Too Many Registry Letters

[Satyrquaze]

My apologies if this has been brought up already in another thread, but the letter at the end of the ship’s registry on the USS Enterprise seems to be getting a little tired IMO. I realize that it’s done in honor of the first USS Enterprise in the Federation, which in turn is named after the first warp-5 ship in Starfleet.

maybe it's just me, but it’s getting ridiculous. Star Trek: Enterprise introduced the Enterprise-J as a direct descendant of the NX-01. Which if we are to believe everything that happened in ENT then it should be the Enterprise-K, but more on that later.

Originally, it was done to honor recently demoted Captain Kirk after he and his crew saved Earth from a destructive probe, probably also in honor of their service in being apparently the only Constitution-class vessel to return from their five-year mission, or was that when Starfleet adopted the Enterprise command arrowhead?

Given everything that the Enterprise has gone through and done and the honors she has received it seems odd that no other ship is similarly as decorated. Yes, the Enterprise is the hero-ship, but you’d think that with the frequency that all the times that a god-like entity was on a direct course for Earth maybe once the Enterprise wouldn’t be the only ship in range. Surely, there is some other Starfleet vessel that has a B after its registry because a hundred years ago some OTHER crew saved Tellar Prime or something.

I’m just saying that I don’t think there should be an Enterprise-F, let alone a J. Other than the connotations of having the “F”, I think the Kirk’s Enterprise is honored enough. Because let’s face it, every time there’s a new NCC-1701 it’s honoring that ship all over again. I mean, with the J, we’re almost half-way through the alphabet. Given the trend in TV, movies, and the internet in 20 years we’ll probably be seeing the adventures of the NCC-1701-O. Course if ENT is to be taken on its own merits when it comes to the history of Trek, then registry should be something like: NCC-01-P.

 

[Chaos Descending]

I agree with you entirely. I got a small amount of scorn when I brought up the same point in another thread.

Besides, by tradition the best way to honor a ship is to not ever name another ship with the same name.

That's why there will probably never be another USS Arizona, USS Constitution, or HMS Hood.

 

[Forbin]

I realize that it’s done in honor of the first USS Enterprise in the Federation, which in turn is named after the first warp-5 ship in Starfleet.

Got that backwards.

 

[Satyrquaze]

^ I'm speaking from an In-Universe perspective.

 

[PsychoPere]

Why do you assume the UFP Starfleet Constitution-class Enterprise was named specifically after the United Earth NX-class Enterprise? There's really no reason to; there were ships before that named Enterprise, after all, and there likely would've been ships named Enterprise after the 1701 even if Starfleet hadn't re-designated another ship to 1701-A.

 

[Chaos Descending]

Why do you assume the UFP Starfleet Constitution-class Enterprise was named specifically after the United Earth NX-class Enterprise? There's really no reason to; there were ships before that named Enterprise, after all, and there likely would've been ships named Enterprise after the 1701 even if Starfleet hadn't re-designated another ship to 1701-A.

I don't see where the hang-up here is. You think they named NCC-1701 "Enterprise" (from an in-universe perspective) without any consideration at all of the famous NX-01, the first Warp 5 ship in Starfleet history?

ADMIRAL #1: We're going to call her Enterprise.

ADMIRAL #2: Ah, in honor of NX-01 and Jonathan Archer? Good idea?

ADMIRAL #1: Huh? No, we're naming it after the first Space Shuttle, the one that never flew! Who cares about NX-01?

 

[PsychoPere]

Any consideration at all? No, I suppose not, though I don't see any reason to assume it was a primary consideration in the decision. The name Enterprise has a long, distinguished history, so I'd imagine that the general history of the name was more important than any one specific ship. Naturally, that changed to a degree with the 1701-A (I say "a degree," because I imagine the 1701 itself would decrease in "importance" back to the overall history of the name as new 1701-? are commissioned - in other words, it could be seen to honor the C, D, E, etc. just as much as the original 1701).

Back to the letters, though (I was originally going to edit this into my previous post, but you'd already replied ), we're really only up to 1701-E. The 1701-J was from a future that may not come to even exist in the ST universe, so we don't have to worry about F, G, or I, either.

And since you edited to add the dialogue exchanges while I was typing, I counter with:

ADMIRAL #3: Archer? He was an idiot who was lucky not to get his ship blown up any number of times. We can call it Enterprise in recognition of the general history of the name.

 

[Satyrquaze]

Well I suppose 1701 *could* have been named after the WWII aircraft carrier (which at that point had been gone for 300 years), or at least her legacy. But, the first true starship seems more likely to me.

 

[PsychoPere]

In that case ("first true starship"), it could just as easily have been the Enterprise XCV-330. After all, due to its appearances in paintings in ENT, we know that it existed prior to the NX-01 and, according to Memory Alpha, The Making of Star Trek: The Motion Picture called it "the very first starship U.S.S. Enterprise."

 

[Chaos Descending]

Are Memory Alpha and The Making of Star Trek: The Motion Picture actually part of the official Star Trek canon?

 

[SchwEnt]

I think the thing of it is...

The letter designation applies as an honorific of one ship specifically (TOS Constitution class Enterprise).
They didn't just keep naming ships Enterprise, they kept reusing the same "1701", referring to THAT particular Enterprise. So that is the one they're honoring.

Because in today's navies and in Starfleet as well, we see names reused for vessels. There have been many (real and fictional) Lexingtons, Farraguts, Excaliburs, Intrepids, Yorktowns, etc.

And it seems that Starfleet vessels will use Excelsior, Constellation, Defiant... again and again, but just reusing the name, not the registry. Even in WWII, the USN named an Essex class carrier Yorktown in honor of the one lost after Midway. Honor the name, not the same registry.

Sooo... I agree, 1701-A should have been used one time, in tribute to a still-living Kirk and crew and their Enterprise, who has literally just saved the planet Earth (again).

After that, the next Excelsior class Enterprise should have had a normal registry, not 1701 again. Enough.

 

[Chaos Descending]

NCC-1701-A had at least one unique factor that went in to its naming decision. The NCC-1701-A was specifically for Captain James T. Kirk, something that NCC-1701-B through -E cannot claim. This is another reason why I think that -B onwards was kind of silly. Have a ship called Enterprise if you like, but give it a different number.

EDIT: Sorry, SchwEnt, this is what happens when you open 20 browser tabs at once and don't answer a thread until it's been open in your browser for half-an-hour.

 

[Satyrquaze]

In that case ("first true starship"), it could just as easily have been the Enterprise XCV-330. After all, due to its appearances in paintings in ENT, we know that it existed prior to the NX-01 and, according to Memory Alpha, The Making of Star Trek: The Motion Picture called it "the very first starship U.S.S. Enterprise."

By that statement it could just as easily be named after the first nuclear aircraft carrier.

The NX-01 at least has the benefit of being within canon as far as first starships go.

You're just playing Devil's Advocate. Which my thread appreciates.

 

[Galileo7]

I think the thing of it is...

The letter designation applies as an honorific of one ship specifically (TOS Constitution class Enterprise).
They didn't just keep naming ships Enterprise, they kept reusing the same "1701", referring to THAT particular Enterprise. So that is the one they're honoring.

Because in today's navies and in Starfleet as well, we see names reused for vessels. There have been many (real and fictional) Lexingtons, Farraguts, Excaliburs, Intrepids, Yorktowns, etc.

And it seems that Starfleet vessels will use Excelsior, Constellation, Defiant... again and again, but just reusing the name, not the registry. Even in WWII, the USN named an Essex class carrier Yorktown in honor of the one lost after Midway. Honor the name, not the same registry.

Sooo... I agree, 1701-A should have been used one time, in tribute to a still-living Kirk and crew and their Enterprise, who has literally just saved the planet Earth (again).

After that, the next Excelsior class Enterprise should have had a normal registry, not 1701 again. Enough.

I think you point is correct in both NG "Yesterday's Enterprise" Ambassador Class Enterprise and the GENERATIONS Excelsior Class Enterprise should have had a normal registry number.

I questioned why on DS9 with the Defiant's destruction did the rename San Paulo and give it the old Defiant's registry number too, but without a letter.
http://memory-alpha.org/wiki/USS_Sao_Paulo

 

[PsychoPere]

Are Memory Alpha and The Making of Star Trek: The Motion Picture actually part of the official Star Trek canon?

Memory Alpha obviously cannot be, since it's a wiki for collection of information. The Making of Star Trek: The Motion Picture technically is not, since it's not on-screen, but I tend to accept the behind-the-scenes reference books. In this case, even that doesn't matter: two paintings in ENT established the "ringship" Enterprise as having existed either prior to or concurrently with the NX-01.

By that statement it could just as easily be named after the first nuclear aircraft carrier.
The NX-01 at least has the benefit of being within canon as far as first starships go.
You're just playing Devil's Advocate. Which my thread appreciates.

To an extent, yes, I am, I'll grant you that.

But as I stated above this quote, ENT has shown the "ringship" Enterprise to have occurred either prior to or concurrently with the NX-01, and TMP established it as a starship that carried the name Enterprise. We therefore know that NX-01 was not the first Earth starship to carry that name. It's just as possible that 1701 was named for the ringship as it was for NX-01, or, as I prefer to think, 1701 was named in recognition of the extensive, storied history of the name in more general terms, rather than any one individual predecessor. From an "in-universe" perspective, that also serves to how I make sense out of the Enterprise recreation room in TMP having a painting of the ringship but not the NX-01.

I can see the basic point of the thread, though, that the letter registries perhaps should have stopped after Kirk was no longer captaining a starship. The 1701-B seems to have been a pretty big media stunt, so we can possibly even understand that one. That's why I think that, at some point, Starfleet stopped thinking of continuing the letter registries as honoring Kirk's 1701 specifically but rather the line of ships carrying 1701 registries more generally (though, admittedly, that doesn't necessarily explain the 1701-D, since no one knew what happened to 1701-C).

Since the "prime" timeline is almost assuredly done with the rise of the "reimagined" alternate reality, we can even conclude, if we wish, that 1701-E was the last Enterprise to maintain the 1701 registry. We don't know if the future of the Enterprise-J will come about, since Archer erased that timeline by securing peace with the Xindi, so we can also ignore any thoughts of an F, G, H, or I, if we so choose.

I questioned why on DS9 with the Defiant's destruction did the rename San Paulo and give it the old Defiant's registry number too, but without a letter.

In my mind, the renamed Sao Paulo was indeed Defiant NCC-74205-A, since that was what Ronald Moore intended but couldn't achieve due to budget constraints. It "feels right" to me that the "special dispensation" would include the letter in addition to the actual renaming.

 

[C.E. Evans]

There hasn't been too many registry letters. So far, we're only up to NCC-1701-E and there are plenty of other letters left in the alphabet (the "Enterprise-J" from ENT's "Azati Prime" is from a possible 26th-Century). I said in another concurrent thread about this subject that we might not even have to worry about an "Enterprise-Z" because Starfleet might have long since did away with all NCC hull registries altogether by then.

I know some people don't like history or prefer a clean disconnect with the past, but all navies has some kind of long-standing special tradition or custom and Starfleet appears to be no different in regards to Federation starships named Enterprise maintaining the NCC-1701 registry. At this point, it's definitely not so much about honoring Kirk's ship anymore, but every Enterprise since his too as they've all seem to have been of historical note, IMO. For all intents and purposes, NCC-1701-J could be the last Enterprise to carry that tradition, as far as we know, so it's not that big of a deal really...

 

[Satyrquaze]

^ Oh, I don't know we were introduced to the 1701-A in 1986.
We were introduced to the 1701-J in 2004.

Thats an average of a new letter in well under 2 years.

 

[SchwEnt]

^^^ Right, maintaining tradition and history is fine.
And by using the name Enterprise again and again, that honors all the prior famous vessels so named (seagoing and otherwise). And it works for Lexington, Intrepid, Constellation, Yorktown, etc.

But by using the registry #-suffix, it only references a SPECIFIC Enterprise, again and again and again, rather than all the other historic Enterprises.

I say...one time is sufficient. After that, still continue to use the name Enterprise, but with a new registry. That would imply a tradition of ALL Enterprises again, rather than that ONE previous Enterprise.

 

[C.E. Evans]

^ Oh, I don't know we were introduced to the 1701-A in 1986.
We were introduced to the 1701-J in 2004.

Thats an average of a new letter in well under 2 years.

No, it's actually a new Enterprise roughly every 20+ years or so because we skipped over several of them as Trek periodically jumped forward in time. And really, the Enterprise-J doesn't really count because it was barely seen as part of a possible future which may not (and perhaps isn't even likely to) happen due to the chaotic events of the Temporal Cold War--the "true" Enterprise-J could come either earlier or even way later than the 26th-Century, IMO. In any event, however, it's a situation in which some Enterprises had rather short life-spans due to either being lost in action or excessive wear and tear.

The price for being a hero ship.

And really, the times in which a particular Enterprise has been referred to by its letter onscreen is extremely rare, and really only when actually discussing different ships named Enterprise. If anything, the only ones who really use the letters a lot are us here on Trek message boards. To everyone else, it's not even an issue worth discussing except as a small link to TOS...

 

[Galileo7]

^^^ Right, maintaining tradition and history is fine.
And by using the name Enterprise again and again, that honors all the prior famous vessels so named (seagoing and otherwise). And it works for Lexington, Intrepid, Constellation, Yorktown, etc.

But by using the registry #-suffix, it only references a SPECIFIC Enterprise, again and again and again, rather than all the other historic Enterprises.

I say...one time is sufficient. After that, still continue to use the name Enterprise, but with a new registry. That would imply a tradition of ALL Enterprises again, rather than that ONE previous Enterprise.

You make sense, the second Constitution Class 1701-A with Captain Kirk should have been the only one, then the GENERATIONS Excelsior Class Enterprise needed a new registry number without the B.

Another question is why did the Galaxy Class U.S.S. Yamato have an NCC-1305-E...was there an A,B,C,D that I missed?
USS Yamato (NCC-1305-E/NCC-71807)
http://memory-alpha.org/wiki/USS_Yamato
It is explained at this link....production gaffe.