Name of the Enterprise

[Cary L. Brown]

In this old discussion, someone always brings up that modern-day organizations such as militaries have tons of registry letter prefixes that seem either to be based on nothing at all or to have had their origins lost to time and circumstance. It is fun to think of what the letters might mean, but their reason for being there in the Trek universe might be innocuous, outdated or even arbitrary.

I can do without "naval construction contract," myself. That word "naval" in there seems sorta out of place, not being used very often in the rest of Trek to refer to the ships or fleets. I encourage fans to keep making up their own meanings, but not to quote them as if they were fact to people who innocently inquire as to the origins of that "NCC" on the hull.

I don't care for the "Naval Construction Contract" idea either, though of course it is "official" (though not necessarily canonical) as described above.

I prefer to think of it as a transponder code. Every ship flying broadcasts a basic "IFF" type code. The marking on the side of the ship is visual confirmation of the same code being broadcast.

I'm partial to "NCC" standing for "navigational contact code," but some others have (not incorrectly) pointed out that the various other variations don't necessarily fit with that.

SO... every ship does broadcast a navigational contact code, but "NCC" doesn't NECESSARILY mean that... it's just the prefix code first used. The Federation has since expanded the codes list beyond that, so "NCC" now means NOTHING. (Very much like DVD now means nothing. Originally, it was "digital video disk" but due to some lawsuits, there is now no direct connection between where DVD came from and what you're supposely allowed to call it today.)

In any case, every ship has its transponder which broadcasts this signal, allowing other ships to be aware of your identity and status without having to keep a tracking scanner beam on you every moment. Obviously, if engaging in stealth operations, you'd turn this off, but that would be pretty rare for Federation ships, I think.

This fits with the approach I prefer, but also fits nicely with MJ's take, and actually gives a rational explanation for the similar-but-not-identical takes we see with NAR, NX, etc.

At some point, someone decided that all experimental ships should broadcast a special transponder code identifying them as such... and by committee, they decided that "NX" just sort of "felt" like "experimental." So they added this into the mix.

Maybe they then decided to expand it to include "all resource carrying starships." The debate would have gone back and forth, probably leading into sub-classifications for various resource carriers (fuel, basic cargo, foodstuffs, ore, whatever)... but eventually came back to a single classification for "all resources." NAR.

Something similar might have happened with NSP. Perhaps it means "Small Patrol Craft?"

Granted, once established, the "original intent" of these things often falls away (remember, we're talking POLITICIANS, not rational beings here!) but initially, the "expansions" of the navigational-contact-code system probably meant something to somebody, huh?

 

[Forbin]

Umm, why would a three-letter acronym whose meaning is "primary service vessel" have its three letters mean "naval construction contract"? It makes rather little sense.

I mean, it would make obvious sense to have the three letters be PSV, for "primary service vessel".

Of stop being silly, you know better than that. The world is chock-full of prefixes and designations that don't bear any realtion to what they're naming.

I've been in the avionics industry for 27 years and I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me why "electronic countermeasures systems" carry the "AN/ALQ-" designation, and "flare dispensers" are designated "ALE-". It doesn't actually stand for anything, it's just a DoD designation.

While we're at it, why did the US Navy pick the letter "V" to indicate "heavier-than-air aircraft?" And since they don't use derigibles so much any more, why do they still use the V?

 

[Christopher]

I don't care for the "Naval Construction Contract" idea either, though of course it is "official" (though not necessarily canonical) as described above.

As I said, "official" doesn't mean a thing in this context, or at least it doesn't mean that the idea deserves any special weight. Every "fictional nonfiction" Trek reference that was legally published with the approval and consent of Paramount (or now CBS) is official, but their actual contents are often wildly contradictory. All "official" means is that the copyright owner authorized the publication of the work in exchange for a cut of the profits. If CBS Consumer Products licensed me to write a satirical "reference" book explaining all of Trek physics in terms of pixies and moondust, that would be entirely "official," and the fact that it was official wouldn't mean it deserved to be taken at all seriously. It would only mean that I got permission and they got money.

At some point, someone decided that all experimental ships should broadcast a special transponder code identifying them as such... and by committee, they decided that "NX" just sort of "felt" like "experimental." So they added this into the mix.

In fact, the NX prefix is sometimes used for experimental American aircraft. In international aviation registration codes, all US aircraft have numbers beginning with N, and sometimes a second letter is added to modify it -- NC for airliners, NG for gliders, NS for state, NX for experimental, etc. Although NC1000 or NX1000 is considered interchangeable with N1000.

Maybe they then decided to expand it to include "all resource carrying starships." The debate would have gone back and forth, probably leading into sub-classifications for various resource carriers (fuel, basic cargo, foodstuffs, ore, whatever)... but eventually came back to a single classification for "all resources." NAR.

Something similar might have happened with NSP. Perhaps it means "Small Patrol Craft?"

Granted, once established, the "original intent" of these things often falls away (remember, we're talking POLITICIANS, not rational beings here!) but initially, the "expansions" of the navigational-contact-code system probably meant something to somebody, huh?

Sounds reasonable.

 

[aridas sofia]

Well, I'm the guy that came up with "navigational contact code" because I thought "Naval Construction Contract" wasn't the best explanation. So I'm not averse to change. But I also readily abandoned my own choice when I learned what Jefferies' own explanation was, because his explanation was a lot better. It had the feeling of something adopted centuries before, whose origins were almost forgotten. It was quality, and my explanation was less quality.

Once something is onscreen, it becomes canon. That was a great standard for what would qualify as lingua franca among fans when canon meant a generally high standard of quality. Once that began to slip, or a disconnect began to form between the fans and the product, canon became less relevant. Why? Canon is a big part of Paramount's Star Trek "formula," and like it or not, that formula includes what is stated onscreen as well as what fans imagine to be the background of the stories. Change the formula -- overwrite part of what the fans imagine -- and don't be surprised if some people like old Coke better than the new stuff.

 

[Vance]

The main problem with that, Aridas, is that 'centuries before' no longer works. We would be looking at the origins of NCC now, really - or, perhaps more ironically, twenty years ago as the first 'ships of space' would have been launched.

I'm game for accepting a better explanation or nomenclature, but there hasn't really been made one avaialble. NCC is definately tied to the registrar, not navigation (explicitly now), but that's about all we know in 'canon'. Outside of canon, there's only been the one official answer in all this time... so... that pretty much leaves us to the 'old days' of the Technical Manual after all.

 

[aridas sofia]

NCC is definately tied to the registrar, not navigation (explicitly now)...

Not that I am defending NCC as a navigational contact code, but I'm wondering what you think precludes a registration number from being used as a navigation I.D.? After all, aircraft registrations were based on radio call signs.

The main problem with that, Aridas, is that 'centuries before' no longer works. We would be looking at the origins of NCC now, really - or, perhaps more ironically, twenty years ago as the first 'ships of space' would have been launched.

We didn't experience a Eugenics War either, but that doesn't stop people from pretending that it happened behind the scenes. The biggest problem with Jefferies' original explanation is that the US no longer uses NC and there is no more Soviet Union. Other than that, it works fine.

The bigger problem I have is with the number itself -- I find it fascinating that Franz Joseph plucked "Constitution class" out of an obscure piece of film and it stuck, but he uses Jefferies' own, in-house explanation for "1701" and builds upon it, and of course, Mike Okuda instead adopts one based on tea leaves and Sudoku. (Not to mention the whole 1701-A, -B, etc. business not being followed correctly...)

 

[Vance]

Not that I am defending NCC as a navigational contact code, but I'm wondering what you think precludes a registration number from being used as a navigation I.D.? After all, aircraft registrations were based on radio call signs.

I'm not saying that it can't be used as one, but I think it would make more sense that the Nav signal would carry the registry rather than the other way around, nae? It could very well be a 'Nav Contact Code' as well, but the functions are inverted. Registrar first, then navigation.

Consistantly, the only thing we can say about NCC is that, somehow, it means 'active service in Star Fleet'. (And, hence, the 'N' being 'Naval' does make sense, even if it would be considered antiquated, archaic, and even somewhat 'politically incorrect' by the time of TNG, in particular.)

The bigger problem I have is with the number itself -- I find it fascinating that Franz Joseph plucked "Constitution class" out of an obscure piece of film and it stuck, but he uses Jefferies' own, in-house explanation for "1701" and builds upon it, and of course, Mike Okuda instead adopts one based on tea leaves and Sudoku. (Not to mention the whole 1701-A, -B, etc. business not being followed correctly...)

Well, ignoring Okuda, who did a lot of the registry thing specifically to spite everyone else, 1700 only really fails if you assume that NCC applies to everything (as it apparently does in DS9), and that the registries are consecutive by build. I don't think that either's really a safe assumption, when you consider all the various sources (canon or not). As I said before, really, all the registrar has to do is make sure each assignment is unique.

Though I would like to see more tradition followed in the schemes. Okuda's randomness is maddening.

 

[Christopher]

We didn't experience a Eugenics War either, but that doesn't stop people from pretending that it happened behind the scenes. The biggest problem with Jefferies' original explanation is that the US no longer uses NC and there is no more Soviet Union. Other than that, it works fine.

Well, I don't think Jefferies was necessarily saying "This is the reason for it in-universe," just "This is the thinking that led me to come up with it." I think he was saying more that NCC was meant to evoke American and USSR aircraft registries in the minds of the show's viewers (those who were familiar with such things) rather than literally representing them within the narrative.

(Not to mention the whole 1701-A, -B, etc. business not being followed correctly...)

I'm curious now -- could you elaborate on what you consider the correct way of handling that? Or are you just referring to what I mentioned upthread about the letters representing modifications of an existing ship?

 

[aridas sofia]

We didn't experience a Eugenics War either, but that doesn't stop people from pretending that it happened behind the scenes. The biggest problem with Jefferies' original explanation is that the US no longer uses NC and there is no more Soviet Union. Other than that, it works fine.

Well, I don't think Jefferies was necessarily saying "This is the reason for it in-universe," just "This is the thinking that led me to come up with it." I think he was saying more that NCC was meant to evoke American and USSR aircraft registries in the minds of the show's viewers (those who were familiar with such things) rather than literally representing them within the narrative.

There's no way for us to know for sure, but I think he was providing deep background for anyone that cared to use it. Like the "in universe" reasoning for "1701," it wasn't used. But it shows he wasn't just throwing these things out willy-nilly.

(Not to mention the whole 1701-A, -B, etc. business not being followed correctly...)

I'm curious now -- could you elaborate on what you consider the correct way of handling that? Or are you just referring to what I mentioned upthread about the letters representing modifications of an existing ship?

I've been bothered by the idea of "1701-A, B, C, etc." singling out these ships when there would have to be other ships that were as accomplished, and all Enterprises wouldn't necessarily be so worthy of note. So, on my own forum I wrote about this, admittedly prompted by your post. I'd like it to have more-specific "in universe" meaning, but the backstory of 1701-C gets in the way...

You can read my idea here.

 

[Vance]

I've been bothered by the idea of "1701-A, B, C, etc." singling out these ships when there would have to be other ships that were as accomplished, and all Enterprises wouldn't necessarily be so worthy of note. So, on my own forum I wrote about this, admittedly prompted by your post. I'd like it to have more-specific "in universe" meaning, but the backstory of 1701-C gets in the way...

I'll half agree with you here. I think that once you got to the Enterprise-B, it's now 'military tradition'. There's going to be an NCC-1701-something as long as the Federation fleet exists from then on out. Each ship is, effectively, carrying on the legacy of Pike and Kirk's ship, and will forever out. They're not celebrating the accomplishments of the B, C, or even D or E.

Now, where I agree with you is that it doesn't make too much sense that in all that time, there hasn't been any OTHER ship that accomplished so much that wouldn't get the same honor. Indeed, we did have the Yamato seemingly getting it first for a bit, until it was retconned. But I did like the idea of a few other legendary ships in the fleet. It made the Enterprise a bit more 'normal' in TNG, rather than the super-mega-awesome-all-important ship 'in universe' that she was largely written as.

 

[Mysterion]

If you want to believe they stand for "Newfangled Cosmic Contraption," you're entirely free to do so.

I vote for "Nice Creamy Cheese"...

Any other ideas?

My vote is still for: No Canon Connotation

 

[Tigger]

SO... every ship does broadcast a navigational contact code, but "NCC" doesn't NECESSARILY mean that... it's just the prefix code first used. The Federation has since expanded the codes list beyond that, so "NCC" now means NOTHING. (Very much like DVD now means nothing. Originally, it was "digital video disk" but due to some lawsuits, there is now no direct connection between where DVD came from and what you're supposely allowed to call it today.)

DVD actually stood for "Digital Versatile Disc" because it was meant to handle more then just video. However, that just supports your general point even more, IMO.

 

[Captain Robert April]

I've been in the avionics industry for 27 years and I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me why "electronic countermeasures systems" carry the "AN/ALQ-" designation, and "flare dispensers" are designated "ALE-". It doesn't actually stand for anything, it's just a DoD designation.

While we're at it, why did the US Navy pick the letter "V" to indicate "heavier-than-air aircraft?" And since they don't use derigibles so much any more, why do they still use the V?

That last one, I think I can help you with. Since "A" was probably already taken as standing for "Assault", they simply took the "V" from "Aviation".

A lot of locator codes for airports do the same thing, pick a letter from the middle of a name, or the name of the city instead of the name of the airport, or vice versa, because otherwise, they'd wind up with the same identifier as another airport. And, of course, when they change the name of the airport, and keep the same code, it makes even less sense to the uninitiated.

 

[aridas sofia]

I've been bothered by the idea of "1701-A, B, C, etc." singling out these ships when there would have to be other ships that were as accomplished, and all Enterprises wouldn't necessarily be so worthy of note. So, on my own forum I wrote about this, admittedly prompted by your post. I'd like it to have more-specific "in universe" meaning, but the backstory of 1701-C gets in the way...

I'll half agree with you here. I think that once you got to the Enterprise-B, it's now 'military tradition'. There's going to be an NCC-1701-something as long as the Federation fleet exists from then on out. Each ship is, effectively, carrying on the legacy of Pike and Kirk's ship, and will forever out. They're not celebrating the accomplishments of the B, C, or even D or E.

Now, where I agree with you is that it doesn't make too much sense that in all that time, there hasn't been any OTHER ship that accomplished so much that wouldn't get the same honor. Indeed, we did have the Yamato seemingly getting it first for a bit, until it was retconned. But I did like the idea of a few other legendary ships in the fleet. It made the Enterprise a bit more 'normal' in TNG, rather than the super-mega-awesome-all-important ship 'in universe' that she was largely written as.

Why wouldn't the simple, and universally adopted practice of just naming the ship for another ship be sufficient? No.. Also continuing the registry number must have special significance, quite apart from honor, or the registry itself loses meaning.

Of course, my idea is based upon Jefferies', and while it would primarily be about maintaining the integrity of the registry, the fact that a whole line of starships of a certain registry had pulled off the feat of surviving to have their bulk be added to their successor would be an honor in and of itself.

 

[Christopher]

DVD actually stood for "Digital Versatile Disc" because it was meant to handle more then just video. However, that just supports your general point even more, IMO.

Well, according to Wikipedia:

"DVD" was originally used as an initialism for the unofficial term "digital visual disc".[6] It was reported in 1995, at the time of the specification finalization, that the letters officially stood for "digital versatile disc" (due to non-video applications).[7] However, the text of the press release announcing the specification finalization only refers to the technology as "DVD", making no mention of what (if anything) the letters stood for.[5] A newsgroup FAQ written by Jim Taylor (a prominent figure in the industry) claims that four years later, in 1999, the DVD Forum stated that the format name was simply the three letters "DVD" and did not stand for anything.[8]

Aridas, the idea proposed on your blog is interesting, but I don't see how it can work with 1701/1701-A. The original ship spiralled down to crash on Genesis, and Genesis blew up. I don't see how there could've been anything salvageable.

Personally, I wish the letter suffixes had never caught on. The TMP refit could've been 1701A (no hyphen) as a modification, but the replacement Enterprise should've had a different number, maybe, say, 1766 (in honor of the 1966 debut), and the subsequent ships named Enterprise should've had separate numbers that made sense for their respective classes.

Why wouldn't the simple, and universally adopted practice of just naming the ship for another ship be sufficient?

Absolutely. Why would anyone honor a ship by reusing its number? Who notices numbers? Does anyone know the registration number of the Spirit of St. Louis or the Enola Gay or the Spruce Goose? The only reason the number NCC-1701 has any significance to Trek fans is because it's the only number we saw regularly for decades. Most people actually living in the Trek universe would rarely or never see the ship close enough to read the number; they'd just hear about its name in the news. The only people who'd think of it by its number would be the clerks or engineers or spacedock technicians who deal with the paperwork using the numbers, and for them NCC-1701 would just be one number out of hundreds.

 

[Vance]

Why wouldn't the simple, and universally adopted practice of just naming the ship for another ship be sufficient? No.. Also continuing the registry number must have special significance, quite apart from honor, or the registry itself loses meaning.

You're right in the respect that the 'Enterprise' of TVH and onward would simply just be a new Enterprise, with a new registry (or, perhaps, the Enterprise II) if we were following naval tradition. Of course, GR wanted the TNG ship to be the Enterprise-D, so the TVH vessel became the Enterprise-A. Since we're pretty much stuck with that...

Of course, within the registrar, as I said, it just needs to be unique. NCC-1701-A works just as well as NCC-2701 as being distinct from NCC-1701. They're not really going to care all that much, so long as the database is just fine.

 

[Cary L. Brown]

Not that I am defending NCC as a navigational contact code, but I'm wondering what you think precludes a registration number from being used as a navigation I.D.? After all, aircraft registrations were based on radio call signs.

I'm not saying that it can't be used as one, but I think it would make more sense that the Nav signal would carry the registry rather than the other way around, nae? It could very well be a 'Nav Contact Code' as well, but the functions are inverted. Registrar first, then navigation.

I'm a bit confused by what your point here is...

It's sort of a "chicken/egg" argument... does it really matter "which came first," if both are the same?

I can easily imagine both being "similar" but not identical. It seems to me that you need a lot more data associated with a ship's registration (which has to be totally unique, for all practical purposes, forever) and an IFF-type transponder code (which need only be unique during the particular period during which that ship is in use).

The whole registration number, then, ought really to be a more substantial, more informative sequence. Of course, I fully expect the one for Enterprise to include 1701 in there someplace, but have no problem whatsoever with it omitting NCC.

In order to support that... consider the Excelsior. That ship was initially listed as NX-2000, yet later was listed as NCC-2000. However, the ship remains the same ship, not a new ship, even though it was fairly heavily modified at some point between ST-III and its later appearances (and I'm not talking about the Ent-B design variant... as far as we know, Excelsior was never modified to that state).

The Excelsior would have had some registration database entry, which would be permanent as long as that ship existed. But its transponder code would have been altered upon its transition from an experimental ship to a ship on active duty. The first one would be for record-keeping, the second would be for quick ID by other vessels and/or installations.

I know that Aridas isn't as beholden to the NCC = "navigational contact code" bit as I am... but the idea just makes far more sense than printing the freaking CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT NUMBER on the hull. You might as well have the dockyard crew paint their signatures in 20-foot-tall letters on the side, too! It's not like it would serve any other purpose... is it?

 

[Mysterion]

If every ship in Starfleet has a unique registration number, and from what we've seen this seems to be the case, isn't the "NCC" just a superfluous waste of paint (or whatever they use in the 24th and half century)?

 

[Duncan MacLeod]

While we're at it, why did the US Navy pick the letter "V" to indicate "heavier-than-air aircraft?" And since they don't use derigibles so much any more, why do they still use the V?

That last one, I think I can help you with. Since "A" was probably already taken as standing for "Assault", they simply took the "V" from "Aviation".

You're close.

The 'V' does stand for aViation, and was used because 'A' was being used for Armored at that time. The 'C' stood for Cruiser btw. Thus CA was Cruiser (Armored) and CV was Cruiser (aViation). There was also the designation PC which stood for Protected Cruiser, a more lightly armored version of the standard Armored Cruiser.

As time went on CA became the standard designation for Cruiser and PC faded into obscurity. Then in the 1920s CA came to stand for Heavy Cruisers (those armed w/ 8" guns), and CL became the designation for Light Cruisers (those armed w/ 6" guns). In the late 50s early 60s they started adding an 'A' for Assault, 'N' for Nuclear and a 'G' for Guided missile. Thus today we have CNG for Cruiser Nuclear powered Guided missile, CVA for our supercarriers (Cruiser aViation Assault) and CVN for Cruiser aViation Nuclear powered.

And, yes, it's all very confusing and most people have no fucking clue where the acronyms, some of which are a hundred years old, came from.

Why should NCC be any different?

 

[Cary L. Brown]

If every ship in Starfleet has a unique registration number, and from what we've seen this seems to be the case, isn't the "NCC" just a superfluous waste of paint (or whatever they use in the 24th and half century)?

Not really, no....

Just count how many vessels (of various types) we have on one PLANET, today.

Do you really believe that, throughout the entire Federation ("a thousand worlds and spreading out..." in TOS times alone) that there were less than 9,999 ships ever in service, of any size or classification? How about "just within Starfleet?" Less than 10,000 ships?

By the time of TNG, how many more worlds are there in the Federation? Five thousand? Ten thousand?

It's a simple matter of scale. There may well be an NCC-1700, and also an NAR-1700, and these are different ships... one a Heavy Cruiser and another a light stock freighter. Those would be unique identifiers, even though both share a portion of their identifiers.