I prefer "UFP StarFleet Ship".
"UFP Star Ship" might imply including Civilian UFP Governmental vessels amongst StarFleet vessels naming / registry scheme.
Ergo, the potential confusion.
Why Did Roddenberry Hate the "dreadnought" from the Starfleet Technical Manual?
- Thread starter Samuel
- Start date
"UFP Star Ship" might imply including Civilian UFP Governmental vessels amongst StarFleet vessels naming / registry scheme.
Ergo, the potential confusion.
Maybe all of them are technically accurate?
During the paper work for authorizing resource allocation to build said ship, NCC could mean this:
Naval
Construction
Contract
During construction of the vessel, the NCC on the physical hull and internal equipment can mean this:
Naval
Construction
Code
Upong construction completion & certification, the meaning of NCC changes to this for IFF / Registry purposes:
Navigational
Contact
Code
What do you think Christopher?
Given that the closest analogue "US Governmental planes" (and other similar national constructs) are military-operated* then having a common scheme (but different sub-registries) for civilian VIP ships does make sense. I'd also point to the fact that like "Federation Starships", USN warship prefixes reference the country not the organisation (whereas second-tier auxiliaries like the MSC vessels and Coastie cutters are purely organisational), similarly the RN's warships are HMS, "His/Her Majesty's Ship" (The Crown/goverment's) rather than say RNS ("Royal Navy Ship").
* POTUS plane - and it's associates - are (mostly) Air Force Number, because they are operated by the United States Air Force.
Any US Air Force aircraft is referred to as "Air Force One" if POTUS is aboard (not just the two VC-25 aircraft (Boeing 747*)from the 89th Military Airlift Wing we usually think of as "Air Force One"), and otherwise reverts to it's own call-sign (i.e. "SAM 27000" or whatever). When POTUS is aboard one of the US Marine helicopters from HMX-1, that aircraft is referred to as "Marine One". Similarly, we saw back in 2003 when W flew out to that carrier on a US Navy aircraft it was referred to, for that flight, as "Navy One".
(* - not to be confused with the four E-4B "Nightwatch" of "Doomsday" planes operated by the USAF 1st Airborne Command and Control Squadron)
Last edited:
I would have a separate designation for Governmental ships with a different Prefix
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_prefix
IRL has a boat load of prefixes ^_-.
I'll probably mimic it in my Head Cannon.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_prefix
IRL has a boat load of prefixes ^_-.
I'll probably mimic it in my Head Cannon.
IMO, canon is pretty clear that all primary Federation civil and diplomatic functions are carried out by Starfleet's NCC vessels (which is IMO consistent with IRL), other prefixes do exist.
ECS - formerly Earth Cargo Service, may still be in use for UE flagged civilian vessels (cf the Xhosa).
NAR - appears to designate civilian surveyor and colonial support vessels.
NBT - no information, the 'T' suggests a transport ship.
NFT - transport ship, only appearance was a private (?) character by El Aurian refugees.
NGA - civilian transport ship
NSP - apparently 'Vulcan National Merchant Fleet', likely (lightly armed?), mostly for cargo but can act as a small troop transport in extremis (likely the Vulcan equivalent of the ECS). May also have been used in a 'Coast Guard' type role (the most common RW uses of SP are either 'Shore Patrol' or the USN WWI era 'Section Patrol' designation for conscripted pleasure craft, yachts and similar).
ECS - formerly Earth Cargo Service, may still be in use for UE flagged civilian vessels (cf the Xhosa).
NAR - appears to designate civilian surveyor and colonial support vessels.
NBT - no information, the 'T' suggests a transport ship.
NFT - transport ship, only appearance was a private (?) character by El Aurian refugees.
NGA - civilian transport ship
NSP - apparently 'Vulcan National Merchant Fleet', likely (lightly armed?), mostly for cargo but can act as a small troop transport in extremis (likely the Vulcan equivalent of the ECS). May also have been used in a 'Coast Guard' type role (the most common RW uses of SP are either 'Shore Patrol' or the USN WWI era 'Section Patrol' designation for conscripted pleasure craft, yachts and similar).
I think the power output of multi-nacelle is only because of redundancy of power source... in some affect it would be like parallel circuits in electronics in my opinion. Never much of an increase in over-all power, but affecting the supply at high-use functions. Such as added phaser power charging in a fight or maybe additional ability to tug ships or other drain impulse systems have on power systems (phasers because of the tie in to engine power). Nacelle redundancy at full impulse to a fire fight might make the dreadnaught capable of more power to all systems during battle. One nacelled ship would have same max power at a stop... just not as quick to supply in motion.
And, similarly, the Veep flies on Air force Two, Marine Two, Navy Two, etc.
YDT - Yridian civilian craft, per the Trek Encyclopedia.
Source?
The idea has been floating around for a while... the DC comics did in fact give Kirk command of the Excelsior for a bit, and the design was not very popular with many fans for its role as a "heel" ship in TSFS. I could not find any info on Memory Alpha to suggest that either TSFS or TVH specifically intended to give the crew the Excelsior rather than a new Enterprise, as Harve Bennett definitely wanted the latter and was not happy that the details were leaked about the Enterprise being destroyed before TSFS hit theaters.
I don't have one. I read it a long time ago. I wish they had gone that route. It would have made for a more interesting series of movies.
It was Bill Shatner's "Star Trek Movie Memories" book that states that Executive Producer Harve Bennett wanted to have everyone transplanted directly to the Excelsior by the end of TVH. I would've liked that personally... The DC comics however drew the Excelsior like a hideous pregnant guppy 99% of the time, mostly because the comic artists had no access to the source model or plans, and that certainly didn't help its reputation.
Addendum: Some links to aforementioned hideous pregnant guppy:
https://memory-beta.fandom.com/wiki/Stand-Off!
https://memory-beta.fandom.com/wiki/The_Last_Word
https://memory-beta.fandom.com/wiki/The_Trouble_With_Bearclaw
And one where the cover art was actually relatively accurate to the Excelsior model, although the internal artwork was definitely NOT. Man did they have different standards for cover art back then... https://memory-beta.fandom.com/wiki/Wolf_on_the_Prowl
Mark
Addendum: Some links to aforementioned hideous pregnant guppy:
https://memory-beta.fandom.com/wiki/Stand-Off!
https://memory-beta.fandom.com/wiki/The_Last_Word
https://memory-beta.fandom.com/wiki/The_Trouble_With_Bearclaw
And one where the cover art was actually relatively accurate to the Excelsior model, although the internal artwork was definitely NOT. Man did they have different standards for cover art back then... https://memory-beta.fandom.com/wiki/Wolf_on_the_Prowl
Mark
Last edited:
I use to not like the Excelsior as a design. But I think after TNG started, and grew to like the design more. By Star Trek VI (and Sulu being in command) I really liked the ship.
I think partly the original dislike was that is was an antagonist/replacement ship (not replacement as it, "for the crew" but as in "for the Enterprise"), and partly because we didn't know what it could really do. Most shots we got at the time were of it lumbering out of Spacedock or sitting in Spacedock.
The change was seeing it with the Galaxy-class. That it wasn't all that large, and (to me) it looked better than the Galaxy-class. I still don't care for the aesthetics of the Galaxy-class starship, even though I appreciate its in-series design use and functionality (I like what the ship can do). I just don't like the nacelles and their placement. But seeing that made me like the Excelsior, with her long nacelles that are in-line, and just peaking over the top of the saucer. Over time we got to know the Excelsior design a little better (thought non-canon sources, mostly) and Its a good ship design.
I think partly the original dislike was that is was an antagonist/replacement ship (not replacement as it, "for the crew" but as in "for the Enterprise"), and partly because we didn't know what it could really do. Most shots we got at the time were of it lumbering out of Spacedock or sitting in Spacedock.
The change was seeing it with the Galaxy-class. That it wasn't all that large, and (to me) it looked better than the Galaxy-class. I still don't care for the aesthetics of the Galaxy-class starship, even though I appreciate its in-series design use and functionality (I like what the ship can do). I just don't like the nacelles and their placement. But seeing that made me like the Excelsior, with her long nacelles that are in-line, and just peaking over the top of the saucer. Over time we got to know the Excelsior design a little better (thought non-canon sources, mostly) and Its a good ship design.
Exactly. The whole reason why the Excelsior model was so much flatter than the Enterprise was because the latter ship was so difficult to film because of its size and shape. The original idea was to eventually segue from using the old Enterprise to the newer Excelsior. I don’t recall anything about the Ent-A being an Excelsior NCC-2001, just that the crew would eventually transition to the Excelsior (because at the time there was no Enterprise-A.)
Of course, none of that actually happened.
I thought it was supposed to be the NCC-2701? For the life of me, I can't remember where that comes from?
I don’t remember which book, but IIRC it was one of the earlier treatments for TNG, somewhere before it was the “USS Enterprise VII”..?
Mark
Mark
Similar threads
