According the the fact files, the USS Akira is NCC-62497. Not that I disagree that this and the rest of the Akiras from the FF are bum-pulled-out-of, but take a looksee at this image from the Magazine, from Hobbes' Site (Wicked-Good resource, man.):
Jaeger recognizably wrote NCC-2497 for the USS Akira. While the number on the sketch is terrible, maybe the people at the FF aren't as turnipy as first percieved, and someone paid attention to something.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 138) on :
Thanks man.
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
One down, two to go.
Posted by Cpt. Kyle Amasov (Member # 742) on :
OK, they did this one right, but there's still the awful 'Sabre-class'-error. They accepted the obvious error that the DS9TM just copied the Norway-sizes which makes the Sabre as large as the Norway. Furthermore, there are some other 'controverse' sizes on their plans. Maybe they take it a bit too serious. 'Given by the official sources' is not 'right'. They all make errors from time to time, but the FactFiles consequently ignore this. Maybe Jaeger did a drawing of the Akira and listed the Rabin and Spector and Akira as 'possible names'. Look at the Zandura-drawing. The upper left corner says 'Name' and 'Class' and such. There could have been a similar Akira-schematic.
Posted by Proteus (Member # 212) on :
I still say the akira proves the whole chronological registries thing off...
its clearly a new, advanced ship.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
You mean in the same way that the NCC-1701 proves a non-chronological registry system because a single look at any of the movies clearly shows that the ship is too "new" and "advanced" to have been launched in 2245?
Posted by Antagonist (Member # 484) on :
I think I have a better explanation.
Somebody didn't do their homework at ILM and used some made up number.
There. Nyah nyah. Posted by Hobbes (Member # 138) on :
I'm still all for chronological. Some fans just can't accept their beloved Akira and it's 15 photon torpz launchers and type-XXXIVIIIX phazors is older than the Galaxy-class. So what do they do, decide it's not chronological despite every new ship we see having a higher registry than the last.
Posted by David Templar (Member # 580) on :
quote:Originally posted by Hobbes: I'm still all for chronological. Some fans just can't accept their beloved Akira and it's 15 photon torpz launchers and type-XXXIVIIIX phazors is older than the Galaxy-class. So what do they do, decide it's not chronological despite every new ship we see having a higher registry than the last.
We'll see you in your grave first, you damn stripped jungle kitten. No damn way we're gonna accept any Starfleet ship with 15 torpedoe tubes, and there's more going against the reg code chronology than for it.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 138) on :
All I know is every new ship we see has a higher registry than the last. That's proof enough for me. And while I don't like the idea of 15 tubes, that's what the artist says so maybe he did draw it with 15.
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
The cgi studio model has 15 torp tubes. Get used to it.
And there's no fucking way the Akira is an older ship. Same goes with the Saber, Norway, and Steamrunner.
No I am not an Akira-fanboy. I don't even particularly like the Akira design. I just face facts. The FC ships are just one of the many cases where the chronologicality of registry numbers was ignored, whether out of true ignorance or out of simply not caring. It doesn't really matter. The fact is, these are newly-designed ships.
Get...over...it.
-MMoM Posted by The359 (Member # 37) on :
Ahem, doesn't the USS Equinox look newer then the USS Voyager, yet the Equinox has a lower registry?
It is incredibly easy to explain why the Akira, Sabers, Norways, and Steamrunners look the way they do. Refit. All the designs are nearly 20 years old according to their registry.
That, or just because they look "new" to you doesn't mean that they are really all that new.
Take for instance a Dodge Viper. I assume you know what one looks like. Modern day American supercar. Too bad the car was designed in 1989, making her nearly a dozen years old now. It was designed to look futuristic for its time.
Posted by Proteus (Member # 212) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim: The cgi studio model has 15 torp tubes. Get used to it.
And there's no fucking way the Akira is an older ship. Same goes with the Saber, Norway, and Steamrunner... Get...over...it.
-MMoM
I love you.
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
MMoM/Proteus.. do we need to have this discussion again? I'm tired of people saying "it looks 'newer' to me therefore it has to be newer."
And the ship doesn't have 15 torpedo tubes. The CGI model has 15 nondescript indentations on it which Jaegar says are torpedo tubes. Some of which shot torpedoes in FC, most of which didn't.
Posted by Ultra Magnus (Member # 239) on :
Chili Jesus.
I'm not sure if the point of this was to get into another one of these Akira-age debates. It was merely to show that maybe, just maybe there are people who are somewhat slightly less than comatosely observant at the FF office, and that their fresh bum-pickin' might not be as offbase as we all done thought, ma.
It seems to me that there are two types of Trek fans. The ones who accept what they see (for the most part), and the ones who don't accept what they see, and try to morph it into some personal, masturbatory fanboy fantasy, where they're the Admiral (TEH FLLEET ADMIRMAL OF TEH OMEGA SQAUEDRAAN!! IN TEH BIGGMEST SHIP!!), and their favorite ship is the coolest, and they recieve the handjobs from their first officer, Seven of T'Pol.
Now while there's a lack of those latter fans around here, there's still a whole bunch o' fans who've their own theories about things they don't think work in their version of Star Trek. This is good. This leads to stimulating discussion. Unless it's retread. And the whole Akira = New, Akira != New argument is retread^1000.
Fans are the reason that we have a Series V, with a Movie X coming this November, but some of them are becoming pains in the ass, who care more about whether a class of Starship was developed in 2373 or 2363 or whatever.
I do have the answer though. It was conclusively developed in the 1995/1996 era by a Special Effects house artist for a fictional TV show. Apart from that, who cares? I bought a toaster last week, and it looks like a pod of sorts. I don't care if it's from 2002 of 2202. It makes me some good toast.
Okay, so the FF people got the Akira from this sketch, and the Spector NCC from the mislabelled diagram from the Encyclopedia. Where did they say the Rabin was from?
It could be named after the famed YES! guitarist-turned Media Ventures member.
Posted by David Templar (Member # 580) on :
quote:Originally posted by The_Tom: I'm tired of people saying "it looks 'newer' to me therefore it has to be newer."
Oh yeah, and you're telling us that using an obviously flawed reg number-based dating system is any better? Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
Oh, good grief. I can't believe I'm about to let myself get suckered into this . . .
The Akira is an older design. As evidence, I point out the following:
1. Saucer Shape . . . later-model starships (Sovereign, Intrepid, Prometheus (NCC-7XXXX), et cetera) have been using longer, thinner primary hulls, as opposed to the shorter, wider hulls common to the Galaxy family of ships (New Orleans, Nebula, et cetera).
Since non-round saucers have only come (in general circumstances) sometime after the Ambassador Class, we may comfortably place the Akira after the Ambassador, but before the Intrepid, on the basis of primary hull shape.
(The hull shape of the NX Class is an accident . . . they stuck the circle parts on the end of the inner rectangle, not realizing that this was cool for warp effects (re: the TNGTM). I have declared it thusly!)
2. Those Funk-Ass nacelles . . . though an intriguing design, the nacelles to not appear new. Instead, they look like some sort of crackhead first-gen attempt at a Galaxy nacelle, with the nice curvy non-circular ramscoop, but with everything turned sideways and looking like the lovechild of a Galaxy nacelle and a Constitution nacelle.
(Or, alternately, the love-child of a Galaxy nacelle and a Cheyenne (marker-pen) nacelle.)
3. The Deflector . . . looks like it was stripped off of an Excelsior. Plain old blue glowing deflector dishes without red glowy thingies or rust-colored opaque thingies are old-school.
4. The Phasers . . . the phasers are the old Galaxy family Type X, not the new Sovereign-esque thinner, more corrugated strips. However, the phaser strips are longer than those found on the Ambassador Class, and so again we may assume it is older than one, younger than another.
5. And, finally, the registry.
****** Counter-indications:
1. The bridge . . . looks like a Sovereign-style from the outside, but different bridge types on similar craft (Miranda and Soyuz), and know that bridge modules can be swapped out or different between ships, which under certain circumstances could result in external differences in appearance.
2. Lifeboats . . . look like the newer Sovereign style. This alone proves jack. For all we know, they refit old Akiras with the newer ones to correct a design flaw, the something-something-somethinger having caused the something-something-somethinger to behave improperly in regards to the lifeboat something-something-somethingers.
Posted by targetemployee (Member # 217) on :
I don't know where the name 'Rabin' originated. However, I have always associated that name with the slain Israeli leader. If I remember correctly, he was gunned down prior to the eighth film.
Oh, btw, I did check the web for active duty ships bearing the name 'Rabin'. Nada.
[ February 11, 2002, 00:54: Message edited by: targetemployee ]
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
quote: I don't care if it's from 2002 of 2202.
Joke from Universe X: Of 2202? You mean we've got a limited set?
Joke from Universe Y: I'd want to know if my appliances were from the future.
Postscript: In the time it took to think up that parallel universe framing gag, both of the jokes lost their luster for me. The dangers of overthinking things, I suppose.
Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
2002 of 2202: "WE ARE THE BORG. LOWER YOUR SHIELDS AND GIVE ME BACK MY TOASTER!"
[ February 11, 2002, 01:47: Message edited by: Harry ]
Posted by EdipisReks (Member # 510) on :
i have always thought of the Akira class as being commisioned in the early 2350's. that would make them newer than Ambassador class ships and older than Galaxy class ships. it would also fit the bill for theories that the Akira was made to fill a heavy cruiser gap in Starfleet that the Cardassian war(s) exposed (assuming that the Cardassian war(s) started in the 2340's).
--jacob
[ February 11, 2002, 07:11: Message edited by: EdipisReks ]
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
quote: 2. Lifeboats . . . look like the newer Sovereign style. This alone proves jack. For all we know, they refit old Akiras with the newer ones to correct a design flaw, the something-something-somethinger having caused the something-something-somethinger to behave improperly in regards to the lifeboat something-something-somethingers.
Here's a crazy thought, perhaps the Akira & Steamrunner's escape pods aren't the same as the Sovereign's at all. Perhaps instead they are equipped with John Eaves's design, the more chunky looking one with the blow off hatches.
Could everyone live with that explanation?
Posted by J (Member # 608) on :
I just don't get it, I don't see how people easily accept the Miranda being pre-TOS in an unrefit version and the Neubla and New Orleans coming before the Galaxy Class but they do not accept a Pre-TNG Akira, Norway, Sabre, and Steamrunner.
There is absolutely nothing preventing those ships from being pre-TNG. Yeah, they look modern. If you look at the GCS it was in development for more than twenty years before it actually showed up [the New Orleans is early 2330's], direct development started ten years before the NX was launched.
At the same time NCCs can be given to a ship at two possible times. When it is ordered and when it is launched. For the GCS it probably got it's numbers when they were launched. For the Akira and gang they could have gotten their numbers when they were ordered, making them that much more earlier than the GCS in their registry.
It is more logical to think that NCCs have some type of system to them, random numbering is silly.
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
quote:Originally posted by J: I just don't get it, I don't see how people easily accept the Miranda being pre-TOS in an unrefit version and the Neubla and New Orleans coming before the Galaxy Class but they do not accept a Pre-TNG Akira, Norway, Sabre, and Steamrunner.
Just for the record, I accept neither of those assertions either. Registry numbers don't necessarily mean a thing. While it's true that many of them appear to be roughly chronological, there's just too many instances of this being ignored to make it a reliable way of determining the age of a ship.
Granted, design asthetic is not concrete either, as has been pointed out. But in my view its much too overpowering in this situation. I don't like to make up unnecessary explanations for stuff.
Here's what happened: 1.) Alex Jaeger designed four new ship classes for FC. 2.) The cgi models got assigned registry numbers that didn't exactly jive with a chronological registry system, because ILM had no knowledge of (or at least felt no obligation to adhere to) a chronological order to the registry number system.
That doesn't change the fact that these classes were designed to be and are NEW. Sure, you can theorize about refits and such, but why? The only reason is so you can make these vessels fit in with your notions of a chronological registry system. I don't believe such a system exists, at least not without exceptions such as these ships. So I don't need to rationalize by making up backstory that has no purpose other than to make that particular theory appear true.
-MMoM Posted by David Templar (Member # 580) on :
I love you, MMoM.
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
Gee...um...thanks...I guess...
Wow, that's the second time in one thread that's been said to me. C'mon, everybody love the Monkey!
-MMoM Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
quote: Just for the record, I accept neither of those assertions either. Registry numbers don't necessarily mean a thing. While it's true that many of them appear to be roughly chronological, there's just too many instances of this being ignored to make it a reliable way of determining the age of a ship.
Kind of like the exception disproving the rule, nice solid logic that.
Can you actually name all of these instances of the registry system being ignored? By my count there is around 6-10 serious inconsistencies out of about 180 NCC or NX registered ships, that's hardly an overwhelming majority.
Posted by Dat (Member # 302) on :
Mim, I don't understand how you won't believe Braga when he says Enterprise has no "SS", but you believe the FC ships are totally new just because Jaegar made them look new...and Jaeger never even said what era they are supposed to come from given their new appearance, but old registries.
Posted by Dat (Member # 302) on :
[ February 12, 2002, 15:12: Message edited by: Dat ]
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
quote:because ILM had no knowledge of (or at least felt no obligation to adhere to) a chronological order to the registry number system.
Well, something convinced Jaeger to switch from a four-digit registry to a five-digit. And the fact that the number ended up in the ballpark of the modern Trek era and not NCC-231435 seems to indicate some thought went into selecting it. It seems a little unfair to simply assume Mr. Jaeger goofed.
Posted by Proteus (Member # 212) on :
You think the akira is older. Ok.
But as a CG artist and a ship designer myself, i respect the wishes of the original desinger and go by his specs and backround story, not anyone elses.
Posted by Ultra Magnus (Member # 239) on :
"i respect the wishes of the original desinger and go by his specs and backround story"
Yeah, especially when the designer is simply hired for FX work by the actual creative forces behind the show, and knows dick all about any or all conventions of the television show.
Jaeger designed a nifty ship or two, granted, but he was simply asked to make a nifty ship or two to blow up, not to take over Rick's job. That's why they had Rick.
My sister could design a starship that shot out cookies, but I doubt anyone would accept it, even if it were her original design intention. There's a difference between accepting something that has thought and coherence put into it, and something that has Frenchman Fanboy's Crank Pipe invested into it, because he think's "it'll look cool."
Posted by Grokca (Member # 722) on :
MMMMMM shoots cookies
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
quote:Originally posted by Proteus: You think the akira is older. Ok.
But as a CG artist and a ship designer myself, i respect the wishes of the original desinger and go by his specs and backround story, not anyone elses.
That's your decision, and I respect that and the spirit in which it is made . . . but (you knew there was a "but" coming), considering how many autoerotic fanboy fantasy ships, dumb designs, and stupid backstories for vessel classes that there are out there, I'd rather take designs and stories . . . whether the ship itself is canon or not . . . with a dash of reason.
G2k
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
I personally don't feel any kind of obligation to remain true to what the designer intended (see issues like Enterprise-, Avenger-, and Valiant-classes) but I do care what the final intention of what was put on screen was. And at no point in the production of FC was it EVER suggested that these classes be older. In fact, the idea was quite the opposite: to show off to the viewers the nifty new toys SF had developed to combat the Borg. The battle scenes were supposed to be us "getting a little of our own back" from the defeat of Wolf 359. They kicked our asses, and then we came back with some better ships and kicked theirs.
The whole bit about these ships being older is purely an invention of the members on this board. You guys made it up.
quote:Originally posted by The_Tom: I'm tired of people saying "it looks 'newer' to me therefore it has to be newer."
And I'm tired of people saying "Look, that ship has a registry number that begins with a 6. It must predate the Galaxy-class."
quote:Originally posted by Reverend: Kind of like the exception disproving the rule, nice solid logic that.
Can you actually name all of these instances of the registry system being ignored? By my count there is around 6-10 serious inconsistencies out of about 180 NCC or NX registered ships, that's hardly an overwhelming majority.
Think really hard about that. You need only ONE exception to show that a rule does not apply to all cases.
You're right, it's no majority at all. The FC ships just happen to be one of those 6-10 examples of gaps in the supposed chronological system.
-MMoM
[ February 12, 2002, 16:45: Message edited by: The Mighty Monkey of Mim ]
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
Besides, think of this issue in another set of terms: even if we are to make these ships fit with a chronological registry system, they need not actually be older ships in order to do it.
What's wrong with the story from the Starship Spotter that the Akira was conceived during the Cardassian War (and thus would have been issued its block of registries at that point) but never actually came to fruition until 2368, when the post-Wolf 359 atmosphere became more condusive of that sort of design development.
This alternate theory could easily be applied to the other FC ships and presto! We reconcile the registries with the design and the presentation of the ships without ever having to walk all over anybody's intentions.
The point is that there ir more than just one possibility here. Why are you all so hellbent on trying to promote only one, especially when there are less complex and more likely explanations?
-MMoM Posted by J (Member # 608) on :
Knock knock knock.... anyone home?
I never stated that the Akira and group was built in 2340's or refit in 2360's, etc etc etc. I don't care when the ships were designed or built... all I care about is that someone out there decided there was going to be an Akira Class Starship in 2340's and gave them NCCs-- that's the contention I'm trying to argue.
Personally it really doesn't matter when the exact dates are. I prefer to have the Akira design when it got it's NCCs sometime in the early part of 2340's, or even the late 2330's. But the design was shelved because it was too radical and would take away from the Galaxy Class Project. Give it a few years, and then the ship is built. --- but that wasn't what I was arguing about. I was contending that NCCs are chronological, and there is nothing about the Akira that prevents this from being true.
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
Then we've been arguing over nothing. I apologize.
-MMoM Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim: And at no point in the production of FC was it EVER suggested that these classes be older. In fact, the idea was quite the opposite: to show off to the viewers the nifty new toys SF had developed to combat the Borg.
Where did that come from? I read that the ships were designed with two thoughts in mind . . . "cool, never before seen stuff" (the "Oh, look, we have a budget, and CGI, too!" reason) and "something that will contrast with the new, whoop-ass Sovereign Class in fleet scenes", and probably the Defiant, too. Jaeger, then, would have taken this to heart, hence he avoided anything remotely resembling the old-fashioned configuration of the Constitution, Excelsior, Ambassador, et cetera.
That's how the whole catamaran hull thing came to be for Akira and Norway, with the Saber and dumbass Steamrunner being other alterations of the norm.
(I personally prefer the Norway . . . it's different, but looks more like a Starfleet ship than the others with its almost-normal Galaxy type nacelles . . . more like a runabout's, really, but a good try, all the same.)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)