posted
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?
-------------------- When you're in the Sol system, come visit the Starfleet Museum
Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged
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
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?)
-------------------- “Those people who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do.” — Isaac Asimov Star Trek Minutiae | Memory Alpha
Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged
OnToMars
Now on to the making of films!
Member # 621
posted
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.
Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
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!
-------------------- When you're in the Sol system, come visit the Starfleet Museum
Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
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.
Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
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.
-------------------- I have plenty of experience in biology. I bought a Tamagotchi in 1998... And... it's still alive.
Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
posted
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.
Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
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!
-------------------- When you're in the Sol system, come visit the Starfleet Museum
Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged
Teh PW
Self Impossed Exile (This Space for rent)
Member # 1203
posted
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.
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)
Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged
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.
-------------------- When you're in the Sol system, come visit the Starfleet Museum
Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged
OnToMars
Now on to the making of films!
Member # 621
posted
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.
-------------------- If God didn't want us to fly, he wouldn't have given us Bernoulli's Principle.
Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
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.
-------------------- "A film made in 2008 isn't going to look like a TV series from 1966 if it wants to make any money. As long as the characters act the same way, and the spirit of the story remains the same then it's "real" Star Trek. Everything else is window dressing." -StCoop
Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
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.
-------------------- Bernd Schneider
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
