Talk:Intrepid type

Name and specs

The only thing we really know about this ship type is that one of the ships in "The Expanse" and obviously the same ship in "Twilight" was called the Intrepid. All other specs are conjectural. The assumed length of about 170 meters is about correct, though.

Armament

Please provide canon evidence for the Intrepid's armaments. 'They come from another website' is not canon evidence. -- Michael Warren 21:38, 23 Jun 2004 (CEST)

The armament and class information comes from www.bravofleet.com's database, i believe it to be true, your 170 metre length is also conjectural, please take this into account

On www.bravofleet.com there are also specifications and history for the triangular ships also seen in "Twilight" and "The Expanse" the Venus Class

Bravo Fleet is not canon. Whether you believe it or not is, quite frankly, irrelevant. We can say that the Intrepid has phase cannons, but that is about it. The length is based on visual comparison (I believe, although it may be background info from Foundation Imaging). The class speculation is also invalid. Unless we see one on screen and they say 'That's a Neptune-class ship', we can't connect the two. -- Michael Warren 21:51, 23 Jun 2004 (CEST)

Well, for now, write in 3 Phase cannons then

Phase cannons only, no numbers since we don't know those either. -- Michael Warren 22:04, 23 Jun 2004 (CEST)

Specs

It's been a while since I looked at this article, but what's up with the annoyingly precise specs? There's absolutely no basis in fact for a precise length figure of 178.10 meters, because there's no official source to provide such information yet! I have therefore revamped all of the specs to either "approximate" figures (and clearly noting those as such), or removing them entirely and noting them as "unknown" (as in the case of the crew complement, for example). I believe that at least some of these specs previously came from DITL, but I can't prove that. Anyway, the table should now be much more in line with what little we actually know about this ship. -- Dan Carlson | Talk 19:57, Sep 8, 2004 (CEST)

• • We've got the FX-shot of the Intrepid on the page; Assuming it utilizes the very same nacelles as the NX class we can directly compare the top-down views of both ships; And with the NX'es length known (225m), we can measure the size of the Intrepid directly.

TNG Technical Manual

The Intrepid looks like one of the drawings in the Technical Manual for the Nova class starship.

Does anyone have any possible reasons why this ship hasn't been upgraded to the newer warp 5 engine? Is it possible to have it upgraded? (assuming it is a warp 2 vessel)

Upgrades are always possible, it's timing, supplies and personel that matter. The design of the Intrepid (especially it's warp drive) may not permit the installation of a Warp 5 core without extensive modifcations to the Warp Nacelles, deuterium/antideuterium tanks, injector assembly and other warp drive related objects. There is also the possibility that the Warp 5 core is greatly larger than that of a Warp 2, so the Intrepid engineering section may not even be large enough to fit a Warp 5 core. All in all, there are a lot of factors. Enzo Aquarius 23:28, 2 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Older than NX?

The Intrepid is presumably a somewhat older starship than the NX class I doubt it : archer says enterprise is a huge leap forward for earth because previous earth starships were slow (warp 2 or a little bit more). Intrepid has lots of features similar to NX class, i guess it was developped simultaneously as a smaller counterpart. --rami

The Interpid is undoubtably older than the NX class, look at the facts. It's nav dish is smaller than the one on Enterprise, and the specs for the later NX ships state that the nav dish was always a problem because of it's small size and later models have bigger ones. When Admiral Forrest gives Archer the Xindi mission, he tells Archer that Enterprise is the fastest ship in the fleet; if the Intrepid had been designed as a compliment to the NX class, they would share the same Warp 5 engine. Finally, in Twilight, Enterprise and the Intrepid are attacked by the Xindi at Ceti Alpha V. If the Intrepid was as young as Enterprise, she'd have been able to take more of a beating than she did. --Chrizla Mundi, Chief Helmsman on the USS Essex

That is very nice speculation, but speculation is not canon. In addition, it is filled with flaws. Just because a ship is made later does not mean it will be equal or more powerful. The US Navy Arleigh Burke class destroyer was designed and entered service after the Ticonderoga class cruiser, yet it is not as powerful as the Ticonderoga. That is because the Arleigh Burke is designed as a destroyer. It is designed to be less powerful, but cheaper and more numerous, than the Ticonderoga. That could be the same with this ship as well. Cost cutting measures could have been using a smaller, cheaper deflector, and a slower engine, say Warp 4, developed with the Warp 5 technology, but still cheaper. Without actual canon evidence, which we do not have, we should not be stating as canon that this was an older ship. That does not mean we are saying it is newer. It means we are leaving it up to the reader. That is the best we can do at this point. --OuroborosCobra ^talk 13:44, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

This is an old topic, but I feel like I had to comment. I have to agree with Cobra, that the ship is most likely older then the NX class, but I think it's faster then warp two. It looks to advanced for that time period, there was a few years between the achievement of warp three and four before Enterprise was constructed. I've also tried to figure out a deck count, but that's besides the point :P--Terran Officer 04:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

NV class

It's widely accepted, though I admit I don't know the source, that the Intrepid is of the NV class, which predates the NX class. --Simon

"Widely accepted" is not the same as canon. The registry NV-01 and the term "NV class" has never been referenced in Trek, at least not to my knowledge. --From Andoria with Love 03:18, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Now someone has stated the ship as "NA-class". We need a source, otherwise it is not canon. --Pheon 13:32, 14 November 2006 (GMT)

Ack. About a month ago I saw that addition, and I thought I reverted it (being non-canon and all). I guess I did not revert far enough. I have removed references to "NA-class". --OuroborosCobra ^talk 13:46, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Neptune Class

If you look on FileFront's Bridge Commander database, you will find that the Intrepid has been listed as a Neptune Class. Trip mentions that Enterprise shares a command chair design with the Neptune Class Surveyor, and wishes to design him a new chair from scratch; this proves that the Neptune Class does actually exist and is not just a figment of a modder's imagination. --Chrizla Mundi, Chief Helmsman on the USS Essex

It proves that it exists, which no one here doubts. We have an article on it, after all, at Neptune class. What is questioned is whether it was this ship. The modders are the only ones that say that, and they are not canon. In fact, I have seen this class called "Neptune" just as often by the fans. No evidence of that either. --OuroborosCobra ^talk 13:35, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Article Lacking?

Couldn't there be just a little bit more added to the article? I've noticed that on the other starship classes/type pages, there is a bit of a class history that summarizes the known starships (or the famous starships seen in the trek saga, anyways). For instance, a mention could be made about Intrepid being near, if not at sol (or the solar system in general) when the NX-01 came under attack by the Klingon ship. Another mention could be the ship (Was it Intrepid or an unnamed?) being a part of the escort fleet when Enterprise returned home. This is just some ideas, to flesh out the page some. I feel that, even though we did not see the ship/class/type much, there is enough to make more then a few lines of a page. --Terran Officer 04:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Not really. The references you mention are already on the Intrepid page, because they are ship specific references. The "Class"/"Type" pages like this are for class specific references, mostly describing the design itself. I'm sure from the appearances one could extrapolate a timeline for the ship class, but really, there is no point in repeating what is again already referenced on the aforementioned page referring to the specific ship itself. --Alan del Beccio 21:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Very late addition to this point... We don't know if it was the Intrepid or just a ship of the same class. Ergo, on the class page with a "This could be the Intrepid, but no name was given" clarification. Just as we don't know if it was the Prometheus at the end of Voyager, or just a ship of that class. Nor do we have the name of the galaxy class in same said fleet shot, or any other ship there. But, the note isn't (I dont think) put on any of the individual Galaxy-class ships' pages here... admittedly, we only have the one named ship of the Prometheus class, or indeed one ship of this too. by that, I also mean we haven't seen more than one when we have seen either of these 22nd and 24th-century class vessels. That's not to say that in every single shot was it the same ship. 82.42.208.88 19:58, April 30, 2010 (UTC)

Intrepid class

Just wondering, should we rename this as "Intrepid-class (22nd century)" here too instead of the unofficially descriptive "Intrepid-type", since Doug Drexler calls this Intrepid-class in his blog^(X), which is among valid sources for naming unnamed things seen on screen. The Intrepid-class name was also picked up by the novels and is the official apocryphal name for this class. --Pseudohuman (talk) 23:40, February 15, 2013 (UTC)

I would tend to disagree for now, since he also uses Intrepid-type in the description for the unnamed ship, which suggests to me he is using "class" because of the novels. I didn't read all the comments, so I might have missed it if it was already brought up, but I would feel better if we had a definitive quote on this. - Archduk3 01:06, February 16, 2013 (UTC)