NX-Class Starship in Star Trek IV:TVH

[darkshadow0001]

Just watched TVH for the first time in ages this afternoon, and noticed there was an NX-class starship in the spacedock at the end of the movie before the crew boards the Enterprise. It was the U.S.S. Excelsier, NX-2000. Were there any other NX-class ships in Trek (of course other then in Enterprise)? I never realized there were in other series.

 

[trevanian]

The Enterprise people didn't seem to realize that the NX designation referred to eXperimental (at least that is the unheard backstory for it.) Excelsior went from NX in SFS and TVH to NCC once it was operational in TUC. I thought that Lil Ent would eventually get an NCC as a kind of promotion, but quit watching the show early on. Guess it never got the hull revised, eh?

 

[AdmiralGarak]

I'm sure the Enterprise production crew knew exactly what NX meant. That's why they used it in the first place. The NX-01 WAS an experimental ship. I figure the Columbia was dubbed NX-02 simply because the production crew like the sound of NX-02 over NCC-02.

And let's not forget that there's a third "hero" ship with an NX prefix-- USS Defiant, NX-74205.

 

[Trekker4747]

trevanian said:
The Enterprise people didn't seem to realize that the NX designation referred to eXperimental (at least that is the unheard backstory for it.) Excelsior went from NX in SFS and TVH to NCC once it was operational in TUC. I thought that Lil Ent would eventually get an NCC as a kind of promotion, but quit watching the show early on. Guess it never got the hull revised, eh?

Nope. Infact the Enterprise-NX's sister ship (Columbia) has an NX hull number too.

In-of-itself it seemed fine that Enterprise went out with the NX designation since it was stil "experimental" at that time. But once the sister ship was launched and the design proved itself they should've changed the hull number to "NCC" or, atleast, NC. And don't get me started on the "NX" class nonsense.

 

[FalTorPan]

There's nothing wrong with a 22nd-century, Earth Starfleet starship class named "NX." I see nothing implausible about the idea that experimental Federation Starfleet vessels (USS Excelsior, USS Defiant, etc.) have the registry prefix "NX" in honor of the NX class.

 

[A beaker full of death]

darkshadow0001 said:
Just watched TVH for the first time in ages this afternoon, and noticed there was an NX-class starship in the spacedock at the end of the movie before the crew boards the Enterprise. It was the U.S.S. Excelsier, NX-2000. Were there any other NX-class ships in Trek (of course other then in Enterprise)? I never realized there were in other series.

There is no NX CLASS. It's a designation for an experimental ship. You'll notice in TUC that it was changed to NCC-2000 when the ship was put on active duty.

and did you not notice the Excelsior in TSFS? It was kinda hard to miss.

 

[A beaker full of death]

FalTorPan said:
There's nothing wrong with a 22nd-century, Earth Starfleet starship class named "NX." I see nothing implausible about the idea that experimental Federation Starfleet vessels (USS Excelsior, USS Defiant, etc.) have the registry prefix "NX" in honor of the NX class.

Except, of course, that Excelsior was changed to an NCC when it was no longer, oh, I dunno, EXPERIMENTAL.

JEEZ. People. The creators of the Star Trek weren't actually pulling this stuff out of their ass, you know. They, like the creators of TOS, based it on actual practice. That gave it a certain verisimilitude that later Trek didn't have.

 

[Trekker4747]

FalTorPan said:
There's nothing wrong with a 22nd-century, Earth Starfleet starship class named "NX." I see nothing implausible about the idea that experimental Federation Starfleet vessels (USS Excelsior, USS Defiant, etc.) have the registry prefix "NX" in honor of the NX class.

Other than the fact that completely defies the connections it has to modern-day aircraft designations.

 

[darkshadow0001]

A beaker full of death said:

darkshadow0001 said:
Just watched TVH for the first time in ages this afternoon, and noticed there was an NX-class starship in the spacedock at the end of the movie before the crew boards the Enterprise. It was the U.S.S. Excelsier, NX-2000. Were there any other NX-class ships in Trek (of course other then in Enterprise)? I never realized there were in other series.

There is no NX CLASS. It's a designation for an experimental ship. You'll notice in TUC that it was changed to NCC-2000 when the ship was put on active duty.

and did you not notice the Excelsior in TSFS? It was kinda hard to miss.

I haven't seen Star Trek III in years, I just watched Star Trek IV for the first time in quite some time. I just wondered if there were any other ships in Starfleet in any series that used NX as well. (And yes, I understand what NX is for)

 

[FalTorPan]

Trekker4747 said:

FalTorPan said:
There's nothing wrong with a 22nd-century, Earth Starfleet starship class named "NX." I see nothing implausible about the idea that experimental Federation Starfleet vessels (USS Excelsior, USS Defiant, etc.) have the registry prefix "NX" in honor of the NX class.

Other than the fact that completely defies the connections it has to modern-day aircraft designations.

Who cares? Since when must 22nd or 23rd-century starship class naming conventions or registry number conventions correspond with 20st or 21st-century aircraft-related conventions?

 

[Trekker4747]

Because that's the way Gene wanted it.

 

[McAvoy]

Considering that NCC-1701 was Matt Jefferies idea, I wouldn't put too much stock in that.

In aircraft prototype designations, it always begins with a Y for instance the YF-14 (F-14), YF-17 (THE prototype that got us the F/A-18s), YF-22, YF-35 and so on.

But consider this however, aircraft designations changed about forty years ago. For instance the F-4 Phantonm II was originally the F4H Phantom II. The A-6A Intruder was the A2F-1.

 

[cardinal biggles]

I still don't understand why people got their panties in a bunch over this, when there were so many bigger things about Enterprise that were worthy of criticism.

Like McAvoy pointed out, the way of designating experimental aircraft has changed over the years. If we can change those things over time, why should we assume that Starfleet (particularly a pre-Federation Starfleet) would marry itself to a specific ship registry scheme for all eternity?

 

[A beaker full of death]

Oy. BECAUSE THAT'S HOW THEY ACTUALLY DID IT - hence NCC-2000 in TUC. Why jump through hoops to rationalize away the carefully planned details of the movies just to try to shoehorn in the random mess of Enterprise?

Frankly, it's an insult to the creative team who worked on the movies to shit on the consistent scheme they implemented.

 

[James Bond]

A beaker full of death said:
Oy. BECAUSE THAT'S HOW THEY ACTUALLY DID IT - hence NCC-2000 in TUC. Why jump through hoops to rationalize away the carefully planned details of the movies just to try to shoehorn in the random mess of Enterprise?

Frankly, it's an insult to the creative team who worked on the movies to shit on the consistent scheme they implemented.

And Gene must be SPINNNG in his GRAVE ZOMG!!!11!!one!!1

 

[Timo]

Where lies the problem in thinking that NX-01 was exactly analogous to NX-2000, in a consistent and logical scheme of registry prefices?

Sure, our heroes may name-drop "NX class" and "the NX program" every now and then, but today's sailors speak of "688 class" or "DD(X) program" in quite analogous a manner, in a navy that firmly believes in naming the classes after the first ship christened.

In practical terms, NX-01 and NX-02 would be experimental vessels in the Enterprise class, quite possibly followed by two or three more prototypes before the groundbreaking class would be accepted as "no longer experimental". And the UESF of the 2150s does use class names deriving from the lead ship of the class, at least in the case of Neptune class and possibly Triton class as well, whereas there is zero evidence that they would have a custom of "lettercode classes" extending beyond the references to NX class. (Civilian ship classes from the era are a completely different matter, of course.)

Timo Saloniemi

 

[AJBryant]

Actually, the BIG mistake is using "NCC" for *every* starfleet ship regardless of class or size or function.

In realistic terms, there would be different designations for the different types of ships, or you'd soon have the ludicrous thing seen in later episodes and movies where ships have FIVE or mor numbers in their designation.

 

[Timo]

Indeed. We can probably put the blame on a certain Franz Joseph Schnaubelt, whose Star Fleet Technical Manual was very influential in all post-TOS Trek... His expertise wasn't in naval tradition, and he had no chance to converse with e.g. Matt Jeffries who did have an inkling of such tradition.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Doomsday]

Slightly off-topic, but I always thought the Excelsior looked as though it would break water and give birth to "something" any moment.

...push...push...breathe...breathe...

 

[darkshadow0001]

cardinal biggles said:
I still don't understand why people got their panties in a bunch over this, when there were so many bigger things about Enterprise that were worthy of criticism.

Like McAvoy pointed out, the way of designating experimental aircraft has changed over the years. If we can change those things over time, why should we assume that Starfleet (particularly a pre-Federation Starfleet) would marry itself to a specific ship registry scheme for all eternity?

Who's critizing Enterprise? I wasn't...