posted
Interesting news about the pod... I previously thought that the torps were arranged like this:
1 below fwd deflector (easy to see) 2-3 above fwd deflector (hard to see because of shadows in the ST:M artwork) 4+3 on pod fwd face (the 3 were sort of scabbed on to the pod underside below the 4) 1 to 3 per pod aft-quarter face (hard to count from the artwork)
That would give 12 to 17 tubes, and I was hoping for 14-15 because that would make it impossible for the ship to have those saucer lateral tubes that make so little sense, but would still jibe with the supposed 15-tube total (a single tube could be somewhere else altogether for all I care).
If the pod really has four launchers on every side, then there definitely isn't room for those lateral tubes in the 15 total. Then again, what about those three tubes scabbed onto the pod forward ventral part - aren't they there any more?
If so, if the pod indeed comes in variants, then I am going to claim that most of the Akiras have less overarmed pods than that! Try and disprove me - you can't see those tubes on screen (mainly because in DS9, they never fire...).
posted
I think the widget below the deflector dish is a tractor emitter rather than a torp launcher.
The supposed three extra launchers on the fwd face of the pod are smaller than the 4 normal tubes above. I've always perceived the three panels as being windows.
There's definitely 4 tubes per aft face of the pod. The picture in Starship Spotter clearly shows this.
The lateral things on the saucer could be interpreted as being 2 tubes each but I prefer to think of them as bay view windows, akin to the 3 windows at the front of the pod.
Also, I agree in your thinking that not all Akiras need have these kick ass pods. Akiras in the pre-Wolf 359 times might even have had sensor only pods.
quote:Originally posted by Dax: As for the similarites between NX-01 and Akira - why can't we just accept that the Akira design is a homage to NX-01? I can't remember who first suggested that but it's the simplest solution. We did already have the exact same thing with Daedalus and Olympic anyway.
The reason I'll pretty much refuse to accept it in the similar manner is how the timelines match up.
Real-world: Daedalus - Olympic Akira - NX
In-show-timeline: Daedalus - Olympic NX - Akira
First Sight: Daedalus - Olympic Akira - NX
Beyond all that, we get back into the difference between similarity in structure and similiarity in detail. The Daedalus and Olympic share no similar details. The Akira and NX do share similar details.
So no bones about it, we don't have the exact same thing with the Daedalus and Olympic as we do with the Akira and NX.
I say we just drop this into the bucket of trek arguements that will never end along with TAS, old school's TMs, Warp 10, etc.
-------------------- Later, J _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ The Last Person to post in the late Voyager Forum. Bashing both Voyager, Enterprise, and "The Bun" in one glorious post.
posted
Two shuttles in drop bays on either side + Swiss-army knife approach = Defiantprise!
Yes, such an approach allows the writers to invent new things, and is quite sensible for TV models (having been used in the old Enterprise and the Babylon 5 station, to name a few). However, it also makes it very easy for the Visual Effects to forget where they put a certain system in the previous episode and move it elsewhere for the next one. We've seen this in the Defiant which fired forward and aft photon torpedoes from a bunch of different locations. Also, the forward escape pods on the Defiant are positioned a bit differently than they were on the Valiant, although clearly, the intention was to show the same hatches open.
The other problem is that they could put one thing where another has already been seen. We've seen this on the Defiant as well, where its forward hole (the 20 circular ports on the Enterprise bring it to mind) was used as a deflector emitter and a probe launcher, and possibly a phaser emitter and airlock as well. Much of this can be rationalized away, but if one is not extra careful, it can easily lead to more inconsistencies.
Nevertheless, it's good to know that they thought of everything.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
