At what point does the Federation decide to stop building Enterprises?

[Tim Thomason]

Re: At what point does the Federation decide to stop building Enterpri

I think that there may have been a "true" registry number for all these successor ships, at least in the design stage, before some admiral poked his head in and decided they needed a new Enterprise.

After the Naval Construction Contract is up, the registry can be anything, and is merely used for display purposes on the hull and identification purposes in status reports and whatnot.

So let's say in 2286, they decided to rename the Yorktown after the destroyed Enterprise. Furthermore, perhaps at Kirk or Scott's request, they agreed to change the decorative registry number. "NCC-1701" may have been too confusing, or unfeasible with official reports tied to the old ship, so they appended an "-A" to the old registry and treated it like a big deal.

Then a few years later, when the Ent-A is about retired, someone decides that one of the new Excelsiors will be re-registered and named in honor of Captain Kirk and the Enterprise. This continues decades later when the new Ambassadors need some press attention. And then the Galaxys. And the second Sovereign class is renamed and registered due to Picard and/or Riker's insistence.

Within Starfleet in the 2380s, this is a non-issue. No one expects or cares what happens when they reach 27 ships. By the time they do, registries and ship names will probably no longer be prominently displayed and registries might not even be known outside of the planning stages (maybe when they reach 6 or 7 digits).

This might also apply to the Defiant or Yamato or Relativity. Whoever gets closest to the Z mark. If they don't completely ignore it at some point, perhaps the registry number (or even name, for a time) might be retired as a great honor instead of reused in perpetuity.

 

[The Wormhole]

Re: At what point does the Federation decide to stop building Enterpri

The thing that got me about Relativity's registry, NCV-474439-G was that the dedication plaque says it's the seventh ship to bear the name, meaning the first Relativity was NCV-474439-A and there was no NCV-474439 with no letters added.

Yeah, I know, whoever wrote the plaque obviously didn't think too hard on the matter and just said just figured since G is the seventh letter this must be the seventh ship when in fact it should be the eighth.

 

[Dukhat]

Re: At what point does the Federation decide to stop building Enterpri

Here's my $0.02:

When Morrow told Kirk that the original Enterprise was going to be decommissioned, Starfleet already had plans to replace her with the next Enterprise, a new Excelsior class vessel (probably the second ship built after the prototype.) This new ship, once commissioned, would probably have just had a newer registry; say, NCC-2001 or something.

However, after the incident in TVH, Starfleet decided to honor Kirk by recommissioning an older Constitution class vessel as the (temporarily) new Enterprise, with an accompanying tribute to the old registry, NCC-1701-A. This was only supposed to be a temporary assignment until the Excelsior class ship was finished construction (which explains the very short lifespan of the Ent-A.) But because of what happened at Khitomer, Starfleet decided to extend this new registry format to the new Enterprise, giving it the NCC-1701-B registry and making it the standard for all future Enterprises.

 

[HIjol]

Re: At what point does the Federation decide to stop building Enterpri

My tuppence, or .025 euro, or whatever...

This Old Fogey could not imagine a USS Enterprise without a registry number of 1701.

 

[Timo]

Re: At what point does the Federation decide to stop building Enterpri

Plus, there is no rule that says that the flagship must be named Enterprise (a recent honor only bestowed upon E-D and E-E).

Well, there's quite a bit of doubt whether the E-E ever had that honor...

The thing that got me about Relativity's registry, NCV-474439-G was that the dedication plaque says it's the seventh ship to bear the name, meaning the first Relativity was NCV-474439-A and there was no NCV-474439 with no letters added.

Well, she was a timeship. Something like that is only to be expected! ("An accident with a contraceptive vending machine and a time machine" and all that...)

When Morrow told Kirk that the original Enterprise was going to be decommissioned, Starfleet already had plans to replace her with the next Enterprise, a new Excelsior class vessel

But Starfleet should never be in need of successor Enterprises. Merely successor starships. The name is just paint on the hull; an Enterprise would more probably be replaced by an Intrepid than by another Enterprise. Certainly if naming presents problems, factual succession should go ahead regardless of such problems (E-nil -> USS Insignificant, and Kirk commanding E-nil -> Kirk commanding USS Golden Handshake).

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Christopher]

Re: At what point does the Federation decide to stop building Enterpri

My tuppence, or .025 euro, or whatever...

This Old Fogey could not imagine a USS Enterprise without a registry number of 1701.

Sure, but that's probably only because the later productions have treated the number itself as iconic. Nobody in the original show ever spoke a registry number aloud like they often did in the sequels and movies. It was just there on the miniature, never called attention to in any other way. (The first time any registry numbers were ever spoken aloud onscreen was in the Epsilon 9 comm chatter in TMP; the first time an Enterprise's number was spoken aloud was in TNG: "The Last Outpost.")

If TMP had gone ahead with changing the number to NCC-1800, and if other shows had followed suit in using different numbers, then fans today would have a different perception of "NCC-1701." We wouldn't have been conditioned to identify the name Enterprise so strongly with that number. Or at least, what conditioning there had been in fandom over the first 13 years of Trek's existence would've been negated.

 

[Dukhat]

Re: At what point does the Federation decide to stop building Enterpri

But Starfleet should never be in need of successor Enterprises. Merely successor starships. The name is just paint on the hull...

Tell that to the U.S. Navy on which Starfleet is ostensibly based. And anyway, it's circular logic to say that Starfleet "should never need to rename ships." There's also nothing to preclude that Starfleet should never not need to rename ships (and if TNG is any indication, this practice is the norm, not the exception.)

 

[Timo]

Re: At what point does the Federation decide to stop building Enterpri

Tell that to the U.S. Navy on which Starfleet is ostensibly based.

I'm not aware of any instance where the USN would have created a successor namesake to a ship that was bowing out.

The only thing that comes even close is, fittingly enough, Enterprise, as regards the CVN-65->CVN-80 thing where the gap between the two might be mere decade or a bit more. And that's a marketing gimmick relating more to Star Trek than to USN practices!

Even there, CVN-80 doesn't replace CVN-65. The older ship has already been replaced, by CVN-78, the Ford.

And anyway, it's circular logic to say that Starfleet "should never need to rename ships."

No, it's not. It's just a statement that can easily be made. Although I don't know of anybody who would have made such a statement.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Dukhat]

Re: At what point does the Federation decide to stop building Enterpri

I'm not aware of any instance where the USN would have created a successor namesake to a ship that was bowing out.

The only thing that comes even close is, fittingly enough, Enterprise, as regards the CVN-65->CVN-80 thing where the gap between the two might be mere decade or a bit more.

Yes, I was referring to the Enterprise as the specific example here, of which three different naval vessels were given that name. So there's precedent.

It's just a statement that can easily be made.

Just like my statement was easily made. And backed up by proof (TNG ship naming conventions.)

 

[HIjol]

Re: At what point does the Federation decide to stop building Enterpri

O

My tuppence, or .025 euro, or whatever...

This Old Fogey could not imagine a USS Enterprise without a registry number of 1701.

Sure, but that's probably only because the later productions have treated the number itself as iconic. Nobody in the original show ever spoke a registry number aloud like they often did in the sequels and movies. It was just there on the miniature, never called attention to in any other way. (The first time any registry numbers were ever spoken aloud onscreen was in the Epsilon 9 comm chatter in TMP; the first time an Enterprise's number was spoken aloud was in TNG: "The Last Outpost.")

If TMP had gone ahead with changing the number to NCC-1800, and if other shows had followed suit in using different numbers, then fans today would have a different perception of "NCC-1701." We wouldn't have been conditioned to identify the name Enterprise so strongly with that number. Or at least, what conditioning there had been in fandom over the first 13 years of Trek's existence would've been negated.

Well and logically pointed out, Christopher, but relatively little about Star Trek appeals to my logical side, save the obvious...it is a Heart Senses Thing. Hearing the Themes, seeing Her fly by, the sound of the ship and warp core, doors, transporter...all of it. And, to the 1701 designation? I guess I was like a little chick or duckling, and imprinted on 1701 at its very first flyby/passover.

I'm not aware of any instance where the USN would have created a successor namesake to a ship that was bowing out.

The only thing that comes even close is, fittingly enough, Enterprise, as regards the CVN-65->CVN-80 thing where the gap between the two might be mere decade or a bit more.

Yes, I was referring to the Enterprise as the specific example here, of which three different naval vessels were given that name. So there's precedent.

It's just a statement that can easily be made.

Just like my statement was easily made. And backed up by proof (TNG ship naming conventions.)

Agreed, and I still laugh my ass off every time I see and read the words on your Avatar, Dukhat!

 

[Timo]

Re: At what point does the Federation decide to stop building Enterpri

Yes, I was referring to the Enterprise as the specific example here, of which three different naval vessels were given that name. So there's precedent.

Absolutely not. None of the Enterprises was built as a successor vessel to a previous one.

CV-6 did not succeed the preceding sloop or motor boat by that name - and herself was succeeded by the Forrestal. CVN-65 was, as said, succeeded by the Ford. The USN never considered naming the successor ships after the ships being retired, and never did name them that way.

Whether Starfleet generally renames ships, we don't know - beyond the Sao Paulo, there are no known cases of this happening. Whether Starfleet generally builds "successor names" contrary to all real-world precedent, we don't know - beyond the E-A->E-B and E-D->E-E, there are no non-Enterprise examples. The two concepts are basically the exact opposites of each other: it's impossible to create smooth name succession without reserving the right to swap the name of the succeeding vessel at the last minute. So probably Starfleet does a little bit of both: the E-C never got a "successor name", but if the E-D did, this must have involved a hasty name swap because the demise of the E-D was unscheduled and starships aren't replicated in a day.

Yet importantly enough, we have zero idea whether the E-E succeeded the E-D, except of course as the place of employment for our heroes. The E-D was the luxurious Federation Flagship. The E-E is a much smaller, utilitarian-looking design that lacks the pompous title. Her mission description (from what we see in the few movies) is as ambiguous as that of the previous hero ship, though. Perhaps all Starfleet ships larger than certain threshold size actually perform an identical, highly generic mission? But in that case, the E-E certainly is not the functional successor of the E-D - the unknown random starship that happened to be launched immediately after the crash of the E-D saucer is.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[eyeresist]

Re: At what point does the Federation decide to stop building Enterpri

What you're not taking into account is that the Enterprise-J only existed in an alternate reality where the Sphere Builders were able to expand the Expanse from the 22nd century onward ... And because he did stop them, the Enterprise-J does not exist anymore.

Very good point. Although, given the way fans like to tie up all elements of the continuity, it may have somehow been built anyway...

 

[BillJ]

Re: At what point does the Federation decide to stop building Enterpri

The "J" always looked like a giant pizza cutter with warp nacelles to me. I never got the love for the design.

 

[mos6507]

Re: At what point does the Federation decide to stop building Enterpri

IMHO, the only reason the lettering scheme started was because the -A was the same model as the regular refit. The -A was stuck on there to distinguish it as sort of a recreation. They didn't really need to slap a succeeding letter on each next-gen ship from B onward. I think the reason they did the -D was because moviegoers still had Trek IV in their memory, so it was a callback.

 

[Christopher]

Re: At what point does the Federation decide to stop building Enterpri

IMHO, the only reason the lettering scheme started was because the -A was the same model as the regular refit. The -A was stuck on there to distinguish it as sort of a recreation.

I'm not sure that's right, though, because the "NCC-1701" had to be moved to the left a bit to keep it centered. On the original refit, the centerline of the hull passed through the hyphen, but in the A, the centerline passed along the left edge of the "1." So they had to reapply the entire decal anyway, meaning that it would've been just as easy to replace it with a different number.

 

[Timo]

Re: At what point does the Federation decide to stop building Enterpri

I think mos6507 was speaking of the in-universe rationale: since the ship was a replica, she needed a replica registry, but the bureaucrats couldn't stomach the idea of an identifier that doesn't identify, especially on a ship that confusingly was "the same model", and the -A was "stuck on there". But not literally by painting it after a preexisting 1701, because those square meters of paint had become clouds over Genesis a few months (years?) previously.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Dukhat]

Re: At what point does the Federation decide to stop building Enterpri

Absolutely not. None of the Enterprises was built as a successor vessel to a previous one.

That depends on one's definition of "successor." My definition is that the name gets reused again for a newer vessel regardless of its class, function, mission, or date of construction, in tribute to an older vessel that had been decommissioned at any point in the past. Which we saw all the time in the TNG era.

Whether Starfleet generally renames ships, we don't know - beyond the Sao Paulo, there are no known cases of this happening.

I wasn't talking about renaming ships. I was talking about giving new ships the same names as older ships.

 

[Turd Ferguson]

Re: At what point does the Federation decide to stop building Enterpri

y.

Yet importantly enough, we have zero idea whether the E-E succeeded the E-D, except of course as the place of employment for our heroes. The E-D was the luxurious Federation Flagship. The E-E is a much smaller, utilitarian-looking design that lacks the pompous title. Her mission description (from what we see in the few movies) is as ambiguous as that of the previous hero ship, though. Perhaps all Starfleet ships larger than certain threshold size actually perform an identical, highly generic mission? But in that case, the E-E certainly is not the functional successor of the E-D - the unknown random starship that happened to be launched immediately after the crash of the E-D saucer is.

Timo Saloniemi

In Insurrection, "HAP" Riker mentions something about the diplomatic corps being busy with Dominion negotiations. Picard then responds "Ah, yes. So they need us to put out one more brushfire. Can anyone remember when we used to be explorers?" Also at this time, Picard and co. are entertaining whatever race the Regent Cuzar belongs to so they'll join the Federation. This seems to suggest that the Enterprise-E is still being used in a flagship capacity, maybe not as the top flagship, but a flagship, nonetheless.

Nemesis the E is called on again to start negotiations with Praetor Shinzon and the Romulan Empire. I can't remember right off if Shinzon requested Picard be the one to come there, or if it was just a matter of being the closest ship to the Neutral Zone

 

[Shark]

Re: At what point does the Federation decide to stop building Enterpri

When they run out of room on the saucer. (Or it's equivalent)

 

[Timo]

Re: At what point does the Federation decide to stop building Enterpri

That depends on one's definition of "successor." My definition is that the name gets reused again for a newer vessel regardless of its class, function, mission, or date of construction, in tribute to an older vessel that had been decommissioned at any point in the past. Which we saw all the time in the TNG era.

Okay, fine. It's just a bit confusing because it sidetracks the factual successors to a given vessel, the ones Starfleet needed and created in order to fill the gap in its ranks. No real navy ever considers the name of the vessel as a factor in construction - there's no need in the USN for an Enterprise, say, never was, probably never will be. For them, a name really is just paint on the hull.

So the real world cannot serve as a model for why there'd be this -A, -B, -C etc. chain, because ships of a given name aren't really related to each other in any practical way and certainly don't need a relationship to be further established by such chaining of registries.

This seems to suggest that the Enterprise-E is still being used in a flagship capacity, maybe not as the top flagship, but a flagship, nonetheless.

How does running diplomatic errands denote flagship capacity? Kirk's ship was doing that all the time, with or without special representatives aboard, but never held flagship status. (Except perhaps when Commodore Mendez broke his flag aboard the ship in "The Menagerie", but that would be another, more blatantly military sense of the word.)

If anything, the dialogue seems to suggest the E-E is being shunted to do something she shouldn't be doing. Although what she should be doing is unclear, as the next thing on the schedule appears to be a lengthy archaeological project!

Nemesis the E is called on again to start negotiations with Praetor Shinzon and the Romulan Empire. I can't remember right off if Shinzon requested Picard be the one to come there, or if it was just a matter of being the closest ship to the Neutral Zone

The whole point of hiding B-4 on that primitive planet seemed to be to lure the E-E close to the Neutral Zone so that she would "accidentally" be there when Shinzon's deliberately unspecific invitation went out. Admiral Janeway made it clear Picard was being sent solely because he was the closest, although she did refer to the previous adventures of the E-E (not of the exploits of Picard in general, but only of events relating to his time aboard the E-E!), calling them "interesting" and obliquely suggesting Picard and his current ship were the right tools for the job anyway.

We never did learn what makes or breaks a Federation Flagship. Which is a pity, as the concept was intriguing enough.

Timo Saloniemi