posted
So what if the Galaxy took a long time to design? The point is that they started out using those sorts of parts on other ships (New Orleans, Challenger, &c.) and only later used them on the Galaxy. Just like they used this "saucer" on the Yeager and only later used it on the Intrepid.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
I generally turn the other way when it comes to the Yeager, although I support the Shelly class.
However I believe that the Yeager is a few ship class that was built after Wolf 359. The Maquis Raider part of the ship was in fact another whole class, because I doubt that Starfleet would build something like that then put a Intrepid class suacer, it would make more sense to build Intrepids than a Yeager. Anyway, the Giant Maquis Raider was mothballed earlier for some reason, when in the late 2360's, they were brought out of mothballs and refitted with new technology. it was decided for some reason to put a Intrepid type saucer to replace the cockpit/bridge module.
-------------------- Matrix If you say so If you want so Then do so
Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
Why should we even argue about this ship? It was only seen in the background.
-------------------- "It speaks to some basic human needs: that there is a tomorrow, it's not all going to be over with a big splash and a bomb, that the human race is improving, that we have things to be proud of as humans." -Gene Roddenberry about Star Trek
Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged
Amasov Prime
lensfare-induced epileptic shock
Member # 742
posted
Melbourne, too. But we do argue about her.
Or Daedalus. It never appeared on-sceen, nontheless there were thousands arguing about whether this ship should appear on Enterprise or not.
All or nothing. If we leave one out because we don't like it, we can forget about everything we have. Wolf, for example. Who cares? Some kitbashes more or less don't make a difference.
-------------------- "This is great. Usually it's just cardboard walls in a garage."
Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
Whatever the origins of the Yeager, she's one heck of a warhorse. If we take the original torpedo tubes of the Maquis design to still be torpedo tubes, they are of an impressive caliber. And the ship still has the standard two aft tubes of the Intrepid. And what about those wing cannon, which the model still retains (although rather dangerously close to the nacelles)?
The design doesn't look at all objectionable to me, as long as I don't remind myself that the aft half looks like an enlarged Maquis ship hull. In "reality", there probably is no such familial relationship.
I'm sure those pylons are movable, BTW. And this puppy can land just as nicely as an Intrepid can. And the aft-quarter view shows how some of the former aft-facing "warp grilles" have been painted over with beige, making them look not unlike shuttlebay doors - so yes, I think the Yeager does have at least two shuttlebays.
Currently, I like the Yeager and the 3-naceller a lot, and the Raging Queen and the Constitution-kitbash with reservations. The Centaur... Umm, I actually am quite fond of that fancy new shuttlebay/bridge arrangement, although I suspect the "bay" could be taken to be a deflector dish as well... Only the Elkins seems truly irredeemable IMHO.
posted
Timo, you like the 3-nacelled "Medusa Class?"
-------------------- "It speaks to some basic human needs: that there is a tomorrow, it's not all going to be over with a big splash and a bomb, that the human race is improving, that we have things to be proud of as humans." -Gene Roddenberry about Star Trek
Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Definitely - and even more so if I can pretend that the ventral third nacelle is an optional extra a la "AGT" that isn't a defining characteristic of the original design or of all the vessels of the class.
This puppy could be the Excelsior era counterpart to the Constellation class. The double saucer IMHO looks rather pretty. She could be any of the unseen ship classes between Apollo and Merced, but I think she would make a good Hokule'a class "medium" cruiser (doesn't she look just like a ship that would drop the ball on finding out what really destroyed Omicron Theta?). The Centaur makes such an adorable Renaissance class medium cruiser, and as said, the Curry/Raging Queen could be a Mediterranean class transport (here the designation would differ from the DS9 TM one)...
An aft view would help tell if the thing has a shuttlebay, but it looks a bit unlikely that there would be any torpedo launchers there (at least forward-facing ones), so the DS9 TM stats are a bit suspect in that respect...
Amasov Prime
lensfare-induced epileptic shock
Member # 742
posted
I think your explanation that the Maquis ship and the Yeager only look similare but are in no way related seems reasonable. The whole Maquis-kitbash should be as canon as the fact that Elkins uses an A-Wing secondary hull and not a custom-made stardrive section.
Maybe Starfleet based the design on the Maquis-Raider because that ship has prooven to be an excellet ship if it comes down to maneuverability. They just took the old design and hull-studies and all and constructed an (ugly) sister for the Intrepid. While that ship can operate independently and has good warp systems, the Yeager could be the destroyer-variant, built for scouting the Badlands with increased sensors and engines to hunt down Maquis in the Badlands. Sterafleet already lost an Intrepid in the Badlands while chasing a raider, so this could have been ther argument for building the sub-class.
-------------------- "This is great. Usually it's just cardboard walls in a garage."
Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
Otherwise good and well, but us chonological-NCC freaks won't accept that a ship class with registries beginning with a "6" would be built as a reaction to something that happened to a ship class with the earliest known registries beginning with a "7"...
I'd say Starfleet tried out the concept of a flapping-wing ship in an unaesthetic manner at first, and then streamlined the design into the Intrepid later on when the ugly duckling had proven the principle. The two variants could basically perform the same mission, then (even if the class to which the Yeager belongs lacks a main deflector dish).
BTW, I think we should drop the idea that the Yeager is of Yeager class - it just causes undue confusion. Without that ballast, it's much easier to explain the two parallel Yeagers, too: one was semi-destroyed or for some other reason retired before the other was named, and then the Borg or Dominion crises saw the reactivation of the retired one.
Or perhaps this swing-winger was retired after a series of tests, just when SF was looking for a name for the latest Sabre. The various crises would then see the reactivation of the testbed ship for operational use.
If the swing-wing ship really heralded the Yeager class, then it would be less likely that Starfleet would donate that name to a run-of-the-mill Sabre just because the prototype was retired.
Amasov Prime
lensfare-induced epileptic shock
Member # 742
posted
quote:Originally posted by Timo: Otherwise good and well, but us chonological-NCC freaks won't accept that a ship class with registries beginning with a "6" would be built as a reaction to something that happened to a ship class with the earliest known registries beginning with a "7"...
I'd say Starfleet tried out the concept of a flapping-wing ship in an unaesthetic manner at first, and then streamlined the design into the Intrepid later on when the ugly duckling had proven the principle. The two variants could basically perform the same mission, then (even if the class to which the Yeager belongs lacks a main deflector dish).
BTW, I think we should drop the idea that the Yeager is of Yeager class - it just causes undue confusion. Without that ballast, it's much easier to explain the two parallel Yeagers, too: one was semi-destroyed or for some other reason retired before the other was named, and then the Borg or Dominion crises saw the reactivation of the retired one.
Or perhaps this swing-winger was retired after a series of tests, just when SF was looking for a name for the latest Sabre. The various crises would then see the reactivation of the testbed ship for operational use.
If the swing-wing ship really heralded the Yeager class, then it would be less likely that Starfleet would donate that name to a run-of-the-mill Sabre just because the prototype was retired.
Timo Saloniemi
That sounds good. And I have to agree, the term 'Yeager-class' is just as stupid as the term 'Centaur-class'. Just because we've seen only one ship of that class doesn't mean it's the prototype.
The only thing I accept is the Shelley-class designation. Allthough not being official, 'canon', I really like the designation and I will take it as official until some other, more canon source tells me to change the name. (Like the Encyclopedia, but this will not happen if we believe the Pocket Books-editors who told us that Okuda has - at the moment - no interest in writing an update for the Encyclopedia, because it's an huge truckload of work.)
-------------------- "This is great. Usually it's just cardboard walls in a garage."
Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
Registry-wise, the Yeager could belong to just about any of the modern "mystery classes" - Rigel, Zodiac (NCC-61000), but perhaps also Andromeda, Sequoia (NCC-68000-70000). The Elkins could be a Bradbury, then...
Interestingly, the Centaur saucer has now been proven to be sufficiently different from an Excelsior one that we can forget about staying true to the Excelsior scaling criteria. Even more interestingly, the top surface of the saucer is apparently speckled with TNG-style elongated portholes, laid out in a pattern following the deflector grid. Should we take that to mean that the saucer topside is six or more decks high, since there are six concentric rows of portholes? Hardly. I guess we'd be safer saying that all those portholes are on a single deck, and simply laid out to match the internal divisions of that deck... The Centaur could be a relatively small ship, like it seems to be in "Time to Stand".
Shik
Starship database: completed; History of Starfleet: done; website: probably never
Member # 343
posted
The thing that endears the tri-engined EXC variant to me most is that we finally see the true pylon arrangement. The twin-pylon usage for the 3rd nacelle definitely improves the design by leaps & bounds in my eyes.
-------------------- "The French have a saying: 'mise en place'—keep everything in its fucking place!"
Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged
capped
I WAS IN THE FUTURE, IT WAS TOO LATE TO RSVP
Member # 709
posted
I still think that registry batches are divided up in some futuristic, sensible but incomprehensible to us manner that renders them only semi-chronological. While the reg of a ship generally yields an idea of when it was built you have your occasional Eagle 956 or Prometheus 5xxxx that buck the system. Possibly there were 'slow' shipyards that Starfleet said 'Hey, the next hundred ships you build are going to be 59100 to 59200..' some shipyards made a hundred ships in a few years, but some smaller dumpier shipyards (or prototype laboratories) were still using up their old registries Starfleet told them to make. The Yeager was new, but made using up an older number that hadnt been taken.. same with Prometheus probably. Just using up batches of unused numbers.
I say incomprehensible because it probably has something to do with moneyless money. and the universal translator. and heisenberg compensators.
-------------------- "Are you worried that your thoughts are not quite.. clear?"
Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
Printer-friendly view of this topic
