Why Did Roddenberry Hate the "dreadnought" from the Starfleet Technical Manual?

[Shamrock Holmes]

Again, there's no logic in registry numbers being a "nod" to anything. If you want a "nod," that's what ship names are for. Registry numbers are functional, meant to give information about the ship itself as a piece of hardware, its class and its place in the construction sequence. They're not vanity plates.

Not purely.

However, existing nods along similar lines can be seen in certain Starfleet ship names:

NX-01 (First long-range starship) --> Same name as OV-101 (first orbiter)
NX-02 --> Same name as OV-102 (first flight-capable orbiter, second orbiter)
NCC-1031 ---> Same name as OV-103 (Third orbiter)

So it's not a must but I don't think it's a must not like having registrations that tell you nothing about the ship's capabilities.

Frankly, I'd like to see a bit more variety on the prefixes too. For instance:

NAR = Auxiliary Research Vessel
NAM = Auxiliary Medical Vessel ("Hospital Ship")
NSP = Supply Vessel
NFF = Exploration Frigate (small multi-role starship, ex-hero ships)
NCC = Exploration Cruiser (medium multi-role starship, most hero ships during their era)
NED = Exploration/Diplomatic Vessel (large multi-role starship, suitable for diplomatic and flapship duties.
NX = Experimental Vessel

 

[Christopher]

But in the case of the Enterprises, they literally are.

My point is that they shouldn't be, that the choice of the franchise to approach the numbers that way was silly because it's ignoring the functional purpose of registry numbers in favor of thoughtless nostalgia.

"That's how the show does it" is not a defense, because the whole point of fictional criticism is to assess the quality of what it does, and whether it was a good or bad idea to do it that way.

I don't really see the problem here. A registration number is a unique ship identifier. 1701-D is as unique as 74205 or 74656.

But the numbers aren't supposed to be arbitrary. They're supposed to be informative about the ship's physical nature. For instance, when Jefferies chose NCC-1701, his notes explained that it was supposed to be the first ship built in the 17th class of ships. Such a number identifies a ship in a meaningful way by putting it in context, identifying what class of ship it is and where it falls in the progression of that class's evolution. As Jefferies proposed, a refitted ship would have an A or B or whatever appended to it, because that meaningfully indicates both its origins within the sequence and the fact that it's been upgraded from that starting configuration. So the number gives relevant information. But if you give the same number to completely unrelated ships of multiple different classes, then it's not informative. It's purely superficial, even misleading, and that misses the point of what registry numbers are meant to do.

 

[Tomalak]

Sure, we all know that was the original intention, but it never made it past the second season in reality, unless the 10th design and and 17th design happened to be identical.

That's clearly not how registry numbers work in Star Trek. Plenty of ideas the designers may have had never made it to the screen.

 

[Kamen Rider Blade]

That's clearly not how registry numbers work in Star Trek. Plenty of ideas the designers may have had never made it to the screen.

I concur, what the original designers wanted and how it was portrayed is quite different. This leads to different conclusions based on how it's used.

Even IRL, the US Military has broken their own naming conventions several times.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1962_United_States_Tri-Service_aircraft_designation_system
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_...he_United_States#Unified_System,_1962–present

Whatever the intent of the original system, the services broke it for one reason or another.

The F-35 JSF was supposed to be the F-24, but for numerous reasons, when it went from X-35 to F-##, they didn't follow established protocol and just converted it to F-35 instead of F-24.

 

[Christopher]

Sure, some irregularities are bound to crop up in any system, but that doesn't mean this specific one, of permanently attaching a registry number to a single ship name as a centuries-long tradition, is any less silly.

 

[Kamen Rider Blade]

Sure, some irregularities are bound to crop up in any system, but that doesn't mean this specific one, of permanently attaching a registry number to a single ship name as a centuries-long tradition, is any less silly.

I kind of like it, and using the letters as incrementation makes sense to me given the long service life expected out of ships. You aren't expected to run through all Capitalized A-Z and lower case a-z anytime soon.

Kind of how license plates are assigned to certain people in certain states / countries instead of getting a new randomized license plate or a customized vanity plate.

 

[Christopher]

I kind of like it, and using the letters as incrementation makes sense to me given the long service life expected out of ships. You aren't expected to run through all Capitalized A-Z and lower case a-z anytime soon.

But Jefferies wanted the letters to be used for refits of the same ship, not entirely different ships of the same name.

Kind of how license plates are assigned to certain people in certain states / countries instead of getting a new randomized license plate or a customized vanity plate.

But it's overly fannish to treat the Enterprise as some super-magic all-important ship that gets special treatment all the time. Other Starfleet ships surely accomplish things too. Other crews surely deserve recognition. The way everything since TNG has treated the Enterprise as intrinsically superior to everything else in Starfleet has an elitism to it that I find distasteful and anathema to how the Federation is supposed to work.

 

[Kamen Rider Blade]

But Jefferies wanted the letters to be used for refits of the same ship, not entirely different ships of the same name.

What he wanted, and what's portrayed on screen isn't always 1 to 1. Especially given the on screen cannon evidence.

But it's overly fannish to treat the Enterprise as some super-magic all-important ship that gets special treatment all the time. Other Starfleet ships surely accomplish things too. Other crews surely deserve recognition. The way everything since TNG has treated the Enterprise as intrinsically superior to everything else in Starfleet has an elitism to it that I find distasteful and anathema to how the Federation is supposed to work.

I agree, that's why every ship name should have appending letters on it when moved to a new class of ship or re-fitted.

e.g. The USS Sao Paulo that got renamed to the "USS Defiant" after the original one got destroyed, that should be technically the "USS Defiant" NCC-1764-B

 

[MAGolding]

Sure, we all know that was the original intention, but it never made it past the second season in reality, unless the 10th design and and 17th design happened to be identical.

That's clearly not how registry numbers work in Star Trek. Plenty of ideas the designers may have had never made it to the screen.

You mean that the 10th design and the 17th design look identical at a distance, not that they are identical. We don't seen enough of the Enterprise in 78 episodes, or enough of the Constellation in one episode, to say that they are identical, especially since both of them would have been upgraded several times, probably being modified each time to look more like the latest new ships look.

 

[Christopher]

What he wanted, and what's portrayed on screen isn't always 1 to 1. Especially given the on screen cannon evidence.

I know what they did. I'm saying I wish they had done something different instead of that. I am criticizing the show's choices. Criticism does not mean the critic is unaware of what the show did. It means the critic does not like what the show did and is suggesting a better alternative.

 

[Tomalak]

You mean that the 10th design and the 17th design look identical at a distance, not that they are identical. We don't seen enough of the Enterprise in 78 episodes, or enough of the Constellation in one episode, to say that they are identical, especially since both of them would have been upgraded several times, probably being modified each time to look more like the latest new ships look.

All the bits we do see are identical. You're right, it's possible they are fundamentally different enough to warrant distinct class numbers according to the Jefferies system, but it's not particularly plausible. The Constellation is obviously supposed to be the same type of ship as the Enterprise. And the Exeter for that matter.

I get that Jefferies intent was quite correct and well thought-out, but it just didn't carry through to the series.

 

[Christopher]

I get that Jefferies intent was quite correct and well thought-out, but it just didn't carry through to the series.

And I'm just saying that I wish it had, because it would've worked better.

I don't worry about the "NCC-1017," because that was just a matter of expediency -- they were using an AMT model kit and had to rearrange the decals. A ton of stuff in TOS was just what they could manage to slap together on the fly, not some absolute ideal or carefully measured decision.

But TVH's decision to use "NCC-1701-A" on the new Enterprise was a conscious choice. They had to repaint the whole number anyway to keep it centered when they added two extra characters, so they could've easily chosen to paint on a whole different number. And TNG's decision to continue that precedent with "1701-D" was also a conscious choice, since they were starting from scratch. And I wish that neither one had made that choice.

 

[Tomalak]

I get you. Interestingly one of the earliest TNG ideas was to show the adventures of the Starship Enterprise NCC-1701-7, so the idea to add a suffix was floating around. I think I prefer 1701-A to 1701-2.

 

[Mysterion]

But TVH's decision to use "NCC-1701-A" on the new Enterprise was a conscious choice. They had to repaint the whole number anyway to keep it centered when they added two extra characters, so they could've easily chosen to paint on a whole different number. And TNG's decision to continue that precedent with "1701-D" was also a conscious choice, since they were starting from scratch. And I wish that neither one had made that choice.

I agree completely. It's like if the US Navy had designated the carrier Enterprise in the 60's as CV-6-A instead of CVN-65, or if the next one was going to be CVN-6-B instead of CVN-80. Would make no sense and serve no purpose. USN carriers have been numbered sequentially with type since the first one. Same for other types of ships, which is why you could have USS Kitty Hawk (CV-63) and USS Missouri (BB-63) in the fleet around the same time.

and would go a bit further: maybe it shouldn't have even been another Constitution class ship. Too much of ST# and ST4 are just big damn re-set buttons. They got bold and changed the status quo in ST2 - crew getting older and maybe ready to move on, Spock's dead, Kirk's got a son, etc. But wait, in ST3 we get rid of the kid and bring Spock back. Lost the Enteprrise in Trek 3? No probs, Starfleet happened to have spare lying about and the get it in ST4. Oh and that new Vulcan from ST2? Noo worry, we'll just ditch her in ST4. Yawn. I really wish they'd been willing to take a few more chances with these films.

 

[Christopher]

Like I keep saying, realistically, it wouldn't have been any version of "1701," because that number belonged to the specific physical piece of hardware that was commanded by April, Pike, and Kirk in the 2240s-80s. The numbers don't serve the same purpose as ship names. They're attached to the physical vessels themselves, not the abstract ideas or traditions associated with them.

Besides, there was no point in the entirety of TOS when any character actually mentioned the registry number of the Enterprise. It was just a background detail. If people wanted to talk about the ship, they'd just talk about the Enterprise. It's just an aspect of fannish nostalgia and sentiment that we got so attached to that number that later productions started treating it as iconic in its own right. And I don't like it when storytelling gets influenced by out-of-universe fannish sentiment at the expense of in-universe plausibility. It's silly to romanticize something functional and incidental like a serial number. It wouldn't have diminished TNG in any way if the Enterprise's registry number there had been something like NCC-62984. Sure, it would've cost us the convenience of talking about the Enterprise-D as opposed to the Enterprise-C, say, but the need to do that rarely actually came up in the stories anyway. There would've been other, just slightly longer phrases that could've been used instead (e.g. "the previous Enterprise," "Garrett's Enterprise," "the Ambassador-class Enterprise," etc.).

I agree completely. It's like if the US Navy had designated the carrier Enterprise in the 60's as CV-6-A instead of CVN-65, or if the next one was going to be CVN-6-B instead of CVN-80. Would make no sense and serve no purpose. USN carriers have been numbered sequentially with type since the first one. Same for other types of ships, which is why you could have USS Kitty Hawk (CV-63) and USS Missouri (BB-63) in the fleet around the same time.

Yes, this, exactly. The original TOS writers' bible (or rather, the season 2 edition) spent its first several pages drilling prospective writers on verisimilitude by asking them to imagine whether a situation in a Trek episode would make sense if transposed to a present-day Naval vessel. If it wouldn't be done in real life, they didn't want it to be done in their show. It's a standard that's all too often been ignored in later productions.

and would go a bit further: maybe it shouldn't have even been another Constitution class ship. Too much of ST# and ST4 are just big damn re-set buttons. They got bold and changed the status quo in ST2 - crew getting older and maybe ready to move on, Spock's dead, Kirk's got a son, etc. But wait, in ST3 we get rid of the kid and bring Spock back. Lost the Enteprrise in Trek 3? No probs, Starfleet happened to have spare lying about and the get it in ST4. Oh and that new Vulcan from ST2? Noo worry, we'll just ditch her in ST4. Yawn. I really wish they'd been willing to take a few more chances with these films.

Absolutely. It's frustrating how both the TOS and TNG movie series shy away from any major changes and insist on hitting the reset button over and over, undoing any significant change within two movies, and only allowing permanent changes (like Sulu or Riker getting a captaincy) to happen in the final film.

 

[BK613]

I agree completely. It's like if the US Navy had designated the carrier Enterprise in the 60's as CV-6-A instead of CVN-65, or if the next one was going to be CVN-6-B instead of CVN-80. Would make no sense and serve no purpose. USN carriers have been numbered sequentially with type since the first one. Same for other types of ships, which is why you could have USS Kitty Hawk (CV-63) and USS Missouri (BB-63) in the fleet around the same time.

Absolutely. However, if for some reason, Congress had mandated such a numbering scheme for the Enterprise en perpetuity, then the US Navy would have no choice but to follow it. So it is in my headcanon that, because of the events in TVH, the Federation Council dictated the 1701-x scheme to Starfleet for ships named Enterprise and they have no choice but to follow it.

As a side note, I never interpreted Jefferies scheme as applying the suffix letter to the same ship. Being an aviation guy it looks like he was combining the design variant nomenclature with simplified tail numbers. The Flying Fortress for example came in several variants, and every time they modified or modernized the design, they incremented the letter. So a B-17E was bomber design 17, variant E, with a tail number that IDed the individual plane. A B-17G was different variant of the design. Make it NCC instead of B, still design 17, and slide the unit tail number in between the Variant number on the end.

 

[Mysterion]

Absolutely. However, if for some reason, Congress had mandated such a numbering scheme for the Enterprise en perpetuity, then the US Navy would have no choice but to follow it. So it is in my headcanon that, because of the events in TVH, the Federation Council dictated the 1701-x scheme to Starfleet for ships named Enterprise and they have no choice but to follow it.

Yeah, sure but it'd still be a silly, stupid thing. Right up there with the fanlore that everyone is wearing the Starfleet "delta" insignia to honor the original Enterprise. The UFP is a really big place, and I'm sure Starfleet is a really big organization where, undoubtedly, there a are a lot of folks and many different ships that are doing amazing and heroic things on a near daily basis. Singling Kirk/Enterprise out is more fandom than it is likely to be reality. Even in a fictional reality like Star Trek.

 

[Kamen Rider Blade]

I know what they did. I'm saying I wish they had done something different instead of that. I am criticizing the show's choices. Criticism does not mean the critic is unaware of what the show did. It means the critic does not like what the show did and is suggesting a better alternative.

Fair enough. I'm just suggesting my alternative given the evidence on screen.

 

[Christopher]

Right up there with the fanlore that everyone is wearing the Starfleet "delta" insignia to honor the original Enterprise.

Which never made sense, because it ignored the fact that other ships and starbases already used that insignia in TOS, as seen with the bar patrons in "Court Martial" and Commodore Mendez's secretary in "The Menagerie" (and also the Defiant crew in "The Tholian Web," though this was hard to see before HD, and the makers of "In a Mirror, Darkly" missed it and created a different insignia for them). The original intent, as we now know thanks to the unearthing of a Bob Justman memo a few years ago, is that the arrowhead was supposed to be used for all front-line starships, and the alternate insignia seen on the Antares crew in "Charlie X" was meant to represent the merchant marine. The use of different ship insignias in "The Doomsday Machine" and "The Omega Glory" was seen as a mistake.

Plus it's been retroactively contradicted by all the later productions showing the arrowhead in use Starfleet-wide before TOS -- going back to Voyager's "Friendship One" identifying it as a UESPA insignia first used in the 2060s.

But yes, aside from all that, it was a silly idea that this one ship got treated as so much better than all the others. It's small-universe syndrome, centering everything around what we've seen onscreen and undermining the sense of a larger reality beyond it.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

The original intent, as we now know thanks to the unearthing of a Bob Justman memo a few years ago, is that the arrowhead was supposed to be used for all front-line starships, and the alternate insignia seen on the Antares crew in "Charlie X" was meant to represent the merchant marine. The use of different ship insignias in "The Doomsday Machine" and "The Omega Glory" was seen as a mistake.

I'm not convinced that that memo represents original intent.

For one thing, Antares was given differing characterizations within "Charlie X" itself: cargo vessel, science probe vessel. The vessel was never explicitly characterized on-screen as a vessel run by anything analogous to Merchant Marines. Running cargo is a Merchant Marine activity; a science probe vessel suggests something more than merely transporting cargo and/or passengers from one port to another. Kirk contacted UESPA headquarters to inform them of the loss of Antares, which was the same headquarters for the Enterprise. If anything, the use of uniforms that were canonically Starfleet uniforms in every way except having the same insignia as the Enterprise screamed Starfleet vessel.* Owing to the differing characterizations, there's more evidence that at the time of "Charlie X" no one working on the show including Roddenberry had a clear, fixed idea what type of vessel Antares was than there is that original intent was that it be a Merchant Marine-type vessel.

* - On the subject of Starfleet uniforms that were the same as other Starfleet uniforms except insignia, clearly Starbase personnel like Mendez, Stone, Piper, etc. had that going on.

The declarations that Constellation and Exeter badges were contrary to original intent and that the different insignia in "Charlie X" stood for something like Merchant Marines were all retroactive.

At best, the memo represents intent as it was at the time it was written, which is my conclusion.

@Harvey or @Maurice might have more to say that can prove me wrong.

Standing by to be proved wrong.