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

[DonIago]

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.

I think people move old components to a new computer all the time, depending on how you're defining components. Keyboards, mice, other external components (that they're external doesn't mean they're not components?) oftentimes hard drives. I try not to buy everything all over again if I have things that are working fine for me.

That said, in the case of Titan, there are things I could see them moving over assuming compatibility, but I agree with your above post that that wouldn't make it a 'refit' because the base ship is still entirely new.

 

[Dukhat]

I think people move old components to a new computer all the time, depending on how you're defining components. Keyboards, mice, other external components (that they're external doesn't mean they're not components?) oftentimes hard drives. I try not to buy everything all over again if I have things that are working fine for me.

That said, in the case of Titan, there are things I could see them moving over assuming compatibility, but I agree with your above post that that wouldn't make it a 'refit' because the base ship is still entirely new.

I was thinking more of internal components, since wanting to keep using your old keyboard and mouse is more of a personal choice rather than something necessitated by the lack of availability of new keyboards and mice.

 

[Tuskin38]

thereby proving nether he or whoever drew up this picture know the meaning of the word refit.

The artist has nothing to do with this argument on refits (I know him) he was just asked to create what was described to him.

 

[Daedalus]

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.

Not a literal one, no, they aren't refits as we know them. We've definitely established that.

But let's imagine that Stargazer and Titan are accidental analogues of Downes and Cassin, with the acknowledgement that the respective navies classified them as the exact ship (on paper, for arguments sake). Is that fair to say at least?

What if those ships were refitted after a shakedown cruise? Would those same navies be justified in calling them a refit?

 

[DonIago]

Isn't that akin to asking whether the renamed Sao Paulo is a refit of the Defiant? Granted the former didn't inherit any parts from the latter, that we know of, but still, giving a ship the same name as one that's no longer in service for whatever reason doesn't make it a refit. And if the new Defiant was subsequently genuinely refit, that's still a refit of the new vessel, not the original.

With the Downes and Cassin example, they could just as easily have tacked on a -A or what-not.

 

[Daedalus]

Isn't that akin to asking whether the renamed Sao Paulo is a refit of the Defiant? Granted the former didn't inherit any parts from the latter, that we know of, but still, giving a ship the same name as one that's no longer in service for whatever reason doesn't make it a refit. And if the new Defiant was subsequently genuinely refit, that's still a refit of the new vessel, not the original.

How was the Sao Paulo to Defiant situation handled in the show? I genuinely can't remember, but if it was just seen as the same ship, then that's a good comparison. No registry suffix, I presume?

All this is just to ".003% signal degradation" a way out of a writing error anyway. At the very least, we have some kind of an example to refer to.

I'm sure the same has been done with the Discovery to Discovery-A situation. Re-registering a ship that way hasn't been seen before, but fans created an explanation. It could be a way to show the ship has been refit, or an attempt to maintain the fiction that the Discovery was destroyed in the 23rd century. I don't think the writers explained it themselves.

 

[Ray Hardgrit]

How was the Sao Paulo to Defiant situation handled in the show? I genuinely can't remember, but if it was just seen as the same ship, then that's a good comparison. No registry suffix, I presume?

They didn't even change it from NX to NCC (they had to keep it the same because of their use of stock footage).

 

[The Wormhole]

How was the Sao Paulo to Defiant situation handled in the show? I genuinely can't remember, but if it was just seen as the same ship, then that's a good comparison. No registry suffix, I presume?

It was acknowledged to be a new ship that got renamed Defiant. It kept the Defiant's registry NX-74205, but that's only because all the footage of it was reused shots. Ron Moore did say there was a plan to give the new Defiant NCC-74205-A for its registry but because they recycled footage, that was never enacted. Hilariously, back in Voyager Message in a Bottle, the two Defiant class ships sent to retake the Prometheus both have "USS Defiant NX-74205" written on their hulls. I often joke that one of them is the actual Defiant while the other is the Sao Paulo.

I'm sure the same has been done with the Discovery to Discovery-A situation. Re-registering a ship that way hasn't been seen before, but fans created an explanation. It could be a way to show the ship has been refit, or an attempt to maintain the fiction that the Discovery was destroyed in the 23rd century. I don't think the writers explained it themselves.

That was supposed to cover the fact the ship was from the past, given time travel is illegal. Granted, everyone knew they were from the past anyway, making the whole charade seem rather redundant, to say nothing of the fact that their first few months in the 32nd century the crew still continued to wear their 23rd century uniforms. Which would be odd that nobody ever questioned why a modern ship is wearing 900 year out of date uniforms, but then, nobody ever notices that someone is wearing a different style of Starfleet uniform than the normal one anyway.

 

[Daedalus]

It was acknowledged to be a new ship that got renamed Defiant. It kept the Defiant's registry NX-74205, but that's only because all the footage of it was reused shots. Ron Moore did say there was a plan to give the new Defiant NCC-74205-A for its registry but because they recycled footage, that was never enacted. Hilariously, back in Voyager Message in a Bottle, the two Defiant class ships sent to retake the Prometheus both have "USS Defiant NX-74205" written on their hulls. I often joke that one of them is the actual Defiant while the other is the Sao Paulo.

Ah, that's a shame. Off the top of my head, I would've assumed that was how it all happened anyway. Of all the Trek shows, DS9 is the one that I have the haziest memories of.

That was supposed to cover the fact the ship was from the past, given time travel is illegal. Granted, everyone knew they were from the past anyway, making the whole charade seem rather redundant, to say nothing of the fact that their first few months in the 32nd century the crew still continued to wear their 23rd century uniforms. Which would be odd that nobody ever questioned why a modern ship is wearing 900 year out of date uniforms, but then, nobody ever notices that someone is wearing a different style of Starfleet uniform than the normal one anyway.

Is this in reference to a recent time-travel episode in S5? If so, I thought that odd too.

 

[The Wormhole]

Is this in reference to a recent time-travel episode in S5? If so, I thought that odd too.

That's one example. Others include Voyager Message in a Bottle when the Doctor tells the Romulans who have taken over the Prometheus that he's the ship's EMH, the Romulans don't seem to notice the EMH of Starfleet's newest and most advanced ship is wearing an outdated uniform. Or on DS9 when Worf and Garak end up in a Dominion prison camp and see Bashir wearing the older uniform. Bashir does not notice that Worf's wearing a new uniform design, nor do Worf and Garak notice Bashir is still wearing the older uniform. Which is especially odd in Garak's case, you'd think someone wearing outdated clothes would be the first thing a tailor would notice.

 

[evilchumlee]

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

They are two different ships. But also, they consider Titan-A a refit of Titan.

It is the easiest answer because... it's the answer.

If what you're trying to say is that Titan-A isn't a refit, that's objectively incorrect. The show confirmed it as a refit of Titan. There's not really any discussion to be had on that fact.

The discussion is more the circumstances being the Titan-A being both a new vessel and a refit concurrently.

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.

And yet, we circle back to the objective confirmed in the show that the Titan-A is both a new ship, AND a refit of Titan.

I would think the easiest answer of them all is to just accept that the word "refit" isn't applied in the exact same way as one might use the word today. It's not uncommon for words to drift in meaning over several centuries.

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

I can appreciate that, but in this particular case it seems like the "research" is trying to desperately to disprove an object canon fact. That just seems so counterproductive.

It's so much more reasonable to take the established the facts and extrapolate from there, those facts being that Titan-A is a refit. Confirmed by canon. 100%. Titan-A is also a new ship. Confirmed by canon. 100%. Those two items are irrefutable. So my research would lead me to explaining how two statements could be true at the same time, because we know that they are.

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.

I think a part of enjoying the shows are the discussions about them, and especially in the case of Trek, the minute details. Although I come from the angle of not trying to explain away things as if they didn't happen, but trying to explain them as they did happen, even for things I don't like.

For example. I truly despise the Discovery Klingons. But... they exist. My eyes can confirm that. So rather than trying to come up with some esoteric explanation that basically says "actually, they don't exist", i'm going to explain how they do.


To piggyback on the Defiant example, I think it might be safe to assume through observations that Starfleet doesn't operate on a "standard procedure" for everything. My observation would lead me to believe that many of these decisions come through local command... the decision on if a ship with a previous namesake gets a letter suffix or new registration seems to be up to local command.

Defiant is the strangest outlier in being the same class of ship, the same name, AND the same registry. The only other similar example we have is 1701 to 1701-A, which seemed to similar circumstances but it got the suffix.

If we are going to speculate, and make it relevant to this thread, I think that the Defiant situation is actually something of a reverse Titan. Sao Paolo may not have been completed yet, and Defiant was salvaged enough that alot of Defiant went into Sao Paolo. Makes sense in this situation moreso than most, they were in a desperate war, why waste working components? So in the end given that the ship was built/completed with Defiant parts, and as a way to honor it, they treated it more as a "rebuild" of Defiant rather than a new ship or a "refit".

 

[Dukhat]

They are two different ships. But also, they consider Titan-A a refit of Titan.

It is the easiest answer because... it's the answer.

If what you're trying to say is that Titan-A isn't a refit, that's objectively incorrect. The show confirmed it as a refit of Titan. There's not really any discussion to be had on that fact.

None of that was what we were discussing.

The discussion is more the circumstances being the Titan-A being both a new vessel and a refit concurrently.

No, the discussion was about the erroneous use of the term ‘refit’ as it applies to more ships than just the Titan.

And yet, we circle back to the objective confirmed in the show that the Titan-A is both a new ship, AND a refit of Titan.

I would think the easiest answer of them all is to just accept that the word "refit" isn't applied in the exact same way as one might use the word today. It's not uncommon for words to drift in meaning over several centuries.

Yep, that’s what we were discussing. Because there were two contradictory uses of the word ‘refit’ in the show. One was used to describe the new Stargazer, which was NOT a refit in any way, shape or form from the older Stargazer, and then the term was also used to describe the Titan-A, which was both a new ship and a refit of an old ship, but not a refit in the way the term has been used in Star Trek for the last 50 years.

I can appreciate that, but in this particular case it seems like the "research" is trying to desperately to disprove an object canon fact. That just seems so counterproductive.

So this is where you look beyond the constraints of canon and debate that in fact the writers are imperfect and write things that don’t always make sense or are contradictory, in which case one can judge for themselves what they really meant when they say something that contradicts something else.

I think a part of enjoying the shows are the discussions about them, and especially in the case of Trek, the minute details.

And yet you keep saying that things aren’t debatable and shouldn’t be discussed. So which is it? You’re being as contradictory as the subject we are discussing.

 

[evilchumlee]

And yet you keep saying that things aren’t debatable and shouldn’t be discussed. So which is it? You’re being as contradictory as the subject we are discussing.

That's not true at all, there can be all sorts of discussions and debates, just about things that are debatable.

I may have misunderstood some of the conversation and thought we were mostly discussing Titan. In that case, it's a refit and a new ship. That's the fact. We can absolutely debate, discuss and speculate as to the how and why of that.

Stargazer I do believe is very open for debate and I even addressed that earlier in the thread... i'm perfectly willing to chalk up the Stargazer getting an offhand reference as a "refit" by Picard as being a 90-something year old dude misspeaking, and just nobody bothering to correct him. I don't think we always need to take a single line of dialogue as absolute dogmatic truth. People can and do misspeak all the time.

If are do take Picard's quote as 100% factual, then sure there's more debate there. In that case, i'm back to the easiest answer being "refit means something different than it does today". Starfleet might consider its new line of old-ship inspired designs to be "refits", despite being completely new vessels. Maybe it's a REAL stretch of the term and it stems from Starfleet actually using the old designs/blueprints as the base of the new ships and modifying/updating them to be modern. They aren't refitting a physical ship, they're refitting the design. It works... to steal a phrase from Star Wars... "from a certain point of view".

 

[Dukhat]

In the fictional universe of Star Trek, everything is up for debate. Thats why this discussion BBS exists. So saying that things are unequivocally not up for debate is debatable.

 

[evilchumlee]

In the fictional universe of Star Trek, everything is up for debate. Thats why this discussion BBS exists. So saying that things are unequivocally not up for debate is debatable.

In the strictest sense, sure you can debate anything. I'll walk back what I said I bit because it didn't come off quite the way I intended it to be.

You can absolutely discuss and debate anything. That's... why we're here.

There happen to be things that are just simply 100% confirmed by the shows, so while you can absolute discuss and debate anything you desire, debating if something did or didn't happen to the shows have confirmed already is just redundant? But also if that's the discussion you want to have, that's totally ok.

Please don't take what I said as like, some sort of weird mandate that you are not allowed to do something. It was intended as a "just because you can do a thing, doesn't mean you should do that thing." But if you want to, go for it!

 

[fireproof78]

would think the easiest answer of them all is to just accept that the word "refit" isn't applied in the exact same way as one might use the word today. It's not uncommon for words to drift in meaning over several centuries.

For you. Not for me.

It's so much more reasonable to take the established the facts and extrapolate from there, those facts being that Titan-A is a refit. Confirmed by canon. 100%. Titan-A is also a new ship. Confirmed by canon. 100%. Those two items are irrefutable. So my research would lead me to explaining how two statements could be true at the same time, because we know that they are.

If that works for you more lower to you.

My research will always go outside of canon to inspiration, word use and authorial intent. Canon is never the satisfactory answer for me.

 

[evilchumlee]

My research will always go outside of canon to inspiration, word use and authorial intent. Canon is never the satisfactory answer for me.

That's ok. I have a hard time understanding the mentality though.

"The show established x, but I don't like x, so i'm going to make it y instead."

Sure at the end of the day you do you, but at that point are you discussing the story as is, or the story you made up?

 

[fireproof78]

That's ok. I have a hard time understanding the mentality though.

"The show established x, but I don't like x, so i'm going to make it y instead."

Sure at the end of the day you do you, but at that point are you discussing the story as is, or the story you made up?

Made up?

My whole point is that words have meaning so that if there is a change we should be made aware of its use.

I mean, if this is the case then Kirk being both a lieutenant and a cadet in ST09 should be a minor issue too, yes?

There's a reason why I dig in and research. There's always more to the story. And if it leads me back to the conclusion presented on screen so be it.

May you find your way as pleasant.

 

[Dukhat]

Continuity (not canon, as I still think you’re confusing the terms) means little to the people currently in charge of Star Trek. So why should we feel bound by that constraint? It’s all fiction and subject to the whims of whatever writer is writing it at the time.

 

[DonIago]

People sometimes misspeak in the real world (sometimes even on this board (gasp!)); I see no reason why we can't assume that people might misspeak in the fictitious world of Star Trek if what they're saying seems counterfactual, and in a case like this, that seems to me to be the most straightforward approach.

We also have pretty good evidence that we've seen some things in the franchise which, even if intended to be taken 100% literally, don't really hold up if interpreted that way (at least, not without some creative thinking).

We can, of course, get into arguments about whether other characters were then misspeaking at other times in the franchise, but that's why you look at the evidence and ultimately decide for yourself what resolution works best for you.