JJTrek, representing the whole world with ship names

[Dukhat]

It's still silly. If I was born on the 1st of January then I wouldn't write my birthday 01/01, just 1/1.

You missed the year. If you were born on January 5th, 2014, then what's important is the month and the year, not the exact day. It would be 0114, not 0501.

And anyway, "11" wouldn't work as a starship registry, nor would its context be understandable if written that way.

 

[Nebusj]

Despite my always whining about the zero, it's not exactly what I have a problem with. More accurately, it's how unnecessary it is on the Kelvin's registry. Prime Trek has already established starships with three digit registries, USS Grissom is NCC-638, USS Essex is NCC-173, just to name a few. So why couldn't the Kelvin be NCC-514? Why did it have to be NCC-0514?

What you've overlooked is that that's a letter O, not a leading zero.

 

[Dukhat]

Despite my always whining about the zero, it's not exactly what I have a problem with. More accurately, it's how unnecessary it is on the Kelvin's registry. Prime Trek has already established starships with three digit registries, USS Grissom is NCC-638, USS Essex is NCC-173, just to name a few. So why couldn't the Kelvin be NCC-514? Why did it have to be NCC-0514?

What you've overlooked is that that's a letter O, not a leading zero.

What, you mean like the registries in TAS, like G1465 or F1913 or whatnot? While that obviously wasn't the intention, it would certainly work

 

[shapeshifter]

As in saying 17 *oh* 1? What does the O stand for?

*O* 517 sounds just as strange as *zero*517.

 

[Sindatur]

Despite my always whining about the zero, it's not exactly what I have a problem with. More accurately, it's how unnecessary it is on the Kelvin's registry. Prime Trek has already established starships with three digit registries, USS Grissom is NCC-638, USS Essex is NCC-173, just to name a few. So why couldn't the Kelvin be NCC-514? Why did it have to be NCC-0514?

This is only a rumor based on the fact that the Kelvin's namesake is Abrams's grandfather, but it has been speculated that the registry is his birthday (i.e. he was born in May of 1914, hence 0514. Had he been born in November say, the registry would have been 1114). Whether this is true or not I don't know, but since the other ships' registry numbers correspond to their names in some way, it's possible.

So apparently Abrams just isn't as anal-retentive or OCD about such things as some Trek fans are. And in the large scheme of things it isn't really that big a deal. He wasn't trying to change things or piss people off. He was just honoring his grandpa.

It's still silly. If I was born on the 1st of January then I wouldn't write my birthday 01/01, just 1/1.

Actually, anytime, I do anything official that's business related, I personally do add the Zeros in single digit dates (01/01/2014, rather than 1/1/14). I was taught, back in the 1970s stone age, to be anal like that with dates

 

[Nerys Myk]

This is only a rumor based on the fact that the Kelvin's namesake is Abrams's grandfather, but it has been speculated that the registry is his birthday (i.e. he was born in May of 1914, hence 0514. Had he been born in November say, the registry would have been 1114). Whether this is true or not I don't know, but since the other ships' registry numbers correspond to their names in some way, it's possible.

So apparently Abrams just isn't as anal-retentive or OCD about such things as some Trek fans are. And in the large scheme of things it isn't really that big a deal. He wasn't trying to change things or piss people off. He was just honoring his grandpa.

It's still silly. If I was born on the 1st of January then I wouldn't write my birthday 01/01, just 1/1.

Actually, anytime, I do anything official that's business related, I personally do add the Zeros in single digit dates (01/01/2014, rather than 1/1/14). I was taught, back in the 1970s stone age, to be anal like that with dates

Computers tend to like XX/XX/XXXX dates. I tend to screw up when entering my birthday because I'll enter the two digits for the year.

 

[Melakon]

Computers tend to like XX/XX/XXXX dates. I tend to screw up when entering my birthday because I'll enter the two digits for the year.

Yes, I haven't been in a computer room in 24 years, but when writing checks I sometimes reflexively put a stroke through the zeroes.

 

[The Wormhole]

Despite my always whining about the zero, it's not exactly what I have a problem with. More accurately, it's how unnecessary it is on the Kelvin's registry. Prime Trek has already established starships with three digit registries, USS Grissom is NCC-638, USS Essex is NCC-173, just to name a few. So why couldn't the Kelvin be NCC-514? Why did it have to be NCC-0514?

This is only a rumor based on the fact that the Kelvin's namesake is Abrams's grandfather, but it has been speculated that the registry is his birthday (i.e. he was born in May of 1914, hence 0514. Had he been born in November say, the registry would have been 1114). Whether this is true or not I don't know, but since the other ships' registry numbers correspond to their names in some way, it's possible.

So apparently Abrams just isn't as anal-retentive or OCD about such things as some Trek fans are. And in the large scheme of things it isn't really that big a deal. He wasn't trying to change things or piss people off. He was just honoring his grandpa.

Well, I was born March 85, if I were to make a starship registry based on that, it would have been NCC-385, not NCC-0385. But maybe that's just me.

And even if we do accept the explanation of the Kelvin's registry being based on Grandpa's birthday, we now have other Starfleet ships using zero in its registry, like USS Biddeford being NCC-0718. Though I suppose whoever came up with that number could have simply misinterpreted the Kelvin is a precedent and followed the same pattern.

 

[Sindatur]

Computers tend to like XX/XX/XXXX dates. I tend to screw up when entering my birthday because I'll enter the two digits for the year.

Yes, I haven't been in a computer room in 24 years, but when writing checks I sometimes reflexively put a stroke through the zeroes.

Heh, yea, unless I deliberately concentrate not to, I cross my Zeroes and I always cross my Sevens

 

[Enterprise1701]

Despite my always whining about the zero, it's not exactly what I have a problem with. More accurately, it's how unnecessary it is on the Kelvin's registry. Prime Trek has already established starships with three digit registries, USS Grissom is NCC-638, USS Essex is NCC-173, just to name a few. So why couldn't the Kelvin be NCC-514? Why did it have to be NCC-0514?

This is only a rumor based on the fact that the Kelvin's namesake is Abrams's grandfather, but it has been speculated that the registry is his birthday (i.e. he was born in May of 1914, hence 0514. Had he been born in November say, the registry would have been 1114). Whether this is true or not I don't know, but since the other ships' registry numbers correspond to their names in some way, it's possible.

So apparently Abrams just isn't as anal-retentive or OCD about such things as some Trek fans are. And in the large scheme of things it isn't really that big a deal. He wasn't trying to change things or piss people off. He was just honoring his grandpa.

Well, I was born March 85, if I were to make a starship registry based on that, it would have been NCC-385, not NCC-0385. But maybe that's just me.

And even if we do accept the explanation of the Kelvin's registry being based on Grandpa's birthday, we now have other Starfleet ships using zero in its registry, like USS Biddeford being NCC-0718. Though I suppose whoever came up with that number could have simply misinterpreted the Kelvin is a precedent and followed the same pattern.

I thought of something else. Star Trek Into Darkness twice features the number "0718": as the registry of a Newton type starship docked at Starbase 1 and as the apparent name of the cybernetic science officer. In the latter case it makes no sense since Starfleet must have over 1,000 officers (for comparison right now the U.S. Army has over 500,000 active personnel). So either Science Officer 0718's name should have as many zeroes as the highest place value of Starfleet's personnel count or all leading zeroes should be dropped.

Y'know, what if in the mid 23rd century of the Abramsverse a Starfleet vessel has the registry of just "1"? I can accept that in ENT Enterprise was NX-01 and Columbia was NX-02 since single digits would look too awkward, but would it really be necessary for a registry to be "NCC-0001"?

 

[Dukhat]

Well, I was born March 85, if I were to make a starship registry based on that, it would have been NCC-385, not NCC-0385. But maybe that's just me.

It is just you. As other people have mentioned, dates are usually written numerically with two digits (i.e. 03, not 3, for March).

And even if we do accept the explanation of the Kelvin's registry being based on Grandpa's birthday, we now have other Starfleet ships using zero in its registry, like USS Biddeford being NCC-0718. Though I suppose whoever came up with that number could have simply misinterpreted the Kelvin is a precedent and followed the same pattern.

Or, maybe "Biddeford" was someone else's last name, and that was their birthday? It's only speculation that the name was meant to be the town in Maine.

In the latter case it makes no sense since Starfleet must have over 1,000 officers (for comparison right now the U.S. Army has over 500,000 active personnel). So either Science Officer 0718's name should have as many zeroes as the highest place value of Starfleet's personnel count or all leading zeroes should be dropped.

But you're just assuming that "0718" was meant to be related to some personnel count. Maybe that's just the guy's name.

Y'know, what if in the mid 23rd century of the Abramsverse a Starfleet vessel has the registry of just "1"? I can accept that in ENT Enterprise was NX-01 and Columbia was NX-02 since single digits would look too awkward, but would it really be necessary for a registry to be "NCC-0001"?

Why would a ship in the mid-23rd century have a registry of NCC-1?

 

[starburst]

Y'know, what if in the mid 23rd century of the Abramsverse a Starfleet vessel has the registry of just "1"? I can accept that in ENT Enterprise was NX-01 and Columbia was NX-02 since single digits would look too awkward, but would it really be necessary for a registry to be "NCC-0001"?

Why would a ship in the mid-23rd century have a registry of NCC-1?

I think that hes getting at is if an earlier ship were still in service would the hull numbers be updated when the ship was next refit (or at least repainted).

So the NCC-07 (lets assume previously the NX-07) if still in service for some reason would have been renumbered NCC-007 and then NCC-0007.

if we assume Kelvin etc have their registry numbers updated to fit with the newer, larger registry numbers then at some point the Enterprise would be NCC-01701 and Excelsior (assuming it was built with the same purpose) would end up the NCC-02000.

 

[Chrono85]

Not to split hairs here, but after nearly 50 years of Trek (or at 50 if you count the first pilot) we can only come up with two ships possibly named after 'mass murderers' which depends on your interpretation of Truman's actions, or whether or not you think 'Cortez' refers to the infamous conquistador. I can name far more Star Trek ships which are named after non-war historical figures, or ships not named after anyone. I don't think Star Trek has some kind of running problem with naming its ships after violent individuals, and so it is a bit odd that this argument was brought up at all.

 

[Cyke101]

Not to split hairs here, but after nearly 50 years of Trek (or at 50 if you count the first pilot) we can only come up with two ships possibly named after 'mass murderers' which depends on your interpretation of Truman's actions, or whether or not you think 'Cortez' refers to the infamous conquistador. I can name far more Star Trek ships which are named after non-war historical figures, or ships not named after anyone. I don't think Star Trek has some kind of running problem with naming its ships after violent individuals, and so it is a bit odd that this argument was brought up at all.

Well, it would be pretty bad if one or two of those names impacted entire regions of the world -- one lone USS Pol Pot would surely sully naming conventions, for a more contemporary example. If it is indeed the conquistador Cortez, that's already a large audience (Mexico and Central and South America). Just because an historical figure isn't a problem to an American audience, doesn't mean that that figure doesn't raise a problem elsewhere in the world, especially with large audiences. It'd also be a more subtle form of normalizing or whitewashing past atrocities, too, as if time simply forgot their global impact.

 

[Chrono85]

Not to split hairs here, but after nearly 50 years of Trek (or at 50 if you count the first pilot) we can only come up with two ships possibly named after 'mass murderers' which depends on your interpretation of Truman's actions, or whether or not you think 'Cortez' refers to the infamous conquistador. I can name far more Star Trek ships which are named after non-war historical figures, or ships not named after anyone. I don't think Star Trek has some kind of running problem with naming its ships after violent individuals, and so it is a bit odd that this argument was brought up at all.

Well, it would be pretty bad if one or two of those names impacted entire regions of the world -- one lone USS Pol Pot would surely sully naming conventions, for a more contemporary example. If it is indeed the conquistador Cortez, that's already a large audience (Mexico and Central and South America). Just because an historical figure isn't a problem to an American audience, doesn't mean that that figure doesn't raise a problem elsewhere in the world, especially with large audiences. It'd also be a more subtle form of normalizing or whitewashing past atrocities, too, as if time simply forgot their global impact.

I'm just saying that the OP is implying that there was some kind of culture of naming ships after murders in Trek which needed to be rectified, when there really is not.

 

[Dukhat]

I think that hes getting at is if an earlier ship were still in service would the hull numbers be updated when the ship was next refit (or at least repainted).

So the NCC-07 (lets assume previously the NX-07) if still in service for some reason would have been renumbered NCC-007 and then NCC-0007.

if we assume Kelvin etc have their registry numbers updated to fit with the newer, larger registry numbers then at some point the Enterprise would be NCC-01701 and Excelsior (assuming it was built with the same purpose) would end up the NCC-02000.

Still not getting the logic here. Why would a ship's registry number need to be changed at all, much less add more zeroes to it?

 

[starburst]

Still not getting the logic here. Why would a ship's registry number need to be changed at all, much less add more zeroes to it?

There is no logic to it, which I probably should have said to why I used Enterprise and Excelsior as examples.

 

[Enterprise1701]

Y'know, what if in the mid 23rd century of the Abramsverse a Starfleet vessel has the registry of just "1"? I can accept that in ENT Enterprise was NX-01 and Columbia was NX-02 since single digits would look too awkward, but would it really be necessary for a registry to be "NCC-0001"?

Why would a ship in the mid-23rd century have a registry of NCC-1?

Maybe registries are reused verbatim in the 23rd century. After all, U.S.S. Constellation (NCC-1017) probably can't logically be almost 700 ship constructions earlier than U.S.S. Enterprise (NCC-1701) or U.S.S. Hood (NCC-1703) or U.S.S. Defiant (NCC-1764).

I think that hes getting at is if an earlier ship were still in service would the hull numbers be updated when the ship was next refit (or at least repainted).

So the NCC-07 (lets assume previously the NX-07) if still in service for some reason would have been renumbered NCC-007 and then NCC-0007.

if we assume Kelvin etc have their registry numbers updated to fit with the newer, larger registry numbers then at some point the Enterprise would be NCC-01701 and Excelsior (assuming it was built with the same purpose) would end up the NCC-02000.

Still not getting the logic here. Why would a ship's registry number need to be changed at all, much less add more zeroes to it?

For consistency. For example ENT had several minor Earth Starfleet vessels with no visible registries. If they were transferred to Federation Starfleet service offscreen in 2161, then surely they would have had registries added to their hulls for organization-wide consistency.

 

[Dukhat]

For consistency. For example ENT had several minor Earth Starfleet vessels with no visible registries. If they were transferred to Federation Starfleet service offscreen in 2161, then surely they would have had registries added to their hulls for organization-wide consistency.

But what does that have to do with adding a bunch of zeroes to their registries?

 

[Sindatur]

For consistency. For example ENT had several minor Earth Starfleet vessels with no visible registries. If they were transferred to Federation Starfleet service offscreen in 2161, then surely they would have had registries added to their hulls for organization-wide consistency.

But what does that have to do with adding a bunch of zeroes to their registries?

In the world of inventory and Asset management, you want your reference numbers to be the same number of digits, as much as possible.

Inventory, perhaps you start with Part Number 1000 and work your way up to 9999. As you introduce new Products, you use up those numbers. Once you get to Part Number 9999, technolgy has moved on, and you upgrade your Database, and you change your Part Numbers that are still in use to a larger Range. So, this time you use Part Number 10000 to start and you've now got up to 99999, and maybe you have let's say 1000 active parts still from that prior 9000, that you renumber to the new Scheme(Either by adding a leading Zro, or perhaps by just straight renumbering those 1000 Part Numbers as 10000 through 10999) (You might instead want to use a Part numbering system something like xxx-xxx-xxxx where each segment of the part Number means something)

Fixed Assets would be the same, using up numbers when you change your copier or printers or Computers or Furniture...

No reason to believe that Ships (Which I believe are indeed Assets) wouldn't be treated the same way.

It's just easier for Searches and filing to have all the numbers you are searching through to be the same size. So, maybe, that's what they did? They rolled over to 4 Digits, and when they did upgrades to 3 Digit Registry Numbers still in use, they added the leading Zero to the Hull