Reason for Reliant's number?

[KirkusOveractus]

I tried searching here and elsewhere on the net, but I can't seem to find if there was ever any specific reason for Reliant carrying the 1864 number?

I remember in the Making of Star Trek II book that it had a photo of ILM folks posed around the model, all wearing cowboy hats and the caption saying they were appropriate for the ship's number or something like that.

Was there ever a reason given?

 

[sbk1234]

My guess, which is only a guess, is the same as the Enterprise's number, back in the 1960s. It looked good on screen, and was easily readable. They may have also been looking for a number that was higher than the ENterprise's for some reason. But, again, that's entirely a guess.

 

[Melakon]

I seem to remember reading in a magazine article or reference book long ago that it's a US Civil War reference. I'm not sure who was the one to make the decision, or the significance of the date. It might be an inside joke by the model makers.

 

[RunawayStarShip]

My guess, which is only a guess, is the same as the Enterprise's number, back in the 1960s. It looked good on screen, and was easily readable. They may have also been looking for a number that was higher than the Enterprise's for some reason. But, again, that's entirely a guess.

I think that I've read that was the main reason: to indicate that the Reliant was newer than the Enterprise and could be a threat to the hero ship in Khan's hands.

 

[LMFAOschwarz]

I think that I've read that was the main reason: to indicate that the Reliant was newer than the Enterprise and could be a threat to the hero ship in Khan's hands.

That could be, but I'm not sure it makes sense. A car with a higher license plate number than mine wouldn't necessarily be able to out-perform mine. (That's just a hypothetical example: realistically a Henry Ford quadricycle could probably out-perform mine. )

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

^ But the difference is, license plate numbers are handed out more or less at random. There's at least something approaching a system in the numbering of starships.

 

[Timo]

...Or at least such a system could be implied/established here, in a very convincing circular argument, by having Khan operate a ship that looks new and has the number to support it.

(Interestingly, TOS "Court Martial" already featured registries this high. So Khan's ship need not be brand spanking new, even if newer.)

Googling for 1864 gave me welcome education on the Circassian Wars but didn't turn up anything obvious regarding the Civil War. Where does the name Reliant come from? It's an odd name as such, a starship that is reliant on others rather than stalwart or inflexible or vengeful or whatever...

Timo Saloniemi

 

[B.J.]

I doubt you'll find anything to back this up, but one possible reason is that "1864" looks so different from "1701" that you can tell at just a glance that it's *not* the Enterprise. This would only really apply to tight shots where you couldn't see the whole ship, of course.

 

[Mario de Monti]

Interestingly, TOS "Court Martial" already featured registries this high.

I guess you mean the second number from the top, which is supposed to read "1831"? I´m not so sure about that. If you look at the screencap there are two definite 8s: the third from the bottom reads "1718" and the one below is "1685". If you compare these 8s (which clearly differ from the 6s) to the number in question, it doesn´t look like "1831" but rather "1631". So I´d say all the numbers on the list are either 16XX or 17XX.

Mario

 

[Timo]

...Or then the fifth ship from the top is actually the Reliant!

The difference in width between "confirmed" 6 and 8 might be an illusion, as there appears to be some difference in, say, the width of the 7s appearing in different columns, too. I guess we can interpret this in a number of ways on screencap basis, and it would require analyzing all the film frames featuring this table to establish whether certain numbers are more likely to be 6 or 8.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Kirby]

Where does the name Reliant come from? It's an odd name as such, a starship that is reliant on others rather than stalwart or inflexible or vengeful or whatever...

My own personal theory is that since Ricardo Montalban did a series of commercials for Chrysler starting in the late 70s for Chrysler, and their "fine Corinthian leather" and then Chrysler then came out with their very affordable 'Reliant K' cars in the early 80s and that this was a nod to that.

In reality, that is probably not the reason; but in my reality, that is exactly why it happened.

 

[Ar-Pharazon]

If we go with the "18 represents the 18th class of ship" theory, the Reliant is only one class newer and could easily have been refitted the same as Enterprise.

Even if not refitted but built as seen, it could still be the next class of ship and not be too much newer. Starfleet probably wasn't churning out new ships like we saw around the time of FC.

 

[Avro Arrow]

Where does the name Reliant come from? It's an odd name as such, a starship that is reliant on others rather than stalwart or inflexible or vengeful or whatever...

According to dictionary.com, reliant also means "confident, trustful", so the name makes more sense in that context.

...Or then the fifth ship from the top is actually the Reliant!

The difference in width between "confirmed" 6 and 8 might be an illusion, as there appears to be some difference in, say, the width of the 7s appearing in different columns, too. I guess we can interpret this in a number of ways on screencap basis, and it would require analyzing all the film frames featuring this table to establish whether certain numbers are more likely to be 6 or 8.i

I think I gotta agree... it's hard to be absolutely certain, but in that screencap, the fifth number looks an awful lot like "1864" to me. There are fairly obvious 6s both immediately above and immediately to the right of the second digit in question, and it doesn't appear to look like either of them.

It's funny, I had once thought that when TOS was released in hi-def, it would clear up all the questions surrounding the Court Martial chart, but no such luck. Maybe when TOS comes out in 4K...

 

[Pasi Nurminen]

I always assumed that the refit Constitution class introduced a new aesthetic that was incorporated into newer vessels, including the Miranda class, the Constellation class, et al.

 

[Kamdan]

I believe Meyer said on the commentary said that registry number was a reference to the year Journey to the Center of the Earth was first published.

 

[Robert Comsol]

Interestingly, TOS "Court Martial" already featured registries this high.

I guess you mean the second number from the top, which is supposed to read "1831"? I´m not so sure about that. If you look at the screencap there are two definite 8s: the third from the bottom reads "1718" and the one below is "1685". If you compare these 8s (which clearly differ from the 6s) to the number in question, it doesn´t look like "1831" but rather "1631". So I´d say all the numbers on the list are either 16XX or 17XX.

No offense, but you should really read these numbers while the scene is playing, freeze-framing individual screencaps sometimes suggest an "18" or the actual "16" (took the Blu-ray to a friend's 4K front projector and the unbiased opinion of the other two "witnesses" was "1684" and not "1864").

It most definitely is "1831" and not "1631" (as Greg Jein erroneously assumed for the Intrepid).

Since I believe in the essential Jeffries Nomenclature (first two digits indicate starship design series) the "1831" indicates a Miranda Class starship.

I also did suggest in an earlier thread, that the last two digits might just be a contact code (NCC = Naval Contact Code) which can be inherited from a destroyed or missing ship.

Excalibur (NCC-1664) was destroyed in "The Ultimate Computer", last two digits passed on to Defiant (NCC-1764) that was presumed destroyed (vanished in interphase in "The Tholian web"). The "64" contact code was inherited next by the Reliant (18th starship design, contact code "64"). YMMV.

Bob

 

[Mario de Monti]

Interestingly, TOS "Court Martial" already featured registries this high.

I guess you mean the second number from the top, which is supposed to read "1831"? I´m not so sure about that. If you look at the screencap there are two definite 8s: the third from the bottom reads "1718" and the one below is "1685". If you compare these 8s (which clearly differ from the 6s) to the number in question, it doesn´t look like "1831" but rather "1631". So I´d say all the numbers on the list are either 16XX or 17XX.

No offense, but you should really read these numbers while the scene is playing, freeze-framing individual screencaps sometimes suggest an "18" or the actual "16" (took the Blu-ray to a friend's 4K front projector and the unbiased opinion of the other two "witnesses" was "1684" and not "1864").

None taken And I bow to whatever the superior resolution reveals. Could you post those ten numbers (I assume you analyzed them all)?

 

[Robert Comsol]

NCC registries from top to bottom (not from bottom to top ): 1709, 1831, 1703, 1672, 1664 (appearance in 4K resolution), 1697 (appearance in 4K resolution), 1701, 1718, 1685 and 1700.

Bob

 

[Mario de Monti]

Thanks, so I just missed the 1831.

 

[austen_pierce]

I always thought it was civil war, but never knew an exact reference point or could site a source.