Wow, hellsgate that is quite a statement if that is directed at the writers of the Pocket Books series. I believe that the opposite is the case.
NCC-2000-A?
- Thread starter trekkerguy
- Start date
Wow, hellsgate that is quite a statement if that is directed at the writers of the Pocket Books series. I believe that the opposite is the case.
Did she also sing samba?
The only ship that should have a registry suffix is U.S.S. Enterprise to honor Kirk's ship. Remember, the producers recanted the NCC-1305-E registry of Yamato.
You're making up rules. The Enterprise isn't the only ship in a massive fleet,
to have a name worthy of honoring with a suffix.
The Lakota had a suffix showing it wasn't the first of it's line.
I am all for the Enterprise being regarded as the legendary line,
but your argument really doesn't make alot of sense to me.
As for the Pocket Books Trek writers, I have read many,
and I mean many different Trek novels from them and they have
almost always seemed to strive towards staying in canon and
even regarding other writers works.
And it's "trekkerguy" people, I would have capitolized the "T" and "G" if that's how I wanted em.
I do intend to "Blaze my own trail" with my writing at somepoint.
But I also intend to keep in mind the work of previous writers who came before me.
No I am not. From Memory Alpha and confirmed in the Star Trek Encyclopedia page 569:
"According to Star Trek Encyclopedia, the initial registry number was a production mistake. It was given to the Yamato by the episode writer Jack B. Sowards, who was unaware of the registry numbering scheme developed for Star Trek: The Next Generation. Michael Okuda had intended to correct the number to NCC-71807 as he had already finished making the model for "Contagion" with that number, but as the scene was removed from an intermediate draft, he dropped the issue, only to find out the scene had been re-added later on to the final draft, which Okuda realized after the episode had aired."
http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/USS_Yamato
Please cite the source in which you find the U.S.S. Lakota with a -A, -B, -C, or -D etc in its registry number.
You're making up rules. The Enterprise isn't the only ship in a massive fleet,
to have a name worthy of honoring with a suffix.
The Lakota had a suffix showing it wasn't the first of it's line.
I am all for the Enterprise being regarded as the legendary line,
but your argument really doesn't make alot of sense to me.
As for the Pocket Books Trek writers, I have read many,
and I mean many different Trek novels from them and they have
almost always seemed to strive towards staying in canon and
even regarding other writers works.
And it's "trekkerguy" people, I would have capitolized the "T" and "G" if that's how I wanted em.
I do intend to "Blaze my own trail" with my writing at somepoint.
But I also intend to keep in mind the work of previous writers who came before me.
Photo of the Lakota studio-model from the Christie's auction. Note, no letter suffix.
Why is that an honor? Reusing the name is the honor. Where's the honor in reusing the registry number with a letter after it? I mean, who pays that much attention to ships' registry numbers, other than Star Trek fans? In reality, ships are named after past ships all the time, but they don't reuse the registry numbers. Indeed, sometimes the same ship gets a new number if it's refitted extensively enough. So requiring ships of the same name to reuse the same number with a letter stuck after it is a very odd notion. How does it add any more honor than the reuse of the actual name?
For whatever reason, the producers of The Voyage Home decided to call the new Enterprise "NCC-1701-A" -- probably just because fans had had two decades to get used to that number. And once that precedent was set, TNG followed through on it. But it's an odd fictional conceit. It's not an "honor." I don't see any reason to be attached to it as a tradition.
Herbert, Making three or more posts in a row, especially in very short timeframe, and especially when they don't add much to the conversation is considered spamming. Please utilize the Multi-Quote or the Edit button to keep your posts together in one post when you are the last one to have posted in a thread.
Future triple+ posting will result in a warning being issued.
Thanks
First off I didn't say it was an honor to have suffix. The poster said the Enterprise should be the only one to have it, to honor Kirks ship.
And ok so I am wrong, I thought the Lakota had an "A" after the registry, it doesn't take half a dozen of you to tell me that.
And I'm sorry, I think it silly that the Enterprise would be the only ship in the whole fleet to have used a suffix in it's naming. It makes sense to me, if several ships end up using a specific name that a suffix be added so that in general reference it's harder to confuse a past ship and crew with a new one.
It also explains why a ship newly christined in an era using 5, 6 or 7 digit registries could still be using an archaic registry like "1701" or "2000". I believe racanting the registry was a mistake. It makes it alot easier for someone not digging into ships histories, to get the idea a ship is carrying a name of some renown from a past ship by adding the suffix.
And ok so I am wrong, I thought the Lakota had an "A" after the registry, it doesn't take half a dozen of you to tell me that.
And I'm sorry, I think it silly that the Enterprise would be the only ship in the whole fleet to have used a suffix in it's naming. It makes sense to me, if several ships end up using a specific name that a suffix be added so that in general reference it's harder to confuse a past ship and crew with a new one.
It also explains why a ship newly christined in an era using 5, 6 or 7 digit registries could still be using an archaic registry like "1701" or "2000". I believe racanting the registry was a mistake. It makes it alot easier for someone not digging into ships histories, to get the idea a ship is carrying a name of some renown from a past ship by adding the suffix.
But the suffix isn't in the name, it's in the registry number. The ships aren't actually named Enterprise-A, Enterprise-B, and so on. Those are just shorthand for USS Enterprise NCC-1701-A etc. All the ships are just named Enterprise, period.
In real life, people have been reusing ship names for thousands of years and haven't needed letter suffixes to keep them straight. The type of ship and the historical context are usually sufficient. If I read about something the Enterprise did in the Pacific in WWII, I can assume it's the first aircraft carrier of that name and not the sailing ship or the current carrier.
Besides, since we have abundant canonical examples of reused ship names without reused numbers. Canon itself tells us that it's only the Enterprises that reuse numbers (leaving aside the continuity glitch with the Yamato). No matter what kind of reasoning you bring to bear, ultimately we have to defer to what's actually on the screen.
And never on screen have they said it's something special reserved for the Enterprise.
So by canon reference, it's possible, it's simply not been seen yet. It's never been discounted.
^^They don't have to say it, we've seen it. There are no other examples of letter suffixes in evidence. Why would it be piecemeal, with some ships but not others? And if there were others, why would they never be ships we've seen in the shows? At least keeping it to the E as a special case minimizes the inconsistency. It's easier to justify the canonical rarity of the practice if it's unique to one ship name for some bizarre traditional reason rather than being assigned to various ships at random.
Personally I'd be happier with no letter suffixes at all. I wish TVH hadn't invented a new custom and had just given the second Enterprise a new number -- maybe NCC-1966, to honor the premiere date of ST and suggest a ship built shortly before the Excelsior. But we're stuck with the letters on ships of this name, so we have to live with it. Better to limit it to one anomaly than to make an inconsistent and arbitrary pattern out of it.
Personally I'd be happier with no letter suffixes at all. I wish TVH hadn't invented a new custom and had just given the second Enterprise a new number -- maybe NCC-1966, to honor the premiere date of ST and suggest a ship built shortly before the Excelsior. But we're stuck with the letters on ships of this name, so we have to live with it. Better to limit it to one anomaly than to make an inconsistent and arbitrary pattern out of it.
1701 was far too iconic and just feels like the appropriate match for the Enterprise line.
I will, however, concede it makes more sense to leave off the suffix on other ships based
on your observations.
The novels have also given us the U.S.S. Saratoga, NCC-31911-A (which is bizarrely at least the third Saratoga and a newly build Miranda in 2371) and the U.S.S. Bozeman, NCC-1941-A. I can't recall any more suffixed ships beyond the aforementioned Excalibur-A.
Only because we're used to it -- because, as viewers of a television show called Star Trek, we saw that ship and its number every week and saw very few other ships whose numbers were even legible. That wouldn't apply to people within the ST universe. Most of them wouldn't be seeing this ship and its number on a weekly basis, and those who did (such as the people in Starfleet receiving the ship's reports) would be seeing plenty of other ships' numbers at the same time. To people in Starfleet, the number NCC-1701 would just be one registry number out of dozens or hundreds, and to people in the general population, it would be an obscure bit of trivia. How many people know the registry number of the battleship Arizona or the bomber Enola Gay? Names can become iconic, but numbers? I don't think so.
So I can understand why ST fans would want to keep the number, but there's no in-universe reason why it would be the subject of any great nostalgia. It's important not to confuse our priorities and perceptions as viewers with those of people within the fictional world itself.
Does anybody have the table book The Continuing Mission (Star Trek:TNG) handy? Because I remember reading in that book that we could have gotten a different system in TNG when it was still set in the 25th Century. The idea being that the Enterprise was the seventh ship, hence being known as the Enterprise 7 or Enterprise, NCC-1701-7. It was then changed to NCC-1701-G then to NCC-1701-D with the move from the 25th Century to the 24th.
Similar threads
- Poll
