The last of the ships mentioned, the destroyer tender USS Shenandoah AD-44 , is decommissioned in 1996. Three years, she is stricken from the list of active duty ships and placed in Category X. Category X describes a ship stripped for raw parts which are then placed in other ships for repair and maintenance.
[ February 07, 2002, 06:37: Message edited by: targetemployee ]
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
*sigh*
Posted by Cpt. Kyle Amasov (Member # 742) on :
The Shennandoah of 2151 can't be that important if the ship is only good enough to name a runabout after her. Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
Well, keep in mind the Shenandoah runabout was named after the river to fit the Danube naming scheme, while the other Shenandoahs are named after historical events and historical ships. Perhaps there weren't any Shenandoahs at the time and the runabout was registered since naming it after the river wasnt conflicteing with an existing starship at the time. Besides, runabouts rarely make it more than a year, so the name wouldnt be out of circulation that long and might be used for a real starship shortly after the Shenandoah is destroyed (has it been already?)
[ February 07, 2002, 10:00: Message edited by: CaptainMike ]
Posted by Cpt. Kyle Amasov (Member # 742) on :
So if there are two Shennandoahs (hypothetically speaking) at the same time, named after different ships/rivers/events/whatever, this wouldn't conflict with starfleet's naming scheme? Hey, maybe you found a possible explanation for the Melbourne and Lexington and Yeager (and maybe the Intrepis and the other Lexington and...). Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
Ew. No I definately dont support double naming.
Posted by Dat (Member # 302) on :
Starfleet would never have two ships with the same name even if the ships were named after two different sources with the same name. Starfleet generally follows naval tradition and at least the US Navy does not do that.
Look at it in another way. Starfleet has a USS Ajax, which is named after two different people named Ajax. Starfleet would not have two different ships with same name because they're named after two different people with the same name.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
It appears quite likely that runabouts are named by the immediate commanding officer in charge of them, and not Starfleet itself, which only assigns the number. Just a part of their quasi-starship status.
Which means, incidently, that I see no reason why there couldn't be a runabout named the same as a starship, or even another runabout.
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
Um.. no
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
I don't like the idea either. Sure, we saw Sisko just pick a name out of the air for a new runabout, but the fact remains it has an actual registry and a USS prefix, and he can't have known for sure that there wasn't another USS whatever-it-was, either a starship named after said river, or someone somewhere else who liked to name his/her Danube-class runabouts after rivers.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Sisko didn't pull the name out of the air. He said that he wanted the name to be whatever it was. He said it as though it was a decision he'd come to previously. It's not like someone said "What should we call the runabout?" and he said "Um... I dunno... How about, uh... Meramec...", or something.
Posted by J (Member # 608) on :
double naming... humm first time I've ever actually heard it brought up.
All the Intrepid vessels mentioned, Constitution, Excelsior, and Intrepid Classes respectively, are from different time periods. Only the Excelsior and Intrepid have a little conflict with Geordi's comments about the contest between the ships, but really that one is up to one's opinion I think.
Now, you can essentially say that the Intrepid E was renamed when the Intrepid I came out, or you can say double name.
There is a real problem with the Yeager, Sabre and kitbash. Both were shown extremely close to each other, and I am not quite certain how to explain them without saying that one was renamed. I think that the Sabre was shown first, why rename it so a kitbashed ship can have the name Yeager? And since they were shown so close together, if the Sabre was destroyed then who put the grease in the gears of Starfleet buearcracy?
I can argue either way, but personally I accept double naming, there are only so many proper names for ships and there are so many ships. Besides, the identity of a ship is not based on its name, its registry is what matters in that area. The registry is what is broadcast on the transponder. The name pretty much doesn't matter to me.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
I'm only suggesting that runabouts, being only partially starships, can share names with other things. Not starships proper.
Anyway, it seems to me that if the Saber(re) class Yeager was actually labeled such, and the Intrepidized Yeager was not, but was called that in-house, then it isn't really an issue. If you see what I mean.
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
Especially if you consider who the ships were *really* named after.
If the Saber has "USS Yeager" painted on the side, then she definitely honors old Chuck. If the modified Intrepid is verbally considered to be of "Yeager class", then in all likelihood the hull of the class ship would read "USS Jaeger", and be named after old Alex... Both ships would be pronounced the way the German word for "hunter" is pronounced, but there would be no formal confusion. It wouldn't be any worse than having USS Olympia and the Olympic class.
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
Ooh, controversial. 8)
Posted by Dat (Member # 302) on :
I can accept ships with names that sound the same, but with different spellings or even ships with names spelled in different ways, but with the same source, like USS Merrimac and USS Merrimack coexisting in active service at the same time. (I only accept it because for id purposes when in ship listing via text format).
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)