Flare Sci-Fi Forums: The Cheyenne...

This is topic The Cheyenne... in forum Starships & Technology at Flare Sci-Fi Forums.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://flare.solareclipse.net/ultimatebb.php/topic/6/1124.html

Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :

I'm still wondering what is on the ventral side of this ship... I just can't picture a mirror image of the dorsal side - seeing as those bottom nacelles don't match the top... the angle up instead of being the mirror image of angling down...

Also is there maybe some sort of deflector apparatus?

------------------
Homer: I'm gonna miss Springfield. This town's been awfully good to us.
Bart: No, it hasn't, Dad. That's why we're leaving.
Homer: Oh, yeah. [pokes his head out the window] So long, Stinktown!

Posted by NeghVar (Member # 62) on :

Andrew,

I have several models/minis of the Cheyenne here in front of me, all are built with identical tops and bottoms (mirror images). The pylon curve when looked at from the angle the "Behind the Scenes" card set shows, gives the impression that they are angling up. When you rotate the model in virtually any direction, this optical illusion goes away.

I don't think Alexander da Large is about, otherwise he would agree with me about this.

Later!
Art

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

Posted by Matrix (Member # 376) on :

Model? Minis? Where was I when these came out?

------------------
Signature for sale! For a mere price of $20 per letter you get this wonderful little space to say your own things. Get it now while there's still space!

-All you base belong to infinity. -infinity11

Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :

I don't see why the deflector couldn't be the same as on the saucer of the Galaxy class -- both top and bottom. Aux. deflectors do have precedent in the Intrepid class (I know it came after the Cheyenne, but I doubt that was the first time a Starfleet designer had the idea).

As for where to find Cheyenne models: http://www.federationmodels.com/model_kits/starcraft_models/default.htm

This is the best one I know of out there, and even then it requires fiddling to make better sense...

--Jonah

------------------
"It's obvious I'm dealing with a moron..."

--Col. Edwards, ROBOTECH

Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :

Although the ship could basically be symmetrical, I'm sure there is some *minor* vertical asymmetry. Obviously, there won't e.g. be a bridge on the ventral side!

The saucer deflector on the dorsal side looks ridicuously small, due to the altered scale of the saucer. It also doesn't much look like a deflector, what with being painted all coppery without a hint of blue. Thus, I'd like to imagine that the corresponding location on the ventral side was slightly modified so that there would be a bigger deflector there. Currently, there is no way of telling if Miarecki put something like that down there or not, so I'm free to have my little fantasy...

Apart from that, I don't see major needs for asymmetry. The small Cheyenne probably won't need a Captain's Yacht, and the saucer underside isn't a likely spot for such currently-apparently-missing hardware as torpedo launchers or shuttlebays. I trust we can say that the torp launchers are on those vertical pylons, even though they appear smaller than the launchers of other ship types. And I trust we can say the shuttlebay is either on the aft surface of the saucer, or then omitted altogether (after all, not all wet-navy ships have helicopter hangars!).

Timo Saloniemi

Posted by Fabrux (Member # 71) on :

My personal theory is that there's a small shuttlebay inbewteen the dorsal and ventral pylons.

------------------
"The truth is usually just an excuse for lack of imagination."
- Garak, "Improbable Cause"

Posted by Matrix (Member # 376) on :

Only if I had the money to buy all those models...

------------------
Signature for sale! For a mere price of $20 per letter you get this wonderful little space to say your own things. Get it now while there's still space!

-All you base belong to infinity. -infinity11

Posted by Toadkiller (Member # 425) on :

While we are on the topic - do we have any canon info on the mission of this class? I've seen a bunch of web sites that variously call it an explorer or a ultra-torp-firing-super-cruiser

------------------
TK

Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :

The only time we've ever really seen it was in the graveyard at Wolf 359. The Pegasus was orginally supposed to be of this class. Other than that, who knows?

------------------
"The sons of the Prophet were valiant and bold,
And quite unacustomed to fear.
But, of all, the most reckless, or so I am told,
Was Abdulah Boul Boul Ameer."
Aban's Illustration www.alanfore.com

Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :

The U.S.S. Crazy Horse was also supposed to have been a Cheyenne (and both *are* Cheyennes in *my* canon Trek world).

------------------
"To all Harry-Fans: I meant no disrespect against Harry and have nothing against the stupid little creature. Thanks and enjoy the show."
Nimrod, 04-04-01.

---
Titan Fleet Yards - Harry Doddema's Star Trek Site

Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :

Considering its similarity in design to the Constellation class, my guess would be that it is a long range exploration vessel.

------------------
Lisa: "Don't you remember the story of Oedipus?"
Homer: "Maybe five dollars will refresh my memory."
Lisa (angrily): "Oedipus was the story of a man who kills his father and marries his mother!"
Homer: "Uggh! Who pays for that wedding?"

Shabren's Final Prophecy: Star Trek: Legacy

Posted by Mark Nguyen (Member # 469) on :

Or a fast scout. Or a courrier vessel. Or a Diplomatic ship. Or...

Mark

------------------
"Why build one, when you can have two at twice the price?"

- Carl Sagan, "Contact"

Posted by Matrix (Member # 376) on :

I like to think a failed scout design. If it were successful then we see more of them in battles but no, the only time (I think) is the graveyard scene in Wolf 359. As for the scout idea, since she has only 2 phaser arrays visible (well 1 but assuming that the underside of the saucer has one too) and possibly a torpedo tube or two. Then you got 4 warp nacelles that could only mean two things to be faster, or longer endurance. Either way it could mean that she was a ship that "scouted" on long missions.

------------------
Signature for sale! For a mere price of $20 per letter you get this wonderful little space to say your own things. Get it now while there's still space!

-All you base belong to infinity. -infinity11

Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :

I think it's a science vessel, not a scout. Flaunting your nacelles like that is asking for trouble. The Dauntless got that right, tucking in its potatoes.

------------------
Don't kill me, I'm charming!

Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :

Since similarly shaped ships can have very different missions (Nova vs. Sovereign) and differently shaped ships can share a mission (Galaxy and Nebula), I think we should forget about engine configurations for a while and concentrate on the visible mission gear.

Superficially, the Cheyenne and the Constellation are very similar. Both have the maximum number of phaser emitters typical of their era (Cheyenne has the longest possible strips, while one couldn't easily cram more of those ball turrets to a TOS ship than Constellation has). Both also appear to have two forward-firing torpedo launchers, although the Constellation launchers are twin-tubed. We do not know if the Cheyenne launchers are rapid-fire, multi-shot weapons to compensate, or if the Cheyenne simply is more lightly armed in this respect.

Both ships also seem to feature the standard number of sensor ports for their eras, without any obvious additions in the style of e.g. Soyuz. Neither type carries podded systems. And neither type has a big prominent navigational deflector.

The big difference is that the Cheyenne either completely lacks shuttlebays, or has a small ventral or rear-facing one. So far, all the Enterprises have had big hangars. They have also utilized their shuttles mainly for exploration of dangerous areas and for errands with which the mothership could not be bothered. If the Cheyenne does not perform these missions, then she probably isn't an exploration ship or a diplomatic platform. She's unlikely to be a transport or supply ship, either, or a surveyor - too much armament, too few cargo holds or sensor ports visible.

To sum up, the Cheyenne doesn't have distinguishing features (if we forget the engines), and has a slightly more austere equipment fit than the average "multipurpose" Enterprises. She's sized like the previous generation of cruisers, but is smaller than the frigates of her generation. And sadly there is no, repeat, no data on her performance yet.

From there on, it's all guesswork. She could be a generic multi-mission ship built to replace the aging Constellations, Constitutions and whatnot - but it seems more as if Starfleet replaced these old-timers with ships one size larger (Excelsiors being the apparent "backbone" ship nowadays, judging by numbers). Or she could be a scout or courier as proposed (this is a special role that justifies the apparent low production numbers and low screen presence and doesn't require any visible special mission gear), and be given somewhat oversized phasers just to "round her out", make her more multi-purpose.

One thing I'm sure of: when we get a better picture of the Challenger class, we'll see a very similar mission gear to the Cheyenne one. The only difference will be that the Cheyenne has four smaller nacelles and the Challenger two oversized ones, perhaps amounting to the same thing. So these two ships are likely to share a mission. Whatever that mission is...

Timo Saloniemi

Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :

Ah HA! I have found some evidence as to what lies on 'the bottom of the Cheyenne' (cue spooky music)

Anyways... I have sketched a little drawing as to what we KNOW... I speculated on the possible shuttle bay...

Also, we have evidence from that Cheyenne/Springfield pic, showing us that the ventral half of the 'secondary hull' is not as TALL as the dorsal half... (the top half). Look how the saucer rests on the table, if the bottom half was as TALL as the top half it would be pitched over more! This fits in, now with the angle of the lower nacelle pylons, i.e. sketch them at the angle shown and then place the nacelles you won't get as tall-a-bottom-half.

[This message has been edited by AndrewR (edited April 06, 2001).]

Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :

Well, I dunno. It seems to me that the ship is not pitched at all in the photo with the Chekov. Instead, the center of gravity is somewhere a bit aft from the forward edge of the vertical pylon (because the saucer is just empty plastic while the marker pens are filled with the usual wet sticky stuff?), so the ship rests placidly on her lower nacelles, the saucer perfectly level.

Building asymmetry to the model would be difficult, compared with just leaving the inherently symmetrical parts as they were...

Timo Saloniemi

Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :

OK, it doesn't matter, really if the model is tipped forward or not... that was just silly for me to point that out, the real thing to take notice of is the distance between the saucer and the table-top... if the ship was IDENTICAL on the bottom as compared to the top, then the saucer would be much higher up. As you pointed out the nacelles/highlighters are flat with the table-top...

As per my sketch, if you follow the bend of the nacelle pylons and match this with the position of the bottom nacelles, you'll see that the arch down, the same as the top - not opposite, this means that when you extrapolate the line of the pylon to where ever it meets the hull of the ship, the bottom will not be as 'deep' as the top half of the ship.

Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :

Either the lower pylons curve down, or there's no rounded thingy on the bottom of the secondary hull. Think about it. If the pylons were curving up, and the rounded thingy were there, the ship would be resting on the rounded thingy, not the nacelles.

------------------
"I write messages on money.
It's my own form of social protest.
A letter printed on paper that no one will destroy.
Passed indiscriminantly across race, class, and gender lines
and written in the blood that keeps the beast alive
A quiet little hijacking on the way to the checkout counter.
and a federal crime.
I hope that someone will find my message one day when they really need it.
Like I do."
-Rage against the Machine

Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :

*shudders*

I renew my objection. This is one butt ugly ship. It belongs in the back of the DS9 Tech Manual.

Take the top nacelles off and put a weapons pod there or something, and maybe...

Sorry, I'm feeling slightly hostile right now...

Posted by Fructose (Member # 309) on :

Nah, you are talking crazy about the difference in top and bottom heights. I built a model that is almost a mirror from top to bottom, and I put it on the table like shown in the picture. It's tilted almost exactly the same. And I built it with straight pylonys, no sloping up or down at all. It looks pretty darn close to me. I don't have a picture yet, but I could try to get one some time soon. I also had a web site displaying my model, but for some reason it's not working now.

I guess you'll have to trust me for now.

P.S. In your drawing, the top is WAY to tall. You should pull out a model to get a better idea on it's size.

------------------
It doesn't matter if you don't know what you're doing as long as you look good doing it.

Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :

Exactly.

I scratch-built a Cheyenne, and the top of the vertical pylon (where the torpedo launcher was on the E-D model it was originally) is less than an inch above the bridge. The pod on top of that is approximately the same height as the nacelles. And the pylons are crafted from flat pieces of sheet styrene -- no angle up or down. I repeat: the horizontal pylons are just that -- horizontal and parallel. Bernd's Cheyenne reconstruction page shows all the deductions quite well. Check it out if you haven't already:
http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/schematics/cheyenne.htm

--Jonah

------------------
"It's obvious I'm dealing with a moron..."

--Col. Edwards, ROBOTECH

Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :

Erick: Your site works for me. A bunch of the Cheyenne pics are missing, but the ones at the bottom are still there...

Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :

Well, reguarding my 'picture' - its just a quick sketch.

2. The bottom pylons are NOT horizontal, look at that Trading card pic... they join the nacelles on top, and the nacelles aren't too far away from the saucer section...

Also, the ship isn't resting on the rounded section, because like the top, it finishes before the tops/bottoms of the nacelles.

Can't ANYONE see how the bottom nacelle pylons arc DOWN from the nacelle to the hull!?!

[This message has been edited by AndrewR (edited April 07, 2001).]

Posted by EdipisReks on :

andrew, if you go to www.ex-astris-scientia.org and look for the cheyenne reconstruction under "starship articles", you will see the actual cofiguration of the cheyenne using a scientific approach with the current info. the ship is symetrical top to bottom, and the lower pylons DO flare down, but only at the very ends.

--jacob

------------------
"Hi, my name's Locutus, and I'll be your assimilator tonight. Can I interest you in our specials? Super. Well, currently we're offering an arm-replacement tool with extra wiggly-waggly bits on, or, for the more daring among you, not one but two ocular replacements! Terrific. You want fries with that? Ohh, I'm sorry, I've just heard from the chef that fries are off - they're irrelevant, apparently."

-Vogon Poet, March 13, 2001

[This message has been edited by EdipisReks (edited April 07, 2001).]

Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :

Now, THAT's a signature, Oedipus Rex!

------------------
"To all Harry-Fans: I meant no disrespect against Harry and have nothing against the stupid little creature. Thanks and enjoy the show."
Nimrod, 04-04-01.

---
Titan Fleet Yards - Harry Doddema's Star Trek Site

Posted by EdipisReks on :

*blushing*

[This message has been edited by EdipisReks (edited April 07, 2001).]

Posted by Vacuum robot lady from Spaceballs (Member # 239) on :

I'd imagine Lee would have more cause to.

------------------
"Instructed by history and reflection, Julian was persuaded that, if the diseases of the body may sometimes be cured by salutary violence, neither steel nor fire can eradicate the erroneous opinions of the mind."

-Edward Gibbons, The Decline and Fall of The Roman Empire.

Posted by Fructose (Member # 309) on :

Ok, my site is back up. You can take a look at my symetrical Cheyenne if you like.

www.onlyinla.com/~fructose/models/hopi/hopi.html

Note: The bottom is just for a little excitement.

------------------
It doesn't matter if you don't know what you're doing as long as you look good doing it.