> We discussed this just about a month ago. I said I'd ask Franz Joseph's
> daughter if she had any insights for us:
>
> **begin quote**
>
> Yes, I think my dad may have invented the "Constitution class"
> reference. He said that all naval ships had a "class" ship that was
> usually the first one made in the line. I think he may have selected the
> Constitution because it had the lowest NCC-number of those listed in
> some book somewhere (maybe "Making of STAR TREK" ?)

> We discussed this just about a month ago. I said I'd ask Franz Joseph's
> daughter if she had any insights for us:
>
> **begin quote**
>
> Yes, I think my dad may have invented the "Constitution class"
> reference. He said that all naval ships had a "class" ship that was
> usually the first one made in the line. I think he may have selected the
> Constitution because it had the lowest NCC-number of those listed in
> some book somewhere (maybe "Making of STAR TREK" ?)
>
> **end quote**
>
> Not definitive, perhaps, but interesting. And pretty much supports what
> Gene K. thought happened.

> Anim8rFSK wrote:

>> We discussed this just about a month ago. I said I'd ask Franz Joseph's
>> daughter if she had any insights for us:
>>
>> **begin quote**
>>
>> Yes, I think my dad may have invented the "Constitution class"
>> reference. He said that all naval ships had a "class" ship that was
>> usually the first one made in the line. I think he may have selected the
>> Constitution because it had the lowest NCC-number of those listed in
>> some book somewhere (maybe "Making of STAR TREK" ?)

>
> The Whitfield book only listed the names of the starships, not their
> NCC-numbers. I remember "Kongo" was one of the names, even though that
> starship never appeared in any TOS episode.

> Yes; I suspect she's actually remembering the wall chart in
> "Court-Martial"

> "Anim8rFSK" cox.net> wrote...

>> Yes; I suspect she's actually remembering the wall chart in
>> "Court-Martial"

>
> Which, IIRC, had NCC numbers but no ship names...
>
> GeneK

> I . . . don't think URC. Doesn't it have the Constitution as 1700?

> "Anim8rFSK" cox.net> wrote

>> I . . . don't think URC. Doesn't it have the Constitution as 1700?

>
> Nope, no ship names.
>
> http://tos.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/1x20/Court_Martial_005.JPG
>
> GeneK

> And they have 10 starships laid up at once? At the same place??

> "Anim8rFSK" cox.net> wrote...

>> And they have 10 starships laid up at once? At the same place??

>
> If the chart bars indicate "completeness" of work
> in progress, that would be what it means. OTOH,
> NCC-1701's bar on that chart is at over 80%% and
> they seem to have just gotten there, which leads
> me to speculate that "completeness" may actually
> be some sort of indicator of fleet condition that is
> based on status reports coming in from ships in
> the field, or maybe they're even building new star-
> ships there. TOS is wonderfully vague on most
> details like that.
>
> GeneK