posted
I can't live with FC ships being older than Ent-D. =P They're just too young looking. I see Starfleet ship evolution as making ships increasingly more stream-lined, and IMO, the Akira fits better between the GCS and the Sovery than between the Amb and the GCS.
I really dislike the theory that the FC ships were actually built for the Cardassian War, considering how out matched Cardassian ships are against existing classes like the Ambassador.
You're all fools! Fools, I tell ya! *gets shot*
[ January 25, 2002, 14:45: Message edited by: David Templar ]
-------------------- "God's in his heaven. All's right with the world."
Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
The problem, as said, is that they *look* like new tech. They share commonalities w/the Sovereign, Defiant, Intrepid, and Nova, all ships that are from that most recent era. And they also have a number of features that are unique from other families, but common among them.
If you guys are really worried about the regs, then how about a theory whereby sometime during the Cardassian War, certain blocks of numbers were "reserved", so to speak, for designs in development that eventually evolved into our beloved Borg Busters.
There you are. That works. I'd be happy with that explanation. But there's no way in my mind that the Akira, Norway, Steamrunner, and Saber are older ships. They certainly don't predate the Galaxy.
-MMoM
-------------------- The flaws we find most objectionable in others are often those we recognize in ourselves.
Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
Well, since everyone's dropping opinions left, right and centre, might I drop mine that "deriving class lineages" and figuring out chronological class ordering in terms of streamlinedness is the Trekkie equivalent of using a divining rod to find a well?
-------------------- "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
I submit that in Trek, how old a design looks is independent of its actual age. The Galaxy-class "family" is ample proof of this - we conclusively have mini-Galaxy clones running aorund years, and often decades, before the Galaxy herself. At the same time, we know that there are other paradigms of starship design that continue to go on long past other, different kinds.
The Sovereign, Steamrunner, Akira et. al. are simply part of a different design family that predates, or runs concurrently, with that of the Galaxy paradigm. What's wrong with that? It's not apples and oranges in starship design; if anything, it's BMWs and Mercedes. Both made by the same state, both having the same numbers of engines and nacelles/wheels. But are they the same? Nope. It's just that for whatever reason we never saw these other designs, just like we've never seen the Bradbury or Sequoia or Wambundu class starships.
Someone has also mentioned before that there's also the fanboy factor, however small, that refuses to accept that anything cooler than something that's come before can actually *be* older than that something. I'm not saying that the propoents of the Akira = new suffer from that, but outside of these forums anyway it's one reason the sentiment lingers on...
quote:Originally posted by Mark Nguyen: The Sovereign, Steamrunner, Akira et. al. are simply part of a different design family that predates, or runs concurrently, with that of the Galaxy paradigm. What's wrong with that? It's not apples and oranges in starship design; if anything, it's BMWs and Mercedes. Both made by the same state, both having the same numbers of engines and nacelles/wheels. But are they the same? Nope... Mark
Perhaps they a from different design teams on different Ship yards? You could say that all of the Galaxy family came from Utopia Planitia and were themselves designed from the un-used prototypes and concept work from the Galaxy-Class Project. While similarly the Sovereign was being developed at San Francisco and some of the FC ships were also based on the early development work.
So we have two differnt "Families" being built at the same time, off of different projects on different yards and both culminating in the full scale parent ships that look distinctly different. The only real difference between them is that the Soverign was launched about a decade after the Galaxy, so we may assume that the projects were also 10 or so years apart, giving the Sovereign the advantage of starting from a more advanced standpoint than the Galaxy.
posted
Why can't those 'older ships' that look 'new' be REFITS!?! A la the Enterprise-Nil... if the registry idea that "they are assigned when they are first begun" is to go by the NX-2000 (Excelsior) was always going to have the 'new' look. Even though at the 'starting stage' there was still the old looking Connies. Remember the Connies were at least 20 years old (we the Enterprise was).
Also, maybe this explains away the Wierd 1317 or what ever the registry was - that stuffed up the registry patterns... the Constellation wasn't it... maybe this baby might LOOK like a 'connie' in the planet killer episode - but it could have undergone a number of major refits since it was originally built.
-------------------- "Bears. Beets. Battlestar Galactica." - Jim Halpert. (The Office)
posted
I'm inclined to agree with Andrew. I like to think that any of the Constitutions that have lower regos than the prototype, must have originally been an older but similar class that was heavily refit. Sort of like kitbashing in reverse. What a ship like the Constellation initally looked like can be up to our imagination. As an example, maybe they started life looking like the Loknar (the TOS equivalent of the NX-01).
[ January 26, 2002, 21:17: Message edited by: Dax ]
posted
About the Galaxy-class ship from the DS9 calendar (the NCC-70564, mentioned on p.6). I was just over at TrekBBS and they've been discussing it there. One of the members there, Cpt. Kyle Amasov, emailed Gary Hutzel about it. Anyway, apparently the ship was labeled USS Ronald D. Moore after the famed Trek writer.
posted
On a more useful note (with respect to this thread), I'll point out that Digital Domain's directory also contains the phone number of Robert Legato. I suggest someone with the ability to record the conversation phone him about that lost footage from "Emissary."
Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
capped
I WAS IN THE FUTURE, IT WAS TOO LATE TO RSVP
Member # 709
posted
that would be creepy.
Mrs. L: Who was on the phone honey?
Rob: Some kids called and wanted to know the resgistry on the Apollo-class model.
Mrs L: I'm leaving you.
-------------------- "Are you worried that your thoughts are not quite.. clear?"
Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
Well, given that I've e-mailed/chatted with Alex Jaeger, Mike Okuda, Rick Sternbach, David Stipes, Mojo, Robert Hewitt Wolfe, David Lombardi, Rob Bonchune, Andrew Robinson, Joe Michael Straczynski, George Johnsen, Timothy Earls and Andrew Probert, I don't mind adding a few more names to the list. But I'd have to get a phone card and make notes on paper.
Here's what the designated caller should do:
1) Say hello 2) Say he's representing the Flare forums which are researching this as a hobby, and that he likes his work. 3) In the process of asking the questions, let him know how much you know about this stuff already. He'll feel more at home, and trust that he's giving the information in the right hands. 4) Ask him how many models were built, and if he could describe those he remembers (or whatever, I'm not the Wolf 359 expert here).
Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Phelps: 3) In the process of asking the questions, let him know how much you know about this stuff already. He'll feel more at home, and trust that he's giving the information in the right hands.
Oh yeah, can't let sensitive Starfleet information fall into the 'wrong hands', now can we?
"Um, you sound like you have a Jem'Hadar accent..."
"Quiet, weak human. Now tell me the exact Federation ship loss at Chin'taka plus a class by class breakdown or I'll skin you and your family! Or maybe I'll do so anyways!"
"I'm gonna hang up now..."
-------------------- "God's in his heaven. All's right with the world."
Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
quote:2) Say he's representing the Flare forums which are researching this as a hobby, and that he likes his work.
Um, stupid. Better to make a self-depreciating joke about tech-obsessed trekkies. Then say you really like his work. But not too many reallys, because then you'll be annoying.
quote:3) In the process of asking the questions, let him know how much you know about this stuff already. He'll feel more at home, and trust that he's giving the information in the right hands.
As opposed to the Russkies? How about good ol'-fashioned being nice and friendly and not-too-weird and letting him get as dorky as he wants to get?
quote:4) Ask him how many models were built, and if he could describe those he remembers (or whatever, I'm not the Wolf 359 expert here).
Fine, but let's remember Jaegergate and Jeingate Were he to speak for two minutes we'd inevitably triple what we already know about this lost footage.
Now, um, has anyone realized that digging up his home(?) phone number from somewhere online and bugging him unsolicited is a little, um, psycho? Doing the above as advertised might well be nerdy enough to warrant the tape's inclusion into "Trekkies II"
-------------------- "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
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Were he to speak for two minutes we'd inevitably triple what we already know about this lost footage.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
