Having seen a lot more DS9 recently, I picked up on a number of data points about some small ships of our acquaintance. Given the recent comments in the "Questions" thread, I decided to take a look.
I've come to a conclusion I don't like, but which I can't see a way out of. I'll try to explain, but I seem to be completely missing all of my screenshots from "Pre-emptive Strike"[TNG7] . . . presumably from the last drive crash, but I don't know.
1. There are four known Maquis ship types.
a. The big raiders: Chakotay's vessel was one of these. His ship is listed as the Liberty in Pathways, and it is identified as an Antares Class ship. "Repression"[VOY7] shows the Bajoran mind-control weirdo's screen with the ship designation "Val Jean", type "Maquis Raider". Eddington also used this type. "Ju'Day" has been claimed as a class name and "Zola" a ship name, but neither of those have canonical backing.
b. The small raiders: Ro flew one of these in "...Strike", and several took part in the attack on Gul Evek's Galor. They are distinguished from the big raiders by a few surface details and a heavily altered forward dorsal, one which features a cockpit instead of the wide bay of windows on the big raider.
c. The Federation fighters: Seen in use in "Strike", "The Maquis"[DS9-2] (both parts), and so on. And, of course, later DS9 showed this to be a Federation fighter.
d. Winged Bajoran: Seen in "Strike", and as a Bajoran vessel in DS9.
2. We thus know that there's a Bajoran ship type which we can discount for our purposes. We thus have three classes, one of which is named. The two smaller versions are not.
3. In "Heart of Stone"[DS9-3], Odo and Kira believe they are chasing a Maquis vessel after a Lissepian ship reports an attack. The dialogue runs as follows:
Kira: "They've just been attacked by a Maquis interceptor." Odo: "Long range sensors are detecting a modified Peregrine Class courier ship. Lightly armed, one man crew, bearing 268 mark 301." Kira: "The Maquis use Peregrine Class courier ships." Later: Kira: "I don't know what the Maquis have done to that ship's engines, but it's *fast*." Odo: "Not fast enough . . . we're closing on him." Kira: "We better catch him soon, we're entering the Badlands." ... later . . . Kira: "He's gotta be somewhere in this solar system." Odo: "There he is. Looks like he's trying to land on one of the moons orbiting that gas giant."
4. Therefore, we theoretically have a name for one of the two smaller classes, as well as a description. One of the two smaller classes of Maquis vessel, either the Federation fighter or the Maquis mini-Raider, is known as a Peregrine.
Most assume that the name Peregrine must refer to the fighter, since the Peregrine Falcon is a type of bird renowned for its hunting skills (generally eating other birds that it dives upon and stabs with its talons). However, the Latin term perigrinus simply means traveller or wanderer. The species name falco peregrinus refers to its wandering habits, including very long migratory treks and the habit of spreading out moreso than other falcons such as the common kestrel or small merlin.
Despite the common assumption, we see that the Peregrine is a courier in the canon. Since a courier, by definition, has to carry something, that limits the type of ship it could be. Given the tiny, cramped cockpit of the Federation fighters employed by Cal Hudson in "The Maquis, Pt. II" (which appeared to have barely more room than an MG, and certainly no more than a Triumph Spitfire), along with the external details indicating that there would be very little room behind the cockpit, it seems improbable that a ship of that type would qualify.
However, we have seen that the mini-Raider has a far more spacious cabin, akin to a large shuttlecraft. ("Strike")
5. Intriguing dialogue appears in "The Maquis, Pt. I":
Sisko: "I'm picking up another ship moving toward them." Dukat: "That's a Federation signature I believe, Commander." Sisko: "It sure isn't from Starfleet. I've never seen a ship configuration like that before. It almost seems like someone has modified an old support courier. Hailing them . . . no response. They've fired torpedoes! What kind of civilian vessel that size would be carrying a photon?"
Though, again, we do not see the ship itself, we learn a great deal about it. It is a Federation vessel of a design that Sisko, formerly of Utopia Planitia, has not seen. He either surmises it is a civilian ship because of its non-Starfleet design, or concludes that based on its resemblance to a certain type of old support courier.
It seems quite unlikely that Sisko would be unfamiliar with a standard type of Federation fighter, or that the Federation would start using a Maquis design during the Dominion War.
Thus, we have additional evidence that the mini-Raider is the Peregrine, and not the Federation Tac-Fighter.
6. Counterindications:
The vessel which fired torpedoes in the first part of "Maquis" is, according to this theory, one of the mini-Raiders. During the rest of the two-parter, though, we learn that Quark helps to arrange the sale of vessel weapons and other parts to the Maquis.
From Quark's contacts, they get, per Quark, "deflector shields, navigational arrays, maybe a couple hundred photon torpedoes [ . . . ] and pulse cannons, and some high-energy disruptors." Odo later gives a more detailed list, saying that they received "six ship-mounted high energy disruptors, three particle accelerators, two hundred photon torpedoes, and a dozen pulse cannons." Prior to the Bryma system battle, Odo reported the following: "According to Sakona (sp?) they only have two ships capable of mounting the weapons she purchased."
Since the Maquis vessels were of the Tac-Fighter type, we might conclude from this that the torpedo-firing Maquis ship from Part One was also of the Tac-Fighter type, due to the "capability" issue. After all, the Tac-Fighters did not apparently carry armaments besides phasers and photon torpedoes.
However, Sisko's statements about the ship being non-Starfleet, old, and unrecognizable seem incompatible with that idea. Further, since the Tac-Fighters did not apparently carry much of what she purchased, the whole "capability" argument seems quite circumstantial and flimsy.
7. Thus, I am forced to conclude that there are four known vessel types operated by the Maquis:
a. The big raiders: Antares Class b. The small raiders: Peregrine Class c. The Federation fighters: Class unknown, but "Tac-Fighter" is a useful appellation. d. Winged Bajoran: Seen in "Strike", and as a Bajoran vessel in DS9.
Thoughts? Screenshots? Fire away. Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Hmmm....while I love "Perigrine" to describe the fed fighter, your idea could work.
I was thinking on the Fed fighter's origins just a while ago (as I'm prone to do when dealing with the mentally ill at work) nad I think the fighters were something from either the Cardassian or Tzenkethi Wars nad were downgraded/reclassified to "courier" status (as the Fed is loathe to use war nameing conventions). The Maquis aquired several of these older fighters nad upgraded them to TNG levels of engines and weapons (thus the signature nad configuration not matching). The "starfleet fighter" really looks older than TNG's level of tech too: when compared to the Runabout, there's no transporter emitters, phaser strips....nothing.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"Since the Maquis vessels were of the Tac-Fighter type, we might conclude from this that the torpedo-firing Maquis ship from Part One was also of the Tac-Fighter type, due to the 'capability' issue. After all, the Tac-Fighters did not apparently carry armaments besides phasers and photon torpedoes."
I don't kow if you can assume that the two ships capable of mounting the weapons were the Fed fighters. I suspect that that line did not refer to the photorps, since you don't really "mount" those. You'd use them in ships that already have torp launchers. So I think they had only two ships capable of mounting the disruptors, particle accelerators (that's a weapon?), and cannons.
"I was thinking on the Fed fighter's origins just a while ago (as I'm prone to do when dealing with the mentally ill at work) nad I think the fighters were something from either the Cardassian or Tzenkethi Wars nad were downgraded/reclassified to 'courier' status (as the Fed is loathe to use war nameing conventions)."
That's possible, except... what would they be couri-ing? I have to agree with G2k that, if any of the know ships is a Peregrine, it would have to be the smaller raider. Chakotay's ship was too large to have a one-person crew, and the fighters are too small to be "couriers".
Of course, that still doesn't mean we've definitely ever seen a Peregrine.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
About section 6, the Counter-indications: from what you say, it seems that the fighters you do actually see are of the SF Tac-Fighter type, correct? And they don't seem to have many of the heavy weapons purchased by Sakonna (I checked the spelling), just standard phasers and torps. Isn't that then proof that the other fighter, as mentioned in section 5 and unknown to Sisko, is of the mini-Maquis type?
The question then becomes, how many of the mini-Maquis raiders do we see during this episode, and after? If (as stated in dialogue) they only have two at that stage, it's not much of a problem if only one is stated to have been in action: the other could still be having the new weaps retro-fitted to it. And they could have obtained more of this raider type later.
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
To be sure, we do see the two "Maquis pt II" ships fire weapons that are atypical of Starfleet. Namely, the sextuple wing cannon are seen firing very narrow, very brief pulses, quite unlike any phaser FX previously shown. Those could easily be the "pulse cannon" that won't fit on any other ship type (even though the rest of the arsenal will)...
Is that "support courier" from script? In the dialogue, Brooks could be saying anything from "courier" to "carrier" to "Harrier" (perhaps a sister design to Peregrine!).
Apart from those, I fully subscribe to the "Ro flew a Peregrine" school of thought.
But the big Maquis ship ain't an Antares. Ju'day, perhaps. But Antares, no way.
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
THe fighters from DS9 are supposed to have a crew (assuming the length is about that of a Runabout) of about 4, so they could have served as couriers during peacetime: remember that the Federation once shot their Klingon Ambassador off in a torpedo so riding shotgun in a Runabout-sized fighter is a biiiig improvment in accomidations.
By DS9, the fighters have defiant-esque pulse phasers from the front and what appear to be mictotorpedos in their wings.
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
quote:Originally posted by Abaddon: Hmmm....while I love "Perigrine" to describe the fed fighter, your idea could work.
Yeah, but I hate myself for it. I was all set on the whole Peregrine=FedFighter thing. If it weren't for the direct statement that Peregrine=courier-of-something, I'd never have bought such a notion.
quote:Originally posted by TSN: particle accelerators (that's a weapon?)
Depends on the particles being accelerated. Those of your opponent's head, for instance.
The mounting issue is odd, given that the Maquis Tac-Fighters did not apparently carry the weapons. Then again . . . a-ha!!! . . . we only see Cal Hudson's ship fire. The other vessel had its propulsion systems knocked out before it apparently had a chance to contribute. Since we did not see that ship fire, we could assume that it received some of the purchased armaments. Cal's fighter might've been the relatively-normal-loadout torpedo-boat to the other ship's beam weapon bonanza.
I agree, though, that it's possible we've never seen a Peregrine at all. Or, if there were other small ship types from "Strike", then it could've been one of those. However, given the preponderance of Maquis usage, I would lean toward the same sort of vessels being common both on screen and in dialogue.
quote:Originally posted by Lee: About section 6, the Counter-indications: from what you say, it seems that the fighters you do actually see are of the SF Tac-Fighter type, correct? And they don't seem to have many of the heavy weapons purchased by Sakonna (I checked the spelling), just standard phasers and torps. Isn't that then proof that the other fighter, as mentioned in section 5 and unknown to Sisko, is of the mini-Maquis type?
It could be construed as such, yes. As I indicate, I don't really agree with the counterargument I present in that section, and that could be an additional reason.
As for the mini-Maquis (believed to be the Peregrine in the first post), I'm pretty sure we only ever saw them in "Preemptive Strike"[TNG7]. However, we saw a bunch of them.
Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
A courier is often used to refer to a person who carries messages and information. By extension, a courier ship might simply be a fast, small ship for securely and quickly carrying information, mail, etc. In the military today, I imagine that the smallest, fastest craft, such as fighters, are used as couriers.
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
The beam FX of the Maquis Tac-Fighter Cal Hudson flew were a little different than normal . . . quick, rapid-fire beams from the wings . . . but not so different as to seem un-phaser-like. The only weapons noted between Cal and his co-pilot were phasers and torpedoes.
It's true that the Tac-Fighters in "Sacrifice of Angels" fired small pulse thingies. I always took these to be pulse phasers. (Incidentally, the script claims they're quantum torpedoes, but I don't see how that could be the case from the wings.)
"Support courier" is not from the script . . . I hadn't checked it until now, actually. That is what the script says, however. I made the transcript from the dialogue . . . sounded quite clear to me.
As for the fighter crew count, we've never been told anything about the Federation Tac-Fighters. The only time we've seen the interior of one was thanks to Cal Hudson, and it sure wasn't a four-seater.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
But that leads into the VFX snafu of scaling in SOA. Those are about 25-32 meters long. Those tac fighters are purdy large.
Even on Cal's version, we only see the cockpit: there could be plenty of room behind him for a pair of bunks and two runabout consoles.
...though no onscreen version is as large as the idiotic measurement of 56 meters given by STTM.
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
Trying to take Pathways and its wholly incorrect references to ship and class names as canon = BAD.
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
Me, I'm convinced the Federation fighter is between 15 and 20 meters of length (scaling from the cockpit window)... That would allow it to be packed aboard an Akira in some quantity!
Oh, that and the wing-fold feature. The wings simply MUST fold at the seam next to the wing cannon, so that the contraption can land on level ground.
A "courier" should indeed be fast, but we don't really have any reason to think that the fighters or the Peregrines would be especially fast. I mean, the Peregrine couldn't even outrun a Runabout! Failing that, I'd hope for some other courierlike attributes, such as a comfortable passenger space (passengers and priority physical cargo being far more practical loads for a space courier than abstract information). Heck, the fighter doesn't even seem to have a proper doorway! (Not that any of the other designs do, for that matter...)
Timo Saloniemi
P.S. "Quantum" torpedoes in the script? Is this where the term really originates?
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"THe fighters from DS9 are supposed to have a crew (assuming the length is about that of a Runabout) of about 4..."
Didn't we see in... "The Maquis", maybe?... that they hold two people, and that not-so-comfortably?
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
BUt that's in that tiny forward cockpit/compartment: that's only about 1/5 the fighter's overall length. Considering that TNG's shuttles seem to have paper thin impulse engines and do okay, theres a lot of unaccounted volume in the fighter.
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
I might point out that the Tac-Fighters (which I still believe are Peregrines) fired photon torpedoes in their harrying raids against Dukat's fleet in the beginning of "The Sacrifice of Angels". So that part of your theory doesn't work -- sorry, G2K.
Also, a "courier" could possibly just apply to ferrying computer-stored messages that are too sensitive to risk sending over subspace...
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
quote:Originally posted by Masao: A courier is often used to refer to a person who carries messages and information. By extension, a courier ship might simply be a fast, small ship for securely and quickly carrying information, mail, etc.
It needn't be huge, of course, but I can't imagine that they wouldn't give it cargo space in case it needed to "coury" something else.
quote:In the military today, I imagine that the smallest, fastest craft, such as fighters, are used as couriers.
The Defense Courier Service is under the Air Mobility Command, which does not include fighters. The DCS website's index page image is of a cargo palette being loaded onto a Lear-style jet.
quote:Originally posted by Abaddon: Those are about 25-32 meters long. Those tac fighters are purdy large.
True, but if you look at the cockpit module it is very small in comparison to the rest of the craft . . . a couple of meters wide, and about twice that in length. That gives them the cramped cockpit from Maquis2 plus either another cramped cockpit's worth of space behind them (assuming it isn't full of equipment).
quote:Originally posted by Mim: Trying to take Pathways and its wholly incorrect references to ship and class names as canon = BAD.
1. I'm stuck going with Paramount on the canonicity. 2. Given that there are only a few ship names given and that, besides Voyager, no other class names are given that I recall offhand, I don't see how it can be considered wholly incorrect.
quote:Originally posted by MinutiaeMan: I might point out that the Tac-Fighters (which I still believe are Peregrines) fired photon torpedoes in their harrying raids against Dukat's fleet in the beginning of "The Sacrifice of Angels". So that part of your theory doesn't work -- sorry, G2K.
I do not see how that works against the idea, even if we assume those were torpedoes and not pulsed phasers. Where did it appear that the argument required that the SoA fighters could not or should not have torpedoes?
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
quote:Originally posted by Timo: Me, I'm convinced the Federation fighter is between 15 and 20 meters of length (scaling from the cockpit window)... That would allow it to be packed aboard an Akira in some quantity!
Unfortunately, that would make it too cramped for what we see in Maquis2.
quote:A "courier" should indeed be fast, but we don't really have any reason to think that the fighters or the Peregrines would be especially fast. I mean, the Peregrine couldn't even outrun a Runabout!
Correct. While the old Peregrine courier could not outrun a runabout despite heavily modified engines (which apparently limits it to the warp five range), we know that state-of-the-art Type-9 shuttles are capable of warp four ("Resolutions"[VOY2]).
Call me crazy, but I'd like to think that the Federation fighter, being all engine, would be swift as all hell.
quote:P.S. "Quantum" torpedoes in the script? Is this where the term really originates?
Originates? No, SoA was after FC.
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
quote: P.S. "Quantum" torpedoes in the script? Is this where the term really originates?
quote: Originates? No, SoA was after FC.
Ah. I thought the wing cannon were identified as quantums in "The Maquis" script.
I don't quite see why the fighter would be too cramped at 15-20 meters, which gives it a windshield similar to the Type 15 shuttlepod, which in turn was used for the interior.
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
I think it's safe to ignore sizing discrepancies in the Tac-Fighter's appearances; after all, no-one is saying there are 3 (or 4) different ship classes which are all Defiant-shaped. But what size are we saying they are, if 15-20m is too cramped and 25-32m is too large?
The mere fact the fighters have wings suggests they're intended to be able to operate in atmosphere. Makes sense - groud troops would need close-in air support, they couldn't depend solely on starship-mounted phaser banks for fire missions.
Can someone remind me what other references there are which counter-indicate the Chakotaymobile being an Antares-class? I was thinking. . . The large raider is obviously intended to be a ship available to civilians, and might have a different name as such. Like the Bell JetRanger helicopter is called (I think) the Kiowa by the US military. Hummer, Humvee. . .
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
We can scale off the guys inside.
Assuming that's Cal Hudson on the right, and given his width (he's a broad guy, about as 1/3rd as wide as he is tall), we can roughly estimate the cockpit as two meters wide (plus another half-meter or so to include the exterior where it tapers down to the hull), which fits well with the interior visuals later.
Eyeballing it, the cockpit interior is about the same width as the width from cockpit to nacelle inboard. The full cockpit plus exterior is a bit more. We can thus take the later shot from Maquis2 showing one of the fighters from almost perfectly straight above and arrive at the following dimensions:
Cockpit: ~25 px Cockpit to nacelle inboard: 19-20 px Total width: 200px Total length: ~175px
Note that our estimate of two-and-a-half meters was pretty good for the difference between interior cockpit and cockpit plus exterior. So:
Given the two meter conversion, then by the inboard standard we have:
Width: 20-21m Length: 17.5-18.4m
Your pixelage may vary, but I'd say that the fighter can't be more than about 20 meters long, and is certainly not less than about 16.
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
That's the bracket I'm happy with, too. With wing-fold and good (auto-?) piloting, those babies will fit through the Akira bow doors.
Fantastic image, that one! Could we get another one to show where exactly the torpedo comes from, perhaps? And of the wing cannon firing? Pretty please?
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
quote:Originally posted by Timo: That's the bracket I'm happy with, too. With wing-fold and good (auto-?) piloting, those babies will fit through the Akira bow doors.
Well . . . I have to confess that I'm averse to the folding wing idea. Even at 18 meters long, the wings are sufficiently thick to preclude easy movement, and there is no external evidence of a hinge (like one finds on the Intrepid). Granted, there are various technobabble and real-life-futuretech possibilities, but I don't see how they could apply on this particular bird.
quote:Fantastic image, that one!
They did great work in that episode. When Hudson fires on Sisko's runabout to escape the tractor beam, you can see itty bitty Sisko and itty bitty Dukat beside him. It blew my effin' mind.
quote:Could we get another one to show where exactly the torpedo comes from, perhaps?
Well, yeah, but it won't do much good. The torpedo firing shot is a wide one, and all that can really be discerned thanks to the glow of firing is that they come from the nose region.
In the same sequence, Hudson's fighter takes a hit to the ventral doohickey they'd fired phasers from earlier (see here), which knocks out torpedoes. This may be suggesting that is some sort of weapons module.
quote:And of the wing cannon firing? Pretty please?
Posted by SoundEffect (Member # 926) on :
If you base the fighter's size (Maquis Pt II) on Cal and friend in the cockpit window (DVD owners, can we have a pic of that please??), the entire fighter works out to an overall length of about 12.5m. I can't remember what magazine I read it in, but the model's cockpit shape and angles was based on the TNG Shuttlepod so that set's interior could be used with the actors. If you look at most line drawings of the ship, you can see this is the case. Gives a definite way of measuring the ship, since the shuttlepod is a known value.
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
quote:Originally posted by SoundEffect: If you base the fighter's size (Maquis Pt II) on Cal and friend in the cockpit window (DVD owners, can we have a pic of that please??), the entire fighter works out to an overall length of about 12.5m.
How so? Using that method I got 18, as visible above.
Posted by SoundEffect (Member # 926) on :
Well you were using a shot from TV, with inherant distortions, not that it can't be used. See what you get using either shots of the model itself, or with diagrams of side/top view of the fighter.
The top view shot you posted has too much light splash on the surface to even see where the cockpit area (akin to the shuttlepod) starts and ends...that'll throw the calculations off by a bit.
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
My folding wing obsession involves the sort of hinges we see on real-world naval aircraft - not an "inflight" mechanism as in the Tomcats (or Intrepid class starships), but a "deck-only" one as in the Hornets.
The fold line on these craft would be the one with the prominent downward kink (and an equally prominent surface groove), since folding those sections back up would be sufficient to let the craft land the way Danubes do, to rest on the nacelle bottoms. The hinges would be hidden inside the wing or something.
Anyway, one must wonder what those outer wing panels are *for*. They are a big hindrance to landing, and aerodynamic surfaces don't seem to be necessary for Trek small craft. Are there some sort of gravitic systems there, the way many Star Wars cutouts try to justify the odd appendages of the designs from those movies? Or are the wingtips some sort of a weapon system, perhaps a bomb dispenser or a shield-emitting antenna?
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
quote:Originally posted by SoundEffect: Well you were using a shot from TV, with inherant distortions, not that it can't be used. See what you get using either shots of the model itself, or with diagrams of side/top view of the fighter.
Diagrams as made popularly available are notoriously risky. Just surf to Ex Astris and count the number of times Bernd had to clean up some Fact Files or Magazine funkiness.
The filming model itself (or the CGI) might be useful, but I don't know of any shots of the model. And, since the model would be photographed for me to do anything with it, it would suffer from the distortions you mention as well. However, I do not think that photographs are as imprecise a tool as you seem to be suggesting.
quote:The top view shot you posted has too much light splash on the surface to even see where the cockpit area (akin to the shuttlepod) starts and ends...that'll throw the calculations off by a bit.
I brightened and enlarged it to make the whole craft visible to all, rotating it slightly for ease of measure. The measurements work out the same with the pre-modified version.
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
Pics of the CGI model (including a direct dorsal view) are here. The same pics and some more may be found here.
Posted by Bernd (Member # 6) on :
I'm surprised how well the statements from "The Maquis" go along with those of "Heart of Stone". Together with the evidence from TNG: "Preemptive Strike" (someone have a transcript?) we can safely conclude that the Maquis ships were all supposed to be upgraded civilian Federation ships. Here "courier" may refer to a small trade ship of which we have seen many other designs (mostly shuttles and Batris redresses) in alien hands.
My principal problem with that notion was always that the two designs just didn't look anything like that. Neither does the aggressive styling feel right, nor do the designs look practical. Later on in DS9, the responsible people may have thought just the same and declared one of the courier ships to "fighters" or "raiders" (the fact that we had seen the latter on Voyager may have influenced the decision not to use this design on a regular basis on DS9, except for Eddington). In this light it doesn't even matter that much which of the two is the true Peregrine, although I admit that the evidence is in favor of the smaller raider (or the raider with the smaller cockpit).
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
While the "clawed" wings of the two differently sized raiders do appear aggressive, the original civilian version might have lacked all such wing empennage, and would subsequently look rather tame. Remove the various prongs and boxes that dot the raider exteriors, and suddenly the bow is "nicely" rounded, the wings droop "unthreateningly", etc.
As for practicability, I rather like a ship that has a small cabin but needs to be "all engine" in order to make that cabin move across interstellar distances. Perhaps Trek starcraft simply cannot be more "capacious" even when they are civilian parcel haulers (the short-ranged shuttlecraft are a different matter, and justly look like boxcars).
To me, "support courier" evokes images of a courtly UPS van rather than, say, a brave pony express rider or a battlefield messenger on a roaring bike... But a UPS van can be converted to a cool SWAT team battlewagon with suitable add-ons. And that's what Chakotay's ship looks like to me. (Perhaps it's the two big square vertical front windows that look like they're ripped off an old Dodge delivery van?)
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
I still dont see how Chakotay's ship had a crew of about 40. They must have "hot racked" it or something.... Or the ship was crammed past it's normal capacity (mabye evacing as much as 20 people before the Cardassians nailed their hideout).
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
If it helps, the Ford Courier was a truck. Posted by Cpt. Kyle Amasov (Member # 742) on :
First, SoundEffect is right, I got 12.5m by scaing the windows of the peregrine and Type 15 shuttlepod.
Second, I thought Chakotay's ship was to only Maquis vessel we ever saw using real photon torpedos (not counting the "blue balls" fired by the tac fighters in SoA, which could be micro quantums as pictured in the DS9TM - their size and the need for storage space could also explain the thick wings btw) and possibly the (micro)-photons used in "The Maquis". By comparison real photon torpedos with a length of 2+ meters would look like huge rockets attached to a modern-day aircraft (given a size of 12m for the tac fighter from "The Maquis" and about 19m for an F-22 I don't see any possibility of fitting a torpedo load and a launcher into such a vessel). It makes more sense to say that - at that time - the Maquis just had two Chakotay-vessels and the weapons were supposed to be installed on them. "The Maquis" takes place around Stardate 47700-47800, "Preemptive Strike" at 47900. If the Maquis just had two tac fighters at that time, where did they get all those ships for the random attack on that Galor in just a couple of days?
And third, was "Ju'day" supposed to be the designation of the class or of the ship?
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
That is a partial-transparency overlay of your comparison image with the original fighter image. Note how not only do the sizes not match up, but the shapes of the windows are different. This shape difference can be seen by looking at pictures of the Type-15, as well.
2. The two values . . . 12.5 vs. 18 . . . are based on different methodologies. For the two to have such vastly different results, there must be a problem.
I do not think the problem rests in my method or the measurements. For the fighter to be 12.5 meters long, the cockpit exterior could only be 1.5 meters in width based on the CGI dorsal view. Cal Hudson, at about 2/3rds of a meter wide based on measurement of his height (the actor is 1.93m) versus width in the episode, would fill almost half of the cockpit. If his copilot were only .6 meters wide (being a smaller guy), then there would only be about 20-30 centimeters (i.e. less than a foot) of extra room between their shoulders and between their shoulders and the wall.
The heavily-modified shuttlepod set appears to give them more room than that (though we only see them from the sides), and the exterior view into the cockpit from the front certainly gives them more room.
Posted by Cpt. Kyle Amasov (Member # 742) on :
Do we have any interior shots with Hudson inside the cockpit?
Furthermore, are we sure the cockpit set was modified in any way? The same set was used for the Defiant shuttlepod in "The Search" some months later, and I'm quite sure that one was in no way modified. Maybe Hudson was just seen from a strange angle that made the cockpit appear bigger than it really is.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Never mind. I posted something, then realized I'd misinterpreted the picture.
Posted by SoundEffect (Member # 926) on :
Thanks for the confirmation Capt. I wasn't comparing the window as the windows are in fact different, but I was comparing the angles and size of the top panel of the shuttlepod with the top panel of the fighter. The sloping angle of the front window area is the same based on the side as well. (Capt., do what you did above but use the side view this time.) Using the same comparison, I still get 12.5m.
The shuttlepod set was used for filming Cal & pal in the fighter's interior, so the external values for the shuttlepod still hold. Yes the actor that played Hudson was a big guy but he was still sitting in the shuttlepod cockpit. Remember too that the shuttlepod's front window panel area is removable for in-close filming, so making another panel with a differently shaped window isn't hard to do.
What measurements are you using for the shuttlepod? According to the prop/set size the overall length is 11'8" despite what the Tech Manuals may have. The roof area is exactly 6' long and 4' wide.
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
"Ju'Day" was the name of the class, though we don't know what episode that's from as apparently the sheet in "Repression" (VGR) gave Val Jean as the name of the vessel and just "Maquis raider" as the type.
By the way, does anyone have a screencap of this? I've never seen one. It isn't out on DVD yet (it's season 7) but is there anyone who's got a decent vhs copy? If there's no chance of a cap, can someone at least go visually check it to make sure of what it says?
Posted by SoundEffect (Member # 926) on :
The text in the Trek Magazine article talks about how Penny Juday came up with the solution to detailing the stand the Maquis ship model was on. The text goes on and I quote:
"The art department were delighted with his solution, and as a special thank-you to Penny, a poster on the wall identified the ship as a Ju'day-class vessel."
You can see there's a diagram of what looks like a direct top view of the filming model with callouts around it. It's way too blurry to see any legible text on it at all. The show may have something, but from the photos in the mag, they shot most of that room from the opposite perspective of that wall chart.
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim: "Ju'Day" was the name of the class, though we don't know what episode that's from as apparently the sheet in "Repression" (VGR) gave Val Jean as the name of the vessel and just "Maquis raider" as the type.
I can confirm, and did so after reading about it on Ex Astris. My craptastic copy is insufficient to clearly read the words, but by letter count and a few basic letter shapes you can make it out. It's clearer in playback:
VESSEL DESIGNATION: "VAL JEAN" VESSEL TYPE: MAQUIS RAIDER CREW MANIFEST
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Where does "VAL JEAN" come from?
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
Jean Valjean, the fugitive protagonist of Les Miserables. (Bernd makes a good point that this name would be better suited to Eddington's raider from DS9, but alas...)
Where did "Zola" come from? I've always seen it attributed to a script draft of "Parallax," but has anyone confirmed this? Any chance of a transcript of the pertinent passages?
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim: Jean Valjean, the fugitive protagonist of Les Miserables. (Bernd makes a good point that this name would be better suited to Eddington's raider from DS9, but alas...)
So...that brings me to a question I've windered about for a while: Was Eddington the leader of the Maquis or just one leader among several smaller cells? The name "Maquis" and the designation "Val Jean" certainly sound like things Eddington would come up with.
Did Tonto...er... "Chakotay" work for Eddington? Did Ro? Cal Hudson?
Posted by machf (Member # 1233) on :
It certainly seems Eddington was one of the top leaders of the Maquis... I don't think he was the leader of just a small cell (well, aside from the fact that the Maquis have never seemed too large an organization to me, so...). Or he may have been Cal Hudson's second-in-command, and took over after his demise... certainly, it seems Starfleet considered him an important prisoner.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Mabye Eddington had some close second-in-commands to cover while he did his starfleet duties.... I'm thinking that Eddington's former posting allowed him access to all that Starfleet tech (Perigrines, photon toroedos, supplies for the colonies) and when ythe chance assignment to DS9 came up, he saw a chance too good to pass up for intel and one last biiiiig score.
Mabye he was something like a supply seargent back then.
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
We've heard of Academy instructors, captains, and others joining the Maquis . . . I find it hard to believe that they'd all rally behind an old twit Lt. Cdr. version of Krull unless he was the best of the best of what was left. Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Mabye it's the other way around: they could have trained him to be the perfect starfleet mole and he was just a popular leader among the masses?
Good point about the rank diffrences though.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Well, the only problem with thinking that Eddington named the ship is that Eddington actually read Les Mis�rables, so he would have known that "Valjean" is one word.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Someone might have been brown-nosing him though. Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
Hasn't anyone considered plain simple attrition? All the other more senior Starfleet Maquis (the only ones I can think of are Hudson and Chakotay, both Commanders) were gone from the scene by then. Tom Riker in prison, Ro Laren never heard of again. . . Pulling off a coup like the one Eddington did would likely elevate him to a position of seniority once he defected full-time.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Who would serve with Chakotay though? Of a crew of 40, two were double agents and one was a serial killer.
With "commanders" like that, it's a small wonder the maquis were handily wiped out.
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon: Who would serve with Chakotay though? Of a crew of 40, two were double agents and one was a serial killer.
Actually, there was:
1. Lon Suder the Serial Killer 2. Seska the Cardie double agent (who wasn't just a crewmember, she and Chak bumped uglies) 3. Tuvok the double double agent (a Starfleet officer and the mole for the 'Repression' dude) 4. Jonas the ready turncoat
Then we have:
1. Paris the disenchanted liar (albeit just a previous crewmember). 2. Chell the impudent weirdo fraidy-cat. 3. Hogan, forgotten in a cave and whose greatest contribution was as a corpse the Voth found. 4. Jackson the soup thief 5. Dalby the bitter misanthrope
Really, the only worthwhile Maquis crewman was Ayala, and his main contribution was sporting a really spiffy Dash Rendar outfit.
Posted by Dat (Member # 302) on :
How the hell do you forget about BLT (Torres)?
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
The same way you forget about most of Voyager's cast.
Perscription medication and weekly therapy.
Posted by Fleet-Admiral Michael T. Colorge (Member # 144) on :
Those don't help some people though... especially if you watch Enterprise. Then again... watching Enterprise makes me wish for Voyager again.
Posted by Cpt. Kyle Amasov (Member # 742) on :
Does the Maquis even have a command structure beyond individual cells with some person in command of it? If not Eddington and Hudson and Chakotay may have all been leaders of their cells, operating on their own, with no knowledge of what the others were doing (or sometimes limited joint ventures for the big targets). On the other hand, Eddington said the Maquis colonies planned to found an independent "state". That alone implies some sort of organized hierarchy.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Hmmmm....mabye it started as several cells with semi-independant leaders but attrition (and Chakotay's gross incompetence) forced everyone that actually wanted to live under Eddington's command.
Sure, they (mostly) all died anyway, but that was after Eddington was captured.
I doubt Chakotay would have done better: either Starfleet, the Cardassians or Lon Sudor would have seen to that. Posted by Cpt. Kyle Amasov (Member # 742) on :
I have no problem accepting the name of Chakotays ship to be Valjean, not Val Jean (after all, the bajoran guy probably didn't even know where the name originated when he named that file, just like most of us... ). Furthermore, the ship could have been the Zola before the Maquis bought it.
I've watched "Preemptive Strike" last night, wasn't able to identify the ships attacking the Galor besides the fact that they were Federation (so much for the bajoran strikefighter theory...). The name Valjean was probably just some internal thing to tell those ships apart, but it would be stupid to use the old ship names/registries/whatever to make them easily identifialbe by the Cardies or Starfleet for obvious reasons. (It would be a huge coincidence if the Maquis had accquistioned a vessel that was named Valjean. For a Federation vessel, "Zola" seems more fitting.)
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
quote:Originally posted by Cpt. Kyle Amasov: I've watched "Preemptive Strike" last night, wasn't able to identify the ships attacking the Galor besides the fact that they were Federation (so much for the bajoran strikefighter theory...).
There is a long-winged ship with an ovoid main hull. It was later used as a Bajoran ship, exclusively to my knowledge, in DS9. It also appears in the DS9TM to that effect.
Posted by Cpt. Kyle Amasov (Member # 742) on :
Oops, sorry, I mean "Data wasn't able to identify them", which is from the dialogue. Stupid editing doesn't work any more. What I wanted to point out is: if Data says they are Federation vessels, their are either used by both the Bajorans and the Federation or the Bajorans just bought them after/during the occupation, which means there's a possibility that they are not of Bajoran origin at all. But while we're at it, did they just use the larger bajoran ships or the "subimpulse ships", too? If they did, they must have had warp drive (maybe the Bajorans just bought the barebone version?)
Back to topic, does anyone have a side/frontview of the image I posted (the "Peregrine" fighter)? I was just able to find the b/w schematic, but I guess the Magazine or another source published top/sideviews of the CGI-model. And the image definitely looks like a scan.
Posted by Shakaar (Member # 1782) on :
As I've been rewatching Voyager to make my galactic map I started to do a Maquis head count too... 1. Chakotay 2. B�Elanna Torres 3. Tuvok 4. Ayala - Human 5. Chell � Bolian � Went through Tuvok�s bootcamp 6. Kenneth Dalby � Human � Went through Tuvok�s bootcamp 7. Garron � Bajoran - Went through Tuvok�s bootcamp 8. Mariah Henley � Human - Went through Tuvok�s bootcamp 9. Michael Jonas � Human � Helped Kazon 10. Hogan � Human � Killed 11. Le Paz 12. Seska � Cardassian � Altered to look Bajoran 13. Lon Suder � Betaziod - Serial Killer 14. Kurt Bendera � Human � Killed in Kazon attack 15. Carlson � Human 16. Jackson � Helped Seska steal Neelix�s mushrooms 17. Doyle � Human � Science 18. Myer � 19. Nelson � Hologram use 20. Sareen - 21. O�Donnell � Human � 22. Jarvin � Human � Cited as likely to stay with the Human colony in 37�s 23. Tabor � Bajoran � Coma Victim 24. Yosa � Human � Coma Victim 25. Jor - Human - Coma Victim 26. Unnamed - Coma Victim 27. Unnamed - Coma Victim
In Regression there is a meeting of the former Maquis crew containing Chakotay, B�Elanna, Ayala, Doyle, Chell, and 15 other Maquis, but as we have not seen Sareen, Myer, or Jackson they could have been in the room as well. So that leaves us with 39 Maquis that have been seen/mentioned directly, and Chell also stated to B�Elanna in that same episode that a quarter of the Voyager crew were former Maquis.
Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :
"Helped Seska steal Neelix�s mushrooms"
I don't remember this... but boy does that sound lame. Towards the end of the show, this conspiracy could well have taken up an entire episode.
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
Hogan was Maquis?
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
Chakotay bumped Cardassian uglies? Posted by Shakaar (Member # 1782) on :
They took the mushrooms from Neelix... cause mushroom soup was Chakotay's fav, so they distracted Neelix with a moral crisis, made Chakotay soup, and Seska took it to him, and he promptly turned them in. She did it because Neelix said he was going to use Leola root with it (which most the crew hated).
Hogan was indeed Maquis... He had moderate trouble adjusting to Voyager, He certainly wasn't a Seska, or a Jonas, though he did give Jonas the idea of becoming a Kazon spy, and pressured Torres to contact Seska to work out a deal with the Kazons when Janeway would not.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)