To honor the starfleet crew of the ship?
Spoilers 31st/32nd Century Ships Revealed
- Thread starter NCC-73515
- Start date
I always thought all the ideas in Voyager were Torres and her old Maquis tricks
Other than Captain Tarrell and Chekov, weren't they left on Ceti Alpha V and rescued?
Perhaps centuries of historical revisionism and a new appreciation for genetic enhancement has recast Khan Singh in the role of a hero or savior or great unifier on Earth and in the Federation. He even had his admirers in the 23rd century.
Maybe after their rescue they got a new ship named Reliant NCC-1864-A like Kirk did. Picard served on a ship named Reliant from 2327-30 so that was presumably an NCC-1864-B or C.
Last edited:
The Reliant was hijacked and used to attack another Federation vessel in a single incident. We don't know anything about its service beforehand. Let's not forget that the Enterprise doesn't exactly have an unblemished history. As just one example the M5 took over the ship and nearly destroyed the Excalibur (which lost all hands during the battle). Add to that, the Reliant's hijacking and demise was intertwined with Genesis, the highly classified galactic controversy. It may not be widely known what role the Reliant played.
Unless they want to reclaim the name?
Maybe history has been kind to Khan
Well, it really killed him with Khan-ness.
I don't believe that this tradition has changed. Discovery is - to my understanding - a unique case, because Starfleet c. 3189 is trying to cover for a violation of the Temporal Accords committed by way of Discovery's arrival from 2257. Exactly whose reactions among the signatories they're trying to avert is not yet clear.
They told the Ni'Var everything, and the crew have been open the entire season anout where and when they came from. I doubt they care about the Temporal Accords, or they'd be roleplaying 32nd century officers born and bred, with fake backstories for everyone.
Yep. If they were really trying to cover up who they are and where they came from, they would have given the Discovery’s registry number as 1031-M or something. Making it 1031-A just blatantly points out the fact that there’s a huge 900 year discrepancy from one ship to another, and that would arouse more suspicion than just making the registry more contemporary.
Depends on the history of the name Discovery.
A U.S.S. Discovery was operating in the mid-24th century; however, we don't know what its registry number was. But if it was, say, 1031-D, then making the original 'lost' Discovery 1031-A after its refit would make even less sense, especially if the suffix was given because Starfleet was trying to hide the true identity of the ship.
Hmm...interesting.
"Telling Vulcans" is probably the least dangerous maneuver imaginable in the Trek universe. Since when have those folks come up clean with anything?
Not only do we still lack an explicit rationale for the -A in-universe - it's difficult to see why the writers would come up with that, too. Or the VFX artists, who for all we know were the ones to come up with this feature of purely visual interest, but would probably have been censored anyway if the writers didn't have a reason to at least think "cool, we can work with this".
With the 1701-A, the in-universe rationale remains pure fanwank, but the dramatic reasons are obvious, and basically flow directly from the decision to go for the "My friends, we have come home!" angle and hit the reset button with a sledgehammer.
Yet here we face a wholly different writing environment, and it's quite possible that the writers will give us the in-universe rationale just because it's currently fashionable to give in-universe rationales to everything. But hopefully the Eaglemoss booklet on the 1031-A will provide some sort of an answer to the out-universe question!
Timo Saloniemi
Not only do we still lack an explicit rationale for the -A in-universe - it's difficult to see why the writers would come up with that, too. Or the VFX artists, who for all we know were the ones to come up with this feature of purely visual interest, but would probably have been censored anyway if the writers didn't have a reason to at least think "cool, we can work with this".
With the 1701-A, the in-universe rationale remains pure fanwank, but the dramatic reasons are obvious, and basically flow directly from the decision to go for the "My friends, we have come home!" angle and hit the reset button with a sledgehammer.
Yet here we face a wholly different writing environment, and it's quite possible that the writers will give us the in-universe rationale just because it's currently fashionable to give in-universe rationales to everything. But hopefully the Eaglemoss booklet on the 1031-A will provide some sort of an answer to the out-universe question!
Timo Saloniemi
STO treats these as phaser strips. According to one of the ship artists, none of the material CBS gave them labelled where the weapons were, so they just guessed.
Torpedo launchers
I wonder if this is an auxiliary craft like the Aeroshuttle
The bussards merge into the grill
Torpedo launchers
I wonder if this is an auxiliary craft like the Aeroshuttle
The bussards merge into the grill
Yeah I could see those as being phaser strips. If I were to look at those without having been told what they were up-front, that would have been my guess as well, with transporter beam emitters as a close second. In fairness, they could conceivably serve in both capacities, as they possess design aesthetics of both types of surface features.
To hide the fact that it's the same ship.
Technically, Discovery's very presence in the 32nd century is in violation of Federation law (against time travel). So calling it Discovery-A gives Starfleet plausible deniability. They get to claim it's a different ship.
Those look more like parts of a reaction control thruster system than phasers. Or vent grilles of some sort.
Even the short phaser strips were uniform in shape.
Even the short phaser strips were uniform in shape.
Similar threads
