Yes. And the Echo Class HMS Enterprise (H88), a Survey vessel, continues in service.
Was NCC-1701 active for 40 years?
- Thread starter Brannigan
- Start date
Yes. And the Echo Class HMS Enterprise (H88), a Survey vessel, continues in service.
There are plenty of other famous names available, too. And Starfleet only has so many capital ships to name (I'm counting heavy cruisers as capital until we get evidence of something better); if the names Hood, Intrepid, Lexington and Excalibur all get repeated a lot, like we see, and there are all sorts of thematic namings as well, it might well be a century before there's a nameless keel available and no name other than Enterprise to pick from the "not used recently" roster.
We still lack evidence that the exploits of any of our hero starships would really have been exceptional. For all we know, any one of the ships named Yamato has done much more for the Federation than all the Enterprises combined. Or then any really famous ship gets honored by never having her name reused and thus cheapened.
Timo Saloniemi
We still lack evidence that the exploits of any of our hero starships would really have been exceptional. For all we know, any one of the ships named Yamato has done much more for the Federation than all the Enterprises combined. Or then any really famous ship gets honored by never having her name reused and thus cheapened.
Timo Saloniemi
I never said there weren't. But not ALL of them would be.
If they were Federation ships, they would be.
Perhaps Starfleet when through a polically correct phase that lasted for decades, where the naming committees deliberately selected non-Anglo names.
Much like the UN has a relatively small number of passager aircraft and automobiles registered directly to the UN. But they hold no ownership to the ships and aircraft of the members of the UN.
Sure, something like that. A small number of Federation licensed transport ships.
It could be simpler than that. A Federation ship could be any licensed ship within the Federation. They could be locally licensed to any planet or local agency there. In that capacity, there would be more civilian ships than Starfleet ones.
That shouldn't cause too much of a delay in name usage. In the last 90 years there have been three USS Enterprises with the US Navy, and three HMS Enterprises.
The fame of Kirk and the Christopher Pike Medal of Honor however give us some reason to think the Enterprises have been made especially famous. But as already stated, the Enterprise name was famous long before Kirk, Pike or Archer were born.
Last edited:
That is missing the point. The point being that ships licensed locally to a planet, or local agency. would be called by that local planet name. It would not be called a Federation ship.
It isn't a matter of civilian and Starfleet. It is a matter of sovereignty. Ships owned by the Federation government or licensed directly from the Federation would be Federation ships, be they civilian or Starfleet. But ships owned by or licensed from a planetary government, would be listed as from that planetary government. Be they a Federation member or not.
If the Constitution-class USS Intrepid had been sold to the Vulcan government, instead of operated by Starfleet, it would have ceased being a Federation starship. It would be a Vulcan starship.
No, that's hitting dead center my point.
That the Federation consists of many worlds. They can maintain their own local (planetary) agencies and whatever, but they're still part of the Federation even if their authority is planet-specific (which is why we still have Vulcan ships, Andorian ships, etc). Starfleet, in comparison, is the bigger agency that has responsibilities across the entire Federation. "Federation ships" is just an umbrella term to describe both Starfleet and civilian ships within the Federation, but with the latter you can get more specific to which Federation member a ship operates from.Ithekro said:
Last edited:
In our world, merchant ships hugely outnumber warships. That does not even include the vast numbers of vessels that are serving other purposes, right down to small family pleasure craft. I can easily see the Starfleet being dwarfed by the total number of interstellar and local spacecraft.
How they are registered legally is another matter altogether. I don't think it would make sense to call every single one of them a "Federation" ship, even as an "umbrella term". I would limit that to vessels owned and operated by a UFP agency, but possibly extendable to merchant vessels registered to the UFP and "flying the flag" of the Federation.
I would not include any vessel registered to any particular member world, but not the Federation, and I certainly would not include individually owned private vessels, including yachts, pleasure craft, or personal transport.
Actually, it makes perfect sense to do so just like it would make sense to use "Earth ships" an umbrella term for pre-Federation spaceships from various Earth countries. You can get into more specifics about nationalities later, but the term would still be accurate on a general level.
It's the specifics that make the difference though. Not being registered to the Federation would make it not a Federation ship. It's not a Federation ship in the general sense, it is not a Federation ship at all. But by general sense I think you just mean geography. A Borg cube, a Romulan Warbird and a JemHadar Battleship are all Milky Way galaxy ships. Only in the sense that that is what galaxy they are from. Sure, we can all agree to that.
But that is different than the context of these discussions.
On a local level. But you can still lump together different ships from different Federation worlds as being Federation ships for the sake of brevity and then be specific when necessary (such as "a Vulcan ship near Planet X").
If you lump all the ships within the Federation as Federation ship, than there is no possibility of two ships carrying that same name from any planet, organization, private family, or Starfleet. This is not how things work in the present day, as about three years ago there were three "Enterprises" (that I am aware of) in the United States alone. Not even getting to any private vessels or company ships that might have that name that get missed by Wikipedia. Plus there was at least one HMS Enterprise in service with the Royal Navy at this time.
Around 1986 there was both a USS Avenger and an HMS Avenger.
Through this sort of thing would normally be a problem for more common or famous names. Some names are more military than most, though Starfleet has going towards more scientific and exploration based names when it comes to people they name ships after, as oppose to military leaders or heads of state.
Around 1986 there was both a USS Avenger and an HMS Avenger.
Through this sort of thing would normally be a problem for more common or famous names. Some names are more military than most, though Starfleet has going towards more scientific and exploration based names when it comes to people they name ships after, as oppose to military leaders or heads of state.
It seems to work perfectly fine in Star Trek.
But why would you even want to do that?
Or would you "lump" a Canadian warship and a Turkish warship together simply because both of their countries signed the NATO treaty?
\
The starships of the civilizations that have memberships aren't Federation ships.
The answer was in the rest of my post you omitted.
If you go down the list. You will notice there were three USS. Enterprise in service of the US. Navy at the same time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Enterprise
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Enterprise
