Talk:USS Intrepid (NCC-1631)

Bonhomme Richard class?
Isn't there a Constitution named Bonhomme Richard? I've heard of it beforesomewhere, especially in discussions about "Where No Man Has Gone Before". Mariner -- 05 Jan 2004 (EST)


 * I only know that Bonhomme Richard-class is one of the many fandom names for what it canonically the Constitution-class. The only fandom names really used in canon were in the TMP Epsilon IX chatter and the USS Merrimac in a later movie. -- Harry 06:46, 6 Jan 2004 (PST)

Registry
Can we please decide on whether or not the 1831 registry should be used in the official entries? There is already a note in the Constitution page about how the Greg Jein numbers are most likely false and do not belong to the other Connies, but why are we sometimes using them in several articles? Shouldn't we mark the registries as "NCC-????," like we've done with the Constitution page itself? --Mariner 02:48, 14 Apr 2004 (CEST)


 * Note made. Simple as. You could have done that yourself, Mariner ;) -- Michael Warren 02:55, 14 Apr 2004 (CEST)

Whoops. I guess the simplest tasks really ARE the hardest. :D --Mariner 03:24, 14 Apr 2004 (CEST)


 * Errr.. the Encyclopedia I have actually uses Jein's 1631. Did an earlier version misprint it as 1831, or is it just a silly typo? -- Harry  talk 23:13, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 1831 is how the number exists in -- Captain M.K.B. 16:42, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay.. Jein must've had a bad copy of film (which makes the whole thing even less logical...). Still, he uses NCC-1631, and so does the third edition Encyclopedia. So the notion that the Encyclopedia uses 1831 is, well, wrong -- Harry  talk 16:49, 25 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Just read, that in the remastered version of we'll see the Intrepid, so if we're lucky both the registry and class issues will be resolved. Kennelly 11:35, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

All Vulcan crew
Doesn't the notion of an all Vulcan crew have the smell of ? Note that Intrepid's repairs had to take a back seat to the human-crewed Enterprise's repairs. I guess those green-skinned boys could just wait their turn. – StarFire209 18:30, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Constitution class?
Is the latest addition (http://memory-alpha.org/index.php?title=USS_Intrepid_%2823rd_century%29&curid=36806&diff=712017&oldid=665301) not jumping the gun a little? I guess this is referring to the published still from the yet-unaired episode, that shows two Constitution class vessels in orbit of a planet? If this is the case, it might very well turn out to be the Intrepid, but it might also be one of the dozen other vessels that, according to the wall chart, must be orbiting as well... Unless there's very specific confirmation for that, let's remove it for the moment, OK? (Also from the article). -- Cid Highwind 14:27, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh for the love of...are we back to THIS again?!?!?   This notion that we need some "talking head" shot pedantically reciting "The USS Intrepid is a Constitution-class starship..." before we can say it is annoying to the point of stupidity.  EVERY SINGLE PIECE OF EVIDENCE WE HAVE SHOWS INTREPID IS A CONNIE!!!!!!!  NO evidence shows otherwise!


 * People need to stop demanding to be spoon fed information and use reason and logic for a change!Capt Christopher Donovan 12:04, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Funny how in all that shouting you did not show us a single page of this copious evidence. --OuroborosCobra talk 13:48, 22 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Because we went THROUGH all this about months ago over in the Connie article, if you will recall, but, to re-sum up the evidence: As primary evidence, we have the pre-production Fontana/Justman memos explicitly establishing Intrepid as a "Starship class" vessel (the original name for the Connies), we have the crew count from Immunity Syndrome, and now we have a still SHOWING the ship in orbit.  As supporting evidence, we have Okuda/Jein as cited in the Encyclopedia.Capt Christopher Donovan 23:21, 22 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Um, none of that proves that the ship is a constitution in canon. (well the remastered ep likely will, but as Cid says, we can add it when the ep is released) It is however, valid background information until then. – Cleanse 23:32, 22 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Donovan, if memory serves you lost that argument about all Starships in TOS being Connies, so no that is not evidence. --OuroborosCobra talk 01:40, 23 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I (arguably) lost ONE point about the word "starship" being a specific type of space vessel (despite the clear support from "Relics" for just that contention), BUT no one EVER refuted the clear statements of Fontana/Justman that the name list explicitly referred to Starship class vessels (ie, "Starship" was the class name) and that those vessels were latter ret-conned to "Constitution class" starships.Capt Christopher Donovan 03:00, 23 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I just got confirmation from Mike Okuda that the vessel is indeed the USS Intrepid and after getting permission to unclose this here at MA, I uploaded a picture. --Jörg 20:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * What's about a registry?--Bravomike 20:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I asked Mike and just got the reply: NCC-1631. --Jörg 21:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks.--Bravomike 21:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Intrepid in Spacedock?
Just wondering if there should be a footnote referencing the following scripted dialogue from ST:IV.

''27  INT. SPACE DOCK - CONTROL BOOTH, OVERLOOKING SPACE CRAFT     27''

TWO CONTROLLERS, back to us, sit in the control seats. They control several Starships in b.g.

CONTROLLER ONE Excelsior and Intrepid are cleared ''to depart. Open space dock doors.''

It might also be worth noting that the graphic from this scene that turned up on the "it's a wrap" auction a while back, featured a Connie labelled NCC-1707 on it's way out of dock (as well as the NX-2000 Excelsior.) While I wouldn't go so far as to say this is canonical proof that one of those Connies was the Intrepid and that it's reg was NCC-1707, I think it's at least worth mentioning the possibility as that was clearly the intent at the time. Reverendtrigster 00:50, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * That ship is already mentioned here and this discussion was previous brought up here. --Alan 01:18, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Sure, but not in relation to the display from the control room. I just wonder if it's worth mentioning the possibility in the Intrepid article as this new evidence would seam to indicate that at the time at least, the intent was for the Intrepid to be a Connie, not a Miranda. Whether or not it's supposed to be NCC-1707 is also probable, though certainly open to argument. In the very least I think it should get a mention in the footnotes.(Reverendtrigster 15:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC))