Voyager prototype Edit
- Boo. :( --From Andoria with Love 02:24, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Hey, I'm not saying I'm in flavor fav of it, just that we might as well face the music now and get this all done and over with... --Alan del Beccio
- Yeah, but I bet you it'll take someone a couple days to do.--Tim Thomason 22:50, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Does anyone know how Starfleet give their ships the registry numbers? is there any kind of order? I have read on a fan site (I can't remember where it was now) that the number increases by one with each vessel. Imaginge Voyager NCC 74656 and Enterprise NCC 1701 ~ that's a difference of 72955 ~ I hard it find to believe that just between the two ships there's been that amount of vessels built.
This is just something that I've always wondered and if anyone knows, or has an idea, how the registries are created I'd be grateful --SpinelessMonkey 18:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
- Why can't you believe that number? They are over 100 years apart, and being constructed by a force that has to cover space 8000 light years across and hundreds of worlds. That takes a lot of ships, and is a lot of capacity to make them. --OuroborosCobra talk 18:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
I know that's along time but still I find it hard to believe that they could and would build nearly seventy-three thousand ships, say over a period of 100 years that's equivalent of nearly 730 a year which is about 60 a month - and after just working that out I know find even harder to believe, I can't see that they'd have the time or resources to build that many ships.
I understand that it's the future and they have better technology but if they could build ships at a rate like that why did they struggle to recover after the Dominion and Borg? remember in Insurrection when Deanna asked why the Federation would accept a new member who have only recently achieved warp and Picard replied 'after the Borg and Dominion the Federation feels it needs all the help it can get' or something like that, I can't remember it exactly.
I just find it hard to believe that the registries are assigned in this way and would like to know if it is and I just can't see the bigger picture or if there is a more believable way this is done ~ SpinelessMonkey 19:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
- My guess is that there's a system that we either can't comprehend, or don't know about. My theory is this: they assign registry numbers upon the start of the project. This explains the rather low registry of the Prometheus (in the 50000s). One could argue that it was started decades ago, but halted for whatever reason, then restarted in the 2370s. The registries were changed everywhere but the hull (which, for whatever reason you can think of, would take more effort/resources/time) to a number in the 70000s. Furthermore, certain classes might be assigned groups of numbers (1700s for the Constitution class ships, etc.) and there might just be large gaps in numbers (hence the lack of ships in the 30000s or 40000s or whatever). This would explain the jumping around. I don't think 70,000+ ships were built in 100 years' time, so there might be gaps to explain the lack of mention of registries in certain groups. - TerranRich 18:07, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
- Let's also keep in mind that
"As of stardate 3219.8, the Federation was spread across more than 1,000 worlds. (TOS: "Metamorphosis") In 2268 there were at least 30 members (TOS: "Journey to Babel"), and by early 2370s, there were more than 150 members of the Federation"
- 730 ships per year would be hard to believe if Terra alone was UFP (Starfleet), but far more resources are available than the original poster seems to consider. 184.108.40.206 18:27, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
- I know this is old, but thought I'd comment here instead of a new section or forum topic. This is something I have been wondering about lately, myself. There seems to be no real rhyme or reason to the registries. For instance, the USS Phoenix (NCC-65420)] was commissioned in 2363, while Galaxy-class starships that came out around the same time had registries in the 71000's, while ships that were launched in 2375 had numbers in the 75000's, at least thats what Memory Beta says the producers intended (I don't know if thats true or not?). I had figured the number had somewhat leaned towards the period it was constructed or launched, but the lower numbers (Such as 1700's, 2000's, etc...) obviously doesn't fit with that. Anyways, they seem to be somewhat random, and as for the ship numbers, remember that not every vessel constructed are the huge heavy cruisers as we've seen the Enterprise's to be, smaller starships and some shuttle/runabout types have been shown to have registries to. I...hope this makes sense, I am kinda tired at the moment, and probably didn't really comment on the article, I know. --Terran Officer 00:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
NCC and NX prefix Edit
what does NCC and NX mean?? --Elitolu 20:10, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- It was never defined in canon what either one means. - TerranRich 14:45, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Enterprise Registry? Edit
- Experimental Aircraft Association Chapter 231 from Richmond, Virginia claims that the registry for the original USS Enterprise was inspired by the 1935 WACO Model YOC aircraft owned by Matt Jefferies – his airplane had the registry NC-17740. 
I swear I remember reading that the reason 1701 was used was simply related to what was viewable on screen 36985 they all look alike but 170 are pretty distinct. I forget where I read it but it was probably in "The Making of Star Trek" (i'll find the correct title later) and even if the above is true 17740 != 1701. It just seems like a production quote stating something vs. a museum with, what sounds like, speculation. — Morder 01:03, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
NX-starships not commissioned? Edit
The article contains the following text:
- It has never been canonically established what the letters "NCC" or "NX" stand for, but in the 23rd and 24th centuries, "NX" (not to be confused with NX class) was used to designate experimental or prototype starships (which were not commissioned as part of the actual fleet) while NCC designated commissioned vessels.
The one part of that quote which doesn't seem to line up with what we've seen in canon is the part about NX registries not being commissioned as a part of the actual fleet. This was most definitely not the case; the USS Defiant was clearly part of the fleet yet retained its NX number until its destruction, being the prototype of its class. (We may surmise that, like the USS Excelsior, the Defiant would have had its registry number changed to NCC eventually had it not been destroyed, though of course this tidbit has no place in the article since it didn't happen in canon.) Does anyone know of any particular evidence supporting the notion that NX ships are not commissioned? -Mdettweiler 00:56, September 24, 2009 (UTC)
- With the exception of all prototype ships seen having a NX instead of a NCC I don't think there is any canon information supporting any reason for the difference in designation. For all we know the NX still stands for a starship of United Earth instead of a Federation starship, much like the Vulcans still have there own ships. - Archduk3:talk 03:49, September 24, 2009 (UTC)
But the Defiant NX-74205 was on many occasions referred to as a Federation starship, and in fact, its dedication plaque said that it was launched from the "Antares Ship Yards, Bajor sector", which is definitely not in the Sol system and would be highly unlikely for a ship of exclusively Earth ownership. This would seem to be strong evidence that NX does *not* refer to Earth ships in the Federation, even if we don't have concrete evidence of it specifically referring to experimental/prototype ships. -Mdettweiler 18:17, September 24, 2009 (UTC)
- I didn't mean to suggest that they were, I was just using that as an example that anything we come up with is speculation, albeit circumstantially supported. I really don't have a issue with the excepted designations, but the issue of what is in the fleet and what is not is by no means clear, just like the difference between USS and SS. - Archduk3:talk 19:04, September 24, 2009 (UTC)
Yes, indeed. Given that, the tidbit in the article about NX-registry ships being not commissioned as part of the actual fleet is completely unwarranted. Since no objections to this have been raised, I'll go ahead and fix it now to more accurately reflect what we know and what we don't know. -Mdettweiler 03:47, September 25, 2009 (UTC)
USS Yukon = NCC-74602? Edit
I see that the USS Yukon is listed as NCC-74602 on the article, though according to that ship's page, that registry was only assigned by the Star Trek Encyclopedia, not ever stated in canon. Is this acceptable for us to list here, or should it be removed? I see that the USS Yangtzee Kiang, USS Mekong (which in fact, according to its article, has two registries listed in the Enyclopedia, but only one is listed in this article), USS Orinoco, and USS Volga are in the same boat, so whatever we decide for this one should apply for them as well. -Mdettweiler 15:28, November 10, 2009 (UTC)
Ah, I see. By that token, I've also removed the Yangtzee Kiang, Mekong, Orinoco, and Volga. (The rest of the runabouts did have registries discernible in canon.) -Mdettweiler 15:52, November 10, 2009 (UTC)
My $0.02: Numerical Classification Code?Edit
I won't ask if "NCC" could stand for "Numerical Classification Code" since it could. The airplane fact from Mr. Jeffries' history is quite plausible and certainly more interesting, especially regarding implied collaboration between the Americans and Russians by combining "NC" and "CCCC" to form "NCC." Maybe "NCC" was also intended to stand for "Numerical Classification Code" in the back of the mind of someone on the art production staff. Such an explanation would also provide a convenient solution for the problem of starship construction quantities: the first two digits of a starship could denote the class of the ship, while the final digits denote the sequence of that ship in the class. Under this system, "1701" would be a formulation of the Constitution-class designation "17" followed by the serial number of the ship in the class, in this case presumed to be "01." With this system, many unused numbers would simply be skipped.
However, posing questions such as "what does NCC stand for" are more satisfactorily answered by the story about Jeffries than by some flat and dull answer such as "Numerical Classification Code." It stands as a reminder of Roddenberry's vision that the future is bright, in contrast to the cold war reality of the 1960's when Star Trek first aired.
I know that this comment is pure opinion and as such I do not expect it to be taken seriously. Finding pseudo-solutions to pseudo-problems is not a substitute for original fiction, as is evident. Then again, this is the talk page. Thank you for withstanding the flapping of my gums - or the flailing of my typing fingers, as the case may be. - Winn cochrane 07:34, December 28, 2009 (UTC)
- It's not that we won't take it seriously, but we do only put factual information within articles or information that can be cited with official sources.--31dot 11:03, December 28, 2009 (UTC)
The K-7 station, and shuttlecraft maybe, should be somewhere on this page, since NCC redirects here, but I'm not sure if it should just be placed in the table or not. - Archduk3 22:56, July 22, 2010 (UTC)
|NX-74210||USS Defiant||Defiant-class||Seen on hull of the NCC-75633 Defiant|