Court Martial wallchartEdit

I've reverted chagnes, I don't see 1864 on this list.. [1] The preceding unsigned comment was added by Captainmike (talk • contribs).

fifth down --TOSrules 05:34, Dec 19, 2004 (CET)
Looks like "1884" or "1894" to me... -- Cid Highwind 13:26, 19 Dec 2004 (CET)
It is hard to make out and at that quality they could be 6, 8 or 9, but I have the ability to take the images off my DVD, with the crisp clear quality I was able to make out a part where it kind of lightens up and it is indeed a 6.--TOSrules 23:55, Dec 19, 2004 (CET)

Most sources list that as NCC-1664, and originating in the 70s that was taken to represent the Excalibur through Jein's reading of the chart. -- Captain Mike K. Bartel 03:48, 20 Dec 2004 (CET)

but with DVD now some 30 years later, we'd be foolish not to take the resource. I'm pretty sure I am right about the numbers. --TOSrules 03:55, Dec 20, 2004 (CET)
NCC-1664. --Alan 00:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I disagree that the chart says NCC-1664. I have been examining the chart in high definition on my TV. The components that make up a 6, a 8, and a 9 are two squares with curved corners. When the number is a 6, the right side of the upper square is missing and the background can be seen. (A 9 is a reversed 6 facing to the left.) For 8, the square is complete. For the registry in question, the number is definitely a 8 and the second is a 6. So, the registry is NCC-1864.Throwback (talk) 11:28, July 21, 2013 (UTC)

Reliant-C/D? Edit

I added a brief blurb to the 'Reliant' page. Looking at registry numbers for visible starships during the First Battle of Chin'toka, I was able to make out NCC-1864 on the underside of a damaged Galaxy-class vessel (during the opening engagement). It's not clear, but it's damned close (Tivo rewind has only *so* much detail), so I figured that I'd add a comment. Hooray for my first post here, I guess. Welcome. :P The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk).

This just seems so unlikely -- i'd love to see a screencap, or have an episode reference to check -- i doubt that's the number that was actually on one of those ships. Please sign posts with four tildes (~~~~) so the sofware will add your signature -- Captain Mike K. Bartel 17:27, 11 Feb 2005 (GMT)
It'll be "Tears of the Prophets", Mike. I know exactly the Galaxy class the user describes, and where it is. I'm removing the paragraph here, pending confirmation. I'll go have a look at my copy now, but I sincerely doubt it's true... -- Michael Warren | Talk 17:48, 11 Feb 2005 (GMT)
In 2374, during the First Battle of Chin'toka, a Galaxy-class starship was shown recieving heavy damage to the dorsal areas of the Saucer and Engineering sections by a Cardassian orbital weapon platform. Upon closer examination during the flyby, the registry on the underside of the Saucer section is NCC-1864.
Just had a look - it's definitely a five-digit number, that much is discernable - and the last digit is a 7, from what I can see. So, sorry, but it's not a Reliant-A. -- Michael Warren | Talk 17:55, 11 Feb 2005 (GMT)

Well, it would be a serious time paradox if it was the Reliant-A. ;P That's why this exists, to confirm or to disprove these minor details. Had a few more run-throughs (both DVD, Tivo, and DIVX), and it's more then likely 4 digits, with the first 2 being '18'. But, then again, the eye does play tricks. It's hard enough to see the Valley Forge's registry as it gets a nice big hole blown out of the saucer section during that battle, and that's one of the ones that easier to see. ;P The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk).

It has to be a five-digit number, to match the rest of the Galaxy class, excluding the Enterprise. Taking your 18 and the 7 I see at the end - I believe there is also a 7 before the 18, but it's fuzzy - this registry matches with that given for the USS Trinculo of NCC-71867 - of course, this remains supposition, but it is close enough to mistake it for 1864 in a ten-second fly-by... -- Michael Warren | Talk 20:20, 11 Feb 2005 (GMT)
Well, its possible that this registry might be an unknown quantity to our database -- it should be easy to give it recognition in an article -- i really think we need to see a readable screencap though before we do it, as we've heard two conflicting reports of it -- and i'd like to see it to, as its very unlikely that a 24th century ship, a Galaxy no less, would have a registry beginning with the digit "1" (except the Enterprise-D of course) -- if there's a possibility of that being so I keep a personal list of these occurences. The likely possibilities are it began with 718, as the skinny digits of 7 and 1 might blend into one and 718XX might appear as 18XX -- but then again, many CGI models were unmodified from their first use -- meaning this galaxy might've accidentally read 1701-D. -- Captain Mike K. Bartel 20:25, 11 Feb 2005 (GMT)
Might the ship in question be here? [image link deleted] If so, that's the USS Galaxy itself, as confirmed by David Stipes (squint hard enough and NCC-70637 fits). Most of the other Galaxys in DS9 seemed to be missing names and registries on theirsaucers. Besides, had someone snuck the Reliant registry on one of the ships, surely we would have heard about it via the Encyclopedia III as that revision contained a fairly complete listing of all of the CGI registry numbers used for the battles (like the Frederickson, Hood, Valley Forge, et. al.). -- SmokeDetector47 23:49, 11 Feb 2005 (GMT)
Any progress on this - because the same info has just been added, again. :) -- Cid Highwind 14:46, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
USS Reliant, DS9

Reliant afterall?

I did find a Miranda class in "What You Leave Behind" that has a visible registry starting with an 18, possible 6, not sure could be 4. --Alan 00:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
As to the picture I think that it could be the Reliant model. I see NCC-18-6 or 8- and something that could be 4 but it is to blurry to tell. This rasies a question: could the federation have made another Reliant to cover up Genesis? Reply here on your comment. Rift Fleet 17:45, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

First Contact?Edit

Would someone like to provide a little proof (dialog, visual) that there was a Reliant in Star Trek: First Contact? --Alan del Beccio

Background section Edit

Hi ! after read your "background section" with picture, that's vessel is it Reliant ? did it participate at the dominion war ? C-IMZADI-4 12:30, September 13, 2009 (UTC)

The picture is of a ship with the registry number of the Reliant (NCC-1864). However, as the BG section reads:
One of the Miranda-class starships seen in the Star Trek: Deep Space Nine episode "Tears of the Prophets" bore the registry number NCC-1864. The ship in question was one of the two ships described by David Stipes as being either the USS Nautilus (NCC-31910) or USS Tian An Men (NCC-21382) [2].
Since the Reliant was destroyed a hundred years earlier, it can't be the same ship. Chances are good that they used one of the old models from the movie, but made a mistake on the registry number. -- sulfur 13:40, September 13, 2009 (UTC)

New Article Needed?Edit

With the forthcoming extended release of TNG: "The Measure Of A Man", there will be a bit of dialogue between Picard and Admiral Nakamura regarding their shared service aboard a starship Reliant. I know this article already mentions this cut bit of dialogue, but, since it'll be part of the extended cut of the episode, does it officially pass into canon and will an article named USS Reliant (24th century) be necessary? Kyle C. Haight (talk) 00:11, November 18, 2012 (UTC)