Talk:Constitution class/archive

This is an archive of (most) all talk topics prior to Sept 2005.

Footnotes Style
Kobi, I have honestly no idea why you changed that. It looks very disorganized now. I think it looked more clear in the previous version. Ottens 16:20, 3 Jul 2004 (CEST)


 * I'm sorry, but the ** looks better if you ask me, because the single : does not give the same indent as the *; of course I would be happy if there were no discs in front of the "evidence paragraphs", something which could be accomplished with 

 to force the line break (other than that, you have written an impressive article here) -- Kobi 17:52, 3 Jul 2004 (CEST)


 * Now it looks like the paragraphs below "Enterprise class" are three different point. They are not. They are simply three different paragraphs.

Thanks ;) Ottens 18:21, 3 Jul 2004 (CEST)

Thumbnailed Images & Sidebars
I tried to use normal thumbnails for the images, but with quite a lot of images, the page looks very disorganized this way. Therefore, I decided to put them all in two large sidebars... Ottens 15:40, 3 Jul 2004 (CEST)


 * Shouldn't the sidebar about "Original Configuration" go with the text about the "Original Configuration", just like the sidebar about the "Refit Configuration" is next to the text about the "Refit Configuration"? Now the sidebar about the "Original Configuration" is next to the intro text, which is about the Constitution class in whole. Ottens 20:56, 3 Jul 2004 (CEST)


 * cough* Captainmike? ;) Ottens 17:42, 5 Jul 2004 (CEST)


 * Well, I do see your point about that, however the bulk of the article creates a long TOC at the top, so placing the table below that creates a situation where there is no information on the page when loaded. Perhaps the Constitution class refit deserves its own article, since it is making this one unreadable?


 * I'll rearrange a little, in case you don't like that option -- Captain Mike K. Bartel 17:46, 5 Jul 2004 (CEST)


 * I was thinking about giving the Refit its own page, but I think that is very unpractical. People would look for info about the Constitution class, and it's probably easier to have both the Original and the Refit on the same page... and it's easier linking to it then for writers. Ottens 17:50, 5 Jul 2004 (CEST)


 * Creating individual pages for both would, however, solve the problem. Plus the current page is quite long, eh. Ottens 17:52, 5 Jul 2004 (CEST)


 * Actually, I see another problem that has been nagging me for a while. How come the article is purely about the internal arrangement of the USS Enterprise (NCC-1701) but there is no information about the arrangement in THAT article? since starships classes differ from ship to ship, isn't this information misplaced (similar to all the misplaced information in the  article -- notes about the USS Excelsior's internal arrangement belonged in USS Excelsior, not in the  article, and i think that is what's happening here. The Enterprise is only one ship OF the Constitution class, so its arrangement may not mean much to other vessels in that series -- Captain Mike K. Bartel 17:53, 5 Jul 2004 (CEST)


 * I was under the impression the internal arrangement of the Enterprise was standard among Constitution class starships. Just like the Interior information of the Enterprise-D is on the page, not on the Enterprise-D page. Of course the Enterprise is the only Constitution class vessel we've seen from the inside, but that counts as well for the Excelsior, the Enterprise-D, Voyager... For practically every starship. And I doubt the interior of starships of the same class would be radically different. Of course, there might be slight differences, but overall, I think it's quite the same... Ottens 17:58, 5 Jul 2004 (CEST)


 * HOWEVER, it would solve all our problems! The interior info about the original Enterprise would go there, and the interior about the refitted on the Enterprise-A page. The article would be considerably smaller, and we could have just ONE Constitution class article. Ottens 18:04, 5 Jul 2004 (CEST)


 * This is also in the interests of brevity, and reducing our IMAGE HEAVY articles. If a reader wished a detailed description of a transporter room, they could click on the link to a separate article... keep about the Constitution, and keep a bridge article, transporter room article.. etc.. use the Constitution and Enterprise articles to show how their bridges are different from the others. -- Captain Mike K. Bartel 18:11, 5 Jul 2004 (CEST)


 * For a detailed description about a transporter room, they should go the the Transporter page, but for a description about the Constitution class USS Enterprise Transporter Room, they should go to the USS Enterprise page. ;) Anyway, I'll have things rearranged... Ottens 18:13, 5 Jul 2004 (CEST)

USS Republic
Is the USS Republic on the Uncertain Ships list meant to be the ship mentioned in Court Martial? If so then registry is given in dialogue and is NCC-1371. It also appears on the mission assignment graphic from ST VI, though as that's not really visible the canonicity is debatable.

Is there a Constitution Class Merrimack?
In the list of Federation Starships page:


 * List of Federation starships

There is a Merrimack listed as a Constitution class ship. It was apparently mentioned in ST:TMP. I doubt it was shown, so unless someone can confirm that it was Constitution class (or not) it should be listed on the Constitution class page as "uncertain".

The website is a beautiful resource! I don't know how (or honestly why :-) you devote the time it must take, but I appreciated finding it!

-- Mickey Rowe (rowe@psych.ucsb.edu)

Final Starship List... Possibly
I was reading The Making of Star Trek By Stephen E. Whitfield and Gene Roddenberry, and it lists the following Starship names as the final list of Constitution class vessels for the series:

Enterprise, Exeter, Excalibur, Lexington, Yorktown, Potemkin, Republic, Hood, Constitution, Kongo, Constellation, Farragut, Valient, and Intrepid.

Maybe this will help with what ships are and are not "real".

User:Time Travler 3:01Am CST. 2-15-05 How can the list be erroneous since Roddenberry himself created it. EAnchor 10:42 PM   08 July, 2004.
 * Well, considering that it already erroneously lists Valiant and Republic, I'd say its a bad start. --Captain Mike K. Bartel

These ships are confirmed:
 * Constitution - NCC-1700. Registry seen on-screen possibly in the original series, and definitely in Franz Joseph drawings on-screen in the movies. The name is confirmed by the dialogue naming the class.
 * Enterprise NCC-1701
 * Constellation NCC-1017. Seen on-screen in "Doomsday Machine"
 * Exeter. Seen as a Constitution in "Omega Glory" registry NCC-1672 is only from Jein and Okuda, but is widely accepted
 * Excalibur. Seen in "Ultimate Computer" Registry NCC-1664 by Jein
 * Lexington. Seen in "Ultimate Computer" Registry by Jein, though
 * Potemkin. Seen in "Ultimate Computer" Registry by Jein
 * Hood. Seen in "Ultimate Computer" Registry by Jein
 * Defiant - seen in "Tholian Web" NCC-1764 Registry by Jein, though

Uncertain
 * Intrepid - never seen, but said to have a crew of 430. NCC-1631 registry by Jein
 * Farragut - never seen, no evidence it was a constitution. registry from Jein only.
 * Yorktown - never seen, no evidence it was a constitution. NCC-1717 registry from Jein & Okuda only.
 * Kongo - never seen, never mentioned. listed only is Star Trek VI background art.
 * Eagle NCC-956 - never seen, never mentioned. listed only is Star Trek VI background art.
 * Merrimack - a Constitution from the Technical Manual, mentioned in TMP comm chatter. its class wasnt mentioned in the movie, but in the manual -- Captain Mike K. Bartel 17:26, 10 Jul 2004 (CEST)

Erroneous
 * Valiant - theres no way Valiant could have been a Constitution 50 years prior to TOS. its possible there was another Constitution-class Valiant based on the list, but non-canon speculation is not appropriate
 * Republic - no one ever said she was a Constitution, who knows where this reference came from (probably that non-canon book you cited). since the ship had "old style" pile circuits and suh, and was a training ship, I'd want to believe it was older. its possible there was another Constitution-class Republic (the DS9 training ship?), after the NCC-1371 was decommissioned based on the list, but non-canon speculation is not appropriate


 * "that non canon book" you speak of was written by Gene Roddenberry himself during the original production run of the Original Series and published towards the end of the third season, and is mostly reprints of the original writers guide and production materials (as well as internal memos). As something written at the time, by Roddenberry himself, it's a little cavalier to dismiss it as "non-canon", it's at least as canon as the semi-canon Technical Manuals and Chronology/Encyclopedia since it was made by the producers of a series, during that series, as a reference to that series --12.210.252.89 22:12, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

There are a few more uncertainties from un-aired dialogue, possibly a couple from "Amok Time" script, and a few more uncertainties from the Star Trek VI art (but I'm hesitant to include the ST:6 ones that aren't listed in the Making of Star Trek lists, its more than likely they are other types, and more believably so also) --Captain Mike K. Bartel 12:00, 9 Jul 2004 (CEST)


 * The Essex and Eagle are from an early draft for "Journey to Babel", the Excalibur and Endeavour are from "Amok Time", first draft; Excalibur was then used in "Ultimate Computer" -- Kobi 12:07, 9 Jul 2004 (CEST)

If canon establishes Constitution as NCC-1700, Constellation cannot be the same class, not when she is 700 contract (registry) numbers earlier; similarly, neither is Republic.


 * One possible excuse permits the above case, as I see it: NCC-1700 Constitution replaces a same-named ship, permitting confusion; nevertheless, a different class.  --squadfifteen, 16/11/05


 * I am inclined to limit the Constitutions thus:

Constitution NCC-1700

Enterprise NCC-1701

Hood NCC-1703

Exeter NCC-1706

Lexington NCC-1709

Kongo NCC-1710

Yorktown NCC-1717

plus one or two unnamed ships. I am disinclined to include NCC-1764 Defiant and NCC-1831 Intrepid because they are too high-numbered, given the size and complexity of Constitution (and Gene's intent, stated in Making, there only be 12 of her class at a time), unless we accept they are replacing losses (in which case, why not reuse existing names? or do they?).


 * I further exclude NCC-956 Eagle and NCC-1071 Constellation as too low-numbered; they belong to a different class, perhaps joined by NCC-1371 Republic (which I would construe as lead ship of a later group, given Constitution; on that basis, Eagle might be, too).


 * Furthermore, I propose a third group:

Farragut NCC-1647

Potemkin NCC-1657

Excalibur NCC-1664

Endeavour NCC-1695

These are likely replacing losses in the Republic class.


 * I suggest the relationship between these ships is comparable to Gato: changes in weapons spec, propulsion, mainframe, hull framing, and so forth, but superficially identical except in detail.  (Perhaps examination of canon photographs or art would reveal?)  --squadfifteen, 16/11/05

As I recall, the so-called "Enterprise-A" was a new design, not a Constitution. --trekphiler, 16/11/05

It's intriguing to me "STTOS" with Constitution comes closest to an actual naming system: historical ships. --squadfifteen, 16/11/05

Returning to "speculation" about Constitution: if we accept Enterprise was launched 2245, how does a ship 700 registry #s earlier fall in the same class? I'll accept Constitution& Enterprise are a common class... Has a canon (or authoritative) list of launch dates ever appeared? --trekphiler, 21/11/05

Re registry numbers (again). Constitution & Enterprise are sequential, as you'd expect, being sister ships (implying from the same yard, too); so are Kongo & Lex (ditto). It's less clear class ships would have close registry numbers. I see no reason to conclude the registry numbers, referring entirely to spacefaring ships, would not be sequential, absent information on (type-specific) hull numbers, which need not be. Neither have I seen anything in the canon that suggests the numbers are random; in fact, given Archer's Enterprise is NX-01, and at least five known Constitutions are in close sequence, I'd say it's implied they are sequential. Of course, it's most probable the model makers or somebody picked the numbers out of thin air because they looked good, paying no mind to what it implied about the Fleet or the Fed...--trekphiler, 16/11/05

Warp Factor
Maximum Warp on the refit shows "warp 12". This is impossible because the maximum speed attainable is almost warp 10. Warp 10 cannot be reached as it is referred to moving at an infinite speed. This is accepted canon, and also reinforced in more than one novel.

See Warp Factor Chart.


 * That speed is in the old-style Cochrane scale, which was used on TOS. It had to have been, considering the number of times Evil Alien Entities caused the ship to reach Warp 15. --Steve 16:34, 9 Jul 2004 (CEST)


 * The maximum speed reached by the Enterprise was Warp 14 in "Is There In Truth No Beauty" (and was dragged at warp 20 by Karla's ship ((which went warp 36 itself)) in "The Counter Clock Incident.") However, no cruising or maximum speeds were canonically established for the E-refit, so i removed the speed reference from its chart --Captain Mike K. Bartel 17:26, 10 Jul 2004 (CEST)


 * BTW, the speeds listed (if the old scale is truly wf cubed = multiples of c):


 * warp 14 = 2744 times the speed of light
 * warp 20 = 8000 times the speed of light
 * warp 36 = 46,656 times light
 * these are all in the high warp 9.xx ranges on the new scale, of course--Captain Mike K. Bartel

In a Mirror, Darkly CGI Constitution Class
Would anyone like to mention under Background information that a CGI rendering of the Constitution was developed for In A Mirror Darkly, Parts I and II? -

Note to 84.131.36.60 and 84.131.47.115
Please refrain from re-editting the Interior Design and Background sections of the Constitution-class page! The image configuration is good as it is, and it is totally unnecessary to reconfigure the images to other locations making the page look cluttered.

Also, I would suggest you both (if you are not one and the same person) register at Memory Alpha,, Ottens 16:52, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Actually Ottens, you are wrong about that, the version as it appears now displayes the text very wild compared to the version before. I had a look at the history of this page and you reverted a lot of improved image placements. Maybe you should check in some other browsers and resolutions -- Kobi - (    ) 17:45, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

AARGH! What the hell is that!? That's no layout, that's a catastrophe! If I do something like these edits it has a good reason... --84.131.2.159 17:58, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I checked my edit in both Mozilla and in IE, and in both browsers it looked better than 84.131.2.159's version, so therefore I changed it back. Currently, MA seems to be having some troubles, so I'll have to check it again when MA is running fine again.


 * I would still like to urge 84.131.2.159 to at least register, since edits by unregistered users often turn out to be vandalism or something of the sort. An edit from a registered user at least shows the edit was done with good intention. Also, if you change back the edit of a registered user, the least thing you can do is leave a comment on the page's talk page explaining why you did so, pointing out my edit looked like hell when not using Mozilla ;) My apoligies for that. Ottens 19:20, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Now that MA is up and running again, I checked my version in both IE and Firefox also, and I can't see anything wrong with it. It looks just fine using either three browsers (Mozilla, Firefox, IE).. :S Ottens 21:43, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Hm. My Opera and IE still show it (your version), like on Kobi's screenshots. I think it's a problem with the resolutions. --84.131.20.236 22:45, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Revert
I reverted the extensive edit of Ottens as I felt it was, quite frankly, not quite as "up to snuff" as the previous version and was not formatted as well. For one thing, it was missing some info that was previously there (i.e., the technical info section). However, as I know it took Ottens a little while to rewrite all of this, I do not wish the edit to simply disappear into oblivion. So, I have placed the topic here for discussion to receive a second opinion (preferably from an admin) on the subject. Which should go and which should stay -- or can the two edits be merged in some way? --From Andoria with Love 12:51, 28 Aug 2005 (UTC)


 * Would you please point out specifically which topics in the Technical Data section that were previously there are not in my edit of the article? To my best knowledge, I included all information available, save for the "Atomsphere entry" subsection, the inclusion of which, IMO, is rather ridiculous. In theory, all Starfleet vessels should be capable of atmospheric entry, and with little more data than "This vessel could do that" on the subject, I decided it was not necessary to keep it.


 * It may be your theory that all Starfleet vessels should be capable of atmospheric entry, but, truth be told, we have rarely seen large starships fly through a planet's sky. The  ship is the other notable exception, and if you look at that entry, it reads "Being one of the few Starfleet starship classes capable of atmospheric entry and planetary landing, the Intrepid class starship is equipped with anti-gravity generators as well as impulse and lifters strategically placed at the mass and stress points on the bottom portion of the secondary hull."  This points out that few Starfleet starship classes are capable of atmospheric entry.  On top of this, it is a starship class entry that gives details about its atmospheric entry capabilities.  So if you are still operating with the assumption that all Starfleet vessels can perform atmospheric entry, you should remove that from the Constitution entry and the Intrepid entry (as well as any other specific references to it in other ship classes) and mention it in the Starfleet entry or make a new entry just for it.  Or just stop assuming that your opinions and theories should dictate what is considered canonical.  --Werideatdusk 23:36, 16 Nov 2005 (UTC)


 * On the formatting issue: in my opinion, my version was better formatted than the previous, not featuring thumbnails seemingly randomly located to both the left and right sides of the texts all throughout the article. Also, the images were thumbed rather large on the previous version, making the article harder to read, especially on smaller screens (there are still people using 800x600). Besides, the previous version also had some parts of blank page, in order to match the size of the images with the texts. Ottens 21:29, 28 Aug 2005 (UTC)


 * I'll revert it back to your version, but I'd still like this to stay up here so it can be more thorougly discussed. --From Andoria with Love 23:30, 28 Aug 2005 (UTC)


 * But please point out what parts of the previous version were not included in my edit? Ottens 09:22, 29 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * I was incorrect about the missing info, and I apologize about that and for the revert. Truth be told, I think I was tired when I did it. Also, after reading the complete article, I think I like your version better. That said, great job! :-) --From Andoria with Love 10:36, 29 Aug 2005 (UTC)


 * That's good to hear :-) Thanks! Ottens 11:05, 29 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Jefferies tubes
It would be nice to see a picture of the access walkway shown in "In a Mirror, Darkly".--StAkAr Karnak 13:10, 29 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * It would be even nicer to have some information on it, before adding an image. ;-) Ottens 13:24, 29 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * Besides, there's an image of a "jefferies tube junction" here, but no image of the actual jefferies tube on the Constitution yet. Ottens 13:25, 29 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Edit conflict

 * I left the following message at User talk:84.131.28.183 earlier today. It is directed at the person who keeps reverting my edit of the Constitution class page. I would like to strongly urge this person to register at MA, so he or she would have noticed this message at his/her talk page. Ottens 21:05, 1 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Hi, and welcome to Memory Alpha! I reverted your edit to the image configuration of the page, for the following reasons.

In my opinion, the content of an article is more important than the images accompanying it. Images serve only to make the information more clear by illustrating it, but should never be the main focuss of an article. Therefore, I tend to keep images small, at least never larger than the standard thumb size (180px width). On the Constitution class page, I used lots of small images, because many images were available, and, IMO, should be used on that page. Using large thumbs gives some problems:
 * First of all, on people using small screens (800*600), images will take up most of the width of the screen;
 * Images become the main focuss of an article, rather than the text;
 * And images become shattered throughout the article, appearing on both the left and rigth sides of the text, decreasing readability.

In my edit, most images are located on the right side of the article. Only by necessity, a few images are also thumbed to the left side. Of course, this creates a row of thumbs on the right side of the article, which may not appear very "cool", but it certainly does make the text easier to read -- and that's what the article of course is about. Ottens 21:04, 1 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Why i'll revert again: Special:Contributions/84.131.28.183
 * your rearrangement didn't regard "IE glitching" and screwed the proven design of the page up (also not regarding problems with other browsers)
 * it may work at 800px, but at res. higher than 1200px your captions become bigger than the pics themselves! Even if there is a minority using res. lower than 1000px we have to optimize for minimum 1000px, and that's why the thumb style automatically uses 180px. Maybe 200px ist too much for two pics at the same altitude, but 180 works (res 1000px). There's also no problem with readability with this version, but yours didn't connected the pics correctly to "their" text (esp. engineering and tactical).

First of all, stop reverting over and over again while this matter is still not resolved. It's very unappropriate.

Onto the issue itself: I checked my version in both Mozilla and IE, and the article looks good in both versions. The "IE glitching" you refer to does not appear on my version of the Constitution class page.

Contrary to your claim, all images do appear along the text they're about. I checked regarding your claim of the "engineering and tactical" images, and they -- in both Mozilla and IE -- appear along the text they're supposed to be about. What's more, your version includes two images that have been nominated for deletion -- nominated for good reasons.

Finally, in your version, text and images appear almost randomly displaced over the entire page. In my version, paragraphs are either the entire width of the page, or are shortened in width by image(s) next to it. On your version, it's not uncommon for a paragraph to be partly shortened in width, and then have one sentence over the entire width of the image, because you uncarefully put an image somewhere.

In conclusion, I would also like to ask you, quite bluntly: what's your problem? I created the Constitution class page, and extensively editted over the past week, and quite frankly, I think I did a pretty good job. Your only action at MA seems to be reverting my edits of the Constitution class page. Because you're un unregistered user, I'm assuming all four IP-adresses are really one and the same person? (Please do register! It makes things a lot easier for the both of us. At least then I'm sure edits are no sign of vandalism, which edits by unregistered users usually are.) So why are you so edgy about this page? Ottens 09:54, 2 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Well, then with illustration:


 * Removed for deletion, problems fixed. --Test 16:22, 12 Sep 2005 (UTC)

As I wrote, we have to optimize for 1000px minimum, that's what I did. The image that should replace this one doesn't show the whole bridge and it's TOS illumination, so it's unappropriate. And this is simply non-canon because the model has been modified later.--Test 18:36, 2 Sep 2005 (UTC)

I'm afraid I agree with User:Ottens, I don't see the problem with the article. If the pictures are slightly out of alignment, whats the problem with that? I'm using 1024x786, and it looks fine to me! Also, its a bit odd changing a featured article to such an extent, especially if you're not even registered... just my opinion. :) zsingaya 19:31, 2 Sep 2005 (UTC)

I can see the IE thing too, the current version is better. And everyone can change an article, that has nothing to do with registration... --Porthos 20:29, 2 Sep 2005 (UTC)


 * User "Test". Here are print screens of how the page appears on my computer, using IE. It looks exactly the same when using Mozilla.

Image 1 of my version in IE. Another image of my version in IE.


 * As you can see, the images all appear nicely next to the texts they're about. There's no IE-"glitching", which probably means this is a problem on your behalf?


 * What's more, some things look rather uncarefully edited on your version.

Print screen 1 and 2 of untidy editting on your behalf.


 * You say in your comment that the bridge image thumbs are "definately too small". May I ask why? Why is large size required for thumbnails. The idea of a thumb is that it's a small version of a large image, and that in order to see the detail, you click on the image.


 * In response to Porthos: non-registered users can make edits, yes, but I was/am rather in doubt about this person's edit, considering he/she has never made edits to MA in the past, prior to making an extensive edit to a page that looked perfectly good to me. Ottens 22:18, 2 Sep 2005 (UTC)


 * You're missing his point: I've just checked it with 800x600 and it works in your version but if you're trying higher resolutions around 1280x1024 you'll see it's not working because the font is far smaller in relation to the images, and the images appear smaller too so that they become a bit undersized. If you look at intrepid class or you'll see that there are no images smaller than 180px - for good reasons. I don't consider 1 and 2 as major problems. Concerning "IE glitching" you can ask Tough Little Ship, Tim Thomason, Memory or THOR, they encountered it as well (elsewhere).--Porthos 23:31, 2 Sep 2005 (UTC)


 * Regarding the IE-"glitching": the fact that it doesn't appear when I check the page in IE makes me think this is a problem on your behalf, rather than a general problem when using Internet Explorer.


 * Regarding the resolution matter: I checked using different resolutions, and "Test"'s version only looks good when using 1280*1024. On smaller resolutions, it looks rather untidy, unclean. Using 800*600, it's a disaster. I guess we'll have to decide for what resolution we optimize this page. Very few people use 1280*1024; very few people use 800*600. 1024*768 is the standard screen resolution these days. In my opinion, websites should be optimized for that. If we optimize the page for higher resolutions because you happen to prefer that means it looks amateuristic. Ottens 10:25, 3 Sep 2005 (UTC)


 * One more thing I forgot: pages such as the Intrepid class and Galaxy class do not have this problem. Why? Because the Constitution class page has twice the ammount of images as all other starship class pages, because we're dealing with two versions of the same ship here. Ottens 10:27, 3 Sep 2005 (UTC)


 * I tested my version with 1024*768 and it looks good too. But it also looks good with higher res - that's the advantage... (what is the "800*600 disaster"?) --Test 10:59, 3 Sep 2005 (UTC)


 * Check your version in 800*600. With 180px thumbs on both the left and right sides, there sometimes is virtually no space left for text at all.


 * Your version is acceptable in both 1024*768 and higher. My versions looks better than yours in 1024*768 (or at least, in my opinion), but looks equally horrible in higher resolutions as yours in 800*600. Ottens 11:40, 3 Sep 2005 (UTC)


 * There are many pages around that look odd at 800x600 and statistics say that there are more internet users with higher resolutions than 1024x768 as with 800x600. It makes just no sense to take much care of this minority and it means less work for all if we are oriented towards future standards than outdated ones. --Porthos 16:49, 3 Sep 2005 (UTC)


 * If we don't have to consider the minority, then the page should be optimized for 1024*768, since the majority of the internet users uses that resolution. As you understand, this cannot be the resolution. Preferable would be a version of this page that looks acceptable in all screen resolutions. Ottens 19:10, 3 Sep 2005 (UTC)


 * Uhm, optimizing for 800*600 and 1600*1200?! I'm afraid that's simply impossible... --Test 19:40, 3 Sep 2005 (UTC)


 * In response to "Test"'s comment on the bridge image: we do not need two images that show practically the same thing. We need only one image of a Constitution class bridge, though usage may be found for the TOS bridge image elsewhere. Not both images are required on this page. Concerning the model image: it would of course be preferably if an image from the same angle could be screencapped from one of the features. As of now, it's the best complete aft view of the Constitution class starship. I sympathize with keeping the more zoomed-in image of the impulse drive systems, though, as it also shows the aft officers' lounge windows in more detail, besides the impulse engines themselves. I think both images should be on the Constitution class page. Ottens 22:21, 2 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Speculation
If canon establishes Constitution as NCC-1700, Constellation cannot be the same class, not when she is 700 contract (registry) numbers earlier; similarly, neither is Republic. --squadfifteen, 16/11/05


 * One possible excuse permits the above case, as I see it: NCC-1700 Constitution replaces a same-named ship, permitting confusion; nevertheless, a different class.  --squadfifteen, 16/11/05


 * I am inclined to limit the Constitutions thus:

plus one or two unnamed ships. I am disinclined to include NCC-1764 Defiant and NCC-1831 Intrepid because they are too high-numbered, given the size and complexity of Constitution (and what I've read of Gene's intent there only be 12 of her class at a time), unless we accept they are replacing losses (in which case, why not reuse existing names? or do they?).
 * Constitution NCC-1700
 * Enterprise NCC-1701
 * Hood NCC-1703
 * Exeter NCC-1706
 * Lexington NCC-1709
 * Kongo NCC-1710
 * Yorktown NCC-1717


 * I further exclude NCC-956 Eagle and NCC-1071 Constellation as too low-numbered; they belong to a different class, perhaps joined by NCC-1371 Republic (which I would construe as lead ship of a later group, given Constitution; on that basis, Eagle might be, too).


 * Furthermore, I propose a third group:

Farragut NCC-1647 Potemkin NCC-1657 Excalibur NCC-1664 Endeavour NCC-1695

These are likely replacing losses in the Republic class.


 * I suggest the relationship between these ships is comparable to Gato: changes in weapons spec, propulsion, mainframe, hull framing, and so forth, but superficially identical except in detail.  (Perhaps examination of canon photographs would reveal?)  --squadfifteen, 16/11/05

As I recall, the so-called "Enterprise-A" was a new design, not a Constitution. --trekphiler, 16/11/05

It's intriguing to me "STTOS" with Constitution comes closest to an actual naming system: historical ships. --squadfifteen, 16/11/05
 * Very interesting speculation, but there's a lot of evidence from the show itself which disagrees with what you've put here.


 * The USS Enterprise (NCC-1701-A) was -- it says it on the dedication plaque seen in  and  -- similarly, the USS Defiant (NCC-1764) is also, agin established as Constitution-class by its plaque. The name "Constitution class" refers to both the TOS modification and the later refit design used in the Star Trek films -- the "class name" encompasses both modifications, showing another way that Starfleet registers and names ships completely differently from the US Navy, therefore, the US Navy cannot be used as a logical model to describe how Starfleet would work.


 * Also, Starfleet numbers tend to run non-sequentially. even excepting the odd case of NCC-1017; the USS Entente has an NCC-2100 number even though NCC-2000 Excelsior wouldnt be out for another 15 years, obviously we cant expect every Constitution to have a number higher than 1700. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 14:59, 17 Nov 2005 (UTC)


 * Starfleet tends not to reuse a ship name for the same class -- there have only been a handful of cases of this, mostly in special situations (two Contitution-class Enterprises; two Defiants, etc) all other ships named as successors have been different classes -- so replacements would likely have different names that the original run of the class.


 * If there's canon evidence for Yorktown and NCC-1764 Defiant, I bow to it; I don't recall it. That doesn't invalidate everything else.  It's also pretty flimsy evidence to invalidate on.  Moreover, there's substantial internal evidence in canon for similarity of Starfleet practise with USN, not least the ship command structure; I would argue for a similarity in the registry.


 * I'd be leery of relying on Excelsior to bolster my argument, given her apparently unhappy design; if Scotty could so easily disable her, it may have been awhile before she entered service.


 * And if the canon supports such an extensive run under the same class name, I'd say (as I have elsewhere) the writers don't know what they're talking about.


 * Also, is it canon names aren't reused? It seems contraindicated by reuse of Defiant (Enterprise being a special case...); that we haven't seen names reused does not establish it did not happen. --squadfifteen, 17/11/05

If we accept Enterprise launched 2245, how does a ship 700 registry #s earlier fall in the same class? I'll accept Constitution& Enterprise are a common class... Has a canon (or authoritative) list of launch dates ever appeared? --trekphiler, 21/11/05


 * Well, 1764 is canon for Defiant, as of "In A Mirror Darkly", for one thing (referring to someone above looking for a citation.Capt. Christopher Donovan 04:53, 15 Jan 2006 (UTC)


 * So I see the discussion started on Talk:USS Yorktown (23rd century) continues here in part. We have no problem if one disregards the registries associated with the vessels! There is no canon evidence to believe the Starbase 11 chart listed a) all Constitution vessels b) the Constitution vessels which names we knew. Matt Jefferies wanted the starship's to start with 17 and his wishes should be respected. Also the Jein-Interpretation does NOT say that the vessels are Constitution class, but that 17xx vessels belong to class IX and 16xx ones to class VIII. This little information was dropped when the registries were imported to the Encyclopedia. The only ships WITH registries from TOS we know 1700 Constitution, 1701 Enterprise, 1017 Constellation, and 1371 Republic, +TMP 1715 Merrimack and +ENT 1764 Defiant. Then there are the 1709, 1631/1831, 1703, 1672, 1664, 1697, 1718, and 1685 of which we only know they were assigned to Starbase 11 -- Kobi - (   ) 11:22, 15 Jan 2006 (UTC)


 * I think it's really just a flub in numbering ships back during the production of TOS. It also could very well be that the numbers are not chronological, or perhaps there were ships with those numbers to be made, but then cancelled, but they used the numbers on the sister ships.  I don't know, I know after researching here, and Star Trek.com, I feel that the names are atleast right, and several registry numbers were. Terran Officer April 25, 1:41 AM (EST)

Please accept my apologies in advance if I muddy the waters unnecessarily. Is there any canon establishment that the U.S.S. Constitution has to be NCC-1700? Is that firmly established? If it isn't, maybe Constitution could've been NCC-1600, or even NCC-900. That doesn't mean there were a total of 700 Constitution-class vessel built prior to Enteprise. In fact, not all of those numbers had to be used on Constitution-class ships, if they were used at all.

Let's assume, for sake of argument, that the longtime fandom assumption that the U.S.S. Valiant lost at Eminiar VII was one of the first Constitution-class starships built, in, say, 2215. (Lost 50 years prior to Ambassador Fox's mission.) Let's say it was NCC-901, built next after the original U.S.S. Constitution. Let's say it took over 50 years for the Warp 7 engine mentioned in "These Are the Voyages..." to be perfected for practical application in Federation starships, but that the first wave of the Constitution-class vessels were only capable of Warp 5-to-6 in "real world" performance. Now let's assume that succeeding sub-classes of the Constitution class are introduced once every ten or twenty years, each subclass improving on the technology of the previous subclass. By the time of "The Cage," Capt. Pike's Enterprise could finally max out at Warp 7 for a sustained period to reach Talos IV. My point is that the original Federation starships named Constitution, Valiant and Eagle were the first wave of ships with a perfected Warp 7 engine, but maybe like the NX-01 Enterprise before it, these new ships were still rough around the edges. (See the Roddenberry-approved sketch by Matt Jeffries in the main article to see what the first Constitution-class, Constitution-subclass might have looked like.) Captain Pike's starship Enterprise would have been a Constitution-class vessel, but of a much later (and presumably, much more refined) subclass. Likewise, Capt. Kirk would have presided over the Enterprise's refit in 2265 after the disastrous mission at the galaxy's edge, opting for a thorough refurbishment of the whole ship rather than just repairs.

If we assume all this for sake of argument, the Constitution-class legacy could look like this:

2215: Constitution-subclass: NCC-9xx,  NCC-10xx, included U.S.S. Eagle, U.S.S. Constellation and U.S.S. Valiant,; weapons: advanced phase canons, photonic torpedoes; cruise: Warp 4.5, redline: Warp 6

2225: 2nd subclass (unnamed): NCC-13xx,  NCC-15xx, included U.S.S. Republic and the orignal U.S.S. Yamato,  weapons: unchanged; cruise: Warp 4.8, redline: Warp 6.5

2240: 3rd subclass (unnamed): NCC-16xx, NCC-17xx, included U.S.S. Potemkin and U.S.S. Enterprise, weapons: high-energy lasers, photonic torpedoes (changed to phasers and photon torpedoes by mid-2250's); cruise: Warp 5, redline: Warp 7

2260: 4th subclass (unnamed): NCC-175x+, NCC-18xx, included U.S.S. Defiant and U.S.S. Endeavour; weapons: phaser banks, photon torpedoes; cruise: Warp 6, redline: Warp 8.

2270: Enterprise-subclass: NCC numbers unknown, this is the refit Enterprise; weapons: warp-powered phasers, photon torpedoes; cruise: Warp 7, redline: Warp 9 (source for these warp statistics: The Making of Star Trek: The Motion Picture, by Gene Roddenberry and Susan Sackett)

2295: 6th subclass: NCC numbers unknown, this is the mod seen in TNG's "Booby Trap"

My basic logic behind all of this is: If the Klingons can fly ships of the same basic design for 200 years, why can't Starfleet? Ol&#39; Horta Face 02:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The out of sequence registry numbers needs not be a huge problem. It could be that the lower registry ships were built out of space frames originally used as early test models. This is what happened with the US Space Shuttles:
 * USS Enterprise, OV-101 (Used for approach and landing tests)
 * USS Columbia, OV-102 (The first space worthy shuttle constructed)
 * USS Challenger, OV-98 (Constructed from a frame initially used for tests only. It was later finished into a spaceworthy orbiter to save costs. It has a lower registry number than its two predecessors because the frame was built before either of them).


 * Just my thoughts on it - – General Grant 12:56, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Is there actually a canical reference to the USS Constellation being a Constitution class starship!? As far as I can tell, the entire basis for this argument is that to Fans, the Constellation looks like a Constitution class ship, but that doesn't mean it has to be. In the real world, there are a range of examples of military vessals being from different classes and yet looking the same. Most civilians would find it difficult to tell the difference between a US Seawolf Class submarine and a US Virginia Class sub... but they are two distinct classes. Perhaps a better example was the Royal Navy's first Nuclear Submarine, HMS Dreadnought. She was a proto-type vessal which became the basis of the later Valliant class. To the lay person, HMS Valliant and HMS Dreadnought looked identical... but the Valiant was a far more refined design that built upon lessons learnt from Dreadnought.

Applying this to the Star Trek World. My personal preference is that the USS Constellation is a prototype design built over a protacted period which turned out to be too expensive. The nerds at the fleetyards ended up going back to the drawing board and used the experence gained to design the latter Constitutions.

DAB - Feb 25th 2008

Specification
Is there a canon reason the number of TT was changed from up to 6 to only 2 in the FRAM refit? --squadfifteen, 17/11/05
 * I have no idea what FRAM means. Are you talking about ships from Star Trek here? -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk

Phasers at Warp
I noticed on the tactical systems section that the article was going on the idea that phasers were not used at warp...There's plenty of good canon evidence that they ARE used at warp, some of the latter series' confusing statements notwithstanding...I didn't want to just come out and make a BIG change like that without soliciting comment first...Capt. Christopher Donovan 04:56, 15 Jan 2006 (UTC)


 * Phasers can't be used at warp on the refit Enterprise because the phasers are tied into the warp drive, the ship had previously had the ability as indicated by Kirk's attempt to fire the phasers at warp until corrected by Decker. I am correcting the article to reflect this.

Actually the refit can use phasers at warp, Decker says that when the warp drive went into "imbalance" that phaser power was cut off. He never says that they can't be fired when the warp drive is stable.

Transporter Room "Staging Area"
Is there anyone who can point me at a specific piece of information to suggest the "suiting up" area shown in TMP is actually adjacent to aTransporter Room? The sequence in the film I thought made it pretty clear that it was part of the Air Lock areaCapt. Christopher Donovan 05:30, 16 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmm... I don't know if there's any canon information in that regard, but this fact is mentioned in the non-canon Mr. Scott's Guide to the Enterprise, which is where I based the information of the "staging area" upon. So guess it's not really canon, though the authour may have gotten that information from behind-the-scenes sources? Ottens 16:14, 16 Jan 2006 (UTC)


 * I remember the reference, but IIRC there's nothing in "Mr Scott's..." to indicate that the "airlock prep" room seen in the film is the "staging area" Johnson mentions...Capt. Christopher Donovan 08:55, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Pre-refit saucer vs. nacelle separation
FWIW, like a lot of folks, I've thought for years that contained a reference to saucer separation, but after listening closely, it really doesn't. Kirk tells Scotty "discard the warp nacelles if you have to, and crack-out of there with the main section". (This line is not transcribed in at least one popular online reference) There's a similar order to discard nacelles in. Both emphasize nacelle separation and say nothing specific about saucer separation. The design of the ship certainly suggests it's an option, and there might have been something planned for ST: TMP, but... does this mean a reference to primary/secondary hull separation in the pre-refit configuration is something less than canon? --Aurelius Kirk 19:22, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmm, if it has been mentioned as a background note by a member of the Trek staff, it may have some validity. I have even heard references that many starships have the ability to separate their saucers (which I don't see why not), but cannot reintegrate them without starbase/drydock assistance. - Adm. Enzo Aquarius 03:52, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I assume that the Constitution class has the ability to eject both nacelle and saucer sections in the original configuration only. The refit of this class took away the option of nacelle ejection, due to the new warp core arrangement and the increased power output of the new design. If you look at NX-01 U.S.S. Enterprise, there is no way of ejecting the saucer. The design places the warp core and nacelles away from the ship. Just like dragster design(of the mid 20th century) changed position the engine behind the driver for safety. A starship at speed does not have to fly through it's own debris field. The greatest danger to the early starships came from catastrophic failure of the most energetic parts. One can assume as forcefield technology advanced, main engineering was able to move inside the hull of the secondary section. The Constittution Class had the ability to either eject the nacelles or the engineering section depending on the nature of the problem. The refit made this extra option(nacelle ejection) obsolete due to the new blast radius of the new engine design's power output. This new option evolved over the years to the point of what can be seen in the day to day practices abroad the Galaxy Class Starships. In the early days breaking apart your ship was an option of last resort. The vessel was either lost and what was left was used for spare parts or abandoned due to extreme structural damage. If you were not under attack and you broke apart your ship, Starfleet took a dim view of it, especialy when your vessel required the use of spacedock to reassemble it. Saucer separation still carries with it an unsettling effect on the crew. A feeling against there pride "We have not done our jobs!" This, of course, is untrue giving the extremely dangerous job of space exploration.

Confusion within the article
There is some confusion within the article what ships are Constitution and which are not; USS Kongo for example is listed as one of the original 12 ships in the beginning, but as uncertain in the end listing; also as I've read here USS Yorktowns status is disputed as well etc. But I don't just want to edit a featured article easily, so perhaps anyone could present here what is the "final" list of certain and probable Consitutions? Kennelly 23:52, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

The Constitution refit/ Enterprise class.
I'm wanting opinions about spliting the Constitution class page into two, one for the original class and one for the refit which was there after known as the Enterprise class, although I haven't seen any reference to that except the one I added. Being that the Enterprise was so heavily rebuilt, and to a successful design, it was considered the prototype of a new class of ships, named after the original the Enterprise. I'm surprised no one has included this here. The Enterprise-A was built as an Enterprise class making each incarnation of the Enterprise a different (originally at least) class, Constitution, Enterprise, Exselsior, Ambassador, Galaxy, and Sovreign. Thanks.--Dac18643 05:50, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


 * settled the matter of class label -- the refit USS Enterprise (NCC-1701) is labeled in Scotty's blueprints. But I am in favor of splitting the article into  and Constitution class (refit) for the sake of clarity and readability. --Aurelius Kirk 05:44, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry I missed that. And my information probably predates that movie. I guess I should take my note out of the article.  I get confused about whats "official" and what isn't.  And my opinion is that having the newly built ships of that type would be a new class.  The new ones aren't "refits" but new construction.--Dac18643 05:50, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Not to re-start an old discussion, but there actually is a modern example to compare with. Many classes of naval ships undergo refits, sometimes extensive. When a new ship is bult with all of these upgrades in place, thus never refitted itself, it is still considered a member of the original class. It is usually just called a member of a new "flight" of ships. An example is the Los Angeles class submarine, of which there have been 3 "flights", but they are all still Los Angeles class. New build constitutions that match the refit configuration could therefore be considered "flight 2" of the same class, and not a new one. --OuroborosCobra 07:10, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Interestingly enough, there is evidence apparently going back to 1980 that if the producers had EVER considered "Enterprise class" for the refit, they had abandoned the idea early on. Check THIS out, from the Trek Newspaper strip, set in the TMP era.  Not canon, but officially approved at the time: