Wikia

Memory Alpha

Talk:Akira class

37,507pages on
this wiki

Back to page

Past and special-purpose discussions related to this article can be found on the following subpages:
Help icon
Akira class/archive

Memory Alpha talk pages are for improving the article only.
For general discussion on this subject, visit the forums at The Trek BBS.


Talk:USS Rabin Edit

Name source Edit

This requires a valid source of some sort. --Gvsualan 06:06, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This ship is listed as being the registry applied to a CGI of an Akira-class ship image seen in Star Trek: Fact Files #117 -- which means it was used onscreen in one of the Akira's appearances, but i cant see whether it was one of the Akiras in Star Trek: First Contact or one of the ships in VOY: "Message in a Bottle" -- but this might be one of the CGI Dominion war vessels, possibly from the Chin'toka battles. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 14:38, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thats what I was stating... --Gvsualan 18:21, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This is a gray area-- we know this ship appeared on Trek since the studio CGI model was labeled Rabin at some point, but there are three separate occasions where it might have been used -- none of the situations i listed have good conditions for identifying ship names. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 18:27, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm wondering if maybe the Rabin was this ship which has a registry semi-readable from "Tears of the Prophets" or if that was a reuse of the USS Thunderchild, or USS Spector? But as it stands, we have 3 Akira's referring to "Message in a Bottle", but nothing pointing specifically at "TotP". Here is a link to Flare on the topic. It doesnt really help much, and it seems to contradict at one point the part Captainmike wrote above "registry applied to a CGI of an Akira-class ship image seen in Star Trek: Fact Files #117 -- which means it was used onscreen" that the Thunderchild never got re-named?? --Gvsualan 13:28, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Under the current canon policy the publication Star Trek: Fact Files is a Restricted Validity Resource IF the information actually came from the production staff. Assuming that, the policy explicitly permits this article to exist, provided it is noted as non-canon. I will make the notation. Aholland 03:48, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Um... if an article is non-canon, that means it has to be deleted, or at the very least merged with another article (Fact Files, perhaps?). In any case, this whole Restricted Validity Resource stuff is a bit, um... I dunno. It's something else, I tell you. --From Andoria with Love 23:54, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Very well, we can go for deletion then. My understanding was that wasn't what was desired from a policy, but it's fine by me. Until the policy is amended to provide for deletion of all articles from sources such as this, though, it needs to be labeled as non-canon, not labelled that we aren't really sure if it is canon or not. The current label makes it appear that Memory Alpha has no idea what it is doing, and just blowing in the wind as regards in-universe material. That loss of credibility would be a big problem, I believe. Aholland 03:15, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Fact Files imageEdit

While I'm not 100% aware of the origin of all Fact Files images, I was fairly sure that all "CGI" starships were created as renders from the filming CGI models themselves, without alterations. Meaning that, if there was a computer generated brand schematic of Rabin with registry printed appearing in Fact Files, that means the model was altered like that for use in the show.

The Fact Files did create original graphics, but did not create (to my knowledge) any new high-quality 3D images of ships from the show -- only images of their existing 3D CGIs were used -- meaning the Rabin must've been used somewhere like that. Similar to the physical models for USS Valkyrie, USS Trinculo, and others -- they were the studio models, relabled for a filming use, but without our awareness of what episode those names/registries might've been labeled/filmed -- Captain M.K. Barteltalk 02:31, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

It is an assumption without basis, though, that the model was used. It could have been created and discarded, or created and used liberally - we just don't know. For example, some costumes have been created over the years and not used in filming because the producers changed their minds and took another direction - that doesn't make the discarded costume canon, does it? And neither should this without more definitive proof it was ever used. Aholland 03:15, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Anything More on Cites?Edit

Does anyone have anything more definitive on this ship other than it appears to have been created as a CGI sometime and never actually seen used in an episode or movie? Aholland 16:34, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, I have to check my Fact Files collection on Monday to be absolutely sure, but IIRC FF articles are written from an in-universe POV. Hence, I doubt that they claim a CGI model was labelled Rabin. --James Cody 23:33, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Some Basic Source InfoEdit

I just stumbled across this Akira debate--maybe I can help without zeroing some future value on my notes. For the record: three or four ship names and numbers were all pre-approved for the four CGI ships of First Contact--"approved," as in Mike Okuda/art dept. got Berman to OK them so that in the heat of the moment the ILM CGI people (and CGI was new, remember) could drop them on the CG models and go--since everything like approvals is so heightened on a movie. I personally saw the approved names page at the time; in my 1999 interview with Alex Jaeger about all this at ILM, I saw his copy and jotted down all the names and numbers. This has never been published--but this is where Akira, Thunderchild, Rabin and Spector (that spelling) comes from, and the numbers. MY list had 635 for Rabin and 655 for T-child...I may have them swapped; I am attempting to check this with Alex as of today, since it is such a confusion factor now. The CGI file we got for Fact Files had -635...but no name.

Other clarifications: The ST Magazine text article is mine (see vague, upfront credits list ), from that interview; the other ships' comments and info remains unpublished. I had Alex circle and mark up with callouts the ship diagrams from the four ships, all from xeroxes from the Encyclopedia, as we did not have CGI files at that time. (Sadly, of course, the artist intention is not always carried out, or back then the elements were all in a vacuum--a siatuation more modern CGI use has slimmed down, TV and movies alike. But at least I have them). And yes, all CGI in the Fact Files was direct from the files obtained from Foundation or Digital Muse/Eden. ILM wanted a ton of money, but by the time "scary new" CGI was being comfortably dealt with, all these files had passed to the (much easier/cheaper to deal with) TV FX vendors for series use.

I am apologizing for the text choices in the first third or so of Fact Files; this was "not my dept" but was eventually cracked down on, but not before the rep was damaged. In their defense, the Brits *were* promised this huge degree of tech and source detail they were used to having for resources with their other techie partworks, and then were left hanging when it didn't exist--no excuse, but that's what happened. I did some tech writing (the topics no one else could "humanize"), but mainly I tracked source refs, imagery and art materials in both the unchartered Licensing archives (some buried, that the dept. didn't even know existed) or from cherished, chased-down personal sources or other sources like the various Trek art departments. The Fact Files get a lot of abuse now, but they pioneered and PAID FOR a lot of research and original art —AND frame grabs, and CGI acquisition—that Pocket Books and other licensees, and even Paramount— never had the stomach to get into. And all at a pre-digital time when the poor 35mm episodic slides and Licensing reference snapshots had been exhausted before weary Trek readers' eyes for years.

So--catalog as you will, on the sliding spectrum of sources--but that's where she lies. Someday I'm going to publish all this stuff; I know it needs to be gathered up. --Larry

Name Canon? Edit

is the class name "Akira Class" mentioned on screen, or readable on any display? --Shisma 14:14, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Probably not, but like Livingston, the name is derived from an official source and avoids the creations of unnecessary "Unnamed Starship class" articles. --From Andoria with Love 02:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

astrometrics screen Edit

hi. does anyone have a picture of the akira appearing in on astrometrics screen in "The Voyager Conspiracy"? does it stat a designation?--ShismaBitte korrigiert mich 19:34, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Only part of the ship is seen, using stock footage from "Relativity", hence, no designation. --Jörg 20:54, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Torpedo launchers Edit

Part I Edit

The DS9 Tech Manual lists 2 for this class, I believe. Someone changed it to 15. What is the basis for the claim it has 15? If none, I'll switch it back to the Tech Manual data. Aholland 17:02, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

The basis for this claim is that their is a quote from the disgner on the very page stating that it has 15 torpedo tubes. The Star trek Starship Spotter also list it as have 15. - Riggers 22:10, 30 April 2006 (GMT)
I think there should be a hidden comment in order to avoid all those edits between 2 and 15 launchers. - Philoust123 22:07, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what a hidden comment is. But I do know that the Star Trek Starship Spotter is not a permitted resource for Memory Alpha. The DS9 Tech Manual - a publically available resource written by production staff at the time of writing - is, to a degree. If there is no other permitted resource for the number of torpedoes, the Tech Manual's number should be the one used in the article, with the other one in background if desired as apocrypha. So, I will ask again in a slightly more formalistic way: Is there any resource that is either a valid resource or a permitted resource (Restricted Validity Resource) under Memory Alpha's policies that supports a number other than 2 for the number of torpedo launchers on this class of ship? If not, the article needs to be modified back to 2; if so, the source should be cited. I will go ahead and revert the article if no permitted resource is cited over the next few days. Aholland 03:20, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Hidden comment : <!-- Please do not change to 15, see discussion page -->. Once the number is agreed by the community, I suggested to put this hidden comment because this number has changed several times. I don't care about how much torpedoes are acceptable on MA, I don't understand anything with starships. I follow this page for the french MA and I don't want to see it change every week between 2 and 15. - Philoust123 12:13, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Where would the comment be put? Just before the text with "2" in it? Aholland 15:17, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

From the episodes it is seen in, it would seem to have a few more than 2. we see it launching torpedo's from the 'rollbar', and a close look there seems to imply several launchers (since the torps were fired from an off centered position.) the close ups show what might be 4 tubes in the roll bar. [1] we also see torps fired from under the saucer, just foreward of the deflector. [2] so you can make a good claim for at least 5 tubes. personally, i'd say 6, assuming it has at least one guarding it's rear. The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.102.25.90 (talk). 15 june 2006
[3] Sorry the pix huge, but there are 15. - AJ Halliwell 02:33, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
ok, having checked the image, first, can we get some normal, non-edited copies of the close up inserts? second, can you support in canon the placement you have claimed? (i've never seen the rear tubes you claim. infact, the orginal preproduction drawing has 7 forward facing tubes in the rollbar, 4 top row and 3 lower row. the side and saucer tubes don't have a preproduction shot that allows counting, although the 3 under, 2 per side layout is probably the intended.) creating a graphic using poorly copied images and a plan drawing does nothing to confirm the 15 tube hypothesis. any one can make an image like that to support their claim. -Mithril 15:15, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Since I don't want to hotlink, [4] Federation>Starships>Akira Class. Two images at the bottom were used (First and Fifth), the graphic is from ST: The Magazine. And Sketches of the various torpedo launcher are in ST: The Magazine as well, I believe the second or third issue (spock on cover) which I no longer own. But being as the designer said "I made a ship with 15 torpedo launchers" and there are 15 torpedo launcher "looking things" on the hull, I really don't think it's that much of a stretch... - AJ Halliwell 01:51, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Hm, I did find [5] this, which points towards the 3 under-launchers. Hm, maybe I remembered wrong about the launcher. Conviniently, that could put the missing launcher on the underside of the saucer, like the image above. ;) See also here (which gives room for the under-saucer launcher), here is what made me think of aft launchers, as that section has the same protrusions as the forward part, and here is the site combining all of it. - AJ Halliwell 02:02, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
While we search for the remaining 4 photon torpedo tubes (possibly 3), I'm going to change the article to reflect the 11 that we have found unless anyone has any disputes? - AJ Halliwell 02:31, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
For those following along, we're at 11 ; heading to 12. ([6] - updated locator graphic) - AJ Halliwell 02:34, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Now that we have the 11 launchers all on the weapons pod itself, I don't need to point out new links to grab the remaining four (and no, none of them are side-pointing): the under-saucer launcher (or, should I say, the under-deflector launcher) and the three on the forward edge of the saucer. Torlek 21:39, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
A Star Trek: The Magazine article, (the one that had the interview with the ships designer) listed the torpedo placements:
"The location of the tubes was given in the article, and is as follows :
Pod: 7 total, 4 in upper section of pod, 3 in lower section, all face forward
Saucer: 7 total, 3 forward below the front shuttle bay doors, 4 in dorsal surface, 2 port, 2 starboard. The latter four face out to port and starboard, respectively - so far as I know these are the only torpedo tubes we've ever seen which don't fire parallel to the direction of motion. Finally there is 1 in the lower hull section, just below the deflector dish."
The above I quoted from Ditl.org, therefore I didn't write it.
Detail of the Forward Pod Launchers (numbered 1-7): Here
Shot of the dorsal hull, (here we can see the pod and 4 launchers (2 port, 2 starboard)) perpindicular to the ships direction: Here
Shot of the ventral hull and deflector, (here we can see the other 4 torpedo tubes (3 just below the forward shuttle bay doors and 1 just under the deflector)): Here
So lets count: Here
15 total launchers in all, with 4 firing either right or left, perpindicular to the ships forward motion and 11 firing forward. Definately a well armed ship. --Avalon304 16:40, 17 December 2006
I'd assume, based on the number of launchers, that they're all the older-style single-shot launchers. As opposed to the Enterprise-D main launcher that could shoot out a volley of five, or the Enterprise-E main turret than can launch a volley of ten in rapid-fire. If these are the older-style (Enterprise-A) launchers, they shoot one at a time with some reload time in between. So fifteen single-launch torpedos (technically 11 forward-facing), isn't such a stretch next to the Enterprise-E that can launch ten in the same time frame with one launcher, with a couple more conventional launchers mounted forward and aft facing. Likely the single-fire would be easier to produce and maintain, and gives you a bit more redundancy once the ship gets damaged (one shot won't take out all your forward torpedos). --User:72.242.39.123
If we are told 15 by the person who designed the ship, it is 15. --User:128.164.212.245
That doesn't match what we have been able to see in canon, and no offense but we can't just take the word of an anonymous contributor saying they talked to the designer. We need proof. --OuroborosCobra talk 19:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm afraid that's not how it is. Alex Jaeger was quoted in Star Trek: The Magazine that the "official" number of launchers is 15. Now, if the designer of the ship and/or Star Trek: The Magazine aren't valid or permittable sources, I find it difficult that the Technical Manuals (which have been known for their inaccuracies) are. I'm not saying the designer's word is gospel, but there's visual evidence of nearing 15 launchers, plus the man said there were 15 launchers. In all likelihood, there are indeed 15 launchers. --66.153.172.41 11:17, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Fortunately, that isn't a problem, as the Tech Manuals are only permitted in the non-canon background sections of articles, not as accepted canon. Therefore, the word of designers that never made it on screen is not being accepted as any less valid than the tech manuals. If someone can find a reliable quote from a designer, than it will get the background note it deserves, but not a canon entry. --OuroborosCobra talk 22:15, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Just keep it as Alex Jaeger says there are 15 launchers as he designed the ship, while the (mysteriously inaccurate) DS9 Tech Manual says there are only 2. And then say neither number conform exactly with what has been seen on screen. Then, as we're sticking to what's on-screen canon, we can go edit the Galaxy class page to say the ship tends to develop a warp core breach when it suffers the slightest bit of damage, especially when it's shields don't work. Hooray! (Note to humour-impaired people - that was meant to be a joke) --FFN 03:11, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
From the Star Trek Fact Files it states that the ship has afew variants and to quote it "With so many ships, and even variations of salvaged hulls, being pressed into service against the Dominion, reports regarding exact armaments and power capacity my not be standard, or accurate, for all ships, but some Akira-Class vessels have, at least, a three-fire capacity in the weapons cluster's forward topedo bays." In basic, some Akira's might have X amount of tubes while some might have Y, also I count over 7 in most pics including side firing tubes which can be useful in battle. Source: The Offical Star Trek Fact Files: File 31 Card 18 -- 86.141.82.184 01:26, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Sorry if this is unwanted, but I think that it is VERY unlikely that 4 torpedoes could be fired out of 1,2 or 3 launchers let alone the 8 shown being fired in Star Trek: First Contact. Just watching First Contact proves that there are at least 8 forward torpedo tubes. TimberWolf 15:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Part II Edit

Someone changed the Tech Manual info to say that the Akira, according to the Manual, has fifteen torpedo launchers instead of two. Is this correct? --From Andoria with Love 05:23, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

No. I'm guessing someone didn't realize the info in that section was specifically from the TM, and just thought it was general stats. --OuroborosCobra talk 06:36, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Fixed it. Source: Page 153 DS9 Technical Manual, ISBN 0-671-01563-X (--Angrytarg (talk) 10:03, March 14, 2014 (UTC))

Part III Edit

Recently, someone changed the informations in the "Technical Manual" section again to get the infamous "fifteen torpedo launchers" in there.

The section reads: "The following information of specifications and defenses comes exclusively from the Star Trek: Deep Space Nine Technical Manual" - and said technical manual lists two photon torpedo launchers. You may add the fifteen torpedo launchers under "Apocrypha" or "Notes" with a citation of the designer's interview in question; however the technical manual says two launchers. --Angrytarg (talk) 14:15, March 30, 2014 (UTC)

Since this keeps happening, anons and new users are no longer allowed to edit the page, and hidden notes will be place to inform people that if they change the number they are an idiot. - Archduk3 22:02, April 23, 2014 (UTC)

Removed Edit

Uncertain

This ship, to the best of my knowledge, has been associated with the Rigel-class starships.Throwback (talk) 13:30, August 10, 2014 (UTC)

Around Wikia's network

Random Wiki