posted
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.
-------------------- . . . ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.
posted
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.
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.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
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).
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.
posted
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.
-------------------- Later, J _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ The Last Person to post in the late Voyager Forum. Bashing both Voyager, Enterprise, and "The Bun" in one glorious post.
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
-------------------- The flaws we find most objectionable in others are often those we recognize in ourselves.
Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
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
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.
-------------------- Is it Friday yet?
Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
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.
-------------------- "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
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
