Ships of the Constitution class in TOS were generally named after famous warships from history. In terrestrial navies, most ship classes also follow a naming scheme (or several in the case of US Nimitz-class CVNs). However, most starship classes in the movies and later TV series didn't seem to follow a coherent naming scheme. When did the naming schemes run off the rails? What ship and what writer can we blame? What was the effect, if any, of The Star Trek Encyclopedia, which placed previously class-less ships into classes and gave names to previously unnamed classes?
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
Who are you again?
Personally I think naming schemes can be a little limiting and I tend to imagine it being the sort of thing that's only really don in the initial order of a new ship. After that it's up to whatever admiralty subcommittee decides they want to go with. There are some trends though as I recall, though the runabout/Earth's rivers one is the only one the really springs to mind.
As for the real world explanation, I think it's just a result of the sheer number of writers contributing, picking whatever name they think up with (for the most part) little or no thought as to what class it might be. That or just blame Okuda. Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
I have an in-Museum idea that might work. Originally Earth kept a stranglehold on all ship production, and so the ship naming was also kept centralized. But after 2250 as more ships were built outside the Sol system, and more and more ships were being constructed, a coherent naming system was less practical.
In any case, I think the real change happened during TNG, when the writers showed lots of smaller cruisers and scouts (TOS had mostly other heavy cruisers). And the writers seemed to pick just any old name they felt like at the time.
I don't think it's a bad thing, though. After all, a naming system for ships is what is giving us the new Gerald R. Ford-class supercarrier. Such a lousy name for the next flagship class of the Navy. (I mean, Ford was not a bad president, certainly helped the country recover after Nixon... but why are they naming a ship after him?)
Posted by OnToMars (Member # 621) on :
And remember that even the US Navy is kind of wonky when it comes to naming ships.
The three main submarine classes all have a consistent naming scheme with these weird exceptions:
The Los Angeles class is all cities except for the Hyman G. Rickover.
Ohio all states except the Henry M. Jackson.
I subscribe partially to MM's idea, with the added caveat that naming schemes correspond to the batches the ships are ordered in. So maybe one batch of Miranda's is named for Shakespeare characters and another is named for Earth cities.
And nothing says Shipmaster Bob can't name the odd spaceframe the Henry M. Jackson, whoever the hell that is.
Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
Consistent class names can be a pain in the ass, especially if you have to come up with a couple hundred fish names for submarines. On the other hand consistent names allow you to immediately recognize to which class a ship belongs. Therefore, I think consistent names are good. I wish I had been more careful when I started the Starfleet Museum. Damn!
I wonder if anyone with time on their hands would want to compile a list of ships and class names in the order they first appeared on screen (on in the encyclopedia)?
I'd rather blame B&B!
Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :
It seems like the Galaxy Class sort of tried to be consistent. You had Enterprise, Venture and Odyssey which all seem adventure/journey oriented. But then you had Galaxy and Yamato which don't.
The best example of consistent names is the Danube Class where all the runabouts we ever saw were all named after Earth rivers.
Posted by The Ginger Beacon (Member # 1585) on :
So, TOS was ok for ship names. All the connies were old Earth ships. Except for the Defiant, that's just stupid, watching a movie and thinking it's real life.
Anyway, we can pretend that sometime between 1966 when old Biff stole the Delorian and changed time into this alternate Trek-universe and the 2260's some navy might launch a ship called Defiant. It's a nice name, I guess.
The Antares is all right too, as the Americans had a cargo ship called that.
The new ships we saw in TAS were supposedly mostly supply ships except the Bonaventure and there were several historical HMS Bonaventures.
TMP was ok too - those ships naned on the radio all sounded like real life or possible future boats.
But then it changes: the Excelcior (named after that hot-air balloon?), the Oberth (well, I suppose you might name a space ship after a rocket scientist) and the Reliant (named after that now defunct manufactuer of three wheeled cars?). Ok, so they start naming ships differently now?
But then TVH comes allong and they revert to old ship names like the Saratoga and the Yorktown. Memory Alpha tells me there was also a USS Shepard that was sending a mayday (I don't remember) but I guess that's ok 'cos I remember the Americans naming a ship after Alan Shepard, so that's cool. I guess.
Er, so TNG, that's where it all went funky. The second show has another Oberth named after a rocket scientist though, I remember that.
Posted by Mars Needs Women (Member # 1505) on :
And the fact the only ship named after Cochrane was an Oberth, and a Nebula was given the name of his ship, the Phoenix. And it was one of those lame Nebulas with the sensor pod. You'd think they give such names to more prominent ships, like the Galaxy or Sovereign.
Seriously though, how much do writers know or care about the ships appearing in the stories they write. Except for the rare occasion when the ship's appearance is integral to the story, I don't think they give to much thought into ensuring the ship's name "fits" with its look.
Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
OK. I guess I have too much time on my hands. Here are some of the names of ships and classes in sequence.
ST I: Revere, Columbia, Entente, Merrimac (Unseen, names from Franz Joseph's TM)
ST II: Reliant (Miranda: Name from TNG era)
ST III: Excelsior, Grissom (Oberth per ST Encyclopedia [STE])
ST IV: Saratoga (Miranda), Yorktown (Constitution?)
So far, so good, although one could argue that Saratoga, an old US Navy name, is more appropriate for the Constitution class. But Saratoga is sort of consistent with "Reliant," and the "Miranda" name didn't exist at the time.
TNG season 1 Enterprise (Galaxy: Whoops, right out of the box. But I guess Enterprises are special) Hood (Excelsior) Tsiolkovsky (Oberth) Fearless (Excelsior) Ajax (Apollo - per TNG season 4 graphic) Stargazer (Constellation) Tripoli (Hokule'a per TNG season 5 graphic) Berlin (Excelsior - per TNG 4 graphic, STE) Melbourne (Excelsior or Nebula) Wellington (Niagara per STE) Trieste (Merced per STE, TNG 4 graphic) Gettysburg (Constellation per STE) Drake (Wambundu per STE) Lalo (Mediterranean per STE) Horatio (Ambassador per STE) Thomas Paine (New Orleans per STE, TNG 4 graphic) John F. Kennedy (unknown) Charleston (Excelsior per STE/TNG 4 graphic) Repulse (Excelsior)
By the end of TNG season 1, we've had a lot of ship names, but the only ships actually on screen were a mess of Excelsiors (most of whose names were appropriate), a repurposed Oberth (with a good name), and Stargazer (Constellation class, kind of appropriate). All the other ships were unseen and were only assigned to classes years later. Most of these ships were assigned to classes that didn't match. So, I guess it is all Okuda's fault!
Posted by Pensive's Wetness (Member # 1203) on :
quote:Originally posted by OnToMars: And remember that even the US Navy is kind of Political when it comes to naming ships.
The three main submarine classes all have a consistent naming scheme with these weird exceptions:
The Los Angeles class is all cities except for the Hyman G. Rickover.
quote:Originally posted by The Ginger Beacon: So, TOS was ok for ship names. All the connies were old Earth Americanships.
remember, peoples imagination was far, far smaller 40+ years ago. But they were more original, though...
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
Masao,
Where did you get the ship name John F. Kennedy? To my knowledge, there's never been a starship with that name. And you forgot the Renegade (New Orleans class per STE)
Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dukhat: Masao,
Where did you get the ship name John F. Kennedy? To my knowledge, there's never been a starship with that name. And you forgot the Renegade (New Orleans class per STE)
Yup, missed Renegade. It was in my notes but somehow didn't make it to the post.
Posted by OnToMars (Member # 621) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mars Needs Women: And the fact the only ship named after Cochrane was an Oberth, and a Nebula was given the name of his ship, the Phoenix. And it was one of those lame Nebulas with the sensor pod. You'd think they give such names to more prominent ships, like the Galaxy or Sovereign.
Well, presumably, the evolved humanity of the future doesn't care about their ships being status symbols. They wouldn't necessarily be concerned with the biggest and baddest ships having the biggest and baddest names. Maybe some are and some aren't.
"A ship is a ship," as Kirk says.
And my point about the submarine naming wasn't that the Navy didn't have reasons for their exceptions, merely that exceptions existed. In fact, at least when it comes to submarines, they're remarkably consistent about their inconsistencies - each of the three main submarine classes have just one exception to their city/state naming scheme, with that exception being a person. And I'm sure Seawolf would've been the same if they were going to build anymore than the current three.
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
quote:Originally posted by Masao:
quote:Originally posted by Dukhat: Masao,
Where did you get the ship name John F. Kennedy? To my knowledge, there's never been a starship with that name. And you forgot the Renegade (New Orleans class per STE)
Yup, missed Renegade. It was in my notes but somehow didn't make it to the post.
Interesting. All this time, and I'd never even known about that ship. Time to update my shiplist.
Posted by Bernd (Member # 6) on :
Well, it's the writers who name the ships. They either have no idea what class of ship it is, or they have a specific idea but don't care what the previous ships or the class were named for.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
It's a bit odd though that ships with general terms as names should all be in english- stuff like "Discovery" would have a Vulcan or Andorian equivalent...but we never see those. I guess there might be some ship named (for example) Fearless in Andorian precluding the same name being used in english or another ship- just to avoid confusion via translators.
Posted by OnToMars (Member # 621) on :
One question I've had for awhile is how they handle instances of common names, since, unlike the US Navy (at least in most cases) they don't use the full name when naming a ship after a person.
So, how do you differentiate between the Excelsior class USS Washington named after the president and general, the New Orleans class USS Washington named after the city, the Ambassador class USS Washington named after the state, and the runabout USS Washington named after the river?
I figured that when Starfleet made its transition from centralized naming to each shipyard having semi-autonomous control, they simply stopped worrying about it, and the high minded enlightened souls of the Federation have mostly outgrown the vestigial tradition of naming your transportation device, except for the purely practical aspect of having something to call yourself when you talk to another ship.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
I think there is a matter of encouraged ship's pride to consider as well- each ship attempting to be the very best and having a ship's name and history to rally around is a great psychological tool for team building and morale.
Posted by Whorfin (Member # 2208) on :
quote:Originally posted by Masao: When did the naming schemes run off the rails? What ship and what writer can we blame? What was the effect, if any, of The Star Trek Encyclopedia, which placed previously class-less ships into classes and gave names to previously unnamed classes?
Personally, the only people I *know* of who spent time working out a consistent naming scheme in any sanctioned capacity, even peripherally, are the original TOS production staff (memos reproduced in TMOST) and Franz Joseph (who's work was borrowed for several movies). I don't believe most of the writers or producers of non-TOS Trek were aware that there should be naming schemes for ship classes, and my evidence for this is we see very little substantiation for thematic naming of ships of different classes onscreen. And there are plain mistakes and illogic, the most notable examples being the Istanbul and Constantinople being members of the same class while being names for the same city and the Enterprise class reverting (without exposition) back to the Constitution class in the movies.
Other than, of course, "cruisers" which Starfleet tends to name after "famous ships", which in effect can be almost anything (including cities, states, explorers, politicians, etc.). Which is kind of a get-out-of-jail-free card. As long as everything is a "cruiser". Excuse me, "starship".
quote:Originally posted by Masao: All the other ships were unseen and were only assigned to classes years later. Most of these ships were assigned to classes that didn't match. So, I guess it is all Okuda's fault!
Its been discussed by various parties that there are chronological and canon difficulties with some of the Encyclopedia entries (among other "official" publication), but this is actually a separate problem (perhaps best termed, "class assignment chaos) that exacerbated the "no class naming scheme" problem a bit, but didn't create it. If we can prove the writers came to Okuda and had him select names for the ships while writing the episodes, then he would be responsible for that, but my guess is that they didn't.
I think there are several causes for this problem:
No planned Class/Ship/Registry scheme. Possibly during production TOS, other than the list of ship names. Rejection of the Franz Joseph scheme, post STII (or thereabouts). Whether this was due to GR or Mr. Okuda, or both, is speculation. FJ was the official scheme, fully detailed (as far as it went), and then he was 'waporized'. Possible transient production staff during the movie era (contributes to lack of consistency and long-term planning). No planned Class/Ship/Registry scheme during TNG/DS9/VOY(& ST:E?).
So, while the fans had FJ and expanded upon his system in their own productions, the franchise remained oblivious to the need for a preconceived system. Ship names are made up ad-hoc, and is it no surprise that in the end nothing makes any sense. Add to that the tendency for there to be omissions, slip-ups, and blatant mistakes in the "official" published guides, and what you get is chaos. The fans continue to point out the mistakes and inconsistencies, and continue to be ignored. Ultimately the fans have broken down into two camps the FJ camp that reveres his effort to standardized the class/name/registry system and the fans who have expanded on it, and the people who are under the impression that the Jein/Okuda current-franchise system presented in the (more recent) "official" publications and TOS-R is "canon" despite its chaotic and (at times) contradictory nature.
Personally, I consider the issues with registry number anomalies to be much more annoying and serious, as it generally can only be retconned using "ship upgrades" as an explanation, but that's probably another thread. At least it provides lots of job security for nit-pickers.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)