Is there evidence that the name on the model changed to U.S.S. Copernicus? Having watched "The Naked Now", I can see the model still bears the registry NCC-638.--Airtram3, 6:27 a.m., January 9, 2007

Strictly spoken, this article is non-canon, the name is only derived from behind-the-scenes material. The USS Cochrane for example is said to have delivered key persons to DS9 in "Emissary", but that was also only derived from behind-the-scenes material. In its corresponding article that info is IMO rightly delegated to the background section. In the same vein, should the whole Copernicus-article not be treated in the same way?~~

NCC-640? Edit

In the TNG-R episode of "The Naked Now", the registry NCC-640 can be seen on the secondary hull of the (U.)S.S. Tsiolkovsky as the ship was destroyed by a stellar fragment. Could this be the registry of the U.S.S. Copernicus? Throwback (talk) 20:26, July 18, 2012 (UTC)

  • Since that was the last time the model was used, it would indicate that it is. I changed the article accordingly. 20:43, July 19, 2012 (UTC)
  • No, it don't indicate the registry of the Copernicus. Since the registry of the Oberth in ST IV is not visible at all and there are no production pictures available showing the registry, there is no way to tell if the number on that ship was NCC-640 or any other number (for example NCC-638, a leftover from the Grissom). Further, I don't find any statement from the VX-production team that the registry of the Tsiolkovsky was not changed for the TNG episode. I'm afraid that leaves us at a point where we (still) have no information on the Copernicus registration number. Ncc-1864 (talk) 12:07, July 22, 2012 (UTC)
I'm not unsure enough to remove it, but it does seem pretty slim evidence to make that assumption. 31dot (talk) 12:36, July 22, 2012 (UTC)
Wait another day and an article will go up at Ex Astris Scientia that will clear this up a little. --Jörg (talk) 12:38, July 22, 2012 (UTC)
The facts are clear in this case: Neither name or registry are given in ST IV. Only the name is given by production sources, and thus has to be regarded as 'non-canon' (according to the definition from Further, there is an entry in the Encyclopedia from M. Okuda where name and registry are also given. Since the Encyclopedia should only document the information already available in the series, but not 'invent' new facts, at least the given registry (NCC-623) has to be regarded as 'non-canon' as well. This leaves us where we have to say that neither name or registry are canon, but I opt for keeping the name 'Copernicus' for reference purposes. Further there is no ground for assuming that the registry of the Copernicus is NCC-640, since we have on-screen evidence now (thanks to blu ray) that this number belongs to SS Tsiolkowsky. 06:15, July 25, 2012 (UTC)
Here's a quote by Mike Okuda about the subject: "I seem to recall that Grissom may have been relabeled to serve as another ship (the Copernicus?) in Star Trek III or IV. I didn't try to relabel the model for 'The Naked Now,' partly because we realized that the existing registry would not be legible in standard-def video, but also because we were all so insanely busy at the time that no one could take on an additional project that wasn't likely to be seen on the screen." It can be read here. --Jörg (talk) 17:59, July 26, 2012 (UTC)

Conspiracy? Edit

Is the picture in the sidebar in any way associated with this particular ship? --+Shisma 20:02, September 11, 2012 (UTC)


Unless there's any objections, I'm going to remove the {{incite}} from the background section note on the naming per MA:COMMON. Compvox (talk) 02:48, January 5, 2016 (UTC)

Done. Compvox (talk) 20:31, January 7, 2016 (UTC)