posted
ok i've been wondering...when is the real origination of the akira class vessel, i mean it is obviously still in use and is somewhat older looking than most other current starships, so whats going on? Is it just a extremly well rounded ship or what? it shows on DITL it says that it began constuction in 2363 or so and personally i think its design is a little more shall we say weathered then that preticular era, so i want to know, if this ship is relitivly new then why such primitive naccelle design not to mention the saucer looks alot like the NX classes.
Look. If the Akira looks as old or older than the E-D to you, then you're with the arguable majority that agrees that NCCs are meant to be in chronological order and therefore that the ship is in fact older than the E-D, and were in existence back in the 2350s. If you think it looks newer than the E-D, then you're with a smaller but vocal minority that believes that the ships are in fact newer based mostly on their appearance, and that NCCs therefore make no sense whatsoever. Alternatively, you're with an even smaller minority that thinks that the Akira must be newer simply because there's no way that a ship that is so much cooler to you than the E-D could be older.
Take your pick. There hasn't been a resolution here, in many, many years of argument.
Mark
[ April 08, 2002, 18:16: Message edited by: Mark Nguyen ]
posted
And I wish that the people who thinks Akira is old because her NCC numbers says so would be less vocal and more of a minority. I mean, she was designed to be a new ship for ST:FC, why does people have to invent stupid background stories just because of a ship chronology system that has been shown as constantly unreliable says so?
-------------------- "God's in his heaven. All's right with the world."
Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
capped
I WAS IN THE FUTURE, IT WAS TOO LATE TO RSVP
Member # 709
posted
because they want to
seriously, i dont think its a big issue, but it just looks design wise (escape pods nonwithstanding), like it falls between the Ambassador and Galaxy in evolution, but thats my opinion.
I just cant stand loud Akira fans who wont believe anything else except their ship the the "ultimate battlecruiser, fightercarrier, escort destroyer that could take on 3 borg cubes and then kick the defiants and enterprises ass!"
bullshit like that is whats killing Star Trek
Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
As far as we know, she was designed to be a, well, ship. Not a new one. Not an old one.
But the very fact that the registries of the FC ships are 5xxxx or 6xxxx and not 873467346387432 or 1203 seems to suggest that some thought was put into them and they didn't land in the decade-or-two-pre-TNG range by pure coincidence.
-------------------- "I was surprised by the matter-of-factness of Kafka's narration, and the subtle humor present as a result." (Sizer 2005)
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Knowing how much thought sometimes goes into things like what the ships will be called and how old they will be (I believe there were several rounds of this for Voyager) it would very much surprise me if the producers meant the Akira or any of the "new" ships we see in FC to be newer chronologically than the Ent-D. The new Enterprise was the New ship. The big technological marvel. The State of the Art. I doubt they would introduce that ship and intend all the other ones that were flying around to be fresh off the drawing tables as well.
I'm confused as to why these questions get asked as though there's a rock solid answer. I mean, no one on any of the shows has sat down and discussed the Akira's design history in detail. All you're going to get is people's opinions on stuff like this.
posted
However, every now and then we run into a gold nugget of information that counts for more than idle speculation. Mike Okuda might say that the ships at Wolf 359 were intended to be contemporaries to the E-D, or Rick Sternbach might say that the E-D was intended to have a Captain's Yacht, or Doug Drexler might reveal that the NX-01 has multi-stage plasma accelerator thingamabobs.
None of the above tidbits would have been evident from the episodes alone, yet they are taken as "Trek facts" nowadays. Sternbach published the Yacht thing in a book, Okuda emailed about the Wolf 359 thing, Drexler gave an interview. People "in the know" are essential in relaying this information forward, since few people actually buy all the books or read all the magazines or websites.
So please ask away. You never know what you might learn...
(So, any new gold nuggets about the Akira, anyone?)
posted
With regard to the NCC issue, note that the USS Constellation (the Constitution class one) Is NCC-1017; whereas the USS Constitution is NCC-1700.
If the NCCs are in order, that requires USS Constitution to be at least the second vessel to bear the name, since the original Constitution would have had to be an NCC less than 1017.
Of course, where would they get an NCC less than 1017, and how many ships does that make? Erm... more than Starfleet has resources to make perhaps? Naw, we got enough yachts in the real world it couldn't possibly be that... though it makes you wonder why the Constellation hadn't already been retired...
IP: Logged
posted
*Why the fuck has this topic been brought up yet again? It's like the new Defiant length argument. Jesus.*
teh Ak1rA lQQks xx-f0xxing asweom-xx eso ti cAnt B olD!!!!!!!!
Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged
capped
I WAS IN THE FUTURE, IT WAS TOO LATE TO RSVP
Member # 709
posted
this is an exercise in futility.
we know that registries are not derived in an exactly chronological manner, as the Constallation and Prometheus show us.
But we also know that, under Okuda's guidance, TNG registries are supposed to show a ships general era (thats why he made a stink about the prometheus, it didnt fit his scheme)
The Akira does fit his scheme, he didnt make a stink over it. Therefore he approves of it being, chronologically, from the era of other 6xxxx vessels
(which is only a difference of about 10 years.. i dont see why it makes such a big difference whether its 2355 or 2365.. the ships probably still have a 75-80 year service lifetime anyway, and might even still be in construction either way.. who the fuck cares?)
So, in my tally of this stupid-ass contest > CaptainMike gets 1,000,000 points for being Him > Dolph Lundgren and William Shatner are tied at 775,047 points > U//Magnus get 4,702 points for pointing fun at our foibles > Chrissy Starshade gets 10 points for pointing out something that everyone has known since they were seven. NCC-1017, you say? > The Tommy gets 42 points for getting the registries NCC-1203 and NCC-873467346387432 stuck in my head > Aban Runey, voice of reason, gets 27 points for a good post, as does Davey Templar, and 27 points to Timo for his age old suggestion of just 'ask the guys who are in charge and/or designed it' > KoySpedOyVeyo gets negative -3,000 points for contributing an annoying question and nothing else
-------------------- "Are you worried that your thoughts are not quite.. clear?"
Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
I award myself 1 point, for whining about why I'm not on Mike's stupid-ass contest list.
And Koypelwhatever, I suggest you stop posting lots of images when you start threads. In addition to burning up bandwidth, we *know* what the Akira class looks like. That, and the pictures don't serve any real purpose in your argument.
posted
*KoyOyOy looks at f*cked up posts and wonders wtf these people do in their spare time and tosses the -2983 points in the trash*
That’s great let's just give each other points for new threads instead of intelligibly contributing to the massively over-rated dung heap of information on the internet. Now you know why i post images. (Something to look at instead of staring at your computer screen like some deer in the middle of a highway in a state nobody cares about.) P.s. about the point thing and me and the -3000, if you think this is an annoying question and i get minus 3000 points then i think that a fool isn’t as bad as the fool who follows him and makes up some stupid tally just to prove a point that could have been to lines long. (And yes I’m proving a point by writing a long reply, but I’m only breaking down my original statement so it isn’t quite as offensive and breaks through the profoundly deficient intellectuals.
-------------------- "Explore New Worlds"
Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
