quote:

---

Originally posted by Harry:
I wonder... could this have anything to do with that photo of the New Orleans model docked to DS9.... probably not.

---

*slaps Harry*

That was a freaking Galaxy. Whoever it was who measured/calculated and pronounced it a New Orleans is either being waaaay too hopeful, or is off their rocker. You guys seem to have forgotten the state of the NO model. The thing was burnt to a crisp.

As to this whole "City of..." nonsense, the reference in the Encyclopedia was a joke. Besides, why the hell would SF even name a ship "The City of New Orleans"?? Does that even make any sense?? The answer, dear friends, is no. In any case, as the class is called New Orleans-class, the prototype would be U.S.S. New Orleans, not anything else.

-MMoM

P.S.
Where'd that whole 'Royal Sovereign' thing come from, anyways??
 

---

Posted by Topher (Member # 71) on :
 
Probably from hardcore FASA RPGers. *shrug*
 

---

Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
 
Really MonkeyBoy, I consider myself firmly on my rocker. If the Flare upload site was still around I'd show you exactly why that is. As for the condition of the New Orleans model, have you forgotten the lost "Emissary" footage?
And those small photos featured in the encyclopaedia, did you not notice a distinct lack of damage?
 

---

Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
 
I saw the DS9 pic, and it looks like a Galaxy to me. It was just mounted at an odd angle, and part of the model was obscured by the station pylon. It was an optical illusion, Rev. Not a phantom New Orleans.

Okuda took those pics of the model just before he set about destroying it for BoBW, and had them retouched (adding window lights and starfield background) for the Encyclopedia.

And as to this fabled lost footage, I thought it was said that whatever-his-name-is did not maintain the same designs as from BoBW, and had new designs made up?

In any case, if an intact New Orleans model did exist, don't you think we would have seen something of it? (And I mean aside from one backstage photograph.) These models aren't cheap, y'know. They don't just build 'em and then not use 'em.

-MMoM
 

---

Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
 
You think a kitbash is expensive? an everyday model kit and a couple of marker pens is out of the price range of a studio?

There are quite a few ships that have only been seen once or twice, Curry, Centaur, Yeagar to name but a few.

I don't care what angle you look at a Galaxy, there is no way it will grow a set of dorsal pods, make the pylons attach where the neck should be and lengthen the nacelles.

As for the new footage, I distinctly remember that bloke saying in the interview that he went to a bit of trouble making sure that he did infact use the right names, regs & designs insted of making up some of his own.
 

---

Posted by USS Vanguard (Member # 130) on :
 
From whence was this NO/DS9 photo from? the Magazine? Fact Files? Its the first I've heard of it. But it's certainly piqued my interest.

[ December 30, 2001: Message edited by: USS Vanguard ]
 

---

Posted by Ace (Member # 389) on :
 
Why would Starfleet name a ship the "City of..."?

I don't know, but Rick Sternbach used it on his runabout sketch.
 

---

Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
 

Here's the picture. (From the Model Citizen website, original source unknown to me.) I'm sorry Rev, but I don't see any pods, and the nacelles most certainly do not look like their pylons attach at the neck. Like I said, I think you're just being hopeful.

-MMoM
 

---

Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
 
Here we go again...

After seeing all the magnified and filtered and massaged and generally placated images last time, I was pretty satisfied that the model was indeed a New Orleans, possibly even the same scorched Kyushu model that they had used in BoBW2.

But hey, let's agree to disagree. Or, let's crack out photoshop one more time and have a looksee again.
 

---

Posted by Fructose (Member # 309) on :
 
Hey all, that one got my attention. And being in posession of an actual model that is fairly simmilar to the Kyushu, I'd say it's pretty close to my model. Looking at the right angle of both the Ent-d and the Kyu, I'd have to say it's a New Orleans ship. The nacelles on the Ent-d are much closer together and you can't see the fronts when the deflector dish is in view. You can with the New Orleans ship. I'd take a picture and show you, but no digital camera. I'll take a couple 'real' pictures and post them some time soon.
 

---

Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
 
Nuff said
 

---

Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
 
'Nuff said indeed.
 

---

Posted by The359 (Member # 37) on :
 
That HAS to be the New Orleans.

First, lets picture the New Orleans right-side up. This is what the New Orleans model looked like:


Now notice the battle damage to the saucer. There are large dark cuts going down the left side of the saucer, and a large blotch going diagonally toward the front right. Now look at upside down ship. Notice any unusually DARK splotches on the saucer section? One dark blotch appears to go from the bridge over to where the ship is obscured by the pylon. This is on the right-hand side. When flipped over, this blotch would be on the left-hand side, corresponding with the picture I just posted. Also notice the other, diagonally positioned splotch. When flipped, this matches the picture posted above, again.

Second, we have this picture:


This is the bottom of the same New Orleans model. Notice the nacelle closest to us on the upside down ship. Notice no red Bussard Collector? That's because it's not there. When flipped over, we see that the corresponding nacelle on the New Orleans model no longer has a Buzzard Collector, its been ripped clean off. Now, look at the other nacelle of the New Orleans model. A chunk of the nacelle on the inward part is missing. Now look at the corresponding nacelle on the mystery ship. Notice a black splotch immediatly behind the Bussard Collector?

Now, where are the pods you ask? They are still there. Look at the far nacelle on the picture, and look IMMEDIATLY above the red bussard collector. Notice an area that is whiter then the rest of the ship? That is the pod, NOT the nacelle you are seeing. We can't see the other two pods merely because they are blocked from view.

Also notice that the saucer is too small in comparison to the nacelles in order for it to be a Galaxy.

Therefore, in conclusion, that is not only a New Orleans class starship, but it is THE same model used in Wolf 359. The battle damage corresponding is conclusive of that.
 

---

Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ace:
Why would Starfleet name a ship the "City of..."?

---

There is a (see the singular notation..."A," meaning one ever) precedent. That would be USS City Of Corpus Christi (SSN-705). The decision to name her that was in deference to those Christians who would object to a boat named USS Corpus Christi. which would then have the appearance of a weapons platform named after the body of a major religious icon.
 

---

Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :
 
I'm sure Mike's evidence is conclusive beyond a doubt, but a pop-up box got in my way, so we'll never know...

From the few blurbs I've read about the City of New Orleans labeling on those original sketches, the name was nothing more than a joke that they used while coming up with the design. I don't know the origins of the joke, but didn't it turn out that Sisko was from New Orleans too? I think it's just a city they like.

I suppose it's also possible that they were originally going to name all the runabouts after cities instead of rivers.
 

---

Posted by Veers (Member # 661) on :
 
Aban Rune--can't you close this "pop-up box?" That's what the "X's" are for.

I say we can (mostly) agree that it's a New Orleans.
 

---

Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :
 
Yes...it was a comment on the annoying nature of pop-up boxes
 

---

Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
 
"The City of New Orleans" by Arlo Guthrie

Riding on the City of New Orleans,
Illinois Central, monday morning rail,
Fifteen cars and fifteen restless riders,
Three conductors, twenty-five sacks of mail.
All along the southbound Odyssey
The train pulls out at Kankakee
And rolls along past houses, farms and fields,
Passing trains that have no name
And freight yards full of old black men
And the graveyards of the rusted automobiles.

Good morning, America, how are you?
Say, don't you know me, I'm your native son.
I'm the train they call the City of New Orleans,
I'll be gone five hundred miles when the day is done.

Dealin' card games with the old men in the club car,
Penny a point, ain't no one keepin' score,
Pass the paper bag that holds the bottle,
And feel the wheels rumblin' 'neath the floor.
And the sons of Pullman porters and the sons of engineers
Ride their father's magic carpets made of steel
Mothers with their babes asleep
Are rockin' to the gentle beat
And the rhythm of the rails is all they feel.

Good morning, America, how are you?
Say, don't you know me, I'm your native son.
I'm the train they call the City of New Orleans,
I'll be gone five hundred miles when the day is done.

Night-time on the City of New Orleans
Changing cars in Memphis, Tennessee
Halfway home, we'll be there by morning
Through the Mississippi darkness rollin' down to the sea.
But all the towns and people seem to fade into a bad dream
And the steel rail still ain't heard the news
The conductor sings his songs again,
The passengers will please refrain,
This train's got the disappearin' railroad blues.

Good night, America, how are you?
Say, don't you know me, I'm your native son.
I'm the train they call the City of New Orleans,
I'll be gone five hundred miles when the day is done.
 

---

Posted by targetemployee (Member # 217) on :
 
That's a good song. I remember hearing it before on the radio.
 

---

Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
 
Just to sum up why it's a NO class ship:

1. You can see hull BELOW the nacelle pylons - on a Galaxy there is nothing under and aft of the horizontal parts of the nacelle pylons.

2. The nacelles are ABOVE the saucer section... a Galaxy's nacelles end BELOW the saucer section.

3. This is dodgey... but - we've never seen a Galaxy docked at a LOWER pylon before.
 

---

Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
 
So why exactly is the station model upside down? Or are all those people stuck to the ceiling?
 

---

Posted by Veers (Member # 661) on :
 
That's how they film ships and things--upside down. It's easier somehow, I don't know why.

[ January 01, 2002: Message edited by: Veers ]
 

---

Posted by Mark Nguyen (Member # 469) on :
 
Quite simply, because the moving camera is more easily mounted ABOVE an object and shooting DOWN over something, than being under something and shooting UP. More space efficitent that way too. You'll notice that many exterior shots of main Starships (E-D, Voyager, etc.) are seen from the underside from our perspective. This filming technique, called an inferior perspective, maeks the object look bigger (as we the audience are looking "up" at it, as we would a skyscraper from outside). And as we all know, all main starships have to look big.

Mark
 

---

Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
 

quote:

---

As for the new footage, I distinctly remember that bloke saying in the interview that he went to a bit of trouble making sure that he did infact use the right names, regs & designs instead of making up some of his own.

---