Too Many Registry Letters

[T'Girl]

Yes, but the Enterprise, unlike the Pathfinder, was planned to be made space-worthy after testing, to fly actual missions. The funding just dried up.

Nope, it's much heavier than the actual space shuttles, the difference between the Enterprise and the Atlantis (last built) is seventeen percent. A important concideration in fuel and payload.

 

[C.E. Evans]

Interestingly that is also the only real gap in Enterprises past 1701. I guess the 1701-B and C weren"t remarkable enough to keep the Enterprise name as the premier name in Starfleet the way the 1701 and D did. A was immediately after 1701 and B immediately followed her retirement. A full 19 years went by between C and D. I can only guess that some higher up somewhere must have been a big Enterprise fan and pushed for one of the new Galaxy class ship being made to continue the lettering.

While we can only guess at what adventures the Enterprise-B had--the ship may have had a very long and distinguished service record for all we know--the Enterprise-C's contribution to history was her sacrifice at Narendra III while defending the Klingon colony/outpost there from attacking Romulans. The loss of the ship cemented the alliance between the Federation and the Klingons.

Starfleet's decision to name one of the then unbuilt Galaxy-class ships as the Enterprise-D may have been deliberate if the Enterprise-C was the first such named starship to be lost in action with all hands aboard, IMO...

This gives me the horrible thought of numbering the ship after the C "NCC-1702-CA"

Yeah, and that's when there would really be too many letters...


Interestingly enough, though, nobody seems to have any problems with there being too many numbers in Starfleet hull registries in general by the 24th-Century. They're already in the high five digit range, IIRC, so it's only a matter of time before they cross over into six digits!

It might be time soon to retire NCC hull registries altogether and reset the counter with NCV registries or even adopt a more widespread policy of registries by ship type (different registry schemes for cruisers, science vessels, hospital ships, escorts, etc)...

 

[Chaos Descending]

Yes, but the Enterprise, unlike the Pathfinder, was planned to be made space-worthy after testing, to fly actual missions. The funding just dried up.

Nope, it's much heavier than the actual space shuttles, the difference between the Enterprise and the Atlantis (last built) is seventeen percent. A important concideration in fuel and payload.

What do you mean, "nope"?

Originally, Enterprise had been intended to be refitted for orbital flight, which would have made it the second space shuttle to fly after Columbia.[2] However, during the construction of Columbia, details of the final design changed, particularly with regard to the weight of the fuselage and wings. Refitting Enterprise for spaceflight would have involved dismantling the orbiter and returning the sections to subcontractors across the country. As this was an expensive proposition, it was determined to be less costly to build Challenger around a body frame (STA-099) that had been created as a test article.[2] Similarly, Enterprise was considered for refit to replace Challenger after the latter was destroyed, but Endeavour was built from structural spares instead.[2][3]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_Enterprise

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Starfleet's decision to name one of the then unbuilt Galaxy-class ships as the Enterprise-D may have been deliberate if the Enterprise-C was the first such named starship to be lost in action with all hands aboard, IMO...

I've always thought that Starfleet deliberately held up naming ANY new ship Enterprise (~20 years went by from the loss of the C to the debut of the D) as a memorial - a tribute to the sacrifice of the C's crew. They briefly retired the name out of respect.

 

[C.E. Evans]

Starfleet's decision to name one of the then unbuilt Galaxy-class ships as the Enterprise-D may have been deliberate if the Enterprise-C was the first such named starship to be lost in action with all hands aboard, IMO...

I've always thought that Starfleet deliberately held up naming ANY new ship Enterprise (~20 years went by from the loss of the C to the debut of the D) as a memorial - a tribute to the sacrifice of the C's crew. They briefly retired the name out of respect.

I think they kinda did that in a roundabout way. To honor the sacrifice of the Enterprise-C and her crew, Starfleet elected not to simply slap the 1701 registry onto the next available starship at the time and allow some time to pass out of respect. But by also announcing that one of the new Galaxy-class ships still in the conceptual stages will be the Enterprise-D, Starfleet also told the public that the Enterprise legacy will definitely continue (which can be looked at as a way of honoring the Enterprise-C too, IMO)...

 

[Galileo7]

Starfleet's decision to name one of the then unbuilt Galaxy-class ships as the Enterprise-D may have been deliberate if the Enterprise-C was the first such named starship to be lost in action with all hands aboard, IMO...

I've always thought that Starfleet deliberately held up naming ANY new ship Enterprise (~20 years went by from the loss of the C to the debut of the D) as a memorial - a tribute to the sacrifice of the C's crew. They briefly retired the name out of respect.

I think they kinda did that in a roundabout way. To honor the sacrifice of the Enterprise-C and her crew, Starfleet elected not to simply slap the 1701 registry onto the next available starship at the time and allow some time to pass out of respect. But by also announcing that one of the new Galaxy-class ships still in the conceptual stages will be the Enterprise-D, Starfleet also told the public that the Enterprise legacy will definitely continue (which can be looked at as a way of honoring the Enterprise-C too, IMO)...

Agree, waiting for the next class of starship, instead of another Ambassador class as the 1701-D does make sense.