Spoilers 31st/32nd Century Ships Revealed
- Thread starter NCC-73515
- Start date
Or they're just greeblies with no original intent 
I would think that if they really wanted to hide the ship, not only should they have given it a registry of 1031-M instead of A (so people wouldn’t wonder why there was no other USS Discovery for 900 years), but they should not have let the ship out of Starfleet Command at all. But nobody seemed to have the attitude that the ship needed to be hidden from anyone.
It seemed to depend on the person being talked too. But, I think having the Discovery-A simply reflects that we have a new thing, the spore drive, and this new discovery will support our efforts.
I mean their texturing resembles 24th century phaser arrays. And what I posted matches the RCA thrusters on the original Intrepid.Or they're just greeblies with no original intent
I think there is clear intent there.
Is it more likely that SF found an old Crossfield in a depot, upgraded it and named it after Discovery?
...This being their cover story for the -A? Doesn't sound particularly believable as cover stories go.
If there's a cover-up going on, they would probably be going for the "no, no, these folks certainly didn't time-travel - they just went generational" angle, the same that Saru used at the Earth folks. But that one doesn't really benefit from using the -A registry.
Then again, STO is built on the premise that no starship is too old to serve in the early 25th century...
Timo Saloniemi
If there's a cover-up going on, they would probably be going for the "no, no, these folks certainly didn't time-travel - they just went generational" angle, the same that Saru used at the Earth folks. But that one doesn't really benefit from using the -A registry.
Then again, STO is built on the premise that no starship is too old to serve in the early 25th century...
Timo Saloniemi
And don't forget it was W. Matt Jeffries' original concept that the -A designation go to a refit
And don't forget it was W. Matt Jeffries' original concept that the -A designation go to a refit
No hyphen, but essentially correct.
Species 116 USS Dauntless was registered both NX-01-A and NX-01A, so no biggie Imho.
Calling it an "implication" is a bit much, really.
And ships are getting refitted all the time. Modified, too, which is what the Trek (mis)usage of the word "refit" usually entails. Applying a letter there each time there's a refit would mean Kirk should be riding NCC-1701-ZZTOP by the time of "Man Trap". Applying it each time there's an externally visible modification already yields NCC-1701-B by the time TOS gets past its two pilots!
The jury can remain out on this for all eternity for all we care. But modern Trek loves to backpedal and explain and sandblast all the jutting corners. We might hear of this in S4 already. Or then in S5, once the writers notice the great fan controversy this has stirred and rush to the retconpoles and dive to the continuitycave. For better or, probably, worse.
Timo Saloniemi
And ships are getting refitted all the time. Modified, too, which is what the Trek (mis)usage of the word "refit" usually entails. Applying a letter there each time there's a refit would mean Kirk should be riding NCC-1701-ZZTOP by the time of "Man Trap". Applying it each time there's an externally visible modification already yields NCC-1701-B by the time TOS gets past its two pilots!
The jury can remain out on this for all eternity for all we care. But modern Trek loves to backpedal and explain and sandblast all the jutting corners. We might hear of this in S4 already. Or then in S5, once the writers notice the great fan controversy this has stirred and rush to the retconpoles and dive to the continuitycave. For better or, probably, worse.
Timo Saloniemi
You’re right. I should have said ‘fact’ rather than implication. They practically hit the audience over the head with the link between the new refit and the suffix. And not once did anyone say that the Discovery needed to be disguised because it came from the past, nor stated or implied that the suffix was meant to be part of a disguise.
Last edited:
It not being for a sham can't be used as proof for it being for the refit - logic doesn't work that way.
And the point isn't what it is now, because it's nothing currently. The point is what the writers will make out of it, if anything. Their hands are free there, as long as nobody says the letter is for reason X.
Inventing the "it's a disguise" explanation in the middle of S4 is no different from inventing the reason, backstory and motivations for the Red Angel(s). It all was done well after the fact, and doesn't exactly fit the evidence, but within the tolerances of ambiguities, it works well enough. So if it happens, fine. If it doesn't, fine. If nothing is made of the -A, fine - but if something is, it's pretty difficult to imagine why this something couldn't work, for every value of something. At that point, implication (or writer intent or whatever) won't matter, if there ever was any. Just as it never mattered with the Red Angel.
Timo Saloniemi
And the point isn't what it is now, because it's nothing currently. The point is what the writers will make out of it, if anything. Their hands are free there, as long as nobody says the letter is for reason X.
Inventing the "it's a disguise" explanation in the middle of S4 is no different from inventing the reason, backstory and motivations for the Red Angel(s). It all was done well after the fact, and doesn't exactly fit the evidence, but within the tolerances of ambiguities, it works well enough. So if it happens, fine. If it doesn't, fine. If nothing is made of the -A, fine - but if something is, it's pretty difficult to imagine why this something couldn't work, for every value of something. At that point, implication (or writer intent or whatever) won't matter, if there ever was any. Just as it never mattered with the Red Angel.
Timo Saloniemi
Please show evidence that the ship was refitted and given a suffix because they were trying to hide the fact that it came from the past. Because I don’t see any. I only see a refit with a suffix and then said ship went on lots of missions using the spore drive, which they didn’t exactly keep secret either. Starfleet didn’t even bother to update the crew’s uniforms from the 900-year out of date ones.
What? No, I don't have any evidence for theory A. That doesn't make theory B truer (or falser) in any sense, is what I point out above.
Evidence might come later. Or then not. Theory C might end up being true (and I really hope it will, because the writers only parroting the fans and their expectations is no fun). At this point, no doors are closed: "lots of missions" is what in Vance's parlance counts as "keeping this special asset close to my chest". And Michael Burnham is quite adept at killing all the witnesses...
Timo Saloniemi
Evidence might come later. Or then not. Theory C might end up being true (and I really hope it will, because the writers only parroting the fans and their expectations is no fun). At this point, no doors are closed: "lots of missions" is what in Vance's parlance counts as "keeping this special asset close to my chest". And Michael Burnham is quite adept at killing all the witnesses...
Timo Saloniemi
Some ship names
https://twitter.com/d3andy3r/status/1374687741473128452?s=21
Not pictured, one of the ships is the USS Excalibur. I think the ship some of us have been thinking is the Reliant-M is actually the Excalibur-M.
1664 vs 1864.
https://twitter.com/d3andy3r/status/1374687741473128452?s=21
Not pictured, one of the ships is the USS Excalibur. I think the ship some of us have been thinking is the Reliant-M is actually the Excalibur-M.
1664 vs 1864.
Awesome find - thank you!
Similar threads
