USS Reliant dedication plaque

[Dukhat]

^ Makes you wonder how they managed to make so many different models for the Wolf 359 wreckage. It was mostly kitbashing, but they were still new configurations.

They managed it because five of those models (the Ed Miarecki kitbshes) were produced earlier when Okuda contracted Miarecki to kitbash Enterprise-D model kits in an effort to make study models for larger studio models in the future (of which only the Nebula class came to pass). If they hadn't already had those models to damage for the Wolf 359 scene, they probably would have just filled the scene with random junk (or whatever they ended up using for the surplus depot in "Unification.")

Isn't this assuming that any change in stardate system is a full replacement rather than an interpolation formula applied during some timespan to smoothly transition between system A and system B? Because that would seem to me to be a much more rational way of transitioning from one system to another in practice to avoid double-dating concerns and date collisions.

Here's the thing with that: Okuda didn't just pull random numbers out of his ass. The fact that the Brattain's commissioning stardate works out to the year 2345, and not 1972 or 3458, shows that Okuda meant 2345 when he made that stardate. We can debate till the cows come home about changes in the stardate system in-universe, but for this instance, I'm confident that it was meant to be that year.

 

[Mark_Nguyen]

Additional: in a 1980s (?) TOS comic, there was a special issue which was obstensibly about the final mission of that original five-year set. At the end of it, Kirk presides over an empty bridge before the refit began, and on his way out he swiped the dedication plaque.

Also, there's at least one example of a ship's dedication plaque being somewhere else besides the bridge: in the ready room of the USS Phoenix from "The Wounded". However, Captain Maxwell was a little off-kilter to begin with, so maybe he simply wanted to keep his where he could see it... As it stands, there was a potted plant directly outside his ready room, but does that mean there's flora on the ship's actual bridge..?

Mark

 

[Ithekro]

Perhaps late model Miranda's have their interiors modular to handle anything from expanded shuttle bays, to cargo hold, to VIP suites, to huge modern sensor systems, to oversized phaser capacitors and photon torpedo magazines.

 

[Dukhat]

^Maybe, although the design of the Miranda class doesn't look the least bit modular to me. At least with the Oberth class it looks like the lower hull could be swapped out for something else. Not that we ever saw that, mind you...

 

[B.J.]

Maybe not so much modular but reconfigurable. The building that I work in has had its interior walls and doors moved around about a half dozen times in the last 10 years, but the exterior (including windows) hasn't changed at all. Maybe they can do something similar with the Mirandas?

 

[Lakenheath 72]

We have examples of stardates being in years that logically they shouldn't be. There is a 38xxx in 2295 ("The Child") and there is a 67xx in the 24th century ("Aquiel"). And, someone mentioned the stardates from Dark Page, which has entries from the year 2328 with a stardate of 367xx. It can be certainly said that the Brattain was commissioned in the 24th century; however, the exact year can not be determined.

 

[Dukhat]

We have examples of stardates being in years that logically they shouldn't be. There is a 38xxx in 2295 ("The Child") and there is a 67xx in the 24th century ("Aquiel"). And, someone mentioned the stardates from Dark Page, which has entries from the year 2328 with a stardate of 367xx. It can be certainly said that the Brattain was commissioned in the 24th century; however, the exact year can not be determined.

There's a bit of a difference here, though. In the former examples, those stardates were made up by the writer of those episodes' scripts. Those particular writers may not have had any idea how stardates worked. In the case of the Brattain's plaque info, that stardate was made by Okuda, who came up with the TNG stardate system in the first place. So when a stardate made up by Okuda translates to the year 2345, then it's reasonable to assume that that's exactly the date he meant.

 

[Lakenheath 72]

Those stardates are from the Okudagrams, not from the script. Here are two examples.

 

[Dukhat]

I can't see a thing in those photos.

 

[Lakenheath 72]

Two of the stardates in the first photo begin with 67xx. (The third stardate, the date of his graduation, is unreadable. Its size suggests it is a four number stardate like the other two.) In the second image, the stardates begin with 367xx. There is an error with the second stardate, it begins with 376xx.

I included these examples as a counterpoint to what you were saying. If I had the time, I am confident I would find more examples.

 

[Dukhat]

Well if you can actually point these out in those photos, I'd love to see it, because I can't make it out at all.

And I'm still not changing my mind about the Brattain's launch date.

 

[Idran]

Wikia images do stupid things with resizing, @Lakenheath 72 and @Dukhat . It's usually best to link the image page instead of the image directly, because Wikia image caching is really strange and frustrating; if you've viewed the image full-sized, then an inline image displays at the size you viewed it, but if you don't have it in your cache already, it displays inline at thumbnail size. It should be slightly more legible at these pages. If not, try hitting Ctrl+F5 to do a forced re-download while on the page instead of using the cached copy.

http://memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/File:Keith_Rocha.jpg
http://memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/File:Xelo_log.jpg

 

[B.J.]

It's usually best to link the image page instead of the image directly

Not to mention we're not supposed to link to images from other sites unless they're specifically an image sharing site (imgur, photobucket, etc.).

 

[Dukhat]

Thanks for the links, Idran, but I'm still having a hard time seeing anything in those pics, especially the second one.

And actually, while it does kinda look like the stardate is "6701" in the first pic, I'm not seeing how that is a mistake. That stardate works out to the year 2329. If Rocha died in 2369, that would have made him 40 years old at the time of his death. Looking at his photo, he definitely could have been 40 when he died.

 

[Lakenheath 72]

Thanks for the tips on images.

 

[Matthew Collins]

Nope, no dedication plaques in the first four movies. I've had trouble figuring out where to even mount them if you wanted to retcon them in. The walls are all sloped in, and the alcove leading to the lift doors is too narrow unless you put the plaque at head-level. I'm also opposed to the TUC options of mounting it next to the viewscreen, or above the screen on the ceiling. The best I can think of is to attach some sort of mount to the wall next to the turbolift alcove so it can sit vertically. Why not, there was enough other blocky crap glued to the walls post-TWOK.

I've assumed that the USS Enterprise NCC-1701 Refit had essentially the same internal layout as the USS Enterprise NCC-1701-A and in Star Trek V it was shown that the dedication plaque was mounted to the base of the old sailing ship wheel in the forward looking lounge. Therefore, it is likely that the USS Enterprise NCC-1701 Refit and the USS Reliant NCC-1864 both had their dedication plaques in the lounge instead of at the back of the bridge like on the original NCC-1701 or the later ships which mounted the dedication plaque on the bridge.

 

[F. King Daniel]

Additional: in a 1980s (?) TOS comic, there was a special issue which was obstensibly about the final mission of that original five-year set. At the end of it, Kirk presides over an empty bridge before the refit began, and on his way out he swiped the dedication plaque.

I read that a few weeks ago and he doesn't swipe the dedication plaque but that orange diagram of the ship from the other side of the alcove

 

[David cgc]

I've assumed that the USS Enterprise NCC-1701 Refit had essentially the same internal layout as the USS Enterprise NCC-1701-A and in Star Trek V it was shown that the dedication plaque was mounted to the base of the old sailing ship wheel in the forward looking lounge. Therefore, it is likely that the USS Enterprise NCC-1701 Refit and the USS Reliant NCC-1864 both had their dedication plaques in the lounge instead of at the back of the bridge like on the original NCC-1701 or the later ships which mounted the dedication plaque on the bridge.

Nope, the wheel had a different plaque on it that just had the motto. In TFF, the dedication plaque was mounted on one of the segment dividers right next to one of the turbolifts (I think you can see it when Kirk, Spock and McCoy first arrive on the bridge at the beginning of the movie).