I took this from the article, syntaxed as background info:
- There is a minor problem with the dating of the USS Hathaway. It is launched some eight years prior to the trial-run launching of the USS Constellation herself in 2293. The Constellation is the class ship of which the Hathaway is a member. For this to be correct, you have to assume that the Hathaway was an even older design, refit to the Constellation's specifics.
Never mind, seems there was canon reference. Still, this reads too much like a conclusion being drawn on speculation - simply stating the error is what should have been done. -- Michael Warren | Talk 00:09, Jan 19, 2005 (CET)
- The Adventures of the USS Hathaway from the date of its launch in 2285 is being developed as a "Fan Film" Star Trek: USS Hathaway at www.usshathaway.com beginning by the ship leaving Copernicus Base to head to the Mutara sector and deal with the events of Star Trek's II and III.
Redemption, Part IIEdit
Do we have confirmation, or discussion agreeing that the Hathaway was really in this episode? --Alan del Beccio 22:02, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- This would be dependant on a screencap or production staff confirmation. We know that the model was relabeled "Hathaway 2593" in 1989 for "Peak Performance" and that by the time the model was circulated to conventions in the late 1990s (re: Ex Astris Scientia), it was labeled "Valkyrie" with a similar registry number. This means that, by the time of the final filming use of the model in "Redemption" (circa 1991?) there is a 50%/50% chance that it was labeled Hathaway or Valkyrie. -- Captain M.K.B. 22:21, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Okay, just wondering. I guess I was going to create a unnamed Constellation class starships page, but since this appearance is the only unconfirmed ship of that class that would fit that page title. However, seeing we recognize that ship as this ship then nevermind. --Alan del Beccio 22:28, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- I checked the episode. When the front part of the ship is seen, the registry number is briefly legible. It's 2593, so it's the Hathaway. The name is not legible however. --Jörg 22:41, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
I stated this over at talk:USS Valkyrie as well, but I thought I would state it here: to use a ship completely stripped of anything of value, notably weapons and warp drive -- "That ship was rendered warp inactive!" and something about having no offenses -- seems like a big jump in logic to use in a mobilized fleet, no matter how bad you are hurting for ships. What comes to mind is the point where Picard wants the fleet to regroup at Gamma Eridon at maximum warp -- I hardly believe they outfitted the Hathaway with a drive comparable to the Sutherland, which was to head there at warp 9.3. Just how long would they have to wait for the Hathaway to arrive - even if they threw an old drive back in there? --Gvsualan 14:58, 7 Jul 2005 (UTC)
- Seems to me that the Hathaway-model was just reused to represent one of the ships in the fleet they didn't have a new model for, and not the old inactive Hathaway. When all the ships spred out to form the tachyon detection grid, Hathaway was not one of them as they were all legibly listed in the computer graphic. --Pseudohuman 21:37, January 26, 2010 (UTC)
Shakespeare's wife? Edit
The Hathaway may have been named for Anne Hathaway, William Shakespeare's wife.
Does this statement belong here? Isn't it pure speculation?
Is there any reason whatsoever to believe that Starfleet would name a major ship after Shakespeare's wife? Couldn't I just as easily say the ship was named after Anne Hathaway, 21st century American actress. Or perhaps George Luther Hathaway, 19th century Canadian politician and advocate for responsible government? – StarFire209 20:22, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- This quote is taken directly from the Star Trek Encyclopedia, so this more than mere speculation. --Jörg 20:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
I did not know that. But even if this is a quote, it's still speculation. Just from a canon source. And if it is a direct quote of a copyrighted work, shouldn't there be a citation?
I'm not trying to bust balls. It's just that I've noticed a lot of speculation on the source of a ship's name, often limiting the choices to who or what we know today. Suggesting a ship was named after an earlier ship or a famous explorer isn't altogether unreasonable. But this one just seemed like a big reach. Still does. It would make more sense to me if the Hathaway was named after some Starfleet officer or Federation bigwig. After all, somebody in the 200+ years of the Federation must have done something to justify getting a ship named after him or her.– StarFire209 20:24, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Why did the Federation abandon Hathaway and just leave her unnamed around some planet? Wouldn't this be a security risk? It just makes no sense! Federation 18:02, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- Probably the same reason there are World War II American aircraft wrecks abandoned throughout islands in the Pacific. Essentially, no one cares. It is so old that it is not seen as a technological threat. Also, yes, those aircraft are viable. Many restorers are getting their aircraft from wrecks found in the Pacific. --OuroborosCobra talk 18:10, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
The airforce didn't have the Prime Directive to worry about. Federation 14:35, 1 February 2008 (UTC)