How many people accepts this as the Niagara Class Starship
[This message was edited by Brown_supahero on March 29, 1999.]
Posted by The Vorlon (Member # 52) on :
Basically, yes.
------------------ Lyta Vorlon: "Our great mistake. Our failing. And now your failing. The error is compounded." Delenn: "What mistake?" Lyta Vorlon: "The first one, the one from which all mistakes proceed: The error of Pride..."
No one should, since the design is in no way canon and I doubt it will ever be.
------------------ http://frankg.dgne.com/ Blitzwing: "If I want to know what's on your mind, I'll splatter it on the wall and see for myself!"
Posted by Lindsly on :
Yes.
Posted by Fabrux (Member # 71) on :
I'm don't know what to believe.
I saw a conjectural version of the Niagara-class at the Starship Encyclopedia, and it looks like this:
If you ask me, this one looks FAR better than the one posted above.
[This message was edited by Fabrux on March 24, 1999.]
Posted by Elim Garak (Member # 14) on :
I sort of accept it. I agree with the Ambassador/Galaxy idea, but I'm not sure I like how they went about it.
------------------ "Audaces fortuna juvat." "Fortune favours the bold."
[This message was edited by Elim Garak on March 24, 1999.]
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Accept that design? Not on your life...
Well, not until they put it onscreen, anyway. Which they'd better damn well not!
------------------ "I fart in your general direction!" -John Cleese, Monty Python and the Holy Grail
Posted by Warped1701 (Member # 40) on :
I'd have to agree with TSN. No offense to LUG, but that is one of the worst starship designs I've ever seen. Many a cut and paste job is better than that one.
------------------ Risk is our business! That's what this starship is all about....that's why we're aboard her!"
Posted by Ryan McReynolds (Member # 28) on :
Uh, that wasn't the LUG design... that was the Fact Files design. Same sentiment applies, regardless: it's still incredibly ugly.
------------------ -=Ryan McReynolds=-
Posted by Montgomery (Member # 23) on :
No! No! Kill the Fact Files! Die! Make them suffer!
I don't accept the triple-nacelled thing as a Niagara. Hell, I don't even believe the one-nacelle theory on the Freedom. If it ain't loud and proud on the screen, I question it.
------------------ "To appear in an Ernie Wise play...is the final accolade" "Look at me and say that" "Accolade." "AH-hahaha!"
Posted by Bernd (Member # 6) on :
Unlike Frank I think I have to accept the design, unless it can be proven the ship actually doesn't look like this or doesn't exist at all. My opinion is based on the undeniable fact that the Fact Files have shown only reliable starship schematics so far, including some starships that have never been identified before, but turned out to look like they are depicted, such as the Freedom class. There is no nonsense in the fact Files except for some wrong starship specs. The DS9TM has more flaws, including schematics that are totally messed up. Finally, why should someone draw such an intentionally ugly ship, while the kitbasher does not have that many choices to build a model and might feel as if he has to build a bizarre ship?
No need to mention I *hate* the Niagara design.
I agree that the ship seems to be unusually inaccurate, compared to other ships in the FF. Some thoughts about how the ship could have been assembled, assuming that a USS Princeton kitbash was used for Wolf 359:
1) The saucer seems to be the same as of the Freedom class (which is authentic), except that it is not so wide. If the saucer actually looks like this, it has to be the same width. The question is how the saucer was made (or more precisely: two of them). However, it could be a completely different saucer (Galaxy, preliminary Ambassador?) as well, the illustrator was not informed about it, and just copied and pasted an existing design, but changed the proportions accidentally or for some reason I can't reproduce.
2) The neck, if it is that short, could be made of any piece of plastic.
3) The engineering hull strongly resembles the Ambassador class, but seems to have fewer decks. Here the image is consistent with the saucer size. The shuttlebay tail is shortened compared to the Ambassador. Since there was no Ambassador kit at that time, I have no idea what they actually used. Maybe the engineering hull was custom-made but not detailed, anyway, in this case the smaller hull would not have been supposed to resemble the Ambassador version. So this could be another flaw of the depicted image. The Ambassador hull would have been taken as the basis for the image just for convenience.
4) It is obvious the nacelles are taken from the Galaxy, or the illustrator believed that. Note that there are the same attachments to the nacelles the Freedom is supposed to have. These parts are not visible on the Wolf 359 Freedom class, however, there is no reason to believe the draftsman "invented" them for his schematic. The question is if the Niagara has them too or if he was just too lazy to remove them. Assuming the saucer is authentic, the huge nacelles are even a bit too *small* compared to the Freedom saucer-nacelle sizes. If the Freedom is a kitbash using the nacelles of the 18" Galaxy, could it be the Niagara actually has the small nacelles of the 10" version? The ship wouldn't necessarily look better with them, but much more plausible. I fear the ship has actually three nacelles, for this is an informtaion that can hardly get lost.
5) The nacelle pylons being a bit strange, this could be a sign they might actually look this way.
If I had been to design the ship, I would have taken the saucer and engineering hull as depicted, and I would have added two text marker custom-made nacelles in a position a bit lower than the depicted upper nacelle pair. It could have been a nice design.
I think I'm going to go with it. Yes, it's ugly, but it's as close to canonical as the Niagara will ever be. Just as there are the four "FC ships," we now have the four "Wolf 359 Kitbashes" - the Rigel-, Challenger-, Freedom- and Niagara-classes.
*Zathras speak* At least there is symmetry. . . 8)
------------------ Space Corps Directive #723: Terraformers are expressly forbidden from recreating Swindon.
Posted by Aethelwer (Member # 36) on :
Here's a diagram of the Saber:
This diagram is correct, as far as we know. Thus, it has been established in your mind that I post accurate diagrams.
Now here's a picture of the USS Typo, which some of you might recognize:
I say that this is the Niagara-class. Do any of you believe me?
True, this isn't the same situation as with the Fact Files, but we have absolutely no evidence that the FF diagram is correct. It very well could have been made up, regardless of the validity of past diagrams.
------------------ http://frankg.dgne.com/ Motormaster: "Megatron's in trouble!" Dead End: "Who cares?" Wildrider: "It looks like Starscream's defeated him!" Dead End: "So?"
Posted by Bernd (Member # 6) on :
Frank: You seem to assume the Niagara schematic is wrong unless someone proves it is correct. We have no evidence for many of the classes and registries in the Encyclopedia, and nevertheless we believe it. There is no reason to regard the Fact Files as "less canon".
They could make things up, but honestly, would they draw such an ugly and illogical ship if it didn't exist?
Posted by Aethelwer (Member # 36) on :
The encyclopedia is semi-canon, so we believe it unless we have reason not to.
As for that last statement, ask FASA or LUG.
------------------ http://frankg.dgne.com/ Motormaster: "Megatron's in trouble!" Dead End: "Who cares?" Wildrider: "It looks like Starscream's defeated him!" Dead End: "So?"
Posted by Identity Crisis (Member # 67) on :
Why can't starships be ugly and illogical?
Just wondering.
------------------ -->Identity Crisis<--
Posted by Bernd (Member # 6) on :
The difference between FASA or LUG and FF is that the latter claims to be official. Agreed, they could start making up things and telling us they're authentic, but they obviously didn't. I don't have the issue yet, but when I asked for Niagara ship specs, Steve told me there was really nothing, only the drawings (in color and the usual black-green/yellow/blue... schematics). They surely know how to fill four pages without telling anything. If they had tried to make the FF more interesting, they would have invented some specs as well. The other ships don't have specs either, for the sake of consistency (or to veil the inconsistency).
Posted by Lindsly on :
The Star Trek: The Next Generation companion lists the following kit bashed designs in "The Best of Both Worlds" 2- 1. Challenger 2. Cheyenne 3. Freedom 4. New Orleans 5. Niagara 6. Rigel 7. Springfield
I accept the word of the companion as canonical.
Posted by Aethelwer (Member # 36) on :
The reason I find this most implausable is that the FF diagram uses an Ambassador body. Where would the VFX people have gotten that? The actual model is still intact.
The Niagara could be a kitbash, sure. Or it could be a study model. Or a salami with nacelles if the VFX crew were getting bored.
------------------ http://frankg.dgne.com/ Motormaster: "Megatron's in trouble!" Dead End: "Who cares?" Wildrider: "It looks like Starscream's defeated him!" Dead End: "So?"
Posted by Lindsly on :
Shadow: Do you have confirmation that there was only one Ambassador Class model in existence in 1991? Could there have been two models-a study model and a model like the USS Enterprise? If I understand what the Encyclopedias are conveying about the New Orleans class model, a study model is made before the actual model for filming is built. Since there was no close up of the USS Kyushu, only the study model was made.
Posted by Aethelwer (Member # 36) on :
There could've been a study model, but I doubt they would tear it up for BoBW.
BTW, is there anything in the junkyard scenes that looks anything like the FF diagram?
------------------ http://frankg.dgne.com/ Motormaster: "Megatron's in trouble!" Dead End: "Who cares?" Wildrider: "It looks like Starscream's defeated him!" Dead End: "So?"
Posted by Lindsly on :
Hard to say. There were ships that remained largely intact-USS Kyushu, USS Ahwahnee, USS Tolstoy (BTW, could anyone explain to me when a ship is destroyed or not destroyed? I believe that when a starship like the USS Melbourne or the USS Valley Forge has about 70 to 80% of its hull intact, this ship is not destroyed. She is just heavily damaged. Yet she can be restored to full operational capacity within a period of time. However, I see sites showing the USS Valley Forge destroyed or the USS Melbourne destroyed. How are these ships destroyed so that they are no longer usable?); there were ships that are junks of metal-USS Buran. The USS Princeton could be one of these. BTW, has anyone conclusively identified the starships that appeared on the Enterprise D's screen? I know that there was a starship on the bottom of the screen that didn't seem to have a Galaxy Class type saucer. Could this be the USS Princeton?
Posted by The359 (Member # 37) on :
*remembers something*
*runs and sticks BoBW II tape in*
Is it just me, or is THAT the Niagara?!
The scene where Shelby says 'Kyushu, Tolstoy, Melbourne', there is that big ship looming at the top of the screen. Everyone thought it was the Nebula. But doesn't it look strangely like the Niagra, turned upside down? Possibly with different pylons on the nacelles, but it looks strickingly farmiliar! Is this really it?
------------------ "The one, the only, THE 359!"
Posted by The359 (Member # 37) on :
*remembers something*
*runs to get BoBW tape*
*drops jaw*
Is THAT the Niagara?!
In the scene where you can see the damaged fleet from the viewscreen, that big ship on top looks like the Niagara, turned upside down, with the exception of its nacelle pylons. Is that really it?!
------------------ "The one, the only, THE 359!"
Posted by Lindsly on :
My answer is yes. Go to site: http://www.uni-siegen.de/dept/fb12/ihi/bs/startrek/schematics/cheyenne/wolf359-1.jpg. Bernd has a picture of the scene in question. A rough map-
* Unknown ship
*USS Ahwahnee
*USS Kyushu
*USS Princeton
*USS Enterprise *USS Tolstoy
*USS Buran
Posted by Lindsly on :
The system messed my map up. The idea of the map was that the USS Enterprise traveled past the USS Buran, past the USS Tolstoy, into the heart of the battle field. The viewscreen shows the USS Kyushu to the left, an unknown ship to the center, the USS Ahwahnee to the left, and the USS Princeton above the Enterprise. BTW, Mike Okuda wrote that the Nebula Class starship wasn't really visible in the episode. This was one of the factors that led to the filming of the USS Melbourne as an Excelsior Class ship.
Posted by Aethelwer (Member # 36) on :
Here's the map:
* Unknown ship
*USS Ahwahnee
*USS Kyushu
*USS Princeton
*USS Enterprise *USS Tolstoy
*USS Buran
------------------ http://frankg.dgne.com/ Motormaster: "Megatron's in trouble!" Dead End: "Who cares?" Wildrider: "It looks like Starscream's defeated him!" Dead End: "So?"
[This message was edited by The Shadow on March 25, 1999.]
Posted by Aethelwer (Member # 36) on :
And the image you wanted is here. I can't see any ships below the Kyushu, though...is this the right one?
------------------ http://frankg.dgne.com/ Motormaster: "Megatron's in trouble!" Dead End: "Who cares?" Wildrider: "It looks like Starscream's defeated him!" Dead End: "So?"
Posted by The359 (Member # 37) on :
YES! Thats it, in the upper right! You can see two nacelles, but the one nacelle is situated in the center of the model, slightly forward of the other nacelle. The nacelles also appear to be larger then the saucer
------------------ "The one, the only, THE 359!"
Posted by Aethelwer (Member # 36) on :
Er...that could be anything...I always thought it was the Nebula...
------------------ http://frankg.dgne.com/ Motormaster: "Megatron's in trouble!" Dead End: "Who cares?" Wildrider: "It looks like Starscream's defeated him!" Dead End: "So?"
Posted by Lindsly on :
The map shows the path of the Enterprise through the battlefield. The ST:TNG Companion states that there were eight models in the battlefield-USS Ahwahnee (Cheyenne), USS Buran (Challenger), USS Chekov (Springfield), USS Firebrand (Freedom Class), USS Kyushu (New Orleans), USS Melbourne (Nebula), USS Princeton (Niagara), and USS Tolstoy (Rigel). This ship appears to be upside down. Two nacelles are present. One is on the port side. The other is about center of the ship. Nacelles are identified by the starfleet logo and appear to be Galaxy Class. The saucer could be a Galaxy or Ambassaodor Class. Is this a Challenger? No. Wrong nacelles. Is this a Sprinfield? Possibly Is this a Freedom? No. Wrong amount of nacelles. Is this a Nebula? No. Placement of nacelles is wrong. Is this a New Orleans? No. There is no nacelle in the center of the hull. Is this a Niagara? Very likely. Niagara is said to have three nacelles. Is this a Rigel? No. Rigel has two nacelles on upper hull and one beneath. I have a possible design for the Niagara. Imagine an Ambassador Class starship with three Galaxy Class nacelles on the upper hull supported by Galaxy Class nacelles. Sort of like the future Galaxy Class Enterprise only this time with an Ambassador Class superstructure. What do you think?
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Erm... Where are you guys coming up w/ two nacelles visible? I only see the one...
------------------ "I fart in your general direction!" -John Cleese, Monty Python and the Holy Grail
Posted by Lindsly on :
When I wrote the earlier entry, I was tired and made mistakes. Yes, I know Sprinfield should be Springfield Let's try that description of the Niagara again, shall we? The USS Niagara and her sister ships are based on an Ambassador Class design. She has three nacelles. The port and starboard galaxy class pylons and nacelles are attached at the same location on the hull as the former Ambassador Class pylons and nacelles. This is to provide space for the third nacelle. A third Galaxy Class nacelle is connected to the hull by a special pylon. Attachment is a little forward of the attachments for the port and starboard nacelle on the center axis of the upper secondary hull. This would rendered the diagram from FF as erroneous. This may make the Niagara Class not only more attractive, but even more logical. Would someone care to draw this revised class of ship?
Posted by Lindsly on :
TSN: The nacelles of the USS Enterprise D carry the starfleet logo of the stylized triangle on the top surface of the nacelles. This logo can be seen on the second nacelle near where the viewscreen curves.
Posted by CaptSershek on :
I tend to agree with the evidence so far that that is the Niagara class Princeton, like I mentioned in the Challenger discussion, it's not pretty but it's the best thing that's close to what's on the screen.
------------------ Remember when we used to be explorers? - Capt. Jean-Luc Picard - Star Trek Insurrection
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Okay, I think I see what you're talking about, but, in that vidcap anyway, it just looks like a discolored spot. And, if it is a SF logo, it isn't necessarily on a nacelle.
However, despite that, it does look it could be a nacelle. But why does there have to be a third one? There are still only two visible...
------------------ "I fart in your general direction!" -John Cleese, Monty Python and the Holy Grail
Posted by Fabrux (Member # 71) on :
Lindsly: Is this what you're thinking of?
------------------ "They must thinks there's still Romulans on board!" "They're right!!"
[This message was edited by Fabrux on March 27, 1999.]
Posted by Lindsly on :
Fabrux: The image is not appearing. Can you fix the problem? When the problem is fixed, I will then be able to say.
Posted by Fabrux (Member # 71) on :
Lindsly: It comes up on my computer. Can everyone else see the pic?
Posted by The Vorlon (Member # 52) on :
The problem is that the image is a BMP. Save it as something else (GIF, JPEG or PNG), change the link and it'll work fine.
------------------ Lyta Vorlon: "Our great mistake. Our failing. And now your failing. The error is compounded." Delenn: "What mistake?" Lyta Vorlon: "The first one, the one from which all mistakes proceed: The error of Pride..."
If I'm not mistaken, the image should be there now. The red runs a little bit but the program I use does that when converting a BMP to a JPG. Still, it looks the same.
------------------ "They must thinks there's still Romulans on board!" "They're right!!"
Posted by Aethelwer (Member # 36) on :
Don't use PNG. PNGs are for weirdos and people with fleet charts.
------------------ http://frankg.dgne.com/ Vortex: "It just don't pack the punch it used to..." Swindle: "Yeah, because we're out of energy, dummy."
Posted by The Vorlon (Member # 52) on :
So are Macs (minus the ppl with Fleet Charts).
(Frank is just jealous because he has a hard time opening PNGs. Must be that Mac, I'm tellin' ya...)
------------------ Lyta Vorlon: "Our great mistake. Our failing. And now your failing. The error is compounded." Delenn: "What mistake?" Lyta Vorlon: "The first one, the one from which all mistakes proceed: The error of Pride..."
My Mac opened the PNG file without problem. I was able to convert it to a jpeg for my own use. For the record, I used a shareware program called Graphic Converter. Still looking forward to more ships, the list grows.
------------------ Remember when we used to be explorers? - Capt. Jean-Luc Picard - Star Trek Insurrection
Posted by Lindsly on :
Fabrux: The image matches with my description. Thank you for creating the image. Now, that we have an image, what is the general consensus among our fellow members as this being the genuine image of the Niagara Class? BTW, this design looks functional and as a step toward the Galaxy Class starship.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
I still don't understand why there needs to be a third nacelle...
------------------ "I fart in your general direction!" -John Cleese, Monty Python and the Holy Grail
Posted by Aethelwer (Member # 36) on :
Yay! Another Mac user. I actually have an old version of GraphicConverter...I ought to get the new one...
------------------ http://frankg.dgne.com/ Vortex: "It just don't pack the punch it used to..." Swindle: "Yeah, because we're out of energy, dummy."
Posted by Warped1701 (Member # 40) on :
I can't say I agree with a starship that has 3 nacelles either. An even number always seemed more logical to me.
------------------ "We choose to do this and more. Not because it is easy, but because it is hard." -- John F. Kennedy
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Well, regardless of anyone's opinion of three-nacelled ships, the fact remains that there are, at most, two visible in the picture...
------------------ "I fart in your general direction!" -John Cleese, Monty Python and the Holy Grail
Posted by Lindsly on :
To everyone: I accept the Niagara Class starship as three nacelle because somewhere in a forum I read that Rick Stenbach gave this class three nacelles. One further point-the closer of the two nacelles closer to us is more forward than the other nacelle. This configuration agrees with the future USS Enterprise D. And, btw, if the ship has two nacelles, why is not more of the saucer showing and why is the nearer nacelle more forward than the other?
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
OK, looking at the vidcap, i agree with this hypothesised niagra, I think the burnt out/turned off port nacelle of the pic in the top right of the starship - might be confusing people - but you can discern the starfleet logo on the top side of the nacelles, (remember this ship is upside down)
yes the topmost (of the viewscreen) is further forward - and does seem to fit nicely with the alternate future E-D - but if people don't always like the idea of three nacelles - whats wrong with having a forth on the bottom - in the center...
sorta like a + when viewed front on, not that i'm say thats what i think i can see, i can't...
you know what i mean
3rd Chap!
Andrew
------------------ Alamaraine, count to four...
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
does the saucer section have to be ambassador? - I was looking at it upside down - and the saucer looked at little like the constitution refit saucer - i.e. the sudden bulge in the middle and the horizontal strip at the back of the saucer for the impulse engines, just infront of the middle nacelle?
Andrew
------------------ Alamaraine, count to four...
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
also, reguarding the factfiles, nacelles, for the niagra, maybe it might be partially legit, maybe they DID get the idea for the alternate future E-D from this ship - look at the FF nacelles - they have those strips on the tops of them - although, maybe the person that put this FF picture together, knew there were three nacelles, except but the middle nacelle on the bottom by mistake - look at the shadowing on the pylons, it looks as if one of them was supposed to be a single standing nacelle, and that the other was part of a double pair - maybe the person that did this pick, found it too difficult to put that third middle nacelle in behind the other nacelle, and instead just stuck it on the bottom!?!
Andrew
------------------ Alamaraine, count to four...
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
The so-called "topmost" nacelle is not farther forward. The reason it looks that way is that the other nacelle is missing its entire Bussard assembly...
------------------ "I fart in your general direction!" -John Cleese, Monty Python and the Holy Grail
[This message was edited by TSN on March 28, 1999.]
Posted by Bernd (Member # 6) on :
I can see a port nacelle, Galaxy type, and a Galaxy type pylon. The other thing is definitely another nacelle, however, note the two nacelles are not parallel. So the other nacelle could have been ripped off as well. When I tried to reconstruct the saucer outline, I managed to get its centerline parallel to the port nacelle, but not to the mid nacelle.
If you ask me about the ship's class, I don't think it's a Nebula anymore. It's probably one of the kitbashes, either Niagara or Springfield.
