-Constitution icon on some display. However, we can't be sure whether that ship was was actually refit just like the Enterprise, or if it was built as a refit-Constitution - which means that we can't really decide whether it should appear on both lists or just one of them. In turn, that means this hypothetical split would need to be performed in a way that keeps a single "Ships commissioned" list intact, or else we'd be inventing stuff. The remaining suggestion might work, though - separate technical stuff to different sections first, and then see whether splitting to different articles would be sensible. -- Cid Highwind (talk) 17:03, January 17, 2013 (UTC)
One way of going about this might be to split the refit specific info, not so much as a new class page, but a page about all the things that were changed for the refit version of the constitution class. so the "constitution class" page would be the class page detailing all the original configuration info and listing the ships and a ship class page and the new "constitution class refit" page would be an account of the upgrades and would be a sort of technology page only. --Pseudohuman (talk) 18:11, January 17, 2013 (UTC)
1000 times no. The least reason being that this is a wiki, not a "wikia". The paramount reason being that we only have one Starfleet article, for good reason, and same logic applies here: the refit is just continuation of the original design. While this could be split, the problems with doing that far outweigh any benefits. It would be like splitting Data based on how old his head is, of if he has an emotion chip. - Archduk3 05:44, January 18, 2013 (UTC)
I don't see how my suggestion would be that much different to how we sometimes split off species history from a species article when there is a lot of historical references. or how we split off decks info from ship class pages. --Pseudohuman (talk) 09:08, January 18, 2013 (UTC)
We have a Galaxy class model article separate from our Galaxy class article, although model information is combined with in-universe class information in other cases. Our list of Starfleet personnel is split in more articles than I'm willing to count at the moment, although all of them just contain people working for Starfleet. We have four different articles for TOS on VHS, LaserDisc, DVD and Blu-ray, although it could be argued that it's more or less the same thing in every case - a release of all 79 episodes, plus some or other bonus videos. So, the argument that we shouldn't split this article because we generally don't split any article is just wrong. We do it in other cases if the combined information would be overwhelming for a single article, or the resulting article structure too confusing. Whether that is the case here should be discussed based on information from this article alone. -- Cid Highwind (talk) 11:09, January 18, 2013 (UTC)
I think Pseudohuman might be on the right track, if this is done. That might also be what Millionsknives was suggesting in the first place but I was confused at the time. I'm still willing to see a test page of this before giving my final opinion. 31dot (talk) 11:17, January 18, 2013 (UTC)
I do not think the discussion is about "to split or not to split", but about the feasibility of it. Pseudohuman has, in regard to the decks, a partial point here and I can follow his reasoning (Personally, I would not have split off the decks from the main article, but that aside). Nevertheless, I too still think splitting off "upgrade" from main is both unnecessary and potentially "messy" in regard to allocating information, both in-universe and background (as it is so intertwined), and is more trouble than it is worth, partly for the same consistency reason I stated earlier; how then to handle the Pilot and Series upgrades (or for that matter the two varying appearances of the Ambassador-class and eventual others). But I too would be willing to defer judgment to see how a test page would work out --Sennim (talk) 11:29, January 18, 2013 (UTC)
[Edit conflicts] - MA is flat, so we don't have "sub" articles, though we do have articles for specific info about something, which is reflected in the title. Constitution-class decks is for all info about the decks of the Constitution-class, so Constitution-class (refit) would be for all information about the refit ships, including all the shared info. There isn't a practical way to limit the article to only the differences, nor should we, unless the article is titled as such. Any title I can think of sounds like just the type of thing we've merged into pages like this before, for a number of reasons.
The only reason to split this would be to make it easier to read, because we know that no implicit distinction between the original and refit configurations was made in-universe, at least so far as both of them were labeled as just Constitution-class, so any split would have to make both articles more user friendly than a combined one. It won't though, since the issue with the ships list is only the first thought of problem with this. There will be linking issues (we can't get people to format the links right now). There will be title/name issues as part of the linking problem, since "refit Constitution-class" or "Constitution-class refit" were never used in canon as far as I know, meaning we can only use the "refit" part as a descriptive disambiguation, and it seems to me that, excepting the Enterprise-class thing, an effort was made to not make a name distinction between the two. Related articles, like the Constitution-class deck and model articles, should be split if this one is along with similar articles like the Excelsior and Miranda-class. I don't see a net gain in treating these articles like that when the only issue is this one is a little long. It's not like it's Worf long. - Archduk3 11:46, January 18, 2013 (UTC)

The current set-up isn't beneficial to ease of reading or finding out information at all. I just watched Star Trek II & III and wanted to read up on the Constitution class refit, it's design, geeky technical notes etc. The best the wiki can offer is a page where 1/2 the contents are essentially about a different topic - the original constitution class design. The article often switches between talking about the two designs, and it's sometimes unclear which information is about the first class design or the refit, and all because the articles are together based on a technicality that they're the same class name. Is that really best set up? (Again, I don't deny they're the same class at all. This is a unique situation, though.)

Using Worf as a comparison; with Worf there's not the same issue. If someone wants to read about his relationship with Dax, they go to that section and the information is clear. However, if someone want's to read about the Refit's crew Quarters, they go to the Quaters section and it's difficult to find out the relevant information, because it's mixed in (and in this case especially badly) with the original design information. It's just not clear or efficient. This article discusses two versions of the same class which are essentially entirely different entities. It's like if the Worf and Dax articles were merged together because they were married in canon.

You're right that the reason to split would be to make it easier to read and easier to find out information - which is a valid reason for a split as isn't that why we have the wiki in the first place? It may not be particularly easy to sort this out due to linking issues etc, but laziness shouldn't stop us improving the wiki. Dividing this article into two sections on one page would help solve the issue in the short term, and it would make a (future) split easier.

For readers that want to look up the original Constitution class design, it's a better experience, and for readers that want to look up the Refit design, it's a better experience, and for readers who want to know about both, it's clearer on each design and the other information is just one click away. Everyone seems to win, don't they? Thanks, Millionsknives (talk) 14:45, January 18, 2013 (UTC)

Oppose and this time definitely. While I was willing to wait and see how a split-off trial page would come across, none has been forthcoming. So for all the reasons already stated no split-off should be pursued. - Sennim (talk) 21:57, February 22, 2013 (UTC)
For it i love ST, and the Connies but lets face the facts this article has to be the largest one on this Wiki and with books still being written about them the page will get larger, so how about a compromise, move the background information section down to a new page with a link to it on the main page call the main page "Constitution Class" and the new page "Constitution Class Background" that way the main page is the information that tells us about the ship as seen from 1960's-1990's (including the Cage, TOS, and TMP upgrades) and the new page is for people that wants to know the stuff that is "real world" information, i do think the Cage's Enterprise is the 1st "of the fleet yards" model and should have the side bar information she had a smaller crew and less advanced look then Kirk's. just my 2 sense Chasemarc (talk) 21:37, February 22, 2013 (UTC)
@Chasemarc...interesting suggestion to split off the background info, though I do not think we are there yet. You're right in assuming that there is far more info to add, and I should know since much of the BG info is from my hand, and I know there is so much more. Nevertheless, to return to the matter at hand, a Connie is a Connie, upgraded or not, so refit or non-refit, it matters not, they, as far as in-universe information is concerned, should stick together... - Sennim (talk) 05:30, February 23, 2013 (UTC)
Support (conditional). I'm tooting in partly because something I said 7 years ago is being used to oppose a split, though I think that issue of it has already been dealt with. While these are the same class, they are, on a design level, very different from one another and we have a lot of information for before and after refit. I'd like to see test pages made of both before and after refit articles before throwing full support in, but I do think there is enough info to warrant the split. Sennim, you've raised concerns on how to handle the incremental upgrades and whether they need to be split. The answer is, well, no we don't. No one is above is forcing us to do that, and we can use our common sense and say that the TOS series era modifications were incredibly minor compared to the major refit done for TMP. Those incremental series upgrades can be covered in the pre-refit article, and the movie configuration in the refit article. We've done splits before, as needed. This article is already such an example, as shown in our discussion about splitting off the model information. Sennim, during that discussion, you raised similar concerns about a split forcing us to do others. I hope that, by now, you've seen that wasn't the case then, and therefore will not be the case now. As I said four years ago, "splits can be done on a case by case basis where enough material warrants it." I believe that it is warranted for the refit-Connie info, and not for the series incremental upgrades pre-refit.
By the way, Archduk3, MA is not "flat" and we do have subarticles when they are warranted due to volume of content. As I said 4 years ago, "Ktarian, which has its entire history section internal to the article, while Klingon has history split off into Klingon history." --OuroborosCobra talk 03:29, February 26, 2013 (UTC)
Actually OC, MA is explicitly flat. I suggest you re-read what I wrote there, because an article on specific information about a subject isn't a "sub-article", it's just an article. Klingon history covers all of Klingon history, it doesn't pick and choose what parts of that history to cover while Klingon covers the rest. Any article about the Connie refit would, and should, cover all the relevant info, not just what's different when compared to the original(s), because we would be creating the article "Constitution class (refit), not the subpage "Constitution class/refit". - Archduk3 10:34, February 26, 2013 (UTC)
And the guideline you linked to uses "flat" with the special meaning of "not using hierarchical article names, like 'Federation/Starships'" (see Memory Alpha:Subpages). It doesn't talk about article splits at all. -- Cid Highwind (talk) 11:07, February 26, 2013 (UTC)
Archduk3, if I am understanding you correctly, your primary opposition to splitting this article is concern over what the split contents would be, right? You don't want to see something where a "Constitution class (refit)" became just a list of differences between the refit and original configuration? In that case, I agree entirely with your concern, I just don't agree that the solution is to oppose a split. That's why my support is conditional; I want to see a proposed split article written up. I agree entirely with you that it should be a full article that "cover[s] all the relevant info, not just what's different when compared to the original(s)." I think we can do that. We have a lot of content for a full article. The refit configuration has just as distinct an appearance, warp drive, interior, defense systems, even a possible ship list, as almost any other Starfleet ship class. We would have to be clear that it isn't a distinct ship class, but an refit of the original configuration, but that goes into how we write it.
Earlier, you raised concerns that this could open problems of creating articles like "Data before/after the emotion chip." To that, I respond the same as I have Sennim. We are capable of using common sense to decide how to split our articles. I will grant that an example like Data, since he is a machine, is an attractive example since starships are also machines... but we wouldn't split an article like Worf that way specifically because, no matter the time, Worf was the same individual. Data may be a machine and the emotion chip may be analogous to a "refit," but we treat him as an individual person, rather than a machine, in our article. We can use common sense and say "that doesn't warrant a split." --OuroborosCobra talk 15:13, February 26, 2013 (UTC)
OC: My primary problem with splitting these is I don't agree with the most of reasons given. I don't find the article that long, and if there are parts that are confusing we should at least try to improve the language before resorting to splitting the article, if only because it should be easier to split with clearer language. That said, I too am interested in how a split page would look, but I'm not convinced that should be our first, second, or even third option when addressing the problems raised.
Cid: Our naming conventions and how we deal with subpages, along with how we define, describe, and balance our articles makes it pretty clear we don't want articles where relevant information is purposely left out because another article "above" it already covers it. Pseudohuman's suggestion was to create a "sub article" where relevant info was left out because the article "above" it had already covered it. I'm saying creating a page covering just the differences after the refit is the worst way we could go about splitting these, because we're going to have to, and should for that matter, treat each configuration equally, per the guidelines and the realities of how MA works. - Archduk3 20:27, February 26, 2013 (UTC)
@OC:You're right in the matter of my objecting way back then, i.e. splitting off the studio model section. I've come around in my views then. But in that particular case it, eventually, has proven to be relatively easy, as it turned out to be a sharply-defined real world subject that could be easily split off, without ramifications for the in-universe article. Splitting off the whole "refit" thing is IMHO a whole different matter altogether, as it does have "in-universe" ramifications for the article. Though I'm still very much opposed to the notion on principle (a Connie is a Connie, and article length is NO reason whatsoever), I'm willing to see how a test page would work out, though I highly doubt that anybody is willing to do the, in my view, quite considerable work entailed with such an endeavor.--Sennim (talk) 06:51, March 9, 2013 (UTC)

two Questions that might have been asked before

I have found a cool .GIF that shows the ENTERPRISE (pre-Refit) "turning" into the ENTERPRISE (Refit) located at the following website [4] was wondering if that wold be useful on this page? if so I'll let someone that can edit web pages better then me add it Chasemarc (talk) 06:00, May 24, 2013 (UTC)

second Question I know the Budge issues of the 1960's prevented it but in any Books, or Behind the scenes information after the Motion Picture came out did Gene or anyone ever say that the Constitution class Mark-I (the Cage) or Mark-II (seasons 1-3) have a Warp Core like the Constitution Class Mark-III (Refit) that goes all a way down the Engineering Deck (like what we think of as the Warp Core)? Chasemarc (talk) 06:08, May 24, 2013 (UTC)

As far as I know the concept of a centralized "warp core" intermix chamber was invented in TMP. Before that, the elements of the warp drive were just various machinery spread throughout the ship accessible in different rooms and through jefferies tubes. The canonical connie msd seen in Star Trek Enterprise was as far as I know the first time we saw schematics of a centralized warp core under the engineering in a pre-refit connie.
Star Trek Blueprints from the 70s by Franz Joseph was based on the idea that the pre-refit connie nacelles featured all the components of the warp drive inside them, fuel storage and matter/antimatter integrator with dilithium crystals directly before the white bulb at the back of the nacelle, which was the space/warp generator. [5] according to that, the engineering seen in TOS was just the impulse engineering at the back of the saucer section. [6] But this was before the writers invented the idea on warp coils, so this concept was "retconned" in the canon constitution class msd. --Pseudohuman (talk) 07:14, May 24, 2013 (UTC)

so the short answer is as of Star Trek: Enterprise: In the Mirror Darkly it is canon that the pre-refit Connie has a centralized "warp core" intermix chamber, Scotty just loved the Impulse Engineering deck more, thanks Chasemarc (talk) 08:04, May 24, 2013 (UTC)

any answer to the first question i had about that GIF of that shows the ENTERPRISE (pre-Refit) "turning" into the ENTERPRISE (Refit)? or since it's not from a Paramount website it's not usable on MA?Chasemarc (talk) 08:04, May 24, 2013 (UTC)

Well, the engineering that was identified by Joseph as the impulse engineering was relocated in the Star Trek Enterprise MSD to the secondary hull too, to behind the shuttlebay. [X]wbm --Pseudohuman (talk) 08:39, May 24, 2013 (UTC)
The GIF would only be useable in a background section (because we can't say for sure that this is a valid depiction of the refit process), and could only be used there if we get permission from the creator. Personally, I believe that we don't need that sort of animation if we have images of the ship before and after, plus a description of the changes. -- Cid Highwind (talk) 08:49, May 24, 2013 (UTC)

Around Wikia's network

Random Wiki