These may be of interest to some: 
I’m sorry for the confusion. Hypno-Toad and I were discussing the real space shuttle Enterprise, which was a NASA test bed for the later space shuttles. It was named for the Star Trek ship but it never actually flew in space. It was just used for approach and landing tests while NASA developed the space shuttle systems. The Smithsonian Air and Space Museum displayed that space shuttle for years. Then, when the space shuttle program was cancelled, the Air and Space museum got the Discovery shuttle, which had spent over a year in orbit.
The Air and Space Museum also displays the model of the Star Trek’s Enterprise in its main facility on the National Mall. I can’t speak for the curators but I assume that they display it because the TV show inspired real people who went to work on space programs later. I know one person who loved sci-fi, including Star Trek, as a kid and now works in astrophysics for NASA. In a sense, the model was a make-believe prototype for the future for these people. The model probably also draws a lot of people to the museum and they want people to see the rest of the exhibits. Whatever gets people in the door is good.
[quote=“terentii, post:21, topic:758652”]
These may be of interest to some:
There are some others too, but I don’t have time to check them all out right now.
Back in the '60s, the Smithsonian specifically asked for a print of “Where No Man Has Gone Before” because they believed science fiction played an important role in space exploration. So the idea goes back a long way.
I can’t remember the actual quote, but an excerpt from the request is in The Making of Star Trek.
The Wikipedia article on the Enterprise cites the term as appearing in Stephen Whitfield’s 1968 book The Making of Star Trek. I don’t remember it there, but then I don’t have that book memorized. “Naval Construction Contract” didn’t show up in my awareness until sometime in the 1980s, when I was heavily involved in a Star Trek discussion list (remember discussion lists?). It always sounded to me like an explanation invented after the fact.
It also doesn’t make sense in regards to later versions of the Enterprise having the same NCC number, with a letter added at the end. What, did Starfleet’s contract with the builders have clauses (codicil E, perhaps) that specified that in 100 years time, they would build another ship with the same name?
That may well be; I can’t verify it now because I don’t have my copy with me. If so, I stand corrected.
I do remember Whitfield describing how the ship’s components were built at the San Francisco Navy Yards and then assembled in space. It is quite possible he explained “NCC” at the same time. I’ll have a look when I get home next month.
Judging from how often their deflector shields buckled after two or three hits, I would assume they were rebuilt as often as they were needed. 
No. The link in my post is to the 11-foot model of the nuclear aircraft carrier USS Enterprise, CVN-65. It was my favorite thing in the whole museum. I grew up in the DC suburbs and I visited that museum every single time relatives visited and had to be taken “into the district” to do touristy stuff.
The Shuttles Enterprise and Discovery were/are at the Udvar-Hazy facilities next to Dulles Airport. Never at the Air & Space Museum on the Mall.
Well I made a hash of that response and I’m sorry to have confused even more people. I swear I remember clicking on your link and seeing the old space shuttle. My apologies.
Memory Alpha’s page on the prefix gives both that story, and a claim that it’s a combination of NC and CCCC, which the Soviets used for the same purpose (or so Matt Jeffries apparently believed, at least…I can’t find if it’s true), without a clear indication which is true.
It also mentions that there’s no canonical in-universe derivation, the Naval Construction Contract derivation only appearing in non-canonical sources. (The only in-universe indication is a single shuttlecraft - the NCC-1701/9 - which renders the number in an unusual way (N.C.C. 1701/9).)
Not to argue, but I’d say that if it’s in Whitfield, it’s pretty canonical—the whole middle third of his book was basically lifted from the TOS Writer’s Guide!
I don’t have time to peruse the MA entries right now, but didn’t *all *of the shuttlecraft in TOS have basically the same NCC markings? I know we saw only one or two of the things up close, but still…
As far as I recall, the Constitution-class starships carried only seven shuttlecraft each. Number 9 must have been from a later iteration of the series?
Okay, I did take the time to check out the MA entry, and this site as well:
On some of the planes, I see the abbreviation CCCP, which is just the Russian version of USSR. I wonder if that’s what Jefferies had in mind.
shit. :o (tiptoes away slowly back over to the food threads, where she might actually know what she’s talking about)
So, “vaguely green?”
Ever wonder why, after going to all the trouble to steal a perfectly good WORKING Romulan cloaking device in a harebrained espionage scheme, the Federation never made use of the technology?* :dubious:
*At least, not that I recall. Have I missed something here? 
Yes, it was banned by the Treaty of Algeron.
IIRC, there was a three-inch model (seen in “Catspaw”), a three-foot model (used in publicity stills), and (so I thought) a fifteen-foot model (seen in Gerrold’s books).
An eleven-foot model is news to me!
I believe they were more interested in how it worked, so they could defeat it. There was a treaty banning cloaking devices to the Federation at some point.
Aha!
Forgive my ignorance, but what iteration of the series was this? DS-9?
First referred to on ST:TNG: Treaty of Algeron | Memory Alpha | Fandom