Name of the Enterprise

[Christopher]

Of course, GR wanted the TNG ship to be the Enterprise-D, so the TVH vessel became the Enterprise-A. Since we're pretty much stuck with that...

No, it was the other way around. The NCC-1701-A notation is referenced in the shooting script dated March 11, 1986, a full seven months before TNG was put into development. According to the TNG Companion:

The starship in the new series was first designated as NCC-1701-7, but the generational notation was later changed to a letter, following the pattern established in the recently released feature film Star Trek VI. The new ship was made the eighth Enterprise, NCC-1701-G.

(The number/letter is so high because the show was initially planned to be in the 25th century.)

If every ship in Starfleet has a unique registration number, and from what we've seen this seems to be the case, isn't the "NCC" just a superfluous waste of paint (or whatever they use in the 24th and half century)?

Only if the Federation were the only civilization in the galaxy. Here on Earth, each nation has its own prefix letter(s) or letter-number combination for aircraft registries:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircra..._and_their_registration_prefixes_and_patterns

Also, the "N*" prefixes seem to be mainly for Starfleet; I'm not sure, but I think civilian craft might use different prefixes.

 

[Vance]

No, it was the other way around.

I could have sworn that it was TNG that wanted it, but no real matter. Someone decided that the letters needed to be there, and I guess that's what we're stuck with. Still, there's nothing about Trek that's really a problem here, except that it breaks with modern naval tradition, I guess. Maybe the registries mean more to the fleet than we think?

Only if the Federation were the only civilization in the galaxy.

And even then, that's assuming that all ships within Federation space ARE part of the Star Fleet registrar. That may very well be why we see NAR, NSP, and the like. (Federation, but not Star Fleet)

 

[pop-culture guy]

I'm glad you all like the thread, and I have read all your replies. But I'm just gonna ask this again cus I would really want to know. Do anyone know anything about whether or not the numbers 1701 came from the house across the street from Mr. Roddenberry?

This is taken from Wikipedia:
"The "1701" was a homage to the house across the street from where Mr. Roddenberry grew up."

It is apparently cited from "Fine Scale Modeler, May 1998, page 8."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Enterprise_(NCC-1701)

Any input on this is greatly appreciated!

 

[DaveyNY]

I'm glad you all like the thread, and I have read all your replies. But I'm just gonna ask this again cus I would really want to know. Do anyone know anything about whether or not the numbers 1701 came from the house across the street from Mr. Roddenberry?

This is taken from Wikipedia:
"The "1701" was a homage to the house across the street from where Mr. Roddenberry grew up."

It is apparently cited from "Fine Scale Modeler, May 1998, page 8."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Enterprise_(NCC-1701)

Any input on this is greatly appreciated!

Here's an interview with (Walter) Matt Jefferies from STAR TREK.com...

http://www.startrek.com/startrek/view/features/firstperson/article/143.html

Take it for what it's worth... but it seems more plausible than a House Number, especially since it comes from someone who actually helped create the Original Series.


BTW: IT seems that NCC has now become somewhat of a Star Trek Mantra to some people...

NEVER CONTRADICT CANON !!

<snicker>

 

[UssGlenn]

Why wouldn't the simple, and universally adopted practice of just naming the ship for another ship be sufficient?

Absolutely. Why would anyone honor a ship by reusing its number? Who notices numbers? Does anyone know the registration number of the Spirit of St. Louis or the Enola Gay or the Spruce Goose?

Without looking: Spirit of St. Louis is NX-211
Don't know the other two offhand.

 

[DaveyNY]

Why wouldn't the simple, and universally adopted practice of just naming the ship for another ship be sufficient?

Absolutely. Why would anyone honor a ship by reusing its number? Who notices numbers? Does anyone know the registration number of the Spirit of St. Louis or the Enola Gay or the Spruce Goose?

Without looking: Spirit of St. Louis is NX-211
Don't know the other two offhand.

The Enola Gay (B-29-45-MO, serial number 44-86292/Victor Number 82)

Hughes Flying Boat H-4 (HK-1) Hercules (“Spruce Goose”)

 

[Forbin]

Absolutely. Why would anyone honor a ship by reusing its number? Who notices numbers? Does anyone know the registration number of the Spirit of St. Louis or the Enola Gay or the Spruce Goose?

Well, yes, but you might have to be a lifelong airplane modeler and aviation buff like me to have them on the tip of your tongue. The Enola Gay carried the tactical number 82 (though I have no idea of her serial number, which is more analogous to the point), and the Spirit was registered as NX-211. And I don't think the Goose had any number on her at all, just a coat of silver paint, but I'd have to look that one up.

Yes, I'm geeky even beyond the realms of Trekdom.

EDIT: Heh, I see other people are too.

 

[Christopher]

Exactly my point. It's too much a bit of geeky trivia to be something that would get preserved as an "honor" or tradition. If you want to honor a ship, that's what the name is for.

 

[Cary L. Brown]

Exactly my point. It's too much a bit of geeky trivia to be something that would get preserved as an "honor" or tradition. If you want to honor a ship, that's what the name is for.

This (to me at least) seems to support the "transponder ID" concept, though, doesn't it?

I mean... you're flying along, and you get a transponder ID return which says "NCC-1701-C" on your tactical display. You don't have to look it up... you know it's the Enterprise (even if not the same Enterprise you originally learned the ID code from).

Why do this? Mainly for psychological/public-relations purposes... but it CAN be justified on that basis, I think.

 

[Christopher]

^^But then, if there's a utilitarian reason for it, why not do the same with every reused ship name?

 

[aridas sofia]

^^But then, if there's a utilitarian reason for it, why not do the same with every reused ship name?

That was my point. It's interesting to take what Jefferies tells us as a basis, and then try to imagine how it would play out in society and among the people that actually have to use the registries everyday. The name can be passed on, but the number is distinctive. Using a suffix letter should have special meaning, connecting a ship to another physically. A registry that would get reused because that ship had a substantial part of another, earlier ship incorporated into it, would acquire an aura about it. Put simply and in the terms of seafarers, it would be a lucky ship.

I don't have a problem with the idea that 1701 bounced off the atmosphere of Genesis and its frame was recovered later, after the breakup of the planet. I do have a problem imagining a way 1701-C could have been recovered, or imagining how, if it was recovered, it would be incorporated into another ship. It would have become part of a memorial. And probably, the name would have been retired to honor that loss.

 

[trekkerguy]

...but the second ship of the same type would have been a "02" and a modification would have a letter. Standard military practice.

Huh... that could be the explanation for the letter prefixes..

Not the same thing, though. As Jefferies said, a letter is appended if it's a modification of an existing ship. So going by that, the TMP refit should've been 1701A instead of just 1701, and the second Connie Enterprise and its successors should've had different numbers altogether instead of being 1701-A, -B, -C, etc.

Nuh uh! Cause it was the Enterprise.

A registry that would get reused because that ship had a substantial part of another, earlier ship incorporated into it, would acquire an aura about it. Put simply and in the terms of seafarers, it would be a lucky ship.

Ah, the spirit of the Enterprise lives on.

 

[Lieut. Arex]

I don't have a problem with the idea that 1701 bounced off the atmosphere of Genesis and its frame was recovered later, after the breakup of the planet.

I don't have TSfS on DVD and don't recall clearly, but is it ever stated that they established orbit over Genesis? I don't recall that being stated. If not, the ship should simply have passed through the atmosphere and back into space. There's certainly no impact shown or felt by the characters.

I've played with this scenario using Orbiter a few times as part of a SNW story I never finished. The ship model lacks the shattered saucer so the drag's not accurate, but even passing the ship within 5 km or so of the surface, it's headed back into space without crashing. Considering the mass of the ship, the durability of the materials, and its speed, the Enterprise would act like any big meteoroid near miss-- big blazing fireball that loses some mass on the trip through, but by and large survive the experience.

 

[Christopher]

I don't have a problem with the idea that 1701 bounced off the atmosphere of Genesis and its frame was recovered later, after the breakup of the planet.

I don't have TSfS on DVD and don't recall clearly, but is it ever stated that they established orbit over Genesis? I don't recall that being stated. If not, the ship should simply have passed through the atmosphere and back into space. There's certainly no impact shown or felt by the characters.

It was shown burning up in the lower atmosphere, close enough to the characters that they could see it as a distinct fireball:

http://movies.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/tsfs/ch8/tsfs0971.jpg

Let's assume that the widescreen image covers, say, 90 degrees of the camera's field of view. That would make the fireball about one degree wide (perpendicular to its direction of motion). The Enterprise was about 150 meters wide, but the surrounding plasma ball would be somewhat wider; let's say 300 meters. In order for something 300 meters wide to have an angular size of one degree, it would have to be about 17 kilometers away. The fireball is shown maybe 25 degrees above the horizon, which would mean that it's maybe 7 km in altitude. That's only 23,000 feet, considerably less than the cruising altitude of a commercial airliner. For comparison, the space shuttle Columbia was over 60 km in altitude when its disintegration began. If the ship has already descended from hundreds of km above the surface to less than ten, then there's no way it's getting back out into space.

As for why the characters didn't hear or feel a crash, odds are that the ship broke up in the atmosphere like Columbia and didn't make a single large impact. Even if it miraculously held together, it would've travelled hundreds more kilometers before hitting, and it simply would've been beyond the range where the characters would've felt it.

I've played with this scenario using Orbiter a few times as part of a SNW story I never finished. The ship model lacks the shattered saucer so the drag's not accurate, but even passing the ship within 5 km or so of the surface, it's headed back into space without crashing. Considering the mass of the ship, the durability of the materials, and its speed, the Enterprise would act like any big meteoroid near miss-- big blazing fireball that loses some mass on the trip through, but by and large survive the experience.

Oh. Hmm, I should've read this part before I did all those measurements and calculations. Still, I'm skeptical. How fast was the ship moving in your simulations, and how does that compare to its motion as depicted in the film? True, some poetic license should be allowed for, and I'm the last one to say that every FX shot should be taken literally. But it's a story point that they could see the fireball with the naked eye and watch it long enough to comment on it, so I'm assuming it happened more or less as shown.

As for the durability of the materials, I don't agree with your conclusion. However durable its materials may be, the ship is a hollow, irregular structure in shape, and that's going to create enormous unbalanced stresses. Especially with all those huge gaping holes allowing air inside -- it would be ripped to shreds.

 

[Praetor]

^^But then, if there's a utilitarian reason for it, why not do the same with every reused ship name?

That was my point. It's interesting to take what Jefferies tells us as a basis, and then try to imagine how it would play out in society and among the people that actually have to use the registries everyday. The name can be passed on, but the number is distinctive. Using a suffix letter should have special meaning, connecting a ship to another physically. A registry that would get reused because that ship had a substantial part of another, earlier ship incorporated into it, would acquire an aura about it. Put simply and in the terms of seafarers, it would be a lucky ship.

I don't have a problem with the idea that 1701 bounced off the atmosphere of Genesis and its frame was recovered later, after the breakup of the planet. I do have a problem imagining a way 1701-C could have been recovered, or imagining how, if it was recovered, it would be incorporated into another ship. It would have become part of a memorial. And probably, the name would have been retired to honor that loss.

Well to be fair, how much of the ship would really have to be re-used to constitute using the letter in this scheme? Would it be the whole frame, or just part? Certainly a good few bits of the saucer frame of 1701 were blown away when the saucer exploded, perhaps enough to recover and reuse and justify the A suffix?

Similarly, we don't really know what exactly happened to the Enterprise-C, do we?

From Memory Alpha:

Few details are known about the actual battle. What is known, however, is that the Enterprise was destroyed with the presumed loss of all hands – the first Enterprise to meet such a fate. Starfleet would not commission another Enterprise until nearly two decades later in 2363.

'The Enterprise was destroyed with the presumed loss of all hands' is a very loaded statement that can be interpreted multiple ways. A ship is 'lost' simply if it doesn't report back, and then its crew would be declared dead after a safe waiting period, like Voyager, which just so happened to be a false case. So the ship could have been declared destroyed even if the Romulans towed her back to Romulus for dissection, which would indeed torpedo your system.

However, what if instead the surviving crew self destructed her a la Kirk in 'Search for Spock' and escaped in pods which were picked up by the Romulans and taken back to Romulus? Let's say then the debris field was then salvaged by Starfleet (with enough escape pods found in the debris to leave doubt whether anyone survived). Starfleet then conducted an exhaustive search of the area, finding no survivors, and declared the crew dead. The salvaged debris was melted down for use in the Enterprise-D, but the D's assignment as a Galaxy class ship to be launched in 2363 was delayed longer than the previous ships due to (1) the search for the crew and ambiguous circumstances surrounding the C's loss and (2) time to recognize the loss of the crew.

I understand your original premise was ot honor a ship which had safely brought her crew home, but the self-destruct kind of defies that too, doesn't it? My point is, the idea could still work.

 

[Captain Robert April]

According to the TNG Tech Manual, the Galaxy class program was started a few years before the Enterprise-C was lost, so it's entirely possible that the E-D was already planned, following the planned retirement of the E-C.

Now, maybe if Narendra had gone differently, the E-D would've been the fourth Galaxy class ship instead of the second, but even that's a pure guess.

Besides, if Starfleet is anything like the US Navy, it's entirely plausible that they would've gone ahead with the E-D regardless of how much service life was left in the E-C, just like the Navy scrapped CV-6 to make way for DVN-65, even though some of the older E's sister ships served well into the nuclear age, simply because if there's to be an Enterprise in the fleet, it has to be among the biggest and baddest ships afloat.

Now, as to whether or not there would've been an Enterprise-E so soon if the E-D hadn't been destroyed, that's another debate, centering on whether or not the Sovereign class is that much better than the Galaxy class.

Besides, I don't think any of the ships have even a milligram of material from any of the previous ships, outside of a small display of artifacts in some common area. The constant recycling of the registry number is just a tradition that they kind of got stuck with after a while.

Kind of like making sure that the biggest, baddest ship class have an Enterprise in its ranks.