Since the 11 page thread on the topic seemed to end with some still-unresolved questions, this was one of the first caps I grabbed from the Nem DVD.
A couple of digits still seem a bit iffy, but hope this helps regarding everything else.
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
It's also worth noting that the "Aires" probably should be "Aries", since whatever nitwit who did that screen probably also did the one which appeared briefly when Geordi reported the tertiary EM spike thingy, and informed Picard that it was thalaron.
That screen, which is fortunately covered over within a couple of frames, features a reference to a "subspace fluxuation" and a "hyrdrogen pocket".
Posted by Phoenix (Member # 966) on :
It's a bit of a coincidence that there are two class ships in that list, isn't it?
And there would be three if the Nova had a lower registry...
Posted by Mark Nguyen (Member # 469) on :
Special dispensation. I see no reason not to assume that the original USS Nova was at some time destroyed, and Starfleet commissioned another one of the same class in her place. They did it with the Defiant, but that's an NCC conundrum best left for another thread.
What I find odd is that all of the ships are apparently of different classes, unless the USS Archer is an Excelsior...
Mark
Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
Anyone want to speculate on the origins of this "STAR FLEET BATTLE GROUP OMEGA"?
First of all, I can only remember the "STAR FLEET MEDICAL FACILITY" label on that statue in front of the "STARFLEET MEDICAL CENTER" building from a Voyager episode. Are there other examples of this spelling?
I find it a bit strange that Starfleet operates "Battle Groups". Doesn't sound like a politically correct 24th century Federation term to me. And considering the "Omega" part, there could be at least 23 other "Battle Groups"...
Perhaps, and I like this better, SFBGO was an Earth naval group posted along the Romulan border, and Starfleet still has ships in this old "Battle Group" patroling the Zone.
Posted by Phoenix (Member # 966) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mark Nguyen: Special dispensation. I see no reason not to assume that the original USS Nova was at some time destroyed, and Starfleet commissioned another one of the same class in her place. They did it with the Defiant, but that's an NCC conundrum best left for another thread.
What I find odd is that all of the ships are apparently of different classes, unless the USS Archer is an Excelsior...
Mark
I wasn't saying it was a mistake. It seems highly likely that the original Nova was destroyed in the Dominion War.
I do think it would be odd to have a Nova Class in a Battle Group, though.
As regards the name of the Battle Group, I am inclined to belive that SFBGO is the Enterprise's personal fleet (due to the "our fleet" reference).
I suspect that a "Battle Group" is a "fleet" that isn't actually attached to a specific numbered "fleet" (Sixth Fleet or whatever) but operates autonomously under the command of a large capital ship like a Sovereign.
24 sounds like a reasonable number for these autonomous fleets, considering the likely number of powerful Sovereign/Galaxy type ships.
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
What I find really interesting about that list is that Riker served as XO on one of those ships, and was offered command of another of those ships!
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
I'd say the archer is an Excelsior: the registry fits...and I like the idea far better than the obvious alternative: a Constilation that's still in service.
What other ships have we seen with registries in the "44xxx" range? A very early Chyenne or New Orleans mabye? I could dig a New Orleans class Archer. Could be an Ambassador too I guess...
Posted by Phoenix (Member # 966) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon: I'd say the archer is an Excelsior: the registry fits...and I like the idea far better than the obvious alternative: a Constilation that's still in service.
What other ships have we seen with registries in the "44xxx" range? A very early Chyenne or New Orleans mabye? I could dig a New Orleans class Archer. Could be an Ambassador too I guess...
It could be a Centaur-type. Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
As far as the spelling of "Star Fleet" is concerned, it's already been pointed out that whoever made the displays couldn't type correctly to save his life (at least on the day the displays were created).
Posted by Cpt. Kyle Amasov (Member # 742) on :
quote:Originally posted by Malnurtured Snay: What I find really interesting about that list is that Riker served as XO on one of those ships, and was offered command of another of those ships!
Riker has been offered command of so many ships it would be a surprise if there was not one of them present in a fleet...
If we assume that Archer is as important as a historic figure as the NX-01 is in the 24th century, the ship is an Oberth or a Runabout.
What's the origin of the "Omega"? If the fleet was just assembled to stop the Scimitar, with every ship available in that area of the neutral zone, shouldn't it be "Battle Group Alpha" instead? I can't believe Starfleet assembled more than 20 fleets (going by the names "Alpha", "Beta" and so on). On the other hand it was probably Starfleet's (or Star Fleet's?) way of making things more dramatic. Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:
If we assume that Archer is as important as a historic figure as the NX-01 is in the 24th century, the ship is an Oberth or a Runabout.
They could just as easily be honoring his father you know. Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon:
quote:
If we assume that Archer is as important as a historic figure as the NX-01 is in the 24th century, the ship is an Oberth or a Runabout.
They could just as easily be honoring his father you know.
Or his great grandson, the famous diplomat and first Federation Ambassador to Romulus.
On the other hand there must be other families with the name Archer who have nothing to do with the man who designed the warp 5 engine, genetically or otherwise.
It might not be named after a person at all, after all Archer is or rather was a job description, just like Bozeman ;-)
Posted by Rogue Starship (Member # 756) on :
I remember somewhere that the Hood was destroyed in the Dominion War??? Fact or am i just wierd?
Posted by Spike (Member # 322) on :
Nope, the Hood wasn't destroyed. Maybe you mean the Cairo or Valley Forge?
Posted by Cpt. Kyle Amasov (Member # 742) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rogue Starship: I remember somewhere that the Hood was destroyed in the Dominion War??? Fact or am i just wierd?
It was at Chin'toka, but it was not destroyed AFAIK. Furthermore, that ship had the registry of the Lakota, so, after all, if the Excelsior in question was destroyed in that episode, we could still say it was the Lakota.
So you say the Archer could be named after another Archer? What if there have been two Archers? Say, a Starfleet Admiral from the Dominion war and Henry Archer? Would it be enough to have one USS Archer even if you want to honor both of them? We know that Starfleet has ships like the USS Thomas Paine for example, to make it clear which Paine they mean (if there are more than one). Either they only have one important Archer from history (and several Paines) and it is not neccessary to name it USS Henry Archer, or we finally have a solution for the 'one name, more than one ship'-problem (Melbourne, Lexingtion, Nova). Posted by Spike (Member # 322) on :
quote:we could still say it was the Lakota.
Although it didn't look like the Lakota?
Posted by Phoenix (Member # 966) on :
quote:Originally posted by Cpt. Kyle Amasov: So you say the Archer could be named after another Archer? What if there have been two Archers? Say, a Starfleet Admiral from the Dominion war and Henry Archer? Would it be enough to have one USS Archer even if you want to honor both of them? We know that Starfleet has ships like the USS Thomas Paine for example, to make it clear which Paine they mean (if there are more than one). Either they only have one important Archer from history (and several Paines) and it is not neccessary to name it USS Henry Archer, or we finally have a solution for the 'one name, more than one ship'-problem (Melbourne, Lexingtion, Nova).
I suspect the USS Thomas Paine is called that because USS Paine sounds identical to USS Pain, which wouldn't convey quite the right image to people they meet.
The vast majority of ships named after people (I actually made a list in a thread once - it's about 50) use only their surname.
Posted by Cpt. Kyle Amasov (Member # 742) on :
quote:Originally posted by Spike:
quote:we could still say it was the Lakota.
Although it didn't look like the Lakota?
Who said they can't rerefit a refit back?
Most Starfleet ships, yes, but real ships often use the full name (think of aircraft carriers as a prominent example).
Posted by Phoenix (Member # 966) on :
quote:Originally posted by Cpt. Kyle Amasov: Most Starfleet ships, yes, but real ships often use the full name (think of aircraft carriers as a prominent example).
I don't see what real ships have to do with this discussion. Starfleet usually uses surnames alone (45 known ships), and there are only 3 examples of first names (Nils Bohr, John Muir, Thomas Paine), the last of which can be explained away and the first two were never clearly seen. Why would Starfleet change their practice just for the USS Archer?
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
Perhaps the USS Archer was named for the Archer-class patrol ships that served during the Romulan War? Posted by Cpt. Kyle Amasov (Member # 742) on :
quote:Originally posted by Phoenix:
quote:Originally posted by Cpt. Kyle Amasov: Most Starfleet ships, yes, but real ships often use the full name (think of aircraft carriers as a prominent example).
I don't see what real ships have to do with this discussion. Starfleet usually uses surnames alone (45 known ships), and there are only 3 examples of first names (Nils Bohr, John Muir, Thomas Paine), the last of which can be explained away and the first two were never clearly seen. Why would Starfleet change their practice just for the USS Archer?
I assume that - in a fleet of several thousand vessels - there are more than one ship (the Thomas Paine) that require such an addition. And if this is the case, why didn't Starfleet use the full name of a person anyway instead of this 'sometimes we do it this way, sometimes we have to do it the other way'-thing? I brought real ships into the discussion because they use the full name of a person, which simply makes more sense. The problems are at hand: What if you have a USS Roddenberry, named after the famous TV producer. Then, someone comes up with the idea to name another ship Roddenberry, after someone else. What do you do? Add a 'Gene' to the name afterwards? Just tell the guy to use another name, allthough the other Roddenberry may have been much more important to history than Gene? Or does a ship with that name automatically honor not only Gene Roddenberry but every Roddenberry who ever existed? What would be the reason for naming a ship after someone in that case? Here's something else, just my personal solution: All the ships, the Brattains and Nobles and Pasteurs and Al-Batanis and so on do have the full name assigned to them (like the Thomas Paine), but it's either not used for whatever reason or the Captain of a ship or a commission or someone else decides if the ship should use the full name or not (Think of ships like a USS Stalin or USS Hitler; Starfleet would veto if the ship is to use that name only, to make clear they are actually referring to the famous scientist John Stalin or starfleet captain Edward Hitler. Maybe another guy named Paine has been a big player in the Eugenic Wars or was responsible for World War 3. )
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Is'nt there a Churchill? ...not "Winston Churchill" either. Posted by Fleet-Admiral Michael T. Colorge (Member # 144) on :
The Hood was last visually seen with the Defiant and a BOP when the Allied Fleet took out the Cardassian Orbital Weapons Platform and took over Cardassia Prime. She came out in one piece. The Cairo was listed as missing in action near the Federation/Cardassian border with Captain Leslie Wong in command. I guess Jelico had the USS Galaxy when the Hood was seen.... The Valley Forge was damaged severly when the Allied forces took over Cardassia Prime thanks to the OWP, along with the USS Galaxy.
Posted by Phoenix (Member # 966) on :
quote:Originally posted by Cpt. Kyle Amasov: I assume that - in a fleet of several thousand vessels - there are more than one ship (the Thomas Paine) that require such an addition. And if this is the case, why didn't Starfleet use the full name of a person anyway instead of this 'sometimes we do it this way, sometimes we have to do it the other way'-thing? I brought real ships into the discussion because they use the full name of a person, which simply makes more sense.
Erm, I don't really care why. They just normally use the surname, and that's that. Oh, and real ships having full names makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, and the US Navy is the only major navy I can think of that uses full names rather than surnames.
And with a fleet of 10,000 or so ships and 150 member worlds, each with major cities, rivers, mountains and historical figures, I shouldn't think Starfleet has an awful lot of trouble finding unique names.
quote:Originally posted by Cpt. Kyle Amasov: The problems are at hand: What if you have a USS Roddenberry, named after the famous TV producer. Then, someone comes up with the idea to name another ship Roddenberry, after someone else. What do you do? Add a 'Gene' to the name afterwards? Just tell the guy to use another name, allthough the other Roddenberry may have been much more important to history than Gene? Or does a ship with that name automatically honor not only Gene Roddenberry but every Roddenberry who ever existed? What would be the reason for naming a ship after someone in that case?
It automatically honours everyone with that name. That doesn't seem to be a problem for me. Who it is named after does not appear on the dedication plaque, it's just a name, not an personal ego-booster for the person it's named after like some US Navy ships seem to be.
quote:Originally posted by Cpt. Kyle Amasov: Here's something else, just my personal solution: All the ships, the Brattains and Nobles and Pasteurs and Al-Batanis and so on do have the full name assigned to them (like the Thomas Paine), but it's either not used for whatever reason or the Captain of a ship or a commission or someone else decides if the ship should use the full name or not (Think of ships like a USS Stalin or USS Hitler; Starfleet would veto if the ship is to use that name only, to make clear they are actually referring to the famous scientist John Stalin or starfleet captain Edward Hitler. Maybe another guy named Paine has been a big player in the Eugenic Wars or was responsible for World War 3. )
To be perfectly honest, that's a pretty silly solution, especially since we have seen the dedication plaques of ships named after people.
And I don't think Starfleet will be painting "USS Abu Abdallah Muhammad Ibn Jabir Ibn Sinan al-Batani al-Harrani" on the hull of any of its ships any time soon.
Expecting Starfleet to emulate the US Navy in every single way, even when it obviously doesn't (and in this case actually trying to deny what we have seen on screen in favour of a US Navy system) is one of the things that annoys me most. Starfleet is not the US Navy, has never been the US Navy, and hopefully never will be the US Navy.
And frankly, considering the US Navy has its combat personnel wear baseball caps, calls ships USS George H. W. Bush and USS The Sullivans, and has managed to sink a fishing boat with a Nuclear Submarine, I'm very glad Starfleet doesn't emulate it.
Posted by newark (Member # 888) on :
Aghast. The Sullivans doesn't belong in that sentence. She is honoring the memory of the Sullivan brothers who chose to join the military and died in the service of their country. They are representative of the values our nation places in the military.
Posted by Phoenix (Member # 966) on :
quote:Originally posted by newark: Aghast. The Sullivans doesn't belong in that sentence. She is honoring the memory of the Sullivan brothers who chose to join the military and died in the service of their country. They are representative of the values our nation places in the military.
I am not saying the honour is misplaced, merely that the name is silly. "United States Ship The Sullivans" doesn't make sense. They should have called it "USS Sullivan" or "USS Sullivans", or more sensibly given them a ship each, if they must stick to the full name system.
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
It's surprisingly honest of them to immortalize what are later seen as major cock-ups that way. What other "never again" ships do we have? Does Starfleet have those? Any battlesite-themed name could in theory qualify, but I'm looking for the likes of USS Hiroshima. Or perhaps USS Tian An Men.
Ships are sometimes indeed explicitly named after multiple people. The The Sullivans is an obvious example, the Lewis and Clark another; but HMS Hood was also a nameshare, honoring multiple generations of seagoing heroes. The USN had at least USS Kaufmann, honoring a father and a son. And I think the Spruance did that, too.
(Hmm. Perhaps we should be happy we got USS George H. W. Bush instead of a shorter form, so that the honor isn't unduly spread. )
Starfleet could have pulled the same trick with USS Archer. Or even USS Sarek and USS Surak, considering that Vulcans just plain *have* to recycle those 5-6-digit S...K names sooner or later. Unless the population of the planet is about 47 pairs of pointed ears at any given moment.
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by Phoenix: And I don't think Starfleet will be painting "USS Abu Abdallah Muhammad Ibn Jabir Ibn Sinan al-Batani al-Harrani" on the hull of any of its ships any time soon. [/QB]
Sure they will! On a Galaxy class in one continous concentric circle around the saucer to make their enemies too dizzy to fight. Posted by Phoenix (Member # 966) on :
quote:Originally posted by Timo: It's surprisingly honest of them to immortalize what are later seen as major cock-ups that way. What other "never again" ships do we have? Does Starfleet have those? Any battlesite-themed name could in theory qualify, but I'm looking for the likes of USS Hiroshima. Or perhaps USS Tian An Men.
I think the major point here is that Starfleet represents all the people in the Federation, rather than a particular country. If the US named a ship USS Hiroshima, it would seem to say "aren't we great? we bombed it!", and if the Chinese Navy named a ship Tian An Men it would seem to say "don't rebel! some people did here and look what happened to them!"
However, when Starfleet does it, USS Hiroshima is clearly in honour of the innocent civilians who died, and USS Tian An Men is in honour of those who died there in the name of freedom.
quote:Originally posted by Timo: Ships are sometimes indeed explicitly named after multiple people. The The Sullivans is an obvious example, the Lewis and Clark another; but HMS Hood was also a nameshare, honoring multiple generations of seagoing heroes. The USN had at least USS Kaufmann, honoring a father and a son. And I think the Spruance did that, too.
(Hmm. Perhaps we should be happy we got USS George H. W. Bush instead of a shorter form, so that the honor isn't unduly spread. )
Starfleet could have pulled the same trick with USS Archer. Or even USS Sarek and USS Surak, considering that Vulcans just plain *have* to recycle those 5-6-digit S...K names sooner or later. Unless the population of the planet is about 47 pairs of pointed ears at any given moment.
The point is that Starfleet doesn't need to do anything "explicitly". We have never seen any ship with a famous person's name having whom it is named after specified, and in fact there have been several discussions about whom exactly certain ships are named in honour of.
I believe the thought processes would go something like this:
"Henry and Jonathan Archer are famous, let's call a ship USS Archer"
or
"Pavel Chekov was a good Admiral, let's name a ship USS Chekov"
Rather than:
"Let's name a ship in honour of Pavel Chekov"
or
"Let's name a ship in honour of Jonathan Archer, but call it USS Archer because his father is famous too"
Regarding Vulcan names, perhaps the S***k system is only for aristocratic families.
Posted by Phoenix (Member # 966) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon: Sure they will! On a Galaxy class in one continous concentric circle around the saucer to make their enemies too dizzy to fight.
I can just imagine it...
Paris: "This is Captain Paris of the Federation Starship Abu Abdallah Muhammad Ibn Jabir Ibn Sinan al-Batani al-Harrani."
Alien: "I'm sorry, could you repeat that please? My closed captioning isn't working."
Hanson: "Commander, order the Liberator, the Firebrand and the Abu Abdallah Muhammad Ibn Jabir Ibn Sinan al-Batani al-Harrani to attack at vector 325 mark 8!"
Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
Starfleet has a USS Cortez, and he was a not-so-nice conquistador.
Posted by Phoenix (Member # 966) on :
quote:Hernan Cortez 1485-1547
Cortez was the Spanish conquistador who conquered Mexico.
Cortez was born in Spain. At the age of 19 he sailed for Hispaniola. With Diego Velazquez he conquered Cuba and settled there until 1518 when Velazquez appointed him to lead an expedition to Mexico. With his force of 700 men he landed on the coast of Mexico and founded the settlement of Veracruz. Cortez burned his ships behind him, thereby committing his entire force to survival through conquest.
Cortez moved to Tenochtitlan (Mexico City), the capital of the powerful Aztec Indians. The Aztecs had conquered most of the surrounding tribes. Montezuma, the Aztec ruler received the Spaniards graciously, but was made prisoner and used by Cortez to rule the country. The Aztecs, angered by Montezuma's submission, revolted and forced the Spaniards to withdraw. But Cortez received reinforcements from the West Indies and from many Indian groups who hated the Aztecs because of their cruelty. With this increased army, Cortez captured Tenochtitlan in 1521 and terminated the Aztec empire. For many years Cortez governed Mexico, then called New Spain, but in 1540 he fell out of favor with the king of Spain. He returned to Spain to plead his case in vain. He died in a small village near Seville.
Sounds like he ended an oppressive empire, which doesn't seem to be too bad a thing to do.
(By the way, if you don't like my "Cortez was OK" explanation, it's also the name of several places in the US, including a mountain range in Nevada.)
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
Malinceh isn't too well-liked in Mexico, either. But hey. Times are changing & histories get revised.
quote:Originally posted by Timo: Ships are sometimes indeed explicitly named after multiple people. The The Sullivans is an obvious example, the Lewis and Clark another; but HMS Hood was also a nameshare, honoring multiple generations of seagoing heroes. The USN had at least USS Kaufmann, honoring a father and a son. And I think the Spruance did that, too.
The Arleigh Burke-class DDG USS John S. McCain, named for the current senator & his father. More his dad, but still.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"We have never seen any [Starfleet] ship with a famous person's name having whom it is named after specified..."
As mentioned before, the Thomas Paine. Unless you're saying someone would have to explicitly say "It's the USS Thomas Paine, named specifically after the colonial American author of 'Common Sense'.".
And, given the sentiments brought about by the current regime in the US, I wouldn't be surprised if someone revised Cort�s from "conquistador" to "libertador".
Posted by Phoenix (Member # 966) on :
Actually, I meant primarily on the dedication plaques. If naming it for a particular person were that important, i'd expect something like "Named in honour of Admiral Joe Bloggs, commander of the victorious fleet at the Battle of Rigel XXIV" on them.
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
There's only been one instance of that, with the S�o Paulo which said that it was "named for the people of Brazil." So.
Posted by Spike (Member # 322) on :
quote:Q: Should a ship have been named after Cortez, considering what effect his arrival had on the native Americans?
A: If Cortez had NOT landed in northern Mexico, do you think it would have remained undiscovered until now? Fact #1: somebody was bound to discover the Americas.
Fact #2: any sufficiently advanced civilization or culture will inevitably attempt to exploit any civilization or culture not sufficiently advanced to fight back on a level playing field.
Blaming explorers for exploring has always seemed to me really kind of silly; do people *really* think that if Columbus hadn't landed here, it'd be 1994 and we still wouldn't know the world was round and that this continent was here? It doesn't matter who discovered it, the same result would've come. Somebody had to discover it sooner or later.
That's JMS's explanation why he named an Earth vessel after Cortez on "Babylon 5".
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
I don't really see how that could serve as any sort of redemption, though. I mean, somebody was bound to lead the SS and the concentration camp program in 1930s-40s Germany. If Himmler had not done it, he'd just have been deposed or even killed, and somebody else would have taken his place. There was no stopping that particular train wreck after 1933 or so.
Should there thus not be a USS Himmler in Starfleet, honoring an efficient organizer and skilled solver of the Jewish (Roma, Pole, homosexual etc.) problem? Shouldn't his honesty and devotion be acknowledged, even if some obscure political factions once used to view his career negatively, back before the founding of the Federation?
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by Cartmaniac (Member # 256) on :
"Blaming explorers for exploring has always seemed to me really kind of silly."
Blaming them for exterminating a civilization, on the other hand...
Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
There's a scene in a Trek story I'm writing where an Admiral is going through a list of ships in the area with his adjutant to see what he can form a task-force out of, and part of the dialogue goes:
VICE-ADMIRAL VINCENT (pacing) "Where's the Cortez these days?"
CMDR. PRESTON (checks PADD) "She's overseeing a first contact situation over in sector 21620."
(Vincent pauses in his pacing as they share a slightly pained look)
--Jonah
Posted by Cpt. Kyle Amasov (Member # 742) on :
quote:Originally posted by Timo: I don't really see how that could serve as any sort of redemption, though. I mean, somebody was bound to lead the SS and the concentration camp program in 1930s-40s Germany. If Himmler had not done it, he'd just have been deposed or even killed, and somebody else would have taken his place. There was no stopping that particular train wreck after 1933 or so.
Should there thus not be a USS Himmler in Starfleet, honoring an efficient organizer and skilled solver of the Jewish (Roma, Pole, homosexual etc.) problem? Shouldn't his honesty and devotion be acknowledged, even if some obscure political factions once used to view his career negatively, back before the founding of the Federation?
Timo Saloniemi
Given the fact that Starfleet or anyone else probably don't want to name a ship after him for what he has done, a dedication to a specific person (like Thomas Paine) does only make sense if there has been another person of the same name you do not want to honor. If you have a ship named Archer because you want to honor Henry and John, it's OK. If you have a ship named Thomas Paine, you want to honor Thomas Paine, the author, not Richard Paine, the dictator from the Eugenic Wars. Going back to Cortez, the fact that the ship is just named Cortez could, in this context, mean two things: Either her dedication plaque or the hull say something like "Named for the Nobel Price winner of 2133, Richard Cortez" or USS Richard Cortez or Starfleet does not see Cortez as a dictator and murderer. Option two would cause more problems, anyway. The comparison Cortez - Himmler showed another important thing; what if one country (in the case of Cortez) sees a person as a hero while another country sees him as a criminal? Do you name a ship after Caesar because he was the famous ruler of the Roman Empire, or don't you name the ship for him for the exact same reason, because he killed thousands just to expand his empire?
Phoenix was right, there should be enough non-controversal names for every ship in Starfleet. Sadly the people who come up with new names don't use that source.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)