Is Titan-A a refit of original Titan?

It's equally the prerogative of the audience (part of it, obviously...) to not accept something that is perceived to be nonsense. It's not that I can't think the "explanation" is ridiculous and keep watching at the same time.

Take Shaw purging the computer of Riker's jazz. Simple explanation: it was copied from the database of its predecessor by the practical jokers in Starfleet Engineering. No need for a "refit" that 100% changes the ship.

 

I was referring to the show overall. Perhaps "his story " is more technically correct.

 

Absolutely . But, it's not because I agree with Terry or he has won me over. It's that I respect writers and their views, and will work within perceived nonsense.

Others will find it harder to swallow.

 

Sometimes nonsense is just nonsense.

 

This is not comparable. Those ships retained their name (the Titan-A denotes a new ship in Starfleet parlance, named in honour of the original, with a new registration), their roles (battleships and aircraft carrier, respectively), their hulls, and the Conte Di Cavour also retained their main armament. The vessels are still recognisable. Those are actual reconstructions (not even refits, which are far less extensive) of the same vessels. So, retain the name and the original hull is still there.

 

Sometimes. I don't think this is one of those times.

I just am willing to work with parameters given.

 

Yet a lot of us aren't. I'm perplexed at the pushback to these valid (if very minor) complaints. It doesn't mean we don't enjoy the show - I am loving this season. I personally don't like how retro the Titan-A is, regardless of the techie nitpick side of it. I would have loved a Connie-esque counterpart to the Sagan class instead but this is Matalas' baby and I'm inclined to give him a pass because, for me, he's turned a dead loss of a Trek show around. And most of the visuals do look great.

 

People see the world differently. Discussions come from sharing perspective not just going "You're right; it is nonsense. "

 

And yet we got the infamous copy/paste armada of Inquiry Class ships in season 1. I really wish they wouldn't bother with these brave attempts to explain what are fundamentally creative decisions.

 

But it is nonsense.

 

He answered that too.


Utopia Planitia isn't the only shipyard in the Federation, it was just the biggest.
https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Federation_shipyards

Note that Dave Blass did not work on Season 1, he came on with Season 2. So this is a retroactive explanation from someone who had no hand in it.

 

And in fairness, Dave was pretty keen to give us a much more familiar and diverse Starfleet in season two and three.

 

I like it.

 

Dave is a big Trek fan. The kind that likes to make up reasons for things that don't make sense.

 

I suppose I'll allow him that.

 

Honestly, I was. Anything that needs this much convoluted explanation was poorly thought through in the first place... that or they just didn't care and thought everyone would swallow the nonsense.

 

Yup, apathy or thoughtlessness...those are the only two options for opinions about the writers.

Another YATI pin in my Terry voodoo doll.

 

I find it astonishing that anyone could watch the first four episodes and conclude that the writers and designers don't care.

 

I think it's just a case of the writers not really understanding the terminology, then doubling down like crazy on it

 

At first I was having a tough time swallowing the convoluted “refit” idea. As time goes on, however, I’m warming to it. If the bones/space frame of a ship were damaged beyond reasonable repair, but the warp coils, core, computers, etc were all in good condition, installing those existing components into a new space frame would make sense.

Take the NASA Orion capsule as a real world example. Artemis 1 flew successfully. All the avionics are being stripped out of the first capsule and into a new capsule for the second mission.