Was there any information given about these ships in the Fact Files? Background, etc?
Thanks, -MMoM Posted by USS Vanguard (Member # 130) on :
Although I can't be sure, there probably wasn't any other info. Sites like Star Trek: Expanded are usually pretty thorough with that and it mentions nothing other than the source (Fact Files). Also, the level of ship-obsession here would have rooted out every drop of info about those ships. Though sometimes something can fall through the cracks.
Posted by Cpt. Kyle Amasov (Member # 742) on :
[OK, trying to translate the text:]
'For this class there are currently the prototype, USS Akira NCC-62497, as well as USS Thunderchild NCC-65549, USS Rabin NCC-63293 and USS Spector NCC-63549, which helped to rescue the Prometheus-class prototype vessel captured by romulans in 2374.'
(Interesting to not that the Akira has the ability to seperate, according to the factfiles.)
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
What about the U.S.S. Jupiter... was that just for the CCG?
Posted by Ultra Magnus (Member # 239) on :
The USS Jupiter appeared in Armada, and was later given the NCC-71627 (?) registry for the CGC.
Posted by akb1979 (Member # 557) on :
Close Ultra Magnus. The Registry of the U.S.S. Jupiter is NCC-71267.
Posted by Cpt. Kyle Amasov (Member # 742) on :
It (the card) also said the ship was commanded by Captain Satelk, obviously a Vulcan. And it was equipped with the experimental Chain Reaction Pulsar, the standard Akira-special weapon in the game.
Posted by Proteus (Member # 212) on :
mmmmm Akira-Class....
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
quote:'For this class there are currently the prototype, USS Akira NCC-62497, as well as USS Thunderchild NCC-65549, USS Rabin NCC-63293 and USS Spector NCC-63549, which helped to rescue the Prometheus-class prototype vessel captured by romulans in 2374.'
So now we have proof that the Fact Files are plain-old making stuff up.
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
So?
Posted by Proteus (Member # 212) on :
Or, as everyone else can call it, conjecture for missing data.
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
...which would be fine if they called themseves the Star Trek Conjecture Files.
Next thing, those names get slid into someone's shiplist and get passed from person to person eventually precipitating a wild Trinculo-hunt for the actual appearance of ships by those names. Or a ship with the same registry appears in Nemesis and people start howling about how Berman hates tech fans and is destroying canon.
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
Or they were given information that we don't have. There have been a bunch of Akiras seen in DS9 & Voyager, has anyone been able to get a registery off of any of these? they couldn't all have been the Thunderchild.
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
...and it begins.
We know-know-know that Foundation doesn't arbitrarily make up names and registries.
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
It's fine for the Fact Files to make up names and numbers, in the same way that it's fine for the Encyclopedia to make up class designations and registries. The idea is that these official reference materials can be a source of additional info where the shows are lacking. This is no big deal. With us as starved for new ship info as we are, I wish more of this were going on.
Give us new ships! Give us new ships!
-MMoM Posted by Proteus (Member # 212) on :
yes, they were all the thunderchild/spector/rabin/akira.... you have to understand something
its a complete and utter waste of time to rename every akira that appears on screen when you can simply copy and paste the model all over the backround, where you cant see the name/registry.
[ February 04, 2002, 20:41: Message edited by: Proteus ]
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
The Encyclopedia does not have made-up registries. With the possible exception of one or two, the registries in there are all based on something. When the Okudas put it together they didn't say "Hey, this ship doesn't have a registry!" and pull one out of their asses. As opposed to the FF, where they say "Hey, we don't have enough information here!", so they invent something that has no basis in anything other than their imaginations.
Posted by targetemployee (Member # 217) on :
The ships of the original series had registries which were created for the encyclopedia. When this occured, the registry is said to be conjectural. ONly a few ships from this series have a confirmed name-registry relationship.
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
quote:Originally posted by Proteus: yes, they were all the thunderchild/spector/rabin/akira.... you have to understand something
its a complete and utter waste of time to rename every akira that appears on screen when you can simply copy and paste the model all over the backround, where you cant see the name/registry.
I think you missed the point. I'm well aware of the practicalities of CG, what I was trying to say is that the Fact Files doesn't "make stuff up" they get there information from somewhere and it is apparently the art & sfx departments of the respective shows.
So if The Spector and the Rabin are so specifically named then in all likelyhood these names were used in the show, we just never saw them.
I said "They couldn't all have been the Thunderchild" not "They couldn't all have been the Thunderchild, Rabin or Spector" because the Thunderchuld is the only reggo that we can confirm. FF names Spector as the Akira seen in "Ship in a Bottle", so it is likely that the Akira and the Rabin were amoungst the various fleet scenes in DS9.
quote:Originally posted by TSN: As opposed to the FF, where they say "Hey, we don't have enough information here!", so they invent something that has no basis in anything other than their imaginations.
And what do you base that statement on?
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
quote:I'm well aware of the practicalities of CG, what I was trying to say is that the Fact Files doesn't "make stuff up" they get there information from somewhere and it is apparently the art & sfx departments of the respective shows.
So if The Spector and the Rabin are so specifically named then in all likelyhood these names were used in the show, we just never saw them.
No. No. No.
We know Foundation Imaging did the VFX for that episode.
We know they don't invent ship names when they're not going to be readable and when the script doesn't specify any.
Okuda didn't include any info on these names when he compiled the Encylopedia, which is where one assumes official info would be highly likely to turn up.
Basically, the evidence strongly suggests the FF invented stuff. Which basically undermines their reliability as a source of backstage info. Where before people assumed the stuff unique to the FF that it provided without citation had its roots backstage and was indeed "fact," we now have a fairly solid example of where we've caught them red-handed pulling stuff out of their butt (brown-handed?) to fipad their articles.
It would appear my first posting in this thread was something of a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
I promise you there is a U.S.S. Spector. Take a look at the "Starship Spotter" see that registery number? its NCC-63549.
Posted by J (Member # 608) on :
You'll probably not find much a definate error on the part of FF from the Akira ships... if you really want to see something, check out EAS and the Niagara stuff. They really botched that one.
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reverend: I promise you there is a U.S.S. Spector. Take a look at the "Starship Spotter" see that registery number? its NCC-63549.
No, NCC-63549 is the Thunderchild. The Fact Files accidentally flipped the numbers for the Spector and Thunderchild. The Spector is NCC-65549.
And the Akira CGI model has never been labeled as anything other than the Thunderchild.
The FF did indeed make up the Rabin, Spector, and Akira. But my point is that since they're an official reference publication, it's okay and these ships still "count", even if they never were onscreen. It's the same as with the Renaissance-class U.S.S. Hokkaido and U.S.S. Ambassador NX-10521 from the TNG Technical Manual, or the U.S.S. Danube NX-72003 and the Defiant pathfinder NXP-2365WP/T from the DS9 Tech Manual. They were never in the actual show, but since they come from official source materials, they count.
And this is true of the Encyclopedia too. In spite of what TSN said, there are numbers and class designations in the book that didn't come from anywhere onscreen. Such as the Antares-class U.S.S. Antares, NCC-501. Only the ship's name came from an actual onscreen reference. I don't need to go through all the examples.
Some folks want to try and narrow their perspective to the smallest possible field, and they're the ones who follow a rigid regime of "only if it was seen or mentioned onscreen is it canon." But in this narrow-mindedness they fail to acknowledge the fact that there is some information outside of that range which, for all intents and purposes, falls into the category of canon material as well.
-MMoM Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
quote:The FF did indeed make up the Rabin, Spector, and Akira. But my point is that since they're an official reference publication, it's okay and these ships still "count", even if they never were onscreen. It's the same as with the Renaissance-class U.S.S. Hokkaido and U.S.S. Ambassador NX-10521 from the TNG Technical Manual, or the U.S.S. Danube NX-72003 and the Defiant pathfinder NXP-2365WP/T from the DS9 Tech Manual. They were never in the actual show, but since they come from official source materials, they count.
No.
Posted by Mark Nguyen (Member # 469) on :
I have to agree with Tom. Unlike the Sternbach and Okuda tomes, the fact files were not created under the direct supervision of people working on the show. This is particularly evident in the total lack of hard infor taht tends to accompany the files or the ST Mag articles they get translated into.
If the files are treated as high on the canon scale as the tech manuals or encyclpedias, then you'd have to include "official" releases like the LUG RPG game supplements. And as we all know, *those* books failed their savings throw against sucking...
Mark
[ February 05, 2002, 19:35: Message edited by: Mark Nguyen ]
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Another issue is that, when it came to putting names and numbers and technical tidbits in the show itself, Okuda and Sternbach were the ones doing the, uh, putting. Thus, when they conjecture technical detail A, there was a much better chance of that turning up as canon.
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
quote: No, NCC-63549 is the Thunderchild. The Fact Files accidentally flipped the numbers for the Spector and Thunderchild. The Spector is NCC-65549.
Oh for feck sake...bloody registry flips.
I still have a hard time beliving those 2 names came out of thin air. Perhaps they were on some obscure Okudagram? a script, something like that.
[ February 05, 2002, 21:00: Message edited by: Reverend ]
Posted by Cpt. Kyle Amasov (Member # 742) on :
Do we know they didn't relable at least the ships in FC? Movie resolution is much higher than normal screen resolution, you can see more. And there was more than one Akira close enough to see something. No one doubts the Thunderchild appeared in later episodes as other ships, but is there any official source saying the Thunderchild was the first one filmed? I mean, maybe they designed the Akira-class Rabin and later renamed the model 'Thunderchild'. That Thunderchild was only the last one filmed, so all the publicity shots and stuff like that show the Thunderchild.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"In spite of what TSN said, there are numbers and class designations in the [Encycopedia] that didn't come from anywhere onscreen."
"In spite of" nothing... I said that there was an exception or two. The Antares registry is one, AFAIK. But even the crazy Constitution scheme was based on something, despite its being totally wrong.
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
The Naval Construction Contract Primer. For Federation schoolchildren.
En See See En See See What is this thing I see? This ship, it says En See See. It doesn't say One Seven Oh One Dee. But it still says En See See.
They should relabel it Six Five Nine Oh Three. That is the way that things should be. One thing that would be nice to see, If a certain name is on ship number three, They could end the registry with a See. En See See One Seven Oh One See. The numbers in the book seem a little to free. How did these things come to be? I just enjoy when I see a new En See See.
[ February 06, 2002, 09:49: Message edited by: CaptainMike ]
Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
::thows coin in hat::
Posted by cptmkb (Member # 709) on :
thanx
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
You what?! Did you just go searching for some obscure nearly-six-years-old thread to randomly (OK, not really randomly, but still, if you're concerned that Harry might be offended you never acknowledged his compliment, I'd say it's a little late) reply to?
Posted by Pensive's Wetness (Member # 1203) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lee: You what?! Did you just go searching for some obscure nearly-six-years-old thread to randomly (OK, not really randomly, but still, if you're concerned that Harry might be offended you never acknowledged his compliment, I'd say it's a little late) reply to?
It's never stopped people before for using the Necrocrack Card...
quote:Originally posted by J: You'll probably not find much a definate error on the part of FF from the Akira ships... if you really want to see something, check out EAS and the Niagara stuff. They really botched that one.
EXPLAIN?
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
Yes, I'd like to hear what the problem is too. I assumed J was referring to a piece done by EAS on an FF depiction of the Niagara - but all I can find is the Niagara Reconstruction Page (which does point out errors in the FF diagram of this class) there. And I can't find any references to any controversy over that here - in fact, no references to the Niagara from before the date of J's post in Feb 2002. Was there perhaps some earlier design guesstimate, now superseded, discounted and lost to the sands of time?
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)