Drop the Registration Number-My Request For a Future Series

[C.E. Evans]

Personally, I would like a future Star Trek series featuring a future Enterprise to simply drop the NCC-1701 registry and all the letter suffixes.

Having a ship named U.S.S. Enterprise is all that is needed.

Why the big deal over the registry numbers anyway? The U.S. Navy has had 8 ships named Enterprise. Does it really matter that the most decorated WWII carrier was CV-6 or that the worlds first nuclear aircraft carrier is CVN-65?

Yes, because it's how you know which ship you're talking about, a Yorktown-class or a one-of-a-class.

The only reason registry numbers in trek seem unimportant is because of the way they've been treated by canon creators and fanon writers over the years. Registry numbers are a part of a ship's identity. Pay attention to them and you could name a hundred ships Enterprise and still have a way to say which is which without having to resort to adding -A, -B, -C, -AA, -AAMCO, etc.

In canon this was screwed up the minute it was decided to give the Galaxy-class ENT the same number as the Constitution-class, with the idea being that if you add the -D it's one in a series of ships honored with the name and number. The problem is the number has a meaning. According to Matt Jefferies, it translates to:

Space(N) Cruiser(CC) Design No. Seventeen, Unit 01(1701)

All of which means elephant snot starting with ENT-B and just keeps carrying forward. The problem is compounded by the fact that as the TNG era series progressed new ships not meant to be Enterprise just had NX-whateverthefreaknumberlooksgood slapped on their hulls.

So lets talk about those 8 US Navy Enterprises. Go back to the first one. Suppose there was a registry code that designated what it was, which was a sloop. Don't you think it might be a little stupid to hand that designation over to a ship made of thousands of tons of steel which is powered by a nuclear reactor and carries a small air force? Yet, if you get rid of the codes entirely, is it the carrier or the sloop you're talking about?

So call it Enterprise-H? Lazy and stupid.

The numbers themselves are not the problem. It's how you use them.

As far as onsceen Trek goes, it's been done pretty well. The instances in which a particular Enterprise has been referred to by its letter (or a particular ship by its registry number) have been very few and far between.

 

[Galileo7]

I'd like a future Enterprise to be either NCC-1701-H (if 25th-Century) or NCC-1701-K (if 26th-Century). Keeping the 1701 registry doesn't bother me at all--in fact, I like it a lot as it serves as a quiet link to the past while still pushing things forward.
...

Agree. Back in the '80s, once the 1701-A was established in TVH and the 1701-D in TNG it all seems to now be the tradition of Starfleet regarding any Enterprise.

 

[Herkimer Jitty]

Personally, I would like a future Star Trek series featuring a future Enterprise to simply drop the NCC-1701 registry and all the letter suffixes.

Having a ship named U.S.S. Enterprise is all that is needed.

Why the big deal over the registry numbers anyway? The U.S. Navy has had 8 ships named Enterprise. Does it really matter that the most decorated WWII carrier was CV-6 or that the worlds first nuclear aircraft carrier is CVN-65?

Yes, because it's how you know which ship you're talking about, a Yorktown-class or a one-of-a-class.

The only reason registry numbers in trek seem unimportant is because of the way they've been treated by canon creators and fanon writers over the years. Registry numbers are a part of a ship's identity. Pay attention to them and you could name a hundred ships Enterprise and still have a way to say which is which without having to resort to adding -A, -B, -C, -AA, -AAMCO, etc.

In canon this was screwed up the minute it was decided to give the Galaxy-class ENT the same number as the Constitution-class, with the idea being that if you add the -D it's one in a series of ships honored with the name and number. The problem is the number has a meaning. According to Matt Jefferies, it translates to:

Space(N) Cruiser(CC) Design No. Seventeen, Unit 01(1701)

All of which means elephant snot starting with ENT-B and just keeps carrying forward. The problem is compounded by the fact that as the TNG era series progressed new ships not meant to be Enterprise just had NX-whateverthefreaknumberlooksgood slapped on their hulls.

So lets talk about those 8 US Navy Enterprises. Go back to the first one. Suppose there was a registry code that designated what it was, which was a sloop. Don't you think it might be a little stupid to hand that designation over to a ship made of thousands of tons of steel which is powered by a nuclear reactor and carries a small air force? Yet, if you get rid of the codes entirely, is it the carrier or the sloop you're talking about?

So call it Enterprise-H? Lazy and stupid.

The numbers themselves are not the problem. It's how you use them.

It's too late now.

A proper numbering system would be too military.

And as any good Trek fan knows, the military is evil.

 

[Maurice]

Way back during TMP's production, Andy Probert suggested changing the refit Enterprise's registry to NCC-1800 to indicate a new vessel class.

 

[Kegg]

I've always thought that the TNG hero ship should have been registered as NCC-7107, just to hearken back to the original Enterprise without being so unsubtle about her heritage.

Eh. The thing is, there probably was a NCC-1702, NCC-1703, etc. as the regristation numbers of ships contemporary to the original Enterprise. The -D makes more sense to me.

 

[Galileo7]

Way back during TMP's production, Andy Probert suggested changing the refit Enterprise's registry to NCC-1800 to indicate a new vessel class.

Interesting, TMP would have been the time to establish the NCC-1800 instead of the NCC-1701-refit and eventual NCC-1701-A in TVH.

 

[Kemaiku]

I've always thought that the TNG hero ship should have been registered as NCC-7107, just to hearken back to the original Enterprise without being so unsubtle about her heritage.

Eh. The thing is, there probably was a NCC-1702, NCC-1703, etc. as the regristation numbers of ships contemporary to the original Enterprise. The -D makes more sense to me.

Then again, the Yamato's registry was originally going to be NCC-1703-E, Riker even speaks it aloud.

 

[chardman]

The notion that having a visible registration is a problem in any way; that it has hampered Trek's popularity, or it's ability to tell a story, is without a doubt the stupidest idea I have ever heard, save for "trickle-down economics" and that the French think of Jerry Lewis as the ultimate comedy genius.

It's absolutely insane.

One may as well suggest that the next series can be made superior to its predecessors simply by adding a powder-blue stripe to the walls in the ship's commissary, or by making everyone's sideburns just a little pointier.

 

[Knight Templar]

The notion that having a visible registration is a problem in any way; that it has hampered Trek's popularity, or it's ability to tell a story, is without a doubt the stupidest idea I have ever heard, save for "trickle-down economics" and that the French think of Jerry Lewis as the ultimate comedy genius.

It's absolutely insane.

One may as well suggest that the next series can be made superior to its predecessors simply by adding a powder-blue stripe to the walls in the ship's commissary, or by making everyone's sideburns just a little pointier.

You would be surprised just how minor things can have a major impact on a television shows ratings.

Felicity went down the crapper ratings wise when the star had her hair cut.

 

[chardman]

Um... your "Felicity" example illustrates why one probably shouldn't make the kinds of changes you've suggested. It's pretty much a textbook example of why you shouldn't change things that the audience has become accustomed to, without having very compelling reasons for doing so.

Changing or eliminating Enterprise's accepted registry is pretty much analogous to "Felicity's" star changing her hairstyle.

So what is your compelling reason for suggesting such changes?

Do you have any evidence (any evidence at all) to suggest that ANY viewers were EVER driven away from the show because of the current registry numbers that appear on the big E's hull?

 

[Knight Templar]

Do you have any evidence (any evidence at all) to suggest that ANY viewers were EVER driven away from the show because of the current registry numbers that appear on the big E's hull?

Why do you ask for evidence regarding an opinion?

 

[chardman]

I'd say that even "opinions" still need some basis in reality.

 

[BillJ]

I've always thought that the TNG hero ship should have been registered as NCC-7107, just to hearken back to the original Enterprise without being so unsubtle about her heritage.

Eh. The thing is, there probably was a NCC-1702, NCC-1703, etc. as the regristation numbers of ships contemporary to the original Enterprise. The -D makes more sense to me.

Then again, the Yamato's registry was originally going to be NCC-1703-E, Riker even speaks it aloud.

1305-E

 

[Kemaiku]

Eh. The thing is, there probably was a NCC-1702, NCC-1703, etc. as the regristation numbers of ships contemporary to the original Enterprise. The -D makes more sense to me.

Then again, the Yamato's registry was originally going to be NCC-1703-E, Riker even speaks it aloud.

1305-E

Ahh, thank you. But that's even worse really, some Miranda or Saladin being the original 1305 with the 1305-A around the time of the 1701's launch.

 

[Frontier]

LOL, Sorry, but I read this topic and all I could think of was the above so I had to post it. LOL.

 

[Mr_Homn]

never gave it much thought, but I agree with the OP.

the extra letters added on just give an extra sense of baggage, and reinforce the idea that you're watching a rehash of sorts

I'm speaking primarily of any possible future trek incarnations. I'd be okay with dropping the letters, or even the ncc 1701

 

[Kemaiku]

Personally I'm not sure what the point of visual markings on the hull is in that kind of age. The proximity of ships in Trek is ridiculously close though so who knows.

Having the ships be visually distinctive eliminates any need for them, numbers are pretty useless eye candy to give them an air of the puesdo-military stuff they aim for in the series.

So yeah, lose the numbers on the hull.

 

[C.E. Evans]

You might as well get rid of the name on the hull too.

 

[Rarewolf]

I think you'd be robbed of some great lines if you lost the number.

Its harmless having it. Most traditions are.

 

[Kemaiku]

You might as well get rid of the name on the hull too.

Would that really be so bad?