"NCC-1701" never said onscreen?
- Thread starter NTRPRZ
- Start date
I never thought of that, but I don't think they ever did. Good trivia item. 
I also was thinking about how strange that is. Maybe the writers didn't think it was that important? The characters never said "beam me up, Scotty" (word for word) either. Maybe it's just one of those TOS mistakes.
Bit o' trivia: Recently I Googled "1701" to see if anything interesting or historical happened during that year--and a bunch of cool-looking pictures of the Enterprise popped up. I was both surprised and amused.
Bit o' trivia: Recently I Googled "1701" to see if anything interesting or historical happened during that year--and a bunch of cool-looking pictures of the Enterprise popped up. I was both surprised and amused.
I've got nothing.
I don't believe that "NCC-1701" was ever spoken in dialog on screen during TOS. Not even as just "number 1701" in "Court Martial" (cf, "United Starship Republic, number 1371").
For that matter, I don't believe that "NCC" itself was ever spoken in dialog on screen during TOS.
I don't believe that "NCC-1701" was ever spoken in dialog on screen during TOS. Not even as just "number 1701" in "Court Martial" (cf, "United Starship Republic, number 1371").
For that matter, I don't believe that "NCC" itself was ever spoken in dialog on screen during TOS.
Yep.Good trivia item.
Television being what it is, especially back then, it should not be surprising that the Enterprise's registry went unspoken and the Republic quote from "Court Martial" was as close as the show ever got to acknowledging the registry issue. It is best if, in a series with such a rich and complex in-universe culture, rules and history as TREK obviously has, that there always be an economy of words, and statements of technical data be vague or otherwise non-committal; this prevents any dwelling on tech or other distractions from the story and the relationships of the characters.
I've got nothing.
I don't believe that "NCC-1701" was ever spoken in dialog on screen during TOS. Not even as just "number 1701" in "Court Martial" (cf, "United Starship Republic, number 1371").
For that matter, I don't believe that "NCC" itself was ever spoken in dialog on screen during TOS.
Yep.Good trivia item.
Hearing NCC spoken at the beginning of ST:TMP was a little jarring for me. I think that this, and the Franz Joseph Technical Manual that came shortly before it, began the unfortunate convention of designating every ship that Starfleet ever built with NCC. In real life, letter designations tell you what kind of design and purpose a ship has.
The constellation also had ncc ( er... If my memory is correct ) as part of its designation.
But I don't think it's that unusual for current naval crew not to say the ship registry number either. From those I've met (full disclosure: I was a military brat but never served myself) they usually have a nickname for their ship.
But I don't think it's that unusual for current naval crew not to say the ship registry number either. From those I've met (full disclosure: I was a military brat but never served myself) they usually have a nickname for their ship.
While I don't recall NCC 1701 being spoken in dialog in TOS, I do recall NCC 1701 Alpha was spoken in The Undiscovered Country as Kirk and the Senior Officers were being shuttled to Spacedock after the briefing at Starfleet Command.
Named ships are rarely called by registration or identification numbers, anyway. Pennant Number 51 has been destroyed just doesn't happen.
Yeah, folks personalize their place of service. Names get used, not numbers.
"Users" might conceivably speak of serving on a "deedeegee" or "ceeveeen"; some might say they serve on a "668" or a "23", the former being a registry for the class boat (technically, Los Angeles class), the latter being a general class designator (technically, Type 23 or Duke class). But it would indeed take very special circumstances for a registry number to be used when referring to a specific ship...
...Unless there were numerous ships of that name, and the context left it ambiguous which one was being spoken of. "I remember serving on CV-6" might be relevant when a veteral talks to a whippersnapper about to embark on a tour of duty aboard CVN-80, lest the youngster mistake the old ship for CVN-65; in Starfleet, there are more Enterprises and longer lifespans and service careers, making such things more relevant.
Unless we're talking about aircraft registries, in which case the letters specify the operating organization or country of origin. NCC might thus be necessary for specifying "UFP Starfleet" and separating it from NSP, NDT etc. - we have numerous examples of such alternate registry letters, even if these virtually never are painted on the hull of a ship shown in VFX.
Timo Saloniemi
...Unless there were numerous ships of that name, and the context left it ambiguous which one was being spoken of. "I remember serving on CV-6" might be relevant when a veteral talks to a whippersnapper about to embark on a tour of duty aboard CVN-80, lest the youngster mistake the old ship for CVN-65; in Starfleet, there are more Enterprises and longer lifespans and service careers, making such things more relevant.
Unless we're talking about aircraft registries, in which case the letters specify the operating organization or country of origin. NCC might thus be necessary for specifying "UFP Starfleet" and separating it from NSP, NDT etc. - we have numerous examples of such alternate registry letters, even if these virtually never are painted on the hull of a ship shown in VFX.
Timo Saloniemi
This is why I don't like the later custom of naming new Enterprises NCC-1701-A or -B or -C, as if the registry number were another part of the name. It's not. Names and numbers serve different purposes. The numbers are for the sake of catalogs and identity verification and formal, technical matters like that. Assigning the same registry number to another ship named Enterprise would be like giving Joe Chang Jr. the same Social Security number as Joe Chang Sr. but with an "A" at the end. It's a nonsensical, pointless practice. The fans have fetishized the number NCC-1701 because we saw it on our screens so often, but it was wrong of the films' and shows' makers to have the characters in-universe follow suit. It was never supposed to be that important, except perhaps as a handy visual cue to distinguish different ships of the same class.
Officially, no. The leading fan theory is "Naval Construction Contract," although I've also heard "Navigational Contact Code." Though neither really fits the kind of ship registry conventions the numbers were based on.
That was established in the first pilot when Pike referred to his ship as "the United Space Ship Enterprise." Kirk referred to it this way in several episodes ("Space Seed," "The Gamesters of Triskelion," "Patterns of Force," "Assignment: Earth," "Elaan of Troyius"), but also used "the United Star Ship Enterprise" in "The Squire of Gothos" -- plus "the United Star Ship Republic" was mentioned in "Court-martial." Kirk even said "the United Earth Ship Enterprise" in "The Corbomite Maneuver," but that was clearly an aberration.
The registry was never spoken or referenced on TOS, and it never needed to be. I do believe it was visible (beyond being on the ship itself) on the wall chart in Commodore Stone's office in "Courtmartial."
And in regard to something mentioned upthread: FJ's Star Fleet Technical Manual was available long before TMP was produced and released.
And in regard to something mentioned upthread: FJ's Star Fleet Technical Manual was available long before TMP was produced and released.
