Hi everybody. I'm looking for pictures or plans of the Baton Rouge class cruiser from "The Chronicals of Space Flight". If anyone can help I would be most grateful.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
You'd never be able to use a search engine for that.
Posted by Spike (Member # 322) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon: You'd never be able to use a search engine for that.
Come now, our Woody member may not be aware of our search engine feature.
Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :
Yah... or Google.
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
Jeez, you guys are harsh sometimes. Personally I'm glad to be asked to put my knowledge of obscure stuff to use.
Virtually all of the ships from the Spaceflight Chronology may be seen here.
-MMoM Posted by Captain Boh (Member # 1282) on :
Its really annoying when people tell you to go look onm Google when you ARE looking on Google and can't find anything
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
I'm talking about in general, not on this topic
Posted by Woody (Member # 1337) on :
You guys sound like you are a lot of fun. I appreciate the links but I have all those images already. I have seen, while surfing the net, some fan produced CG images and a very nice three view drawing. I must have been a sleep at the wheel because I didn't save the images. I'm building a 1/1000 scale model for a FSM scratchbuilding group project. If you run across any pics please think of me. Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Good man! There is already several Baton Riuge class ships in that scale (under construction) and I'll dig you up the links.
I take it you're using the Polar Lights kit as a basis to start from?
Posted by Woody (Member # 1337) on :
Jason, I would really appreciate those links! I'm not using any kit parts. I'm starting from scratch with plexiglass and styrene sheet. The main inspiration will be the painting from "Chronicals". If your familiar with this image it leaves the neck area in doubt. Most interpretations of the design seem to baddly want to add convex shape to the top and bottom of the saucer but I don't see it in the painting (who knows about the bottom side). By the way there is a fellow getting ready to offer a resin kit of the Triton class from "The Chronicals of Space Flight" and it looks pretty good if the pics of the masters are any indication.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
You a member of Starshipmodeler.com? CHeck the forums. There's an ongoing 1:1000thread over there and they're even scartchbuilding the Kobaysai Maru.
Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
I'd like to see someone work out that neck section in a proper way! As you said, most CG work makes something hideous out of it, completely ruining the otherwise fine design.
Posted by Woody (Member # 1337) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon: You a member of Starshipmodeler.com? CHeck the forums. There's an ongoing 1:1000thread over there and they're even scartchbuilding the Kobaysai Maru.
Yes I'm a member. The builder of the Kobyasu Maru has found out that he is actually building the Tritium Class cruiser. http://www.stguardian.to/mixed/spacechron/tritiumbeauty.jpg This is also the ship that will be offered as a kit.
Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
Here's a render of USS Baton Rouge and USS Mann sent to me by a fellow named David Kroth. He bravely shows off all the parts not visible in the schematics or painting. Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by Woody:
quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon: You a member of Starshipmodeler.com? CHeck the forums. There's an ongoing 1:1000thread over there and they're even scartchbuilding the Kobaysai Maru.
Click UFP, then Cruisers. Baton Rouge is second from bottom in the list of Medium Cruisers.
Cheers!
Jim.
That is a good site as well. I like their Baton Rouge upgrade with TOS era warp nacelles.
Posted by Capped in Mike (Member # 709) on :
an additional Baton-Rouge-class image exists in a Marvel Trek comic published in 1980. It's an aft view of the U.S.S. Republic NCC-1371 (in one panel, mislabeled NCC-1373, an erroneous reference that was quoted as the registry of Republic in the FASA game.
Posted by Woody (Member # 1337) on :
quote:Originally posted by Capped in Mike: an additional Baton-Rouge-class image exists in a Marvel Trek comic published in 1980. It's an aft view of the U.S.S. Republic NCC-1371 (in one panel, mislabeled NCC-1373, an erroneous reference that was quoted as the registry of Republic in the FASA game.
Wow, Can anyone provide a scan of the comic book Baton Rouge class?
Posted by Captain Boh (Member # 1282) on :
I forgot about that! I can get a scan, but I won't be at my Dad's until monday.
edit: Oh! Seems I already had this one scanned:
I don't remember if there was anything else useful in the comic I have, but I'll check on Monday.
Posted by Woody (Member # 1337) on :
Thank you very much! I'm getting quite a Baton Rouge collection.
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
Something to add to the collection: the good old Starship Reference Chart that lists one "Nordenskj�ld class", supposedly the interpretation of the Aridas Sofia/Todd Guenther team of the Baton Rouge class (or one of its subvariants, at any rate). The Chart shows a silhouette only, but we see a rather more bulbous ventral saucer structure than portrayed in the above images, and (IIRC) a deflector/sensor dish attached to the saucer rather than to the secondary hull.
Anybody care to add a link to the Chart? I'm lazy all year 'round, but summers are especially bad...
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
quote:I was wondering about the design's origin: the Kobyashi Maru (to me) will always be the Lotus Flower design from FASA.
The Tritium class from the Spaceflight chronology was used as the cover art for the novel "The Kobayashi Maru," hence the erroneous association. Apparently the cover artist just used whatever "old" Star Trek art he had on hand.
I believe the only other two versions of the Kobayashi Maru in printed form were the Fasa Lotus Flower, and another design from a fan-produced publication, whch can be seen at the Advanced Starship Design Bureau.
Of course, speaking canonically, it's possible that the KM simulation uses a fictitious ship, without any class reference except for the vague "Class III Neutronic Fuel Carrier." I don't believe that it's a real ship in the ST universe.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
I think "Neutronic Fuel" is disinformation to prevent raids- the freighter actually carries vital supplies of Beer to the outer colonies.
It's all that holds the Federation together.
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
FWIW, neither the Tritium nor the Lotus Flower match the dimensions given in that ST2 screen readout.
What is "vague" about "Class Ill Neutronic"? The fact that the audience may not be familiar with Mr Ill Neutronic and his achievements in the field of enology?
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by Woody (Member # 1337) on :
Hey Timo, When you get a chance I'd like to see the Baton Rouge profile you mentioned.
Posted by Woody (Member # 1337) on :
This is the version of the KM that I'm leaning toward as far as a build. Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
Yeah, that's the 2nd printed version I mentioned.
Timo: By "vague" I was referring to the fact that it didn't have a class name, but of course when the film was made, those kinds of details weren't as prevalent as they would be later.
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
I don't know where to find the Federation Starship Recognition Chart online, except on my hard drive, which isn't exactly online since it sits far away from where I sit at the moment and is on holiday anyway. Struggling to bring the Chart to you at the earliest convenience.
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by Identity Crisis (Member # 67) on :
(whilst a lot of ships in this publication have had major details changed from their original appearance the Moscow is very consistent with what was shown in SFC).
if someone owns it, i believe issue 6 or so of Marvel's 1980 Trek comic features the Baton Rouge class USS Republic
Posted by UFPSFMC-Colonel Mike Captain (Member # 709) on :
and also in the first DC comics Trek annual (the first volume, probably 1985 or so) has a couple of Baton Rouges shown
Posted by Woody (Member # 1337) on :
I sure wouldn't mind seeing those if anyone can scan them for me.
Posted by Ultra Manjuice (Member # 239) on :
Mike, dude, you posted the scan from Issue 6 like two pages ago.
Posted by Woody (Member # 1337) on :
I'd like to share a few pic of what I'm using the Baton Rouge references for.
quote:Originally posted by Ultra Manjuice: Mike, dude, you posted the scan from Issue 6 like two pages ago.
hrm.. perhaps it is time to stop doing drugs..
PREHAPS NOT!?
Posted by The Captain from M.I.K.E. (Member # 709) on :
hey, i didn't even post that pic, it was Captain Doh, and it was a month ago..
BTW, Woody, that is insane. i never got to be an advanced Trek glue-sniffer, but i built a few models in my day, and i got to say your work looks amazing.
have you decided whether you are using the Nordenskold sideview or the other USS Moscow one from the game? There's a pretty good difference between them.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
If it were my project, I think I'd use the "Moscow" one, with three exceptions: lose the satellite dish, lose the gigantic impulse thingy on the back of the saucer, and possibly make the bridge larger. I'd use the "Nordenskjold" versions of those three traits. But that one's neck and ventral saucer are just silly.
Posted by Woody (Member # 1337) on :
quote:have you decided whether you are using the Nordenskold sideview or the other USS Moscow one from the game? There's a pretty good difference between them.
Thank you very much! As far as the profile I'll be using, the USS Moscow is the closest. The main problem with most USS Moscow profiles is they don't match the original painting. In the elevation above it has the impulse section elevated above the saucer a good deal. In the painting the top of the saucer is flat as a pancake and if the impulse section rises above it, it is very slight. On mine the impulse section will be hanging down. My saucer will be convex like the elevation above, because I think it looks better. There is really no "official" pics of the bottom or side. I've played around with several side pics but they don't translate very well to a physical model. It will be very much like the Moscow elevation above but in my opinion sleeker. I have also decided to make the deflector dish part of the secondary hull, very much like the TOS Enterprise. My efforts have been made harder because I'm trying to engineer this as a resin kit. I'll be adding pic as I go because this project is for a Star Trek group scratchbuild with about 15 particapants. I'm hosting the build and I hope the how-to pics help our first time scratchbuilders. Anyone wanting to join let me know. The build ends on Dec. 1st.
Posted by Captain Boh (Member # 1282) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Captain from M.I.K.E.: hey, i didn't even post that pic, it was Captain Doh, and it was a month ago..
I spell and pronounce my name differently
Posted by ulTRS magDOS (Member # 239) on :
That doesn't mean we do.
Posted by The Captain from M.I.K.E. (Member # 709) on :
It was an Arkanoid reference.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Hmmm....use the Moscow version, but give it a TOS impulse "stripe" instead of that horrible origami-looking thing and thicken the deflector's support stem- it looks horribly frail as it is.
If you want to get really creative, give the ship a NX-01 deflector and add in some NX plating- change the windows to round portholes too. It'll look a lot more like a step between series that way.
Posted by Woody (Member # 1337) on :
I don't think the impulse section looks bad as it's shown in the original painting. Some of the fan based side views make it as stylish as a window air conditioner unit! LOL
As far as introducing "Enterprise" design elements into my version of the Baton Rouge class, it won't be happening. Don't get me wrong I enjoy watching Enterprise. As matter of fact it's the only show I watch weekly. I treat it as a stand alone sci-fi show apart from the Star Trek universe. If I didn't, the continuity problems would drive me batty! LOL
I think fan based sites like "The Starfleet Museum" offer more realistic pre-TOS material than those guys who have their hooks in Trek now.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Oh....I dont know about that. So9me of those designs for Pre-TOS are nice but aside from slapping on a nacelle or two, look nothing at all like Trek designs: many look like blimps or other seriously unattractive shapes.
Posted by Woody (Member # 1337) on :
I can see were you might not like the designs of some of the Romulan War era vessels but I was referring to the plausibility of the back story and workable continuity. Read Masao's version of matter/anti-matter drive development as an example. Great stuff and you can tell he doesn't think Trek fans will swallow anything just because it's in a Star Trek box or uses time travel to explain bad story lines. As far as his TOS era ships just having a few nacelles slapped on, I have to disagree. There are really only a couple hulls on his site that are original ST material. Most of his hull designs and warp nacelles for that matter follow the form of that era but are very unique. I think his Avenger class is a great looking ship and shares no parts with canon designs. Perhaps if they had used a design like that instead of the Akira class, preserved the established continuity, and not have named the show "Enterprise" it would have meshed with the Trek universe. Having said that I do like Enterprise but as I stated before I don't believe it to be of the established Trek universe. Of course this is just my personal take on the show and it's place in Trekdom. LOL
Posted by Topher (Member # 71) on :
quote:Originally posted by Woody: Most of his hull designs and warp nacelles for that matter follow the form of that era but are very unique.
But they don't follow the form of the era. The form of the era is as on Enterprise.
Posted by Woody (Member # 1337) on :
quote:Originally posted by Topher: The form of the era is as on Enterprise.
In my humble opinion the ships on Enterprise look like they should be in the post-Next Generation ship line up, not at the beginning of the human warp era. If you had never heard of the show Enterprise and saw the NX in the latest Trek movie, you wouldn't blink an eye. The NX looks like an Akira contemporary vessel. Heck it looks like the Akira class. A vessel that pre-dates the TOS Enterprise should look older than it does. A Daedalus or even this threads namesake, the Baton Rouge class, would have been more believeable provided they didn't call it Enterprise. I'm a fan of the show Enterprise but I still don't think it fits in the Trek universe.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
*sighs, tells himself not to, and only partially manages to stop himself*
1/ The Daedalus is a hideous, hideous design. If people not completely obsessed with the Trek universe saw it on TV< they wouldn't think "Hmm, that really does look more primitive than the Enterprise from the original series". They would think "Oh my fucking god what the hell is that fucking thing oh shit my eyes have exploded fuck."
2/ Er, what's wrong with calling the show "Enterprise"?
Posted by Woody (Member # 1337) on :
1) Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I'm not a big fan of the Model T but when I see one I believe it is an old car.
2) In established Star Trek "history" there has only been three spacecraft christened "Enterprise" an the NX isn't on that list.
As I said before, I'm an Enterprise fan. It's the only show I watch weekly and I love it. I just don't think of it as part of Star Trek. Really the only thing that means to me is I won't be building an NX for my model collection. That OK because I like scratchbuilding anyway. On that note, I'm almost finished with the saucer for my USS Moscow.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"In established Star Trek 'history' there has only been three spacecraft christened 'Enterprise' an the NX isn't on that list."
Um... Or maybe at least eight. Unless you mean prior to the TOS Ent, in which case it's at least two.
And what's wrong with the Daedalus?
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote: And what's wrong with the Daedalus?
Every fucking thing.
The oildrum secondary hull for starters. Mabye it's the USS Haliburton "Boldly exploiting planets natural rescources and over charging the government...." Posted by Captain Boh (Member # 1282) on :
It may not look great, but it is a senseable pre-tos ship.
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
Insofar as TOS ships were sensible.
Posted by Woody (Member # 1337) on :
quote:Originally posted by TSN: Um... Or maybe at least eight. Unless you mean prior to the TOS Ent, in which case it's at least two.
And what's wrong with the Daedalus?
TOS and before would be the 1)NASA Space Shuttle, 2)S.S. Enterprise, and of course 3)USS Enterprise.
I don't think there is anything wrong with the Daedalus class.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
There have been two aircraft carriers with that name, I believe.
Posted by The Captain from M.I.K.E. (Member # 709) on :
but your fannishness, neither of them were...
quote:Originally posted by Woody: spacecraft christened "Enterprise"
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
*hnnnnng*
quote:Originally posted by Woody: 2) In established Star Trek "history" there has only been three spacecraft christened "Enterprise" an the NX isn't on that list.
And your proof is...?
Posted by MarianLH (Member # 1102) on :
Give it up, Woody. These guys must ram the canonicity of ENT down everyone's throat, chapter and verse. You're not allowed to have a different view here.
Nice work on the Baton Rouge, and hello from a fellow FSMer.
It may interest you to know that someone's written a novel about the voyage of the first Starfleet ship, which has a Daedalus on the cover. I don't remember the author or the title, but I think the ship was supposed to be the USS Daedalus.
I saw it at Half Price Books one day, and didn't have enough money to get it. But I'll find it again.
Marian
Today's random sig quote is brought to you by PVP: "Look at you two. George Lucas could spit on the wall and you two would stare at it for hours. Not me. No, I remember Howard the Duck. I remember The Ewok Adventure." "Blasphemer!" "Francis, no! Anger leads to the Dark Side!"
Posted by Dat (Member # 302) on :
Um, the NX Enterprise is valid since it was/will never be considered a starship of the Federation Starfleet. (U)SS Enterprise is valid because it was never considered a part of Earth's Starfleet. The shuttle Enterprise is valid because it's a real spacecraft operated by NASA (though it never flew in space). In order for the NX Enterprise not to be the first Federation Starfleet starship with that name, there are 5 possibilities to its fate. 1) Destroyed 2) MIA 3) Renamed 4) Decommissioned 5) Transferred to civilian use. As to why it took Starfleet 84 years to have another Enterprise is anyone's guess, but possibility 5 makes lot of sense. Quite possible the Federation didn't want two Enterprises out there even if one was civilian and the other Starfleet.
Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
-Spoilers follow-
"Starfleet: Year One". It could be my general dislike for novels (or at least the few I've read), but it's not particularly interesting. Deadalus is a brand new ship, some bickering between the Scientists and the Military, and after a battle with some aliens, everyone's happy. Meh.
Posted by Woody (Member # 1337) on :
quote:Originally posted by MarianLH: Give it up, Woody. These guys must ram the canonicity of ENT down everyone's throat, chapter and verse. You're not allowed to have a different view here.
Nice work on the Baton Rouge, and hello from a fellow FSMer.
Hee Hee, I see that. Me not allowed to have a different view? Watch me. The producers dropped the ball when they decided to discount existing Star Trek continuity. As a Trek fan from it's original TV debut, I'll have to stick with the established timeline. Did I mention that I like "Enterprise" as a stand along Sci-Fi show? I'm not running it down, it's just not canon to me.
Thank you for your kind words about my USS Moscow!
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
quote:Originally posted by MarianLH: Give it up, Woody. These guys must ram the canonicity of ENT down everyone's throat, chapter and verse. You're not allowed to have a different view here.
Ugh. We simply try to point out (whether gently or not) that fans' own subjective conceptions of 'Star trek history' based on only four or five of the SIX television series, or on books, or on any other kind of incomplete or faulty evidence, are NOT 'Star Trek history.'
Psyliam is quite correct in asking for proof of our friend's statement. And there is none. NOWHERE is it established, even prior to ENT, that there were ONLY three pre-TOS Enterprises. Never did anyone state this, never was it even included in a computer display graphic. We only ever saw mention of three, but if your reasoning is then that if we don't see/hear about it then it doesn't exist, then Uhura had no mother or father and neither did Chekov or Sulu, even though Kirk and Spock did. Also, no one in the 23rd-24th centuries uses the bathroom. And James Dean was never an actor. Blah blah blah blah...
If you want to change 'Star Trek history' to fit your own preferences, go get hired at Paramount and become executive producer of whatever Trek series happens to be running at the time. Then have a blast. Otherwise, quit yer bitchin' and get with the program. (That program being ENT, of course. )
-MMoM Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
*double post*
Posted by Topher (Member # 71) on :
I must also point out that the correlation between the ball-and-stick model and the Daedalus class is not entirely canon.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
But I'll find it again.![[Wink]](wink.gif)
)