Consider the Asbury Park / City of Sacramento / Kahloke / Langdale Queen / Lady Grace:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS_Asbury_Park
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS_Asbury_Park
Is Titan-A a refit of original Titan?
- Thread starter MarsWeeps
- Start date
If Lower Decks never showed the Luna class Titan, and if nobody actually read the novels (which weren’t canon anyway), then this would be entirely a non-issue. Matalas would have just had this ship be the same one mentioned in Nemesis, with no need for the ‘refit’ comment. That was clearly what he wanted.
Yes, he wrote his Star Trek fan fiction without consulting all materials.
https://twitter.com/daveblass/status/1633800104321712131?s=46&t=gfdn_mJIfVuixjWf3SBvXg
Fairly conclusive that the intention is two different space frames (I guess that’s what we mean when we say the same ship) with material and programming moved from one to the other.
Fairly conclusive that the intention is two different space frames (I guess that’s what we mean when we say the same ship) with material and programming moved from one to the other.
Is that what happened with the TOS Enterprise and the TMP Enterprise?
Sure, why not?
Because they weren’t two different ships?
But equally they’re so different that there’s nothing to say they didn’t start with a new frame and build up the “refit” around it, re-using components of the old Enterprise. That may be enough for Starfleet to deem it the same ship.
“Admiral, this is an almost totally new Enterprise”.
But yes, it’s clearly meant to be the same ship.
The Titan-A, like the Stargazer last season, is clearly a new ship. The registry number is evidence of that. The writers are just sloppy with their use of “refit”, which apparently now means reusing components. Perhaps it changed in the 130 years since TMP. That’s fine with me.
Don’t get me wrong: I don’t have any particular problem with the new use of the word ‘refit.’ My problem is the sloppy way Matalas and Blass came up with it. To me, it’s more a lazy excuse than an actual thing. It’s essentially just a meaningless word. If I put my old hard drive, video card and RAM in a new computer frame, it’s not a ‘refit’ of my old computer. It’s a new computer with my old hard drive, video card, and RAM.
Popping in to say, enjoy the artwork! It was great making it.
Hello Pundus, welcome to the TrekBBS!
The explanation that the attack on Mars led to a situation where Starfleet had to start making new ships out of pieces of old ones does make a certain amount of sense (though I'm not a huge fan of the idea that Utopia Planitia was, if not Starfleet's only shipyard, it was big enough that it outproduced all of the others put together, but I guess that's an idea that was implicit throughout the TNG era, and explicit with PIC establishing that its loss more-or-less ended Starfleet's ability to expand).
It would explain why those Excelsior II’s had such low registry numbers, if they were ‘refits’ of older Excelsiors. But then why didn’t they have the letter suffix like the Titan does?
My PoV is still that the Excelsior II is an unseen TNG design, since it uses established names and registry numbers, same for the Akira. As for the letters, I figure Starfleet became more liberal about handing them out as they were approaching six-digit registries and started to worry about the numbers getting too long.
But what is your computer if not the hard drive, video card and RAM? if you kept the case and replaced all those, is it the same computer? One piece changed at a time until everything is different? I moved my components from one tower to a new one and don't consider that a new computer at all. That's what they did here. Not so different than the Enterprise. We're just arguing semantics.
I think this is a debate that has exercised philosophers since ancient Greece!
I consider a new motherboard to be a ‘new computer.’ Even if it has my old drive, video card and RAM, it’s not my old computer.
Beautiful! I'd love to see a higher res version.
Similar threads
