Names for future Vesta Class Starships

[ProwlAlpha]

I always thought the Galaxy Class naming theme was journey, epic, and adventure. Like the Odyssey, the Enterprise, the Venture, maybe the Magellan (depending on your side of the argument), the Challenger, and the Yamato (if you are thinking of Starblazers).

 

[Christopher]

^I really don't think the 24th-century Starfleet would've named a starship after a 20th-century cartoon. And the writers who named the Galaxy-class Yamato did not have the anime series in mind. The reference was to the WWII battleship in its real-life incarnation.

And again, I don't agree with the unquestioned assumption that there had to be a naming theme at all. As I've said, it's impossible that the writers of the shows could've kept any consistent class theme in mind, so it's more consistent with the evidence just to accept that not every Starfleet ship class has any kind of overall theme to its names. Class themes exist, but the evidence shows they're the exceptions rather than the rule.

 

[Allyn Gibson]

The art for the USS Surak was always extremely iffy. IIRC for one issue it changed class entirely, but I can't remember what into. I'm sure it wasn't a connie.

It was an Oberth-class when it debuted in issue #16. When next we saw the Surak again, it had become not that dissimilar to a smaller Soyuz-class.

My own personal retcon for this was the television era/movie era crossover in issue #33, that what they did to restore the timeline didn't put things quite right and the class of the Surak was one of those things. (And yes, I recognize that the crossover happens after the Surak's design changes. But I was twelve at the time, y'know?)

Still, that's not as bad as Gray Morrow's artwork on the story arc leading into Star Trek IV where every Starfleet ship was an Excelsior-class (and the Excelsior's shuttle bay was massive). I forgive this, because it's Gray Morrow, but still.

 

[Herbert1]

One of the future Vesta-class starships should be named Antares, we don't have enough starships named Antares in Star Trek.

 

[ProwlAlpha]

^I really don't think the 24th-century Starfleet would've named a starship after a 20th-century cartoon. And the writers who named the Galaxy-class Yamato did not have the anime series in mind. The reference was to the WWII battleship in its real-life incarnation.

And again, I don't agree with the unquestioned assumption that there had to be a naming theme at all. As I've said, it's impossible that the writers of the shows could've kept any consistent class theme in mind, so it's more consistent with the evidence just to accept that not every Starfleet ship class has any kind of overall theme to its names. Class themes exist, but the evidence shows they're the exceptions rather than the rule.

There's an exception to every rule for the Galaxy Class.

I agree with you especially when whoever was assigning names and classes did it arbitrarily.

Well other than the USS Antares, Miranda Class from the Star Trek Orion Rendezvous, yes we need a new Antares. Make it an Excelsior or a Centaur to really confuse things.

 

[Penta]

Edit: Never mind, someone alreay said what I said.

 

[StarshipDefiant]

I always thought the Galaxy Class naming theme was journey, epic, and adventure. Like the Odyssey, the Enterprise, the Venture, maybe the Magellan (depending on your side of the argument), the Challenger, and the Yamato (if you are thinking of Starblazers).

This is more or less what I had thought of as the 'theme' for the Galaxy-class, not specific names from mountains, or ships, etc... but 'big' and 'epic' for the names, I can agree that theres not real theme for various classes, but there is a wide range of reasons for that, both in universe and in real life, one no one probably really thought of it, and secondly, when you produce the class for several decades, even if you went in intended a theme name, you're bound to run out (Such as the Miranda, the Oberth and the Excelsior). A theme would be easier to keep up if it's the same writers trying to do it, or whatever.

Anyway, I'd like more themed names, but whatever, we'll take what we can get. Personally, I'd like a bit more constancy in what ships there are and are not, and always wondered how it was that in TNG and DS9 (aside from known real world cost saving production reasons), Starfleet seemed to be an aging, century old fleet.

 

[F. King Daniel]

^I would expect starships in the future to last for at least 100 years - I mean they're not cars or phones. Stuff in the future should be built to last, much more so then ships or planes today (especially considering Vulcans and many other races live long over 100 or 200 years).
I mean, the Klingons have been using the same D7 ships for 200 years! And still as front line warships! And they occasionally still win the odd battle, too. Built to last.

 

[SpyOne]

But the challenge was to explain the naming-theme of the class.

I don't recall any such challenge being issued.

It's not like every class of starship has a theme unifying all its names. What possible theme could there be unifying Galaxy, Enterprise, Yamato, and Odyssey?

Named for famous ships.

You asked what possible theme could unify those names, and I gave you one.
Although I'll admit that "named for things that are big" fits better:
Yamato was the biggest battleship ever made, Galaxies are pretty darn big, the Odyssey was a big trip, and Enterprise was Starfleet's most famous ship, so it was a pretty big deal.

 

[F. King Daniel]

How about USS Yamato NCC-1305-F?

I've been waiting for the original NCC-1305 in a TOS novel for years, but with no luck.

I know it was 'undone' as a 'mistake', but who says the Enterprise was the first ship to get 'lettered'? Words spoken in an episode > invisible numbers on a hull + tiny numbers on an okudagram.
We're supposed to believe ships other then Enterprises have interesting stories too, right?

 

[Christopher]

I know it was 'undone' as a 'mistake', but who says the Enterprise was the first ship to get 'lettered'? Words spoken in an episode > invisible numbers on a hull + tiny numbers on an okudagram.

No. Plenty of "words spoken in an episode" have been contradicted by later episodes. Like Spock saying in "The Alternative Factor" that a matter-antimatter reaction would destroy the entire universe. Or "Angel One" having the Enterprise go off at the end to confront the Romulans, then "The Neutral Zone" saying there had been no contact with the Romulans for 53 years, then "Yesterday's Enterprise" saying the Enterprise-C fought Romulans 22 years earlier.

The way it works is that new canon supersedes old canon. Contrary to the false impression of some fans, no canon is ever absolutely binding. An ongoing series is a work in progress, so it has to be refined as it goes. If you rethink something later on, you can't go back and change it, so you just have to retcon it and pretend it was always the way it is now. So when older material contradicts newer material, it's the newer information that's considered correct.

 

[F. King Daniel]

I know what you mean, but in the case of the Yamato's number it's not like the universe would implode should the old number be resurrected.

I personally don't consider stuff seen on a monitor, that you have to pause (and sometimes zoom in) in order to see, as anything more then fun extas for die-hards (like the FASA ships in a few TNG episodes). Not stone-cold irrifutable canon. Things characters say, that the layman viewer would catch (not that spaceship hull numbers mean anything to them) would/should hold more weight IMO.
In a related matter, the idea Jonathan Archer becomes president of the Federation is a joke (not to mention a B5 rip), and was quasi-contradicted (most likely happily ignored) by STXI.

 

[ProwlAlpha]

I disagree, we got a lot of ship's names, registries, and classes from background screens. Unless the background screens are obviously jokes like the parrot with Roddenberry's head or the hamster in the wheel on the Enterprise's MSD.

I wouldn't mind seeing a USS Yamato NCC-1305, which wasn't a joke until they decided only the Enterprise can have prefixed registries. It would be nice to know what the Yamato did to deserve a prefix.

 

[Christopher]

I think the whole idea of letter suffixes is lame. In real life, when they give a new ship the same name as the old one, they don't give it the same registry number with a letter after it, because that makes no sense. A registry number exists for bookkeeping purposes, a way of uniquely identifying a ship, its series, its characteristics, its place in the sequence, etc. It's silly to break the sequence and obscure that information by using an earlier ship's number in order to "honor" that earlier ship. The reuse of the name already honors it.

So I have no desire to see the "bloody A, B, C or D" perpetuated on other ships. It's bad enough that it gets used on the Enterprises at all. (I wish the new Enterprise introduced in TVH had been, say, NCC-1781 instead of 1701-A. Heck, it would've been an even easier repaint job on the miniature.)

 

[Allyn Gibson]

I wish the new Enterprise introduced in TVH had been, say, NCC-1781 instead of 1701-A. Heck, it would've been an even easier repaint job on the miniature.

Interesting factoid.

Harve Bennett's intention was to put Kirk and crew on the Excelsior. A new Enterprise was a Roddenberry suggestion, and one of the few that Bennett took as Roddenberry's suggestions on the movies tended to be reactionary.

Hell, Kirk's "My friends, we've come home" line would have worked for the Excelsior; it would have been a tacit acknowledgement of the previous two years of DC's Star Trek comics.

I don't mean to imply that the Excelsior/Enterprise decision was made late, because it wasn't.

 

[F. King Daniel]

^Some of the TMP concept art in The Art of Star Trek and Mr Scott's guide feature the hull number 1800 on the refit Enterprise.

Christopher's right in theory that the name is surely tribute enough, but Starfleet's been recycling names for 200 years, irrespective of the accomplishments of the individual vessels. Giving the new Enterprise the "A" was specifically paying tribute to the 1701, and not, say, the NX-01.

 

[ProwlAlpha]

Nice tribute, an outdated design. That's like giving the crew of the USS Enterprise CV-6, a renamed USS Yorktown CV-5, rather than a brand new Ticonderoga (Essex Class long hull) or a Midway Class carrier.

I agree with Christopher, name alone should be the tribute. Possibly the NCC-1701-A is referred to the original hull number for book keeping purposes. So the Enterprise NCC-1701-D is actually NCC-71811.

 

[Herbert1]

How about the next Vesta-class starship is named USS Raging Queen named for NCC-42284 shown in the DS9 episode "A Time to Stand"? From the Charles Dickins classic novel Miles Cowperthwaite.

http://snltranscripts.jt.org/78/78rcowperthwaite.phtml

Nice tribute, an outdated
I agree with Christopher, name alone should be the tribute. Possibly the NCC-1701-A is referred to the original hull number for book keeping purposes. So the Enterprise NCC-1701-D is actually NCC-71811.

Why would the Enterprise be both NCC-1701-D and NCC-71811? Matt Jefferies based the NCC number on aircraft registration under the Convention on International Civil Aviation not hull numbers on naval ships. The NCC is a license plate number.

The idea that NCC stands for Naval Construction Code and is based on naval hull numbers is the invention of fanon. Specifically, the invention of a man who writes under the pseudonym Aridas Sofia. He co-wrote Ships of the Star Fleet with Todd Guenther.

 

[ProwlAlpha]

or how about the USS Alka-Selsior

 

[F. King Daniel]

I got the impression from STIV that the 1701-A, (although based on the refit 1701 design) was much more advanced, with all the latest trimmings, like okudagram consoles and...err...shiny white paint (I think Mr Scott's Guide may have made an impression too, giving the -A cool stuff like Transwarp drive). STV then came along and depicted the ship as a pile of junk offloaded on our heroes, and STVI implied a tiny, cramped, worn out ship, as obsolete and over-the-hill as her crew.

It's a good thing I wasn't around for the "OMG it's all wrong!" arguments back then!