Flare Sci-Fi Forums: New Orleans class

This is topic New Orleans class in forum Starships & Technology at Flare Sci-Fi Forums.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://flare.solareclipse.net/ultimatebb.php/topic/6/95.html

Posted by Shipbuilder (Member # 69) on :

Recently we had a very successful kind of "collection of data" on the Cheyenne class and came up with some very impressive results. I think we should put all of our talents together again (discussion, graphic etc) and come up with some data for the good old New Orleans.

Specifically, I think we should storm the beaches of the expert.forum over at startrek continuum and demand to know what those pods on the New Orleans are for and not take "not sure didn't design'em for an answer"

Just a thought, feel free to express your thoughts here too.

--Shipbuilder

Posted by Bernd (Member # 6) on :

Let me start with some considerations on how the ship was actually assembled.

The only two reference photos:

http://www.shiporama.org/images/kyushu1.jpg

http://www.shiporama.org/images/kyushu2.jpg

My preliminary reconstruction:

http://www.uni-siegen.de/~ihe/bs/startrek/schematics/neworleans.jpg

The saucer is definitely a Galaxy type saucer with scratched windows combining two decks to one. I don't care much about the lifeboat sizes, they are just rectangles and not necessarily the same as of the Galaxy. The bridge could be taken from the 18" model while the saucer could be from the 10" version. However, the bridge looks less detailed than the Cheyenne bridge. Maybe it is supposed to represent another version, or the 18" bridge was just not available, or the image is just blurred.

Could the additional pods be textmarkers? I think we can assume the two top and the one bottom pod have exactly the same size and shape.

In the top view the nacelles look a bit different (less wide) than the Galaxy nacelles, however, the bottom view clearly shows they are the same type (only much smaller!). The pylons could be made of any bended polystyrene part, they are probably not modified Galaxy pylons as in my preliminary schematic.

The enginering hull causes some problems. First, it is a significantly extended Galaxy engineering hull. I can't imagine how they actually could assemble two hulls and nevertheless obtain a harmonic curvature. Second, I'm not so sure about the neck. It is a modified GCS neck and it has to be a lot less steep or a piece has to be cut off, since the bottom view shows the engineering hull is very close to the saucer. However, the top view looks as if it were exactly the same size and steepness of the GCS neck (maybe less steep, though). Finally, the engineering hull front end is straight beneath the saucer center, maybe even in front of it. If I'm right with my estimation, the Galaxy forward torp launcher would already be partially inside the saucer, so I didn't draw it, although there is something like a launcher visible in the bottom view.

------------------
Brain. Brain. What is brain? (Kara the Eymorg, "Spock's Brain")
www.uni-siegen.de/~ihe/bs/startrek/

Posted by Shipbuilder (Member # 69) on :

Well I went over to expert.forum myself and posted the question to Rick and here's what I got...

If we're still talking about one of the kitbashes for the ship graveyard, and the pods being glued-on Stabilo highlighter markers, then
I still don't have a clue on what they were supposed to be. I'll ask
Mike O.

Rick

Okay, he says the pods are the Stabilo markers but my guess is he's confusing the Cheyenne's warp engine pods. I'll try to clarify and refer him to the USS Kyushu pics in the Encyclopedia.

Posted by Shipbuilder (Member # 69) on :

Actually if you look at the bottom side pic of the Kyushu above, that pod does look like a highlighter marker with the endcap's bottom cut open and if you look hard enough, you can almost see the pocket clip at the aft end of the pod.

Am I seeing things??

Posted by Bernd (Member # 6) on :

Well, it reminds me of this "classic" marker.

If it's "The Boss", they have glued one and a half pens together. In this case it can't be the small saucer of the 10" model, but it would be the big 18" one. This would also explain that the bridge is so roughly detailed.

Posted by Federation Shipmaster (Member # 15) on :

The U.S.S. Renegade proabably has the best New Orleans database around. http://www.ussrenegade.com/renegade/index.html

Posted by Pedro on :

I'm not sure what the extra pods are for (I never much cared about that stuff anyway), but I can speculate on how the model was built. Since the saucer was made from the smaller ERTL Enterprise kit, the neck is probably just chopped off to make it shorter. The neck on that kit is molded into the bottom saucer piece if I remember correctly, so this seems like the most likely way they would have shortened it. Of course, this raises the issue of how they got it to fit when attaching it to the engineering hull. Actually, I doubt that it really did fit well, since it was just a study model, it's unlikely that anyone went to much trouble to smooth out the fit.

Posted by Pedro on :

Also, keep in mind that the pictures from the Encyclopedia (the one's on my site), are of a CGI reconstruction of the ship, so the slight variations from Galaxy parts are due to it being 'remodeled'. I'm fairly certain the study model used standard Galaxy parts.

Ooh, I almost forgot...there is a picture of the original study model that will shed alot of light on things.

http://www.shiporama.org/junk/usskyushu.jpg

The pods on the saucer look like plastic clothesline pins to me.

Posted by The359 (Member # 37) on :

Alright, on to actual data on the New Orleans, instead of construction. Here's all my ideas. First, the little do-dads. I have three guesses.

1) The New Orleans class was built as Starfleet's first 'warship', loaded down with torpedoes. It's highly likely the ship can seperate, which means the top would have 2 launchers, and the bottom two as well (the one on the neck and the pod).

2) The New Orleans class was built as a new-age Soyuz class. Judging from the fact that she has all these pods, it reminded me of our four-poded friend (or fiend), the Soyuz. If she were a purely science vessel with large sensor pods, it would leave the ship with a single torp launcher, ideal for small science vessels. Unfortunatly, the names of the New Orleans class ships don't support this idea (Renegade in particular).

3) The New Orleans class is Starfleet's first try at a 'Nebulaized' class. The three pods may be interchangeable equipment pods. Each pod may contain not only a torp launcher, but extra sensors as well, or all of one and none of the other, depending on which pod is on at that time.

Anyway, i think those are the 3 main types of New Orleans there could possibly be.

------------------
"The one, the only, THE 359!"

[This message was edited by The359 on March 19, 1999.]

Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :

If they have a CGI NO, why don't they friggin' use it?!

Ahem... *calms self* Anyway, back to the subject at hand, the original model seems to have the same outsized deck one as the Cheyenne, so I would guess that they used the small saucer and large bridge again. And the secondary hull is much more rounded in the back, so it looks like they probably used a regular one, not some weird, pointy one, as the CGI one suggests...

------------------
"You're a looney."
-Graham Chapman, Monty Python and the Holy Grail

Posted by Shipbuilder (Member # 69) on :

Well its a CGI rendering, but not good enough quality or the right *type* of rendering to put in use as a visual effect. I think Sternbach is trying to refer me away from him and on to Mike Okuda who would have had the Kyushu CGI rendered for the encyclopedia.

I also agree that it is composed of the 10" model with the 18" bridge module which appears abnormally undetailed because of the rendering process.

[This message was edited by Shipbuilder on March 20, 1999.]

Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :

OK, yeah the NO pods DO look like highlighter markers - in the Kyushu study model - there is also another thing that has struck me about the study model - look at the nacelles, they seem longer than a Galaxy's nacelles, I don't think the GC had two indentations on the dorsal side of the nacelles...

Andrew

------------------
With the first link, a chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all
irrevocably." Capt. Jean-Luc Picard - The Drumhead

Posted by Aethelwer (Member # 36) on :

Now, there's a picture of the study model in the original encyclopedia, and it's intact...how did they manage that?

------------------
http://frankg.dgne.com/
Dead End: "If we surrender our energon we're doomed."
Breakdown: "And if we don't we're doomed too."
Dead End: "Face it. We're doomed."

Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :

OK, a few suggestions for the original ency Kyushu
Maybe the pic was taken before it was battle damaged

maybe the battle damaged stuff was superficial?

maybe it too is a CGI version?

We need to ask Mike Okuda...

also, some schematics have the nacelle pylons swept backwards, I believe they look perpendicular to the secondary hull? anyone else?

Andrew

Posted by Bernd (Member # 6) on :

Fed: The Renegade database has some major flaws, including a faulty calculation of deck count and overall size, but the schematics seem to be pretty correct.

Pedro: I'm not sure about the neck, because it doesn't look shorter. It looks just the same as a GCS neck from the same angle, but I might be wrong.

The damaged NO looks actually different. Where did you get the image? There are two pronounced raised rectangles on the pods, and the pods look even more like highlighters. The nacelles actually seem to be longer, as AndrewR pointed out, but did they really attach another rear piece, so there are two indentations? The nacelles don't look that long, but I'll check it out.

Still, I'm not sure about the size of the model. If the pods are actually some kind of pens, the model would have to be much larger than the 10" E-D kit. Unfortunately, the bridge can not be identified on the damaged model.

Frank: The nacelles do look longer indeed on the Ency I photo. I'm sure it's the actual model before it was damaged.

Posted by Shipbuilder (Member # 69) on :

I think the dorsal view of the CGI NO does show 2 pairs of those structures on top of the warp nacelle. SciPubTech poster calls them hydrogen dump vents (non canon) but they are slanted the wrong direction to be exit vents. If you look really closely, you can see two dark areas in about the same location. My only fear is that the destroyed model provided by Pedro is a fan-made model. Pedro care to comment...is it in fact the studio model??.

Posted by Pedro on :

I have no way to know for sure whether or not the damaged pic is the original or a fan built model. The pic has been around for years, long before most of the 'net kitbashing' that's so common now....I believe it's the original model, but I'm not sure.

I had completely forgotten about the pic from Enc. I. It is, of course, entirely possible that the two pictures show the same model, before and after the damage. I've spent some time studying them, and they really look like the same model to me. Note the bank of windows in the front center of the saucer, they are not quite in the center on either model.

The nacelles do look a bit skinny, but the nacelles on the small enterprise kit have the same problem.

Bernd may be right about the neck, in the picture of the wreck you can see pretty much the entire back of the dorsal section. However, it's clear that the CGI model has a shorter neck...

Posted by Pedro on :

I just spent some time comparing these to my Wolf359 pics, and noticed that the damage on the model picture I posted before matches the Wolf359 pictures. I'm convinced these are all the same model (remember, the original Encyclopedia also has undamaged pictures of the 1701-C model, before Greg Jein attacked it with a sparkler

http://www.shiporama.org/junk/wolf3508.jpg

Posted by NeghVar (Member # 62) on :

I posted this on the web some three and a half years ago...it was sent to me from a friend. Apparently Okuda and his wife appeared on QVC during a Trek sale...he showed a few of these ships during the episode. Apparently this one originally was a pic of Okuda's wife holding the model. Fortunately, someone taped the QVC sale...gave it to him...and boom...a good screen-grab.

As far as I know...this pic is the same as those shown at the con where Okuda gave the infamous "slide" show. These slides contained the pictures of all the kit-bashed classes from Wolf 359 we have been discussing here.

On another note...Alexander DeLarge is back from Japan...with a book called Star Trek Mechanix. And from our phone conversation...there is a good pic of the New Orleans concept model in it. Keep your fingers crossed...and perhaps he will post something soon!!!

Talk to you soon!
NeghVar

Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :

NeghVar: Erm... Was there supposed to be a pic w/ that post?

Also, I agree that it looks like the neck was not shortened. W/ the sec. hull in the position shown in the encyclopedia-II, the dorsal of the neck would have to be very steep, which it doesn't appear to be in the pic of the model...

------------------
"You're a looney."
-Graham Chapman, Monty Python and the Holy Grail

Posted by Bernd (Member # 6) on :

One more thought about the neck: When I first saw the image in the Encyclopedia I, it looked as if it were the Galaxy saucer, neck and engineering hull in the original configuration. I was surprised about the images in the Encyclopedia II showing the prolonged engineering hull and the neck problem.

Posted by Shipbuilder (Member # 69) on :

Maybe its the engineering hull with some fancy model work extension between them. Pick a good spot between the deflector dish and the aft "cut-out", cut the eng. hull in half and put in some excellent modelling work with a piece or two of styrene plastic. Keep in mind, they weren't amateurs at this.

Anybody figured out if it is the 10" model or not. Maybe somebody has a Stablo and the 10" saucer.

Posted by NeghVar (Member # 62) on :

No pic...I was talking about the pic Pedro posted with the damaged New Orleans...sorry I was not more specific...

NeghVar

------------------
Spoken in Klingon, with a distinct Scottish accent:
"If it's not Klingon...It's crap!"

Posted by Bernd (Member # 6) on :

Shipbuilder: A 10" model has a 15cm saucer. The Schwan Stabilo text marker is 10.5cm. These sizes don't work, since the pod is about 40% of the saucer length. There might be a smaller text marker or whatever it could be with a length of 6cm, or they have used the big model with a 27cm saucer. I tend to support the latter theory. The bridge module as the only part possibly taken from a bigger model isn't clearly visible anyway.

Posted by Shipbuilder (Member # 69) on :

I wonder if anybody has the original vidcap mentioned above with Denise Okuda supposedly holding the model. That would be extrememly helpful in determining which parts were from what model etc.

Posted by Pedro on :

This I would be very interested to see. Alexander has provided me with some of the most obscure pictures I've seen...

Posted by Bernd (Member # 6) on :

If I could only get a side view of the original model. This could explain a lot.

Posted by Pedro on :

I was just reading the Starshipmodeler discussion forum, and the Star Trek Mechanics 4 book apparently has great pictures of just about every model that's been build for Trek....*drool*

I MUST have this book! Anyone around here know a good way to find Japanese books on the web?

Posted by Alexander Delarge on :

OK. Here's the best picture that I know of of the actual filmed miniature of the New Orleans class. It's from the Star Trek Mechanics book. I plan to open a topic on this book shortly. enjoy.

http://design.archdev.com/yamato/misc/neworlns1.jpg

------------------
A still tongue makes a happy life

Posted by The359 (Member # 37) on :

Alright, perfect timing! From this view, it appears the NO uses a regular neck, but there is an extentsion at the front. The nacelles do appear the same size as a Galaxy. Now, notice the engineering hull. Do I see two phaser strips? Did they tae another front of the Galaxy kit and stick it on there?

BTW, why is the model hanging from the ceiling?

------------------
"The one, the only, THE 359!"

Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :

Erm... No... From this view it appears that they used a severely shortened neck. Just like in the encyclopedia-II...

But I think you're right about the sec. hull. They must have used two of them in order to make it longer. Either that, or they simply cut one in half and added some sort of filler in the middle...

------------------
"I fart in your general direction!"
-John Cleese, Monty Python and the Holy Grail

Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :

Y'know, now that I look at it again, I think that the back of the sec. hull doesn't have the undercut. I realize most of the back end is burnt off, but I think the intact part extends far enough back that we should be able to see the undercut, if it's there. So it either doesn't have one, or has a rather small one...

------------------
"I fart in your general direction!"
-John Cleese, Monty Python and the Holy Grail

Posted by Shipbuilder (Member # 69) on :

Okay the warp pods aren't the same size as the GCS pods. Here's a quick proof for that.

First off, lets assume the warp endcap area (everything forward of the gold rings including the bussard collector) is the same as that of a GCS because they almost certainly are in fact.
Taking the AMT 18" Galaxy class model blueprints (because they were handy) I measured the total warp pod length = 5.5" and the pod endcap (bussard collector and everything forward of the gold rings) = .75". Therefore the endcap composes 13.5% of the total length. Next I roughly measured the New Orleans endcap in the above pic to be = .25" and the total warp pod length = 3", this means the NO endcap comprises only 8.3% of the total pod length......therefore, the NO warp pods are longer. Even if the endcaps are scaled down GCS versions, we can positively say that they just didn't scale down the entire GCS warp pod and stick it on. Regardless of its actual scale factor, it is a different version than that of the GCS warp pod.

Posted by Bernd (Member # 6) on :

Alexander: Fantastic picture. It would be fine if you could scan the other models as well. Well, that was the understatement of the week. Honestly, I'm desperately waiting for them!

Model size: Most probably a modification of the 18" Galaxy model

Engineering hull: My impression is that they assembled two Galaxy engineering hulls that connect approximately in the middle of the text marker. The rear hull piece still has the phaser strip, so there are two of them. My estimation is that the hull is a bit longer than in my preliminary schematic, and it doesn't have the undercut. They must have used a lot of additional polystyrene and putty to do it.

Neck: The neck has to be much shorter than the Galaxy neck, since the forward end of the engineering hull is very close to the saucer. I still can't imagine it, since both available top views seem to show the complete neck (maybe without the impulse engine)

Nacelles: Shipbuilder could be right the nacelles are longer. This would explain the 4 deepenings visible in the top view. Since none of the nacelles is intact, I will try to superimpose them to prove it.

Impulse engines: There seem to be no engines attached to the saucer rear end. Maybe the pods actually hold them? However, it is also possible they rea integrated into the saucer hull.

Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :

The neck appears to be from a large version of a GC and put on a GC saucer - a wedge of it used... not the entire GC neck

GC=Galaxy Class :]

Andrew

Posted by Shipbuilder (Member # 69) on :

The Saucer impulse engines are pretty visible on the destroyed pic from Pedro, at least the starboard side engine is. Not sure but it looks like the port engine may be missing on Alexander and Pedro's pics?? Battle damage or just a bad angle for the picture??

Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :

I'm starting to lean towards those extra pods being torpedo launchers. Earlier pictures were rather vague on the subject. In this latest one, they don't look like sensor platforms, and an impulse engine wouldn't face forwards and backwards. (Well, it could, but Starfleet doesn't have a history of building ships like that.)

------------------
"The record of my unspeakable crimes, in previous lives, in previous times, indelibly stains the pages of history."
--
They Might Be Giants

Posted by The Vorlon (Member # 52) on :

To celebrate my 50th post, I thought I'd post a larger version of my New Orleans Top diagram from my Fleet Charts, for your amusement/disection. =]

The only flaw I see is that I made the pylons too wide and detailed... They seem to taper and have very little surface detail on the model.

------------------
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..."

-- Kalesh Naranek, Last of the Vorlon
www.orc.ca/~jheinbuc/

Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :

that is a great picture/diagram, who did it? It looks like the line drawings from the original encyc. which i like better than the shaded colour drawings...

but! just a little thing - on the top of the saucer - and probably the bottom - and at least of the port side of the neck there are little 'half' windows - i.e. they look about half the size of the larger windows next to it...

love the pic

Andrew

PS is it possible to see such pics for the cheyenne, akira, norway etc...

------------------
Alamaraine, count to four...

Posted by The Vorlon (Member # 52) on :

Please re-read my previous post in order to determine just WHO the mystery man was who made that.... Hint: the word "my" and "I" occurs frequently in my post. =P

Cheyenne: I'm planning on it.
Akira: It's possible.

-- Kalesh Naranek, Last of the Vorlon
www.orc.ca/~jheinbuc/

Posted by Federation Shipmaster (Member # 15) on :

It has two sets of indentations in the nacelles?!?!?!

Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :

Yes.

------------------
"I fart in your general direction!"
-John Cleese, Monty Python and the Holy Grail

Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :

coolies Vorlon

and when i said Akira- i meant like that group of four that we have only ever seen as the rendered ships from the new encyclopedia

and yes two indentations, that was what made me initially think that the nacelles are actually longer than a GC's nacelles.

------------------
Alamaraine, count to four...