The beginning of the end?

[David cgc]

But it wasn't verifiable because Voyager didn't know what Starfleet had been up to for the past X years, and they couldn't have cross-referenced the registry with current ships. Likewise, Arturis couldn't have had any current alpha quadrant information.

That's what I'm saying. NX-80000 wouldn't be something the Voyager crew could check, but they'd know the convention well enough to know that if a ship was NX-1701-F it should be Enterprise, or NX-2000-A it should be Excelsior, or NX-74656-A should be Voyager or whatever. But Arturis could use the information he had (which was apparently pretty comprehensive, to fake a message from Starfleet Command and fill his ship with authentic-looking okudagrams and computer systems) to find about the Starfleet practice of reusing hull numbers of famous ships with a letter tacked on the end, and then picked a historical name and number and added an "A" to the end for instant verisimilitude. Or an instant amateurish mistake, depending on the NX-01 Enterprise's eventual relationship with the Federation roster is.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

I wasn't aware that the writers of "Hope and Fear" were expected to know about a TV series that did not, at the time, exist.

 

[zar]

Arturis could use the information he had (which was apparently pretty comprehensive, to fake a message from Starfleet Command and fill his ship with authentic-looking okudagrams and computer systems) to find about the Starfleet practice of reusing hull numbers of famous ships with a letter tacked on the end, and then picked a historical name and number and added an "A" to the end for instant verisimilitude. Or an instant amateurish mistake, depending on the NX-01 Enterprise's eventual relationship with the Federation roster is.

I see what you're saying, if Arturis had the history it may have been a silly mistake on his part. But I don't see why it would have been a giveaway. It's just not strong evidence.

Also we have a huge gap in history. We can't assume Starfleet always kept using the same registry conventions. Here's a thought: in those days, suffix letters were not used, and NX-01 was always used for the prototype ship for a new engine (Enterprise being the first warp-5), and Arturis reasoned that if Starfleet developed a slipstream drive they might decide to use NX-01 as homage to the historical warp engines.

 

[F. King Daniel]

Or to signify a new beginning. Slipstream is a big leap.

(outside of TOS, where 12 hours at warp 8.7 covered 1000ly and the galactic rim and centre were visited time and again. But I digress...)

 

[Deranged Nasat]

Or to signify a new beginning. Slipstream is a big leap.

Exactly. I always assumed that this was the reasoning behind it. Ships with the NX prefix were experimental vessels, this is supposedly the prototype for a whole new type of propulsion. So I assume the idea behind Arturis' choice is that Starfleet's supposedly making a point of starting over, to mark the start of a new era in space exploration.

 

[Christopher]

A question: why are we assuming that Voyager's crew would have any knowledge of the registration numbers of starships from centuries ago? I mean, does anyone know the registration number of the Enola Gay or the Spirit of St. Louis? People remember famous vessels by their names, not their numbers. We fans like to refer to Archer's Enterprise as "NX-01" to distinguish it from other ships of the same name, but it doesn't follow that people in-universe would do the same.

 

[The Wormhole]

^^I maybe wrong, but I think Riker did refer to it as "the NX-01" in TATV. And besides, Voyager's database likely had extensive info about the NX-01. I mean, hell, Voyager's database included a mundane log report from Sulu mentioning "minor repairs" being done to the Exclesior, I'm sure the registry number of Starfleet's first warp 5 starship is in there somewhere.

 

[BrotherBenny]

Any warp specialist would know it as would any history buff with a thing for pre-Federation starships.

 

[Paris]

A question: why are we assuming that Voyager's crew would have any knowledge of the registration numbers of starships from centuries ago? I mean, does anyone know the registration number of the Enola Gay or the Spirit of St. Louis? People remember famous vessels by their names, not their numbers. We fans like to refer to Archer's Enterprise as "NX-01" to distinguish it from other ships of the same name, but it doesn't follow that people in-universe would do the same.

I'd bet that Tom Paris would know

 

[David cgc]

In any event, it was just a possible way to extend the Enterprise crew's storyline beyond the founding of the Federation. There's no shortage of other ways, too.

 

[Christopher]

Any warp specialist would know it as would any history buff with a thing for pre-Federation starships.

Would they? Convince me. In real life, are there history buffs who know famous ships and aircraft by their registration numbers off the top of their heads? Can you, personally, tell me the registration number of any famous ship or plane from history without Googling it? I mean, I'm pretty sure the aircraft carrier Enterprise is CVN-65, but that's a contemporary vessel or nearly so, and of course I've been exposed to it as a Trek fan. What was the registry of the Yamato or the Arizona or the Titanic or the Maine? Can you tell me that?

 

[BrotherBenny]

^No, but then again I'm not a military history buff.

I don't personally know an historian who knows registry numbers, but considering the fact that there are some who specialize in niche areas, I would expect them to be able to name a few.

Absence of evidence and all that...

 

[Dukhat]

Keep in mind that the Excelsior was originally NX-2000. In the Federation era, NX is a designation for prototype ships of new classes. It's not a reference to the "NX Class" used by Earth Starfleet. (In fact, NX-01 Enterprise was no doubt called that by the creators because it was an experimental prototype as well. Extending the NX designation to the entire class seems to have been a retcon.)

From what I remember from actually watching the show, I'm pretty sure you're right. However, I also believe that little to no forethought was really put into such things as prefixes and registries in ENT. (see next)

Well in Enterprise I blieve the other ships had different two letter things on there ships, I believe one was NV.

But then we started hearing about NV and other letter classes, which muddied the issue.

I'd like to point out that "NV" was never used as a registry code in ENT. That comes from a fan-made render/drawing/model/etc. of the "Intrepid" type ship, but wasn't on the actual canon render. No Earth Starfleet ships other than the NX-01 and the NX-02 (and the NX-09 Avenger from the mirror universe) were ever shown with registries or even names. It simply wasn't that important for the background ships to have this information.

There was a registry of "NC-27" on the concept art for the "Sarajevo" type starship, but again the final model had no name or registry.

If there had ever been an episode that took place aboard another ship that wasn't NX class, then we might have gotten an actual registry printed on the CGI model. But that never happened.

 

[milo bloom]

Count me in as one who would love to see the NX-01 rechristened as "Dauntless", if nothing more than a tip of the hat to the Voyager ep. I know the ship in the VOY ep was a fake, but it'd still be a nice little bit of wraparound history.

What some call fanwank, others (like myself) call paying respect to previously established ideas.

 

[BillJ]

Count me in as one who would love to see the NX-01 rechristened as "Dauntless", if nothing more than a tip of the hat to the Voyager ep. I know the ship in the VOY ep was a fake, but it'd still be a nice little bit of wraparound history.

What some call fanwank, others (like myself) call paying respect to previously established ideas.

But if they renamed it, wouldn't they also change it's registry?

 

[ProwlAlpha]

Any warp specialist would know it as would any history buff with a thing for pre-Federation starships.

Would they? Convince me. In real life, are there history buffs who know famous ships and aircraft by their registration numbers off the top of their heads? Can you, personally, tell me the registration number of any famous ship or plane from history without Googling it? I mean, I'm pretty sure the aircraft carrier Enterprise is CVN-65, but that's a contemporary vessel or nearly so, and of course I've been exposed to it as a Trek fan. What was the registry of the Yamato or the Arizona or the Titanic or the Maine? Can you tell me that?

Yamato nor Titanic didn't have one. Maine was Armored Cruiser No 1 or ACR-1 and the Arizona was BB-39.

 

[Christopher]

^Did you need to look those up?

And really, there's no reason that two ships with the same registry number (with or without a letter) have to have the same name. The latter-day (and totally ridiculous) custom of giving all Enterprises the 1701 number creates that myth, but it's far from a universal custom even in Trek. Plenty of ships have had the same name but different numbers, so why couldn't it go the other way? After all, there's no reason why name and number have to be in lockstep, or there's no point in having both. In real life, ships get renamed and keep their numbers. So it's hypothetically possible that a number could be reused without any expectation that the name would have to go with it. Maybe the implied idea behind the "NX-01-A" designation for the Dauntless was simply that it was such a revolutionary new propulsion design that it warranted starting the numbers all over again, drawing a parallel with the concept of the first Warp 5 prototype ship rather than its name.

 

[Fer]

To my mind, the NX-01-A Dauntless would have been named after an original ship designated NCC-01 Dauntless. Therefore the experimental ship would only have been NX-01-A until it was worked into the fleet, at which point it would have been changed to NCC-01-A, just like we saw happen with the Excelsior.

The NX-01 Enterprise, on the other hand, was actually referred to as an NX Class ship, so it would always stay NX-01, even if it became part of the Federation later.

If the UFP stuck that close to Earth registration numbers, then we never would have had NCC-1701-- Kirk's Enterprise would have been the NX-01-A (and B) and Picard's would have been the NX-01-E (and F).

 

[Christopher]

To my mind, the NX-01-A Dauntless would have been named after an original ship designated NCC-01 Dauntless.

Sure, that's the usual assumption, but why would it have to be that way? Where is the logic in always keeping the same name and registry number together? Isn't that completely redundant? Numbers serve a different functional purpose than names. A name is for everyday reference, a number is for record-keeping. In real life, a ship with a given registry number can be renamed yet still keep the same number, because that number conveys information about the ship on a nuts-and-bolts level that's separate from what it's called. Or a ship can undergo a heavy refit and be changed so much that it needs to have a new number assigned even if the name stays the same. This is the way it really works. Name and number are separate things; they're not required to go together. And we do have plenty of canonical precedent of ship names being reused along with different numbers; in fact, aside from the spurious Dauntless and the later-contradicted example of the Yamato in "Where Silence Has Lease," I don't think we've ever canonically seen any reused Starfleet ship name other than Enterprise associated with a recycled number followed by a letter suffix.

So no, there's simply no logic in assuming that a ship reusing the same number would "have to" reuse the same name. Both in Trek canon and in real life, there's abundant proof that ship names and ship numbers are not required to march in lockstep.

The NX-01 Enterprise, on the other hand, was actually referred to as an NX Class ship, so it would always stay NX-01, even if it became part of the Federation later.

Unless they just changed the name of the class. Or rebuilt it so substantially that it required a new registration number, which, again, is something that actually does happen in reality.

 

[ProwlAlpha]

^Did you need to look those up?

And really, there's no reason that two ships with the same registry number (with or without a letter) have to have the same name. The latter-day (and totally ridiculous) custom of giving all Enterprises the 1701 number creates that myth, but it's far from a universal custom even in Trek. Plenty of ships have had the same name but different numbers, so why couldn't it go the other way? After all, there's no reason why name and number have to be in lockstep, or there's no point in having both. In real life, ships get renamed and keep their numbers. So it's hypothetically possible that a number could be reused without any expectation that the name would have to go with it. Maybe the implied idea behind the "NX-01-A" designation for the Dauntless was simply that it was such a revolutionary new propulsion design that it warranted starting the numbers all over again, drawing a parallel with the concept of the first Warp 5 prototype ship rather than its name.

No I didn't look them up. Well, I am a naval history buff as well. How about the Dauntless was the first ship to be commissioned into the new UFP and it was a brand-new experimental ship. History is full of coincidences that fall together and this could be one of them.

Ships change names and hull registries all the time. It doesn't need a full refit to be renumbered. The USS Midway was a CVB-41, CVA-41, and finally a CV-41 at retirement. Each new registry change wasn't because the ship was substantially refitted, it went from a straight deck to an angled deck in the 50s, but with each new registry scheme. In fact the US Navy went and reclassified the entire fleet in the early 70s. Destroyers became cruisers, frigates became destroyers, destroyer escorts became frigates, with dogs and cats living together.