I hate teasing-headlines, but since you came in, you can also read on.
The topic is the starship Yeager. I mean the kitbash. With the registry of NCC-65674 it's far below those of the Intrepid-registries (even USS Elkins has an Itrepid-like registry), so how do we explain it?
(We can be sure that - during 2372, the events of the battle of sector 001 - Starfleet has already gone beyond the 65xxx-field, possibly something around 75xxx. In other words: both ships must have been active during the same time, either before, during or after the events of FC. And don't tell me to check the Encyclopedia for the letter 'M' like 'Melbourne'. )
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
We don't. We simply look the other way.
-MMoM Posted by Cpt. Kyle Amasov (Member # 742) on :
But I need an explanation for the files. You know, even if it might sound stupid, but I simply can't imagine a way to solve this.
Posted by Ultra von Magnus (Member # 239) on :
Well, NCC-65674 is a rearrangement of NCC-74656. So, well, there is no solution.
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
How about saying that the DS9 Yeagar was originally called something else (U.S.S. lollypop...for the sake of arguement). After the Battle of Typhon the surviving crew of the destroyed Sabre-class ship were assigned to the U.S.S. Lollypop and were granted special permission to rename her in honour of their old ship that was lost in battle.
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
But of course that still doesn't explain whay an Intrepid variant would have such a low reg in the first place...
-MMoM Posted by Cpt. Kyle Amasov (Member # 742) on :
What if the whole 65xxx-ship was heavily damaged in some battle and the entire saucer had to be replaced with a new saucer? Since no other saucer was available, they took an Intrepid-saucer.
Don't tell me you didn't know the original configuration was a Maquis-fighter attached to an Ambassador-saucer!
[ March 10, 2002, 13:22: Message edited by: Cpt. Kyle Amasov ]
Posted by Ultra von Magnus (Member # 239) on :
The Challenger class has entries in the 50000s, the Nebula has numbers from 6xxxx, so does the New Orleans.
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ultra von Magnus: The Challenger class has entries in the 50000s, the Nebula has numbers from 6xxxx, so does the New Orleans.
So?
Posted by David Templar (Member # 580) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim: But of course that still doesn't explain whay an Intrepid variant would have such a low reg in the first place...
-MMoM
Unless of course the reg system is kaputz in the first place. Posted by Ultra von Magnus (Member # 239) on :
quote: So?
So why is a less-than Intrepid-esque registry Tizzy-inducing?
Posted by Cpt. Kyle Amasov (Member # 742) on :
Because the Galaxy took 20 years to finish, the Intrepid did not. If the Nebula started construction at the same time as the Galaxy, you can be sure they finished her earlier. But the Intrepid didn't take that long, And the registry predates the Intrepid by at least 10 years.
Posted by Ultra von Magnus (Member # 239) on :
"the Intrepid did not"
Which episode was this in again?
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
quote:Originally posted by David Templar: Unless of course the reg system is kaputz in the first place.
Yes. That's my pet theory, anyway.
-MMoM Posted by Cpt. Kyle Amasov (Member # 742) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ultra von Magnus: "the Intrepid did not"
Which episode was this in again?
OK, OK, but we're talking about a small starship, not a multi-purpose exploration vessel. I'm sure it didn't take that long to construct her. But the Yeager says that the entire saucer was ready and space-worthy when they cam up with the 65xxx-numbers, which should have been around stardate 40250, according to Phoenix's dedication plaque.
Since Voyager was lauched stardate 48xxx, what did they do in eight years? The hull must have been already completed, and there is not enough 'new stuff' inside the ship besides the neural gel packs. Galaxy got virtually everything new, from holodecks to phaser systems.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
So what if the Galaxy took a long time to design? The point is that they started out using those sorts of parts on other ships (New Orleans, Challenger, &c.) and only later used them on the Galaxy. Just like they used this "saucer" on the Yeager and only later used it on the Intrepid.
Posted by Matrix (Member # 376) on :
I generally turn the other way when it comes to the Yeager, although I support the Shelly class.
However I believe that the Yeager is a few ship class that was built after Wolf 359. The Maquis Raider part of the ship was in fact another whole class, because I doubt that Starfleet would build something like that then put a Intrepid class suacer, it would make more sense to build Intrepids than a Yeager. Anyway, the Giant Maquis Raider was mothballed earlier for some reason, when in the late 2360's, they were brought out of mothballs and refitted with new technology. it was decided for some reason to put a Intrepid type saucer to replace the cockpit/bridge module.
Posted by Vice-Admiral Michael T. Colorge (Member # 144) on :
Why should we even argue about this ship? It was only seen in the background.
Posted by Cpt. Kyle Amasov (Member # 742) on :
Melbourne, too. But we do argue about her.
Or Daedalus. It never appeared on-sceen, nontheless there were thousands arguing about whether this ship should appear on Enterprise or not.
All or nothing. If we leave one out because we don't like it, we can forget about everything we have. Wolf, for example. Who cares? Some kitbashes more or less don't make a difference.
Posted by David Templar (Member # 580) on :
Why can't we just blame Yeager on a case of collective insanity?
Posted by Mark Nguyen (Member # 469) on :
Huh? What do the Borg have to do with it?
[duck]
Mark
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
Whatever the origins of the Yeager, she's one heck of a warhorse. If we take the original torpedo tubes of the Maquis design to still be torpedo tubes, they are of an impressive caliber. And the ship still has the standard two aft tubes of the Intrepid. And what about those wing cannon, which the model still retains (although rather dangerously close to the nacelles)?
The design doesn't look at all objectionable to me, as long as I don't remind myself that the aft half looks like an enlarged Maquis ship hull. In "reality", there probably is no such familial relationship.
I'm sure those pylons are movable, BTW. And this puppy can land just as nicely as an Intrepid can. And the aft-quarter view shows how some of the former aft-facing "warp grilles" have been painted over with beige, making them look not unlike shuttlebay doors - so yes, I think the Yeager does have at least two shuttlebays.
Currently, I like the Yeager and the 3-naceller a lot, and the Raging Queen and the Constitution-kitbash with reservations. The Centaur... Umm, I actually am quite fond of that fancy new shuttlebay/bridge arrangement, although I suspect the "bay" could be taken to be a deflector dish as well... Only the Elkins seems truly irredeemable IMHO.
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by Vice-Admiral Michael T. Colorge (Member # 144) on :
Timo, you like the 3-nacelled "Medusa Class?"
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
Definitely - and even more so if I can pretend that the ventral third nacelle is an optional extra a la "AGT" that isn't a defining characteristic of the original design or of all the vessels of the class.
This puppy could be the Excelsior era counterpart to the Constellation class. The double saucer IMHO looks rather pretty. She could be any of the unseen ship classes between Apollo and Merced, but I think she would make a good Hokule'a class "medium" cruiser (doesn't she look just like a ship that would drop the ball on finding out what really destroyed Omicron Theta?). The Centaur makes such an adorable Renaissance class medium cruiser, and as said, the Curry/Raging Queen could be a Mediterranean class transport (here the designation would differ from the DS9 TM one)...
An aft view would help tell if the thing has a shuttlebay, but it looks a bit unlikely that there would be any torpedo launchers there (at least forward-facing ones), so the DS9 TM stats are a bit suspect in that respect...
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by Cpt. Kyle Amasov (Member # 742) on :
I think your explanation that the Maquis ship and the Yeager only look similare but are in no way related seems reasonable. The whole Maquis-kitbash should be as canon as the fact that Elkins uses an A-Wing secondary hull and not a custom-made stardrive section.
Maybe Starfleet based the design on the Maquis-Raider because that ship has prooven to be an excellet ship if it comes down to maneuverability. They just took the old design and hull-studies and all and constructed an (ugly) sister for the Intrepid. While that ship can operate independently and has good warp systems, the Yeager could be the destroyer-variant, built for scouting the Badlands with increased sensors and engines to hunt down Maquis in the Badlands. Sterafleet already lost an Intrepid in the Badlands while chasing a raider, so this could have been ther argument for building the sub-class.
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
Otherwise good and well, but us chonological-NCC freaks won't accept that a ship class with registries beginning with a "6" would be built as a reaction to something that happened to a ship class with the earliest known registries beginning with a "7"...
I'd say Starfleet tried out the concept of a flapping-wing ship in an unaesthetic manner at first, and then streamlined the design into the Intrepid later on when the ugly duckling had proven the principle. The two variants could basically perform the same mission, then (even if the class to which the Yeager belongs lacks a main deflector dish).
BTW, I think we should drop the idea that the Yeager is of Yeager class - it just causes undue confusion. Without that ballast, it's much easier to explain the two parallel Yeagers, too: one was semi-destroyed or for some other reason retired before the other was named, and then the Borg or Dominion crises saw the reactivation of the retired one.
Or perhaps this swing-winger was retired after a series of tests, just when SF was looking for a name for the latest Sabre. The various crises would then see the reactivation of the testbed ship for operational use.
If the swing-wing ship really heralded the Yeager class, then it would be less likely that Starfleet would donate that name to a run-of-the-mill Sabre just because the prototype was retired.
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by Cpt. Kyle Amasov (Member # 742) on :
quote:Originally posted by Timo: Otherwise good and well, but us chonological-NCC freaks won't accept that a ship class with registries beginning with a "6" would be built as a reaction to something that happened to a ship class with the earliest known registries beginning with a "7"...
I'd say Starfleet tried out the concept of a flapping-wing ship in an unaesthetic manner at first, and then streamlined the design into the Intrepid later on when the ugly duckling had proven the principle. The two variants could basically perform the same mission, then (even if the class to which the Yeager belongs lacks a main deflector dish).
BTW, I think we should drop the idea that the Yeager is of Yeager class - it just causes undue confusion. Without that ballast, it's much easier to explain the two parallel Yeagers, too: one was semi-destroyed or for some other reason retired before the other was named, and then the Borg or Dominion crises saw the reactivation of the retired one.
Or perhaps this swing-winger was retired after a series of tests, just when SF was looking for a name for the latest Sabre. The various crises would then see the reactivation of the testbed ship for operational use.
If the swing-wing ship really heralded the Yeager class, then it would be less likely that Starfleet would donate that name to a run-of-the-mill Sabre just because the prototype was retired.
Timo Saloniemi
That sounds good. And I have to agree, the term 'Yeager-class' is just as stupid as the term 'Centaur-class'. Just because we've seen only one ship of that class doesn't mean it's the prototype.
The only thing I accept is the Shelley-class designation. Allthough not being official, 'canon', I really like the designation and I will take it as official until some other, more canon source tells me to change the name. (Like the Encyclopedia, but this will not happen if we believe the Pocket Books-editors who told us that Okuda has - at the moment - no interest in writing an update for the Encyclopedia, because it's an huge truckload of work.)
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
Registry-wise, the Yeager could belong to just about any of the modern "mystery classes" - Rigel, Zodiac (NCC-61000), but perhaps also Andromeda, Sequoia (NCC-68000-70000). The Elkins could be a Bradbury, then...
Interestingly, the Centaur saucer has now been proven to be sufficiently different from an Excelsior one that we can forget about staying true to the Excelsior scaling criteria. Even more interestingly, the top surface of the saucer is apparently speckled with TNG-style elongated portholes, laid out in a pattern following the deflector grid. Should we take that to mean that the saucer topside is six or more decks high, since there are six concentric rows of portholes? Hardly. I guess we'd be safer saying that all those portholes are on a single deck, and simply laid out to match the internal divisions of that deck... The Centaur could be a relatively small ship, like it seems to be in "Time to Stand".
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
The thing that endears the tri-engined EXC variant to me most is that we finally see the true pylon arrangement. The twin-pylon usage for the 3rd nacelle definitely improves the design by leaps & bounds in my eyes.
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
I still think that registry batches are divided up in some futuristic, sensible but incomprehensible to us manner that renders them only semi-chronological. While the reg of a ship generally yields an idea of when it was built you have your occasional Eagle 956 or Prometheus 5xxxx that buck the system. Possibly there were 'slow' shipyards that Starfleet said 'Hey, the next hundred ships you build are going to be 59100 to 59200..' some shipyards made a hundred ships in a few years, but some smaller dumpier shipyards (or prototype laboratories) were still using up their old registries Starfleet told them to make. The Yeager was new, but made using up an older number that hadnt been taken.. same with Prometheus probably. Just using up batches of unused numbers.
I say incomprehensible because it probably has something to do with moneyless money. and the universal translator. and heisenberg compensators.
Posted by Matrix (Member # 376) on :
The Yeager can't be awhole new ship because I can't believe that they would put a new starship saucer on top of a large Maquis Raider body.
Its really a mystery, seeing that we don't have a age for the Maquis Raider, and if it is old, then why put one of the state of the art saucers on top of a POS ship that when reality you could put that saucer on top of its proper body, and perhaps be far more efficient.
Posted by Cpt. Kyle Amasov (Member # 742) on :
It's definitely not a maquis raider, though it might look similar.
I assume it is some sort of custom-built hull, either as a testbed for the Intrepid or as a whole new class, using the advantages of the maquis-raider study.
Posted by J (Member # 608) on :
This is the sad story of the USS Elkins, which suffered a devastating accident while in flight trials. When the captain ordered the ship to fire a torpedo at the targeting range the torpedo jammed in the launcher, and then exploded. The resulting forces sheared the ship apart, and destroyed most of the Engineering Section.
Now this was the time of the Dominion War, Starfleet hadn't the time to rebuild the Elkins' secondary hull. But the ship had an almost perfectly working saucer. It was decided to take the nacelles of the Elkins' [which had survived the accident] and the saucer then mate them to another secondary hull.
The reworking would only take a few months to complete, far less than the two years necessary to repair or build a new secondary hull from the Intrepid Class. The reworking involved only two steps. The nacelles were connected by simply welding them on in the appropriate spot where the PTCs would match up. As for mating the two hulls together, this process was done by making a simple five part conversion section. The conversion section created one corridor path, two turbolift paths, and two utility conduit paths which connected the two hulls with power grids, data lines, and others [this also included two paths between the hulls via the Jefferies Tubes].
And so ends the sad story of this ship. After spending those few short months getting it's secondary hull, the vessel was sent to the front lines. A majestic ship was thus reduced to cannon fodder. To this day, no one has ever told me if the vessel survived the war physically, though spiritually it died the day of that accident. Perhaps, just perhaps, one caring admiral was able to get the ship sent back to it's shipyard and rebuilt. But if this is what happened, the story was never told...
______________________________
In the past I've tried explaining the above in the driest of technical ways. I added in some drama this time. Do you understand yet? Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
yuck.
i dont have a hard time believing that these ships werent pretty because they werent built to be pretty, as warships, and leave it at that. Intrepid-class variable geometry gelpak systems were too expensive so Intrepid hulls ended up being mated to more common engine designs
Posted by darkwing_duck1 (Member # 790) on :
Hi! (late to thread, so forgive me if this has been said)
Everyone's assuming that the Intrepid hull design was a complete "new build". What if the "Yeager class" pioneered the Primary hull deisgn that was later also used for the Intrepid? Posted by Cpt. Kyle Amasov (Member # 742) on :
Interesting theory. Allthough the Intrepid seems to be scratch-built, you say it only uses the Yeager-saucer. Hmm. Going with this *revolutionary* idea, we could also argue about the originality of the Constitution-class saucer. Maybe Hermes/Saladin/Ptolemy were first. Or Galaxy's parts. They were used for a couple of ship, ships which have lower registries (like Niagara or Nebula, for example.) On the other hand, the question remains why the Yeager saucer looks so smooth while the secondary hull is... err... chunky.
Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
The Niagara's saucer isn't elliptical. It's a slightly modified Ambassador saucer rotated 180�, with the bridge rotated back to the proper facing. The saucer shuttlebay has been converted into an observation lounge or something, and the phaser strips have been relocated, but that's definitely as much an Ambassador bit as the secondary hull. Pulled from the same molds at the same time...
--Jonah
Posted by Cpt. Kyle Amasov (Member # 742) on :
Better be quiet. Or they'll come here and kill you, my friend. If you really think it is round, I'll give you a good advise: run. Run like hell and pray they didn't hear you. Mua-hahahar!!!
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
quote:Originally posted by Peregrinus: The Niagara's saucer isn't elliptical. It's a slightly modified Ambassador saucer rotated 180�, with the bridge rotated back to the proper facing. The saucer shuttlebay has been converted into an observation lounge or something, and the phaser strips have been relocated, but that's definitely as much an Ambassador bit as the secondary hull. Pulled from the same molds at the same time...
--Jonah
Sorry, but no. Try TSN's line proof for yourself. It doesn't matter how extreme of an angle the ship is tilted at in the Jein pic, it's elliptical.
-MMoM Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
P.S.
It's definitely not from a Galaxy, though, either. It's a custom-built piece.
-MM Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
*heh* I see what you mean, Kyle... Yeesh.
Okay, I've gone back and looked at my available pics. I admit I was focusing on the modified Ambassador bridge superstructure. *sigh* You're right. It ain't round. But the damage makes it a little tough to truly determine the original curvature. You sure it isn't pulled from the two-foot E-D saucer moulds? The engines are pretty clearly pulled from the three-foot E-D. That and the known Ambassador features are our clearest measures of scale.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)