You have to admit, that's a lot of refits!!
Discovery, a 32nd century starship.
- Thread starter Discofan
- Start date
You have to admit, that's a lot of refits!!
What's the Sao Paulo got to do with anything then?
How does renaming the Sao Paulo support the Discovery being a brand new ship after it recieved it's upgrades?
The Sao Paulo is a completely new construction built from scratch, rechristened to replace another vessel that had been destroyed. It's a completely different situation from an existing Starfleet vessel being retrofitted to current specs.
What I mean is that pretending that a new ship is the old one by giving her the same name is not much different from saying that a ship keeps her identity even after 99.9 percent of her constituents have been replaced.
As I said, why couldn't they just keep the name "Sao Paulo"? Personally, I don't understand that.
In universe it seemed pretty clear that the Sao Paulo was renamed to honour the fallen Defiant and her years of service during the Dominion War.
Out of universe it obviously meant older shots of the Defiant could still be used since the same name was etched on the hull.
Still not sure how either of those things help make the case that the Discovery is a brand new ship because it recieved system upgrades though...
Out of universe it obviously meant older shots of the Defiant could still be used since the same name was etched on the hull.
Still not sure how either of those things help make the case that the Discovery is a brand new ship because it recieved system upgrades though...
Remember also the TMP refit was kind of a hardwave for a completely new visual style, with brand new sets etc. Discovery is bound by reusing existing sets so the changes will never look quite so drastic.
You keep asserting that every single bolt of the ship has been replaced, without there being any evidence for it other than your own claims. If the episode made it clear that they constructed a brand new ship out of programmable matter and scuttled the old one, then it would be a new ship, no question about that. But that's not what the dialogue told us.
Just think about it. If we were to refit a computer from say... ten years ago... how much of the original would we keep? I'll say just about zero. Why, because the technology has changed radically in the meantime, That's why.
I have one of these old computers in my basement, once in a great while I put it on just to see if it still works but it's completely useless.
Again it's another false equivalency - but to indulge it for a moment if that ten year old computer had major component that gave it an ability that was unrivalled today *cough* Spore Drive *cough* and couldn't be replicated then no, you wouldn't replace everything would you?
Exactly, I would keep the "spore drive" and throw everything else in the trash and that in my opinion is what they did with Discovery.
But Discovery is not a PC. We're not talking about technological components being replaced. We're talking about the base structure of the ship. The bulkheads, the hull (but not the armor plating on top of it!), the bolts and rivets... your assertion is that they've been replaced with programmable matter, but provided no evidence for that other than assuming that they surely were. The ship is structurally sound, why should they replace it just because a better alternative exists? You can renovate a medieval timber-framed house without rebuilding the walls with reinforced concrete painted to look like the old one, even though concrete is stronger than wood.
So not an entirely new ship then?
"Structurally sound" is a relative term. A chariot is structurally sound for its purpose but use it against modern tanks and it's totally useless.
The spore drive alone does not make a ship. If it's the only thing that remains it's not enough to say it's the same ship. I know you hate similies but the contents of a glove compartment do not identify a car.
I don't hate them. I just don't see the relevance of the constant 'contents of a glove box don't identify a car' type references - I don't think they add anything of substance.
By all means continue though certainly don't stop on my account!
They wouldn't call it the same chariot if they reconstructed it out of metal though. The very fact that they call it the same ship instead of a reconstruction should make it obvious that the structure is largely the same underneath. And also, while metal A might be stronger, lighter etc than metal B, they're still not as different from each other than from wood which has completely different properties, be it splintering, flammability, dryness relative to water content, how it corrodes, etc. Instead of a chariot vs a tank, it should be rather thought of as refitting an old tank with modern ceramic armor plating on the outside while leaving its structure intact underneath.
Discovery is a 23rd century ship upgraded with 32nd century tech.
So they could reuse model shots.
Even in 900 some odd years, Some materials wouldn't have changed, so why change them in a refit?
In the limited refit time, I doubt they changed every load bearing strut, every girder, every last stem bolt.
Lets take a sword, Made of steel, now changes from 500 years ago to day, are not much, some new ways of creating the steal, new ways of hammering, forging etc. but in general, the steel of 500 years ago is the the same as now.
If there was a Steel part in the ship, you wouldn't replace it unless 1 you had a much better material available or 2 its rusted or broken, beyond its service life.
Much of the discovery is probably the same due to the fact that there isn't a reason to. Sure new hull, new core, new conduits, but the floor of a deck? etc.?
In the limited refit time, I doubt they changed every load bearing strut, every girder, every last stem bolt.
Lets take a sword, Made of steel, now changes from 500 years ago to day, are not much, some new ways of creating the steal, new ways of hammering, forging etc. but in general, the steel of 500 years ago is the the same as now.
If there was a Steel part in the ship, you wouldn't replace it unless 1 you had a much better material available or 2 its rusted or broken, beyond its service life.
Much of the discovery is probably the same due to the fact that there isn't a reason to. Sure new hull, new core, new conduits, but the floor of a deck? etc.?
Similar threads
