Talk:Hope class starship (Star Trek)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Given Mike Okuda's interview on the TNG-7 DVD extras, would it not be pertinant to move this article under the title of 'Hope Class Starship' and leave a redirect here? I'd do it myself but I haven't taught myself how to do it yet. :P Despite many fans recognising it as an 'Olympic class vessel,' Okuda's interview is the closest to canon we've got on the subject, and the model department clearly recognise it as a Hope vessel. - Hayter 23:37, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Specs
* Production facility: Marin County Starfleet Yards, Earth * Type: Hospital ship * Dimensions: o Length: 320 m o Height: 96 m o Beam: 90 m * Accommodation: Unknown * Propulsion: o One matter/antimatter reactor powering two warp engines o One impulse engine * Performance: Top speed unknown though warp-capable * Weaponry: o Several phaser strips of unknown type o Possibly other weapons * Defenses: Deflector shields * Auxiliary vessels: Unknown shuttlecraft and/or other vessels in at least one shuttlebay in the engineering hull
Where to start? There's nothing to suggest all the vessels are constructed at Marin County. There's nothing to suggest they're all hospital ships. There's no point mentioning accomodation if you don't know what it is, propulsion systems are unknown, no point mentioning that you don't know the top speed, 'several' is not a legitimate stat nor is "possibly other weapons."
Your specs weren't canon for the Akira, they're not canon here. Stop adding them. - Hayter 09:17, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] USS Brittanic
The image shown appears to be a USS Brittanic NCC 58116. I can't find any canon references to this ship. The image appears to be a fan-made work, as opposed to a screen cap, and the ship itself appears to have been invented by the same fan as a tribute to a hospital ship that served in World War 2. See [|Trekmania for reference.
If this is true, then should the existing image be replaced with an image of a canon ship? I know it's only an image but in the spirit of keeping things verifiable should it be replaced?
Anyone got any thoughts? Rmkf1982 12:23, 22 October 2006 (UTC)