Talk: Akira class

Background information

I want to minimize the speculatory and/or the not so objective aspects of the Background information but are unsure wether i have the Authority or not? --- Valaraukar

I guess you have, after all that's what a Wiki is for - and with 3/4 of the article being unofficial "Background information", I can also see why would want to. IMO, the best way would be to copy all information you deleted from the articles page to this talk page, and state what you don't like about it... -- Cid Highwind 13:40, 18 Jan 2004 (PST)

I too am a little bit concerned about the vast amounts of non-canon information taken as accurate when discussing different types of Federation Starship. I do not recall, for example, the top warp speed of an Akira-class Starship ever being mentioned in an episode or film. In fact, I don't remember the name "Akira-class" ever being mentioned in an episode or film. There seems to be something about Starfleet ships that encourages people to forget all the rules and just make stuff up. Alex Peckover 15:44, Jun 3, 2004 (CEST)

Chronologically, this is somewhat out of place; nevertheless, it's on the same topic. I've removed the following speculation from the talk page

"The Akira-class starship is one of the more controversial ships that has appeared on Star Trek. Originally appearing in First Contact, the design caught the attention of eagle-eyed fans studying the fleeting images of the USS Thunderchild's attack on the Borg cube."

"Although some have speculated that it would be named after something else named Akira in the Star Trek universe. The name "Akira" could mean "light," "bright," "morning sun," or over 40 other meanings in Japanese, depending on the characters chosen for its writing. "Akira" and "Hikaru" (which was used for the name of Hikaru Sulu) can be written with the same Japanese character."

"The first issue in question is the ship's registry number. The most visible representative of the class, the USS Thunderchild, had a registry of NCC-63549 and a noticeable appearance more in line with later ships like the Intrepid-class and the Sovereign-class. To those fans who believe in chronological assignment of registries, the Thunderchild's low number requires some explanation, since it would put the design somewhere around the time of the Nebula-class and before the Galaxy-class."

"For many starship buffs, that figure is simply too large to be credible when considered alongside other Starfleet ships. However, the Sovereign-class USS Enterprise was upgraded for the film Star Trek Nemesis to hold twelve torpedo launchers, which gives credence to the fifteen launchers of the Akira-class. (see: Talk page)"

"However, only three phaser strips can be seen on the model, although given the limited fields of fire of the existing strips it is possible that there are additional emitters to fill in the gaps. (The USS Lakota also had emitters that were not readily apparent on its model.) While two launchers on the Akira may seem too few for some it should be noted that even examples of the Ambassador class, which have two times the volume of the Akira [1], seen later on Star Trek: Deep Space Nine also seem to have only two launchers."

"It should be noted that the ships that the Akira is being compared to are long range multi-mission ships designed to be out for years at a time completing missions as varied as cultural contact, exploration, and scientific research as well as combat. The Akira, which first and foremost a combat vessel would be able to dedicated a much larger portion of its available space to weaponry.

For one, the registry-chronology discussion is a long ago fad that really doesnt need to be explored here without supporting canon evidence. As for the rest, this "information" is rife with speculation and bias that doesn't need to be mentioned here. Second, this should be an encyclopedia, not an analysis page...we can link to Ex Astris if we really want to explore that kind of analysis. --Alan 02:33, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Citations

Other than the appearances, there are absolutely no citations to any of the claims for this ship. Where does the information come from? The Star Trek: Deep Space Nine Technical Manual has information on it, and it is a permitted resource, but that has different data than in the article. Should I simply correct it to be consistent, or are there other valid resources for this that aren't listed and I don't know about? Aholland 01:12, 5 April 2006 (UTC) (And as an aside, I do recognize that the archivists have put numerous sources of data in the background portion, but which is selected and which are permitted needs to be clearer. I still think the DS9 Tech Manual is our best choice at the moment.) Aholland 15:45, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Photon Torpedoes

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 : . 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. [2] we also see torps fired from under the saucer, just foreward of the deflector. [3] 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. User:70.102.25.90 15 june 2006

[4] 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, [5] 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 [6] 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. ([7] - 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)

Akira based on Enterprise

I added a reasonable conjecture to the article, that Starfleet based the design for the Akira on the design of the Enterprise NX-01 (I know I'm not the first person to think of this). It makes sense--especially when you consider how poorly the large, bulky, not-easily-maneuverable Galaxy-class ships performed in the 2360s, both against the Borg and the Dominion--that Starfleet would want to return to a smaller, quicker, more battle-oriented style of starship, and realized that Enterprise would be a good model to base a new design on. Indeed, it does seem that after the destruction of the USS Odyssey Starfleet ships did start to become smaller, sleeker, and more combat-oriented.--Antodav 20:24, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

And now it seems someone has deleted it, along with part of the paragraph that came before it...would it at least be possible discuss deletions on the talk page before making them? Thank you. --Antodav 20:33, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I made the deletion. I did not mean to delete some of the stuff before, but I still don't think that speculation about the Akira design being based on the NX class belongs in background. It is in universe speculation. Most of the stuff in background is about how the model was created, and since the Akira model was made before the NX model, I feel this just doesn't belong here. Maybe it belongs in an earlier section, but in italics there? --OuroborosCobra 20:53, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I just thought of another problem with the theory. If the Akira was designed off of the NX because of the need of a smaller, faster ship to combat the growing threat of the Dominion, it would have had to come into service after the discovery of the Jem'Hadar. Unfortunetly, the Akira came into service in 2368, and the episode where the Jem'Hadar are found (The Jem'Hadar) does not take place until 2370. Therefore, the threat of the Jem'Hadar could not have influenced the design of the Akira looking like the NX class. I am removing the speculation, as by my explanation it no longer makes plausible sense. --OuroborosCobra 07:05, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I re-added the conjecture that the Akira may have been based on the NX-01's design, but left out the part about the Dominion. --From Andoria with Love 16:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

There's also no evidence the Akira was built in 2368, by the way.... -- Captain M.K.B. 16:19, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, I based my statement of 2368 on the fact that it was in the article. Oh well. At least all my mucking about has gotten one bad fact removed. --OuroborosCobra 16:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Couldn't It

Be suggested that Akira classes held Defiant class ships? It would obviously be possible considering the large hangers, and, it is always seen with two Defiant Class ships. NeoExelor 15:33, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

That would be way far fetched speculation. Also, I think that the Defiant class ships are too large to be held inside an Akira. --OuroborosCobra ^talk 15:52, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

According to the measured length and height of the Akira model mentioned in production notes for First Contact, the Akira would have trouble fitting runabouts or Federation fighters in its bays. -- Captain M.K.B. 15:54, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, that lays this argument to rest, I think ;-) Thanks Captain Mike. --OuroborosCobra ^talk 15:58, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Mike, are these production notes published? Otherwise, I'm afraid to say, that they are not Permitted Resources and cannot be used as a reference on or in any page on Memory Alpha without explicit written permission of Paramount Pictures. Additionally, they too must be notarized by Gene Roddenberry himself. I'm sure that since this applies to Proberts design sketches for the K't'inga class, it applies to all the FC ships as well.--Alan del Beccio 16:38, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

IF they predetermined a length and height of the ship when they were filming it, i'd say that is established enough for me.. i'm not sure if you are joking about the rest? -- Captain M.K.B. 15:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

What about inside or on the Akira, like the aeroshuttle on the Voyager? NeoExelor 21:49, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

The aeroshuttle is visible on the outside, and no Defiants are visible on the outside of the Akira. In addition, as has been said, it is likely not large enough to fit them inside. --OuroborosCobra ^talk 21:52, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

If you look close enough, the strange pod on the back of the Akira connecting the pylons (From the top) is the basic shape of a defiant, though not the exact shape. NeoExelor 02:23, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

The look may be similar, but I doubt it. You may be interested in this article, which includes a comparison image of Defiant next to an Akira. The Defiant being about 5 decks high, kinda makes it improbable of docking into an Akira class in anyway. - AJ Halliwell 02:29, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Ive noticed

Misc. hatches on the ship. Can someone tell me what they are? Here is a drawing which I believe to be accurate

[8]

[9] original?

It could be ablative armour (like the newer ships of the Federation have, like the Defiant) or hatches for cargo, what I doubt of course of the shape they have espacially on the front of the primary hull. The rollbar-pod has on its upper site a "hatch-shape", which roughly matches the defiants rendering whith some imagination, but I doubt heavily, that this ship carries ships of the Defiant-Class in it. After all I don't think that the Akira-Class is big enough to carry ships of the Defiant-Class. --Nappo

Changed to external links; as previously concluded: Akira is not big enough to carry a Defiant class ship (see conversation right above this one) I'd presume their just hull hatches- no real purpose, although Cargo seems the most likely. Although the one on the torpedo-rollbar thing may be something that can be switched out like gun clips. (On another note, this image appears to be fan made - not sure it if its accurate or not.) - AJ Halliwell 16:36, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Removed from sidebar

I removed the following from the sidebar. Apparently (can't verify that myself), this info is from the DS9 TM completely. If it is necessary in the article, the only valid place for it would be a background section, not the sidebar. -- Cid Highwind 11:38, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Type:	Heavy cruiser
Length:	465 meters
Width:	317 meters
Height:	87 meters
Mass:	3,055,000 metric tons
Crew:	500
Maximum Speed:	Warp 9.8 for 12 hrs

6 phasers?

Doesn't the Akira have 3 phasers? In all the pictures I have ever seen, I have only managed to pick out 3. Where does the 6 phaser figure come from? 24.63.253.53 02:30, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Name Canon?

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" articles. --From Andoria with Love 02:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Moved from Talk:USS Rabin

I have added source for name, most likely the assassinated former Israeli PM.

A source in the context of "what episode is this from?" -- if there is no episode or film which desrcibes this vessel, then it should be deleted from this database - -Captain Mike K. Bartel^talk 14:35, 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. Bartel^talk 14:38, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thats what I was asking, the unsigned comment was written before I posted my comment. --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. Bartel^talk 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 one of the others? 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 image

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. Bartel^talk 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?

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)

Moved from "Forum:Akira class starship bridge"

hello akiras fans ...i found the blueprints for the bridge of the akira class starship if anything fits the bridge module layout this does ...need to know where to put it so all can see. --User:70.125.30.213

There have been no canon interior shots of the Akira class in Star Trek, therefore there is no legitimate place to put it. --Alan del Beccio 20:45, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Um, nowhere. At least not on Memory Alpha. Those blueprints are most likely completely non-canon. This might be something for the Star Trek Expanded Universe, or Memory Beta. Probably the former. --OuroborosCobra ^talk 20:48, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Some Basic Source Info?

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 all this tech and source detail they wer eused to with tehri other techie partworks, and then left hanging when it didn't exist--no excuse, but that's what happened. I did some tech writing, 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 chased-down personal sources. The Fact Files get a lot of abuse, rightly so, but they pioneered and PAID FOR a lot of research and original art that Pocket Books never had the stomach to get into.

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