Spoilers Starship Design in Star Trek: Picard

Discussion in 'Star Trek: Picard' started by pst, Jan 9, 2020.

  1. Tuskin38

    Tuskin38 Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2011
    The original one from ‘The Battle’ said Stardate 7815.3 according to memory alpha.

    https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Stargazer_dedication_plaque


    Which equals 2330 or 2327 depending on what online calculator you use.
     
    waniel, Markonian and Andru like this.
  2. Dukhat

    Dukhat Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2007
    Location:
    Maryland, USA
    Huh. In all this time, I never knew the original Stargazer’s plaque had the commissioning date of the ship. So whoever made the blue plaque of it at Starfleet Academy probably used this information. But even with that said, it still seems like it should have been commissioned way earlier, like say 2285 when the Hathaway was commissioned. Maybe at that early point in TNG the stardate system wasn’t as unified as it is now.
     
    Markonian likes this.
  3. Tuskin38

    Tuskin38 Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2011
    Maybe it was retired then recommissioned at some point.
     
    Captain_Amasov, Markonian and Andru like this.
  4. Captain Kris Kringle Pike

    Captain Kris Kringle Pike Fleet Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2014
    Location:
    fireproof78
    After the Dominion War it is possible.
     
  5. Andru

    Andru Lieutenant Commander Red Shirt

    Joined:
    May 14, 2009
    Thanks, but this raises even more questions...

    I don't know where MA got their reading of the Stargazer's dedication plaque from since the original was lost and the Encyclopedia reproduction is unreadable. I'm not even sure it has a stardate. :confused:

    Also, those online calculators must be faulty, since Stardate 7815 is some time between Star Trek TMP and The Wrath Of Khan. :wtf:
     
    Tomalak likes this.
  6. Tuskin38

    Tuskin38 Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2011
    TNG Stardate calculation. Pre-TNG did it some other way.

    TNG Stardate Calculation has has Stardate 0 in 2323
     
    Last edited: Mar 5, 2022
    Andru likes this.
  7. Andru

    Andru Lieutenant Commander Red Shirt

    Joined:
    May 14, 2009
    Okay but do we know that M. Okuda or whoever designed those plaques during TNG were thinking in terms of different Stardate systems? It's just a fan theory AFAIK.
     
  8. Tuskin38

    Tuskin38 Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2011
    I can make out the words Commissioned Stardate in the latest release, but the numbers I can't make out.

    The Dedication plaque in the Encyclopedia is also apparently modified compared to the prop, as it says Constellation instead of Constitution, and mentions San Francisco Fleetyards.

    The Plaque itself has the TNG Badge at the top in the Show, not the TOS movie badge. Which makes me think the Stardate was probably updated as well, in-universe that is.
     
    Andru likes this.
  9. Andru

    Andru Lieutenant Commander Red Shirt

    Joined:
    May 14, 2009
    I still believe that they intended to represent a ship from the original movies era, especially given that the original plaque was intended for a Constitution-class ship (presumably refit).

    Indeed, we might never know for sure what was on the original physical plaque.

    Heck, maybe the registry on it wasn't even NCC-2893 but something else altogether. Like NCC-93-C as per the script lol!
     
  10. Tuskin38

    Tuskin38 Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2011
    The plaque in PIC is probably based off the Encyclopedia one (like Memory-Alpha's), since Okuda worked on the show he would have access to the art in that book.
     
    Andru likes this.
  11. Dukhat

    Dukhat Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2007
    Location:
    Maryland, USA
    Yeah, saying that the Stargazer was only 29 years old when it was lost takes away from Picard mentioning on numerous occasions about how antiquated the ship was.
     
    Andru likes this.
  12. Phil123

    Phil123 Commander Red Shirt

    Joined:
    May 18, 2017
    Location:
    London
    Apologies if this has already been posted, but Doug Drexler on Facebook has said that the Excelsior is from a “new generation of Excelsior class.”

    meh also rather humorously stated that most of them (assuming in art department) are pretending the copy and paste fleet from the end of season one didn’t happen.
     
    Markonian, SantaEddie74 and Andru like this.
  13. Andru

    Andru Lieutenant Commander Red Shirt

    Joined:
    May 14, 2009
    Still I wonder where the MA editors got a clear copy of that Encyclopedia art.
     
  14. Tuskin38

    Tuskin38 Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2011
    I asked in the talk page, I'll post an answer if I get one.
     
    137th Gebirg, Markonian and Andru like this.
  15. Vale

    Vale Guest

    It does make more sense that the original Stargazer dates from the movie era. The USS Hathaway, the only other Constellation-class we spend much time with in TNG, was commissioned in 2285. A brand new Constellation-class ship from the 2320s is going to experience "rapid ageing" syndrome since the Ambassador-class comes out in the 2330s, and we know from the control interfaces on the Stargazer in TNG: "The Battle" that it wasn't using up-to-date LCARS, which was definitely available by the early 2350s because we see it on the Raven, which was a civilian ship.
     
  16. Andru

    Andru Lieutenant Commander Red Shirt

    Joined:
    May 14, 2009
    I'm looking forward to finding out if the fleet ships had names and registries or were just generic builds.
     
    Markonian likes this.
  17. The Old Mixer

    The Old Mixer Mih ssim, mih ssim, nam, daed si Xim. Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2002
    Location:
    The Old Mixer, Somewhere in Connecticut
    If they used a stardate that fell within the range of the dates used in the TOS movies, I'm sure that's the era that they meant it to represent. Working backwards from TNG-era stardates was somebody overthinking it.
     
    Vale and Andru like this.
  18. Markonian

    Markonian Fleet Admiral Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2012
    Location:
    Derbyshire, UK
    According to STO Lead Artist Thomas Marrone, the CG of the Ross-class used in the episode, after being updated by the PIC VFX team, retains the labelling from the original STO asset, making it the USS Ross NX-76710.

    If the same applies to the other models provided by Cryptic Studios, then the fleet includes the USS Gagarin, USS Sutherland, USS Reliant, USS Thunderchild (Akira class) and USS Sovereign.
    Source: time index 30:33
     
  19. Tuskin38

    Tuskin38 Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2011
    I think there's more than one Ross in that fleet, so that technically makes all of them the USS Ross, maybe :lol:

    Drexler says on Facebook that the USS Excelsior in Episode 1 is not Sulu's but a second generation design.
     
    Last edited: Mar 6, 2022
    Captain_Amasov and adm58 like this.
  20. Dukhat

    Dukhat Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2007
    Location:
    Maryland, USA
    While I’m happy that the ship is actually new and not a refit of the original NCC-2000 or some other ship, it’s a bit annoying that the 25th century Starfleet engineers decided to basically mimic the same design, only with different nacelles, and to call it the same class as the former ship. Reusing class names in the 32nd century is one thing, but was that really necessary in 2401?

    A similar thing happened with both FC and Star Trek ‘09. ILM had the same ship names on all the class ships in their respective fleets.
     
    Captain_Amasov likes this.