posted
I'm scared to ask, but what on earth are LN-64s?
-------------------- Yes, you're despicable, and... and picable... and... and you're definitely, definitely despicable. How a person can get so despicable in one lifetime is beyond me. It isn't as though I haven't met a lot of people. Goodness knows it isn't that. It isn't just that... it isn't... it's... it's despicable.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
capped
I WAS IN THE FUTURE, IT WAS TOO LATE TO RSVP
Member # 709
posted
according to non-canon treknical publications, thats the nacelle type used on the refit Enterprise, i believe
Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
All very interesting theories. I'm more resolved to say we're getting somewhere with the Yeager at last. But as far as the Elkins is concerned, critics of the ship need not accept it as canon at all, as it hasn't been identified on screen, ever. The Yeager, yes, many times, but not the Elkins. The existence of a studio model a canon ship does not make. Much like the 'Medusa Class', although I'm more comfortable with its existence than the Elkins.
I think the general concensus seems to be that the Yeager was some kind of Intrepid prototype, maybe a testbed, maybe a hastily commisioned vessel utilizing various welded together parts around the superstructure of an old saucer left over from the Intrepid program. Either way, I still have to believe it is a unique vessel, jury-rigged, and never repeated. If it had been peace time, the Yeager would never have been built, and its parts would be floating around a surplus depot somewhere. The safest, most likely classification: Intrepid Class - Yeager-Type.
-------------------- "To the Enterprise and the Stargazer. Old girlfriends we'll never meet again." - Scotty
posted
But, and this may not be terribly important, I don't know, it's not an Intrepid Class. At all. In any way.
Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged
capped
I WAS IN THE FUTURE, IT WAS TOO LATE TO RSVP
Member # 709
posted
its as much Intrepid class as the Nebula is Galaxy class though. we outnumber you on this, Admiral. Bes' recognize, G.
Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
Well it all depends how one measures the classification system, and I've beaten on this drum for long enough about the Nebulas - ie being signicantly different in many areas, yet all Nebula Class. I tried to lobby to get the Proto-Nebula into its own classification some while back, possibly Rigel Class.
If the Yeager is not generally accepted to be Intrepid Class, then I suppose Intrepid Variant - Yeager-Type, will have to do...
-------------------- "To the Enterprise and the Stargazer. Old girlfriends we'll never meet again." - Scotty
posted
If we are going to stick to strictly canon Nebulas (ie, the Pheonix, the Sutherland, and the CGI), they are certainly a lot more similar than the Intrepid and the Yeager class are.
On the other hand, if you want to bring in the desktop models as examples, you're an idiot. And they are still more similar.
-------------------- Yes, you're despicable, and... and picable... and... and you're definitely, definitely despicable. How a person can get so despicable in one lifetime is beyond me. It isn't as though I haven't met a lot of people. Goodness knows it isn't that. It isn't just that... it isn't... it's... it's despicable.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
capped
I WAS IN THE FUTURE, IT WAS TOO LATE TO RSVP
Member # 709
posted
well we dont call the Nebula a Galaxy-variant do we?
Yeager is a completely different configuration.
look: Constitution-->Constitution refit. Same parts, same configuration, same class
Constitution-->Miranda. Galaxy-->Nebula Intrepid-->Yeager Same parts, set up completely differently, different class. By adding all the freaking greeble type shit and subtracting all notions of the lower secondary hull, the ships Intrepidity is lost.
Fixing up the rollbar things on Nebulas and Mirandas makes them same class variants. But if you add a whole bangin secondary hull, you change the class. like the Soyuz or Constitution arent Mirandas.
Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
Amasov Prime
lensfare-induced epileptic shock
Member # 742
posted
As far as I'm concerned, the Yeager is some sort of new class. Maybe it didn't even get a name. What if there have been more thn one prototypes of the "Intrepid-class" until they got it right? If this one would have been what SFC wanted, maybe Voyagers dedication plaque would list the vessel as a Yeager-class (Aside from having to explain why the heck the secondary hull of the ship looks like a Maquis ship. )
So what's the definition for canon in this case? We have an official model, confirmed and everything, we all have it in our ship lists (well, many of us if not all) but we can't concider it totly canon yet because it hasn't been identified for sure yet (allthough I for one still assume the hip was seen flying next to another unknown ship in season six's opener)?
-------------------- "This is great. Usually it's just cardboard walls in a garage."
Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
But they'd be complete Retards not to.
Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged
capped
I WAS IN THE FUTURE, IT WAS TOO LATE TO RSVP
Member # 709
posted
yes im well aware of your moronic signature. thank you.
I'm still tempted to call it Enterprise-subclass or the like, just for convenience sake, but this isnt the argument here.
Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
Wondering out loud, do we know that the NCC-1701 was the first ship to be refit to look like that? Is there anything to say that there weren't Connies built in, say, 2270 that looked like that?
-------------------- Yes, you're despicable, and... and picable... and... and you're definitely, definitely despicable. How a person can get so despicable in one lifetime is beyond me. It isn't as though I haven't met a lot of people. Goodness knows it isn't that. It isn't just that... it isn't... it's... it's despicable.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by PsyLiam: Wondering out loud, do we know that the NCC-1701 was the first ship to be refit to look like that? Is there anything to say that there weren't Connies built in, say, 2270 that looked like that?
The answer is, most pointedly, no.
Take a drink every time someone uses the term "sub-class."
I'm inclined to call the Yeager an Intrepid-class variant for the same reason I'm inclined to call the Centaur an Excelsior-class variant: It's the only "official" designation it's ever been given. (That is, of course, providing that "Yeager-class" is a fan-originated term, as Sol System said.)
Of course, that designation does screw a lot with the Intrepid being NCC-74600. Oh, well...
-MMoM
-------------------- The flaws we find most objectionable in others are often those we recognize in ourselves.
Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
)![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
