Drop the Registration Number-My Request For a Future Series

[Knight Templar]

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?

Hope I got my numbers right.

 

[C.E. Evans]

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.

But I also think that NCC registries--in general--will probably be a thing of the past long before there's ever a 1701-Z. They'll probably start over with some ship (perhaps an Enterprise) designated NCV-01 at some point before the 29th-Century, IMO.

 

[Christopher]

I agree with the original post. The letter suffixes are silly. If you want to pay tribute to an older ship, the name is enough. Registration numbers serve a specific purpose for cataloguing and record-keeping, so the numbers should be distinct for each ship and be appropriate for their class and commissioning date.

 

[Knight Templar]

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.

.

Isn't the name enough of a link to the past?

No one has forgotten about World War Two Enterprise just because we've had nuclear carrier Enterprise for 50 years despite different numbers.

And wasn't the nuclear powered Enterprise "CVAN-65" or something like that before being changed to "CVN-65"?

 

[C.E. Evans]

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.

.

Isn't the name enough of a link to the past?

NCC-1701 is a link to a specific past--a presumably defining time in Federation history that particular ship represented more than any other apparently.

Ultimately, it's just a harmless Starfleet tradition that isn't even a century old yet.

 

[Squiggy]

Why the big deal over the registry numbers anyway?

What big deal? They're referenced a handful of times in over 800 hours of programming.

 

[Knight Templar]

Why the big deal over the registry numbers anyway?

What big deal? They're referenced a handful of times in over 800 hours of programming.

I mean among fans.

 

[Squiggy]

It's not a big deal within the fandom either. Aside from a few waaaaaaay too hardcore nerds most can't even tell you the registry of a non-hero ship.

 

[yenny]

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.

.

Isn't the name enough of a link to the past?

NCC-1701 is a link to a specific past--a presumably defining time in Federation history that particular ship represented more than any other apparently.

Ultimately, it's just a harmless Starfleet tradition that isn't even a century old yet.

NCC-1701 is actually part of the Enterprise name, it no longer her designation. The USS. Enterprise NCC-1701 designation is a letter in from the alphabet. When they had said that she is the fifth Federation starship to bare that name, doesn't mean the name Enterprise itself. They meant the name USS. Enterprise NCC-1701 as being a name.

 

[C.E. Evans]

Isn't the name enough of a link to the past?

NCC-1701 is a link to a specific past--a presumably defining time in Federation history that particular ship represented more than any other apparently.

Ultimately, it's just a harmless Starfleet tradition that isn't even a century old yet.

NCC-1701 is actually part of the Enterprise name, it no longer her designation. The USS. Enterprise NCC-1701 designation is a letter in from the alphabet. When they had said that she is the fifth Federation starship to bare that name, doesn't mean the name Enterprise itself. They meant the name USS. Enterprise NCC-1701 as being a name.

Since when?

The ship has only been referred to by her hull number in a very small number of 24th-Century episodes that dealt with stuff from the 23rd-Century. In fact, hull numbers in general are very rarely referred to in any story.

 

[yenny]

NCC-1701 is a link to a specific past--a presumably defining time in Federation history that particular ship represented more than any other apparently.

Ultimately, it's just a harmless Starfleet tradition that isn't even a century old yet.

NCC-1701 is actually part of the Enterprise name, it no longer her designation. The USS. Enterprise NCC-1701 designation is a letter in from the alphabet. When they had said that she is the fifth Federation starship to bare that name, doesn't mean the name Enterprise itself. They meant the name USS. Enterprise NCC-1701 as being a name.

Since when?

The ship has only been referred to by her hull number in a very small number of 24th-Century episodes that dealt with stuff from the 23rd-Century. In fact, hull numbers in general are very rarely referred to in any story.

Except for TOS and the TOS movies. The Enterprise was call by her name, her registry and both.

 

[C.E. Evans]

NCC-1701 is actually part of the Enterprise name, it no longer her designation. The USS. Enterprise NCC-1701 designation is a letter in from the alphabet. When they had said that she is the fifth Federation starship to bare that name, doesn't mean the name Enterprise itself. They meant the name USS. Enterprise NCC-1701 as being a name.

Since when?

The ship has only been referred to by her hull number in a very small number of 24th-Century episodes that dealt with stuff from the 23rd-Century. In fact, hull numbers in general are very rarely referred to in any story.

Except for TOS and the TOS movies. The Enterprise was call by her name, her registry and both.

But once again, that was in a small number of episodes in all of Trek--and generally from a historical perspective from the 24th-Century. Hull numbers are not part of a ship's name. They're just simply hull numbers.

 

[Pavonis]

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.

NCC-1701-A was the same class, so adding the suffix made sense, but there should have been no -B for the Excelsior-class Enterprise. She should have been NCC-2007 or something, and the other ships named Enterprise should have had appropriate registries for their classes, too.

Though I wonder why all of the Starfleet ships are NCC (save for the experimental NX registered ships). Why must all of them have been NCC? Why not NCD or MKX or some other letters for Starfleet vessels? Were NAR registered ships Starfleet, too?

 

[Knight Templar]

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.

NCC-1701-A was the same class, so adding the suffix made sense, but there should have been no -B for the Excelsior-class Enterprise. She should have been NCC-2007 or something, and the other ships named Enterprise should have had appropriate registries for their classes, too.

Though I wonder why all of the Starfleet ships are NCC (save for the experimental NX registered ships). Why must all of them have been NCC? Why not NCD or MKX or some other letters for Starfleet vessels? Were NAR registered ships Starfleet, too?

Well if you assume that "NCC" means "Naval Construction Contract" (not canon) then having all Starfleet vessels with that makes sense.

 

[C.E. Evans]

Though I wonder why all of the Starfleet ships are NCC (save for the experimental NX registered ships). Why must all of them have been NCC? Why not NCD or MKX or some other letters for Starfleet vessels?

Consistency, mostly, IMO.

Were NAR registered ships Starfleet, too?

Mostly civilian ships or Starfleet vessels transferred to civilian groups, it seems. Some date back to the 22nd-Century and before the formation of the Federation.

 

[Pavonis]

If NCC is Naval Construction Contract, why have it on the hull? It's redundant. If Enterprise is Naval Construction Contract 1701, why not just put 1701 on the hull? They're all NCC numbers, so why waste effort putting the letters on the hull?

If NCC is more like a code for deep-space explorer (a Cruiser, perhaps?), then other Starfleet vessels with other mission profiles should have different registry letters.

 

[Kemaiku]

'NTS' turns up at one point too, as does NAR, NCC, NCX and NCC.

They don't mean anything and generally no one cares, they do make some sort of sense and look nice to have the ships registries on them, but it's no more than an aesthetic.

 

[yenny]

If NCC is Naval Construction Contract, why have it on the hull? It's redundant. If Enterprise is Naval Construction Contract 1701, why not just put 1701 on the hull? They're all NCC numbers, so why waste effort putting the letters on the hull?

If NCC is more like a code for deep-space explorer (a Cruiser, perhaps?), then other Starfleet vessels with other mission profiles should have different registry letters.

I think NCC means nuclear cosmology craft.

 

[C.E. Evans]

'NTS' turns up at one point too, as does NAR, NCC, NCX and NCC.

They don't mean anything and generally no one cares, they do make some sort of sense and look nice to have the ships registries on them, but it's no more than an aesthetic.

Exactly this.

 

[Admiral2]

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.