posted
I've heard mention of the noticeable differences between the NCC-1017 from "The Doomsday Machine" (TOS) and the NCC-1701 on several occasions, but never noticed any myself.
The Constellation was represented by an AMT model, so I guess the real question is what are the differences between AMT's kit and the TOS studio model?
-Ftk
P.S.
Yes, I know.
I'm about to be cascaded with replies saying things like "Look it up yourself, lazy ass!" and "Do your own fucking research!"
But I don't really care...
-------------------- The flaws we find most objectionable in others are often those we recognize in ourselves.
Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
I've got one of those AMT Enterprises myself... although my model was purchased less than ten years ago -- they certainly could have changed things since the first releases in the 60's...
Obviously there's a great difference in the quality of the materials and detailing on the hull (even considering how un-detailed the studio model was). However, allowing for that, I believe that most of the features are basically the same. It's got the balls on the backs of the nacelles, the small deflector dish, and the lower-draft bridge module. To my eye, I'm perfectly happy to believe that the Constellation is identical to the Enterprise.
As for why the ship looks so much smoother in comparison, well that's easy -- the blasts from the Planet Killer melted the top layer of hull down, and erased all the detailing! (The real world reason being that there wasn't enough detailing on the AMT kit to appear on film in the aired episode.)
But then, you seem to be interested in finding yet ANOTHER variant of the Constitution Class, right? (Sorry, sorry...)
-------------------- “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
quote:Originally posted by MinutiaeMan: But then, you seem to be interested in finding yet ANOTHER variant of the Constitution Class, right? (Sorry, sorry...)
Actually, quite the opposite. I've got some folks on the TrekBBS insisting that differences in the AMT kit are justifiable cause to explain the Constellation's registry number. (It's not "really" a Constituion-class vessel, just a very similar make of starship. ) I wanted to dispute it, but felt like I should have the facts first.
What about the shape of the bridge module? It it teardrop-shaped like the studio model, or egg-shaped like the Franz Joseph prints? Also, how does it compare in profile? (ie, the shape of the secondary hull and saucer curvature, etc...)
-FtK
-------------------- The flaws we find most objectionable in others are often those we recognize in ourselves.
Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
It details all the variations in the different releases of the AMT kit. Quite a few pics, too. (On first impression, it seems as if the bridge was the FJ-style egg shaped one.)
Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
Upon closer examination, it turns out that Masao's right. (So sue me; I'm lazy and didn't get up to look at the ship sitting on the shelf eight feet away from me... )
-------------------- “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
The Deck 2-3 superstructure is egg-shaped, not teardrop... the Constellation also had no balls on the end of her nacelles, so she was clearly one of the earliest AMT model variants. All in all, she was actually midway between the TOS and FJ versions of the ship. I think AMT and FJ both used the original Jeffries drawings as references, since they all make the same errors. Intersting that people rarely remember that FJ's version of the ship is pretty much the one Jeffries drew for The Making of Star Trek.
posted
Well, this is a fairly old debate isn�t it? There are 4 variants of the constitution-class just judging by the nacelles.
Check out my page and se the Constellation, there is also substantial differences on the rear of the saucer: Constitution
-------------------- "The Starships of the Federation are the physical, tangible manifestations of Humanity´s stubborn insistence that life does indeed mean something." Spock to Leonard McCoy in "Final Frontier"
Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Captain-class, Mike-variant:
quote:Originally posted by Ryan McReynolds: the Constellation also had no balls..
aint it the truth though...
I wouldn't say that...Scotty was able to get the gallant lady up and running again with just a few men. He was even able to recharge a phaser bank.
Constellation was a tribute to her class, durable and resiliant. She gave her all for her sister, the Enterprise and deserves to be better spoken of...
Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
Why is everyone talking about the Constellation being made from an AMT model kit? (I know, I've heard the theory myself, but I don't believe it.)
On Star Trek - The Exhibition they displayed the studio model of the U.S.S. Valkyrie. This was the official Constellation studio model first seen as the Stargazer I believe.
This model is about 1.5 metres long. No way this was made from an AMT kit. I have a somewhat crazy theory, yet hear me out before you start bashing...
I think they took the Phase II Enterprise model and used the saucer and nacelles as a basis for the Constellation. Then they added all the other parts to it. Anyone who has "The Art of Star Trek" can look into the chapter on Phase II. The pics of the half-finished Enterprise clearly show it to have a very smooth saucer surface - which would comply with the comments about the Constellation having a very smooth surface. Also look at the shape and the details on the saucer - they seem almost identical to the Constellation.
So much for my theory - comments?
-------------------- Lister: Don't give me the "Star Trek" crap! It's too early in the morning. - Red Dwarf "The Last Day"
Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged
-------------------- Lister: Don't give me the "Star Trek" crap! It's too early in the morning. - Red Dwarf "The Last Day"
Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Starship Freak's site has made me think of something. At one point during "Requiem for Methuselah", the Enterprise is shrunk down and put on a table. As tends to happen. Anyway, the model used has balls on the end of the nacelles. Is this the AMT kit? I didn't think the AMT kit had balls on the end of the nacelles until after the series had finished. And if it's a superior, more accurate version, how come they could afford to build it for this, but not for "The Doomsday Machine"?
-------------------- Yes, you're despicable, and... and picable... and... and you're definitely, definitely despicable. How a person can get so despicable in one lifetime is beyond me. It isn't as though I haven't met a lot of people. Goodness knows it isn't that. It isn't just that... it isn't... it's... it's despicable.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
The two things that jump out at me that I don't think have been mentioned yet are the hangar bay and the impulse engines. It looks like the hangar bay is flattened; it doesn't look quite as round as the Enterprise's. The second thing is that the impulse drive's configuration differs from the Enterprise's. On the Enterprise, she has two rectangles. On the Constellation, I think she had a series of circles or squares (although you can't see much of anything in this picture).
-------------------- The philosopher's stone. Those who possess it are no longer bound by the laws of equivalent exchange in alchemy. They gain without sacrifice and create without equal exchange. We searched for it, and we found it.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
(The real world reason being that there wasn't enough detailing on the AMT kit to appear on film in the aired episode.)![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
(Sorry, sorry...)![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
) I wanted to dispute it, but felt like I should have the facts first.![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
