This may have been asked before but what are the official specs for the Akira Class Starships? I have heard that they have 15 torpedo launchers and provisions for 150 fighters but you never see evidence of this on screen as far as I know. Please let me know. Thanks.
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!
Well, at least he didn't ask when they were commissioned.
Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
This is a bit of an old question, and the 15 torptube figure is silly and 'fanboyish', IMHO.
I would rather believe the Akira is a less impressive ship slightly older than the Enterprise-D.
And there is zero on-screen evidence for �berspecs for the Akira (or any specs for that matter).
Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :
Supposedly, the designer of the ship thought it should have a ton of launchers and it's been speculated that it's a fighter carrier. But as you say, we never get any evidence of this on screen. The closest looks we get of the ship are in First Contact and Voyager's "Message in a Bottle". And neither of those give us an in depth tour of the ship's capabilities.
I'm of the opinion that the ship is older than the galaxy class and it just so happens that we hadn't seen any of them prior to FC.
Posted by Darkwing (Member # 834) on :
quote:Originally posted by Harry: This is a bit of an old question, and the 15 torptube figure is silly and 'fanboyish', IMHO.
I would rather believe the Akira is a less impressive ship slightly older than the Enterprise-D.
And there is zero on-screen evidence for �berspecs for the Akira (or any specs for that matter).
I disagree about the 15 torptubes. The designer included them, so that should be considered. Depending on the rate of fire, though, that may not be so big a deal. The Akira was supposedly (according to the designer) a combination gunship/aircraft carrier, whereas the Enterprise is an Explorer. So an Explorer, with lots of space dedicated to survey and research facilities, might use a few tubes with a high rate of fire (to compensate for the low number of delivery systems), whereas a ship designed to be a combatant might have more delivery systems, at a lower rate of fire, for improved accuracy, reliability and redundancy. This is also why I figured the Enterprise refit added about 12 phasers - not to have more firepower, but to help ensure that a weapons hit would not totally disarm her. Another example would be current navy designs - older ships have a onee-arm or two-arm bandit, a missile launch system drawing from a magazine. Newer ships use VLS, or Vertical launch system. Each missile is in it's own launch tube, and fires independently. Fewer moving parts, fewer systems to break down, and an increse in overall rate of fire. The only disadvantage is the loss of direct trajectory, since the VLS fires within a very limited arc from 90 degrees.
Now, since the Akira was supposedly a new ship at the time of First Contact, why do you prefer it to be a Galaxy contemporary? I ask out of curiousity, not criticism.
Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :
The speculation that the Akira class is a bit older comes from the fact that the ship we see in FC has a registry number lower than the U.S.S. Galaxy. I believe it's in the 6XXXX range.
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
IMO, the nacelles look like an older design, and the wide-oval saucer has always seemed to be a Galaxy-Nebula-New Orleans contemporary, and its correct the registry is from the NO/Nebula pre Galaxy 6xxx xgroupings.
The only real selling point on it being a Sovereign contemporary are the different shaped escape pod hatches, but they could be the result of a refit or simply a hatch design which is just as old but was only used on certain vessels.
Posted by Darkwing (Member # 834) on :
Thanks all for the answers on age speculation. I'll have to think about that for a bit before I decide which I prefer, but your points in favor of an older ship do make sense.
Posted by Mark Nguyen (Member # 469) on :
150 fighters is a bit much. I did an analysis of the GCS main shuttlebay a while back, and we proved that it should be able to support 12 fighters easily, space-wise. Wish I could remember where I put that piture...
Mark
Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
Not too mention that the fighters we have seen seem to be able to operate without a 'mothership'. They are quite big, and could easily be as capable as Runabouts. There doesn't seem to be a particular need for fighter/shuttle-carriers.
Posted by Topher (Member # 71) on :
The only sticking point for requiring a carrier of some kind would be whether or not the fighters are warp-capable. For all we know, the fighters seen in DS9 episodes could have been based off of the various Galaxies and Akirae.
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
the opening left though, is that while large fighters seem to have warp drives and independant capability, there is still the nominal possibility of a sub-light fighter design, between the size of a shuttle and a shuttlepod.. a GCS or any vessel could potentially support dozens of these.. the only problem is they dont fit into the milieu very well, since most Trek battles are at Warp Speed and with heavily shielded vessels.. however, sublight fighters could be useful in space-station assaults or planetary interdiction.. but it seems these special purpose craft would hardly be standard issue for long range starships, possibly they are only used in inner space scenarios, which would actually create the need fora carrier design to deploy them, since it would simply be inefficient to include them in anybody else's arsenal, for their near uselessness in many situations.
BTW, i liked Diane Carey's depiction of sublight attackcraft, she called them sleds, they were a little bigger than a shuttlepod but smaller than a full scale short-rang-warp shuttlecraft, and could only be used in specialized situations.. the original Enterprise only had a handful (in "Dreadnought!") and Starbase 10 deployed some for a diplomatic retrieval in "Red Sector" (they were used as the equivalent of a choppers jet-fighter cover in a 'last flight from Saigon'-type scenario).. so basically it makes sense that we never see them, since the whole of filmed star Trek doesnt deal with these types of scenario
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
While we never see the big fleets actually go to warp or drop out of it, that I can recall*, we do see "Peregrines" out in their formations both before and after, suggesting that they didn't need to dock inbetween. Plus they have glowy blue bits, which on a Federation ship is a pretty good indicator of warp capability.
*: Multiple warp flashes are one of my favorite little details, and one way to see the evolution of special effects is to note how we almost never saw more than one ship go to warp before Enterprise, with the exception of Generations. In fact, was Generations the first time we saw more than one flash at a time? I could be way off on this. Anyway, one of my favorite moments of this comes at the end of the recent "Future Tense," where the Tholian ships jump to warp at just slightly different moment, and their warp flashes go off like fireworks. Imagine if they had had the resources to animate flashes for all the ships in, say "Sacrifice of Angels." Oh yes.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Oh, and re: CaptainMike: The Romulan fighters from Nemesis would fit nicely within that category.
Posted by Mark Nguyen (Member # 469) on :
Doesn't matter much wether warp capability would dictate if they're ACTUALLY based on a ship; odds are that they wouldn't be very fast regardless. Shuttles are warp capable, and are stationed on starships all the time.
Mark
Posted by Darkwing (Member # 834) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mark Nguyen: 150 fighters is a bit much. I did an analysis of the GCS main shuttlebay a while back, and we proved that it should be able to support 12 fighters easily, space-wise. Wish I could remember where I put that piture...
Mark
Where does the 150 fighters figure come from? The article I saw with Jaeger just said "fighters", not "X number of fighters". Personally, I like the idea of the Akira being a carrier, but only a standard wing or half of a wing, not a complete space force of fighter craft.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
quote:Originally posted by switchbladeNGC: I have heard that they have 15 torpedo launchers and provisions for 150 fighters
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mark Nguyen: Doesn't matter much wether warp capability would dictate if they're ACTUALLY based on a ship; odds are that they wouldn't be very fast regardless. Shuttles are warp capable, and are stationed on starships all the time.
Mark
true, but i think the independance (or dependance) of a vessel on a mothership is an important feature.. shuttlecraft seem unable to venture out on more than a couple of interstellar jaunts, while larger ships that are classified as independant are able to bounce from star to star without ever returning to a base, runabouts for example. i submit that the fighters seen are probably more similar to runabouts or data's scout than they are to a shuttle.. a shuttle sized fighter would be a completely different animal, and more likely to be carried rather than go under its own power.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sol System: *: Multiple warp flashes are one of my favorite little details, and one way to see the evolution of special effects is to note how we almost never saw more than one ship go to warp before Enterprise, with the exception of Generations. In fact, was Generations the first time we saw more than one flash at a time?
I believe so. It should be noted though that the ships at the end were all models, and not CGI. At that time there was a bit of an evolution in the warp "stretch" effect. The original Ent-D shots all had the stretch effect, but they used a small model and the combined talents of ILM. When they got to doing the DS9 runabout warp effects, they cheated slightly and had the ship "smear" rather than stretch.
Then along comes Generations, and it's fancy-schmancy CGI Enterprise-D, which was used for all the warp effects, since the elastic-band effect was relatively easy to do in CGI. However, since they didn't have CGI models of the Nebula, Oberth and Miranda models, they could do an easy stretch-snap effect. So they didn't. The ships don't stretch at all.
The early Defiant warp shots also show the smear effect rather than the stretch-snap effect, but after that, with CGI becoming more common, they all now do it properly. Yes.
Although I have guessed most of the above.
Posted by SoundEffect (Member # 926) on :
quote:Originally posted by Harry: Not too mention that the fighters we have seen seem to be able to operate without a 'mothership'. They are quite big, and could easily be as capable as Runabouts.
Whether they have been scaled properly within visual effects shots, the Starfleet Fighter/Maquis Courier physical model was scaled to be only about half the Runabout length. It is only about 12m long and this size is supported by the TNG Shuttlepod cockpit-shape in its center. The shots of Cal Hudson visible in the main viewport also corroborates this.
Now it could be that the Starfleet Fighter is larger than the Peregrine Class Couriers, but there goes the Bird of Prey type scaling issue again. Same shape; two different sizes.
Posted by Futurama Guy (Member # 968) on :
quote:Originally posted by SoundEffect: Now it could be that the Starfleet Fighter is larger than the Peregrine Class Couriers, but there goes the Bird of Prey type scaling issue again. Same shape; two different sizes.
As far as anyone really knows, we have never seen a peregrine class courier. Whether or not those ships are that class or not you are getting a bit ahead of yourself as we really dont know if a peregrine is a SF fighter or otherwise....
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Watching the fighters from DS9 I have to weigh in with the "31 meter" side of the scale issue. As the fighters strafe he Cardassians they are much larger than mere shuttles and seem to be independent of any carrier type ship. Larger fighters with no need of a carrier make sense during the Dominion War to patrol the literally millions of AU of Federation space without diverting capital ships away from more imporntant assignments.
Posted by Futurama Guy (Member # 968) on :
...or they just did a lousy job keeping the ships to scale, like everything else.
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
I'll go with that one... Thirty meters isn't any more "plausible" or "supported" than twelve. Still, I'd like something a bit larger than half a runabout, even if the models were built like that. Fifteen meters or a bit more. The Maquis must not look like sissies in comparison with our heroes, or then the heroes will look like even greater sissies to lose the combat, and then a vicious circle sissifies them both out of existence.
A shot of Cal Hudson behind the windshield? Where and when, exactly? Was he built into the model (like Kira into the Defiant shuttlepod), or composited there afterwards, or what? Screencaps (my murky copy of "Maquis II" won't help)?
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
I only like the "30 meters" thing if (and I'm hoping here) the fighters are assigned extended multi-day patrols of Fed space during the war. With a crew of at least two (and half the ship being engines)you'd need the room just to make it livable. ....I'd also think that the fighters are equiped with much better weapons than a Runabout (phaser canon under the nose, torp launchers in the wings).
Posted by Anti Spark (Member # 949) on :
Does anyone have a good webpage on Akira Class.
What would be cool is scans from that Star Trek magazine. I forgot that Mag name.
Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :
Star Trek: The Magazine.
Posted by Starship Freak (Member # 293) on :
Well, I don�t know about good, but here�s my Akira-class webpage Posted by Anti Spark (Member # 949) on :
Great Thanks!
Your page has so many Pics!
Posted by Futurama Guy (Member # 968) on :
...and they are so smooth and voluptuous, I must ask: are they real??
Posted by SoundEffect (Member # 926) on :
quote:Originally posted by Timo: I'll go with that one... Thirty meters isn't any more "plausible" or "supported" than twelve. Still, I'd like something a bit larger than half a runabout, even if the models were built like that. A shot of Cal Hudson behind the windshield? Where and when, exactly? Was he built into the model (like Kira into the Defiant shuttlepod), or composited there afterwards, or what?
It is a composited shot of Cal and friend in the front viewport of the courier, however, the composite is of Cal in the TNG Shuttlepod set as that was the basis for the Maquis model. The window was enlarged, and the side windows were covered up with Okudagrams. So it's 12m or so for the length of that courier.
They did the same thing when they retrofitted The larger Maquis ship for "Caretaker". The interior set with Chakotay and B'Elanna was the runabout set and the exterior of the Maquis model was altered accordingly (including the Runabout double windows) so the size of that ship can also be directly determined. The Ju'Day Class is 33.7m long.
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
Now, if I'm not mistaken, I created an analysis of the Peregrine and the Type-15 way back in August 2002... but my idea was shot down.
IIRC, my conclusion there was that the Peregrine was about 15 meters long. If we go with the enlarged window, that could even be increased a little bit.
Posted by Futurama Guy (Member # 968) on :
Where has it been comfirmed that the above is a Peregrine Class???
Posted by Dat (Member # 302) on :
Okuda? Or someone else who worked on DS9.
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
If the interceptor-thing is 15 meters long and carries a crew of two shoulder-to-shoulder, then it makes even less sense to call her a "courier" than it did when she was 30+ meters long.
Sure, a courier could be a tiny craft designed to carry coded isolinear chips in a fist-sized neutronium safe. But it would be much more satisfactory to assign the courier designation to a vessel that could plausibly carry bulkier priority shipments, VIP passengers and the like.
The lower size range would be the craft flown by Lieutenant Ro in "Preemptive Strike" - with a roomy multicompartment cabin redressed from the TNG "alien shuttle" set. In fact, this design would be a perfect choice for the Peregrine class, since she looks as if she could be flown solo, could land on class M planets, and is a known Maquis vehicle that looks like ex-Starfleet hardware (by virtue of looking like the Ju'day, which has Starfleetish interiors).
Of course, Bernd is going to have a fit if I insist that she's smaller than the Ju'day class despite sharing most of the hull shape. Still, the window-matching trick would support this two-size theory, even though the VFX is so ambiguous that no size difference can be inferred from there.
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by Futurama Guy (Member # 968) on :
Anyone have any good screencaps from Preemptive Strike?
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
i doubt anyone connected with the show has ever referred to that as a peregrine..
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
I refer to it a "sleepy weasel" class.
Posted by Kazeite (Member # 970) on :
To toss my 2 cents, IMHO Akira does have at least 14 torpedo launchers.
There was a Akira pic in Starship Spotter and following launchers were visible:
2 pairs on the saucer - 4
5 in back on weapons pod - 9
Also in FC Akira presented 4 more launchers in weapons pod, facing forward, and one single multi-fire launcher on the underside of the saucer, in front of deflector dish.
So, that's 14. And I think it's not a big stretch of imagination to assume that there's backward facing launcher in the saucer as well, which gives us 'requied' 15 launchers
What I think is that those clustered lauchers are in fact single-fire only, as witnessed in FC.
If we were to remove those clustered launchers Akira would be left with only two multi-fire launchers - a perfectly normal configuration for the ship of that era.
Is it possible that Akira was reffited to provide greater firepower as 'cheap' as possible?
Regarding carrier functions... I don't know where those presumed fighters exit ship. That area between catamarans? Nope. Although some plans show huge doors to shuttlebay in that area there's no sign of that in actual model. Those three 'windows' in front of saucer? That's more possible, but there's one tiny problem - literally - Those 'windows' doesn't appear to be tall enough for those mini-Peregrine fighters. (at least to me)
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
When have we seen the butt end of the primary hull, except in various non-aired artwork? Even "Message in a Bottle" kept this part of the ship obscured.
The original plans for the ship clearly called for two huge doors, and every other aspect of those plans apparently was meticuously put into the model.
The forward blue things are admittedly a bit small to be doors (unlike the similar things on Steamrunner and Saber class ships), and could rather be deflectors or something. OTOH, if you fold the wings of one of those fighter-thingies and assume the 15m length, then the blue squares *could* be Galactica-style launch tubes, too. Perhaps even specialized launchers for scrambling your fighters at warp (I don't think we've ever witnessed a shuttle launch from a warping ship?).
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by Kazeite (Member # 970) on :
Yes, I know that there are two big shuttlebay doors at the butt end of saucer. But, you know, 'thru-deck carrier' name implies some kind of door at the other end, too
If those fighter have indeed foldable wings, then I agree with you, Timo.
Regarding shuttle launch at warp... Well, we know that various ships can separate at warp and launch torpedos at warp speeds, so fighter scrambling at warp shouldn't be difficult.
Hm... I wonder... what if there are TWO variants of Akira? Cruiser AND carrier?
Because, you know, as demonstrated during Pacific War cruiser/carrier combos weren't exactly efficent during combat situations That's pure speculation, of course.
Posted by Mark Nguyen (Member # 469) on :
Mark
Posted by Fleet-Admiral Michael T. Colorge (Member # 144) on :
Okay, the runabouts barely are able to fit through those small openings that the middle... whatever that is in the middle of the shuttlebay deck. The 15m one looks like it has a better time manuvering within the shuttlebay than the runabout. Then again, let's shove in also the variable sizes of the Delta Flyer and the Aeroshuttle and the Type 9, Type 8, Type 20, and Insurrection shuttle for an interesting view.
Posted by SoundEffect (Member # 926) on :
Now that looks cool! Notice how the smaller courier cockpit is about the same scale as the Type-15 Shuttlepods strewn about, rather than the size of the large one.
I still can't fudge my numbers enough to make it 15m...I still only get about 12.1m. I'm assuming that the CGI diagram of the Maquis ship from the magazine is correctly proportioned and that the Shuttlepod is the size claimed by the published construction blueprints.
Posted by Phoenix (Member # 966) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mark Nguyen: Here we go. This may help..
Isn't that cute? Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
I think those are probably maintenance bays ...
(I know, I know, "lighten up")
Posted by Phoenix (Member # 966) on :
quote:Originally posted by Malnurtured Snay: I think those are probably maintenance bays ...
(I know, I know, "lighten up")
I don't think they are big enough to be maintenance bays. You couldnt get any equipment in to do anything to the shuttles.
They just appear to be somewhere to keep all the shuttles tidy and out of the way.
Like parking spaces. Posted by Kazeite (Member # 970) on :
"The red zone is for loading and unloading only. There's no stopping in the white zone."
Seriously, I don't think they keep runabout in this big bay. It's way to big to comfortably fit through those thingies. Barely squeeze, yes, but not enough to leave room for maneuvers.
Who put those rooms in the middle, anyway? What next? Torpedo launchers above airlocks? Posted by Mark Nguyen (Member # 469) on :
I think the lines dividing the parking spaces for the shuttles are just that - lines on the deck. There's no need to use up that space with walls on which you can't hang much and that make access to the back door kinda awkward. When I made that picture, I concluded that if the 15m Peregrine's wings folded up as we guess, then you can fit one Peregrine for every two shuttle parking slips; thus, you can support a full squadron of 12 fighters with tons of room left over for regular shuttles.
As for the runabouts, scaled as they are it is indeed a tight fit around that central column thing... there's maybe a 2-3 meters tops to maneuver, however if you think about how tightly aircraft are handled on carrier decks, that's more than enough space! Alternatively, you can stash one or two in the open landing area where I put the 30m Peregrine and stll have lots of space for maneuvering other shuttles through. And don't forget that much of the deck is two decks tall or more - you can use antigrav to hop over some stuff if need be. It's not like the shuttles are on wheels anyway.
Now, I dug up this picture to relate it back to the Akira. Does anyone want to superimpose the Akira saucer over this layout, to demonstrate the interior volume of the Akira Saucer? It's approximately the same shape, at least...
Mark
Posted by Phoenix (Member # 966) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mark Nguyen: I think the lines dividing the parking spaces for the shuttles are just that - lines on the deck. There's no need to use up that space with walls on which you can't hang much and that make access to the back door kinda awkward. When I made that picture, I concluded that if the 15m Peregrine's wings folded up as we guess, then you can fit one Peregrine for every two shuttle parking slips; thus, you can support a full squadron of 12 fighters with tons of room left over for regular shuttles.
As for the runabouts, scaled as they are it is indeed a tight fit around that central column thing... there's maybe a 2-3 meters tops to maneuver, however if you think about how tightly aircraft are handled on carrier decks, that's more than enough space! Alternatively, you can stash one or two in the open landing area where I put the 30m Peregrine and stll have lots of space for maneuvering other shuttles through. And don't forget that much of the deck is two decks tall or more - you can use antigrav to hop over some stuff if need be. It's not like the shuttles are on wheels anyway.
Now, I dug up this picture to relate it back to the Akira. Does anyone want to superimpose the Akira saucer over this layout, to demonstrate the interior volume of the Akira Saucer? It's approximately the same shape, at least...
Mark
They can't be lines, because at several points they join the walls. Its especially obvious with the ones to your left and right as you enter the large oval-shaped area.
Posted by Futurama Guy (Member # 968) on :
Maybe some things are best left unexplored
Posted by Phoenix (Member # 966) on :
quote:Originally posted by Futurama Guy: Maybe some things are best left unexplored
Whether the Enterprise-D's main shuttlebay has alcoves or parking spaces has grave consequences for the whole of Star Trek, and indeed could shed new light on the questions that have plagued mankind for generations.
Posted by J (Member # 608) on :
quote:Originally posted by Futurama Guy: Anyone have any good screencaps from Preemptive Strike?
Kinda... put they're pictures of my TV with the VCR on pause.
Posted by Topher (Member # 71) on :
Well, we know that the shuttlebay can hold at least 3 runabouts, as the E-D delivered the Ganges, Rio Grande, and Yangtzee Kiang to DS9.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by Phoenix:
quote:Originally posted by Futurama Guy: Maybe some things are best left unexplored
Whether the Enterprise-D's main shuttlebay has alcoves or parking spaces has grave consequences for the whole of Star Trek, and indeed could shed new light on the questions that have plagued mankind for generations.
These "alcoves" may only reach to waist height to secure the shuttles when the ship shakes and the crew do the "bridge dance". I gotta say that the 15 meter fighter looks better in the Galaxy shuttlebay, but the Runabout looks ridiculous in there. Mabye the Enterprise D stored them in the cargo bays under the secondary hull when delivering DS9's initial three....or the shuttlebay was crammed pretty darn tight. Posted by Topher (Member # 71) on :
Unless they had them in bays 2 & 3, but I don't think they're big enough.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Not unless the assembled the nacelles to the hull on arrival and they ships were crated up before then. It is unlikely though.
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
um..Yangtzee Kiang was carried by the E-D.. the Rubicon wasn't the original bunch, it arrived in season 2.
Well.. it DID!
Posted by Futurama Guy (Member # 968) on :
I'm sure by reviewing some of the type-7 shuttle scenes from TNG ("The Child", "Unnatural Selection"), known sizes of a runabout and a type-7 shuttle and know some fancy math, you could get a pretty solid idea of how big the lesser shuttlebay doors and the bay interior is.
Posted by Futurama Guy (Member # 968) on :
quote:Originally posted by CaptainMike: um..Yangtzee Kiang was carried by the E-D.. the Rubicon wasn't the original bunch, it arrived in season 2.
Well.. it DID!
Um...I think you might be seeing things, who said Rubicon?
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
someone edited their post. or i did too much LDS.. hmm
according to the Flare search a post in this thread formerly contained the word Rubicon.
no one leaves alive!
Posted by Futurama Guy (Member # 968) on :
Were not the Maqui ships in "The Maquis (2)" represented to be about the same size or just slightly smaller than a runabout?
For that matter, couldnt you look at "Preemptive Strike" where Ro flies that ship through the E-D shields and parks it near a nacelle....if by knowing the size of the nacelle and adjust for distance and the camera, could you not be able to at least determine the size of that ship?
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by CaptainMike: someone edited their post. or i did too much LDS.. hmm
according to the Flare search a post in this thread formerly contained the word Rubicon.
no one leaves alive!
You did too much LDS. ...and Sisko ( in Emissary )says that the Enterprise was offloading three new Danube class runabouts to the station.
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
Somebody (Bernd? Boris Scrbic? Jack Bohn?) already did the Maquis vs. nacelle analysis, and found no size difference between the "Ro variant" from that episode and the "Chakotay variant" from "Caretaker". All the Maquis ships in the big battle scene also appear to be about the same size. But these comparisons are somewhat open to interpretation, since the battle scene has very few situations where the ships would truly overlap for meaningful comparison.
The battle certainly makes the birdlike Bajoran "impulse ship" look smaller than in any of its other incarnations, when we see it flying in front of the Galor's upper superstructures. But that's pretty much all the scaling info we can get.
As for carrying the runabouts, the main bay could have been shut down and the 'bouts stored on the entry ramp, blocking it more or less completely. Or then the supposed overhead sliding doors could have been used instead of the aft ones.
And as for the parking slots for the type 6 shuttles, I'd accept them as recharging stations. No need for space around the shuttle if all the access hatches are at the bottom of the craft anyway, and the refueling, recharging, waste tank purging etc. receptables are built into the hangar floor. For different shuttle types and sizes, the partitioning walls might perhaps be moved.
Sternbach makes an error in showing the craft parked butt against the wall, though. How does one embark or disembark the craft, then?
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by Kazeite (Member # 970) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mark Nguyen: As for the runabouts, scaled as they are it is indeed a tight fit around that central column thing... there's maybe a 2-3 meters tops to maneuver, however if you think about how tightly aircraft are handled on carrier decks, that's more than enough space!
As far as I'm concerned they can be stacked one on another and nothing bad would happen
But it's not about storage space - you don't just park runabouts in the middle of the hangar bay. When aircrafts are prepared to be catapulted or even placed on the elevators there's usually more empty space around them.
Same thing here (I think.) Distances presented there provide very little room for error for pilot (or tractor beam(s) operator) who want's to relocate that runabout.
quote:Originally posted by Timo: Somebody (Bernd? Boris Scrbic? Jack Bohn?) already did the Maquis vs. nacelle analysis, and found no size difference between the "Ro variant" from that episode and the "Chakotay variant" from "Caretaker".
Wow, I didn't know that... That's great news That means there's no size difference between those two types, just remodeled cockpit among other things, no doubt, but the actual hull is the same type. Thanks Timo for sharing that Posted by Futurama Guy (Member # 968) on :
And how many Maqui did Chakotay supposedly have crammed into that little ship?
So what we've discovered here is that the Cardassian-Federation DMZ is the trek equivalent to the realtime Mexican-American border....
Man I love parallelism.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
quote:Originally posted by Futurama Guy: Man I love parallelism.
Yeah, that was a good episode! lol!
About the 'bouts in the big D's main shuttle bay... wasn't there enough room for them to maneuvre around the central control area and further into the 'bowels' of the ship/saucer/shuttlebay?
Maybe they were tractored there? How many things can the E-D tractor at once? How many Tractor emitters are there on the E-D?
Andrew
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
Plenty. Some of which apparently hang in open space or dangle at the ends of long poles, if the tractoring scenes of e.g. "Time Squared" are any indication...
I'd suggest scaling the Chakotay and Ro ships according to their cabins, and then adding some artistic-license extra to the Chakotay vessel, to create plausible internal sizes. Just say that these two hulls, plus the lower half of the DS9 USS Yeager, are from a manufacturer that prefers this shape while varying size.
All these hulls seem to have big wings, which probably imply atmospheric capacity - perhaps form dictates function to such a degree that the "scaling paradox" actually is excusable here. After all, aircraft do tend to look "scaled". Just compare something like Tu-26, Su-24, and Tornado - size doesn't much alter the way your swing-wing bomber looks.
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by Futurama Guy (Member # 968) on :
Maybe they just roped them down to the saucer and drove really slow....
[ March 13, 2003, 03:13 AM: Message edited by: Futurama Guy ]
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Really slow for a Galaxy class is still 2,000 kilometers per second! I for one don't tink the Chakotay raider could be the same as the Maquis Raider from the prior episode....even though the model was just a re-dress of it. Chakotay's raider has over 50 jerks on it...and judging by the design the ship is mostly wings and engines. I have to defer to Brend's vision of a 35-50 meter vessel that could easily land or hide in an atmosphere.
Posted by SoundEffect (Member # 926) on :
I believe Chakotay's crew only numbered in the 40's, but regardless of whether the space was cramped, we don't know the circumstances of how they came to be on that ship that fateful day. It could be that the ship, as a Federation taransport, only houses a crew of 15-20 or so, but one morning Gul Evek finds a Maquis base and 40+ Maquis pile into the ship to escape with their lives and then get swept into the Delta Quadrant while evading the Vetar in the Badlands.
Just because Chakotay's Raider doesn't look like it's big enough to hold 40+ crew, doesn't mean we should throw out scaling factors in favor of us all wanting the ship to be bigger than it is.
Posted by Mark Nguyen (Member # 469) on :
I believe "Repression" mentioned that Voyager's crew was about one-quarter Maquis. The actual number depends on how many people you think there are aboard in the first place (highest 152; lowest 126; changes back and forth frequently).
Mark
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
when was the 126 number quoted? i know that the 150-odd number was said most frequently during the first/second season.
quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon: You did too much LDS. ...and Sisko ( in Emissary )says that the Enterprise was offloading three new Danube class runabouts to the station.
i know i saw someone say Rubicon here, when the three delivered in Emissary were the Ganges, Rio Grande and Yangtzee Kiang. they edited their post.
Posted by Phoenix (Member # 966) on :
quote:Originally posted by CaptainMike: when was the 126 number quoted? i know that the 150-odd number was said most frequently during the first/second season.
I don't know about 126, but 127 was stated in "In the Flesh".
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
well, as long as the number only went down, it should be ok.. In the Flesh was several years after the 150 numbers quoted in 'the 37s' and so on.
Posted by Mark Nguyen (Member # 469) on :
I'm not too sure anymore, but I think that in "Dark Prontier" the Borg Probe scans Voyager and announces that there are 125 life forms aboard. Assuming that there are no passengers and the Doctor doesn't count, the crew count would therefore be 126.
[Edit - upon checking, the crew count in said episode is actually 143. Pleease ignore my drug-addled posting.]
According to this, the last number stated was 145 + the doctor in "Author, Author".
Posted by switchbladeNGC (Member # 983) on :
On the topic of the size of the "Peregrine class", how is the Yaeger class explained if there is only one size for the "Peregrine class"? The Yaeger class appears to be a strange combination of an Intrepid class primary hull and the Peregrine class secondary hull.
Posted by SoundEffect (Member # 926) on :
The similarities must be purely coincidental. The Yeager is exactly as long as an Intrepid Class. The fact that the Yeager's aft hull looks like Ju'day Class, not Peregrine by the way, ahs to be design coincidence. Like how the JAG Office Starbase from "Measure of a Man" looks kind of like the Regula I lab only several times bigger.
Posted by Futurama Guy (Member # 968) on :
Or how Starbase 74 ("11001001" TNG) looks so just like Spacedock from ST3-6, only many times larger.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Or how STarbase 35 is several times larger that the (70% smaller) Regula One lab.
...or how Scotty's gut is several times larger than it was in STTMP.
...or hoe the Enterprise A had over 100 decks in STV (they must have just been very small decks). Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
It is IMHO much worse to have a complex, greeblie-covered shape like the Ju'day/"Peregrine"/"Yeager" one be scaled up and down, than to have a simple aesthetically pleasing form like the starbase mushroom applied in several different sizes.
It would be easy to accept that engineers would *want* to build starbases like that when functionality placed no real demands on shape. (And easy to ignore the few unchanged greeblies, too.) But who'd want to repeat the ugly yet prominent details of Ju'day for solely aesthetic reasons? Unless that is the exact shape of the Gurgling Gnawlybird so adored by the starship engineers of Gurglia IV.
In contrast, IMHO it makes perfect sense for these winged starship hulls to be built in several different sizes. Both from the POV that there must be a market for such things across a wide size range, and from the POV that certain design houses would get to build certain ship categories and would apply certain trademark design solutions. If these different sizes just came in even slightly more varied shapes, I'd be happy indeed...
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
At least the Yeager modified the "raider" portion a little: the raider's box-like structures (nacelles?) are removed. ....when I built my Yeager I considered blending the raider's secondary hull into the Voyager ventral hull and adding a Akira style deflector down there too. ...mabye I'll still build that: I have all the needed parts on hand.... Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
Yeah, all the three incarnations of the Maquis rear hull are a bit different: first the small Ro ship gains extra "support struts" and assorted greeblies on the wings when becoming the larger Chakotay/Eddington model, and then loses the outer "impulse fins" (in the original two ships, they glow red, like the inner impulse fins, while the wingroots glow blue and are supposedly the warp engines) when becoming the Yeager butt end.
And yeah, tinkering with the Yeager details sounds okay to me, since we never saw her up close, yet she's pretty enough to be worth salvaging. But if you flare the Maquis bow to the Intrepid underbelly, and insert a deflector, you also lose the big torpedo tube muzzle at the bow of the Maquis ship - and then the ship has no forward tubes, but does have four aft ones...
Personally, I like the current configuration - and since the registry makes the Yeager a predecessor to the Voyager, perhaps this also explains the deal with the seemingly redundant "auxiliary" deflector on the Intrepid class? Back when the Intrepid hull was first created, it used to be the main deflector!
Getting back to those glowing boxes, does anybody have good pics to show the glow on the Yeager in actual DS9 shots? Or, returning to the main subject, pics on how consistently all four impulse engines on the Akiras glow in the various shots.
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
The yeager could have forward facing torpedo launchers in the position of the Raider's forward gun/disruptor thingies. Really the ship looks pretty sharp from the front with no modificatons: kinda like a Starfleet BOP. http://www.picturetrail.com/gallery/view?p=999&gid=1301771&uid=657989
The only time I recall seeing the impule vents on the Akira was in the "Mess. in a Bottle" episode of Voyager. We almost never saw the Akira on DS9 and mostly the forward and top views in FC.
Posted by Futurama Guy (Member # 968) on :
More specifically, why did the TPTBICODSS design/build such an ugly ship in the first place? Is there any sort of official explaination for it existance or is it an "oops" child?
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
The ship mkes sense as a one-off experimental testbed for the variable geometry warp engines and primart hull for the Intrepid class. The ship's registry places it as built prior to the Intrepid so mabye this was the testbed to work out bugs that cropped up in the Intrepid's initial trial runs.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
And so on. The Akira, Steamrunner, and to a lesser extent Saber classes were a pretty constant feature of fleet-heavy DS9 episodes.
Posted by switchbladeNGC (Member # 983) on :
quote: More specifically, why did the TPTBICODSS design/build such an ugly ship in the first place? Is there any sort of official explaination for it existance or is it an "oops" child!
Appearently the Trident, Griffin, and Yeager Classes were part of Starfleet's "Frankenstein Fleet". According to the Daystrom Institute Technical Library
quote: The design melds a standard Intrepid saucer section, of which Starfleet had something of a surplus in this period, with an engineering hull which is based on a scale-up of a Peregrine variant. The latter was chosen because of the extreme ease with which it could be constructed by the Starbases involved.
Like all of the Frankenstein Fleet, the Yeager is significantly below its properly designed counterparts in terms of performance. The area in which the Yeager suffers most in speed; while the Intrepid is amongst the fastest classes in the fleet, the Yeager can only break Warp 8 for relatively short periods. This is largely due to the rush in which the ships were completed - there was insufficient time to properly match the hull configuration to the warp field, resulting in a serious loss of efficiency.
The Yeagers also suffer somewhat in firepower. The forward facing torpedo tubes of the Intrepid are located in the Engineering hull, and so are not present on the Yeager. The ship is thus left with only the aft firing tubes. The number of phaser banks is also reduced; although the presence of two large phaser cannon on the engineering hull largely compensates for this in terms of absolute firepower, there is a significant lack of phaser coverage to the ships aft.
The Yeagers participated in the operation to recover Deep Space Nine, but this is their only offensive action so far. They are largely used in a defensive role due to their inherent deficiencies - Yeagers are often to be seen as part of Deep Space Nines defensive screen, and have operated in several other locations in this area. Despite their relative "backstage" role, many of the ships have been lost during Dominion attacks
Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :
Ah yes... a cannon source if ever there was one.
This info is obviously based on the assumption that Starfleet through a bunch of scrap metal together during the dominion war and stuck a warp engine in it. I don't subscribe to this theory. As for the Yeager having no forward facing tubes.. blargh, I say. We've never seen the thing close up enough to know if that's true or not. Yes... there's the model... but that model also has neon green on it... I'm assuming that the "actual" starship is a bit different.
/rant.
Posted by SoundEffect (Member # 926) on :
The model I built of the USS Yeager mostly used the color scheme of the filming model, although significantly cleaned up. I made the Maquis aft torpedoes into the Yeager's impulse engines and the Maquis forward phasers are now the Yeager's forward photon torpedo tubes. The nose of the Maquis portion I painted as though it's the main deflector and the Intrepid saucer still contains the aux deflector.
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
Dunno... That does work. But still, I sort of like the idea of different torpedo tube "calibers". This ship would have three really badass tubes, and two more standard ones... Perhaps her very raison d'etre?
The Yeager certainly looks way too cool to be a Frankenstein ship IMHO. And has a prewar registry and all. She evokes a feeling of being to Intrepid what Miranda was to Constitution - a slightly uglier arse, a bit rougher skin, some uprating in the torpedo department and downrating in the deflector one.
While the Intrepid is an all-around exploring sort of shipamathing, this baby (may I call her Griffin class?) is more oriented towards combat. Unlike the Miranda, she sports a *smaller* shuttlecraft contingent than her big sister, but has shuttlebays nevertheless - the vertical aft corners of the former "warp cowlings" could very well be sliding doors for hangarettes, especially as they are conspiuously painted in the original model.
And the similarity to the Maquis ships is neither a coincidence nor a proof that there exists a third, larger variant of the Maquis ships that can donate body parts like this. It is just the result of the Yeager having been created by the same company/bureau/whatever that built the Maquis ships.
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
I prefer to think of the nose of the raider as a embedded Galaxy class sized forward torpedo launcher and the two aft intrepid launchers as exactly that: torp launchers. The Raider's aft launchers would serve fine as additional torp launchers to cover fo a lack or rear phasers. I placed my impulse engines next to the raider's aft launchers: big engines= fast respinse ship. As to the article: it's junk. We never saw (to my knowledge) any other yeager style ships in DS9 or in fleet action. The Yeager was likely a one-off ship used for testing and considered tough enough to guard DS9 and the Bajoran system while the Defiant was with the fleet or on patrol. The Yeager might well be a tougher, more combat oriented ship than the Intrepid class. Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
And so on. The Akira, Steamrunner, and to a lesser extent Saber classes were a pretty constant feature of fleet-heavy DS9 episodes.
Were the Akira clas ships in the finally? I don't have that one....so far it looks like they're mostly in that one episode (and the "Call to Arms " shot). ...regardless: we never get a good shot of the Akira's impulse vents until Voyager (my original point). You have that episode on tape?
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Uh, I don't know what DS9 episodes I have recorded. My point is that Akiras were all over the place in the last few years.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Heck. I really long to see those episodes on DVD. ...at least I only have to wait a couple of weeks to see the Odyssey destroyed. Goulish arent I?
Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :
Soundeffect... killer, KILLER models.
Posted by SoundEffect (Member # 926) on :
quote:Originally posted by Aban Rune: Soundeffect... killer, KILLER models.
Thanks, man! Intrepid Class Bellerophon will be up next and then the Challenger Class Buran will follow shortly thereafter.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
(cough) Elkins (cough) Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
Wasn't there an Elkins model somewhere? I remember seeing it...
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)