Naming A Starship
- Thread starter Edward Jellico
- Start date
- Status
I'd say it's just a case of it not being possible to please everybody at the same time. The world isn't a nice place, and mostly because the people therein aren't. In the US, von Braun simply wouldn't be a controversial figure worth much hassle, as there are far more notorious names to consider.
Naming a shuttle after George Washington would be quite offending to certain audiences, too - why venerate that old slave-beater and criminal scum who betrayed his king and country? But the context of Star Trek the franchise won't cater for that particular viewpoint, at least not in the 2010s.
We may simply take that to the meta level of the context of Star Trek the universe not being particularly sympathetic to the vantage point of those who disapprove of von Braun.
Timo Saloniemi
In the American cases you're listing exceptions that prove the rule.
For instance, yes, one Midway-class carrier is named after a president, but so is one Kitty Hawk-class carrier, and as it's been the norm since the Nimitz-class started it to name carriers after presidents, chances are if you're naming a ship named after a president, it's a carrier.
And yes, Jimmy Carter is an exception to the above, but the problem with creating a naming tradition based on the name Seawolf is that there's no clear definition of what a "sea wolf" is (which was the least of the program's problems) so adhering to it wasn't a priority. That said, one Seawolf is named Connecticut, which proves you can name an attack sub after a state without lightning striking, which is probably why the latest class of attack subs is called the Virginia-class.
Bataan, Iwo Jima and Tripoli were all famous battles in US Marine Corps history, and as the job of LHDs and LHAs is to carry US Marines into battle, the names are perfect indicators of the ship types even if they don't immediately identify their individual classes.
Langley follows a general Navy tradition of naming new ships after old, in this case after the US Navy's first carrier. And there were only two Saipans. Not finding a naming scheme for a run of two escort carriers is not a huge deal.
The rest are actual exceptions to individual naming tradition, but they're just that, exceptions, and one tradition they do follow is a long-standing US Navy tradition of honoring those who offer support for or service to the Navy's mission by naming ships after them.
My point is, you've listed a relative handful of names in a Navy with hundreds of ships, and those ships generally follow their own naming traditions. Ticonderogas are named after battles, Arleigh Burkes are named after notable figures in Navy history, Los Angeleses are named after cities, Ohios and Virginias are named after states, carriers are named after presidents and famous figures in american history. For every ship you bring up that doesn't follow naming traditions I can give you twenty that do, so you can tell class and type from the name more often than not if you're paying attention.
That's the problem I have with starship names. There is a difference between breaking tradition and utterly ignoring it. Unlike ships in real life, starships aren't all that distinguishable. They all use the same propulsion, same power source and same weapons. The only real differences they have are in size and layout, and no, you can't figure a thing like that out just by the name...unless the name adheres strictly to the theme established by the first ship of the class. A Sovereign with a name like Regal or Monarch will immediately tell you it's a Sovereign. A Nebula with a name like Witch Head or Mutara will immediately tell you it's a Nebula. A Nova class with the name Sacagewea tells you jack shit. See what I'm saying?
How many of today's Navy's have naming traditions such as the ones you mention for the US? And why would a fleet made up of members of dozens of worlds follow Earth Naming traditions?
And in the case of the Starfleet ship USS Enterprise, whenever that name has been used it always seems to on the class which would be considered the top of the line capital ship when the ship was commissioned.
You could also make an argument that having ship names that too easily identify the class isn't a good thing from a tactical point of view as it could allow enemies to too easily identify fleet make-up.
Several, around the world, because naming traditions have existed siince navies started naming ships. It's not like the US Navy made up the concept.
It wouldn't have to, but it might easily come up with its own traditions, and they would still be recognizable as such.
Which would make that a general naming tradition, wouldn't it? That makes two.
Dude, not having naming traditions won't stop an enemy from figuring out how your fleet is made up. Spies and spy satellites can do that without names.
But didn't you originally say that name Enterprise should not be used on a Galaxy Glass or Sovereign Class because it doesn't follow naming traditions.
But I did find this article if we want to talk naming traditions.
https://www.everything2.com/title/ship+naming+conventions
But how are these ships related the USN Wasp Class
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wasp-class_amphibious_assault_ship
Most "naming conventions" are just cheap cop-outs in the end. If you project on building five dozen escorts, you don't want to come up with the names for those. So you either just number them, or pull a "theme" out of your ass (be it flowers or intestinal bacteria) and then cross name after name from some preexisting list. Trek runabouts would be a perfect example.
Big ships draw attention, though. And folks and organizations compete for that attention. So you give names that make political sense at the end of the day. Tradition won't translate to themes there, unless you happen to be able to afford a bunch of ships at once.
How could they be recognizable? Ships named after US battles are not recognizable for their naming theme, because the battles are obscure to the extreme to outsiders: Lexington, Saratoga and Harper's Ferry don't even seem to come from the same planet, if they are recognizable as location names at all. If Starfleet named ships after battle sites, we really couldn't tell whether Yamato or Archer fit that theme.
In any case, names of battle sites tend to be second-order things, because most places were named after something in the first place. In the 24th century, Starfleet is still naming ships after things dating back from the 17th century Earth; there would be more layers to it than ever before, fourth-order, fifth-order and whatnot. Such as this putative Starship class named after famous starships...
Timo Saloniemi
It seemed odd to have the USS Hathaway (TNG: Peak Performance), presumably named after Shakespeare's wife Anne Hathaway. But you could just say it was anyone called Hathaway in the next 350 years. Maybe our Anne Hathaway does something amazing at some point in the near future..
You mean it wasn't named after the actress from the early 21st century who starred in The Princess Diaries? I'm shocked! Shocked, I tell you!
^ I thought it was named after the kid who played Boxey on BSG.
The ship named after Boxey is a target ship.
Don't you have that backwards? I would think that just using numbers would be the cop out.
And we're talking about fleets with lots of ships at once, so you can use more than just political names. So whar's your point?
Learn the history, learn the culture, understand the tradiition, the exact same way it's done now.
Yes, I did. Just because I recognize the tradiition doesn't mean it's one I agree with.
Okay,,,
I fail to see the point of this question.
Zhuvov isn't that insane a name; it respects the Russians/Soviets who died fighting the Nazis, while sidelining Stalin.
In London we have a statue of "Bomber Harris", a man I despise because he threw away lives on missions that just killed German civilians. But that was the memorial the survivors of Bomber Command wanted; they worshipped him, even though my hindsight view is that he risked their lives for pointless murder.
Short version, if Starfleet wants to acknowledge those who died on the Eastern front, Zhukov is the least worse name.
Last edited:
My Enemy My Ally has Ael asking which particular enterprise the ship was named for, and on hearing it's for the entire concept, laughs and says "So that's why it's always in trouble." (Paraphrasing)
I would assume the ship would be named by the fleet and not by the crew.
As Kira says in one episode of DS9, "Lucky Earth has so many rivers." And they never got to Thames, or anything else from Britain...
It's named for Jane Hathaway.
And the fleet should reflect the galatic races that work, live and die in its name. Not just its human contingent, just as United Earth Starfleet should/would have ships to reflect Earth and not just English speaking nations.
After reading Malcom Reed's memoirs all British citizens of United Earth decided to boycott the organisation Starfleet for its biased Americancentricness and joined the Risian space fleet
- Status
Similar threads
