• Hello and welcome to MSFC. We are a small and close knitted community who specialises in modding the game Star Trek Armada 2 and the Fleet Operations modification, however we have an open field for discussing a number of topics including movies, real life events and everything in-between.

    Being such a close community, we do have some restrictions, including all users required to be registered before being able to post as well as all members requiring to have participated in the community for sometime before being able to download our modding files to name the main ones. This is done for both the protection of our members and to encourage new members to get involved with the community. We also require all new registrations to first be authorised by an Administrator and to also have an active and confirmed email account.

    We have a policy of fairness and a non harassment environment, with the staff quick to act on the rare occasion of when this policy is breached. Feel free to register and join our community.

Ship Registries

Archonon

Master Chief Petty Officer of Starfleet
Joined
13 Aug 2016
Messages
539
Age
46
I have always felt that in the VOY episode where they get transported to Earth in 1996 and stop the 29th century Sol system from being destroyed basically helped to create the temporal cold war which in turn created the ENT timeline which Spock from Prime stumbled into as well as Nero which Discovery is part of.

That's a very interesting way of seeing it, temporal butterfly effect.

That's another thing that bothered me about that Voyager episode. If they time traveled to 1996, isn't this time period the height of the reign of the genetically enhanced supermen? Shouldn't ST's 1990s look like a dystopia if not a ravaged warzone from all the fighting between the supermen overlords and those trying to depose them?

Every description of pre-WW3 Earth in TOS did not make me think that it looked anything like our 1990s.

As far as the makeup goes, the Klingons look almost lizard-y in DISC or as I like calling it, STD. Lol. The new Klingons remind me of the aliens in Enemy Mine. I think the makeup is a more exaggerated version of the alterations they got in ST: Into Darkness. They would look better if they had some with hair.

They should definitely be using D-6s by this time period, unless that abomination onscreen is the new canon D-6. I dislike that design very much, almost as much as the Discovery itself. Frankly the only design I liked was the Shenzhou.

Speaking of which Cabal, I have not been able to see past the first hour because I'm not going to pay for that streaming garbage. So I can't confirm the Discovery's registry. For me, even if they place the Discovery as a newer ship than Shenzhou, my main issue is that the Discovery's design is so ugly and out of place that it just doesn't work as a believable precursor to neither Shatner's Enterprise nor Pine's Enterprise.

Oh well, I'll watch the series a year from now when it's out on Blu Ray. I hope that it can grow into a really good series, with as many episodes as they have there is plenty of chance to do more exploration and draw out all the essence of Trek. I also hope they make a JJ-verse 4th movie, as I love that crew. So yeah, more Trek is always a good thing as I find there is a severe deficiency of good Sci-Fi right now.
 

LordChicken

Colonel Sanders
Joined
1 Oct 2015
Messages
213
Age
41
I don't think that this series would work as an anthology series, given that it is titled after the central starship. There is no way they can make that work with a different crew every season, unless they are doing multi-generational stories with Discovery A-F across a timeframe longer than a century.

I do not want to see Discovery A-F. The Enterprise should be the only ship in the fleet that has this distinction. Also in the reboot, why would they reuse the registry of the Enterprise for new ship at the end of Beyond? The first Enterprise was barely out of the shipyard before they blew it up. It was not decorated like the original ship was. Kirk has not saved the Federation for the billionth time yet.

But to be fair I also dislike that they did that in the first place. They repainted the model for Star Trek 4, they could have just changed the registry number. In real life they do not reuse hull or registry numbers. USS Enterprise CV-6 was a well decorated US Carrier of WW2, USS Enterprise CVN-65 was the first nuclear aircraft carrier in the world. The US Navy didn't designate it CV-06-A. USS Enterprise CVN-80 is not CV-06-B, but I digress...

That is one of my few gripes about Star Trek.
 

Archonon

Master Chief Petty Officer of Starfleet
Joined
13 Aug 2016
Messages
539
Age
46
In my opinion is Prime Ent, TOS, TMP, TNG, DS9, VOY, After a few Trek Series with this and this temporal paradoxon is the Timeline spaghettificated. It's senseless in this case build up Theories to explain canon breaches.

I know ENT is uspposed to be Prime, damn Riker and Troi appear in it after all. For me personally, it doesm't work. Too many inconsistencies with established history, not that this is exclusive to ENT, see my VOY comment. But yeah the Borg arriving on Earth in the 2150s, encountered by the Enteprirse crew, knowing they transmitted to the Delta Quadrant and not a single entry in the Picard's computer when they encounter them again. Not the kind of thing that would have been swept under the rug or omitted from Federation databases. That's just one example. I ignore the final episode anyway so that's why I see it as a separate timeline. Since it's referenced in the new movies and now Discovery, I see that as its own timeline. So that's me :D

I do not want to see Discovery A-F. The Enterprise should be the only ship in the fleet that has this distinction. Also in the reboot, why would they reuse the registry of the Enterprise for new ship at the end of Beyond? The first Enterprise was barely out of the shipyard before they blew it up. It was not decorated like the original ship was. Kirk has not saved the Federation for the billionth time yet.

But to be fair I also dislike that they did that in the first place. They repainted the model for Star Trek 4, they could have just changed the registry number. In real life they do not reuse hull or registry numbers. USS Enterprise CV-6 was a well decorated US Carrier of WW2, USS Enterprise CVN-65 was the first nuclear aircraft carrier in the world. The US Navy didn't designate it CV-06-A. USS Enterprise CVN-80 is not CV-06-B, but I digress...

That is one of my few gripes about Star Trek.

The "A" was added because the original ship was completely destroyed and it was a newly built vessel, not just a refit or repair as it was with the Prime counterpart between TOS and TMP. I don't think it had to matter whether Kirk had saved the world as we know it once or a hundred times, it's just the fact that it's the same crew operating it. Nor whether this applies to other ships outside the Enterprise.

I don't disagree with you, I guess it could have gotten a new registry or just kept the original. The 2nd Defiant had the same registry as the original as far as I can remember. It's not something I like but it also doesn't bother me if they add letters to the registry to indicate a legacy. I think it only makes sense when the ship is the same class as the one that came before and with the same crew. When it's a different class and crew, then new registry.

Ex. USS Lexington, Constitution Class, NCC-1709 (TOS) and USS Lexington, Nebula Class, NCC-30405 (TNG/DS9)

I think that it's ok if they use the same registry if it is the same class of ship and crew, which is not the case with real life warships. The CV-6 did not have the same crew, nor was it the same generation of carrier, as the CVN-65, same with the CVN-80.

Ex. USS Enterprise, Constitution Class, NCC-1701 and NCC-1701-A (TOS/TMP/AR)
USS Enterprise, Excelsior Class, NCC-3019
USS Enterprise, Ambassador Class, NCC-12015
USS Enterprise, Galaxy Class, NCC-30510
 

CABAL

<< ■ II ▶ >>
Staff member
Administrator
Star Navigator
Rogue AI technocrat
Joined
15 Aug 2009
Messages
3,511
Age
32
The 2nd Defiant had the same registry as the original as far as I can remember.
In this particular case I think they just didn't bother with making a new texture for the Defiant CGI model and recycling stock footage. The plaque on the bridge actually has the number it was originally registered under as the Sao Paulo, NCC-75633, even after the name change. It's probably supposed to be NCC-75633 instead of NX-74205. There was also a Constitution-class Defiant, NCC-1764.
 

LordChicken

Colonel Sanders
Joined
1 Oct 2015
Messages
213
Age
41
In this particular case I think they just didn't bother with making a new texture for the Defiant CGI model and recycling stock footage. The plaque on the bridge actually has the number it was originally registered under as the Sao Paulo, NCC-75633, even after the name change. It's probably supposed to be NCC-75633 instead of NX-74205. There was also a Constitution-class Defiant, NCC-1764.

This is correct.

http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/articles/defiant-problems.htm
 

Archonon

Master Chief Petty Officer of Starfleet
Joined
13 Aug 2016
Messages
539
Age
46
Aha so they were just lazy, gotcha. Lol

Well I don't know what the in universe explanation is for the Defiant's registry staying the same nor what the canon way of having it should be. I suppose that the 2nd Defiant should have had a new registry number or be NCC-74205-A given that it is a replacement for the original, it's the same class of ship and it's operated by the same crew. Under these circumstances, like the Constitution Class Enterprises, I don't mind the "A" in the registry.

The Excelsior, Ambassador, Galaxy and Sovereign Enterprises should have had different registries however. IMO it was just kept the same for brand recognition/nostalgia when they were launching TNG.

What always peeves me off is when I hear characters verbally name their Enterprise as the "Enterprise D" or the "Enterprise E" when there is no other Enterprise around. Ok when Garrett's Enterprise jumped time or when Picard talked to Kirk, sure, but generally speaking just call the ship the "Enterprise".
 

Archonon

Master Chief Petty Officer of Starfleet
Joined
13 Aug 2016
Messages
539
Age
46
Yeah they were too lazy to update the model.

My point was that in universe, the 2nd Defiant's registry should have been the same one as the original with an "A" at the end, like the Enterprise, given that it was a replacement for the original ship, it was the same class of ship and it was operated by the same crew. In those instances I think that keeping the same registry and adding the letter "A" is acceptable.

When you have a ship that uses the same name as a previous ship but is a different class and with a different crew, then it should have a new registry number.
 

CABAL

<< ■ II ▶ >>
Staff member
Administrator
Star Navigator
Rogue AI technocrat
Joined
15 Aug 2009
Messages
3,511
Age
32
The Enterprise registry recycling is a special case, though. Only the Enterprises get the letter suffix, and only starting with Kirk's 1701-A; they're not considered contiguous with Archer's NX-01, for instance, even though it's the same name, and the 1701 was probably named for it in-universe. The second (actually third or fourth, counting ships of other classes) Defiant was built as a different ship with a different registry number. My guess is that Starfleet allows names to be changed with an Admiral's authorization, but the registry number never changes. So whether it's called the Sao Paulo or the Defiant, the ship's 'real' name is NCC-75633 from the moment it went off the assembly line to its eventual destruction or decommissioning, full stop.

Also keep in mind that the Sao Paulo wasn't built as a replacement for the Defiant, it just wound up as one due to the timing. Sisko also could have turned down the permission to rename the ship and kept it as the Sao Paulo.
 

Majestic

Administrator
Staff member
Administrator
Seraphim Build Team
Joined
17 Apr 2006
Messages
18,274
Age
39
Also remember the Enterprise is the flagship of Starfleet which is probably why they keep the registry going.
 

Archonon

Master Chief Petty Officer of Starfleet
Joined
13 Aug 2016
Messages
539
Age
46
I think that the reason why Archer's Enterprise was not contiguous with the other Enterprises is due to that ship being part of retroactive retconning. In every Enterprise that has had a legacy memorial, a display of all previous Enterprise ships, they have always had the inclusion of the aircraft carrier (CVN-65 most likely, as there have been several Big Es), one of 4 sailing ships to carry the name and the space shuttle. Alongside the classic Connie, Excelsior, Ambassador, etc, as seen in Enterprise D's mural and Enterprise E's ship model collection. If Archer's Enterprise had existed in canon before TNG, it's likely that it would have been included as part of the Enterprise legacy, even though it does not share the registry.

The case of the Sao Paolo however was a change of a name to an existing ship, it's likely they weren't going to repaint the registry on it as well, lol. However the Enterprise A was built from scratch as a replacement for the original, hence the same registry and the "A". The sources that claim that it was a different Connie renamed to Enterprise have never been confirmed to be canon.

I still feel that what makes most sense is to add a letter to the registry of a ship if it is built as a replacement to a ship that was destroyed, if it's the same class as the ship it's replacing and operated by the same crew. Like the Enterprise A at the end of Beyond. When the ship has the same name and it's a different class and different era/crew, it should have a different registry. But this is just me. Lol.

Maj was Kirk's Enterprise ever established as the flagship of the Federation in the Prime universe? I know that Picard's Enterprise was the flagship, from the Galaxy to the Sovereign, but I don't recall Shat-Kirk's Enterprise being anything more than another Constitution in TOS and TMP. I know that in the AR the Enteprise is the flagship, because Pike mentions it in ST:09. I was under the impression that the Excelsior was the flagship of Starfleet in TMP era for some reason. I have no idea. o_O
 

kjc733

Wibble
Staff member
Site Manager
Seraphim Build Team
Master Shipwright
Joined
30 Mar 2008
Messages
2,477
Age
39
Honestly I don't think we should even bother *trying* to explain registry inconsistencies. The writers and modellers just didn't even think about such things, they just went with what they could do. The Constellation is a classic example, the registry came from rearranging the Enterprises registry as they used an Enterprise model.

As for "flagship", again, too much is made of this. A "flagship" is a command ship, the ship in which the admiral/commodore/fleet captain hoists his flag. The flagship of the fleet can and will change. When we (the UK) had multiple carriers the flagship swapped between them depending on which was on active rotation. I believe the flagship is currently HMS Albion. I think the US has multiple flagships as they have multiple active fleets - Starfleet (or UESPA as early Trek called it) probably would also have multiple flagships given how many ships they have.
 

LordChicken

Colonel Sanders
Joined
1 Oct 2015
Messages
213
Age
41
Honestly I don't think we should even bother *trying* to explain registry inconsistencies. The writers and modellers just didn't even think about such things, they just went with what they could do. The Constellation is a classic example, the registry came from rearranging the Enterprises registry as they used an Enterprise model.

As for "flagship", again, too much is made of this. A "flagship" is a command ship, the ship in which the admiral/commodore/fleet captain hoists his flag. The flagship of the fleet can and will change. When we (the UK) had multiple carriers the flagship swapped between them depending on which was on active rotation. I believe the flagship is currently HMS Albion. I think the US has multiple flagships as they have multiple active fleets - Starfleet (or UESPA as early Trek called it) probably would also have multiple flagships given how many ships they have.

This is correct. The US has multiple "Flagships" as we have multiple fleets.
 

Archonon

Master Chief Petty Officer of Starfleet
Joined
13 Aug 2016
Messages
539
Age
46
Well everyone tries to explain the vast number of inconsistencies Trek has, with all its retroactive retconning and changing visions. But of course, your point is more than valid kjc. One of the guys from "Trekyards" claims that registries don't even illustrate the order in which ships were built, which makes even less sense.

But hey if the Discovery is NCC-1031 and the Shenzhou is NCC-1227 and the Discovery is supposed to be much newer than the Shenzhou then sure, why not? Registries don't mean anything except random numbers.

And I gotcha about the flagships, it's different in real life. I'm saying in the shows they make a big deal about it, like there's only one and its supposed to mean the ship is the most advanced or somehow stand out. There are several examples but one quick one is Riker's comment about the bop engaging the Enterprise in "Generations", he says the line like the flagship is meant to be something significant, as opposed to saying a Galaxy class ship. I believe Pike makes a similar comment about the flagship in ST '09. And there are more examples, I know Picard has made the reference about the Sovereign Enterprise also. But I digress. Lol.
 

CABAL

<< ■ II ▶ >>
Staff member
Administrator
Star Navigator
Rogue AI technocrat
Joined
15 Aug 2009
Messages
3,511
Age
32
Well everyone tries to explain the vast number of inconsistencies Trek has, with all its retroactive retconning and changing visions. But of course, your point is more than valid kjc. One of the guys from "Trekyards" claims that registries don't even illustrate the order in which ships were built, which makes even less sense.

But hey if the Discovery is NCC-1031 and the Shenzhou is NCC-1227 and the Discovery is supposed to be much newer than the Shenzhou then sure, why not? Registries don't mean anything except random numbers.
Hell, the Discovery's newer than the Enterprise. The only thing I can possibly think of is that at this point Starfleet has the first two digits as the class with the last two digits as the ship (Constitution-class is 17XX, USS Constitution is 1700, USS Enterprise is 1701, etc.) and recycles the first two digits for a new class once an older class has been fully removed from service. So Discovery's class got the 10XX designation because the previous class with the 10XX designation is no longer in service.

Of course, the real-world reason is probably that whoever came up with the registry just didn't think about it.
 

LordChicken

Colonel Sanders
Joined
1 Oct 2015
Messages
213
Age
41
Hell, the Discovery's newer than the Enterprise. The only thing I can possibly think of is that at this point Starfleet has the first two digits as the class with the last two digits as the ship (Constitution-class is 17XX, USS Constitution is 1700, USS Enterprise is 1701, etc.) and recycles the first two digits for a new class once an older class has been fully removed from service. So Discovery's class got the 10XX designation because the previous class with the 10XX designation is no longer in service.

Of course, the real-world reason is probably that whoever came up with the registry just didn't think about it.

This is actually how registry numbers were supposed to work in TOS. The Enterprise was the 17th cruiser design and the 01 ment it was the first ship of the class. This is why they would always read the registry as 17-01. However, cheapness in TV sort of abandoned this and all concepts about how the registries were supposed to work were thrown out the window. This is why the Constellation has the registry of NCC-1017. They used a commercial model kit to build the model for the show and instead of painting another registry on it, they just rearranged the decals. Kit bashing wasn't really a thing that was done yet, so it saddens me that they lost the opportunity to introduce a variation on the Enterprise design. Matt Jefferies intended that the technology be modular so they could have built different ships out of the same components for the TV show, like the Miranda class. Anywho...

There was an interview I watched years ago where Nichelle Nichols was explaining about the registry numbers... I can't seem to find it right now on YouTube, but I'll keep looking and when I do I'll post it here.

Whomever they have doing Star Trek over there at CBS doesn't have a clue in my opinion. Discovery is made under the Bad Robot license, but it can't be related to those movies because of licensing. They advertised it was going to be in the prime universe, but it really really isn't. I would say it is yet another "reboot". Or as my wife puts is, high production fan fiction. Which is where I like to classify it.
 

CABAL

<< ■ II ▶ >>
Staff member
Administrator
Star Navigator
Rogue AI technocrat
Joined
15 Aug 2009
Messages
3,511
Age
32
The first revival shows (TNG, DS9, VOY, assuming that DSC is a second revival) actually keep that pattern up, too, with the only change being that class is now three digits instead of two. For instance, Intrepid is 74600 and Voyager is 74656. There are some lapses, though. Defiant is 74205 (maybe it took five revisions to get it operational?) and Valiant is 74210, but Sao Paulo is 75633. I suppose it's possible that with the war they built so many that they ran out of 742XX numbers, though.

Anyway, Discovery is still a newer class of ship than the Constitution-class, so it should have a higher number.
 

Archonon

Master Chief Petty Officer of Starfleet
Joined
13 Aug 2016
Messages
539
Age
46
Gah. Shows what a moron I am. I just figured that NCC-1701 was just Naval Construction Contract One Thousand Seven Hundred and One, basically the one thousand seven hundred and first ship built by Starfleet.

I always figured that the same class of ship had their registries one after the other because that is when that class entered mass production. And then there would be variations here and there as different classes are produced simultaneously.

The first ship of any class gives that class its name and has the NX registry because it is the prototype; ie. USS Constitution, Constitution Class, NX-1700. Then the rest of the ships in that class have the standard construction contract registry because they are in mass production; Enterprise, Lexington, Defiant, Yorktown, etc.

And yeah, this kind of thing should be much better organized. It's like that dumb argument about Starfleet not being military when it by definition is and being addressed as military in various series and movies, yet claimed not to be in others. Course this would be a different discussion for a separate thread. Lol.
 

Candice Greene

TrekkieGal
Joined
30 Jun 2019
Messages
119
Age
60
No, no, no. Think about this. If you go to France, would the registry on a French plane be the same on an American plane?

Understand this the idea of a Naval Construction Contract means nothing to an Operating Facility. It's a Contract from a Client to a Contractor...and Nothing more. It's the simplest explanation that Each Letter must mean something. OK, let us try this.

Matt Jeffries had a Plane, it's Registry was NC-17740. For those who have no concept of what NC means, it simply means N= United States, C= Civilian. Under these two letters are Born Your famous NCC, which all he did was take N from the United States, and CC from the Russian (correction) Soviet registry CCCC. Now the Deviceness of Registry apparently being Countries, suppose they were Other space-faring civilizations. Apparently as early as 2140 N has stood for Starfleet, which would Carryover to the Formation of the Federation as well the Federations Starfleet.

NA unknown (pre-2143) Tycho Base (NA-01)
NCIA Section 31 (2250s) NCIA-93
NI Section 31 (2250s) NI-1101
NAR UN (2123) SS Mariposa (NAR-7678)
United Federation of Planets (2293–2368) SS Vico (NAR-18834)
NC Starfleet (2154) NC-05
United Federation of Planets (2269) Aurora (NC-17740)
NBT United Federation of Planets SS Shiku Maru (NBT-30894)
NCC Starfleet (2167–2379) Raging Queen (NCC-42284)
NCV Starfleet (2800s) USS Relativity (NCV-474439-G)
NFT El Aurian (2293) SS Robert Fox (NFT-1327)
NGA Federation (2328) SS Augyn (NGA-24858)
NSP Vulcan National Merchant Fleet (2364) T'Pau (NSP-17938)
NX Starfleet (2143–2375) Enterprise (NX-01)

Under the rule of Naval Construction Contrac, then we have a lot of other Naval Whatever, whatever to go through at that rate.

I remember back in 1974 when it was suggested, yet it would make no sense to Put NCC-1017 before NCC-1700, as well there are case history of Naval ships having Registry numbers changed because they were reclassified, perhaps rather than change a Cruiser to a Destroyer, perhaps A simple Registry number is considered not as such a change?

Sure Naval Construction Contract seems to fit in the TNG and beyond thinking, but then why NCC-1701-D, and no Suffix for such ships like the Constellation? I mean the ship, the entire crew gave their lives to stop a Planet Killer, and all they get is a Class of Ships named after it and No suffix. So Yes it seems it fits JUST nicely in TNG, but as I said, explain the other Registries?

Anyways, here's my source, https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Registry
and I apologize for waiting 2 years to answer this.
 

Candice Greene

TrekkieGal
Joined
30 Jun 2019
Messages
119
Age
60
Ooops forgot one more fact, it was Gene Roddenberry in 1969 who came up with the Naval Construction Contract explanation which...explain A LOT!
 

Archonon

Master Chief Petty Officer of Starfleet
Joined
13 Aug 2016
Messages
539
Age
46
In my opinion, the registry thing has been one cluster-cluck since the get go. They are not organized in a proper and meaningful way, nor are they explained in universe in a satisfactory manner to make sense of their continuous discrepancies.

If it is Naval Construction Contract then by definition the registry should point towards the number in which the ship was built and registered. While ships in real world are reclassified depending on what type of ship they are: BB-59 (Battleships), CA-44 (Cruisers), DD-151 (Destroyers), etc, in Star Trek the NCC does not differentiate between ship types, it is a general identifier assigned upon the registration of the ship for service. So if the USS Rutledge was NCC-1405 as a Heavy Cruiser in 2284, then reclassifying it as a Destroyer in 2310 should not affect its registry, as it is still basically the same ship.

I totally get your explanation Candice, and it is the real world explanation of how the Enterprise got its NCC-1701 registry; that being said, save for a handful of exceptions, just about every Federation ship that has been featured in Star Trek series and movies has been Starfleet, of which all carry the NCC registry. Starfleet is the umbrella fleet, the UN Peacekeepers and not an individual species member of the Federation, as such their registries should be uniform and in sequence of construction because there is only a single client, Starfleet. So it doesn't make any sense when NCC-1017 is built after NCC-1700. Here are some examples of some related continuity errors:

In "Errand of Mercy" Kirk clearly states to the Organian Council that he is "A soldier, not a diplomat" and in Wrath of Khan David Marcus discusses how "The military" (Starfleet) was going to steal the Genesis project; yet over and over, Starfleet is specifically designated as a non-military entity, "Peacekeepers" (Based on the UN Peacekeepers, which in fact are members of their respective country's militaries). This issue isn't because Kirk mispoke or Starfleet's charter changed, it is because it was poorly defined in TOS exactly what Starfleet is.

Another example comes from the USS classification. USS is, as you mention, United States Ship in the real world. Star Trek's USS is poorly construed as a half designation at best: United Space Ship or United Star Ship, as mentioned in TOS. United what? A United Federation of Planets Ship should be: UFPS Enterprise. But that's one letter too many and a mouthful to say, so of course, Roddenberry used USS after the US Navy. Heck, if they wanted something that made more sense, they should have used FSS, Federation Starfleet Ship. Look at how Babylon 5 uses a much more believable way to designate their craft: EAS (Earth Alliance Ship).

This has always bothered me from Trek, the lack of clarity concerning designation markings and registries is just a lack of organization and sloppy world building of the part of the original writers, further blurred by other series continuing to build on that without putting it into proper context.

The real world excuse for using a Suffix in the Enterprise is to unnecessarily ape TOS' legacy into TNG, so they have a "connection" for viewers. The in universe explanation is that they are honoring the exploits of the original USS Enterprise by continuing to issue its registry. I completely agree with you Candice, if they honor ships with great achievements then more than just the Enterprise should have its registry Suffixed and reissued. The Excelsior, the Discovery, the peeps from the Constellation, etc should all receive the same respect. But they don't. Why? Cause the showrunners are sloppy. They probably add numbers that amount to someone's birthday or even random groupings when selecting registries.

What would have made sense is that Kirk and Kirk alone got an NCC-1701-A, because it was the same ship class with the same crew continuing the same mission, in a special exception and recognition of their saving the planet from space whale probe and retired along with them. Every other Enterprise after 2293 should have had its own unique registry, including Picard's. But apparently the showrunners figured that people would be confused if a Star Trek show had a ship called Enterprise and it didn't have an NCC-1701 registry and that is why we have a bogus half cooked explanation as to why there is only one ship in the fleet worthy of their registry being continued with a Suffix while every other ship's name is simply reclassified upon construction.

Just my two cents :thumbsup:
 

Candice Greene

TrekkieGal
Joined
30 Jun 2019
Messages
119
Age
60
All I am implying that when you dealing with Gene, he takes credit for things he didn't do, such as made Registries, as Numbers have little meaning as a Hull Number, and it would make every ship in Starfleet a Cruiser. The fact is he has set designers and Staffers, and all these other people to do this, like Matt Jeffries who made the NCC moniker, to begin with, and as a matter of fact, he made up the numbers.

Arleigh Burke Destroyers are a Perfect example, they were supposed to be Guided Missle Cruisers. The Contractor has little say in what a ship is supposed to be. Matter of fact, speaking of Real World Explanations, why even have a Builders Plaque, they are all Naval Constructed Contracts, and they Own the ship possibly?

A Contract is a Contract, nothing more, nothing less.
 

Archonon

Master Chief Petty Officer of Starfleet
Joined
13 Aug 2016
Messages
539
Age
46
Yeah, I gotcha.

Who knows why they use some realistic aspects and then randomly choose made up others. I suppose since it's not something that fans will really care about or will be explored in universe, there isn't a need for a concise organization of this type of thing.

I have no idea who owns the ships; as far as I know, Starfleet owns the ships per se. I pressume that Starfleet, like most other Federation agencies or departments, is issued a yearly budget (restriction of materials, order numbers or something else, as "money isn't used") of sorts which then allows how many ships can be built.

Again, all of this would go into parts of world building that has never been seen or explained in a movie or show, at best we have "official" books or all kinds of non-canon sources and speculation.
 
Top