Star Trek Picard Season 3 End Credits - Legacy Ships at Earth Spacedock?

[evilchumlee]

Except the new Stargazer has a completely different registry number than the old one. As in an entirely new number, not the same number with a letter added to the end. If it were a refit, it would have the same number as the previous one, or the same with a letter added to it if you're following the Matalas definition of a refit. Since it has a completely new registry number, it would seem the intent was to make it a completely new ship, since it doesn't seem to follow the definition of an actual refit or the erroneous definition Matalas thinks is a refit.

I'm going to skirt away from the prior "definition of the word" thing but I find this interesting.

Is it impossible for a ship to be a refit, but receive a new registry? Even following the strictest definition of refit this still seems possible... an older vessel was updated, not "some parts taken", but the actual vessel itself was upgrade extensively... and then, for whatever reason, given a new registry? It seems like it would be odd, but certainly not impossible?

This next part is 100% speculation, so take that as it is, but i've long theorized that registry numbers are actually tied to the warp core of a vessel, not the spaceframe. If a vessel went in for a refit that was so extensive that it received a new warp core, it would carry a new registry.

The ships name is largely irrelevant, and adding a letter suffix was uncommon up until at least the 25th century, and even then it's still uncommon, with something like the Titan being an exception, not a rule. We have a few legacy ships in PIC that don't have suffix's... Stargazer, Excelsior, etc. It's at the very least implied that Riker was involved with the refit entirely new construction of the Titan-A, which makes me think he may have had something to do with getting the registry suffix (or the ship used the same warp core as Titan, which meant it needed a new registry, so they slapped an "A" on it.)

 

[Daedalus]

I’m pretty sure the new Stargazer was always supposed to be new, since its registry number was a play on the old ship’s number.

Maybe, I guess we'll never know. Oh to be a fly on the wall during the planning stages..

Spoiler

 

[David cgc]

Is it impossible for a ship to be a refit, but receive a new registry? Even following the strictest definition of refit this still seems possible... an older vessel was updated, not "some parts taken", but the actual vessel itself was upgrade extensively... and then, for whatever reason, given a new registry? It seems like it would be odd, but certainly not impossible?

During the production of TMP, some of the sketches of the redesigned Enterprise are labeled "1701A." And the Discovery got a new registry when it was upgraded, though that probably was part of a cover-up of the ship's true origin.

 

[evilchumlee]

Maybe, I guess we'll never know. Oh to be a fly on the wall during the planning stages..

I don't think the PIC Stargazer was ever intended to be a "refit" in the vehemently defended definition of the word here. I don't believe it was ever intended to have even so much as have parts from the old Stargazer. That's 100% just a new ship, much like Excelsior.

To open up an old, still healing and bloody wound, that's part of why I think the usage of "refit" as a term is not in the context that the term would traditionally be used in. Maybe somewhat of an epiphany on it here that may serve as somewhat of a bridge between two thoughts... it's entirely possible that in-universe they are using the term "incorrectly", and it's something closer to a slang term for the new generation of Starfleet ships that are being designed with inspiration / elements from older vessels. It may not be that they are saying "This vessel is literally the same one as the old one but updated", they're using the term as a general classification of a style of vessel, a "refit" of a design.

Starfleet's whole design philosophy in the late-2300's/early-24's seems to be "Everything old is new". There's a new Excelsior. A new Constitution. A new Miranda. A new Constellation. A new Gagarin. I can absolutely see a desire to come up with a general name for these types of ships, the fleet of vessels inspired-by older designs. "Refit" works fine for me. We know from background that they do use slang terms for ships... the Titan-A isn't actually, officially a "Neo-Constitution", it's just a slang term for the "Constitution III".

I think i'm going to change my take on the whole thing slightly. Titan-A is a new vessel that definitely does use parts from the Titan. However, that is actually irrelevant to the reasoning behind calling the ship a "refit". It's a "refit" because it's an updated version of the Shangri-La-Class with inspiration also taken from the Constitution-Class.

Basically all of those Star Trek Online ships based off old ships are "refits", quotes placed intentionally.

(Before the "ugh why do you care" response... this is the kind of thing I love about Star Trek. I love latching onto a small detail and fleshing it out. It's part of the reason I get mildly annoyed at just dismissing it. I'd rather find an explanation than just say "Doesn't work" and ignore it. It's ok if you want to ignore it, but delving super deep in the minute details is part of the fun of Trek for me.)

 

[Daedalus]

I don't think the PIC Stargazer was ever intended to be a "refit" in the vehemently defended definition of the word here. I don't believe it was ever intended to have even so much as have parts from the old Stargazer. That's 100% just a new ship, much like Excelsior.

To open up an old, still healing and bloody wound, that's part of why I think the usage of "refit" as a term is not in the context that the term would traditionally be used in. Maybe somewhat of an epiphany on it here that may serve as somewhat of a bridge between two thoughts... it's entirely possible that in-universe they are using the term "incorrectly", and it's something closer to a slang term for the new generation of Starfleet ships that are being designed with inspiration / elements from older vessels. It may not be that they are saying "This vessel is literally the same one as the old one but updated", they're using the term as a general classification of a style of vessel, a "refit" of a design.

Starfleet's whole design philosophy in the late-2300's/early-24's seems to be "Everything old is new". There's a new Excelsior. A new Constitution. A new Miranda. A new Constellation. A new Gagarin. I can absolutely see a desire to come up with a general name for these types of ships, the fleet of vessels inspired-by older designs. "Refit" works fine for me. We know from background that they do use slang terms for ships... the Titan-A isn't actually, officially a "Neo-Constitution", it's just a slang term for the "Constitution III".

I think i'm going to change my take on the whole thing slightly. Titan-A is a new vessel that definitely does use parts from the Titan. However, that is actually irrelevant to the reasoning behind calling the ship a "refit". It's a "refit" because it's an updated version of the Shangri-La-Class with inspiration also taken from the Constitution-Class.

Basically all of those Star Trek Online ships based off old ships are "refits", quotes placed intentionally.

(Before the "ugh why do you care" response... this is the kind of thing I love about Star Trek. I love latching onto a small detail and fleshing it out. It's part of the reason I get mildly annoyed at just dismissing it. I'd rather find an explanation than just say "Doesn't work" and ignore it. It's ok if you want to ignore it, but delving super deep in the minute details is part of the fun of Trek for me.)

Slang is another explanation, certainly.

I can't remember exactly what Picard said on the Stargazer bridge, but it was something like "The older these refits get, the younger they look" which I think was accompanied by referring to himself as a refit, which also wouldn't be a literal definition either.

 

[evilchumlee]

Slang is another explanation, certainly.

I can't remember exactly what Picard said on the Stargazer bridge, but it was something like "The older these refits get, the younger they look" which I think was accompanied by referring to himself as a refit, which also wouldn't be a literal definition either.

I think I wasn't entirely articulating it properly when I was saying "the meaning of the word changed", which I at least partially intended to potentially mean it could just be a sort of slang term.

I have to look up the quote again, I know he calls it a refit, but Picard ALSO specifies he was NOT the captain of "this Stargazer". (Just watched the clip, "Much sleeker than my Stargazer! The older these refits get, the younger they look.") If we go with the slang/informal classification idea, the ship designs ARE "old"... rather than taking that quote 100% literal, I could see that read as "the older the design these new 'refit' ships are, the newer they look."

I'm ok ignoring background info/creator quotes. Matalas 100% did intend it to be an actual, bona fide refit of Picard's Stargazer... but the actual show would seem to disagree with that.

 

[The Wormhole]

Is it impossible for a ship to be a refit, but receive a new registry? Even following the strictest definition of refit this still seems possible... an older vessel was updated, not "some parts taken", but the actual vessel itself was upgrade extensively... and then, for whatever reason, given a new registry? It seems like it would be odd, but certainly not impossible?

The whole point of a registry number is to remain unchanged. While much of a ship can change, its interiors, exteriors, even its name, the registry number is a means for those in authority to know which ship this is, regardless what has changed. If the ship's registry number is changed, it defeats the whole purpose of even having a registry number to begin with.

Then again, for close to forty years now Trek has treated registry numbers as something decorative where previous registries are being reused, so who the hell knows?

 

[evilchumlee]

The whole point of a registry number is to remain unchanged. While much of a ship can change, its interiors, exteriors, even its name, the registry number is a means for those in authority to know which ship this is, regardless what has changed. If the ship's registry number is changed, it defeats the whole purpose of even having a registry number to begin with.

I mean yes but... if the those in authority, for whatever their reasons, want x ship to now by y ship, would not a change in registry to be appropriate... so they they they know which ship it is?

If the registry is changed, it's a new ship... regardless of if the ship in question already existed under a previous registry.

In the case of Defiant, it's got layers like an onion... Defiant Part Two was both a renamed ship but given the same registry, therefore... Defiant is the same ship, despite being two different ships.

In the grand scheme of Star Trek, your end quote basically sums it up... the registry numbers are not really a reliable source of information for Trek. I like to speak primarily in-universe, Starfleet has a habit of being inconsistent with usage... or at the very least, their reasoning for some of these is not apparent.

 

[The Wormhole]

If the registry is changed, it's a new ship... regardless of if the ship in question already existed under a previous registry.

No

In the case of Defiant, it's got layers like an onion... Defiant Part Two was both a renamed ship but given the same registry, therefore... Defiant is the same ship, despite being two different ships.

Also No

 

[evilchumlee]

No

I understand the "No", but... the answer is really "No, but also yes."

A ship that received a new registry number is a new vessel, at least on an administrative level.

Also No

This one I do not understand, because what I said is objectively correct.

USS Defiant NX-74205 is USS Defiant NX-74205.

Am I incorrect?

 

[Dukhat]

I understand the "No", but... the answer is really "No, but also yes."

A ship that received a new registry number is a new vessel, at least on an administrative level.

If I get new license plates for my car, it’s still my old car. The MVA doesn’t list it as a new car. Nor does my insurance company.

This one I do not understand, because what I said is objectively correct.

USS Defiant NX-74205 is USS Defiant NX-74205.

Am I incorrect?

The new Defiant’s registry during the fleet shots was NX-74205 because they used stock footage of the old Defiant. Because they didn’t think people would notice. It was not done because they felt the need to give a new ship the exact same registry as the old ship. It’s no different from any other time stock footage of one ship is used to represent another ship. The fact that they used the original registry for the Defiant in PIC was just them trying to be consistent with the stock footage reuse, not because they had some burning desire to use that particular registry.

 

[evilchumlee]

If I get new license plates for my car, it’s still my old car. The MVA doesn’t list it as a new car. Nor does my insurance company.

Ok... but what if the car had a new VIN?

It all comes down to semantics but in essence that is what this is about, and how you view things. I can tell you have an extremely literalist interpretation, which is fair.

If I were to replace the VIN plate on a car, it's a "new" car according to records. The physical car remains the same, but according to records, the car is not the same.

That was my point. If a starship were to be given a new registry, it's a "new" ship. That doesn't mean the old ship ceased to be physically. It's all still there. It's just that on record, there are now two ships that shared the same hull.

The new Defiant’s registry during the fleet shots was NX-74205 because they used stock footage of the old Defiant. Because they didn’t think people would notice. It was not done because they felt the need to give a new ship the exact same registry as the old ship. It’s no different from any other time stock footage of one ship is used to represent another ship. The fact that they used the original registry for the Defiant in PIC was just them trying to be consistent with the stock footage reuse, not because they had some burning desire to use that particular registry.

Right, but that is irrelevant in-universe.

There are two Defiant NX-74205's. That is objective fact. Why there are two Defiant NX-74205's is irrelevant.

 

[Dukhat]

Ok... but what if the car had a new VIN?

It all comes down to semantics but in essence that is what this is about, and how you view things. I can tell you have an extremely literalist interpretation, which is fair.

If I were to replace the VIN plate on a car, it's a "new" car according to records. The physical car remains the same, but according to records, the car is not the same.

That was my point. If a starship were to be given a new registry, it's a "new" ship. That doesn't mean the old ship ceased to be physically. It's all still there. It's just that on record, there are now two ships that shared the same hull.



Right, but that is irrelevant in-universe.

There are two Defiant NX-74205's. That is objective fact. Why there are two Defiant NX-74205's is irrelevant.

There are actually tons of them. The original, the São Paulo that got renamed, the two escort ships for the Akira in VOY’s ‘Ship in a Bottle,’ and the multitudes of USS Defiant NX-74205’s seen in Prodigy. Am I to believe that they’re all supposed to have the same name and registry because I saw it on screen? Or should I accept the fact that the VFX people are lazy/imperfect/assuming no one will notice?

But to answer your question in a way that doesn’t sound anal-retentive: Yeah, I know there are two Defiants with the same registry. In-universe, there is no logical explanation why this is so. They just did it out of necessity, and it isn’t really proof of anything beyond the fact that they didn’t want to spend money on new effects. If they did want to spend the money, we wouldn’t be having this conversation.

 

[fireproof78]

And, as we all know, lazy artists are the best!

 

[evilchumlee]

But to answer your question in a way that doesn’t sound anal-retentive: Yeah, I know there are two Defiants with the same registry. In-universe, there is no logical explanation why this is so.

First... yes it all does sound incredibly anal-retentive.

There is totally a logical explanation why this is so. Starfleet just honored the Defiant by keeping its traditions going with an otherwise identical ship. It's out of the ordinary for sure, but hardly any sort of universe breaking issue.

The issue of all the other ships... yes, sure, but there is a point of going with the spirit of things rather than the EXACT literal version. All of those other ships may or may not have had the registry number visible. They were all also one-offs, never to be seen again. Defiant hung around. It wasn't a one-time thing. The registry persisted through every shot of it in the show.

Everyone may draw their line in a different spot, but I can generally excuse a one-off.

 

[Dukhat]

First... yes it all does sound incredibly anal-retentive.

There is totally a logical explanation why this is so. Starfleet just honored the Defiant by keeping its traditions going with an otherwise identical ship. It's out of the ordinary for sure, but hardly any sort of universe breaking issue.

The issue of all the other ships... yes, sure, but there is a point of going with the spirit of things rather than the EXACT literal version. All of those other ships may or may not have had the registry number visible. They were all also one-offs, never to be seen again. Defiant hung around. It wasn't a one-time thing. The registry persisted through every shot of it in the show.

Everyone may draw their line in a different spot, but I can generally excuse a one-off.

The new Defiant only ‘hung around’ for two episodes before the end of the series. The multitudes of NX-72405s also hung around for two episodes of Prodigy before the season ended. What makes one more of a one-off than the other?

 

[The Wormhole]

Am I incorrect?

You are.

The new Defiant’s registry during the fleet shots was NX-74205 because they used stock footage of the old Defiant. Because they didn’t think people would notice. It was not done because they felt the need to give a new ship the exact same registry as the old ship. It’s no different from any other time stock footage of one ship is used to represent another ship. The fact that they used the original registry for the Defiant in PIC was just them trying to be consistent with the stock footage reuse, not because they had some burning desire to use that particular registry.

Indeed, Ron Moore has confirmed the plan was for the new Defiant's registry to be NCC-74205-A, but the fact that but the fact that stock footage was used for all its scenes prevented that from happening.

the two escort ships for the Akira in VOY’s ‘Ship in a Bottle,’

I'm of the opinion one of those actually was the Defiant itself, since the two security officers who beam aboard the Prometheus after the fight were background extras who regularly appeared on DS9. Indeed, a joke I've always liked to make is those two ships were the Defiant and the Sao Paulo.

 

[Dukhat]

The only logical in-universe reason why the São Paulo would retain the original registry after being renamed was if they wanted to make it look like the original Defiant wasn’t destroyed. But I’m not sure why they would go to that trouble, considering that there was no indication that it would trick the Dominion, or that it would have been some sort of morale booster for Starfleet.

There’s really no good reason for it.

 

[Ray Hardgrit]

The only logical in-universe reason why the São Paulo would retain the original registry after being renamed was if they wanted to make it look like the original Defiant wasn’t destroyed. But I’m not sure why they would go to that trouble, considering that there was no indication that it would trick the Dominion, or that it would have been some sort of morale booster for Starfleet.

There’s really no good reason for it.

They changed the registry as a surprise gift for Sisko and his crew. Presumably Admiral Ross asked the Chief of Starfleet Operations if it's okay to reuse a registry like that and they said it's okay in special circumstances as long as two active vessels don't have the same number. Unless they're background ships in a big effects scene.

 

[Dukhat]

They changed the registry as a surprise gift for Sisko and his crew. Presumably Admiral Ross asked the Chief of Starfleet Operations if it's okay to reuse a registry like that and they said it's okay in special circumstances as long as two active vessels don't have the same number. Unless they're background ships in a big effects scene.

Where was that ever stated?