RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 138,208
Posts: 5,346,608
Members: 24,606
Currently online: 579
Newest member: keykarta

TrekToday headlines

Funko Mini Spock
By: T'Bonz on Jul 23

IDW Publishing Comic Preview
By: T'Bonz on Jul 23

A Baby For Saldana
By: T'Bonz on Jul 23

Klingon Beer Arrives In The US
By: T'Bonz on Jul 22

Star Trek: Prelude To Axanar
By: T'Bonz on Jul 22

Abrams Announces Star Wars: Force For Change Sweepstakes
By: T'Bonz on Jul 22

New Funko Trek Figure
By: T'Bonz on Jul 21

Saldana As A Role Model
By: T'Bonz on Jul 21

San Diego Comic-Con Trek Fan Guide
By: T'Bonz on Jul 21

Cumberbatch As Turing
By: T'Bonz on Jul 21


Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.


Go Back   The Trek BBS > Welcome to the Trek BBS! > General Trek Discussion

General Trek Discussion Trek TV and cinema subjects not related to any specific series or movie.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old August 23 2013, 04:35 PM   #31
scotpens
Vice Admiral
 
scotpens's Avatar
 
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Re: Has "NCC" Ever Been Explained On Screen?

J.T.B. wrote: View Post
Christopher wrote: View Post
I take it as being short for United Federation of Planets Star Ship. Just as the American "USS" is short for "United States Ship."
]Yes, but when they actually say it, they say "United Star Ship," which has always sounded odd to me. As if various disparate elements of starship-ness were now combined in one vessel.
According to TMOST, the designation "U.S.S." stands for United Space Ship. But what is it that's "united," exactly? Is space united or is the ship united?
__________________
“All the universe or nothingness. Which shall it be, Passworthy? Which shall it be?”
scotpens is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 23 2013, 04:38 PM   #32
J.T.B.
Commodore
 
J.T.B.'s Avatar
 
Re: Has "NCC" Ever Been Explained On Screen?

Christopher wrote: View Post
^It's TV. They made stuff up. We can try to rationalize it as best we can, but it's not like it's actually going to form a cohesive reality. Sometimes you just have to squint a little.
^ Absolutely, but on the other hand... this whole thread.

scotpens wrote: View Post
According to TMOST, the designation "U.S.S." stands for United Space Ship. But what is it that's "united," exactly? Is space united or is the ship united?
Good question, but I'm just going by what was said onscreen.
J.T.B. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 23 2013, 04:54 PM   #33
Robert Comsol
Commodore
 
Robert Comsol's Avatar
 
Location: shore leave in La Baule, France
Re: Has "NCC" Ever Been Explained On Screen?

The Old Mixer wrote: View Post
^He said "in TOS"...but FWIW, I don't think that in TOS, it had even been established that the Enterprise was a "Constitution-class" vessel...the dedication plaque said "Starship Class".
You are quite correct. "Constitution Class" was mentioned in the script for "Space Seed" as one of the starship manuals Khan had been studying (along with the primary phaser schematic of a starship of a "Constitution Class").

The Enterprise was never referred to as a "Constitution Class" starship in TOS onscreen, and The Making of Star Trek makes no reference to it either, but instead twice to "Enterprise Class" ("The Menagerie" suggested there are alphabetical class designations, which I believe is what the producers intended before Gene L. Coon introduced "Constitution Class" in the script for SS).

Essentially, "Constitution Class" was fanwank, but it appears Bjo Trimble, Greg Jein and Franz Joseph were so taken with the idea that this class designation stuck.

I still consider it erroneous (other than for NCC-1701-A), therefore

NCC = Not Constitution Class

(more in the Trek Tech section in a thread with the same title, the thread addressing the Constellation's registry and others)

Bob

P.S. "Connie" = nickname for the Lockheed Constellation plane and the US Navy aircraft carrier USS Constellation.
__________________
"The first duty of every Starfleet officer is to the truth" Jean-Luc Picard
"We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them."
Albert Einstein
Robert Comsol is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 23 2013, 05:59 PM   #34
Praetor
Vice Admiral
 
Praetor's Avatar
 
Location: The fine line between continuity and fanwank.
Re: Has "NCC" Ever Been Explained On Screen?

Other than the starship chart in "Court Martial," there was no other use of NCC for an explicitly non-Enterprise type starship in TOS. As Christopher points out, though, by TAS they were comfortable showing the freighter Huron with it. So, it's possible that the intent changed.

We know, of course, in the real world Mr. Jefferies rationale for picking NCC; N meant the USA, and CC represented the Soviet union, so NCC together gave it an international flair.
__________________
"If you can't take a little bloody nose, maybe you ought to go back home and crawl under your bed. It's not safe out here. It's wondrous, with treasures to satiate desires both subtle and gross; but it's not for the timid." - Q
Praetor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 23 2013, 06:07 PM   #35
CorporalCaptain
Vice Admiral
 
CorporalCaptain's Avatar
 
Location: Kentucky
Re: Has "NCC" Ever Been Explained On Screen?

Praetor wrote: View Post
We know, of course, in the real world Mr. Jefferies rationale for picking NCC; N meant the USA, and CC represented the Soviet union, so NCC together gave it an international flair.
Well, the Memory Alpha article on NCC says this:

Memory Alpha wrote:
The use of NCC as a prefix for Starfleet registry numbers, Matt Jefferies said that the registries for American civil aircraft are preceded by NC, and Soviet craft used a prefix of CCCC, and as such, he more-or-less combined the two. His philosophy was, "If we do anything in space, we (Americans and Russians) have to do it together." [X]wbm In contrast, the Star Trek Encyclopedia (2nd ed., p. 317) claims that the second C was just an arbitrary addition to make the registry look better.
__________________
John
CorporalCaptain is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 23 2013, 06:07 PM   #36
King Daniel Into Darkness
Admiral
 
King Daniel Into Darkness's Avatar
 
Location: England again
Re: Has "NCC" Ever Been Explained On Screen?

I liked how the old Heavy Cruiser Evolution Blueprints explained "U.S.S." -

United Federation of Planets/Starfleet/Starship.
__________________
Star Trek Imponderables, fun mashups of Trek's biggest continuity errors! Ep1, Ep2 and Ep3
King Daniel Into Darkness is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 23 2013, 06:13 PM   #37
Christopher
Writer
 
Christopher's Avatar
 
Re: Has "NCC" Ever Been Explained On Screen?

Praetor wrote: View Post
Other than the starship chart in "Court Martial," there was no other use of NCC for an explicitly non-Enterprise type starship in TOS. As Christopher points out, though, by TAS they were comfortable showing the freighter Huron with it. So, it's possible that the intent changed.
Except we don't know what the intent was during TOS, since they didn't have the budget to depict any Starfleet ships of different classes, and thus it never came up.

All the ships in the "Court-Martial" repair chart have been subsequently interpreted as Connies (first by Greg Jein, then by the ST Encyclopedia which copied Jein's list), but I doubt that was the original intent. Given that there were only supposed to be a dozen Connies in the fleet, it's vanishingly unlikely that ten of them were under repair at the same starbase at the same time. Plus, we know that Jefferies intended "1701" to mean the first vessel of the 17th ship class, so numbers like "NCC-1831" and "NCC-1672" on the chart would've represented different classes by Jefferies's thinking. So I think the intent probably was that those various NCC numbers applied to ships of various different classes. Thus, there would have been no change in intent in TAS and after.
__________________
Christopher L. Bennett Homepage -- Site update 4/8/14 including annotations for Rise of the Federation: Tower of Babel

Written Worlds -- My blog
Christopher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 24 2013, 03:10 AM   #38
Praetor
Vice Admiral
 
Praetor's Avatar
 
Location: The fine line between continuity and fanwank.
Re: Has "NCC" Ever Been Explained On Screen?

King Daniel Into Darkness wrote: View Post
I liked how the old Heavy Cruiser Evolution Blueprints explained "U.S.S." -

United Federation of Planets/Starfleet/Starship.
Say, that's pretty good.

Christopher wrote: View Post
Except we don't know what the intent was during TOS, since they didn't have the budget to depict any Starfleet ships of different classes, and thus it never came up.
Quite so.

Christopher wrote: View Post
All the ships in the "Court-Martial" repair chart have been subsequently interpreted as Connies (first by Greg Jein, then by the ST Encyclopedia which copied Jein's list), but I doubt that was the original intent. Given that there were only supposed to be a dozen Connies in the fleet, it's vanishingly unlikely that ten of them were under repair at the same starbase at the same time. Plus, we know that Jefferies intended "1701" to mean the first vessel of the 17th ship class, so numbers like "NCC-1831" and "NCC-1672" on the chart would've represented different classes by Jefferies's thinking. So I think the intent probably was that those various NCC numbers applied to ships of various different classes. Thus, there would have been no change in intent in TAS and after.
Agreed. What I meant was, that it was possible that it changed sometime during TOS, later reflected by the Huron in TAS. Regardless, I think you're right that if Jefferies did make that diagram, and if Jefferies had previously conceived the 17th class, 01st model schema by that time, then indeed it would seem to be the case that those could be nothing but ships of another class.

I remain uncertain as to precisely when this rationalization was developed, though, or if everyone knew about it. But as you say - the Jein rationalization just doesn't make sense.
__________________
"If you can't take a little bloody nose, maybe you ought to go back home and crawl under your bed. It's not safe out here. It's wondrous, with treasures to satiate desires both subtle and gross; but it's not for the timid." - Q
Praetor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 24 2013, 03:31 AM   #39
Lance
Fleet Captain
 
Lance's Avatar
 
Location: The Enterprise's Restroom
Re: Has "NCC" Ever Been Explained On Screen?

Christopher wrote: View Post
All the ships in the "Court-Martial" repair chart have been subsequently interpreted as Connies (first by Greg Jein, then by the ST Encyclopedia which copied Jein's list), but I doubt that was the original intent. Given that there were only supposed to be a dozen Connies in the fleet, it's vanishingly unlikely that ten of them were under repair at the same starbase at the same time. Plus, we know that Jefferies intended "1701" to mean the first vessel of the 17th ship class, so numbers like "NCC-1831" and "NCC-1672" on the chart would've represented different classes by Jefferies's thinking. So I think the intent probably was that those various NCC numbers applied to ships of various different classes. Thus, there would have been no change in intent in TAS and after.
I'd never heard that before, but I like it. That'd mean by the original thinking the Connies should have all been 1701-1712. Of course, the USS Constellation was an error (I never understood why they didn't rearrange the registry number to read NCC-1710).
Lance is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 24 2013, 03:50 AM   #40
Herkimer Jitty
Rear Admiral
 
Herkimer Jitty's Avatar
 
Location: Dayglow, New California Republic
Send a message via Windows Live Messenger to Herkimer Jitty
Re: Has "NCC" Ever Been Explained On Screen?

Robert Comsol wrote: View Post
The Old Mixer wrote: View Post
^He said "in TOS"...but FWIW, I don't think that in TOS, it had even been established that the Enterprise was a "Constitution-class" vessel...the dedication plaque said "Starship Class".
You are quite correct. "Constitution Class" was mentioned in the script for "Space Seed" as one of the starship manuals Khan had been studying (along with the primary phaser schematic of a starship of a "Constitution Class").

The Enterprise was never referred to as a "Constitution Class" starship in TOS onscreen, and The Making of Star Trek makes no reference to it either, but instead twice to "Enterprise Class" ("The Menagerie" suggested there are alphabetical class designations, which I believe is what the producers intended before Gene L. Coon introduced "Constitution Class" in the script for SS).

Essentially, "Constitution Class" was fanwank, but it appears Bjo Trimble, Greg Jein and Franz Joseph were so taken with the idea that this class designation stuck.

I still consider it erroneous (other than for NCC-1701-A), therefore

NCC = Not Constitution Class

(more in the Trek Tech section in a thread with the same title, the thread addressing the Constellation's registry and others)

Bob

P.S. "Connie" = nickname for the Lockheed Constellation plane and the US Navy aircraft carrier USS Constellation.
Tell us what you really think, Robert.
__________________
"What?" - { Emilia }
Herkimer Jitty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 24 2013, 04:05 AM   #41
CorporalCaptain
Vice Admiral
 
CorporalCaptain's Avatar
 
Location: Kentucky
Re: Has "NCC" Ever Been Explained On Screen?

Lance wrote: View Post
Christopher wrote: View Post
All the ships in the "Court-Martial" repair chart have been subsequently interpreted as Connies (first by Greg Jein, then by the ST Encyclopedia which copied Jein's list), but I doubt that was the original intent. Given that there were only supposed to be a dozen Connies in the fleet, it's vanishingly unlikely that ten of them were under repair at the same starbase at the same time. Plus, we know that Jefferies intended "1701" to mean the first vessel of the 17th ship class, so numbers like "NCC-1831" and "NCC-1672" on the chart would've represented different classes by Jefferies's thinking. So I think the intent probably was that those various NCC numbers applied to ships of various different classes. Thus, there would have been no change in intent in TAS and after.
I'd never heard that before, but I like it. That'd mean by the original thinking the Connies should have all been 1701-1712. Of course, the USS Constellation was an error (I never understood why they didn't rearrange the registry number to read NCC-1710).
Someone on the board, I don't know who, floated the idea that the Constellation was an upgrade of an earlier class. Just as the Enterprise in TMP was refitted while retaining her registry number verbatim, the idea here is that so was the Constellation. But since the Constellation was evidently not the class ship, we would assume that the upgrade happened after the 17xx class was already established.

This proposal might not necessarily be at odds with Jefferies's intended system, since there could be significant differences between the hypothetically refit NCC-1017 and new ships in the 17xx class.
__________________
John
CorporalCaptain is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 24 2013, 04:08 AM   #42
Christopher
Writer
 
Christopher's Avatar
 
Re: Has "NCC" Ever Been Explained On Screen?

Lance wrote: View Post
I'd never heard that before, but I like it. That'd mean by the original thinking the Connies should have all been 1701-1712. Of course, the USS Constellation was an error (I never understood why they didn't rearrange the registry number to read NCC-1710).
Legibility, I imagine. The number NCC-1701 was chosen in the first place because it was an easy number to make out even with the vagaries of image degradation in FX shots, broadcast interference, tiny '60s TV screens, etc. Given those considerations, 1710 may have been deemed too similar-looking to 1701 to be easily distinguishable, whereas 1017 is much easier to recognize as a different number. Although, granted, the Constellation was pretty recognizable due to being so badly damaged.
__________________
Christopher L. Bennett Homepage -- Site update 4/8/14 including annotations for Rise of the Federation: Tower of Babel

Written Worlds -- My blog
Christopher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 24 2013, 05:30 AM   #43
scotpens
Vice Admiral
 
scotpens's Avatar
 
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Re: Has "NCC" Ever Been Explained On Screen?

Christopher wrote: View Post
. . . Given those considerations, 1710 may have been deemed too similar-looking to 1701 to be easily distinguishable, whereas 1017 is much easier to recognize as a different number. Although, granted, the Constellation was pretty recognizable due to being so badly damaged.
Also due to its being a wobbly, inaccurate, crudely detailed 18-inch AMT model kit.
__________________
“All the universe or nothingness. Which shall it be, Passworthy? Which shall it be?”
scotpens is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 24 2013, 02:03 PM   #44
Christopher
Writer
 
Christopher's Avatar
 
Re: Has "NCC" Ever Been Explained On Screen?

^The lack of detail wouldn't have been that evident on screens of the day. Wobbliness would be expected given all its damage. And who's to say it's inaccurate? Different ships of the same class are often customized with different features.
__________________
Christopher L. Bennett Homepage -- Site update 4/8/14 including annotations for Rise of the Federation: Tower of Babel

Written Worlds -- My blog
Christopher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 24 2013, 02:46 PM   #45
Forbin
Admiral
 
Forbin's Avatar
 
Location: I said out, dammit!
Re: Has "NCC" Ever Been Explained On Screen?

I remember seeing the 1017 for the first time as a kid, and I thought it was the same number as the Enterprise. I even remember saying that out loud - "It's the same number!" My first clue, I guess, that I have a mild bit of dyslexia.
Forbin is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:47 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.