ATTENTION: The Boards will be closed permanently on May 28th, 2014. Posting will be disabled on April 28th, 2014. More Info

Registry Numbers

Matthias Russell

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 7705

Report this Nov. 04 2010, 2:55 pm

For TOS, Enterprise's resistry number was given NCC-1701.  NCC because American aircraft registries start with an NC and 1701 because it was supposed to be the 17th starship design and the first (or 01) of the series.  There was not meant to be a 1700.  But why 17?


For that matter, the other key ship numbers are:


Voyager- 74656


Defiant- 74205 and 75633


Does anyone know if these numbers were picked for any particular reason, do they have any specific meaning?  For that matter, has anyone ever read why these 2 names were picked or if other names were proposed/considered for these headlining ships?

AdmiralArcher33

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 150

Report this Nov. 04 2010, 3:02 pm

The Enterprise is 1701 because that is the year america gained its declared it's independence which is a extremely historic milestone, I assume that the Enterprise is another historic milestone, so they numbered it 1701. as for the Defiant and Voyager, I'm not so sure.

They have two settings: stun and kill... It'd be best not to confuse them. ~~ Lt. Reed

JaydenJaneway

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1140

Report this Nov. 04 2010, 3:34 pm

ncc means naval construction contract. but the numbers im not sure

Vger23

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 6799

Report this Nov. 04 2010, 3:34 pm

Quote: AdmiralArcher33 @ Nov. 04 2010, 3:02 pm

The Enterprise is 1701 because that is the year america gained its declared it's independence which is a extremely historic milestone, I assume that the Enterprise is another historic milestone, so they numbered it 1701. as for the Defiant and Voyager, I'm not so sure.


No, not at all. Where did you get this information?

Matt Jefferies assigned "1701" arbitrarily because it was easy to read at a distance, and theorized that it was the "1st starship of the 17th class of starships."

I AM KEE-ROCK!!

Vger23

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 6799

Report this Nov. 04 2010, 3:35 pm

JadenJaneway


 


There is nowhere in canon where this is verified. NCC doesn't mean anything that we know of.


I AM KEE-ROCK!!

JaydenJaneway

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1140

Report this Nov. 04 2010, 3:43 pm

ncc is used today on ships and thats what it means and they used it in trek as well. ive seen it in a book and ill find it. just like uss means united starship, on earth today its united states ship or united sea ship. its all just common since. it doesnt have to be "concidered" cannon.

Vger23

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 6799

Report this Nov. 04 2010, 3:54 pm

Quote: JaydenJaneway @ Nov. 04 2010, 3:43 pm

ncc is used today on ships and thats what it means and they used it in trek as well. ive seen it in a book and ill find it. just like uss means united starship, on earth today its united states ship or united sea ship. its all just common since. it doesnt have to be "concidered" cannon.


Yes, it does. If it's not said "on screen" it's not cannon. Books are not canon. Everyone knows this.

There are several "books" that say what NCC stands for.

I've seen

Naval Construction Code
Naval Contract Code
Naval Construction Contract

They can't all be correct. So, who's to judge which reference in a "book" is more correct than another?



Again, that all sounds great in the books, but it's not canon. Sorry. Star Trek has never given us an explanation for what NCC stands for. On that, there can be no argument. So, going and finding what "book" you found it in doesn't prove anything, other than that some author wrote it down in a book.

If it ain't on screen, it ain't canon.

I AM KEE-ROCK!!

Roboto

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 3883

Report this Nov. 04 2010, 3:58 pm

Quote: AdmiralArcher33 @ Nov. 04 2010, 3:02 pm

The Enterprise is 1701 because that is the year america gained its declared it's independence which is a extremely historic milestone, I assume that the Enterprise is another historic milestone, so they numbered it 1701. as for the Defiant and Voyager, I'm not so sure.


Whoah, slow down there. Americans declared independence in 1776, not 1701!

JaydenJaneway

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1140

Report this Nov. 04 2010, 4:00 pm

what ever. im not going to waste my time.


JaydenJaneway

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1140

Report this Nov. 04 2010, 4:12 pm

if thats the case none of any of the books, comic books, games, or anything else that wasnt on film is canon. and alot of fans have established them as cannon. if it has the star trek logo printed on it then it is canon. they have to purchase the rights to even publish the stuff. not everything could be covered on screen. the romulan and klingon empires or in the beta quadrant. they never say it on screen however its common knowledge. and if you only think that only the stuff you see onscreen is only canon, then you are mistaken big time

Vger23

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 6799

Report this Nov. 04 2010, 4:21 pm

Quote: JaydenJaneway @ Nov. 04 2010, 4:12 pm

if thats the case none of any of the books, comic books, games, or anything else that wasnt on film is canon. and alot of fans have established them as cannon. if it has the star trek logo printed on it then it is canon. they have to purchase the rights to even publish the stuff. not everything could be covered on screen. the romulan and klingon empires or in the beta quadrant. they never say it on screen however its common knowledge. and if you only think that only the stuff you see onscreen is only canon, then you are mistaken big time


I'm not mistaken at all. And, I never claimed to "know more than you." I just claimed that you are wrong. There's a difference.

Star Trek "canon" is officially defined as what is seen on-screen in the live-action television episodes and films. Period.

Fans can make up their own canon and beliefs all they want. Heck, if I want to make believe in my head that the DC comics from 1983 are "REALLY" what happened in Star Trek between Trek II and Trek III, I guess that's my perogative. But, when you're talking about the black-and-white letter of the law and definition of "canon" as Star Trek defines it, you're wrong.

Read the introduction to the "Star Trek Encyclopedia" by Michael and Denise Okuda. It verifies that Paramount POLICY states what canon is and is not.

This was done because too many comics, novels, etc. contradict each other. So, the rule was made hard-and-fast that anything that's ONscreen is canon, and anything NOT on screen is not.

So, believe what you want if it makes you happy. I don't care. As I said to you on a different topic: Wishing for something doesn't make it true.

I AM KEE-ROCK!!

AdmiralArcher33

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 150

Report this Nov. 04 2010, 4:24 pm

Quote: Vger23 @ Nov. 04 2010, 3:34 pm

Quote: AdmiralArcher33 @ Nov. 04 2010, 3:02 pm

The Enterprise is 1701 because that is the year america gained its declared it's independence which is a extremely historic milestone, I assume that the Enterprise is another historic milestone, so they numbered it 1701. as for the Defiant and Voyager, I'm not so sure.
No, not at all. Where did you get this information? Matt Jefferies assigned "1701" arbitrarily because it was easy to read at a distance, and theorized that it was the "1st starship of the 17th class of starships."
Well sorry, that was the info I was told! You could be a little nicer.


They have two settings: stun and kill... It'd be best not to confuse them. ~~ Lt. Reed

Vger23

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 6799

Report this Nov. 04 2010, 4:29 pm

Quote: AdmiralArcher33 @ Nov. 04 2010, 4:24 pm

Quote: Vger23 @ Nov. 04 2010, 3:34 pm

Quote: AdmiralArcher33 @ Nov. 04 2010, 3:02 pm

The Enterprise is 1701 because that is the year america gained its declared it's independence which is a extremely historic milestone, I assume that the Enterprise is another historic milestone, so they numbered it 1701. as for the Defiant and Voyager, I'm not so sure.
No, not at all. Where did you get this information? Matt Jefferies assigned "1701" arbitrarily because it was easy to read at a distance, and theorized that it was the "1st starship of the 17th class of starships."
Well sorry, that was the info I was told! You could be a little nicer.


Where was I UNKIND?

I simply pointed out an error and gave the correct explanation. If this has in some way damaged you or made you feel bad, I can't see how I am responsible. If being DIRECT is now somehow considered MEAN, I'm in deep $H!+.

Maybe next time I can say, "hey, brace yourself...I mean nothing personal...but you may have come into some slightly inaccurate information. Allow me to help you out in a gentle way by providing the correct informaiton so you don't have to go through the trauma of being corrected again. Would you like some cookies?"

I admit, THAT would have been a much more sensitive and gentle way to correct you.


I AM KEE-ROCK!!

JaydenJaneway

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1140

Report this Nov. 04 2010, 4:37 pm

the only thing that aggravates me is that anything that is mentioned of star trek that is not on screen, people just take it as not true just because its not onscreen.  ncc here on earth in our time means naval construction contract, if so then they should not have used ncc on star trek.


Matthias Russell

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 7705

Report this Nov. 04 2010, 4:41 pm

Sorry Archer, I'm in agreement with Vger. He wasn't be unkind (in this instance) but factual. That independence year was a very bad call, anyway. Sorry Jayden, but he is also right about canon, and I love the books.

However, in this instance, the point of this thread isn't what's canonical but why the writers and producers chose these designations. As for ncc-1701, I verified my info from the initial post as correct. Sooooooo, any answers?

Forum Permissions

You cannot post new topics in this forum

You cannot reply to topics in this forum

You cannot delete posts in this forum