RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 135,790
Posts: 5,217,745
Members: 24,220
Currently online: 691
Newest member: NewishTrekkie

TrekToday headlines

Q Meets NuTrek Crew
By: T'Bonz on Apr 18

Pine In Talks For Drama
By: T'Bonz on Apr 18

New X-Men: Days of Future Past Trailer
By: T'Bonz on Apr 17

Nimoy to Receive Award
By: T'Bonz on Apr 17

Star Trek Special: Flesh and Stone Comic
By: T'Bonz on Apr 16

These Are The Voyages TOS Season Two Book Review
By: T'Bonz on Apr 16

Kirk’s Well Wishes To Kirk
By: T'Bonz on Apr 15

Quinto In New Starz Series
By: T'Bonz on Apr 15

Star Trek: Horizon Film
By: T'Bonz on Apr 14

Star Trek: Fleet Captains Game Expansion
By: T'Bonz on Apr 14


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 > Misc. Star Trek > Trek Tech

Trek Tech Pass me the quantum flux regulator, will you?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old January 4 2009, 08:07 AM   #1
regemet
Lieutenant Commander
 
regemet's Avatar
 
Location: west yorkshire
Revised USS Enterprise numbers

Here I have written revised numbers foe the various Enterprises

USS Enterprise NCC 01 Nx Class
USS Enterprise NCC 1701 Constitution Class
USS Enterprise NCC 1771 Constitution class (Enterprise A) Originally USS Yorktown NCC 1717
USS Enterprise NCC 3701 Excelsior Class (Enterprise B)
USS Enterprise NCC 11701 Ambassador Class (Enterprise C)
USS Enterprise NCC 61701 Galaxy Class (Enterpriss D)
USS Enterprise NCC 71701 Sovereign Class (Enterprise E)
regemet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 4 2009, 08:09 AM   #2
GodThingFormerly
A Different Kind of Asshole
 
Location: An "American" in Friedrichshafen, Deutschland
Re: Revised USS Enterprise numbers

Shouldn't this thread have been posted in FanFic or something?

TGT
GodThingFormerly is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 4 2009, 12:55 PM   #3
DRMidnite
Lieutenant Commander
 
DRMidnite's Avatar
 
Location: Florida, USA
Re: Revised USS Enterprise numbers

Um...huh?
__________________

DRMidnite is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 4 2009, 01:05 PM   #4
regemet
Lieutenant Commander
 
regemet's Avatar
 
Location: west yorkshire
Re: Revised USS Enterprise numbers

I think it is in the right place as it is never going to be a fan fic. Its just something I was tossing around at the time.
regemet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 4 2009, 03:48 PM   #5
FalTorPan
Vice Admiral
 
FalTorPan's Avatar
 
Location: Out there... thataway.
Re: Revised USS Enterprise numbers

In a similar vein, all stardates should now have the word "etadrats" ("stardate" spelled backward) preprended to them. For example, "41153.7" is now "etadrats41153.7."

So cool.
__________________
Watch ASTRONUTS! Visit Trekplace! Check out my personal website!
FalTorPan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 4 2009, 04:57 PM   #6
Forbin
Admiral
 
Forbin's Avatar
 
Location: I said out, dammit!
Re: Revised USS Enterprise numbers

Here I have written a short sentence with no point.
Forbin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 4 2009, 05:47 PM   #7
aridas sofia
Rear Admiral
 
Re: Revised USS Enterprise numbers

I think the OP makes a good point. The notion that successive Enterprises would not only be named but numbered to honor an earlier ship is absurd, puts a wide dent in the logic of any registry list, goes against what the designer intended, goes against military practice, and in short, sucks.

By insisting that the ship is numbered to show a relationship to an earlier, otherwise unrelated ship, the opportunity for the number to show a relationship to earlier iterations of that ship is missed. The name is there to show the relationship to tradition and history. The number is there to give the ship an individual identity, and at most identify it as having been a modification of an existing ship.

Andrew Probert believed the refit Enterprise from TMP was so substantially overhauled that he wanted the number revised to NCC-1800. The numbers of that registry wouldn't have been as distinct from one another as "1," "7" and "0" are, but it would have made it clear that this ship, and not Constitution, was the prototype. As was the intention ("Constitution-refit class" being another bit of foolishness, unless we are to believe Enterprise wasn't the first ship to receive the TMP overhaul).

if one thinks that the refit should have been 1800, then the question of the other ships never even comes up. If we insist that the refit was substantially the original ship, and that military practice be followed, then the refit should have been "1701-A" and that would have been the end of it. In any event, at the very most we should have seen 1701-A and the other ships should have had new, unrelated numbers.

Last edited by aridas sofia; January 5 2009 at 03:20 AM.
aridas sofia is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 4 2009, 07:32 PM   #8
Unicron
Continuity Spackle
 
Unicron's Avatar
 
Location: Cybertron
Send a message via ICQ to Unicron
Re: Revised USS Enterprise numbers

Wasn't it Gene who was concerned about changing the number, in terms of people not "remembering" the original ship as well then? Personally I've always preferred to call the movie design "Enterprise Class" myself, as it's easier on the ears and the USS Enterprise could certainly have become the lead ship of a new class to succeed the Constitution class.
__________________

"My dream is to eat candy and poop emeralds. I'm halfway successful."


Catbert, Evil Director of Human Resources
Unicron is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 4 2009, 08:43 PM   #9
Ryan Thomas Riddle
Rear Admiral
 
Ryan Thomas Riddle's Avatar
 
Location: The Bay Area
View Ryan Thomas Riddle's Twitter Profile
Re: Revised USS Enterprise numbers

aridas sofia wrote: View Post
Emphasis mine
If we insist that the refit was substantially the original ship, and that military practice be followed, then the refit should have been "1701-A" and that would have been the end of it. In any event, at the very most we should have seen 1701-A and the other ships should have had new, unrelated numbers.
Wasn't that Matt Jefferies preferred numbering system as well? I recall that he said in an interview that the first modification or upgrade would be 1701A. Moreover, some of his Phase II modification sketches being labeled with that serial number.
__________________
A mild-mannered reporter
Ryan Thomas Riddle is online now   Reply With Quote
Old January 4 2009, 08:43 PM   #10
aridas sofia
Rear Admiral
 
Re: Revised USS Enterprise numbers

Unicron wrote: View Post
Wasn't it Gene who was concerned about changing the number, in terms of people not "remembering" the original ship as well then? Personally I've always preferred to call the movie design "Enterprise Class" myself, as it's easier on the ears and the USS Enterprise could certainly have become the lead ship of a new class to succeed the Constitution class.
Yep. This was one case where I believe he screwed up.
aridas sofia is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 4 2009, 08:48 PM   #11
aridas sofia
Rear Admiral
 
Re: Revised USS Enterprise numbers

middyseafort wrote: View Post
aridas sofia wrote: View Post
Emphasis mine
If we insist that the refit was substantially the original ship, and that military practice be followed, then the refit should have been "1701-A" and that would have been the end of it. In any event, at the very most we should have seen 1701-A and the other ships should have had new, unrelated numbers.
Wasn't that Matt Jefferies preferred numbering system as well? I recall that he said in an interview that the first modification or upgrade would be 1701A. Moreover, some of his Phase II modification sketches being labeled with that serial number.
Absolutely. Either Roddenberry was misremembering what Jefferies had recommended (which would be very odd since he had as much familiarity with the Air Force way of numbering planes) or he was simplifying it from "1701-A" to merely "1701" on the hull. I know he was insistent that the new ship was the old ship, not a new ship named for her. He would have known that a refit like that would logically have resulted in a revised number.
aridas sofia is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 4 2009, 10:41 PM   #12
ancient
Vice Admiral
 
ancient's Avatar
 
Location: United States
Re: Revised USS Enterprise numbers

Meh, whatever. Starfleet. Go figure. There's nothing wrong with how the ships are numbered. So they don't do it exactly the way the modern navy does.

Was it CLB who suggested that the ship might be almost totally new but kept the old number for political reasons? (Such as agreeing to limit the number of new cruisers built in a Klingon treaty)

That kinda makes sense.
__________________
----------------------------
Time Travel was and will be confusing
ancient is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 4 2009, 11:03 PM   #13
Captain Robert April
Vice Admiral
 
Location: In selfless service to fandom, on the road to becoming a Star Trek trivia god...
Re: Revised USS Enterprise numbers

It's not like the numbers are going to change if I throw in a DVD featuring some later incarnation of the Enterprise. It's still gonna be "NCC-1701-(pick a letter)", no matter how much it rankles some folks' sensibilities.
Captain Robert April is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 5 2009, 01:23 AM   #14
JNG
Chief of Staff, Starfleet Command
 
Re: Revised USS Enterprise numbers

I see absolutely no reason why Starfleet registries should bear any resemblance to current military practice, or why we can conclude the letter suffixes are somehow illogical within the fictional registry scheme as presented when we know jack about that system other than what's been shown. They set the hero ship and its name apart, and are a much more subtle way to do that than painting neon green racing stripes on the ships or whatever the hell Hollywood hacks might have come up with if they'd gotten the chance.

regemet wrote: View Post
Here I have written revised numbers foe the various Enterprises
Yes you have.
JNG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 5 2009, 02:38 AM   #15
Christopher
Writer
 
Christopher's Avatar
 
Re: Revised USS Enterprise numbers

regemet wrote: View Post
Here I have written revised numbers foe the various Enterprises

USS Enterprise NCC 01 Nx Class
USS Enterprise NCC 1701 Constitution Class
USS Enterprise NCC 1771 Constitution class (Enterprise A) Originally USS Yorktown NCC 1717
USS Enterprise NCC 3701 Excelsior Class (Enterprise B)
USS Enterprise NCC 11701 Ambassador Class (Enterprise C)
USS Enterprise NCC 61701 Galaxy Class (Enterpriss D)
USS Enterprise NCC 71701 Sovereign Class (Enterprise E)

Interesting suggestions. Not sure it's feasible, though. It's still somewhat contrived to insist on ending in "701," since that would be unlikely to reflect the actual numerical order of the ships and might conflict with earlier vessels of the same registries. Also, I'd think the Excelsior-class one would be 2701, or maybe 2017, since the original Excelsior was 2000.


ancient wrote: View Post
Was it CLB who suggested that the ship might be almost totally new but kept the old number for political reasons? (Such as agreeing to limit the number of new cruisers built in a Klingon treaty)
Definitely not me. I'm one of the ones who say that keeping the same number was a silly idea. I don't understand the suggestion that there could be some political reason for keeping a registration number, since registration numbers are fairly obscure bits of trivia.


JNG wrote: View Post
I see absolutely no reason why Starfleet registries should bear any resemblance to current military practice, or why we can conclude the letter suffixes are somehow illogical within the fictional registry scheme as presented when we know jack about that system other than what's been shown. They set the hero ship and its name apart, and are a much more subtle way to do that than painting neon green racing stripes on the ships or whatever the hell Hollywood hacks might have come up with if they'd gotten the chance.
It's not about conformity to current practice, it's about whether it makes sense in-universe. The whole idea of "setting the hero ship apart" doesn't make sense from an in-universe perspective, because in-universe, there is no single "hero ship" that's more important than the rest of the fleet put together. We've seen ships named Enterprise save the Earth or the galaxy a few times, but what about all the adventures we haven't seen, all the other starships that have saved planets or the galaxy or the universe while Captain Kirk was busy escaping from space gangsters or Captain Picard was trapped in a holodeck? Or what about all the ships that saved the Earth during the years between TOS and TNG? What about all the Vulcan ships that saved Vulcan from cosmic menaces over the centuries? There can't realistically be only one "hero ship" in the entire Federation.

Then there's the fundamental question: What are registration numbers for? They're for the purpose of formally identifying, classifying, cataloguing, and tracking ships as unique entities. They're meant to provide specific and meaningful information about each distinct vessel. So it makes no sense to give the same registration number to two different ships. That just creates confusion. Granted, it would create less confusion if the ships didn't exist at the same time, but still, giving a ship a "vanity plate" registry gets in the way of providing further specific information that a number might convey. For instance, in Starfleet ships, the first two digits of a ship number designate its class (theoretically). So giving a Constitution-class registry to ships of the Excelsior, Ambassador, Galaxy, and Sovereign classes obscures their actual class information. And giving it a number ending in 01 regardless of when in the sequence it was built obscures information about its place in the series, its level of advancement relative to the rest of its class, etc.
__________________
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
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 06:54 AM.

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