Remove ads

Starfleet Design Bureau

Linked contents
Starship Design Bureau Starfleet Design Bureau
Reader mode
Mechanis said:
You assume that double book accounting isn't banned because it makes it harder to embezzle, or pull a great many fiscal shenanigans in general.

We get hung up on it explicitly because of that tendency, which tends to make a surface level look at the Federation look uncomfortably humanocentric, especially in combination with the TV Show Budget meaning there are fewer (visibly) non-human Starfleet people than there really should be on screen. Our attempts to push away from that tendency are very much attempts to more accurately describe the Federation as more than "Earth with extra bits for flavor" here.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
To be fair, there are those here that know nothing or close to it of the cultures and deep lore of the settings' other races like Andorians, Deltans, Vulcans, etc. (Like me, as an example) Humanocentric is most of what we recognize.
 
RighteousRancor said:
Yeah, if we want to encourage other species' integration into Starfleet, I think it might be a good idea to start pivoting from Earth-centrism.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
In real-life, I would agree, but in the context of a fictional universe this doesn't work very well. We don't have a list of mythological and historical references from non-human Federation member species to draw names from, unfortunately.

And naming the lead ship of the class the UFS Excalibur just opens up a great theme. UFS Gram, UFS Kusanagi, UFS Clarent, etc, etc...

Anyway, I'll be voting for both Excalibur and Constitution. As tempting as it is to go full Culture and abandon all euphemism when it comes to warship class names, I don't feel like it fits the Federation.
 
Last edited:
honestly though even if it was made to the precisely identical brief the different circumstances around its creation really don't lend themselves to "Constitution" as a name. I could see something like "Interceptor" if we wanted to Age of Sail it up, but I am definitely with the "get away from humanocentric names" and "save the Constitution namespace for a different ship" crowd. I just don't think that calling it Constitution fits, not with how it's designed to fight or the circumstances around its creation.
 
Mechanis said:
eeeeh, I hesitate to call it after the Thunderchild when it shares neither overall hull configuration nor fighting style. just doesn't really fit, y'know?


I would like people to consider Exigence class, since that gives us likely sister names like UFS Expediency, UFS Neccessity, UFS Practicality, UFS Compromise ....
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
UFS Opportunism, UFS Parliamentary Cretinism. . .
 
Last edited:
All of the available name options seem fine to me, but I think I would prefer Defiant for a more narrowly-scoped ship, and Excalibur... feels a bit extra to me.

[ ] Constitution-class.

This is our Connie, and I'm all about celebrating that.

Other ideas:

[ ] Constellation-class.
[ ] Intrepid-class.
[ ] Republic-class.

These are all taken from the TOS Series 2 list of sister-ships of the Enterprise, and I think they all have great vibes. Constellation kind of echoes the naming of the Galaxy class later on, giving the idea of the beauty and mystery of space. Intrepid has the idea of boldly going where none have gone before - in war or in peace. And Republic hearkens to the idea of a political union and freedoms that are hard-won, and must be fought for if need be.
 
Driven by Apathy said:
In real-life, I would agree, but in the context of a fictional universe this doesn't work very well. We don't have a list of mythological swords from non-human Federation member species to draw names from, unfortunately.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
That said, the Klingons no doubt have any number of sword-names they have applied to their ships :V
 
Mechanis said:
You assume that double book accounting isn't banned because it makes it harder to embezzle, or pull a great many fiscal shenanigans in general.

We get hung up on it explicitly because of that tendency, which tends to make a surface level look at the Federation look uncomfortably humanocentric, especially in combination with the TV Show Budget meaning there are fewer (visibly) non-human Starfleet people than there really should be on screen. Our attempts to push away from that tendency are very much attempts to more accurately describe the Federation as more than "Earth with extra bits for flavor" here.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Nah, they are just confused why you don't have the second book hidden somewhere.
 
Mechanis said:
eeeeh, I hesitate to call it after the Thunderchild when it shares neither overall hull configuration nor fighting style. just doesn't really fit, y'know?


I would like people to consider Exigence class, since that gives us likely sister names like UFS Expediency, UFS Neccessity, UFS Practicality, UFS Compromise ....
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Practicality? Compromise?

Sounds like a Bargain Bin Budget Boat built with a lot of compromises for the sake of selling it to Command.
 
Zimmerwald1915 said:
That said, the Klingons no doubt have any number of sword-names they have applied to their ships :V
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Indeed, and with how much thought has been put into their language (I mean, you can learn it on Duolingo, of all places) we'd probably be able to come up with no small amount of ship and class names for them. It's in the Federation and allied species (who largely get some flavor words or, at best, a few sentences when it comes to Vulcans) that get the short end of the stick name-wise.
 
Zimmerwald1915 said:
That said, the Klingons no doubt have any number of sword-names they have applied to their ships :V
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Klingons, ironically, tend to prefer being rather bluntly literal ("Bird class bird of prey") or bluntly conceptual ("Great Powerful Conqueror" class, "Destruction" class, etc) rather than naming for specific things and or people.
 
Skippy said:
All of the available name options seem fine to me, but I think I would prefer Defiant for a more narrowly-scoped ship, and Excalibur... feels a bit extra to me.

[ ] Constitution-class.

This is our Connie, and I'm all about celebrating that.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Come to the Constitution side of the naming Skippy. We have Kirk and his crew in need of the Enterprise!
 
Bedpotato said:
Come to the Constitution side of the naming Skippy. We have Kirk and his crew in need of the Enterprise!
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Sayle said:
first is Constitution, for the name of the project. Names reflecting the history of constitutions and guarantors of civil law are in ready supply
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I think Sayle's cut that idea off at the pass. We're not likely getting names attached to old Earth warships out of this reading of Constitution, so no Enterprise in that sense. Given the vitriol surrounding the debate, I can't say that I blame them in that regard.
 
I mean, Excalibur is also a cannon Constitution name.

memory-alpha.fandom.com

USS Excalibur (NCC-1664)

The USS Excalibur (NCC-1664) was a Federation Constitution-class starship operated by Starfleet during the 23rd century and 24th centurys. In 2259, Lieutenant Parker wore a USS Excalibur pin for Starfleet Remembrance Day. (SNW: "Memento Mori") In 2268, the Excalibur, under the command of Captain...
memory-alpha.fandom.com memory-alpha.fandom.com
 
Mechanis said:
We get hung up on it explicitly because of that tendency, which tends to make a surface level look at the Federation look uncomfortably humanocentric, especially in combination with the TV Show Budget meaning there are fewer (visibly) non-human Starfleet people than there really should be on screen. Our attempts to push away from that tendency are very much attempts to more accurately describe the Federation as more than "Earth with extra bits for flavor" here.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

The challenge with alien names is that you have to invent them. You need to be able to explain the naming. And if it's not in recognizably-English words, you add an additional barrier of understanding and relating. And mostly, your audience speaks English.
 
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top