Why Did Roddenberry Hate the "dreadnought" from the Starfleet Technical Manual?

[Dukhat]

Here’s my theory for the Enterprise-A:

During STIII, Morrow mentions that the Enterprise is to be decommissioned. What he doesn’t say is that it’s because a new Enterprise-A is being planned, an Excelsior class ship. But because of the events of STIV, Kirk was awarded another Constitution class ship like his old one, and it was named the Enterprise-A in his honor (and the fact that the original Excelsior class Ent-A wasn’t finished being built yet), so instead the ship builders made the Excelsior class the Enterprise-B, and Kirk was just given command of the A temporarily until the B was commissioned. That’s why the A was decommissioned so soon after it’s construction: it was time for the B to be christened. The A was probably recommissioned after that with a new name and registry number.

 

[Ithekro]

Basically a temp name and registry number for bookkeeping and flair becomes tradition.

 

[BK613]

Why would they want to "differentiate" anything? What the hell is wrong with the usual process?

Why do sports teams retire jersey numbers? Isn't the players' names and accomplishments enough? This is that but reversed, because Starfleet always retires hull numbers.

This is the whole problem, this fannish notion of setting the Enterprise apart as uniquely better or more important than anything else in the galaxy.

But I'm not doing that. That was done thirty years ago, by the makers of TNG, who wanted to connect their new show to the movies. Don't see no point in bitching about it now.

Now, my federation Council idea grew out of the in-universe question of why no other ships were being honored in the same way as the Enterprises. It occurred to me one day that maybe Starfleet's hands were tied in this matter. If that were so, who could do the tying and when? The Federation Council during the events of TVH seemed a likely choice and to me it seemed like an organic outgrowth of that movie. It's obvious you don't like the idea and it makes no sense to you but it suffices for me.

That's forcing the audience's affinities onto the in-universe reality in a way that undermines the credibility of that reality.

And you know what, I like the quirkiness of it. It's now a feature and not a bug to me.

----------------------

As for the Ent-A's decommissioning, I prefer the treaty limitation theory. Look at this timeline for US battleship service. Notice the "cliff" around 1922? That's when the Washington Naval Treaty of 1922 require the reduction of US ship numbers (tonnage actually.) At the base of that "cliff" is the USS Delaware, BB-28, which was only in service for 13 years.
I see something similar occurring after the events of TUC, and the peace treaty. The "Mirandas" and "Excelsiors" are what the UFP went forward with and the Connies were mothballed or scrapped. Including the Enterprise-A.

YMMV

 

[Christopher]

Basically a temp name and registry number for bookkeeping and flair becomes tradition.

I don't think that would happen, though, because registry numbers would probably be assigned to ships well before their names were chosen, based on their class and their place in the construction sequence. Like, the US Navy knew from the start that their 80th aircraft carrier would be CVN-80, and they decided afterward that CVN-80 would be named Enterprise in honor of the retired CVN-65. For that matter, CVN-81 and CVN-82 are not yet named, but their numbers are already decided -- not even "decided," because that's just what the next two nuclear carriers in the sequence will automatically be designated.

That's why it makes no sense to assume the number is attached to the name instead of to the physical vessel itself. It's redundant to have both the name and the number serve the same purpose. The number is what identifies the ship itself regardless of what name or names it's given.

Why do sports teams retire jersey numbers? Isn't the players' names and accomplishments enough? This is that but reversed, because Starfleet always retires hull numbers.

Ship registry numbers are not jersey numbers. Like I keep saying, the number defines the ship as a unique physical object. It's not something put on it after the fact, it's something decided before it's even built, defining its category and place in the series.

It's like how "The Emissary" is TNG episode 2x20 and "Emissary" is DS9 episode 1x01. Those episodes would've had those same numbers no matter what name they were given, because the numbers simply define which episode of which series they are. It would've made no sense to call "Emissary" DS9 2x20-A. That's taking a meaningful, informative number and reducing it to meaningless noise.

But I'm not doing that. That was done thirty years ago, by the makers of TNG, who wanted to connect their new show to the movies. Don't see no point in bitching about it now.

Then surely there's just as little point in arguing that it's valid. I just wanted to say it was a dumb idea and leave it at that, but people keep tossing out contrived arguments to justify it, and I remain unconvinced.

 

[Ithekro]

I don't think that would happen, though, because registry numbers would probably be assigned to ships well before their names were chosen, based on their class and their place in the construction sequence. Like, the US Navy knew from the start that their 80th aircraft carrier would be CVN-80, and they decided afterward that CVN-80 would be named Enterprise in honor of the retired CVN-65. For that matter, CVN-81 and CVN-82 are not yet named, but their numbers are already decided -- not even "decided," because that's just what the next two nuclear carriers in the sequence will automatically be designated.

That's why it makes no sense to assume the number is attached to the name instead of to the physical vessel itself. It's redundant to have both the name and the number serve the same purpose. The number is what identifies the ship itself regardless of what name or names it's given.

In this instance, there is the likelihood that the under construction Excelsior-class Starship, USS Enterprise, had already been named, and had a hull number. But a sudden second USS Enterprise is christened shortly after the loss of USS Enterprise (NCC-1701), possibly from a ship that was nearly completed. But Starfleet would have two USS Enterprises on the books (the new Constitution-class ship just entering service as an emergence messure, and the Excelsior-class ship under construction) One might assume they would stick to their original hull numbers (say, NCC-1798 and NCC-2001), but what would make someone want to renumber a hull? What if the hulls had been cancelled, but then reordered before the hulls were scrapped (or just repurposed).

There is some precedence for this, sort of. The Independence-class light aircraft carriers were laid down as Cleveland-class light cruisers, and reordered months after construction started as light carriers. Their hull numbers changed, partly because they weren't light cruisers anymore, but were now aircraft carriers, so their cruiser hull numbers were retired, and given new carrier numbers.

Starfleet doesn't seem to have specific numbers for ship types among all the various starship classes. But if the hull that became the USS Enterprise-A was a ship that was cancelled, its hull number would have been retired, and could need a new one on being reordered. Same with the Excelsior-class USS Enterprise. If it too was cancelled (due to either the Excelsior having teething issues, or due to the actions of Admiral Kirk before the Whale Song Crisis) than its hull number would also be retired.

It could also be the case that the Excelsior-class ship did have a hull number, but the Constitution-class ship did not, and Starfleet (or perhaps just the Federation Council) thought it would be weird to have this Constitution-class starship named USS Enterprise, have a newly ordered hull number, that was higher than the still being built Excelsior-class replacement that would be ready in less than ten years. So instead of giving this Constitution-class starship a seemingly odd hull number of say NCC-2183 and the Excelsior-class ship retaining its NCC-2001 hull number, someone decided to reorder both ships and give them the NCC-1701-suffex hull numbers.

It is possible the Excelsior-class vessel was reordered at some point, as she's quite different from her near-sister ship USS Excelsior. At the time of the Genesis Crisis, it seems logical that the "future USS Enterprise, NCC-2001" was just like USS Excelsior, NX-2000. Perhaps she was given a new mission profile and needed to be reordered. Or it was the Whale Song Crisis, followed by the reordered Constitution-class starship potentially having an odd later seeming hull number that didn't sit will with someone that caused a reordering and specialty hull numbers.

 

[Christopher]

In this instance, there is the likelihood that the under construction Excelsior-class Starship, USS Enterprise, had already been named, and had a hull number. But a sudden second USS Enterprise is christened shortly after the loss of USS Enterprise (NCC-1701), possibly from a ship that was nearly completed. But Starfleet would have two USS Enterprises on the books (the new Constitution-class ship just entering service as an emergence messure, and the Excelsior-class ship under construction) One might assume they would stick to their original hull numbers (say, NCC-1798 and NCC-2001), but what would make someone want to renumber a hull? What if the hulls had been cancelled, but then reordered before the hulls were scrapped (or just repurposed).

There is some precedence for this, sort of. The Independence-class light aircraft carriers were laid down as Cleveland-class light cruisers, and reordered months after construction started as light carriers. Their hull numbers changed, partly because they weren't light cruisers anymore, but were now aircraft carriers, so their cruiser hull numbers were retired, and given new carrier numbers.

Starfleet doesn't seem to have specific numbers for ship types among all the various starship classes. But if the hull that became the USS Enterprise-A was a ship that was cancelled, its hull number would have been retired, and could need a new one on being reordered. Same with the Excelsior-class USS Enterprise. If it too was cancelled (due to either the Excelsior having teething issues, or due to the actions of Admiral Kirk before the Whale Song Crisis) than its hull number would also be retired.

It could also be the case that the Excelsior-class ship did have a hull number, but the Constitution-class ship did not, and Starfleet (or perhaps just the Federation Council) thought it would be weird to have this Constitution-class starship named USS Enterprise, have a newly ordered hull number, that was higher than the still being built Excelsior-class replacement that would be ready in less than ten years. So instead of giving this Constitution-class starship a seemingly odd hull number of say NCC-2183 and the Excelsior-class ship retaining its NCC-2001 hull number, someone decided to reorder both ships and give them the NCC-1701-suffex hull numbers.

Okay... That's a bit hard to follow, but it seems to make a lot more sense than any of the other suggestions I've heard. I don't quite see what the objection would be to having out-of-sequence numbers (given things like NCC-1017 and all), but at least it's a credible explanation, rooted in actual naval precedent, for how a hull number could be reassigned/changed.

 

[David cgc]

One might assume they would stick to their original hull numbers (say, NCC-1798 and NCC-2001), but what would make someone want to renumber a hull? What if the hulls had been cancelled, but then reordered before the hulls were scrapped (or just repurposed).

Works for me (not that I need more than the idea that Kirk was beneficiary of an obscure rule that you automatically become a folk hero the third time you save the Earth), and fits with my own vague idea for why registry numbers are mostly, but not always, in chronological order, and that when they're out of order, they tend to be very out of order.

 

[BK613]

Ship registry numbers are not jersey numbers.

They are assigned numbers. And sometimes numbers and names become synonymous. Like Bird and 33, Jordan and 23, Andromeda and M31, and Enterprise and NCC-1701. Retiring them is a feel-good moment just like honoring NCC-1701 is.

Like I keep saying, the number defines the ship as a unique physical object. It's not something put on it after the fact, it's something decided before it's even built, defining its category and place in the series.

I'm sorry but this is backwards. What your building determines the number you use not the other way around. And the number is not immutable.

-When the Washington Naval Treaty of 1922 put limits on shipbuilding, the Lexington and Saratoga, which were laid down before the treaty as battlecruisers CC-1 and CC-3, respectively, were finished as aircraft carriers CV-2 and CV-3, respectively.

-In the 1950s, the US Navy converted several of the Baltimore-class heavy cruisers and Cleveland-class light cruisers to guided missile heavy and light cruisers.
USS Boston (CA-69) became USS Boston (CAG-1)
USS Canberra (CA-70) became USS Canberra (CAG-2)
USS Springfield (CL-66) became USS Springfield (CLG-7)
and so on.

-In the 1970s, the US Navy reclassified its ship classes to be more in line with NATO. As a consequence,
Pre-30 June 1975...................Post-30 June 1975
Cruiser (CA/CLG/CGN)...........Guided Missile Cruiser (CG/CGN)
Frigate (DL/DLG/DLGN).........Guided Missile Cruiser (CG/CGN), Destroyer (DD) or Guided Missile Destroyer (DDG)
Destroyer (DD/DDG)..............Destroyer (DD)/ Guided Missile Destroyer (DDG)
Ocean Escort (DE/DEG).........Frigate (FF) / Guided Missile Frigate (FFG)
Patrol Frigate (PF)..................Guided Missile Frigate (FFG)

Examples:
USS Knox (DE-1052) became USS Knox (FF-1052)
USS Roark (DE-1053) became USS Roark (FF-1053)
USS Farragaut (DL-6) became USS Farragaut (DDG-37)
USS Luce(DL-7) became USS Luce (DDG-38)
USS Oliver Hazard Perry (ordered as PFG-109) became (FFG-7)
and so on.

 

[Christopher]

They are assigned numbers. And sometimes numbers and names become synonymous. Like Bird and 33, Jordan and 23, Andromeda and M31, and Enterprise and NCC-1701. Retiring them is a feel-good moment just like honoring NCC-1701 is.

That is an utterly nonsensical analogy. The Andromeda Galaxy is not called M31 randomly; it's named that because it's the 31st object documented in the Messier Catalog. It does have other numerical designations like NGC 224 or Flamsteed 58, but every one identifies the object as a unique entry in a specific astronomical catalog. It is not a meaningless string of text permanently attached to the word "Andromeda." And as there is only one Messier catalog with only one 31st entry, it is not a number that would be assigned to more than one distinct object. There's no "feel-good" involved; it's a functional classification.

-When the Washington Naval Treaty of 1922 put limits on shipbuilding, the Lexington and Saratoga, which were laid down before the treaty as battlecruisers CC-1 and CC-3, respectively, were finished as aircraft carriers CV-2 and CV-3, respectively.

Yes, they changed the letters, but the numbers were still the same because they were the same place in the sequence. You're just proving my point -- the numbers are not arbitrary things that can be assigned to multiple different ships over and over, but are unique identifiers of the type and sequential placement of each individual ship. They are attached to the ship itself, not to the name. The second Lexington was CV-16, not CV-2-A. The second Saratoga was CV-60, not CV-3-A. The number is not an extension of the name, it is a classification of the physical vessel.

And yes, you cite cases where the numbers were changed, but in each case, the number had a specific meaning that was relevant to classifying the particular type of vessel that the ship turned out to be. There were reasons for changing the numbers that had nothing to do with the names of the ships, but were due to other, more functional considerations -- as proven by the fact that in every example you cite, they changed the number without changing the name. You're proving my point, not refuting it.

Now, I can pretty much buy Ithekro's argument that such a reassignment would make sense for the Constitution-class ship that replaced the original Enterprise, but nothing in the examples you cite justifies reusing NCC-1701 for at least nine other ships (B through J) of radically different classes across multiple centuries. Because the number should be about the ship, not the name.

 

[BK613]

nothing in the examples you cite justifies reusing NCC-1701 for at least nine other ships (B through J) of radically different classes across multiple centuries. Because the number should be about the ship, not the name.

Nothing in my post claimed the examples were being used to justify reusing NCC-1701; they were there only to correct your erroneous bullshit about hull numbers. Maybe you should read a post instead of reading into a post what you want to bitch about.

 

[Ithekro]

The trouble with Starfleet is that they don't appear to have function based hull numbers. Everything is NCC-something as far as Starships go. So they must have something else in place we are either unaware of, or their numbering pattern does mean something, its just never come out for any reason in show.

If each USS Enterprise is some sort of emergency ship (each one being lost in some way and a replacement being inserted into the construction cycle) perhaps Starfleet decided to use the suffix letter to keep the added hulls into the schedule without messing up the existing ordered hull numbers? Each ship was built in the Sol System as far as we know. The only one we know for sure had a long construction time was the Galaxy-class starship. By that point, tradition might have taken over function when it comes to USS Enterprise. Or someone higher up decided the lose of USS Enterprise-C warranted making the next ship the -D even if it could be inserted normally in the build order. The -E seems to be another emergency ship, given how fast it came out after the most of the Enterprise-D, and that the Enterprise-D wasn't a very old ship.

 

[Maurice]

I'm not convinced that that memo represents original intent....@Harvey or @Maurice might have more to say that can prove me wrong.

Standing by to be proved wrong.

Justman's memo says he asked the Great Bird who said the arrowhead/flying-A was the starship crew insignia. Whether that was the original-original intent can't be proven since the documents we've seen don't discuss it, and one can cite the fact that all the starship crews on Starbase 11 wear that same insignia to support that it was the intent, but the fact that a Starfleet secretary (presumably) also wears one one contradicts that—or is yet another mistake. But the fact that we're back to the arrowhead on other starship crews in "The Tholian Web" suggests that's the way they wanted it, Exeter and Decker aside.

 

[Christopher]

The trouble with Starfleet is that they don't appear to have function based hull numbers. Everything is NCC-something as far as Starships go.

Yeah, that's annoying. I wish they'd come up with a more meaningful system than just NX for experimental and NCC for everything else. But apparently Jefferies's intent was that the first two digits of the number would represent the ship class.

If each USS Enterprise is some sort of emergency ship (each one being lost in some way and a replacement being inserted into the construction cycle) perhaps Starfleet decided to use the suffix letter to keep the added hulls into the schedule without messing up the existing ordered hull numbers?

That doesn't make any sense. Even if there were some "always have an Enterprise" policy, they could just assign that name to whatever new ship was ready to go. It's not like a name is an inseparable component of a ship. Ships get approved for construction before any name is chosen for them, and sometimes they get their names changed during the course of their operational lifetimes. So there's no need to add a whole other ship to the construction cycle in order to reuse the name; just attach the name to a ship that hasn't been assigned a name yet. That's how the US Navy decided to make CVN-80 the new Enterprise.

The -E seems to be another emergency ship, given how fast it came out after the most of the Enterprise-D, and that the Enterprise-D wasn't a very old ship.

Again, that's easily explained if you just assume that they were already building Sovereign-class ships and decided, upon the Enterprise-D's destruction, that they'd assign the name Enterprise to the next Sovereign off the line. No need for an "emergency ship."

Justman's memo says he asked the Great Bird who said the arrowhead/flying-A was the starship crew insignia. Whether that was the original-original intent can't be proven since the documents we've seen don't discuss it, and one can cite the fact that all the starship crews on Starbase 11 wear that same insignia to support that it was the intent, but the fact that a Starfleet secretary (presumably) also wears one one contradicts that—or is yet another mistake.

The secretary was barely glimpsed in the background, so they probably didn't think it was worth the effort to change the insignia on the stock outfit they put her in.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Justman's memo says he asked the Great Bird who said the arrowhead/flying-A was the starship crew insignia. Whether that was the original-original intent can't be proven since the documents we've seen don't discuss it, and one can cite the fact that all the starship crews on Starbase 11 wear that same insignia to support that it was the intent, but the fact that a Starfleet secretary (presumably) also wears one one contradicts that—or is yet another mistake.

Agreed.

But the fact that we're back to the arrowhead on other starship crews in "The Tholian Web" suggests that's the way they wanted it, Exeter and Decker aside.

But I don't see how use of the arrowhead in "The Tholian Web" suggests anything except that the memo was being followed. We know (now) that the memo happened, and it said what was to be done going forward, so that would have been that so to speak. Whether there had been genuine confusion about how insignia were supposed to work or there had been a clear original intent in Roddenberry's mind that at some point other people didn't properly understand (but Roddenberry for whatever reason didn't feel was important enough to enforce), the result in "The Tholian Web" would have been the same.

 

[Henoch]

Based on all this info, "NCC" should be the designator for a "class of vessel", something along the lines like BB for "battleship" or CV for "aircraft carrier", lets call it "Starship". Hence the dedication brass plaque on the bridge labeling the Enterprise as Starship Class... All ships in the starship class are called Starships regardless of the design subclass or hull class of the ship (i.e. Constitution Class, Miranda Class, etc.). Starships are heavy cruiser type spaceships specially equipped for deep space duty (longterm patrol, exploration, and scientific investigation). "There are only 12 like her in the fleet." I figure Kirk is counting all "starship class" ships and not just "Constitution class" subclass ships.

Any space vessel of Federation registry would use "N" as the first letter. Some of the Constitution class ships may not be equipped to the Starship configuration ("CC" designation), so, these would not have the NCC designator, rather it should use something else such as NCA-#### for its designator; I guess we'd call it a heavy space cruiser, but not a Starship. Expanding on this trend, "NBB" would be a "spaceship battleship" for the dreadnought class of ship if Starfleet actually had one (which they don't during TOS since all evidence is that the Starship class is the largest spaceship in the Federation.) "NDD" would be a "spaceship destroyer", etc.

 

[Maurice]

Agreed.


But I don't see how use of the arrowhead in "The Tholian Web" suggests anything except that the memo was being followed. We know (now) that the memo happened, and it said what was to be done going forward, so that would have been that so to speak. Whether there had been genuine confusion about how insignia were supposed to work or there had been a clear original intent in Roddenberry's mind that at some point other people didn't properly understand (but Roddenberry for whatever reason didn't feel was important enough to enforce), the result in "The Tholian Web" would have been the same.

The way they wanted it going forward. I already said there's no way to know the original-original intent (if any).

My best guess is this is what happened:

1. Antares crew have different insignia, presumably cuz they're not starship crews
2. Commodores on starbases had a different insignia in season one, as did Admiral Komack seen on screen in "This Side of Paradise".
3. Decker pops up in Season 2 as a commodore and Theiss makes up a new insignia since he's a commodore, too, and no one blinks because of item 2.
4. Commodore Stocker and Admiral Fitzpatrick pop up, also with insignias as seen on starbase senior staff
5. 19 episodes after Decker, Tracy and the Exeter pop up. Theiss remembers making a unique badge for Decker, et voila a new badge
6. Justman notices this, asks the Bird, who either clarifies an earlier intent or makes a decision, hence the memo
7. It never happens again

 

[CorporalCaptain]

The way they wanted it going forward.

Oh, OK. You mean, like, in case there was further reconsideration, since otherwise it goes without saying as they're just following the memo. Got it.

2. Commodores on starbases had a different insignia in season one, as did Admiral Komack seen on screen in "This Side of Paradise".
3. Decker pops up in Season 2 as a commodore and Theiss makes up a new insignia since he's a commodore, too, and no one blinks because of item 2.
4. Commodore Stocker and Admiral Fitzpatrick pop up, also with insignias as seen on starbase senior staff

That doesn't seem likely at all, because Areel Shaw (lieutenant) and Ms. Piper (ensign/enlisted) both had the flower insignia too. Both are front and center, so chances of a mistake or a decision to sluff it off are much lower than, e.g., the woman coming to attention in Mendez's office with the arrowhead.

https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Areel_Shaw
https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Piper

Because of them, the flower was always generally going to be perceived as "Starbase personnel," not "commodores" and not "starbase senior staff." Since then commodores would not previously have been given their own insignia at all, this (in conjunction with the Antares costumes) is in fact why Decker's insignia was generally viewed as a ship insignia.

 

[Christopher]

My best guess is this is what happened:

1. Antares crew have different insignia, presumably cuz they're not starship crews
2. Commodores on starbases had a different insignia in season one, as did Admiral Komack seen on screen in "This Side of Paradise".
3. Decker pops up in Season 2 as a commodore and Theiss makes up a new insignia since he's a commodore, too, and no one blinks because of item 2.
4. Commodore Stocker and Admiral Fitzpatrick pop up, also with insignias as seen on starbase senior staff
5. 19 episodes after Decker, Tracy and the Exeter pop up. Theiss remembers making a unique badge for Decker, et voila a new badge
6. Justman notices this, asks the Bird, who either clarifies an earlier intent or makes a decision, hence the memo
7. It never happens again

Very plausible. It's too bad Decker was the only Constellation crew member we saw. If there had been more, and they'd been wearing the arrowhead instead of Decker's pretzel thingy, it would've avoided the confusion.

 

[Maurice]

I wasn't trying to cover every instance, just what I thought might have led Theiss to do what he did. But this is why I hate wading into discussions like this. Next time I'll just quote the memo and leave you all to pick it all apart.

 

[CorporalCaptain]