Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
Flare Sci-Fi Forums
»
Star Trek
»
Starships & Technology
»
How do we explain...
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message:
HTML is enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Cpt. Kyle Amasov: [QB] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Timo: [qb]Otherwise good and well, but us chonological-NCC freaks won't accept that a ship class with registries beginning with a "6" would be built as a reaction to something that happened to a ship class with the earliest known registries beginning with a "7"... I'd say Starfleet tried out the concept of a flapping-wing ship in an unaesthetic manner at first, and then streamlined the design into the Intrepid later on when the ugly duckling had proven the principle. The two variants could basically perform the same mission, then (even if the class to which the Yeager belongs lacks a main deflector dish). BTW, I think we should drop the idea that the Yeager is of Yeager class - it just causes undue confusion. Without that ballast, it's much easier to explain the two parallel Yeagers, too: one was semi-destroyed or for some other reason retired before the other was named, and then the Borg or Dominion crises saw the reactivation of the retired one. Or perhaps this swing-winger was retired after a series of tests, just when SF was looking for a name for the latest Sabre. The various crises would then see the reactivation of the testbed ship for operational use. If the swing-wing ship really heralded the Yeager class, then it would be less likely that Starfleet would donate that name to a run-of-the-mill Sabre just because the prototype was retired. Timo Saloniemi[/qb][/QUOTE]That sounds good. And I have to agree, the term 'Yeager-class' is just as stupid as the term 'Centaur-class'. Just because we've seen only one ship of that class doesn't mean it's the prototype. The only thing I accept is the Shelley-class designation. Allthough not being official, 'canon', I really like the designation and I will take it as official until some other, more canon source tells me to change the name. (Like the Encyclopedia, but this will not happen if we believe the Pocket Books-editors who told us that Okuda has - at the moment - no interest in writing an update for the Encyclopedia, because it's an huge truckload of work.) [/QB][/QUOTE]
Instant Graemlins
Instant UBB Code™
What is UBB Code™?
Options
Disable Graemlins in this post.
*** Click here to review this topic. ***
© 1999-2024 Charles Capps
Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3