When They Run Out Of Enterprises

Discussion in 'General Trek Discussion' started by NickInABox, Dec 7, 2009.

  1. NickInABox

    NickInABox Captain Captain

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2009
    Location:
    The not-so-Great-anymore White North
    This came from a thought from the conversation in the Memory Beta Issue thread:

    When they run through all 26 letters in the alphabet for the Enterprise, what will they call it then? Or will it be the end of the Enterprise name?

    Say they continue the Enterprise name though, they wouldn't call it NCC 17011 or 17012, since by the time of the D we already had NCC 74656. Will it be 1701-AA, BB, CC or AB AC etcetera?

    Or would JJ have the last laugh when we start sticking zero's into the registry numbers. Ah HA!
     
  2. C.E. Evans

    C.E. Evans Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2001
    Location:
    Saint Louis, Missouri, USA
    I think they'll simply choose a new number and finally retire NCC-1701.

    Personally, I think that'll happen before they reach the Enterprise-Z. Some future Enterprises may be in service for many decades--one may even be around for an entire century, if she's lucky--and that leaves plenty of time for policies and traditions in Starfleet to change in the meantime, IMO.

    Starship Enterprise NSC-07 perhaps one day?
     
  3. Joel_Kirk

    Joel_Kirk Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2009
    Location:
    In the Joel Zone, identifying as Sexually Fluid.
    I like that thought....:techman:
     
  4. The Wormhole

    The Wormhole Fleet Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2001
    That would be evil, and a blatant middle finger to the True Fans of Star Trek. Besides, how would that work? NCC-01701? NCC-1701-0A? NCC-01701-0A? 0NCC-01701-0A? I can go all day with these variations.

    But in seriousness, I remember asking this very question a shortly after I first registered here. The only response I got was someone ranting about how Starfleet keeping the 1701 registry for as long as they have makes no sense or something.

    So in other words, no one really knows what'll happen, and the concept scares them.
     
  5. StarshipDefiant

    StarshipDefiant Captain Captain

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2009
    I've pretty much had the impression that they wouldn't care if true fans of star trek got the middle finger or not (one article I read more or less gave me the idea he wanted to do that in the first place, but that's a different story). As for the registry, there'd still be a long way to go, and the even bigger question is, is Starfleet still around to continue using the name/registry? They may, or may not retire the name, or perhaps simply stop uisng the NCC-1701 registry (which would probably make sense, but yeah...).
     
  6. The Wormhole

    The Wormhole Fleet Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2001
    Dude, I was making a joke.
     
    somebuddyx likes this.
  7. USS Triumphant

    USS Triumphant Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2008
    Location:
    Go ahead, caller. I'm listening...
    My Triumphant-Class Enterprise (in my never-ready-for-public-consumption fan fiction) is NCC-170100. But that didn't come after the 1701-Z, it came after the 1701-G. The registry (Naval Construction Contract) numbers were at that point in order of construction, anyway, so they decided to use it for the new Enterprise.
     
  8. Sector 7

    Sector 7 Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2008
    Location:
    Rural North Carolina
    Although you meant it as a joke, the handful of basement-dwelling fanboys claiming their childhood was raped by JJ Abrams has made it hard to tell. They are the same ones who claim they are the Only True Fans of Star Trek... which always makes me think of John Hinkley, Jr.... he was the Only True Fan of Jodie Foster wasn't he?:alienblush:

    OP: Everytime someone brings up this topic, I think of Scotty in "Relics" (TNG), "Enterprise... no bloody A, B, C or D.":guffaw:
     
  9. milo bloom

    milo bloom Fleet Captain Fleet Captain

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2008
    Location:
    The varied and beautiful Chicagoland suburbs.
    Perhaps they could take letters from an alien alphabet, maybe Klingon in honor of the first Klingon captain?
     
  10. StarshipDefiant

    StarshipDefiant Captain Captain

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2009
    Well, ok then, I guess that makes sense...I'm not one of those 'he rapped my childhood' type of people, I just didn't care for the sense of attitude I got from him at times. In anycase, back to the topic, I figure (I already said this, but to make an on topic post... They'd just use new numbers or something.
     
  11. NickInABox

    NickInABox Captain Captain

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2009
    Location:
    The not-so-Great-anymore White North
    Speaking of jokes... I love your avatar. And the succeeding caption.
     
  12. NIUPonyBoy

    NIUPonyBoy Captain Captain

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2009
    Location:
    IL
  13. Smiley

    Smiley Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2005
    Location:
    Chandler, AZ
    By the time they got past Z, they could just use the suffix-less registry number again. Just like we can tell apart the aircraft carrier from the Constitution-class starship in context, the difference between Kirk's ship and the 27th ship after his will be so vast that there will be no confusion.
     
  14. Guardian Bob

    Guardian Bob Lieutenant Commander Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2009
    Location:
    The Net
    As a side note, has there ever been another ship with letters at the end? Why is it only the enterprise. Its been bugging me.
     
  15. RandyS

    RandyS Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2007
    Location:
    Randyland
    When the 26th Enterprise is finally retired (or destroyed, whatever), they could simply switch to numbers, NCC-1701-27.
     
    somebuddyx likes this.
  16. JarodRussell

    JarodRussell Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2009
    By the time they run out of letters in the alphabet, the Enterprise will be the size of the entire solar system, with twenty gazillion warp nacelles, and a Borg-assimilated Q as the Captain. And so the fanboys will have won.
     
    somebuddyx likes this.
  17. Shatmandu

    Shatmandu Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2006
    I just hope we never see the adventures of the NCC 1701-KY.

    Joe, warming
     
  18. C.E. Evans

    C.E. Evans Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2001
    Location:
    Saint Louis, Missouri, USA
    The Yamato was said to have a registry of 1305-E, but this was retconned in a later episode.

    IMO, Starfleet reuses ship names all the time and simply gives them new hull numbers. I do think that the Enterprise-A was named in honor of Kirk's ship following the events in Star Trek IV, but the Enterprise-B was probably the start of a tradition that all starships with the Enterprise name would also carry the NCC-1701 registry.

    On the other hand, when the Sao Paulo was renamed as the new Defiant, it had the perhaps even more special honor of retaining the NX-74205 registry of her predecessor without any letters...
     
  19. captcalhoun

    captcalhoun Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2005
    Location:
    everywhere
    in the novels, there's an Excalibur-A. the Ambassador class one blew up, it got replaced by a Galaxy and it's 26517-A
     
  20. USS Triumphant

    USS Triumphant Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2008
    Location:
    Go ahead, caller. I'm listening...
    Warning: This explanation is neither canon, nor is it a cannon.

    The registry numbers begin with NCC because that stands for Naval Construction Contract. When a new ship is built, it may not be christened with a name until later, in which case it is issued the next NCC # in order. Debatably (and what of this isn't?), this may be straight forward numbering like 1699, 1700, 1701, etc, OR it may be that a ship type is given a prefix number (all Connies are 17) and then a particular ship receives a number in order after that (Enterprise was 17-01, Defiant was 17-64, etc). Sometimes, though, a new ship may be built specifically to put a specific name back into service. This will be be because a ship with that name served with distinction and had its name added to the List of Honor (or whatever Starfleet calls its equivalent), which means that the service will henceforth always have a ship bearing that name. When a ship is built for that reason, the construction contract is generally a lettered addendum to the contract for the ship that earned the honor. (So NCC-1701-B, C, D, and E Enterprises, the Excalibur-A, and so on.)

    Experimental ships like the first of their class will sometimes bear NX instead of NCC on their hull and in some documentation. This indicates that they are Naval eXperiments, but never actually bears on the title of the construction contract, and when that vessel is put into regular service the hull markings and such are modified to reflect the removal of eXperimental status.

    I like this concept for the registries a lot, but there are a few places that I'm aware of that it breaks down to varying degrees. I can generally No Prize those away, though. In what I consider order of credulity:

    1. The Enterprises starting with TOS aren't NCC-01-A through NCC-01-F. Explanation: This is simply because Starfleet had not established its equivalent of the List of Honor - and the rules for it - when Archer's ship was in service. By the time the List existed, there was already another Enterprise (that served without much distinction) in service with a different registry. It wasn't until the 1701 that the List existed AND an Enterprise earned its way onto it.

    2. The Sao Paulo did not keep its original NCC (which normally it should have since it was built under it, not as a replacement for Defiant), and also did not take Defiant's NCC with a letter addendum. Explanation: The Federation was at war, and the prominent role that the Defiant had played in that war thus far led Starfleet to decide to disguise to whatever extent it was possible that the Sao Paulo was a different ship at all, for morale and intimidation purposes.

    and 3. The Ti-Ho/Atlantis/Yorktown/whatever-the-heck-it-was-called did not keep its original NCC even though its hull had not been laid to replace the 1701. BUT - maybe construction was not complete (as seems to be supported by the sorry state she was in in ST:V), and upon rechristening the remainder of construction was done under an A addendum to the 1701 contract.
     
    somebuddyx likes this.