posted
I believe the point that is trying to be made here, in the usual style of diplomacy that is everpresent here, is that we know next to nothing about the Akira-class. All we know is that it seen in First Contact, Voyager's "Message in a Bottle", and as background fodder in Voyager's "Endgame" and the Deep Space Nine's Dominion War storyline ("Tears of the Prophets" and "What You Leave Behind" spring immediately to mind).
From what we can readily tell, the Akira-class Thunderchild had a registry of NCC-6xxxx. It has two warp nacelles and weapons pod. There's a notch at the front of the saucer, and the deflector dish sits in a bulge on the saucer underside. This pretty much sums up the canon knowledge of the Akira-class.
The only other points on the Akira are the ones that range from semi-canonical to "Proof that not everyone should be allowed on the 'Net." Alex Jaeger, who designed the Akira-class, has given us some background information on the ship. He says that the shuttlebay spans the entire length of the saucer and that it has 15 torpedo tubes. We have the Fact Files which gives us more Akira class ship names and registries. And there's some guy out there who believes that Section 31 uses Akira-class battleships exclusively for their shadow wars.
Everything that's known about this class of ships is already known (and it isn't a great deal of information to begin with). We've gone over the same thing numerous times, and they devolve into chronological registry battles and fanboy masturbatory fantasy screaming matches. In summation, all we'd be doing is "contributing to the massively over-rated dung heap of information on the internet."
-------------------- The philosopher's stone. Those who possess it are no longer bound by the laws of equivalent exchange in alchemy. They gain without sacrifice and create without equal exchange. We searched for it, and we found it.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
quote:intelligibly contributing to the massively over-rated dung heap of information on the internet.
Koi (isn't that a kind of goldfish) loses 47 more points for actually believing that he (or anybody else here) is actually capable of doing the above, as regards starship registry numbers. All the statements are speculation, and all the speculation is unfounded, therefore, = DUNG.
I award myself 500 points for not commenting in this thread until now, but deduct 250 points for commenting in this thread AT ALL.
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
If you wish we can use the final spaceframe tests for Galaxy, Voyager, and Defiant [2356, prior 2368, and 2370/2372 respectively]. In my reading of the TNG TM, the Galaxy has a period between 2342 and 2357 where the NCCs could be assigned. From the Voyager specs the period is 2361 until 2371 [when it was launched, we don't have the Intrepid's NCC, but that doesn't matter], however since the class' final design wasn't made until after 2368, I'm assuming that 2368 is the earliest [and looking back at the TNG TM let's assume the same for the Galaxy, so 2349]. And finally the Defiant which officially started in 2366, which was then redesigned, and didn't finish systems integration until 2370. The ship wasn't given to DS9 until 2372.
There is some inconsistancy here, the only way to solve it is to assume that Starfleet does not issue registry numbers at any set time period [not order, not design freeze, not construction start, not testing phase, not commission], the only stipulation Starfleet has is that the ship have a registry before it gets launched. This solves the problem with the Defiant and Voyager's NCC. If you even see one, technically the Intrepid class didn't start construction until after 2368 [when the design was frozen], but the Defiant was frozen in 2366 or 2367, certainly before Voyager. The ships were also launched apart--- and in order of NCC. So, when the class project started has no heavy bearing on NCC [only that the project started some years prior].
The three best points to give a ship a registry is construction start, testing phase, or commission. It would seem that NX vessels would be more likely to get their numbers at construction start or the testing phase, while production ships may have to wait until commissioning paperwork. --- This continues to help explain how the Intrepid can be an older project and the Defiant a newer project. Differences in size and advances in technology may also provide reasons why Defiant has the lower NCC [ok, this one is a bit more arguable, I concide, but looking at the gelpacks and variable warp compared to phaser cannons, over powered powerplant, and integrated hull design--- I think the Intrepid eventually gets more advanced hands down].
Now, plug in the Akira [or any slightly pre-TNG design like Nebula, New Orleans, Chenneye, Springfield, Steamrunner, Norway, or Sabre]. What we have left is an entirely probable situation. Personally I never saw the Intrepid being earlier than 2365, but 4 years hasn't made a difference to me. There is no big inconsistancy between Voyager and Defiant to make chrono NCCs impossible. With a lead off of almost 14 years between when the Galaxy Project started and the Galaxy NX was commissioned there is more than enough time for amount of those ships to be launched--- even when you consider that some of those ships must be launched before 2350 [the New Orleans being one for the Setlik 3 events].
So... nothing has changed--- Chrono still stands as the best theory in my mind.
-------------------- Later, J _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ The Last Person to post in the late Voyager Forum. Bashing both Voyager, Enterprise, and "The Bun" in one glorious post.
posted
OK; I think that the Akira age issue is never going to be completely solved; it's unlikely we're going to see much of the 24th century again anyway. I think it probably is older than the Sovreign and is not a new ship (as of FC). It bears no resemblance to any previous design stream (e.g. the BOBW ships were clearly related to the Galaxy). As for the registaries, there's an interesting idea on the Ships of the Starfleet downloads here. It states that the codes are given in blocks to each shipyard and numbers are assigned as the ships come off the line at each yard e.g. NCC-56001- 57000 to Utopia Planitia and NCC-57001-58000 to San Fransisco.This would allow the registaries to be chronological but still allow for some discrepancies.
-------------------- "I am an almost extinct breed, an old-fashioned gentleman, which means I can be a cast-iron son-of-a-bitch when it suits me." --Jubal Harshaw
Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
The Akira is newer. It was designed later, it was designed to be a new powerful ship. Its the CGI people that could give a shit about useless numbers on the hulls of starships. If it looks new, has 15 torp launchers, and so on.. its new.
posted
Koy, didn't I tell you to calm down? You're taking the entire situation TOO personally. The others do make valid points, but mingled in their points happened to be their sense of humor as well. Perhaps if you actually do follow some of their advice, they would tone down on what you think is very offensive.
[ April 09, 2002, 19:49: Message edited by: Dat ]
-------------------- Is it Friday yet?
Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
CaptAlabin
Ex-Member
posted
I would go the idea of assigning the registries during the spaceframe or at least planning stages after the first ship is approved. Then there these discrepencies like the Yeager's, Constellation's and others. I put the Yeager Class USS Yeager as a test vehicle that was later put into production like the Excelsior. Different physical upgrades could bring another ship into the same class like the Constellation NCC-1017 or the Constitutions are just plan old.
IP: Logged
posted
I'm conflicted as to how to contribute to this thread and maximise the points I'd get. Would I get them for conforming to type, and insulting the newbie who a) posted a thread on an old and well-worn topic, and then b) erupting in fanboyish outrage when we fail to respond with anything less than geekish enthusiasm? Or would I get more points for NOT doing that? 8)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
