Star Trek Picard Season 3 End Credits - Legacy Ships at Earth Spacedock?

[UssGlenn]

The dedication plaque does say "Seventh ship to bear the name." Though that itself is rather problematic, given G is the seventh letter of the alphabet and that would mean the first Relativity was NCV-474439-A rather than just regular NCV-474439. Eh clearly whoever did up the plaque forgot to make the appropriate adjustment.

Well, being timeships, we do have the option that NCV-474439-C (for example) was completely erased from existence. And no one notices the jump from B to D, because "time shenanigans".

 

[Dukhat]

You absolutely can do that, but in the grand scheme it becomes generally irrelevant to discussions. Paramount/CBS deciding what is canon gives us a common framework to discuss.

You're confusing canon with continuity. Canon is just the body of work that CBS/Paramount deems official. Continuity is how it all fits together (or doesn't, as the case may be), and that is absolutely relevant to discussions.

If you are only going to use what you personally decide, that's ok... but it makes having discussions on a forum particularly difficult as we aren't necessarily discussing the same thing.

See above.

 

[James Cole]

You absolutely can do that, but in the grand scheme it becomes generally irrelevant to discussions. Paramount/CBS deciding what is canon gives us a common framework to discuss. If you are only going to use what you personally decide, that's ok... but it makes having discussions on a forum particularly difficult as we aren't necessarily discussing the same thing.

Half this BBS is seemingly talking past each other and throwing out conversation speed bumps. Someone should try and find a way to monetize engagement farming in genre fandom as a way to mine bitcoin or something.

"Refit" simply doesn't mean exactly the same thing in 2399 as it does in 2024.

Hell, in-universe you have the destruction of Utopia Planitia as a potential turning point in the construction of ships. Post-scarcity economics in ship construction could have hit a detour and suddenly lots of ship material that would have otherwise been sent to the surplus depot now needs to be carefully recycled.

It's the old philosophical discussion of "what makes a ship a ship", if you took an old wooden sailing vessel and replaced every single piece of wood, is it still the same ship?

Matalas himself raised the "ship of Theseus" (albeit using a broom) as a question about this. Do I find it a little annoying and imprecise? Sure. But is it worth this level of examination, when issues in NuTrek of orders of magnitude higher just get waved by (like potentially eliminating TOS and but extension TNG, DS9, and ENT episodes from continuity)? Another day on the internet.

 

[fireproof78]

But is it worth this level of examination

Tell me, please, what is worth examining in fiction?

Isn't meant for enjoyment and engagement rather than analysis? Or is that too dismissive?

ike potentially eliminating TOS and but extension TNG, DS9, and ENT episodes from continuity

As long as Parallels exits they will always exist in continuity.

 

[Daedalus]

If it's absolutely necessary to throw in real-world examples, then I'll attempt to use The Cassin and The Downes. In vain, I'm sure.

"Cassin was in drydock with Downes and Pennsylvania at Pearl Harbor during the Japanese attack on 7 December 1941. During the attack, a low order detonation by a 250 kg (550 lb) bomb on Downes ruptured her fuel tanks, causing uncontrollable fires on board both Downes and Cassin. Cassin slipped from her keel blocks and rested against Downes. Both ships were considered lost, and Cassin was decommissioned as of 7 December 1941.Both ship's hulls were damaged beyond repair but machinery and equipment were salvaged and sent to Mare Island Navy Yard where entirely new ships were built around the salvaged material and given the wrecked ship's names and hull numbers."

As far as the Navy were concerned, these remained the same ships. A few parts here and there but the same registry remains. If the U.S Navy can turn round and say "it's the same ship", then why can't Starfleet?

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[fireproof78]

As far as the Navy were concerned, these remained the same ships. A few parts here and there but the same registry remains. If the U.S Navy can turn round and say "it's the same ship", then why can't Starfleet?

They can.

But that wasn't the argument made. The argument made was "refit means something different in the future" which basically begs the question with no reasonable answer. Because there is no way for us to define what the future peoples would define that word as. So, we can't answer it so therefor us modern people must be wrong. It's circular at best.

This example at least provides a measure of precedence that wasn't shared before. So, kudos to you for finding some good research.

 

[Daedalus]

They can.

But that wasn't the argument made. The argument made was "refit means something different in the future" which basically begs the question with no reasonable answer. Because there is no way for us to define what the future peoples would define that word as. So, we can't answer it so therefor us modern people must be wrong. It's circular at best.

This example at least provides a measure of precedence that wasn't shared before. So, kudos to you for finding some good research.

I'd like to take the credit, but somebody was in a similar discussion on reddit and I pinched the basics.

It's nice to learn these things, though.

 

[evilchumlee]

But this isn't a ship of Theseus discussion. They took parts and slapped them in another ship.

I guess they refit the parts for a new fit?

Taking parts and slapping them onto a new ship sounds an awful like they are... refitting them?

Yeah, no, doesn't work that way.

Words retain the same meaning forever?

But putting that aside, the reason nautical terminology and culture was chosen to be used within Star Trek was to be a frame of reference for modern audiences to understand what the characters are talking about. The word refit was originally chosen because it's something someone can learn from modern day sources to learn what it means. To say "that term must have a different meaning in the future" defeats the whole purpose behind the worldbuilding and why that particular term was chosen in the first place.

I'm from the modern day, and I can understand that a ship that was made from a core of parts from another ship can be a refit...

Was the term I would have chosen? No, probably not. It was the term chosen, and in the grand scheme, there's really no issue with it unless your determined to be as pedantic as possible.

You must really hate the consistent use of "sentient" in Trek...

I know, I know, Lord Terry, Patron Saint of the Wank and Gene's Holy Prophet is well regarded by a certain crowd, but the only logical explanation for refit being used in the context it's been on Picard is that he doesn't know the meaning of the word and used it incorrectly. Though of course, saying Lord Terry was wrong appears to be hella controversial in some parts these days.

You may be conflating two things here.

Yeah, in the real world, Matalas totally used the word "refit" in a... creative way.

In-universe, that is the word used, and overall it's really not an issue unless you must demand that every single word mean exactly what you expect to mean in the exact context you expect it in the 21st century.

It just seems like such an odd thing to go on a warpath about.

Side note, in trying to find an explanation by Matalas, I found a neat quote that supported a hypothesis of mine, " It’s actually a class that’s called, in Starfleet slang, the Neo-Constitution class or Constitution III."

 

[fireproof78]

Taking parts and slapping them onto a new ship sounds an awful like they are... refitting them?

THat doesn't make a ship a refit, necessarily. But, as @Daedalus researched and demonstrated, there is historical precedence to utilize part and build up a ship and still call it by its old name.

I don't think this changes the definition of refit to suit Matalas' needs, but I think it lends credence to the idea.

It just seems like such an odd thing to go on a warpath about.

Have you met Trek fans?

 

[evilchumlee]

THat doesn't make a ship a refit, necessarily. But, as @Daedalus researched and demonstrated, there is historical precedence to utilize part and build up a ship and still call it by its old name.

I don't think this changes the definition of refit to suit Matalas' needs, but I think it lends credence to the idea.

It just seems we're jumping through alot of hoops to find an explanation here when there's an easier answer.

Have you met Trek fans?

True.

Trek fans can be nonsensical. In breath, it will be like "A WORD WAS USED IMPROPERLY! THIS IS ABSOLUTE HERESY." , but then in the next, "No you see, it's ok for the Klingons to be hairy wookie beasts now, because it's an update."

 

[fireproof78]

It just seems we're jumping through alot of hoops to find an explanation here when there's an easier answer.

I don't, but that's me. I spend a lot of times doing research on many different things to find the most satisfactory answer. To me, a refit has a specific definition. Saying "words change meaning" isn't satisfactory because we have no way to verify "refit" changed. We assume it did.

Vs. if I can find instances that support this idea I find that more interesting, and I learn something. Win/win. Call it hoop jumping; I just call it research

True.

Trek fans can be nonsensical. In breath, it will be like "A WORD WAS USED IMPROPERLY! THIS IS ABSOLUTE HERESY." , but then in the next, "No you see, it's ok for the Klingons to be hairy wookie beasts now, because it's an update."

Yup. The line is an odd one to me. It's why I'm far more forgiving of things in Trek because I've seen the heretical talk for over ten years now (originally aimed at Enterprise and then Abrams) and I'm like, "Shouldn't we just be enjoying this show?"

Apparently not.

 

[Dukhat]

It just seems we're jumping through alot of hoops to find an explanation here when there's an easier answer.

The easiest answer, of course, is that they are two different ships, and that someone doesn't understand the definition of a word.

My old car just got rear-ended and totaled. I just bought a brand-new car, and have put a bunch of stuff from my old car into my new one. However, I do not consider my new car to be a 'refit' of my old car. Because that would just be dumb.

 

[Campe]

But is it worth this level of examination, when issues in NuTrek of orders of magnitude higher just get waved by (like potentially eliminating TOS and but extension TNG, DS9, and ENT episodes from continuity)?

Why not? Both ideas are pretty silly made up issues at the end of the day that matter very little in reality.

 

[Ray Hardgrit]

If it annoys someone enough to pull them out of the fictional reality and harm their enjoyment, then it's annoying enough.

 

[fireproof78]

If it annoys someone enough to pull them out of the fictional reality and harm their enjoyment, then it's annoying enough.

Annoying being the key word.

These are annoying things, not issues. If it harms my enjoyment then I usually turn it off.


Really has done wonders for the blood pressure.

 

[The Wormhole]

We also have this lovely little bit of concept art that just adds further insult to injury.

Somehow a mostly intact USS Titan is being refit into a mostly complete USS Titan-A.

Ugh, that picture has got to be one of the stupidest things to come as a result of the third season, and that's saying something. But yeah, since the two ships are clearly right next to each other, there's no way the Neo-Constitution ship can be considered a refit of the Luna class one. And this picture represents Lord Terry's intent, thereby proving nether he or whoever drew up this picture know the meaning of the word refit.

 

[DonIago]

It's an imprecise analogy, but I guess the best one I have off the top of my head is that if I have a desktop PC, I can replace the keyboard or mouse or hard drives or power supply or even the case and argue that I've "refit" my PC, because fundamentally it's still using the same base components.

If I replace the motherboard, however, then it's absolutely not a refit, because the most basic building block of the computer is now something entirely different, and in the end all of the other components go back to the motherboard.

A murkier area might be the GPU...I'd lean toward calling that a refit though, because the motherboard remains the same, you're just expanding the base PC's capabilities, like adding quantum torpedos to a starship.

Then there's the OS. If I upgrade from Windows 10 to Windows 11, I'd call that a refit. What if I'd somehow upgraded from Windows 3.1 to Windows 11, though? Is that a refit? What about if I purged Windows off the computer entirely and switched over to Linux? I think those could still be called refits, though substantial ones, because again, at the heart of it, the base equipment that's running everything remains unchanged even if your user experience might be radically different.

When people buy new computers, no matter how much stuff they migrate over from their old PC, it's a new PC because the base motherboard and processor are (presumably) new (to them).

 

[Dukhat]

There’s a difference between installing new components in an old computer (upgrading) and installing old components in a new computer (I don’t think there’s even a term for that, since nobody ever does that, other than maybe reinstalling old software if the new computer is compatible with it.) The latter seems to be what happened with the Titan, for whatever weird reason they did it.

 

[Daedalus]

There’s a difference between installing new components in an old computer (upgrading) and installing old components in a new computer (I don’t think there’s even a term for that, since nobody ever does that, other than maybe reinstalling old software if the new computer is compatible with it.) The latter seems to be what happened with the Titan, for whatever weird reason they did it.

Still a significant lack of resources and components after the Mars attacks?(ack,ack)

It seemed to be the predominant theory later backed up by Prodigy. 15 years is a long time, though. You'd think they'd be on top of material shortage by then.

As an aside, one reason for doing it for Downes and Cassin, and classifying them both as the same vessels, was because "The morale effect would be considerable" according to the US Bureau of ships. The Pearl Harbour attacks took a heavy toll on the Navy, so any boost would be welcome.

 

[Dukhat]

Still a significant lack of resources and components after the Mars attacks?(ack,ack)

Sure, I get that. But it still isn’t a valid reason why anyone would consider the new ship a ‘refit’ of the old ship.