Spoilers 31st/32nd Century Ships Revealed

[Locutus of Bored]

Since there's no poll in the OP there's no real need for a separate thread from the other one about the future Starfleet ships. Merging in 3...2...1...

ETA: Also changed the thread title to account for the 31st (during The Burn) and 32nd (DSC's "present") century timeframe we've seen these ships in.

 

[NCC-73515]

No, that was when dilitihium supplies dried up not when the burn occurred. It's stated multiple times that the burn occurred 120 years before Discovery arrived which would have been 3068-69.

watch the beginning of episode 3 again. the actual time of the burn was revealed later.

 

[Timo]

Yup. So, as stated at the beginning of that episode, 700 years after the departure, sources of dilithium dry up. "Then" comes the Burn. And we later learn what this "then" means, namely 3068 or so. Agony_Boothb has it right.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Jinn]

We already knew since episode one that the Burn was in the general area of the late 31st century.

 

[Timo]

And "general area" is where one should stick, rather than assuming that 700 years means 700 sharp, or 120 means 120 sharp. And Memory Alpha treats the 700 figure with the appropriate vagueness - but takes 120 as sharp gospel, unlike the show itself, which is yet to nail down things quite that tight.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Ronald Held]

Would you not take a warp core down for hardware maintenance?

 

[Timo]

We have seen this happen basically once, in TNG, for the dilithium swap. Presumably a rare occurrence in that era, or then Picard is in good terms with Lady Luck and usually gets his maintenance done when the camera looks the other way.

But perhaps Janeway did frequent maintenance of that sort, which is why her ship was always at impulse at the start of an episode? The demanding stretches of long range, high speed warp travel in between the adventures might have been unusual for a Starfleet vessel.

If maintenance happens off screen in basically all 24th century Trek, increased automation and reliability and even fewer maintenance breaks could be postulated for the later centuries. But perhaps not - some hardware today breaks down just as often as its shoddier 1920s counterparts, due to increased complexity...

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Markonian]

In the latest Discovery novel, "Wonderlands", Starfleet starships were docked at a starbase and avoided detonating. However, they were still rendered unusable by the Burn.

 

[lightspeedbear]

The USS Thant is a beauty, and genuinely looks like a future Starfleet ship. The detached nacelles also work on it from a design pov.

The rest are just a mess, imo.

It's also sad how when you google the various ships, the only screencaps of them are the usual blurry, badly lit, fuzzy visuals the series is known for

Also why is the Voyager-J still Intrepid Class, 800+ years after the original. That's quite something, keeping the class name nearly a millennium later.

 

[Lakenheath 72]

Yet, the show won an Emmy for Outstanding Special Visual Effects for the episode "Su'Kal".

The Angelou-class, the rainforest ship, looks like an eye.

 

[C.E. Evans]

Also why is the Voyager-J still Intrepid Class, 800+ years after the original. That's quite something, keeping the class name nearly a millennium later.

Star Trek Online feels the same way and calls the design the Janeway-class instead.

 

[lightspeedbear]

Yet, the show won an Emmy for Outstanding Special Visual Effects for the episode "Su'Kal".

I've not seen that episode, maybe the visuals are much better than usual in it? It's not just a Discovery thing, Picard is equally terrible at space visual effects most of the time.

 

[Agony_Boothb]

watch the beginning of episode 3 again. the actual time of the burn was revealed later.

You are wrong. The Burn happens in 3069. Not only was it confirmed by Book, Vance and other characters, Su'Kal wasn't born until 3064, after the Khi'eth crashed on the dilithium planet.

 

[NCC-73515]

Yup. So, as stated at the beginning of that episode, 700 years after the departure, sources of dilithium dry up. "Then" comes the Burn. And we later learn what this "then" means, namely 3068 or so. Agony_Boothb has it right.

Timo Saloniemi

see: later

You are wrong. The Burn happens in 3069. Not only was it confirmed by Book, Vance and other characters, Su'Kal wasn't born until 3064, after the Khi'eth crashed on the dilithium planet.

there was no mention of vance or su'kal in episodes 1 or 2.

 

[Tuskin38]

Also why is the Voyager-J still Intrepid Class, 800+ years after the original. That's quite something, keeping the class name nearly a millennium later.

Why not?

Nothing says all the Voyagers were of a class named Intrepid. For all we know the Voy-J is the first one since the original.

 

[Agony_Boothb]

see: later

there was no mention of vance or su'kal in episodes 1 or 2.

What are you talking about? Book says in episode 1 that the burn happened 120 years before. Vance confirms this later in the season and then we found out that Su'kal was born in 3064 after the Khi'eth crashed.

 

[LazyReader]

Architecture was a huge influence in designs of ships. Burrowing from design influences of famous architects
- Constitution class: Eero Sarrinen
- Angelous class: Norman Foster
- Saturn class - Santiago Calatrava
- Dresselhaus - Le Corbusier
- Courage class- Zaha Hadid

Federation headquarters resembles works of architect Cesar Pelli.

 

[NCC-73515]

What are you talking about? Book says in episode 1 that the burn happened 120 years before. Vance confirms this later in the season and then we found out that Su'kal was born in 3064 after the Khi'eth crashed.

have you watched that scene again where the pictures are from? did you see when this thread was created?

 

[Agony_Boothb]

have you watched that scene again where the pictures are from? did you see when this thread was created?

Again, what are you on about? The scene with the Federation ships exploding was depicting the Burn. The Burn didn't happen until 3069 because Su'kal, who caused the Burn wasn't born until 3064. 3069 does not equal '30th century' because we measure years from the year 0 AD. This is why while we live in the 21st century our years begin with 20.

On screen evidence from multiple characters confirms the Burn as occurring 120 years before the year 3188. I'm not sure why this is a difficult concept to grasp.

 

[NCC-73515]

Again, what are you on about? The scene with the Federation ships exploding was depicting the Burn. The Burn didn't happen until 3069 because Su'kal, who caused the Burn wasn't born until 3064. 3069 does not equal '30th century' because we measure years from the year 0 AD. This is why while we live in the 21st century our years begin with 20.

On screen evidence from multiple characters confirms the Burn as occurring 120 years before the year 3188. I'm not sure why this is a difficult concept to grasp.

Thread: Oct 22.
That episode the image and the 2258+700+"then" information are from: Oct 29.
Su'kal revealed: Dec 24.

It's so simple.