Sign in to follow this  
Wishfire

Constitution-class refit

The refitted Connie  

18 members have voted

  1. 1. Same class, or new?

    • It's still a Constitution-class
      13
    • It's no longer a Constitution-class
      5


Recommended Posts

Should the refit Enterprise still be considered a Constitution-class starship?

 

Yes because in Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country, Scotty is studing a schematic of the Enterprise which says on top of the schematic Constitution Class Satrship!

 

Now in TOS, we know that the 1701 is a Constitution Class because in TOS: The Trouble with Tribbles. Scotty is at a computer screen looking at a phaser diagram which say on it Constitution Class.

 

Anyway it means both the 1701 (Constitution) and the 1701-A (Constitution refit) are both that same ship and is the same class. Also its canon! :jem'hadar:

 

I'm not asking if it's the same class.

 

Go back to the original post, and read the edit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Should the refit Enterprise still be considered a Constitution-class starship?

 

Yes because in Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country, Scotty is studing a schematic of the Enterprise which says on top of the schematic Constitution Class Satrship!

 

Now in TOS, we know that the 1701 is a Constitution Class because in TOS: The Trouble with Tribbles. Scotty is at a computer screen looking at a phaser diagram which say on it Constitution Class.

 

Anyway it means both the 1701 (Constitution) and the 1701-A (Constitution refit) are both that same ship and is the same class. Also its canon! :jem'hadar:

 

I'm not asking if it's the same class.

 

Go back to the original post, and read the edit.

 

Let me clarify...

 

Should the refit Enterprise still be considered a Constitution-class starship? Yes, because it is stated that the refit Enterprise is a Constitution-class! Its canon, so there is nothing to consider! :assimilated:

Edited by robjkay

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Should the refit Enterprise still be considered a Constitution-class starship?

 

Yes because in Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country, Scotty is studing a schematic of the Enterprise which says on top of the schematic Constitution Class Satrship!

 

Now in TOS, we know that the 1701 is a Constitution Class because in TOS: The Trouble with Tribbles. Scotty is at a computer screen looking at a phaser diagram which say on it Constitution Class.

 

Anyway it means both the 1701 (Constitution) and the 1701-A (Constitution refit) are both that same ship and is the same class. Also its canon! :naughty:

 

I'm not asking if it's the same class.

 

Go back to the original post, and read the edit.

 

Let me clarify...

 

Should the refit Enterprise still be considered a Constitution-class starship? Yes, because it is stated that the refit Enterprise is a Constitution-class! Its canon, so there is nothing to consider! <_<

 

Let me clarify.

 

"Stated" is irrelevant.

 

In other words, given what we know of ship class naming precendents, did the producers make a mistake in continuing to call it a Constitution-class, even after refit?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The general look of the refit is of a constitution class, so it is (in my opinion) a constitution class.

 

NX-class and Akira-class have the same general look. Excelsior-class, Ambassador-class, and Galaxy-class all have the same general look. Miranda-class, Soyuz-class, and Nebula-class all have the same general look. But they are all different classes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Should the refit Enterprise still be considered a Constitution-class starship?

 

Yes because in Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country, Scotty is studing a schematic of the Enterprise which says on top of the schematic Constitution Class Satrship!

 

Now in TOS, we know that the 1701 is a Constitution Class because in TOS: The Trouble with Tribbles. Scotty is at a computer screen looking at a phaser diagram which say on it Constitution Class.

 

Anyway it means both the 1701 (Constitution) and the 1701-A (Constitution refit) are both that same ship and is the same class. Also its canon! <_<

 

I'm not asking if it's the same class.

 

Go back to the original post, and read the edit.

 

Let me clarify...

 

Should the refit Enterprise still be considered a Constitution-class starship? Yes, because it is stated that the refit Enterprise is a Constitution-class! Its canon, so there is nothing to consider! :naughty:

 

Let me clarify.

 

"Stated" is irrelevant.

 

In other words, given what we know of ship class naming precendents, did the producers make a mistake in continuing to call it a Constitution-class, even after refit?

 

It is relevant!

 

There is nothing that suggests it was a mistake.

 

Both ships were called and considered a Constitution-class starship, its canon! The only difference is the ship registration which also shows it was a refit of the same class 1701 to 1701-A.

Edited by robjkay

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The general look of the refit is of a constitution class, so it is (in my opinion) a constitution class.

 

NX-class and Akira-class have the same general look. Excelsior-class, Ambassador-class, and Galaxy-class all have the same general look. Miranda-class, Soyuz-class, and Nebula-class all have the same general look. But they are all different classes.

 

Yes the Excelsior-class, Ambassador-class, and Galaxy-class all have the same general look. But at the same time are nothing alike, one major thing that is different between the three is size and that all 3 ships have been in service at the same time.

 

The Soyuz-class is based off the Miranda class but being it had a completly different mission for some reason they named it a different class. Officialy it was originally hoped that a new design could be developed for the Soyuz-class USS Bozeman, but practical considerations dictated the reworking of the existing USS Reliant model originally built for Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. The Nebula Class is nothing like the Miranda class or Suyuz class, if anything it is more like the Galaxy class.

 

The Miranda/Soyuz class is the only class that to a point look closely alike but are a two different classes. But this done on purpose and was not a mistake. Just like the Constitution & its refit that it was done on purpose for both to be that same class which canon proves!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Should the refit Enterprise still be considered a Constitution-class starship?

 

Yes because in Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country, Scotty is studing a schematic of the Enterprise which says on top of the schematic Constitution Class Satrship!

 

Now in TOS, we know that the 1701 is a Constitution Class because in TOS: The Trouble with Tribbles. Scotty is at a computer screen looking at a phaser diagram which say on it Constitution Class.

 

Anyway it means both the 1701 (Constitution) and the 1701-A (Constitution refit) are both that same ship and is the same class. Also its canon! <_<

 

I'm not asking if it's the same class.

 

Go back to the original post, and read the edit.

 

Let me clarify...

 

Should the refit Enterprise still be considered a Constitution-class starship? Yes, because it is stated that the refit Enterprise is a Constitution-class! Its canon, so there is nothing to consider! :elephant:

 

Let me clarify.

 

"Stated" is irrelevant.

 

In other words, given what we know of ship class naming precendents, did the producers make a mistake in continuing to call it a Constitution-class, even after refit?

 

It is relevant!

 

No, it's not. Not to this argument.

 

There is nothing that suggests it was a mistake.

 

Both ships were called and considered a Constitution-class starship, its canon! The only difference is the ship registration which also shows it was a refit of the same class 1701 to 1701-A.

 

Actually, there is evidence to suggest that it was a mistake. From my original post...

 

Basically, the argument goes that once the 1701 got refitted, it should be a new class due to the extensive modifications to the hull design. The argument continues that in modern navies, ships that are as extensively refitted often are designated as new classes of ships.

 

Emphasis added.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Should the refit Enterprise still be considered a Constitution-class starship?

 

Yes because in Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country, Scotty is studing a schematic of the Enterprise which says on top of the schematic Constitution Class Satrship!

 

Now in TOS, we know that the 1701 is a Constitution Class because in TOS: The Trouble with Tribbles. Scotty is at a computer screen looking at a phaser diagram which say on it Constitution Class.

 

Anyway it means both the 1701 (Constitution) and the 1701-A (Constitution refit) are both that same ship and is the same class. Also its canon! <_<

 

I'm not asking if it's the same class.

 

Go back to the original post, and read the edit.

 

Let me clarify...

 

Should the refit Enterprise still be considered a Constitution-class starship? Yes, because it is stated that the refit Enterprise is a Constitution-class! Its canon, so there is nothing to consider! :elephant:

 

Let me clarify.

 

"Stated" is irrelevant.

 

In other words, given what we know of ship class naming precendents, did the producers make a mistake in continuing to call it a Constitution-class, even after refit?

 

It is relevant!

 

No, it's not. Not to this argument.

 

There is nothing that suggests it was a mistake.

 

Both ships were called and considered a Constitution-class starship, its canon! The only difference is the ship registration which also shows it was a refit of the same class 1701 to 1701-A.

 

Actually, there is evidence to suggest that it was a mistake. From my original post...

 

Basically, the argument goes that once the 1701 got refitted, it should be a new class due to the extensive modifications to the hull design. The argument continues that in modern navies, ships that are as extensively refitted often are designated as new classes of ships.

 

Emphasis added.

 

It is Relevent!

 

What evidence? I have not seen anything that says it was a mistake! Remember what is shown ans stated in the ST series and movies is canon. Which means that the 1701 & 1701A are both of the same class which is Constitution-class starship! Also by visiting other ST web sites also suggest they they agree with my conclusion is!

 

It does not matter what your trying to emphasis, being it does not matter what modern navies with there ships that are as extensively refitted often are designated as new classes of ships.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It does not matter what your trying to emphasis, being it does not matter what modern navies with there ships that are as extensively refitted often are designated as new classes of ships.

 

Considering that Starfleet is based on modern naval fleets in infrastructure, than it's hard to say that it does not matter, unless you're the kind of person to ignore evidence and arguments simply because they disagree with what you want to think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've always considered the refit Connie a new class of starship. Not only is it larger, but most of the ships systems were totally new or re-designed. McCoy didn't recognize sickbay, and Kirk was totally lost on a ship he should have known like the back of his hand.

 

Nothing about the ST:TMP Enterprise except for the general shape of the ship was familiar. Everything else was completely new and different.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What was it that Decker said in TMP?

 

"Admiral, this is an almost totally new Enterprise. You don't know her a tenth as well as I do."

 

Oh, and then Kirk had to ask directions to the nearest turboshaft...

Edited by WishfireOmega

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's obvious that a major redesign had occurred simply by looking at the pic in my original post. The saucer section was entirely remade. The neck was modified. The nacelle pylons connect at entirely different location, which means that the original power conduits going from the warp core to the nacelles had to torn out and new ones installed. Not to mention the Engineering section itself... the original warp core traveled back into the Primary Hull, following it's shape. The new core bisected the Primary Hull. This means extreme internal modifications above and below the original Engineering, as well as behind it.

 

In the end, they may as well have built an entirely new ship.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It does not matter what your trying to emphasis, being it does not matter what modern navies with there ships that are as extensively refitted often are designated as new classes of ships.

 

Considering that Starfleet is based on modern naval fleets in infrastructure, than it's hard to say that it does not matter, unless you're the kind of person to ignore evidence and arguments simply because they disagree with what you want to think.

 

There is a huge difference between todays navies when compaired to SF a fictional organazation of which there is close to a 300 year difference between the two. Yes there are simularities between the two but at the same time there are many difference.

 

But being you have brought up the subject of modern navies, here is a great example from ex-astris which shows that navel ships do get major refits to were there completly look different in the end. Lets look at the aircraft carrier USS Midway CV-41 (ex-CVA-41, ex-CVB-41) was commissioned in 1945 and went through a number of refits until she was retired in 1992. Among other modifications, the layout of the flight deck was radically changed and its area increased from the original to the final appearance of the ship. The later flight decks and many other parts of the ship arguably looked much more like those of the Forrestal CV-59 and the following super-carriers than like those of the Essex class, the vessels serving in WWII from which the Midway class was derived. The gradual refit of the Midway is not exactly the same that happened with the Starship Enterprise, but the final result is pretty much equivalent. Maybe the Enterprise just had overall longer overhaul cycles, and all the recent achievements were slated to be incorporated at once when the ship was literally taken apart around 2269.

 

Another example of a vessel that was visually modified even more extensively and in one step is the USS Albany CA-123 that was converted from a heavy cruiser to a guided-missile cruiser from 1958 to 1962.

 

Also take a look at automobiles like the Ford Mustang, which its first model came out in 1964 which is still in production now in 2008. From the first production model of which is completely different to its modern version of today but both are referred to as a Ford Mustang

 

Again what evidence? It would seem your the one who ignoring the evidence, being there have been evidence showing that the 1701 is a Constitution Starship and that the 1701-A is a refit of a Constitution Starship. Which the only thing you have to say about it was that it was a mistake without any evidence to show how it was a mistake! So far the only thing your showing is an opinion, speculation which does not prove anything. It would seem that your the one who is the kind of person to ignore evidence and arguments simply because they disagree with what you want to think. Again I have proven my case with information that is canon you so far have done no such thing. <_<

Edited by robjkay

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It does not matter what your trying to emphasis, being it does not matter what modern navies with there ships that are as extensively refitted often are designated as new classes of ships.

 

Considering that Starfleet is based on modern naval fleets in infrastructure, than it's hard to say that it does not matter, unless you're the kind of person to ignore evidence and arguments simply because they disagree with what you want to think.

 

There is a huge difference between todays navies when compaired to SF a fictional organazation of which there is close to a 300 year difference between the two. Yes there are simularities between the two but at the same time there are many difference.

 

But being you have brought up the subject of modern navies, here is a great example from ex-astris which shows that navel ships do get major refits to were there completly look different in the end. Lets look at the aircraft carrier USS Midway CV-41 (ex-CVA-41, ex-CVB-41) was commissioned in 1945 and went through a number of refits until she was retired in 1992. Among other modifications, the layout of the flight deck was radically changed and its area increased from the original to the final appearance of the ship. The later flight decks and many other parts of the ship arguably looked much more like those of the Forrestal CV-59 and the following super-carriers than like those of the Essex class, the vessels serving in WWII from which the Midway class was derived. The gradual refit of the Midway is not exactly the same that happened with the Starship Enterprise, but the final result is pretty much equivalent. Maybe the Enterprise just had overall longer overhaul cycles, and all the recent achievements were slated to be incorporated at once when the ship was literally taken apart around 2269.

 

Another example of a vessel that was visually modified even more extensively and in one step is the USS Albany CA-123 that was converted from a heavy cruiser to a guided-missile cruiser from 1958 to 1962.

 

Yes, we already know this. We also know that when these ships get such extensive modifications/refits, they get redesignated as new classes, usually named after the first ship to recieve the modifications/refit.

 

Also take a look at automobiles like the Ford Mustang, which its first model came out in 1964 which is still in production now in 2008. From the first production model of which is completely different to its modern version of today but both are referred to as a Ford Mustang

 

That's an entirely different scenario.

 

Again what evidence? It would seem your the one who ignoring the evidence, being there have been evidence showing that the 1701 is a Constitution Starship and that the 1701-A is a refit of a Constitution Starship. Which the only thing you have to say about it was that it was a mistake without any evidence to show how it was a mistake! So far the only thing your showing is an opinion, speculation which does not prove anything. It would seem that your the one who is the kind of person to ignore evidence and arguments simply because they disagree with what you want to think. Again I have proven my case with information that is canon you so far have done no such thing. <_<

 

Yes, pointing to that which is in dispute as evidence against the dispute really proves something... :elephant:

 

Besides, the refit 1701 was identified as an Enterprise-class in TWOK. Which not only contradicts the evidence which you erroneously believe proves your case, but is also completely in line with modern naval reclassification practices.

Edited by WishfireOmega

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

<_<

 

It does not matter what your trying to emphasis, being it does not matter what modern navies with there ships that are as extensively refitted often are designated as new classes of ships.

 

Considering that Starfleet is based on modern naval fleets in infrastructure, than it's hard to say that it does not matter, unless you're the kind of person to ignore evidence and arguments simply because they disagree with what you want to think.

 

There is a huge difference between todays navies when compaired to SF a fictional organazation of which there is close to a 300 year difference between the two. Yes there are simularities between the two but at the same time there are many difference.

 

But being you have brought up the subject of modern navies, here is a great example from ex-astris which shows that navel ships do get major refits to were there completly look different in the end. Lets look at the aircraft carrier USS Midway CV-41 (ex-CVA-41, ex-CVB-41) was commissioned in 1945 and went through a number of refits until she was retired in 1992. Among other modifications, the layout of the flight deck was radically changed and its area increased from the original to the final appearance of the ship. The later flight decks and many other parts of the ship arguably looked much more like those of the Forrestal CV-59 and the following super-carriers than like those of the Essex class, the vessels serving in WWII from which the Midway class was derived. The gradual refit of the Midway is not exactly the same that happened with the Starship Enterprise, but the final result is pretty much equivalent. Maybe the Enterprise just had overall longer overhaul cycles, and all the recent achievements were slated to be incorporated at once when the ship was literally taken apart around 2269.

 

Another example of a vessel that was visually modified even more extensively and in one step is the USS Albany CA-123 that was converted from a heavy cruiser to a guided-missile cruiser from 1958 to 1962.

 

Yes, we already know this. We also know that when these ships get such extensive modifications/refits, they get redesignated as new classes, usually named after the first ship to recieve the modifications/refit.

 

Also take a look at automobiles like the Ford Mustang, which its first model came out in 1964 which is still in production now in 2008. From the first production model of which is completely different to its modern version of today but both are referred to as a Ford Mustang

 

That's an entirely different scenario.

 

Again what evidence? It would seem your the one who ignoring the evidence, being there have been evidence showing that the 1701 is a Constitution Starship and that the 1701-A is a refit of a Constitution Starship. Which the only thing you have to say about it was that it was a mistake without any evidence to show how it was a mistake! So far the only thing your showing is an opinion, speculation which does not prove anything. It would seem that your the one who is the kind of person to ignore evidence and arguments simply because they disagree with what you want to think. Again I have proven my case with information that is canon you so far have done no such thing. <_<

 

Yes, pointing to that which is in dispute as evidence against the dispute really proves something... :bag:

 

Besides, the refit 1701 was identified as an Enterprise-class in TWOK. Which not only contradicts the evidence which you erroneously believe proves your case, but is also completely in line with modern naval reclassification practices.

 

But they were not considered a new class after there refit! The USS Midway after numerous changes to it was completely different from the original design, but was the name of the class never changed! :elephant:

 

No it was not! In TWOK the Enterprise class was a designation given to the Mark IV bridge simulator used at Starfleet Training Command at Starfleet Academy in 2285. So it does not contradict my evidence being a bridge simulator is a completely thing when compaired to a starship! :elephant:

 

 

Yes, pointing to that which is in dispute as evidence against the dispute really proves something... :)

 

Someone trying to dispute something without proving anything is NOT proof or evidence.

 

 

I suppose you also think that the pilot 1701 when compaired to the 1701 series version is another different class? :b-day:

Edited by robjkay

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But they were not considered a new class after there refit! The USS Midway after numerous changes to it was completely different from the original design, but was the name of the class never changed! :spock:

 

Those two particular ships remained in the same class for two reasons: They were both the lead ships in their classes, which means that their names and classes were the same. And they were both the first ships to get their refits, which means they were still the lead ships in their classes.

 

No it was not! In TWOK the Enterprise class was a designation given to the Mark IV bridge simulator used at Starfleet Training Command at Starfleet Academy in 2285. So it does not contradict my evidence being a bridge simulator is a completely thing when compaired to a starship! :spock:

 

Simulator classes are named after the craft classes they simulate.

 

Besides, if the "Enterprise-class" referred only to the simulator, why is it that just about everything Trek that came out between TWOK and TUC (and even during production of TUC) referred to the Enterprise as an Enteprise-class starship? This includes not only books like "Mr. Scott's Guide to the Enterprise" and novels, but also scripts, concept art, movie boards, and prop labels for TSFS, TVH, TFF, and TUC. I don't recall any other simulators...

 

Yes, pointing to that which is in dispute as evidence against the dispute really proves something... <_<

 

Someone trying to dispute something without proving anything is NOT proof or evidence.

 

Like saying that "Enterprise class" can only mean the class of the simulator?

 

 

I suppose you also think that the pilot 1701 when compaired to the 1701 series version is another different class? :P

 

Why would I think that? If you replace the chairs and the consoles, it's still the same class of ship. Now, if you change the saucer section, the neck, the stardrive section, the nacelle pylons, and the nacelles, as well as everything inside them, then it's a different class.

Edited by WishfireOmega

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Those two particular ships remained in the same class for two reasons: They were both the lead ships in their classes, which means that their names and classes were the same. And they were both the first ships to get their refits, which means they were still the lead ships in their classes.

 

LoL, now your going to make up rules as you go now. But the fact remains the USS Midway which was a Midway class, had a refit to where is was a completely different ship from what it was in the beginning. One would say being it was a completely different ship it should be a new class of which did not happen. The same thing happened to the Constitution Class of which reeived a refit to where it was almost a completely different ship but stayed the same class.

 

Besides if we use what you say, then as far as we know the USS Constitution was the first ship to receive this refit. Which would make it simply 'OK' for the carryover of the name of the class! <_<

Edited by robjkay

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Besides, if the "Enterprise-class" referred only to the simulator, why is it that just about everything Trek that came out between TWOK and TUC (and even during production of TUC) referred to the Enterprise as an Enteprise-class starship? This includes not only books like "Mr. Scott's Guide to the Enterprise" and novels, but also scripts, concept art, movie boards, and prop labels for TSFS, TVH, TFF, and TUC. I don't recall any other simulators...[/color]

 

There is nothing except the simulator that is referred to as the "Enterprise-class"! Also the simulator does NOT have to be named after the class of ship, as far as we know it was named after the most famous ship of this class. But like I said, it was a simulator that was named "Enterprise-class" and not the ship itself which are two different things! What happens behind the scenes, books, concept art and so on is NOT canon! What is stated on-screen is canon of which is the blueprints that Scotty is seen examining are labeled "Constitution class starship", establishing a name for ships of that design. Since the words "Enterprise class" appear on a sign on a door that is marked "mark IV simulator", this might refer to it being the simulator used by the "Enterprise class of cadets" or that the simulator itself is classified as an "Enterprise class simulator".

 

 

 

 

 

Like saying that "Enterprise class" can only mean the class of the simulator?

 

Unless you can prove it's not, there is nothing saying otherwise! <_<

 

 

 

 

 

Why would I think that? If you replace the chairs and the consoles, it's still the same class of ship. Now, if you change the saucer section, the neck, the stardrive section, the nacelle pylons, and the nacelles, as well as everything inside them, then it's a different class.

 

Ah there is alot more then just chairs and consoles that were changed. The nacells, the bridge module, deflector dish are different. Also the crew level changed from 200 under Captain Pike ("The Cage"), it increased to 400 crew members under Captain Kirk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Those two particular ships remained in the same class for two reasons: They were both the lead ships in their classes, which means that their names and classes were the same. And they were both the first ships to get their refits, which means they were still the lead ships in their classes.

 

LoL, now your going to make up rules as you go now. But the fact remains the USS Midway which was a Midway class, had a refit to where is was a completely different ship from what it was in the beginning. One would say being it was a completely different ship it should be a new class of which did not happen. The same thing happened to the Constitution Class of which reeived a refit to where it was almost a completely different ship but stayed the same class.

 

Besides if we use what you say, then as far as we know the USS Constitution was the first ship to receive this refit. Which would make it simply 'OK' for the carryover of the name of the class! <_<

 

You mentioned the USS Albany CA-123 earlier. Albany was originally an Oregon City-class. After her refit, she was reclassified as an Albany-class.

 

So, no. I'm not making things up as I go along. There is real-life precedent which backs me up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Besides, if the "Enterprise-class" referred only to the simulator, why is it that just about everything Trek that came out between TWOK and TUC (and even during production of TUC) referred to the Enterprise as an Enteprise-class starship? This includes not only books like "Mr. Scott's Guide to the Enterprise" and novels, but also scripts, concept art, movie boards, and prop labels for TSFS, TVH, TFF, and TUC. I don't recall any other simulators...[/color]

 

There is nothing except the simulator that is referred to as the "Enterprise-class"! Also the simulator does NOT have to be named after the class of ship, as far as we know it was named after the most famous ship of this class. But like I said, it was a simulator that was named "Enterprise-class" and not the ship itself which are two different things! What happens behind the scenes, books, concept art and so on is NOT canon! What is stated on-screen is canon of which is the blueprints that Scotty is seen examining are labeled "Constitution class starship", establishing a name for ships of that design. Since the words "Enterprise class" appear on a sign on a door that is marked "mark IV simulator", this might refer to it being the simulator used by the "Enterprise class of cadets" or that the simulator itself is classified as an "Enterprise class simulator".

 

"Mark IV" is the classification of the simulator, not Enterprise. And to say that the sign referred to the class of students is to further say that every single class of students going to different ships each has a different simulator rather than all using the same one, or same few. Which is just a waste of resources and space. Which makes no sense.

 

Like saying that "Enterprise class" can only mean the class of the simulator?

 

Unless you can prove it's not, there is nothing saying otherwise! <_<

 

One thing gets one classification. So the simulator is either an Enterprise class simulator, or a Mark IV simulator. Since it was explicitly stated to be a Mark IV simulator, it's obviously not an Enterprise class simulator.

 

Why would I think that? If you replace the chairs and the consoles, it's still the same class of ship. Now, if you change the saucer section, the neck, the stardrive section, the nacelle pylons, and the nacelles, as well as everything inside them, then it's a different class.

 

Ah there is alot more then just chairs and consoles that were changed. The nacells, the bridge module, deflector dish are different. Also the crew level changed from 200 under Captain Pike ("The Cage"), it increased to 400 crew members under Captain Kirk.

 

All that's the equivalent of giving a modern aircraft carrier new screws, a new radar dish, and a new command center. In the end, it's virtually nothing when compared to what happened to the 1701 between the end of TOS and TMP.

Edited by WishfireOmega

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You mentioned the USS Albany CA-123 earlier. Albany was originally an Oregon City-class. After her refit, she was reclassified as an Albany-class.

 

So, no. I'm not making things up as I go along. There is real-life precedent which backs me up.

 

Yes I mentioned the Albany, but what of the USS Midway of which you seem to not mention. So yes your making up rules as you go being it would seem that in real life scenario shows that a class of ship can be refitted and be changed into a new class of ship and at the same time can will remain the same class!

 

So as you say 'real-life precedent' backs me up also!!! <_<

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You mentioned the USS Albany CA-123 earlier. Albany was originally an Oregon City-class. After her refit, she was reclassified as an Albany-class.

 

So, no. I'm not making things up as I go along. There is real-life precedent which backs me up.

 

Yes I mentioned the Albany, but what of the USS Midway of which you seem to not mention. So yes your making up rules as you go being it would seem that in real life scenario shows that a class of ship can be refitted and be changed into a new class of ship and at the same time can will remain the same class!

 

So as you say 'real-life precedent' backs me up also!!! <_<

 

When I said "those two ships" earlier, I was referring to the Midway and the Forrestal. Try to keep up.

 

And what happened with them still fits in with what I say, and since what I say also says that you're wrong, no, it doesn't back you up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"Mark IV" is the classification of the simulator, not Enterprise. And to say that the sign referred to the class of students is to further say that every single class of students going to different ships each has a different simulator rather than all using the same one, or same few. Which is just a waste of resources and space. Which makes no sense.

 

Yes the "Mark IV" is the classification of the simulator, but the "Enterprise Class" is the name of the simulator!

 

As for having different simulators for different ships, why not? It would make sense being different ships do different things, different missions, different equipement! Being the simulator is a "Mark IV" which means '4'

means there are three other versions and very well surpass the number, which shows there are other simulators.

 

Also at the same time of which I pointed out, the simulator name could be changed to where it shows the crew of which are from a certain ship.... IE; the crew from the USS Enterprise are in training in the Mark IV simulator, of which is named after the crew Enterprise Class of which was in respect of it crew. What I mean is that lets say the crew of the USS Yorktown were in the simulator, the simulator could have easily been named "Yorktown class" in its name for its crew!

 

 

 

All that's the equivalent of giving a modern aircraft carrier new screws, a new radar dish, and a new command center. In the end, it's virtually nothing when compared to what happened to the 1701 between the end of TOS and TMP.

 

But still it took considerably alot of modifications to do this just like the refit 1701-A!

 

 

When I said "those two ships" earlier, I was referring to the Midway and the Forrestal. Try to keep up.

 

And what happened with them still fits in with what I say, and since what I say also says that you're wrong, no, it doesn't back you up.

 

Why don't you stop back tracking and also say what what you mean, not what your thinking... Being I cannot read your mind!!!

 

Besides, what does the Midway and the Forrestal have to do with anything? There two different ship, maybe you need to keep up!

 

Again the Midway was at one time one type of class of which was refitted like the 1701-A to where the USS Midway type of class was not chnaged! <_<

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"Mark IV" is the classification of the simulator, not Enterprise. And to say that the sign referred to the class of students is to further say that every single class of students going to different ships each has a different simulator rather than all using the same one, or same few. Which is just a waste of resources and space. Which makes no sense.

 

Yes the "Mark IV" is the classification of the simulator, but the "Enterprise Class" is the name of the simulator!

 

Since when do simulators get names? <_<

 

As for having different simulators for different ships, why not? It would make sense being different ships do different things, different missions, different equipement! Being the simulator is a "Mark IV" which means '4'

means there are three other versions and very well surpass the number, which shows there are other simulators.

 

There are a lot of ships. I doubt every single ship has it's own simulator. It makes more sense that each ship class gets a simulator or two. And even then it's likely that multiple classes of students will be needing to use the simulators simutaneously, so when you see "(insert name here) class" on a simulator door, it's a reference to the ship class, not a specific ship.

 

Also at the same time of which I pointed out, the simulator name could be changed to where it shows the crew of which are from a certain ship.... IE; the crew from the USS Enterprise are in training in the Mark IV simulator, of which is named after the crew Enterprise Class of which was in respect of it crew. What I mean is that lets say the crew of the USS Yorktown were in the simulator, the simulator could have easily been named "Yorktown class" in its name for its crew!

 

Usually, when referring to a specific class of students, the proper markings would be "Class of (insert year here)."

 

If they really were trying to train a new class to be the crew of a specific ship, they'd need much larger simulators, since not everyone in that class would be on the bridge, and some of those who are would need to leave the bridge from time to time. Such a simulator could only be used to train students in making command decisions and to train helmsman, connsmen (or whatever they're called), and communications officers, since they're the least likely to need to leave the bridge for any reason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And what happened with them still fits in with what I say, and since what I say also says that you're wrong, no, it doesn't back you up.[/color]

 

Really....

 

Again it would seem you still catching up or just trying to make your own rules or something!!! :spock:

 

Do you know what canon is WishfireOmega??? I suggest you look it up, being it pretty much ends your argument!

 

Again pictures you seem to ignore from Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country, which are canon!!!

 

article02-pic003.jpg

 

article02-pic004.jpg

 

I rest my case.... <_<

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this