The original one from ‘The Battle’ said Stardate 7815.3 according to memory alpha.
https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Stargazer_dedication_plaque
Which equals 2330 or 2327 depending on what online calculator you use.
Spoilers Starship Design in Star Trek: Picard
- Thread starter pst
- Start date
https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Stargazer_dedication_plaque
Which equals 2330 or 2327 depending on what online calculator you use.
Huh. In all this time, I never knew the original Stargazer’s plaque had the commissioning date of the ship. So whoever made the blue plaque of it at Starfleet Academy probably used this information. But even with that said, it still seems like it should have been commissioned way earlier, like say 2285 when the Hathaway was commissioned. Maybe at that early point in TNG the stardate system wasn’t as unified as it is now.
After the Dominion War it is possible.
Thanks, but this raises even more questions...
I don't know where MA got their reading of the Stargazer's dedication plaque from since the original was lost and the Encyclopedia reproduction is unreadable. I'm not even sure it has a stardate.
Also, those online calculators must be faulty, since Stardate 7815 is some time between Star Trek TMP and The Wrath Of Khan.
I don't know where MA got their reading of the Stargazer's dedication plaque from since the original was lost and the Encyclopedia reproduction is unreadable. I'm not even sure it has a stardate.
Also, those online calculators must be faulty, since Stardate 7815 is some time between Star Trek TMP and The Wrath Of Khan.
TNG Stardate calculation. Pre-TNG did it some other way.
TNG Stardate Calculation has has Stardate 0 in 2323
Last edited:
I can make out the words Commissioned Stardate in the latest release, but the numbers I can't make out.
The Dedication plaque in the Encyclopedia is also apparently modified compared to the prop, as it says Constellation instead of Constitution, and mentions San Francisco Fleetyards.
The Plaque itself has the TNG Badge at the top in the Show, not the TOS movie badge. Which makes me think the Stardate was probably updated as well, in-universe that is.
I still believe that they intended to represent a ship from the original movies era, especially given that the original plaque was intended for a Constitution-class ship (presumably refit).
Indeed, we might never know for sure what was on the original physical plaque.
Heck, maybe the registry on it wasn't even NCC-2893 but something else altogether. Like NCC-93-C as per the script lol!
Indeed, we might never know for sure what was on the original physical plaque.
Heck, maybe the registry on it wasn't even NCC-2893 but something else altogether. Like NCC-93-C as per the script lol!
Apologies if this has already been posted, but Doug Drexler on Facebook has said that the Excelsior is from a “new generation of Excelsior class.”
meh also rather humorously stated that most of them (assuming in art department) are pretending the copy and paste fleet from the end of season one didn’t happen.
meh also rather humorously stated that most of them (assuming in art department) are pretending the copy and paste fleet from the end of season one didn’t happen.
Still I wonder where the MA editors got a clear copy of that Encyclopedia art.
I asked in the talk page, I'll post an answer if I get one.
V
Vale
Guest
Also, those online calculators must be faulty, since Stardate 7815 is some time between Star Trek TMP and The Wrath Of Khan.
It does make more sense that the original Stargazer dates from the movie era. The USS Hathaway, the only other Constellation-class we spend much time with in TNG, was commissioned in 2285. A brand new Constellation-class ship from the 2320s is going to experience "rapid ageing" syndrome since the Ambassador-class comes out in the 2330s, and we know from the control interfaces on the Stargazer in TNG: "The Battle" that it wasn't using up-to-date LCARS, which was definitely available by the early 2350s because we see it on the Raven, which was a civilian ship.
I'm looking forward to finding out if the fleet ships had names and registries or were just generic builds.
If they used a stardate that fell within the range of the dates used in the TOS movies, I'm sure that's the era that they meant it to represent. Working backwards from TNG-era stardates was somebody overthinking it.
According to STO Lead Artist Thomas Marrone, the CG of the Ross-class used in the episode, after being updated by the PIC VFX team, retains the labelling from the original STO asset, making it the USS Ross NX-76710.
If the same applies to the other models provided by Cryptic Studios, then the fleet includes the USS Gagarin, USS Sutherland, USS Reliant, USS Thunderchild (Akira class) and USS Sovereign.
Source: time index 30:33
I think there's more than one Ross in that fleet, so that technically makes all of them the USS Ross, maybe
Drexler says on Facebook that the USS Excelsior in Episode 1 is not Sulu's but a second generation design.
Last edited:
While I’m happy that the ship is actually new and not a refit of the original NCC-2000 or some other ship, it’s a bit annoying that the 25th century Starfleet engineers decided to basically mimic the same design, only with different nacelles, and to call it the same class as the former ship. Reusing class names in the 32nd century is one thing, but was that really necessary in 2401?
I think there's more than one Ross in that fleet, so that technically makes all of them the USS Ross, maybe
A similar thing happened with both FC and Star Trek ‘09. ILM had the same ship names on all the class ships in their respective fleets.
