posted
^too subtle; how about derivative for the latter? So the Yeager would be an Intrepid derivative.
-------------------- "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 problem with trying to place the Yeager in the same class designation as the Intrepid, is that the Nebula-class ships would all then have to be referred to as Galaxy-class, Nebula-variant starships instead.
Highly illogical.
-------------------- “Those people who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do.” — Isaac Asimov Star Trek Minutiae | Memory Alpha
Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
And because of reasons like that, even the US Navy calls ships, with no sisters, their own class, whether or not the ship was based off another design or not. Such was the case of the first American carrier, the USS Langley. She was modified from the USS Neptune, a Jupiter class collier. She also had no sisters, but still the Navy called it a Langley class carrier.
-------------------- Is it Friday yet?
Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
Shik
Starship database: completed; History of Starfleet: done; website: probably never
Member # 343
posted
USS Jupiter. Not Neptune.
-------------------- "The French have a saying: 'mise en place'—keep everything in its fucking place!"
Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
Sorry I'm coming into this post very late; I was away for a week on vacation in Myrtle Beach working on tan maintenance.
Anyway...
According to the gist I got from DD's emails, these kitbashes (including the Yeager) were never supposed to be taken seriously. They were only supposed to be seen at an extreme far-away distance, so that the overall shapes & parts used would not be identifiable on screen. How the Centaur got so close to the screen is a mystery to me.
As far as the "Yeager: Intrepid variant or separate class?" debate is concerned, let's look at this from another angle. This model, like all the others, was not meant to be taken seriously as a Starfleet vessel. One might even say that the ship was built as a joke. The sticking point here is that two separate Star Trek ships were used to make the model. What if that were not the case? Let's just say that instead of using a Maquis raider as a secondary hull, they used, say, a model kit of a Volkswagon Bug. I really doubt that anyone here would be seriously debating the class/variant issue, because it would just be too stupid to ponder. But that's basically what's going on here.
-------------------- "A film made in 2008 isn't going to look like a TV series from 1966 if it wants to make any money. As long as the characters act the same way, and the spirit of the story remains the same then it's "real" Star Trek. Everything else is window dressing." -StCoop
Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
I feel the same way regarding the Elkins and Yeager. But as far as the latter goes, joke or not, it cannot really be ignored as it has been clearly identified on screen. I guess what we're trying to do is explain how such a vessel might exist, and how it would fit into the fleet.
Hope you had a nice vacation...
-------------------- "To the Enterprise and the Stargazer. Old girlfriends we'll never meet again." - Scotty
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
