Remove ads

To Boldly Go... (a Starfleet quest)

Linked contents
To Boldly Go... (a Starfleet quest) Starfleet Ship Design Bureau, Refit ("To Boldly Go...")
Reader mode
Yeah. The traditional circumstances under which we commission a new Enterprise are:
1) Old Enterprise is destroyed (nil, B, C, D), OR...
2) Old Enterprise is retired, either due to not being worth repairing (A) or obsolescence (presumably, NX-01)

If the Enterprise-B lasts long enough that Excelsiors are giving way to Ambassadors in our Explorer Corps fleet, to the point where we're seriously considering building Ambassadors and transferring the Explorer Corps crews OFF our existing EC Excelsiors, just so we can get more and better explorers into action faster...

Then it is time to decommission the Enterprise-B and commission a C.

Because that's more or less the situation we have reason to think was in play in 2294 here. After Khitomer, we had a badly damaged Constitution-A. Meanwhile, we had two or three Excelsiors online, and a limited number of Explorer Corps personnel to crew them. So the survivors of the battle-damaged Enterprise-A were presumably taken off the ship and rolled into the new crew of the third Excelsior, which wound up being christened Enterprise-B instead of whatever name the ship would otherwise have received.
 
Of course now I'm envisioning a situation where the Explorer Corps rollover works the same way every time, with each old explorer deactivating giving its name to a new one. So we'll always have a Sarek, or a Courageous.

After all, if it's good enough for the Enterprise to keep its registry number...
 
Enterprise keeps her name because Enterprise is a legend. Sarek and Courageous and the rest... not so much. They're not quite there.

Not that I'll be opposed if there are votes in favor of commissioning a new ship of those names if something befalls the first of those names.

On which note, our decision to commission a Miracht-A may constitute, in effect, a decision to put a second name into permanent rotation like that.
 
Simon_Jester said:
On which note, our decision to commission a Miracht-A may constitute, in effect, a decision to put a second name into permanent rotation like that.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

It's more a commentary on how, for example, there was a Defiant mentioned somewhere in TOS, but the Defiant from DS9 wasn't the -C or something, and similar occurrences. If it's good enough for one ship...
 
Simon_Jester said:
Enterprise keeps her name because Enterprise is a legend. Sarek and Courageous and the rest... not so much. They're not quite there.

Not that I'll be opposed if there are votes in favor of commissioning a new ship of those names if something befalls the first of those names.

On which note, our decision to commission a Miracht-A may constitute, in effect, a decision to put a second name into permanent rotation like that.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Should note, Starfleet did reuse names in alpha canon, quite often. Just not the registries, usually, Enterprise being the notable exception.
USS Ahwahnee (NCC-2048)
USS Ahwahnee (NCC-71620)
Antares
USS Antares
USS Antares (NCC-9844)
USS Bellerophon (NCC-62048)
USS Bellerophon (NCC-74705)
USS Carolina (23rd century)
USS Carolina (24th century)
USS Challenger (NCC-2032)
USS Challenger (NCC-71099)
USS Constellation (NCC-1017)
USS Constellation (NX-1974)
USS Constellation (NCC-55817)
USS Copernicus (NCC-640)
USS Copernicus (NCC-58637)
USS Defiant (NCC-1764)
USS Defiant (2370)
USS Defiant (2375)
USS Drake (2364)
USS Drake (2373)
USS Endeavour (NCC-1895)
USS Endeavour (NCC-25330)
USS Endeavour (NCC-39272)
USS Endeavour (NCC-71805)
USS Exeter (NCC-1672)
USS Exeter (NCC-26531)
USS Farragut (23rd century)
USS Farragut (NCC-60597)
USS Farragut (Excelsior class)
USS Grissom (NCC-638)
USS Grissom (24th century)
USS Hood (NCC-1703)
USS Hood (Excelsior class)
USS Intrepid (NCC-1631)
USS Intrepid (NCC-38907)
USS Intrepid (NCC-74600)
USS Lexington (NCC-1709)
USS Lexington (NCC-30405)
USS Mayflower (NCC-1621)
USS Mayflower (24th century)
USS Potemkin (NCC-1657)
USS Potemkin (Excelsior class)
USS Prometheus (NCC-71201)
USS Prometheus (Prometheus class)
USS Saratoga (NCC-1887)
USS Saratoga (NCC-31911)
USS Saratoga (2374)
USS Valiant (23rd century)
USS Valiant (NCC-74210)
USS Valiant (NCC-75418)
USS Yeager (NCC-61947)
USS Yeager (NCC-65674)
USS Yellowstone (2370)
USS Yellowstone (NX-74751)
USS Yorktown (23rd century)
USS Yorktown (NCC-20045)
 
Last edited:
Simon_Jester said:
On which note, our decision to commission a Miracht-A may constitute, in effect, a decision to put a second name into permanent rotation like that.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Night said:
It's more a commentary on how, for example, there was a Defiant mentioned somewhere in TOS, but the Defiant from DS9 wasn't the -C or something, and similar occurrences. If it's good enough for one ship...
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Terminal Letters seem to result when Starfleet takes steps to keep the name in permanent commission. I expect that there was a reasonable period between the TOS Defiant and Sisko's Pimp Hand which minimized any confusion.
When there's no pause between having a ship and her replacement rolled out, or at least a very short one, we tack a letter on for clarity.

And now with two, it's a list and not a singular honor.
 
To be fair, I'm pretty sure Miracht doesn't get called Miracht-A consistently, and I'm sure Picard doesn't always refer to his ship as the Enterprise-D.

As I've said before, the fundamental reason for recycling Enterprise's registry number is that when we name a new ship Enterprise, we're not just naming a new ship after the old ship.

We're putting taking a legend's old jersey number on the ship and declaring to the galaxy "This ship right here? This ship is like something out of the legends your grandparents told you. This ship is as good a ship as Kirk's Connie was, and if you put her to the test, she will sail and fight and SCIENCE! her way into your legends just as hard as Kirk's Connie would have."

That's not the message we're sending when we name a new ship Defiant or Ahwahnee or, for that matter, Miracht.

So I don't think we should be recycling Miracht's registry number, and I'm not sure if we did or not.
 
None of the ships I named had the same registry as their namesakes on the list I posted, that was indeed the point. Starfleet, in alpha canon at least, doesn't reuse any of its numbers save one, and that's NCC-1701.
 
nocarename said:
Terminal Letters seem to result when Starfleet takes steps to keep the name in permanent commission.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Of course, it's not remotely clear that's what happened with the Enterprise. In fact given the fate of the -C, it almost certainly isn't what happened with the Enterprise, as there was probably a gap of several years rather than "strip the paint off the next Galaxy to commission".
 
Last edited:
aeqnai said:
None of the ships I named had the same registry as their namesakes on the list I posted, that was indeed the point. Starfleet, in alpha canon at least, doesn't reuse any of its numbers save one, and that's NCC-1701.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Right; I'm mainly trying to get a discussion of precedents and reasoning.

Are we in agreement that:

1) Ship names can be reused, whenever we see fit.
2) Ship names need not come with a letter on the end to indicate a reused name. Indeed, this is normally not done, because that is normally what registry numbers are for.

3) USS Enterprise's name is to be reused as consistently as possible, ensuring that there is one and only one Enterprise in service at all times.
4) It is permissible to not have an Enterprise if and only if we lose the previous Enterprise, and are not at that time building explorers, meaning no replacement is readily available.

5) In honor of the unique role played by Kirk (a legacy adequately continued by ka'Sharren and not disgraced by Harriman) and the crew of his (and her, and his, respectively) Enterprise, the registry number NCC-1701 is to be kept permanently in service, attached to the Enterprise of that era.
6) To avoid ambiguity, ships registered as NCC-1701 will receive a suffix letter as necessary.
7) No other ship is to be honored as outlined in (5) and (6), unless that ship consistently performs extraordinary services on a level worthy of legend, such as to stretch the boundaries of what is meant by the word 'heroism.' (e.g. saving the galaxy multiple times).
 
Simon_Jester said:
Right; I'm mainly trying to get a discussion of precedents and reasoning.

Are we in agreement that:

1) Ship names can be reused, whenever we see fit.
2) Ship names need not come with a letter on the end to indicate a reused name. Indeed, this is normally not done, because that is normally what registry numbers are for.

3) USS Enterprise's name is to be reused as consistently as possible, ensuring that there is one and only one Enterprise in service at all times.
4) It is permissible to not have an Enterprise if and only if we lose the previous Enterprise, and are not at that time building explorers, meaning no replacement is readily available.

5) In honor of the unique role played by Kirk (a legacy adequately continued by ka'Sharren and not disgraced by Harriman) and the crew of his (and her, and his, respectively) Enterprise, the registry number NCC-1701 is to be kept permanently in service, attached to the Enterprise of that era.
6) To avoid ambiguity, ships registered as NCC-1701 will receive a suffix letter as necessary.
7) No other ship is to be honored as outlined in (5) and (6), unless that ship consistently performs extraordinary services on a level worthy of legend, such as to stretch the boundaries of what is meant by the word 'heroism.' (e.g. saving the galaxy multiple times).
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Sounds good.
 
Night said:
Of course, it's not remotely clear that's what happened with the Enterprise. In fact given the fate of the -C, it almost certainly isn't what happened with the Enterprise, as there was probably a gap of several years rather than "strip the paint off the next Galaxy to commission".
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Some poking around Memory Alpha puts it at 22 years between the loss of the -C and the launch of the -D.
Quest canon (please don't make me try and match show canon with ship production times) puts it at six years between the loss of the -C and the beginning of the USS Galaxy as the name ship of her class. On that basis the Enterprise-D could have been commissioned six years earlier, as the second Galaxy class ship, but no sooner assuming a single Galaxy capable berth.
I think.
Simon_Jester said:
Right; I'm mainly trying to get a discussion of precedents and reasoning.

Are we in agreement that:

1) Ship names can be reused, whenever we see fit.
2) Ship names need not come with a letter on the end to indicate a reused name. Indeed, this is normally not done, because that is normally what registry numbers are for.

3) USS Enterprise's name is to be reused as consistently as possible, ensuring that there is one and only one Enterprise in service at all times.
4) It is permissible to not have an Enterprise if and only if we lose the previous Enterprise, and are not at that time building explorers, meaning no replacement is readily available.

5) In honor of the unique role played by Kirk (a legacy adequately continued by ka'Sharren and not disgraced by Harriman) and the crew of his (and her, and his, respectively) Enterprise, the registry number NCC-1701 is to be kept permanently in service, attached to the Enterprise of that era.
6) To avoid ambiguity, ships registered as NCC-1701 will receive a suffix letter as necessary.
7) No other ship is to be honored as outlined in (5) and (6), unless that ship consistently performs extraordinary services on a level worthy of legend, such as to stretch the boundaries of what is meant by the word 'heroism.' (e.g. saving the galaxy multiple times).
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Looks solid to me.
 
I would prefer, of course, that we in general avoid reusing names as a matter of policy, except where the previous ship is destroyed or lost permanently (Ex: Decommissioning).
 
Shard said:
I would prefer, of course, that we in general avoid reusing names as a matter of policy, except where the previous ship is destroyed or lost permanently (Ex: Decommissioning).
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I don't think anyone objects to that.

Though I'd note that we could always put old Enterprise in decommissioned mothballs, commission new Enterprise, and then recommission old Enterprise under a new name. Or a new role. By he time the Galaxy-class rolls around Starfleet is still throwing around Excelsiors in TNG and even DS9 (with the Lakota getting to be the most genuinely badass Excelsior ever for going one on one with Benjamin Sisko's Pimp Hand), but they're performing the Cruiser role of this quest.
 
Simon_Jester said:
1) Ship names can be reused, whenever we see fit.
2) Ship names need not come with a letter on the end to indicate a reused name. Indeed, this is normally not done, because that is normally what registry numbers are for.

3) USS Enterprise's name is to be reused as consistently as possible, ensuring that there is one and only one Enterprise in service at all times.
4) It is permissible to not have an Enterprise if and only if we lose the previous Enterprise, and are not at that time building explorers, meaning no replacement is readily available.

5) In honor of the unique role played by Kirk (a legacy adequately continued by ka'Sharren and not disgraced by Harriman) and the crew of his (and her, and his, respectively) Enterprise, the registry number NCC-1701 is to be kept permanently in service, attached to the Enterprise of that era.
6) To avoid ambiguity, ships registered as NCC-1701 will receive a suffix letter as necessary.
7) No other ship is to be honored as outlined in (5) and (6), unless that ship consistently performs extraordinary services on a level worthy of legend, such as to stretch the boundaries of what is meant by the word 'heroism.' (e.g. saving the galaxy multiple times).
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
1. From what I've seen, about half of all ships in traditional navies have reused names. The biggest exception is when a navy is rapidly expanding, and runs out of old names. We should probably aim for something similar long term. (My sample size here was rather limited, so if anyone has more complete data, I'd be interested.)

2. I don't think this is something we should avoid. I'm fine with it being more common then alpha canon had it.

3. & 4. Canonically this didn't seem to happen – witness the gap between Enterprise C and D – and I'm not sure changing that is worth it.

5. @OneirosTheWriter seems to disagree, witness the registry he gave Enterprise B :V

6. & 7. As established in 2, making this unique to Enterprise seems off. I'd rather it be a general policy or not applied.
 
Shard said:
I would prefer, of course, that we in general avoid reusing names as a matter of policy, except where the previous ship is destroyed or lost permanently (Ex: Decommissioning).
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I would strongly prefer this as well. Even if we accidentally end up with two ships sharing the same registry number because of a time anomaly. :D

sebsmith said:
1. From what I've seen, about half of all ships in traditional navies have reused names. The biggest exception is when a navy is rapidly expanding, and runs out of old names. We should probably aim for something similar long term. (My sample size here was rather limited, so if anyone has more complete data, I'd be interested.)

2. I don't think this is something we should avoid. I'm fine with it being more common then alpha canon had it.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I said "ships need not come with a letter on the end." That is meant to be interpreted literally- it is not required. We can do it, or not do it.

3. & 4. Canonically this didn't seem to happen – witness the gap between Enterprise C and D – and I'm not sure changing that is worth it.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
There are strong reasons to believe that (3) and (4) are EXACTLY what happened with the Enterprise-A, -B, possibly -C, and -E. In particular, we know that a new Enterprise-A was available to Kirk within months of the loss of the original Enterprise, that the Enterprise-B was ready no more than a year after the decommissioning of the Enterprise-A, and that the Enterprise-E was available a fairly short amount of time after the loss of the Enterprise-D at Veridian III.

In each case, the evidence suggests that an existing ship under construction was renamed Enterprise.

The gap between the 'C' and 'D' Enterprises indicates that Starfleet does not always choose to immediately name a new ship Enterprise. If you will kindly pay attention to the exact wording of (3) and (4), you will note that I don't say anything about us having to do that. In particular, if there are no new explorers under construction, it would be ill done to rename an existing one 'Enterprise.' However, if we lose an Enterprise, AND IF we are building explorers, THEN I think we should name a new explorer Enterprise, as appears to have been Starfleet practice for most of the period from 2285 to the mid-2370s.

5. @OneirosTheWriter seems to disagree, witness the registry he gave Enterprise B :V
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
If that is the case...

Since the NCC-1701-letter registries are extremely basic show canon, and of considerable sentimental value, I continue to respectfully disagree with Oneiros on this issue. I will engage in civil disobedience on this issue whenever applicable, even though I would normally defer to his wishes.

6. & 7. As established in 2, making this unique to Enterprise seems off. I'd rather it be a general policy or not applied.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I do not see why this policy is "off." Enterprise does indeed enjoy a special status within our fleet. It is an extremely prestigious name and ship, and the name carries with it a weight of tradition that is unmatched by any other ship in our fleet. To be sure, the fleet has some truly illustrious and noble legacies... but there is only one Enterprise.

Pretending otherwise accomplishes nothing, save to alienate everyone in the fleet who lacks green blood and pointy ears.
 
So I've been watching bits a pieces of Deep Space Nine because why not. Mostly I was watching the battles and the parts pertaining to the battles and look at the number of ships in the battles and the numbers shown on screen and remembered a question posed earlier in the thread about how the federation went from 30 ships to 600+ ship concentrations. The Answer I think is that they are including the Peregrines in those numbers the federations two man attack fighters. For every big ship in the fleet there tended to be between 5 to 20 of the strike fighters and if you add that all up the numbers started to come our right.
 
Remove ads
2311.Q1.M2 - Master of Orion
  • Threadmarks
    • Colonial Plaza, Amepa III, Orion Union Space

    "Good morning, citizen," greets the Caitian police officer.

    "Good morning, Lieutenant," replies an aging Orion woman at her food stall on the edge of the plaza. "Lovely weather isn't it?"

    "It always is on Amepa, ma'am," replies the young Caitian officer.

    "The usual?" the woman asks as she leans over her supply of Orion street foods.

    The young Lieutenant is leading a patrol through the capital of the small colony world, offering a smile for every civilian he passes, belying the firepower at his disposal. He has done this every morning for the past four weeks, though with a constantly switching start time and route. However, he overlooked a repeating pattern in his own actions. A repeating action that leads him to this food stall at some point in his course. A repeating action that leads to an Orion man kneeling on a rooftop across the plaza with a disruptor rifle to hand.

    That morning, disruptor and phaser fire ripple throughout the colonial capital. By the end of the week, the city morgue is surrounded by tent annexes.

    -

    Anti-Slavery Task Force Monthly Report

    Starfleet assets have settled in to Bradia and are starting to look into setting down roots. So far the Syndicate assets on the planet appear to be reacting warily, keeping their heads down and seeing what Starfleet will do. Or, alternatively, they're preparing for a massive assault. There are differing viewpoints among the local Starfleet Intelligence assets. The USS Arkham from Starfleet Engineering Command has deployed to help set up Commodore T'Lorel's base of operations on Bradia, installing shield generators and transporters. It is not the most friendly looking of establishments, but T'Lorel's requirements were long on practicality and short on aesthetics.

    Our Caitian allies have been involved in violent clashes on the colony world of Amepa, where local Syndicate affiliates took to ambushing patrols. The Frontier Police rallied and in the end inflicted stiffer casualties than they received. It has served as a wake-up call for General K'Harss' men, and units throughout Orion space are tightening up their procedures with the lessons learned from 9th Battalion. At latest count, nearly a dozen Frontier Police have been slain on Amepa and another thirty-plus are casualties of some degree. However, the Amepan Syndicate agents are now in disarray, with dozens of casualties incurred.

    On Alukk, cooperation between Federation and Union law enforcement bore fruit, as the Rigellian regulatory team identified a subsidiary of the Norlhan Corporation that was being used as a shell corporation for Syndicate money laundering. That ring has been rolled up by members of the Security Services Division, and its members are now facing trial.

    [+2 Impact, +2 Cost]
    [Caitian Frontier Police 9th Battalion on Amepa, 4/5hp]
    [Syndicate 'Local Assets', Amepa, 1/3hp]
    [Syndicate Money Laundering Team Arrested, pending Trial]

    -

    Caitian Frontier Police Report
    End of Watch

    1st Lieutenant Sherrar K'Rassir - 2290-2311
    2nd Lieutenant Virhaya Mrr'kar -2293-2311
    Police Staff Sergeant Jiraya Nirfar - 2278-2311
    Police Sergeant Sarr L'Hiarr - 2281-2311
    Senior Constable P'Shirr M'hian - 2285-2311
    Senior Constable Barrhar Vrr'far - 2290-2311
    Constable James Mael - 2291-2311
    Constable Riar O'harr - 2291-2311
    Constable Nishar N'hial - 2292-2311
    Constable Torram Sharmir - 2293-2311
    Technical Special Forshan P'Ghier - 2269-2311
     
    Last edited:
  • Threadmarks
    • RIP Caitian police...

    It appears that they need to vary their patrol routes some more and/or take note of potential ambush and sniper spots, so that the Syndicate won't get the drop on them.
     
    Last edited:
    The Big Brother Spaceship is watching you. :V

    Do they have CCTV cameras, surveillance drones and the like?
     
    OneirosTheWriter said:
    1st Lieutenant Sherrar K'Rassir - 2290-2311
    2nd Lieutenant Virhaya Mrr'kar -2293-2311
    Police Staff Sergeant Jiraya Nirfar - 2278-2311
    Police Sergeant Sarr L'Hiarr - 2281-2311
    Senior Constable P'Shirr M'hian - 2285-2311
    Senior Constable Barrhar Vrr'far - 2290-2311
    Constable James Mael - 2291-2311
    Constable Riar O'harr - 2291-2311
    Constable Nishar N'hial - 2292-2311
    Constable Torram Sharmir - 2293-2311
    Technical Special Forshan P'Ghier - 2269-2311
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...

    o7
     
    Reader mode
    You must login or register to reply here.
    Remove ads
    Back
    Top