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)
Since they have time travel, perhaps they already knew there would be more than one so they started at A.--Valin Kenobi 19:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I have a common sense problem with the way this article is worded regarding is registry. If the registry claims it was the seventh ship, with the "G" lettering, it would seem to make infinitely more sense that by the time of the second "Relativity's" dedication, the procedure has changed to list the second ship in the line of names as "B", instead of "A". It never really made sense how they did it with the Enterprise anyway. This makes equally as much sense as assuming the first ship was branded "Relativity A". I was going to just make the change, but I wanted some input first. If no one has a problem with it, I'll make an edit in a few days. If someone has a problem with it, I wont make a fuss. Hossrex 00:48, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
When a new ship is commissioned, it seems very unlikely that it is intended to be the first in a line of ships with the same name. This is why Kirk's original ship did not have an "A" suffix on the 1701. The way it is currently explained in the background section makes sense to me; the plaque says it is the seventh, but the registry suggests it is the eighth. This presents what is canon without trying to explain it. Perhaps, and this is pure speculation, the original vessel was the NCV-474439 and an 'add-on' ala the USS Prometheus was made and the registry was rebranded NCV-474439-A. That would account for seven ships with eight registries. It could happen.  :-) -- Connor Cabal 01:40, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Or maybe sometime around the 26th or 27th century, they started to run out of original names for their starships, so they just adopted the -A for all new ships so they wouldn't have to sweat the small stuff later. ;) --Cinder 20:11, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

UTS vs. USSEdit

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". 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)
I haven't seen the episode, but I suppose it comes down to whether it's primarily a spaceship that also travels thru time, or a timeship that also travels in space.--Valin Kenobi 19:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

U.S.S. Relativity dedication plaqueEdit

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 Edit

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.
I think that is more accurate ;-) --OuroborosCobra 22:45, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

PNA-unformatted Edit

This article could use some work, especially on the section layout. Having three sections, each of which just called "Relativity XYZ" looks a little strange - and the whole section about weapons basically just states that "yes, this ship has weapons"... ;) Eventually redo the whole thing to use our standard "Appendices" sections and nothing else. I'll give it a try myself if no one else volunteers, but I don't know much about this ship. -- Cid Highwind 15:45, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Eighth of Seven Edit

I removed:

  • "...unless the first ship to bear the name Relativity was the NCV-474439-A, which would have been an uncommon practice. Or this could indicate that (like the USS Enterprise) one of the Relativity's past versions underwent a major refit, making the NCV-474439-Relativity-G the Eighth ship to bear the name. Another possibility is that one of the previous Relativity timeships was destroyed prior to its formal commissioning. Finally, it is possible that the one of the earlier ships was built or commissioned AFTER the latest ship -- they do travel in time, after all. "

If we don't know, we don't know. Call it speculation, over-analysis, or whatever, all of this is ultimately unnecessary, and as such, I removed all but the necessary information that allows the reader to draw their own conclusions. --Alan 06:31, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I know it's an old topic but i figured it was an in-joke on the fact that it is a time ship NCV-474439-G is both the 7th and 8th ship to bear the name, it's a paradox. Chasemarc (talk) 08:51, May 28, 2013 (UTC)
Possibly, but what any of us figure is not relevant. It wasn't said what it is, so we don't put anything. 31dot (talk) 12:15, May 28, 2013 (UTC)