How much do we want to say about this ship? Even if we accept the Spaceflight Chronology's information as gospel, it is very plainly implausible, in my opinion. The ship's hull as designed leaves very, very little room for anything inside the ship's hull aside from some kind of small habitation module in the front. Even if it were a massive 300-meter-long behemoth as the SFC's specs suggest, it wouldn't have nearly enough room to be an actual "starliner" carrying lots of passengers and/or cargo. My personal speculation is that this Enterprise was a warp testbed, intended to explore the possibilities of the Vulcan-like warp ring design. It could have been launched anytime between 2063 and 2139 (when "First Flight" took place). -- MinutiaeMan 12:50, 2 Dec 2003 (PST)

I agree that the volume of the ship is not sufficient for the 300m/800 passenger figures given in the Chronology. Not to mention the ridiculous notion of over 250 of these ships in service. However, I think we can still call it the Declaration class, and make probably still call it a starliner. The Chronology gives a period of 2123-2165 for this vessel which, although the book's basic timeline is completely wrong nowadays, is quite reasonable.
I'd also rather make it some sort of one-off prototype, but that would be mere speculation by two people, while the Declaration starliner info is pretty well supported by fandom.. --Harry 13:36, 2 Dec 2003 (PST)

The Star Trek Encyclopedia Edit

The Trek encyclopedia has some background information: "The ship was designed by Matt Jefferies for a television series project developed by Gene Roddenberry after the run of the original Star Trek. Unfortunately, the series was never produced, and this remains the only appearance of the design."

Federation Science Edit

The guide on the Federation Science Exposition ( claims this ship was even pré-warp, and that the ring was supposed to produce artificial gravity by spinning around. I know its hardly canon, but try better explaining the strange ring... (The Vulcan warp drives were much thicker than this thin ring) --Admiral Martin I 16:39, 15 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Named Enterprise? Edit

Since this ship was not on Archer's ready room wall along with the other vessels names Enterprise and since the ship seen in the 602 Club was never referenced by name, do we know for sure that ship seen at the club was Enterprise? I'm sure that's what the writers intended it to be, but still... --From Andoria with Love 18:45, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, the XCV registry was seen in the Motion Picture appearance (where it was esablished it was named Enterprise -- does it exist inthe ENT apps.? the correlation between the two registries would be the proof we needed to maintain these were the same ship... -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 23:39, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Was the XCV registry seen on Enterprise, though? --From Andoria with Love 01:09, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

The XCV registry in TMP; was it visible and I just missed it, or is it derived from some other source than the film? (I'd check the movie itself, but I'm feeling lazy.) If so the image in the article does appear to be the same class of ship, if not the same ship. Aholland 22:22, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Check out the link on the article page to "Spaceship of the Rings". In there is a production test photo of the 5 Enterprises on set. You can see through a blow-up that the ship is named Enterprise and the registry is XCV-330. Given that this is production art actually filmed, a better image exists, and was explicitly stated as being Enterprise in dialogue, this would seem to clinch it for purposes of canon. The ship in the 602 Club may not have been Enterprise, but may have simply been of the same class of ship. Regardless, it seems like that - sometime prior to 2153 - the XCV-330 class existed and that - sometime - one ship of that class was named Enterprise. Aholland 19:40, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Also, since it is "canon" for purposes of this site, I'll get around sometime to revising the article accordingly. Aholland 19:50, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

What you just explained was what I was trying to explain (the fact that the 602 Club ship may not be the Enterprise). Thanks. :) --From Andoria with Love 00:33, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I just rewatched the series finale, and the XCV Enterprise picture used in TMP was there (in the scene where Riker and Troi were checking out the ship). —MJBurrage 18:23, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

On the "round piece"(i dont know the teck tearm) it clearly says USS ENTERPRISE. Note that part of the name ENTERPRISE is behind another part of the craft. Janewayfan4497 17:11, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

"USS" Edit

If this ship has a "USS" prefix, it is possible that it is an american (and not earth) starship. Taking into account the other prefix HMS, VK, DEV in use in the early 22th century. - Philoust123 19:51, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Why was this given a "USS" prefix again? Because of an illustration? Is that how the ship was labeled in the photographs or was that just the illustrator's addition? --From Andoria with Love 20:54, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
The illustration newly added is an enhanced version of a still taken on-set of ST:TMP (see one of the external sites). So the name comes from that. It could have been American, we just don't know. But it clearly was an Earth ship. Aholland 01:55, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes I agree it is a ship originating from Earth but I thought he could belong to USA and not United Earth. It is also possible that it belong to United Earth and that the USS prefix was in use since years like NX-01 and NX-02 (which prefix is an administrative one but not featured on the hull) - Philoust123 13:47, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Any of the above are possible, but it is likely we will never know for canon purposes. Aholland 16:17, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Since the "USS" labels on the NX-01 and NX-02 were mistakes, you're right - we'll never know for canon purporses because nobody working on future eps/movies are gonna take it seriously. :P However, it is possible that future productions will discuss the XCV 330. --From Andoria with Love 21:40, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
This may be the wrong place for the conversation, but why were the USS labels on the NX-01 and 02 mistakes? I thought it was "United (Earth) Space Ship" during ENT and "United (Federation of Planets) Space Ship" during TOS, etc. Aholland 02:33, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

They were mistakes because that's not how they were designated. This goes along the same lines as 2061 being given as the year when Zefram Cochrane's did his historic warp flight or 2117 being given as the year he disappeared. The suggestions you listed are possible, but then why would they not include the "E" for Earth? In any case, "Court Martial" established that the term means "United Star Ship", although I believe it's also been referred to as "United Space Ship". To me, United Star and United Space mean just that: star systems united under a common goal. This type of unification did not exist at the time when the NX-01 and NX-02 were listed with the "USS" designation. --From Andoria with Love 04:29, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining that! Personally I see "United Earth" and "United" SS (whatever you want to call it) as being compatible. But I understand your point, and appreciate your taking the time to discuss it. Aholland 11:26, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

"XCV" Edit

Conceivably, XCV may also stand for eXtra (as in greater than) C (as in C=the speed-of-light) Vehicle. —User:Ozgenre 11:52, 2006 June 1 (UTC)

XCV is also three keys in a row on a "qwerty" keyboard, if the set decorator was lazy or had writers block when writing up the notes for the artist. :-) —MJBurragetalk • 23:52, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
On further thought, NASA uses OV for Orbital Vehicle, so eXperimental C-speed Vehicle could be correct, as suggested by Ozgenre. —MJBurragetalk • 01:41, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I know this note should not be in this section, but i have changed the order of the photos. I think it looks nicer in this order. --Janewayfan4497 18:05, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


I hope you don't mind a little speculation here, but do we have reason to believe this was a staffed vessel? As MinutiaeMan posts above, "The ship's hull as designed leaves very, very little room for anything inside the ship's hull aside from some kind of small habitation module in the front." Perhaps there wasn't even that much, and the reason this ship often (but not always) gets left out of "Enterprise lineage walls" is because it wasn't a manned ship, unlike other Enterprises. 10:52, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

From Talk:XVC classEdit

Euhm.. this is 100% non-canon, and not even fandom! -- Harry 07:37, 25 Dec 2003 (PST)

Didn't Starfleet began using the USS prefix after the foundation of the Federation in 2161?? if so whats whrong with writing that the class was still in service after 2161. Also on the backlighted image of the same ship on rec. deck in ST:TMP you see rocket exhaustion and cloud formations, doesnt this prove whe utilisation of rocket propulsion (like the phoenix for example)?? -- Valaraukar

My problem is that we don't even know it's of the "XCV type", and neither do we know when it was in servive. Not even in WHAT service it was.-- Harry 09:57, 27 Dec 2003 (PST)

USS Prefix Edit

However, by the same token there is absolutely no proof that this specific "USS Enterprise" was so late in development. The USS prefix could easily apply to the old United States, for whatever reason. I strongly disagree with the idea that this puny little tin can would be in use for decades and still be around at the time of the Federation Starfleet.

Besides, we're drifting too far into the realm of non-canon speculation now, I think... ;-) -- MinutiaeMan 09:06, 27 Dec 2003 (PST)

Do we know it has a USS prefix? If so, then it could indeed be a Unites States ship. The only other alternative would be Federation Starfleet, but that contradicts the 602 Club picture. -- Harry 09:57, 27 Dec 2003 (PST)
We don't know for certain based on the image we could see on screen. However, if we accept the other drawings of the ship, then you can definitely see the "USS" in the labeling in this image: [1] -- MinutiaeMan 11:23, 27 Dec 2003 (PST)

Good point(s). Hadn´t thought of the United states possibility. sorry. Nevertheless the above mentioned picture is actually the one seen in ST:TMP so the rocket/cloud stuff is correct right? The XCV type name is conjecturnal of course but do we know for certain that the centaur type really is the centaur type, it just happens to be generally accepted among fans, give me that! Also the design resembles to much that of the classic Vulcan IDIC industrial design to be a coincidence, especially if it belongs to early post-phoenix warp experimentation. Don't know of this page was intended for discussion or merely nits, but its been interesting! /Valaraukar


This name is not canon and is derived solely from the prefix of the ship's registry (presumably). This should probably be merged with USS Enterprise (XCV 330). --Alan del Beccio 06:33, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

We could also rename it Enterprise type, but I'm not sure if there is enough content to make that useful. Hell, we don't even know if this was a one off design or not. --OuroborosCobra talk 06:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
How do we know there is more than one ship of the Aeon-type or Raven-type? If we have those pages (and I'm not saying we necessarily have to), we should also have this one, though indeed moved to Enterprise type. For too little info, let's hope someone puts in a background graphic in Star Trek ;) Kennelly 18:58, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
The issue is a little different. We know more about those ships types than we do about this one. All we know about this one is what it looked like. --OuroborosCobra talk 19:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
IMO that doesn't matter if we create those "type" articles for all ships which have a name but no canon class, we have to do it for all, regardless of the information amount. Kennelly 13:06, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

This discussion has already been had at Talk:Aurora (NC-17740)-- where it was essentially dictated that "if we don't have any information about a ship class, not even a correct name, should we really create an article, just so that we have yet another article and something to categorize? I'm sure we had that discussion before, but I still strongly believe that this is misusing the categorization functionality..." (from Cid Highwind) -- which is essentially what this page is, as it contains nothing unique that cannot already be found on the starship article page. As I believe Cobra stated above, all we know is what the ship looks like (from a couple pictures) and we know nothing of its specifications, ownership or years of service. At least with the Aeon and Raven, we have something tangable to work with-- as it has been traditional that the "class" page refers to the specifications of a ship's class, and the individual starship page contains very little, if any, unless a certain specification is unique to that vessel...i.e. cloaking device on the Defiant. --Alan del Beccio 19:29, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Appearance in "These are the voyages" Edit

I removed the following:

An illustration of the ship was in Captain Jonathan Archer's quarters in 2161. (ENT: "These Are the Voyages...")

Because the illustration doesn't appear in this episode, neither in Archer's quarters nor anywhere else. --Jörg 15:01, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

A minor editEdit

Under the first section, Background, I'm making a minor edit from "This starship has been seen only in the threer references cited above." to "This starship has been seen only in the THREE references cited above." But the create new account page seems to be down, so I don't have a way to sign the edit or talk. Just wanted to let folks know I'm medleystudios72 from wikipedia. 18:49, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Removed sectionEdit

I removed the following section from the article. It seems to me, it is all just speculation.

Origin of ship
Earth's national prefixes (British "HMS'" and Russian "VK") were still in use up to the founding of the Federation in 2161. (TNG: "Up The Long Ladder") It is possible that "USS" still meant "United States Ship." If so, that would make this an American starship.
As for the "XCV" prefix, in American/English usage, "X" often means eXperimental. In US Navy usage, "CV" is used to designate aircraft carriers, which could make this an experimental fighter carrier.

--Pseudohuman 16:11, April 23, 2010 (UTC)

I don't really see a problem with the first note, since most ships on MA with a USS prefix are not US ships; so I wouldn't consider pointing out the possibility that the USS on this ship means something different from the norm as speculation, but that's just my two cents. - Archduk3 17:39, June 3, 2010 (UTC)

External link Edit

Would this be good to include? This website/blog is linked on the intrepid type and Enterprise J pages, but since this isn't a production render I'm not so sure: [2](X). - MK (t/c) 11:38, June 3, 2010 (UTC)

Feature on drex-files Edit -- 23:09, August 1, 2010 (UTC)