Memory Alpha
Advertisement
Memory Alpha

If Starfleet intended there to be more than one vessel bearing that registration number, wouldn't it be logical to start at NCV-474439-A, and work up?

Can't we assume that Starfleet hadn't intended for there to be more than one Enterprise NCC-1701, that it was only because of Kirk that the another got created.

Or am I talking nonsense? - Rob 00:15 9th May 04 (BST)

It is one possible explanation, it as it is never mentioned on screen, we can't list it. -- Redge | Talk 20:26, 14 Aug 2004 (CEST)

Is this vessel the USS Relativity? Surely, as a timeship, it should be the UTS Relativity? -- MiChaos 18:57, 14 Aug 2004 (CEST)

The Aeon doesn't have a prefix at all. Whichever is mentioned on screen. -- Redge | Talk 20:26, 14 Aug 2004 (CEST)

The Aeon is marked on Memory Alpha as the UTS Aeon, so I'm assuming it'd be the same for the Relativity and the Wells -- MiChaos 20:55, 14 Aug 2004 (CEST)

The Relativity, on the other hand, has a dedication plaque. And it says USS. And where on MA does the Aeon have the UTS prefix? I found only one reference, and since it's incorrect, I removed it. See Talk:Aeon. -- Michael Warren | Talk 21:06, Aug 14, 2004 (CEST)
The only reference I can find at the moment is the UTS Aeon page itself. I've just checked that page, and the only thing which linked to it was a the talk page on Future's End, Part I. I'll add the UTS Aeon page on the immediate deletion page, and creep back into my dunces corner... I thought there were other references, but obviously I was wrong. Sorry -- MiChaos 23:23, 14 Aug 2004 (CEST)
Note:Link to UTS Aeon removed. -- Cid Highwind 15:23, 17 Aug 2004 (CEST)

U.S.S. Relativity dedication plaque

(Moved from User talk:Gvsualan]] If you watch the actual VOY episode, you will see the live shot of the dedication plate. The quote is... "The only reason for time is so everything doesn't happen ALL at once."

Also, the quote is NOT from Albert Einstein, which is obvious by reading the dedication plate. I did make a change to the page, but you reverted it. Maybe you want to have a look at the episode and rethink your reversion? I won't change it back, but you should check it out. You'll see what I'm talking about. -- Mahkie Mahk

My only comment is that (a) it was reverted for the same reason before, so I shouldn't be the one personally "barked at" for the change and (b) it was reverted for the same reason before, so I shouldn't be the one personally "barked at" for the change. --Gvsualan 22:25, 2 Feb 2005 (CET)
Actually, Mahkie Mahk was quite civil in his original post - there's no need to change the tone of this discussion, OK? Looking at the article history, DarkHorizon changed that quote earlier. In fact, that quote originally was from Albert Einstein. However, it was also used in "Buckaroo Banzai" made by "E.M. Rauch", and this, if correct, wouldn't be the first reference to Buckaroo Banzai in Trek's history. I think we should revert this to the "E.M. Rauch"-version (if it was indeed on-screen, could someone double-check just to be sure?) and add a small note about the origin of that quote. -- Cid Highwind 22:42, 2005 Feb 2 (CET)

Re: Weapons on the USS Relativity

As listed on the main page, how on earth can anyone state that it's equipped with disruptor-type weapons as opposed to phasers? Or indeed that it's armed at all? --unsigned

Reviving this discussion, the previous author makes a good point. I am going to agree that the Relativity is armed, and we do see what, on a 24th century ship at least, would be srtips for phaser arrays. That said, we have no evidence what weapons they are. The episode does not discuss any shipmounted weapons for the Relativity. Here is how the weapons section currently reads:
Several weapons are located around the ship. The traditional phaser has been replaced by a version of the disruptor with one main disruptor located at the nose.
Here is how I am rewriting it:
Several weapons are located around the ship.
Since the Aeon type mounted subatomic disruptors, it is possible that the Relativity also mounted them, but this is never stated in the episode.
Advertisement