But could the Enterprise be hiding two more launchers and we don't know it? After watching Star Trek II tonight (just had to test out the new surround sound *drool*), I noticed one little thing that may point out that the Enterprise has 4 launchers and not 2. When Kirk and co. are preparing the Enterprise for the final battle with Khan, we see a torpedo being lowered onto a launcher, and to the right, on the back wall, there is a sign that says TORP BAY 4. Now, when Kirk arrived on the shuttle and docked with the Enterprise (BTW, he docked in the wrong place. The shuttle docked on the engineering hull in the beginning, but Kirk arrived in the torpedo bay when coming through the airlock), the sign behind that torpedo bay said TORP BAY 2. So the two torpedo launchers sticking out of the neck are bays 1 and 2. So where are 3 and 4? I think that they could either be in the bottom of the saucer, where they had been before the ship's refit, or they could be somehwhere on the back of the ship.

So what does anyone think of a Constitution with 4 launchers?

------------------
Me: "Why don't you live in Hong Kong?"
Rachel Roberts: "Hong Kong? Nah. Oh, but we can live in China! Yeah, China has great Chinese food!"

(discussion with fellow classmate, 9/5/00)

Mustang Class Starship Development Project

That labeling could be an error by the art or set department. Errors have been known to happen.

And non-canon info places the two lauchers on the TOS Constitutions ships in the dome superstruction on deck 2 under the bridge. Of course, we all saw the torps being fired from the lower saucer where the phasers are as well.

------------------
[Bart's looking for his dog.]
Groundskeeper Willy: Yeah, I bought your mutt - and I 'ate 'im! [Bart gasps.] I 'ate 'is little face, I 'ate 'is guts, and I 'ate the way 'e's always barkin'! So I gave 'im to the church.
Bart: Ohhh, I see... you HATE him, so you gave him to the church.
Groundskeeper Willy: Aye. I also 'ate the mess he left on me rug. [Bart stares.] Ya heard me!

 

I mean, hell, the E-D has TWO rear launchers! Well, maybe not, if the TM isn't canon ... oh, never mind.

------------------
Star Trek Gamma Quadrant
Average Rated 7.5 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux
***
Shop Smart -- Shop "S"-Mart

------------------
[Bart's looking for his dog.]
Groundskeeper Willy: Yeah, I bought your mutt - and I 'ate 'im! [Bart gasps.] I 'ate 'is little face, I 'ate 'is guts, and I 'ate the way 'e's always barkin'! So I gave 'im to the church.
Bart: Ohhh, I see... you HATE him, so you gave him to the church.
Groundskeeper Willy: Aye. I also 'ate the mess he left on me rug. [Bart stares.] Ya heard me!

[This message has been edited by PopMaze (edited December 17, 2000).]

[This message has been edited by PopMaze (edited December 17, 2000).]
 

Think of the numbering error in the launcher like the major blooper they made in The Final Frontier, where Kirk, Spock and Bones are shooting up the turboshaft, (which, for some unknown reason is triangular), and the deck numbers they pass are not only going in ascending order as they rise, but go to numbers significantly higher than 24. Ahh! rambling! I'll shut up now.
 

------------------
"Second star to the right, and then straight on till morning."

Anyway.... i could be wrong...

------------------
Delta Flyer
 

The Miranda-Class has rear torpedo launchers. I assume the Miranda- was built and designed about the time the Constitution-Class was being upgraded (ST:TMP), then Starfleet had come to the conclusion that rear-launchers were a good idea, why not include 'em on the Consitution refit?

------------------
Star Trek Gamma Quadrant
Average Rated 7.5 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux
***
Shop Smart -- Shop "S"-Mart

Everything in this world is a compromise between conflicting demands. Not everything in the fantasy world of Trek needs be, but Constitutions could still feature some compromises. It is traditional for Starfleet ships (especially Enterprises) to have extremely weak aft armament, and there may even be some hidden technobabble reasons for this (say, nobody can sneak to your 6 o'clock because "the warp contrails will fry him" or "the impulse exhaust will prevent targeting" or "the ship can always accelerate away from the shots"). Or then the rationale simply is "we didn't have room for aft armament - you can have it, but then your starship won't have a shuttlebay".

If the Constitution is to have aft torpedoes, then I suggest they be hidden in those four shallow grooves on the dorsal surface of the secondary hull. Those are traditionally considered thruster ports of some sort, but they could theoretically be torp launchers as well. This would probably require relocating Main Engineering a deck below its current location, though (but that isn't impossible, either).

I don't like the idea of aft torpedoes, though. Kirk should have fired those when Khan was chasing him into the nebula, provided he had any. The existence of four torp decks IMHO only means that each tube comes with two "bays", an upper and a lower one. Khan destroyed the port lower bay (bay 2 where Kirk boarded), rendering the "loading" bay 1 above it unusable as well. This is why Spock's funeral was held in the starboard "launching" bay 4, while part of the audience stood on the balcony on "loading" bay 3.

Then again, the TOS ship apparently had at least six tubes, according to some dialogue. These were probably all in the saucer, where the effects emerged from. When the TMP refit added the two neck launchers, some of the saucer ones could theoretically have been retained, possibly behind those saucer doors which we (and Andy Probert ) mistook for docking port covers or landing legs.

Timo Saloniemi

 

------------------
Me: "Why don't you live in Hong Kong?"
Rachel Roberts: "Hong Kong? Nah. Oh, but we can live in China! Yeah, China has great Chinese food!"

(discussion with fellow classmate, 9/5/00)

Mustang Class Starship Development Project

The Captain's Chair CD-ROM suggests the TOS ship had aft tubes, presumably under the fantail or something. Perhaps the refitted ship had these, too, and the "even" bays pointed forward and the "odd" ones aft?

Timo Saloniemi
 

"Could Constitutions HAVE any more torpedo launchers?"

I mean, they're not *that* powerful...

------------------
Here lies a toppled god,
His fall was not a small one.
We did but build his pedestal,
A narrow and a tall one.

-Tleilaxu Epigram

There is only one torpedo bay, the one wih the rail. A torp comes down the well from the magazine above and gets plonked on the rail. It goes down to the door. Then it transferes to a port-starboard rail that takes it to either the port or starboard launcher. These two launchers straddle the vertical warp core shaft (there's gotta be a hole somehwere for the thing to go through, and it sure doesn't go through the torp bay itself). That settles that bit.

As for the "TB4" label, I think that's a reference to the docking ports. i.e. Location: Torp bay. Port #: 4. This would make #1 sec hull stbd, #2 torp bay stbd, #3 sec hull port, #4 torp bay port. The only problem is what number goes with the bridge port? 0?

If ever my scanner gets working, I'll scan in the diagram from MSGttE.
 

------------------
[Bart's looking for his dog.]
Groundskeeper Willy: Yeah, I bought your mutt - and I 'ate 'im! [Bart gasps.] I 'ate 'is little face, I 'ate 'is guts, and I 'ate the way 'e's always barkin'! So I gave 'im to the church.
Bart: Ohhh, I see... you HATE him, so you gave him to the church.
Groundskeeper Willy: Aye. I also 'ate the mess he left on me rug. [Bart stares.] Ya heard me!

 

If, OTOH, there are two side-by-side bays (and Khan thrashes the port one so the burial ceremony takes place in the starboard one), then there's something funny going on since they don't fit side by side, at least not very easily.

As for numbering the docking ports: it sounds sensible to me to start from top and go down from there. But still, if the bridge port is #0, there are six other ports to go: two in the saucer, two in the torp assembly, two in the secondary hull. If the ones on the port side run #1, #2, #3, then logically the starboard torp bay should be #5. If they run zigzag (saucer-port #1, saucer-stbd #2, torp-port #3, torp-stbd #4, sec-hull-port #5, sec-hull-stbd #6), then torp portside hatch would in turn be incorrectly numbered. So it indeed makes very little sense.

Hmm. Perhaps Scotty has had to rebuild the torp bay several times to clean up the mess left by Kirk's adventures, and we see it go from v.2 to v.4 in the movie?

Timo Saloniemi
 

Regards the numbering, there are only 5 round ports for shuttle / work pod docking: the bridge, two torp, two sec hull. The two on the port / stbd edges of the saucer are rectangular and for personnel transfer tunnel connection (as seen in TMP). And yes, the numbers *still* don't make sense.
 

So, unless Mr. Scott's crews spent all night repainting the walls and molding out new parts, (which I think would be kind of odd, even for a funeral - why the hell wouldn't they fix the bridge up first? "Scotty, the bridge, prime center of command and control for an entire starship and 430 people, can wait. I want the torp bay to look its best for Spock's burial."), there are two seperate bays, each with its own tube.

Besides, if there was only one bay, and all the little torpedo trolley moved at the same speed, the arm to fire time for one torpedo would probably be oh, what, six full hours of torturous drama? :-)
 

However, there are supposedly two circular docking ports hidden behind protective covers on the saucer underside, 45 degrees off the centerline. These cannot be seen easily in any of the existing movies. However, the reworked version of TMP will probably show one of these in detail. After all, Kirk and Spock take their (originally edited-out) spacewalk through one. "Mr Scott's Guide to the Enterprise" describes these things in detail, and seems to be true to the original intentions of Andy Probert.

So that's five docking ports plus the rectangular "gangway hatch". Of course, the existence of two ports covered by hatches means there could be more such covered ports elsewhere, even though Probert never put them there.

Timo Saloniemi
 

------------------
Me: "Why don't you live in Hong Kong?"
Rachel Roberts: "Hong Kong? Nah. Oh, but we can live in China! Yeah, China has great Chinese food!"

(discussion with fellow classmate, 9/5/00)

Mustang Class Starship Development Project

I don't recall ever seeing any rear torpedoes either. If they had them, then there have been times they'd use them, right?
 

It is my belief that the Ent-A was retired at the end of STVI because there was a general order to retire all Constitution Class ships because of their lack of battle readiness. The lack of rear torp launchers could probably explain this.

------------------
"My Name is Elmer Fudd, Millionaire. I own a Mansion and a Yacht."
Psychiatrist: "Again."

[This message has been edited by Tahna Los (edited January 13, 2001).]
 

------------------
"And Mojo was hurt and I would have kissed his little boo boo but then I realized he was a BAD monkey so I KICKED HIM IN HIS FACE!"
-Bubbles
 

Lack of weapons systems, lack of space for newer equipment, inefficient propulsion systems (by the new standards), and a poor design for upgradability. These would/could all lead to the decommissioning, and with a new treaty signed the less capable vessels could be pulled out of service and newer models built.

------------------
"One's ethics are determined by what we do when no one is looking"

------------------
"Forgive me if I don't share your euphoria!" (Weyoun to Dukat, Tears of the Prophets)
Dax's Ships of STAR TREK

[This message has been edited by Dax (edited January 14, 2001).]
 

Constitution class vessels are not hampered by inability to upgrade engines, as witnessed between ST-III and ST-V/VI. (I assume the first edition of the ST Encyclopedia was accurate in saying the E-A was an upgraded Yorktown when I say this). They are better equipped for scientific exploration as they have more room for labs and scientific equipment. Space, if it is not a problem on a Miranda, should not be a problem here. All the same systems are present in a larger hull, therefore there is obviously more space to play around with here.

The only reasons I think the Constitutions were retired are because:

There were so few left that their upkeep costs and frequent need of upgrades to stay ahead of the curve were deemed inefficient use of funding.

And the Excelsior class finally made it into full scale production. With a new class of heavy cruisers in production, with even more space, adaptability, firepower (including rear-firing torpedoes), scientific instrumentation, and modern technology, the Constitutions were deemed superfluous.

Mirandas were not retired because no new frigate designs meeting the design specs of the Mirandas were yet on the drawing board. So despite their relative inflexibility to mission requirements besides protection and patrol, they were kept on. They filled their niche so well, in fact, that they were still in active construction in the latter 2300's.
 

Miranda/Avenger class starships

Well, just the canon 'Miranda', and not the nonsensical 'Avenger' would suffice.

They are classified as frigates

IIRC, Mirandas have been reffered to as a few different things.

considering the extensive and inefficient layout of PTC's

PTC?

are less readily adaptable to new engine types.

What episode did they mention this in?

They are specifically battle minded short-range craft intended for escort and patrol operations. They are the least equipped for scientific missions.

Again, what episode? Also, IIRC, we've seen Mirandas doing everything but buying Feminie Hygiene products for Grandma, so I'd think it hard to pin down the Mirandas role.

The only reasons I think the Constitutions were retired are because:

There were so few left that their upkeep costs and frequent need of upgrades to stay ahead of the curve were deemed inefficient use of funding.

And the Excelsior class finally made it into full scale production. With a new class of heavy cruisers in production, with even more space, adaptability, firepower (including rear-firing torpedoes), scientific instrumentation, and modern technology, the Constitutions were deemed superfluous.

These Ideas = Very good thinking.

------------------
"...[They've] been so completely dumbed down by the media, by tabloid scumbags, by the Christian "right", by politicians in general, the school, parents who are dumber than their parents were, who are dumber than their parents were, and all of whom think that they can bring up a child just because they got down in bed and had a little sex...well, frankly, here is an audience that knows more and more about less and less as the years go by...We are talking about a constituency...that knows nothing. This is pandemic; terrifyingly, paralyzingly pandemic. They know absolutely nothing."
- Harlan Ellison, on the Media Consumer of today.

Sorry 'bout that. In any case, if these vessels were in the US navy, that is what they would be classified as. Having a copy of Jane's All the World's Fighting Ships from 1976, I can back that up. But you are right, they were never referred to as such in any series or movie. If you follow Todd Allen Guenther's Ships of the Star Fleet, that is also what they are classified as.

When I said that Mirandas were basically only good for convoy protection and patrol, I was speaking from a practical point of view. Realistically, they are not designed large enough for the mission flexibility that Constitutions have. Their possible laboratory base is rediculously low, and their sensors are lesser in number it seems.

PTC stands for Plasma Transfer Conduit, which utilizes magnetic peristalsis to move plasma from the dilithium reaction vessel to the nacelles. And if you look at that fantastic set of deck plans drawn up by Michael Rupprecht, you can see they extend forever and all over the place. Not like its his fault - the damn warp core is so far away from the nacelle pylons. But I assumed that this would hamper any efforts to update a warp drive system, seeing as with every warp core update comes new PTC units. What I was really getting at was that, if the warp engines on board a Constitution were difficult to upgrade, it would be an absolute hell to update the ones on a Miranda.

In anycase, I apologize and hope that no one will think the lesser of me because of my non-canonism. I also hope I haven't offended anyone by dissing Mirandas in favor of Constitutions. I truly love the Miranda design, its very compact, its just relatively useless as a multimission platform in practice.
 

------------------
"One's ethics are determined by what we do when no one is looking"

[This message has been edited by Ritten (edited January 15, 2001).]
 

------------------
"Forgive me if I don't share your euphoria!" (Weyoun to Dukat, Tears of the Prophets)
Dax's Ships of STAR TREK

It is possible that Consitutions and Mirandas have almost the same internal deck space, but it seems more efficient the way it's set up in the Constitution.
It allows the propulsion system to, again, be more simple in layout. It allows for a single large deflector unit with sensor complexes behind with presumably more strength. A possibly smaller cargo deck results, but the landing bay uses space more efficiently. It also allows for primary hull separation in case of a major emergency. And the Constitution, according to the statistics, can house more people and tertiary systems (e.g. labs, crew relaxation areas, botanical gardens) than Mirandas. Those are my thoughts, anyway.
 

------------------
"Forgive me if I don't share your euphoria!" (Weyoun to Dukat, Tears of the Prophets)
Dax's Ships of STAR TREK