Spoilers 31st/32nd Century Ships Revealed

[Markonian]

I'm trying to remember the name. The right one reminds me of a FASA frigate.
Coventry-class?
Anyway, it's a flat, round saucer with a "backpack" like square secondary hull at the aft end, and a pair of stubby nacelles suspended below.
More flat, clear lines rather than curved, compared to a Miranda.
Unfortunately, the only pick I can find is in the form of a curvy Miranda variant.
http://fasaststcs.com/index.php/the...-planets/star-fleet/coventry-class-x-frigate/

 

[Ar-Pharazon]

I'm trying to remember the name. The right one reminds me of a FASA frigate.
Coventry-class?
Anyway, it's a flat, round saucer with a "backpack" like square secondary hull at the aft end, and a pair of stubby nacelles suspended below.
More flat, clear lines rather than curved, compared to a Miranda.
Unfortunately, the only pick I can find is in the form of a curvy Miranda variant.
http://fasaststcs.com/index.php/the...-planets/star-fleet/coventry-class-x-frigate/

That really is more like a TOS era Miranda. The one in question has the pylons coming out of a rear section the Miranda and Coventry don't have. I'd love for it to be a Discovery-fied Miranda.

 

[137th Gebirg]

It wasn't the same ship that has a pic in the mess hall?
View attachment 19052
View attachment 19053
Nope, different nacelle position. But it does look like a Hoover class, as cool as it would've been to be a Miranda class.
View attachment 19054

I’m thinking it was a Malachowski Frigate.

 

[Ar-Pharazon]

I’m thinking it was a Malachowski Frigate.

The saucer on that ship is round much further back than the Malachowski and the nacelles are definitely straight down.

 

[Tuskin38]

I’m thinking it was a Malachowski Frigate.

Nah, the saucer and hull are the wrong shape, nacelles are wrong, and the pylons are at the wrong angle.

It's a brand new design.

 

[137th Gebirg]

I was referring to the 3/4 view picture on the Disco mess wall behind Stamets, not the newer designs. They are definitely different.

 

[Ar-Pharazon]

I was referring to the 3/4 view picture on the Disco mess wall behind Stamets, not the newer designs. They are definitely different.

I tried comparing that one to the obvious Edison. Nacelles are still too splayed out to the sides. (assuming this is the one)

 

[Tuskin38]

https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Talk:Voyager_type

Lol the M-A admins can’t decide if the new intrepid should have its own page or a sub-section on the current one.

 

[Markonian]

https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Talk:Voyager_type

Lol the M-A admins can’t decide if the new intrepid should have its own page or a sub-section on the current one.

I like Appalachia's suggestion to use tabs, like for the configurations of the Constitution class: https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Constitution_class

 

[ChristopherPike]

If most Starship lineages are up to J, you're gonna need a longer lounge wall to hang your little ships.

 

[Timo]

AFAIK, the Discovery wall doesn't have any lineages or historical examples there, though: the ships are explicit Battle of Binaries losses, mounted for propagandist reasons (perhaps on Lorca's insistence, as he really would have had his hands full trying to do this "war effort" thing with the clueless Feds).

The piece of art behind Stamets is the Malachowski class USS Clarke, NCC-1661, specifically. This is what the art looks like up close:

https://memory-beta.fandom.com/wiki/USS_Malachowski?file=Clarke1661.jpeg

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Markonian]

If most Starship lineages are up to J, you're gonna need a longer lounge wall to hang your little ships.

We Eaglemoss collectors are happy to share some tips.

 

[Tuskin38]

I like Appalachia's suggestion to use tabs, like for the configurations of the Constitution class: https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Constitution_class

But thing is, I don't think the 32rd Century Intrepid is intended to be the same class in the same way the Connie's are. It's not a refit of the previous design, it's a whole new ship inspired by the original Intrepid Class.

 

[AaronMorse]

I'm trying to remember the name. The right one reminds me of a FASA frigate.
Coventry-class?
Anyway, it's a flat, round saucer with a "backpack" like square secondary hull at the aft end, and a pair of stubby nacelles suspended below.
More flat, clear lines rather than curved, compared to a Miranda.
Unfortunately, the only pick I can find is in the form of a curvy Miranda variant.
http://fasaststcs.com/index.php/the...-planets/star-fleet/coventry-class-x-frigate/

Nit pick: The Coventry class wasnt from FASA.. There was an Anton Class by FASA. The Coventry was by Starstation Aurora (I had a poster on my wall as a teenager.. Coventry..Detroyat.. Avenger.. how I miss you old designs. LOL

But I agree.. it looks a bit like a Coventry or an Anton Class from days of yore.

 

[Dukhat]

But thing is, I don't think the 32rd Century Intrepid is intended to be the same class in the same way the Connie's are. It's not a refit of the previous design, it's a whole new ship inspired by the original Intrepid Class.

I would very much like to agree with you. Especially considering that in the entire history of Star Trek since The Voyage Home, its been understood that a letter suffix denotes a new ship, not refits (where the registry number doesn't change.) But now this show is implying that the opposite is true; that a refit ship gets a new letter (the Discovery-A, the Tikhov-M, the Intrepid class Voyager-J, etc., and with the case of the Tikhov, that this has been happening from the 23rd century onwards.) Either this is an intentional change, or the producers simply don't know Star Trek history, or they just don't care. In my opinion, the whole thing is patently absurd. There's no way that Voyager-J is the same ship as Janeway's, despite the class name.

 

[F. King Daniel]

There's no way that Voyager-J is the same ship as Janeway's, despite the class name.

Why not? With programmable nanite matter or whatever it us, massive refits take days instead of years. There's probably very very little in common between Janeway's Voyager and the V-J (YES! Best name shortening ever), but no reason why it can't have originally been the same ship.

They've reached the point of technology seeming magic, so why not have an 800 year old ship?

 

[Dukhat]

Why not? With programmable nanite matter or whatever it us, massive refits take days instead of years. There's probably very very little in common between Janeway's Voyager and the V-J (YES! Best name shortening ever), but no reason why it can't have originally been the same ship.

They've reached the point of technology seeming magic, so why not have an 800 year old ship?

That would depend on when programmable matter became a thing. Unless it was discovered at the end of the 24th century or into the start of the 25th, then I highly doubt the J is the same ship as Janeway's. At least with the Tikhov, there's no way they had programmable matter in the 23rd century.

 

[Timo]

With the Voyager, we have the additional angle that the celebrity ship might have become a museum exhibit for the next 450 years, displayed in pristine condition thanks to relatively minor advances in preservation technology. So when programmable matter became a thing, it had the perfect template to work on.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Markonian]

Just to elaborate,

the 32nd century Intrepid class being the same-but-evolved Intrepid class of the 24th
doesn't mean that the Voy-J is the same ship as the first Voyager. The 1701 and 1701-A were members of the same class, with one evolved, but different ships.

 

[Tuskin38]

Just to elaborate,

the 32nd century Intrepid class being the same-but-evolved Intrepid class of the 24th
doesn't mean that the Voy-J is the same ship as the first Voyager. The 1701 and 1701-A were members of the same class, with one evolved, but different ships.

But there's nothing saying this Intrepid is a refit of the 24th Century one.

The Ent-A was a Refit Connie. (though most likely built in Refit configuration from the start)