Hello! My name is Mark Delgado, & I am a member of Bernd Schneider�s Wolf 359 research team. With the help of Michael Okuda, Ed Miarecki, Rick Sternbach and others, we�ve been able to solve the mysteries surrounding the lost kitbashed ship models used in the battle scene in �Best of Both Worlds.�
Now we are trying to solve another ship model mystery, and I was wondering if you could help. The DS9 Tech Manual, which you did the artwork for, showed six kitbashed ship designs in the Appendix. Three of the designs had actually been shown in the show, namely these:
U.S.S. Centaur U.S.S. Curry U.S.S. Yeager (with a link to Bernd's page for each diagram)
However, the last three designs have not been spotted so far in any episode:
Both Okuda & Sternbach gave us some good info. Okuda stated that these kitbashes were built by the VFX department, and that some of them were printed with names & registry numbers. He also said that some ships were given joke names because they knew that they wouldn�t be legible on a TV screen. Sternbach told us that you were given reference photos on which to base your drawings.
My questions to you are: 1. Were the last three ship designs also based on actual models built? 2. If so, were there any more models built besides these six? 3. Do you still have the reference photos to any of the models? 4. If you have the photos, but are unable to show them, could you at least tell us what names and/or registry numbers were printed on each?
Thank you for any helpful information you can provide.
Here's his reply:
Hi Mark!
All of the ships in the back of the DS9 Tech Manual were actually built by the VFX department from old kits. None of them were created for the book.
I think I do have some shots backed up somewhere. I will look for them this weekend.
Doug
OK, here's what I don't want. I don't want anyone else trying to get in touch with Drexler, asking him the same things I did. There's a good possibility that he will send me some of the reference photos, but I don't want everyone else & their brother pestering him about it, a la Ed Miarecki. The LAST thing I want to do right now is piss this guy off.
Posted by Mark Nguyen (Member # 469) on :
Excellent! I'm crossing some digits for this.
How many marks do we have here, anyway?
Mark
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
Well, when ever I talk about 'Mark', I mean you, M.N.
This is great news Dukkie! I'm going to be very happy if we get new info from this. I wonder if it will turn out that the Intrepid/Constitution really wasn't the Voyager-prototype...
And the prospect of new names/regs...I think I'm going to have some kind of heart attack.
BTW, though, I'm confused about something you said in your e-mail. I didn't know we had EVER heard that the Intrepid/Ju'day kitbash was actually the U.S.S. Yeager. Only that the design was known as the "Yeager-class" by the Ds9 Art Dept. Was there something I missed?
-MMoM Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
Oops, you're right. I did mean to say the Yeager class, not the U.S.S. Yeager. Oh well. I'm sure he knew what I was talking about.
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
Here's hoping that the ships look better live than drawn... (And it's not a completely unrealistic hope, since so much of the BoBW stuff turned out to be quite palatable in the end.)
Three Qua'plas to Drexler in any case! I wonder if it were possible to pester somebody else to find out where those models were actually used? All in "A Time to Stand", or sprinkled elsewhere as well?
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by nx001a (Member # 291) on :
Thats brilliant news. I always liked the Constitution Class and i would like to see a variant of that class in the 24th century. Will this means the classes will be canon then?
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
Umm, that's a matter of opinion. Sure, they were on-screen - but then again, so were a couple of microphone booms...
Personally, I've got nothing against a ship shaped like the Constitution-sans-secondary-hull (as long as the specs are corrected from their DS9 TM appearance). The three-nacelled, two-tops-saucered Excelsior could also be salvageable. But an Intrepid with Constitution nacelles is a monstrosity whose canonicity I will deny if given the slightest opportunity!
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by nx001a (Member # 291) on :
Personally I hated the Excelsior with the three nacelles more than the Intrepid one.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
Hey this sounds like great news, and remember to thank him whole-heartedly from all of us!
Did you... ahem... maybe let drop about Flare... he might like to come and have a squiz. Either 1. be entertained as a fan or 2. disgusted and repulsed at our complete obsession! ;o)
Heh.
Andrew
Posted by Cpt. Kyle Amasov (Member # 742) on :
^^^^
Your're only jealous because we have Rick Sternbach at the TrekBBS.
Would be great if he followed Mojo's example. It's always nice to get first hand info straight from the source.
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
I figure that I'll try to get the photos first, and then ask him questions later. I think it's a little more important to just wait until I hear from him again instead of trying to pester him about Flare.
Anyway, we can at least get some questions answered already. Namely, if all the ships depicted were actually built (yes), or did Drexler just make them up (no). As to where they are in shots, IMHO if they weren't in "A Time To Stand" then they weren't anywhere. I think we at Flare have the best eyes anywhere for finding obscure ships in shots or on displays, and we haven't found those last three ships yet. Since all the models (with the exception of the Yeager) were exclusively built for "A Time To Stand," then that's where they should be.
Posted by Cpt. Kyle Amasov (Member # 742) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dukhat: As to where they are in shots, IMHO if they weren't in "A Time To Stand" then they weren't anywhere. I think we at Flare have the best eyes anywhere for finding obscure ships in shots or on displays, and we haven't found those last three ships yet. Since all the models (with the exception of the Yeager) were exclusively built for "A Time To Stand," then that's where they should be.
I think it's strange they built several kitbashes just to include them somwhere in the background where no one is able to see them. Where's the sense behind this? They could have used standard-CG Miranda or Akira instead.
Posted by Austin Powers (Member # 250) on :
Perhaps they were thinking of reusing them in later episodes - which of course they didn't.
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
They built the kitbashes because, like in BoBW, they needed cheaply-priced battle-damaged ships, & didn't want to damage their expensive studio models just for one scene. Plus, when you build a ship model out of a plastic model kit, you don't want to show it up close because it will look fake. Hence the reasoning for showing the models in the far background.
Posted by Admiral Forest (Member # 751) on :
I would have liked to have seen an Ambassador class ship in the background.
Posted by Veers (Member # 661) on :
No e-mails from Drexler yet, Dukhat?
Posted by Austin Powers (Member # 250) on :
As much as I am keen to know that answer as well - don't be too impatient.
Posted by Bernd (Member # 6) on :
Seems we will get a good deal of stuff to talk about...
What will we do about the three unseen ships? Maybe they were really visible somewhere in the far background, and this would make them as valid as the Wolf 359 ships. What about odd names and registries? What if there is really a USS Voyager NCC-73602?
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Well, some people still use the 5xxxx number for the Prometheus. It could be similar to that. Voyager-74656 was lost, so they gave the name to another ship. That ship just happened to have experienced a halt in production for a while, causing it to have a rather old registry when it was finally launched and named.
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
quote:Originally posted by TSN: Well, some people still use the 5xxxx number for the Prometheus.
Well...yeah. I can't see how anyone can claim that that's not its number. Even though the 7xxxx number was used in the dedication plaque and MSD and was probably a better number for the ship, it was barely (if at all) visible in the episode, and the other one was plastered all over the hull!
-MMom Posted by Spike (Member # 322) on :
quote:I can't see how anyone can claim that that's not its number.
Because 5xxxx was an error of the CGI guys.
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
quote:What if there is really a USS Voyager NCC-73602?
You're implying that the Intrepid/Constitution kitbash is actually the Voyager study model. Until recently I would have agreed with you, but after Drexler's email, I'm not sure I feel that way any more. I guess we'll just have to wait & see.
BTW, nothing from Drexler yet. I'll give him a week or two, then I'll try to contact him again if I don't hear anything before that time.
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
If the "Intrepicon" turns out to be a kitbash and not the proto-voyager then it would be an amazing coinsidence that a such a model shares so many comon features with the study model.
My money is on it being the proto-voyager.
Posted by Bernd (Member # 6) on :
quote:Well, some people still use the 5xxxx number for the Prometheus.
Backward people like me Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
smart people like you (and me)
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
...and me...
Posted by Boris (Member # 713) on :
The problem is that everyone's using different approaches. Most of the time they don't conflict, but it is the problematic areas that reveal them. Let's make up some definitions:
The Commonsense Approach:
Put an average Joe in front of a TV and ask him which number is canon. Or show him a size comparison chart and ask him to find errors. Whatever he says is gospel. Why? Because an assumption behind the medium is that you won't look too closely -- if you do you defeat its purpose (i.e. by saying that Caesar was killed by a rubber knife in "Julius Caesar" because that's what the theater prop was). The advantage of this approach is that we avoid ridiculous explanations and keep things within the intentions of the producers.
The Documentary Approach:
Treat the show as documentary footage. There are no errors whatsoever, and everything must have an explanation. Hence, the correct number is the one more likely to be correct. Which one? The MSD and plaque number, because the hull number takes longer to change and could be a previous registry that wasn't painted over. The advantage of this approach is that it introduces greater believability into the show if the explanations are sound, and that these explanations could be accepted by the producers as well and used in the show.
[ February 25, 2002, 17:54: Message edited by: Boris ]
Posted by Veers (Member # 661) on :
MMoM--I find it hard to believe that YOU of all people would accept the NX-5xxxx registry. (Unless you were joking, of course)
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
I just plain don't trust exterior ship shots anymore. We know the VFX guys fiddle w/ stuff to make things look better, at the cost of accuracy (why I don't trust size comparisons), and that they aren't in the best of communications w/ the rest of the staff so they make stuff up on their own (why I don't trust something like the Prommie registry).
Posted by Boris (Member # 713) on :
Most of the tech stuff is being thought up and kept consistent inside the Art Department, while their own work, expressed mostly as background scenic art and small details on starships, is the least likely to be affected by random forces. So yes, their work tends to be the most believable and technically consistent.
On the other hand, the reason it's the least affected by random forces is that the scenic art and the details of ship designs are the least visible part of Star Trek -- what we tend to see is the work of the VFX crews and the writers, and it is these two that mostly influence a viewer's perception of everything. What the Art Department has done is take this into account and add it to the existing body of knowledge (the Star Trek Encyclopedia + the Manuals) with our help. So ignoring the VFX or the writers doesn't really help, because Mike Okuda wouldn't ignore it either.
The only problem is, how do we treat each component of canon: dialogue, VFX, sets, console art?
Here's the commonsense approach:
CONSOLE ART: Seen in the background most of the time, not a really important part of the story except to provide ambience.
DIALOGUE: In the foreground most of the time, it is what the average viewer notices the most.
VFX/SETS: Very close to the dialogue in importance, except that some things happen in the distance and can be ignored.
If any of these conflict, we iron things out so as to disturb the average viewer the least. These rankings are rather general, as different things are clear at different times.
And now, the documentary approach that makes no distinction between things seen in a closeup and far away, and assumes what we see onscreen is exactly what happened:
CONSOLE ART: It's a combination of reasonable elements and what appear to be confusing figures or layouts intended to deceive onlookers or make it harder for the uninvited to control.
DIALOGUE: The characters can exaggerate, mislead, are in error, but generally, if their statements are correct, they can be trusted over the console art, since the latter is already suspicious for the above reason.
VFX/SETS: The ship models are accurate in general to the detail. The VFX vary for unexplained reasons and are not to be trusted when other evidence is available. The sets are fairly reliable, like models, and generally provide a good source of a ship's interior (for example).
Posted by Mark Nguyen (Member # 469) on :
I submit that none of us subscribe to either approach outlined by Boris in its entirety. As tech nuts, by nature none of us can be simple "John Q Nielsen" types, as it's what's going on behind what this average viewer will see which interests us. Likewise, the practical tech-head will not be completely faithful to the documentary approach, but will have his theories tempered by what's seen on screen.
Case in point: NONE of the standard control consoles in Trek are labeled with anything remotely useful; at best, it's random number and letters which tend to correspond to initials of the production crew. And in the cases of TOS and ENT, virtually no labels at all except where it's supposed to serve a story purpose. The common sense person will not even notice this, while the documentary person must assume that the controls are all operated from memory of the operator, or some such nonsense. WE cannot accept either, and it is each individual's resting point between these two extremes which causes all the debate (and a good share fo the fun).
The same can be applied to the current debate on ship numbers: Most people will be okay with 59650, some will accept 74913, and the rest of us have to reconcile both within the context of the Trek universe. There is obviously no real answer and will not be unless someone involved in the production comes up with an answer, since most fans will equivocate a person's job with Paramount as having some measure of real authority over the matter, which is not always the case.
Mark
PS - for the record, I think it's a case of the ship being started ages ago, put in mothballs somewhere, and then restarted when the technology became practical. I'm of the opinion that the Prommie was sitting in some spacedock somewhere undergoing final integration when she was stolen, and they simply hadn't gotten around to repainting the ship yet, despite the modern look to it.
Posted by Fedaykin Supastar (Member # 704) on :
Maybe they put all sorts of bogus registry numbers all over the ship to confuse those damn "rommies" Damn them damn the all the way to Remus
Buzz
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
Or perhaps NX numbers aren't as sequential as NCC numbers in general tend to be?
Oh, I know that back in the TOS days NX numbers eventually became NCC numbers, as we saw with the Excelsior. But that's the only era (and basically the only class) for which we have such evidence. The Defiant steadfastly refused to get an NCC number... Perhaps she'd have become NCC-82357 when abandoning her NX status?
Or who knows, perhaps the three sections of the Prometheus simply all had different registry numbers?
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
quote:Originally posted by Veers: MMoM--I find it hard to believe that YOU of all people would accept the NX-5xxxx registry. (Unless you were joking, of course)
WTF does this mean? Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
It seemed pretty straight-forward to me, Mr. Mighty Monkey "Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope: Special Edition" Mim!
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
Sorry, I don't get it. What's the connection to the Prommie reg?
Posted by Ace (Member # 389) on :
Well, the USS Galaxy retained its number when it changed from NX to NCC.
The Defiant kept its NX number because it looked cool, tthe production cost of changing every stock shot to a new NCC number wouldn't be worth it, and the DS9 fictional crew state that the Defiant remains as an experimental platform for new technologies for the Defiant-class (like the lower shuttlebay).
Posted by EdipisReks (Member # 510) on :
i also think that the prometheus was originally designed decades ago and then mothballed when the design wasn't practical. hey, we can use this for lots of things!
question: why does the new looking akira have such low registry numbers?
answer: it had a serious design flaw, and thus the original order of were ships put on hold until the design flaw was fixed. because of this, many akiras have low registries even though they were built in the "modern" (post TNG) period.
question: why do ambassador class ships have low registry numbers when some excelisiors and even mirandas have higher ones?
answer: the ambassador class was originally designed in the 2310's, but there were design flaws/technical limitations that made it impractical (and it was also unneeded at the time due to all the pretty brand new excelsiors). the ship was set aside until the 2330's when tech could make such a large ship practical, but the original order still bore registries from the 2310's.
everything, especially stuff like this, can be explained in a way that keeps all of the "if it's seen clearly on the screen then it is good enough for john q. nielsen" crap without going all the way to the "the enterprise had a huge rubber duckie in case they ever needed to give a bubble bath to a giant" crap.
--jacob
[ February 26, 2002, 22:20: Message edited by: EdipisReks ]
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
I think that explains the Defiant length problem... It's still an experimental ship, so Starfleet are always experimenting with different sizes ;o)
Posted by Boris (Member # 713) on :
Well, if we were to see an Intrepid next to Galaxies, Constitutions, Nebulas, Mirandas, and other ships of known size, there would be variation likewise because some people don't care about ship scales, only about the "cool" effect. But, since we haven't seen the Intrepid close to any ships of known size, we've seen no variations that could disturb Sternbach's design size. That's one way in which such discussions are biased.
The other bias comes from an assumption that major, well designed ships are shown at their true scale, and that ships-of-the-week are not. However, we have plenty of evidence that the VFX crews really think of say, the BoP as being 360' long. In fact, that's why the Defiant ended up at 560'. Rick Sternbach also mentioned that he'd argued for the Enterprise to appear bigger in TNG than it did, so how do we know that the VFX crew didn't want *that* to be a smaller ship, not the BoPs? After all, they did add all the surface detailing to the four-foot model.
[ February 27, 2002, 10:04: Message edited by: Boris ]
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
quote:I think that explains the Defiant length problem... It's still an experimental ship, so Starfleet are always experimenting with different sizes ;o)
This explains the 'tough little ship..' 'little?' line.
Posted by Boris (Member # 713) on :
Well, given that the Enterprise-E is the longest ship in the fleet, the Defiant is obviously going to be little from that POV.
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
*sigh* never mind
[ February 27, 2002, 10:15: Message edited by: CaptainMike ]
Posted by Ryan McReynolds (Member # 28) on :
On the topic of how to determine what's "right," I just wanted to reiterate my own method. While I don't "get into character" everytime I watch the show, the idea is basically like this:
Pretend it's the year 4000, after the Second Galactic War of 3875 wiped out pretty much everything in the galaxy. There is an archaeologist from one of the Magellanic Clouds. When it comes to the region once dominated by the Federation, the records are very fragmentary. Meanwhile, a holodrama studio is making a based-on-a-true-story series from whatever he digs up.
Now, you want to learn about these "humans" you've heard of, but the archaeology records are classified for some arcane beauracratic reason. So, you fire up the old holodeck and start watching the dramatization. When contradictions arise, some are the result of simple mistakes on the part of the producers. Some are deliberate changes as the archaeologist uncovered more accurate records. Some, sadly, are pure invention (like Pearl Harbor). The visual effects are all dramatized for impact and understandability, just as current movies based on real events often are. You can't be sure dialogue happened exactly the way you see, though you can be sure it was probably similar.
In other words: treat it like a television show. Recognize that the producers are not infallible. Understand the way television is produced. Make all of this information integral to figuring out what "really" happened. Use Occam's Razor whenever possible. Whatever makes sense to you can be "right," since it's all fiction anyway.
Posted by Boris (Member # 713) on :
An understanding of TV production is tremendously important, because if you have a choice between several theories, the one that takes into account behind-the-scenes will probably last the longest. This knowledge is also a big part of the difference between fans and fanboys.
The other important thing is believability. It occured to me that the guys who wrote the first tech manual, the TOS writers' guide, had nothing to be consistent with, so everything had to be invented with respect to the real world. Even the TNG tech manual sometimes ignores consistency with TOS in favor of believability with respect to the space program and the state of science. The Franz Joseph manual became popular because it was professionally done, not because it was consistent with the details of TOS. That's also the reason some fandom publications out there are valued.
So the best course of action is probably a believable theory that takes into account the established details as much as possible and suits the nature of television production.
(It looks like I'm bound to write a textbook on this someday...)
[ February 27, 2002, 13:10: Message edited by: Boris ]
Posted by Ace (Member # 389) on :
People who like the NX-59XXX number versus the NX-749XX number state that it's because that number is seen more clearly. However, how many of you state that we should accept USS Brittain instead of Brattain. Brittain was a LOT clearer than Brattain (seen as a little label behind the captain's chair). The name Brittain was seen in several shots. Why do you accept Brattain, then? Because it was an error you say. So why not NX-749XX?
As to my belief? I don't really care about that ship. It seems too fanboyish for me, and it shot a Nebula class (yes, I'm strange ).
Posted by Cpt. Kyle Amasov (Member # 742) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ace: People who like the NX-59XXX number versus the NX-749XX number state that it's because that number is seen more clearly. However, how many of you state that we should accept USS Brittain instead of Brattain. Brittain was a LOT clearer than Brattain (seen as a little label behind the captain's chair). The name Brittain was seen in several shots. Why do you accept Brattain, then? Because it was an error you say. So why not NX-749XX?
As to my belief? I don't really care about that ship. It seems too fanboyish for me, and it shot a Nebula class (yes, I'm strange ).
And it's not the only one. From small errors (Pasteur, Ahawahnee) to large larger mistakes (Hood bearing Lakota-registry, Jenolan/en/in)) - but everyone should decide which one he accepts. I take the 74xxx because it's from the guys who know how to do it, and it makes a lot more sense.
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
There's a difference here. First, with the Brattain, you're also dealing with dialogue as well as visual evidence. (Nobody ever said "Brittain"...)
quote:Because it was an error you say. So why not NX-749XX?
Because it's not an error. Why do you insist NX-59650 is an error? Why is the VFX number somehow more dismissable to you than the Art Dept's? Just because Okuda came up with NX-74913, why does that make that number "more correct" than the one that came from FI? Both numbers were just made up. AFAIK, the Art Dept doesn't have any kind of seniority over the VFX Dept. (In fact, I'm pretty sure it's the other way 'round.) There's no reason to count the 7xxxx number over the 5xxxx one, other than your bias towards wanting a bigger number. There's nothing blatantly erroneous about NX-59650.
You must also consider the secondary literature. Every single reference source uses NX-59650, including the Encyclopedia, authored by the man who came up with the other number in the first place: Mike Okuda. Even he concedes that 74913 is the the one that can be more easily let go of. You simply can't say "oh, let's ignore the big-ass registry on the hull."
-MMoM
[ February 27, 2002, 15:52: Message edited by: The Mighty Monkey of Mim ]
Posted by Spike (Member # 322) on :
quote:You simply can't say "oh, let's ignore the big-ass registry on the hull."
I do and it works fine for me.
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
The Zhukov's "big-ass registry on the hull" was 62136. Yet Okuda, the Encyclopedia, and all other references to the ship ignore it, and list it as 26136. So yes, people make mistakes. And one mistake was to give the Prometheus a 5XXXX registry on the hull.
Still nothing from Drexler, I'm afraid. Maybe I'm just being a little impatient, but I really thought I'd hear something by now. Even a "sorry, couldn't find anything" reply. But no such luck.
[ February 27, 2002, 18:21: Message edited by: Dukhat ]
Posted by Boris (Member # 713) on :
Also, how do you define big-ass? What's big-ass to you is not big-ass to me. Are we looking towards some kind of a consensus on what's big and signficant, and what's small and in the background? This is shaky ground.
Same thing with the Defiant. Maybe I happen to remember the shots of the Defiant docked at DS9 next to the Nebula, or the infinitely tall Jefferies tubes from "The Adversary", or the unusual distance between the bridge and the engineering. To someone who's just seen those shows, the Defiant feels big. Someone else might remember those of the ship next to a huge Galor. Other people might be influenced too much by the MSD and consensus, having seen none of the Defiant episodes in recent times. If, on the other hand, we accept everything onscreen as true and explain the problems, we've already achieved a more objective standard.
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
quote:Originally posted by a monkey with a keyboard: Why do you insist NX-59650 is an error?
Mainly because it's already been admitted that the NX-59650 number is in fact an error! I don't remember the exact quote, but Okuda said something to the extent that the effects company did not use the number that he picked out.
Also, that number is totally inconsistent with the rest of the Starfleet armadas that we've seen. There's no arguing that all new-era ships (launched in late-TNG and beyond) begin with NCC-7xxxx. The only ways to address the 5xxxx number is through a convoluted explanation that involves long production delays or some other such bull -- or to acknowledge that the hull number was an error.
Let's take a similar situation -- the infamous turbolift scene in "Star Trek V." The sign on the way CLEARLY said "Deck 73" or some other unreasonably high number. And yet, every Treknologist worth his Trek videotapes knows that that was a blatant ERROR... and therefore IGNORES it.
Why can't we do the same with the Prometheus's erroneous hull number?
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
but then most people tend to ignore ST:V altogether.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"Let's take a similar situation -- the infamous turbolift scene in 'Star Trek V.' The sign on the way CLEARLY said 'Deck 73' or some other unreasonably high number. And yet, every Treknologist worth his Trek videotapes knows that that was a blatant ERROR... and therefore IGNORES it."
Well, to be fair, that's partly because ST5 itself was a blatant error and we ignore it. :-)
Posted by Boris (Member # 713) on :
So the Galileo 5 is a non-canon shuttle? Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
No, but the E-A doesn't have 75 decks either...nor could it go from earth to the neutral zone then on to the center of the galaxy and back in anything less than a few decades if not a century.
There are some good things in ST:V that are firsts, one being as you say the shuttle craft & hanger bay but there are some technical errors and plot holes so big that you could comfortably fly a Borg cube through, with room to spare.
[ February 28, 2002, 15:53: Message edited by: Reverend ]
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
OK guys, I need some advice here. It's been almost two weeks, & I haven't heard a peep out of Drexler. I normally wouldn't be making such a big fuss out of this, but when I originally contacted him, he replied to me in a matter of minutes in a very cordial & helpful way. He certainly didn't seem like he wasn't interested, and if he thought I was just another annoying fanboy, it's not like he even had to reply to my email. But he did reply, & from what I gathered, he probably had some pics on his hard drive that he could just email to me. Unfortunately, he either a) hasn't found anything but is still looking and has every intention of contacting me; b) hasn't found anything, & has stopped looking but has neglected to tell me; or c) has just plain forgot.
I'd like to send him another email soon, but I want to word it so that he doesn't think I'm being too pushy. I even considered telling him that I'd pay him a reasonable amount for his trouble, but then I realized that I didn't want to see the photos THAT bad.
Any suggestions?
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
It's possible that he's fallen under a load of work. The Art Department's presumably in the heat of prepping stuff for May Sweeps, and I'd like nothing better than to believe he's so busy designing new stuff that he can't dig up the photos.
A really-gently-worded nudge would be OK, I guess. Maybe wait another week, and keep it pleasant but short. The money thing is all-round stupid.
[ March 04, 2002, 13:07: Message edited by: The_Tom ]
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
I'd say give him a gentle reminder, ending it with something like "I do realize you are a busy man and I apologize for pressing you if you just haven't had a chance to look...thanks..."
Becuase, you know, maybe he did forget.
-MMoM Posted by Veers (Member # 661) on :
He's been bumped off by Berman. Ol' Rick doesn't want those kitbashes going out to the public.
Posted by Proteus (Member # 212) on :
Talk about someone that deserves to be dragged out into the forest and hacked up with an ice pick.
how come any new, cool-looking powerful ship is fanboyish? I like the Akira-Class. I like the Prometheus-Class. I like the Sovereign-Class. I like the Steamrunner-Class.
You know why? Cause they look cool. That�s how you design a ship for a Science Fiction franchise. You make it look cool.
The promie is one of the best designs cause it has MVAM (which is cool). Just cause (technologically) it dwarfs your favorite ship, doesn�t mean its fanboyish to like it.
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
So, nothing new on this front? I know just typing out my frustration here isn't going to speed up things... But at least it keeps the thread title from being forgotten amongst the other oldie-moldie things on page 2+ of "starships & tech".
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
I find it amusing that this topic has grown to 5 pages, even though there's been absolutely nothing new released about the Tech Manual ships... Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
Perhaps if we keep jibbering mindlessly, we can get it upto six pages...
Kluck kluck jibber jibber, my old man's a mushroom etc...
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
I like cheese. Did you read the thread about the drunken monkeys? Who is that guy who keeps putting pictures on the school bulletin board. Oh yeah, that's me..
Posted by Veers (Member # 661) on :
I'm a little tea cup, short and stout...
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
quote:Originally posted by CaptainMike: Did you read the thread about the drunken monkeys?
I take offense to that statement. Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
I forgot that with your well thought out commentaries, every thread here has a drunken monkey or two in it look.. i made avatars for message boards: Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
grrr.... all my other message boards have dark backgrounds, you realize
grrr grr.. i meant to hit edit not reply
[ March 06, 2002, 15:08: Message edited by: CaptainMike ]
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
There's definitely something to be said for antialiasing...
Posted by Fedaykin Supastar (Member # 704) on :
um....yeah so like, when we actually do learn something knew....is someone gonna start a new thread or do i have to keep coming back to this one???? hehe
and i dont think there is anything fanboyish about liking the Akira, Prommie..etc... i particularly am probly in the extreme minority of liking the Curry/Shelly!
anyways....(this might get us to 6 pages!)
--or not
[ March 07, 2002, 03:10: Message edited by: Fedaykin Supastar ]
Posted by OnToMars (Member # 621) on :
Are we there yet?
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
Nope. Maybe now...
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
you guys stink at this page six getting.. let me show you how its done..
damn
[ March 07, 2002, 11:32: Message edited by: CaptainMike ]
Posted by Cpt. Kyle Amasov (Member # 742) on :
Has Drexler recieved the second mail already? I think this is part of his plan; he wants to make us go insane (at least those who aren't yet ). I'm sure Berman told us to do so. There you have it, the conspiracy-theory was right.
Posted by The359 (Member # 37) on :
Well, now that we've gotten it to six pages, we musn't stop now! ON TO SEVEN!
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
Last one to page eight is a Dr Who fan!
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
OK, I emailed Drexler today. Seems The_Tom was right after all...he's busy with Enterprise stuff. Here's my email to him (MMoM, take note):
Dear Mr. Drexler,
Hello again! I had emailed you about two weeks ago with some questions I had about the kitbashed models which you drew for the DS9 Tech Manual. I was wondering if you had found any reference photos yet. I do realize you are a busy man and I apologize for pressing you if you just haven't had a chance to look...thanks...
Mark Delgado
And here's his response:
Forgive me Mark, it's been really busy with the wrap up of season one hurtling toward us. I promise to dig stuff up for you over the weekend.
Doug
So there's still a chance after all that we may get to see those pics...however, let's take his email with a grain of salt. I'm guessing he won't get back to me for some time.
Mark
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
At least he's just legitimately swamped, and not blowing you off...
-MMoM Posted by Spike (Member # 322) on :
I'm curious which weekend he meant. Posted by Cpt. Kyle Amasov (Member # 742) on :
Arrr....
give, give, give!
There's a small but bright spot at the end of the tunnel. And it seems we just started moving towards it again. Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dukhat: So there's still a chance after all that we may get to see those pics...however, let's take his email with a grain of salt. I'm guessing he won't get back to me for some time.
Now, now. You make it sound like him not getting back to us is a bad thing. But they way I see it, the longer he's occupied, the more time we know went into designing HOREDS AND HOREDS OFF KIC@$$! @NDORRRIEN SPACESHiPS! & LOTZ OF KEWL SULIBAN WEAPONS AND XPLOSHINs AND SHIZAT!Which is fine by me
I mean, honestly, a month ago we didn't even know these pictures existed. We got by from day-to-day, didn't we?
[ March 07, 2002, 20:03: Message edited by: The_Tom ]
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
Yes, when we didn't know about them...now that we do it's positively agonizing. It's like, what you've always wanted, but you thought it didn't exist so you learned to forget about it, but now someone tells you it does exists and dangles it in front of you. It...well...sucks.
Then again, I have an instant-gratification problem. I hate waiting. It's part of what makes me certifiable.
-MMoM Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
Hey gang,
The day you�ve all been waiting for has arrived�DREXLER HAS SENT ME PHOTOS!
So far he has sent me five pics, but there�s a total of sixteen pics in all. For some reason, he had trouble sending all of them, so I should get more later. Anyway, here�s the rundown of what he�s sent me so far:
Photo 1: side-view of the ship we all thought was the Curry (�Excelsior/Constitution-class starship variant� in the DS9 Tech Manual). Photo 2: top view of the same. Photo 3: top view of the ship we all thought was the Voyager study model (�Intrepid/Constitution-class starship variant� in the TM). Photo 4: side view of the same. Photo 5: side view of the Constitution-class starship variant.
Now, for the commentary�
I�m afraid we haven�t given Mr. Drexler enough credit. His drawings in the tech manual are indeed correct & precise to the models. As a matter of fact, his drawings look better than the models. All of the models are painted a dull yellow, or perhaps that�s just how the light is hitting them. I have to say that these are some of the worst kitbashes I�ve ever seen. The good news is that the pics are very large, & I can read the names and registry numbers on the top views. Anyway, here are the facts about the three ships:
Ship#1: Contrary to former speculation, this ship is not named the �Curry.� Its name is actually the �Raging Queen�! No lie. Its registry number, again different from what we thought, is either NCC-42264 or 42284. The nacelles are placed as they are in Drexler�s drawing, so apparently they were turned before filming. The shuttlebay is in front of the ship; the only error in Drexler�s depiction. Besides the regular nacelle pylons, there�s also some thin pylons near the rear of the ship holding the nacelles.
Ship#2: Very interesting indeed. No, this is NOT the Voyager study model. In fact, from what I can see, it is an Intrepid saucer attached to the back of a Star Wars A-Wing fighter! The secondary hull in Drexler�s drawing is actually one of the A-Wing�s engines, so there might even be two hulls there. The runabout pylons are attached to the A-Wing fighter�s wings. The Constitution nacelles are exactly as Drexler drew them, even right down to the little yellow stripe. The ship�s name is the U.S.S. Elkins, and the registry number is either NCC-74121 or 74101.
Ship#3: No name or registry info from the side view, I�m afraid. But yet again, the ship�s design is the same as Drexler�s drawing. Hopefully he�ll send me a top view so we can see just how far apart the nacelles are.
That�s it for now. Once I get all the pics, I�ll ask him if it�s OK to distribute them.
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
Sweet merciful crap!
*utter fanboy joy*
of course, we should recognize that the Raging Queen could have been relabeled Curry at the same time its nacelles were rearranged.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Question is, was it changed before or after filming? In other words, when were the pictures taken? Not that it's all that important, though. Just a thought.
Posted by Fructose (Member # 309) on :
I would like to know when we can see the pictures. If you need a place to post them, I have room on my website if you want to e-mail them to me. Let me know.
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
Some things I forgot to mention: The Raging Queen has no "U.S.S." before the name, and it's the only ship of the three with battle damage.
Posted by Mark Nguyen (Member # 469) on :
RAGING QUEEN?!
Mark
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
Now what was the word I was looking for to describe my "utter fanboy joy"?
Gagh? Pah? T'Phui?
The ships sound horrible, simply horrible. The one I had high hopes for was the Constitution rearrangement, because she at least should have had properly scaled parts (and I'm already accustomed to Connie kitbashes since the fan community has churned out so many of them). But I hate the idea that the nacelles really are mounted upside down, for no good reason. See "Ranger class light cruiser" at shipschematics for a better execution of that idea.
The Intrepid humping the A-wing may in fact be a very nice idea as such, but why the "#�&%/ does it have to have Constitution nacelles? With big Galaxy ones, the ship could in fact have been way cool.
One question about the Raging Queen - how are the primary and secondary hull connected? Drexler's drawing shows a weird unrecognizable part that barely touches the secondary hull. What is it? Is the secondary hull really hanging on just by the strength of that, plus the nacelle aft pylons?
I fear the worst for the three-naceller now. Since we knew the Centaur wasn't accurate, we could always hope the other ships looked better in RL, too. But based on all this, it may be that even the Centaur originally looked just like Drexler shows it, and was simply modified for the close-ups when the original shoddy work didn't suffice.
The only remaining decent design would be the "Jaeger class" thing, mating the Intrepid and Maquis hulls...
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by nx001a (Member # 291) on :
Thats great news indeed. I be interested in the pictures? I was wondering is there a chance in emailing them to the message board? Does the Constitution Class Variant have two or one nacelle? I wonder if we can make this topic go to nine pages?
Posted by Fedaykin Supastar (Member # 704) on :
*wonders if he's a doctor who fan*
oh well....we've waited this long i dont see why we cant wait a lil bit longer for the pics - btw...are we allowed to see them or did drexler say that they cant be put into public view???
if i've missed any information regarding my question sorry for bother u ppl.....
Buzz
Posted by Cpt. Kyle Amasov (Member # 742) on :
Oh my god! OH MY GOD!
Any chance you can post them or email me? (I know, a dozen other pople asked this before, but you know how we feel! )
And the Queen could be the other Shelley from 'A Time to Stand'. Originally labeled Curry for foreground filming they relabeled it to represent the ship in the far background (you know, the one we only saw barely above that D7. As far as my research has gone, that is a variant of the Shelley-kitbash. The nacelles are too long to be the ones attached to the Curry, and the curry has definitely nacelle standard arrangements and not those nacelles turned 90�.)
Ha! I always said there are two Shelleys! Why did no one listen to me?
Oh happy day.... Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
OH GOD! COME ON, POST THE F***ING PHOTOS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-MMOM Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
Sorry Kyle, but the damage pattern to the Raging Queen's saucer matches the ship we thought was the Curry.
My stupid Juno ISP apparently couldn't handle files of that size. For some reason, Drexler's JPEGs were outlandishly huge in kilobytes, so out of 16 pics, I only got 5. However, I saved them as bitmaps (making them even more huge), then resaved them again back to JPEGs. Somehow, doing that, the kilobytes shrunk immensely.
OK, I haven't asked him if it's OK to spread the pics around, but as a courtesy to my Wolf 359 team, I'm gonna send the pics to them first, as I trust these guys that they won't be distributed further. Again, once I receive all the pics, then I'll ask Drexler about showing them. Remember, I still don't want to needlessly bug him before I get all the goods.
Posted by Cpt. Kyle Amasov (Member # 742) on :
Hey, where can I become a member of your team? Quick? Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
What was that ship from "The Conscience of the King" Called... "Celestial Queen"?
And maybe the Curry was renamed Raging Queen - maybe Curry is a Raging Queen!?! ;o)
Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
Hey, I contributed an itty-bitty to the W359 project, Mark
[ March 08, 2002, 10:13: Message edited by: Harry ]
Posted by Mark Nguyen (Member # 469) on :
And I contributed moral support! Does that count?
Mark
Posted by The359 (Member # 37) on :
I know my name is listed at the bottom of a few of the Wolf 359 pages, so I know I contributed.
Posted by Ultra von Magnus (Member # 239) on :
So, you've saved 5 of 16 photos. Is there a chance that the other 9 will be resent or something?
Posted by Cpt. Kyle Amasov (Member # 742) on :
^^^^
Hey, if those arguments count, they I offer my Niagara-drawing for the page. How's that?
Or better: What do you want? I have some pretty rare images of Okudagrams and stuff. Or scans? Do you want scans? Just tell me what you need. Or I'll do a schematic or diagram for you. Or I write a text for you. Anything, but by god, tell me how I can get them!!! Posted by Spike (Member # 322) on :
quote:I have some pretty rare images of Okudagrams and stuff
That sounds interesting. What do you have?
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
I just e-mailed Bernd some new re-labeled screencap analsysis pics yesterday! Pleeeeeaaaaassssseeeee?
Y'know, you really don't have to use the word "distribute" (which might put his guard up). Why don't you just ask if you can post them on your message board?
-MMoM Posted by NeghVar (Member # 62) on :
I don't like to beg...but you will find my name listed on the Cheyenne reconstruction page.
Make it so... Art artbraune @ aol.com
PS: UM 16 - 5 = 11
Posted by Cpt. Kyle Amasov (Member # 742) on :
quote:Originally posted by Spike:
quote:I have some pretty rare images of Okudagrams and stuff
That sounds interesting. What do you have?
Okudagrams? Let's see (some examples)..
category: standard the ship status display from late TNG, some pretty good shots of the 'Siege of AR-558'-modified chart (you can even figure out some names of the Klingons/Romulans);
category: diffcult to find the *original* of Gary Hutzels shot of the Moore (not an Okudagram, but while we're at it...), a good shot revealing some information of PADDs (crew duty roster for example), a shot revealing some detail of the library from Insurrection;
cartgory: woo-hoo I should have a clear picture of the datascreens of Lt. Chulak from DS9's 'Field of Fire', the screens revealing USS Pueblo and some exots from 7th season TNG, and if I check out some contacts I might be able to get my hands on a clear shot of the Wall Status Display from Star Trek 6.
I'm sure I forgot some, if you're looking for anything special, tell me.
[ March 08, 2002, 13:26: Message edited by: Cpt. Kyle Amasov ]
Posted by Spike (Member # 322) on :
I take everything you have. Posted by Bernd (Member # 6) on :
First of all, I think we will make the pics available as soon as Drexler gives permission to distribute them. Mark, did you already ask for the rest and for permission?
Now for the pics: Mark is right. The ships really look almost exactly as they are depicted in the DS9TM.
1. The "Raging Queen" (I first read "Racing Queen") is not exactly the ship we saw in "A Time to Stand". The nacelles are much like in the DS9TM drawing, but to me it seems as if they were tilted by about 30� from the horizontal position. They are fixed with what looks like main and auxiliary pylons, and the auxiliary pylons are attched to the impulse drive. The connection betwen the saucer and the rest doesn't become clear. There is some sort of "upside down ramp" at the saucer rear end.
2. The Intrepid/Constitution kitbash is just horrible. Imagine Drexler's illustration, but even much more colorful. Is "Elkins" a proper name?
3. Nothing more to say about the Constitution variant until we get more pictures of it.
Posted by Ultra von Magnus (Member # 239) on :
16 - 5 = 11.
Ugh. I am a fiasco.
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
I got the rest of the pictures today. I now have side & top views of all ships, plus two oblique views of the Yeager. Here�s the rundown for the new stuff:
Constitution variant top view: The nacelles are spaced a bit apart from each other, on short pylons. Fructose�s version of the ship on his website is just about accurate. There�s no name or registry on the saucer.
The �Centaur�: Although this ship was called the Centaur in the episode, that�s not what was written on the saucer. Unfortunately, the lettering & spacing is so small, it�s hard to read just what it says. It looks sorta like �Genesis� to me. The greeblies & the weapons pod ARE there; apparently Drexler just didn�t notice them or try to draw them in. There are also four greeblie �towers� near the rear of the saucer top. Here�s where Centaur modelmakers all around the internet will be collectively smacking their heads: The rear part of the Excelsior model is actually on top of the saucer! Let me explain. Imagine the dorsal view of an Excelsior engineering hull, with the shuttlebay & the �transwarp bubble� (or whatever it is), directly behind the bay. Well, that�s what�s on the saucer (facing the opposite direction). So like the Raging Queen, the shuttlebay is in front of the ship. The ship�s name is printed right on the shuttlebay, & the �bridge� is actually the transwarp bubble. There�s also coil/tube thingies all over the hull & on the pylons. Kinda hard to explain. The registry, as the Fact Files stated, is indeed NCC-42043.
The Yeager: Again, it�s pretty much how Drexler drew it, although the nacelles look as if they came off of the speedboat shuttle rather than the Intrepid. For all the continuity buffs out there, the ship�s name IS the U.S.S. Yeager, in direct contradiction with the Saber class ship of the same name. However, the registry is NCC-65674. The oblique shots look pretty good.
The 3-Nacelled Excelsior variant: Actually, this is my favorite ship of the bunch. I believe it was Timo who said that the ship would look much better if it were upside down. Well, surprise � it is! It�s the nacelles on the Excelsior pylons that are the first two, and the third nacelle is the one on the Constitution pylon. However, you can�t see this from the drawing, but there�s actually TWO Connie pylons holding the third nacelle. They�re inverted, so they start from the rim of the saucer & taper down to the nacelle. There�s a funky piece of ribbon or wire on the rear of the ship, presumably taking the place of the filming stand. There�s battle damage on the hull, & unfortunately no name or registry number.
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
Cool. So basically our whole view of these ships has been turned upside-down (no pun intended ).
Posted by Mark Nguyen (Member # 469) on :
Ah pity d'foo who don't like the Centaur.
And adding to my worthiness, I'm the guy who first named the Shelley-class. Anyway, how about putting it up on a password protected thing, and thus keeping track of who's got access that way?
Mark
[ March 08, 2002, 19:46: Message edited by: Mark Nguyen ]
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
Or...how about letting us ALL see?
For now, I have a couple of questions.
1.) Wasn't it Mike Okuda who said the Excel/Connie was named the Curry? How do we reconcile this? Besides, I thought there was no way the ship we saw onscreen looked the same as the one in the Manual?
2.) Now that a few more folks (I assume) have had a chance to look, is there any more insight as to which of the two registries for the Elkins and Raging Queen (Dukkie said either NCC-74121 or 74101 and NCC-42264 or 42284) is correct?
3.) Is the ship labeled The Raging Queen or just Raging Queen? (The previous posts are confusing.)
4.) Is the Elkins' secondary hull just an unmodified A-wing, or has it at least been partially/minimally disguised as a legitimate ship component?
Thanks, -MMoM Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
*rolls eyes at this banal techie clique backslapping*
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
So this is the ship that is really upside down!?! And it has 3 nacelles??
When you say constitution - do you mean refit at all? There is that little Connie Refit nacelle/saucer config.
And I reckon the Raging Queen is the ship that is in the distance, that looks somewhat like a miranda/shelly - near the D7 - explains the wierd nacelle angles Oh and couldn't they have changed that registry a little better - like 75466 instead of putting it back in the 6xxxx's Andrew
[ March 08, 2002, 22:45: Message edited by: AndrewR ]
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
It's not drawn upside down, it's just that the text says it has 3 nacelles, but from the side view you can't see how they're laid out, and many people thought it had 2 on top and 1 on the bottom, but it actually has 1 on the top and 2 on the bottom.
-MMoM Posted by Spike (Member # 322) on :
I'd like to know if these ships (Centaur and Yeager left aside) appeared in other episodes than "A Time to Stand".
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Monkey: That's not what our Minbari informant said in his post above. He said the Connie pylons taper down to the single nacelle they hold. So that makes the drawing upside-down. Either that, or the photo shows the ship upside-down.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
I'm confused, if they are using the connie REFIT nacelle pylons for the ONE nacelle - these have always been shown going at an angle - not straight up or down... so how do they reconcile this, unless these pylons are the 'twos' and the exxie pylon is the 'one' (which works cause it's at right angles).
Oh, and are all the colour schemes all mixed and matched, or do they try and give it some semblence of uniformity?
Andrew
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
(Still recovering from the wonderful but somewhat jarring inner-clique back-pat I just received...)
The first five pics show varying color schemes. Yellow is predominant in place of standard bluish-white as the hull color, probably mostly due to the lighting. But each model is also amply decorated with bright red and blue paint, roughly where Drexler's drawings put it. The Constitution-variant has smart red lines in various places (Drexler doesn't show this), and doesn't look as awful as I feared at first - it is simply very shoddily glued together, and should be assumed to have suffered some sort of a hull-melting proximity blast.
Interestingly, the tilted nacelles of the Raging Queen (no "the" in front of the name on the hull) have been painted blue on the outer (formerly top) sides, making it look very much as if this is the "warp grille". The standard Constitution-nacelle warp grilles have in turn been painted over with bright yellow. One could even pretend that this is a wholly new nacelle type, and not just a mis-scaled and misaligned Constitution nacelle. I could even learn to like the design.
The Elkins is butt-ugly. Some Starfleet arrowhead symbols and red lines have been painted on the A-wing, which is missing the cockpit canopy and the fins. The color scene is complex and has lots of blue and red highlights; the finish is shoddy.
This thing about "Curry vs. RQ" and "Centaur vs. Genesis" is really interesting. In the few side views we have of the Centaur, the top of the ship appears very, very flat. Could the shuttlebay and "bridge" have been removed for shooting? And the Curry-as-filmed seems to have received completely new nacelles, instead of just having the originals re-mounted - otherwise, the special color job would be more evident.
Looking forward to seeing the rest of the pics. I think I could learn to like the "Medusa" and the Yeager a lot, and sorta tolerate the Constitution-mod and the Raging Queen...
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by Bernd (Member # 6) on :
The ship we see in "A Time to Stand" (Curry?) is clearly essentially the same as the Raging Queen, as the bttle damage reveals. It seems they have used the Miranda nacelle pylons with nacelles for the filming, whereas the Raging Queen has unknown, flimsy pylons.
Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
You lucky elitist bastards Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
So, when are we going to be able to see these pics again? And could someone post a snippit of the TechManual pic and the 'names' you people have and are now given them. I'm getting a bit... overwhelmed here. (Possibly cause I didn't look very long at those ugly kitbashes - cause they were hideous).
Posted by Bernd (Member # 6) on :
I'm just trying to correct the Curry schematic with the new information. When I tried to figure out the correct size of the upright nacelles, I couldn't match the screencap with Drexler's photo. I have the impression that, after all, the nacelles on the Curry are smaller (I compared their height to the secondary hull and their length to the saucer). This may actually have been the reason to modify the model for the shooting (for it looked silly with the huge nacelles). Do any of you know the scale or size of the Enterprise(-A) in the 3 Enterprises kit? I suspect that this is where the Curry nacelles were taken from.
Posted by Bernd (Member # 6) on :
Forget my question about the 3-Enterprises kit. If they are in scale, it would be 1/2500... But is there a resin kit of about 1/1000?
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
BTW.. ask Drexler if he approves of the class names chosen by fandom.. 'Shelley' and 'Medusa', etc... If he gives those his OK, maybe we can find ourselves at least contributing a little bit to canon. :-)
Oh.. and tell him he's welcome here anytime.
onto the ships:
U.S.S. Elkins: The Intrepid/Constitution variant. How far off have we decided the scaling of the nacelles is? Perhaps a creatively tweaked diagram would make this ship seem more likely. As to the registries, 74121 or 74101, I hope that resizing the files didnt lose data that would be crucial in enhancing the photos.
U.S.S. Centaur: I wanna see this shuttlebay. And the alternate name if we can enhance it.
U.S.S. *ahem*Raging Queen, Shelley-class variant: Are we writing off the lack of a U.S.S. on the hull as it not being in Starfleet? Perhaps some sort of Federation militia vessel? might help explain the.. creative.. name. So we have two variants.. the modification we refer to as the Curry was actually seen on screen and then there is the rotated nacelle alternate pylon arrange labeled Raging Queen. As diagrams go, taking the TM ship and applying the color scheme will make the off-scaled nacelles look better (id be willing to accept them this time around, if they were presented as non-Const. nacelles). Perhaps they relabeled the ship when it was slated for a closeup, as to avoid offending any Raging Queens in the audience.
Medusa-class: Excelsior-variant. I'm not sure where to start on this one.. couldnt a connie nacelle pylon be modified to go straight by removing the curved bottom? Whether the connie pylons or the exxie pylons are double, either way it looks better upside down from the diagram we have now
Constitution-variant: Yeah, lets see how far apart the nacelles lie.
U.S.S. Yeager: I'm perfectly willing to accept the FC Yeager was destroyed and a new Yeager was built.. and since im a Prometheus 5xxxx registry proponent, I'm fine with the 6xxxx registry, natch (what was the FC Yeager's reg anywho.. does this predate it or is it just close to it.. i forget if thats the one that was mistakenly listed as 8xxxx or what we decided)..
OK.. until i see anything, I at least have a couple of names for the Galactopedia. oh, BTW, the Galactopedia can now be found at http://galactopedia.captainmike.org .. buying a domain is the best toy a kid can get for himself.
[ March 09, 2002, 08:33: Message edited by: CaptainMike ]
Posted by Bernd (Member # 6) on :
Yes, Bernd. Also, there is no 1/100 resin kit, but there IS a 1/1400 one by Starcrafts (1/1400 being the "scale of choice" amongst most modelers because they like big & have a lot of space. Not I, though--1/2500 forevah!)
Posted by Cpt. Kyle Amasov (Member # 742) on :
We had this a couple of days ago; the Centaur appeared a second time. Maybe they renamed the ship for that appearance, but left the Registry. Just like the Valkyrie.
And again, where's the problem is assuming the ship seen in the far background in 'A Time to Stand' was not 'equipped' with the same damage as her foreground-pendant, the Curry? They just renamed the ship. And it must be Curry because that's a 'common' name. What if the episode is released as a DVD? Or someone gets a really clear view of that scene? They'll read the stupid name. Do you rally think they would want that?
Good that Mim already asked; I would also like to know who came up with the information that the ship was named USS Curry.
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
quote:Originally posted by CaptainMike: BTW.. ask Drexler if he approves of the class names chosen by fandom.. 'Shelley' and 'Medusa', etc... If he gives those his OK, maybe we can find ourselves at least contributing a little bit to canon. :-)
Actually, Fandom has already established the 3-naceller as the Chimera-class, and also would suggest that the Excel/Connie is Curry-class.
The Chimera designation appeals to me. What do you guys think?
-MMoM
P.S.
So I take it from Bernd's site that NCC-42284 and NCC-74121 have been verified as the correct numbers?
Posted by Bernd (Member # 6) on :
quote:So I take it from Bernd's site that NCC-42284 and NCC-74121 have been verified as the correct numbers?
I have been looking closely at the registries, and these seemed most likely.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
I've only heard it suggested that the Chimera name be given to the Centaur. I've always heard "Medusa" applied to the three-naceller.
And regarding that three-naceller... My understanding, from what Dukhat described, is that the DS9TM picture is upside-down. The Excelsior pylons are on top and hold two nacelles, just like they normally would. The Constitution pylon is actually two pylons, connected to the bottom edges of the saucer and angling down and inward until they come together to hold a single nacelle.
Posted by Bernd (Member # 6) on :
quote:Actually, Fandom has already established the 3-naceller as the Chimera-class, and also would suggest that the Excel/Connie is Curry-class.
Actually, Fandom (at least the group I'm a proud member of, and this is all that counts) is developing original designs for these ship classes. Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
According to Steve Pugh's site, the LUG RPG supplement Ship Recognition Manual, Volume 1: The Ships of Starfleet calls the 3-naceller the Chimera. Here's the link:
[ March 09, 2002, 14:24: Message edited by: The Mighty Monkey of Mim ]
Posted by Cpt. Kyle Amasov (Member # 742) on :
Hey, maybe the Raging Queen is a 'fake' to cover the real name. They still had the new Defiant running as NX-74205, probably to confuse the enemy. Maybe they did the same here. They cover the real name, assing double registries and stuff to make the enemy believe they have more ships than they really have. Besides, if you were a Jem'Hadar, would you see the difference between a ship named 'USS Thomas Paine' and 'Raging Queen'? That's pretty much the same for you.
Raging Queen. Hmmm. Why didn't they just call it 'USS Janeway'? (I suppose they named the ship to honor Voyager's Captain, right?)
So we have the Elkins (Constitution/Intrepid), finally a Yeager with registry, a new Shelley, the Raging Queen, a Constitution variant, without name, a Centaur, with another name (can anyone confirm 'Genesis'?), and the Medusa/Chimera. Do we have a name for her?
Posted by Ultra von Magnus (Member # 239) on :
MMoM: LUG actually calls it the 3 Nacelled ship. Not SotSF.
To be, y'know, Nixpixxoring. Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Why on Earth would the Jem'Hadar or anyone else care what's written on a ship's hull?
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ultra von Magnus: MMoM: LUG actually calls it the 3 Nacelled ship. Not SotSF.
To be, y'know, Nixpixxoring.
Yeah, sorry. I've amended my initial post.
-MMoM Posted by Cpt. Kyle Amasov (Member # 742) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sol System: Why on Earth would the Jem'Hadar or anyone else care what's written on a ship's hull?
I'm sure there's a Dominion Secret Service. And I'm sure they want to keep track of Starfleet Operations. I would want to know which ship with which captain I just destroyed, for example. To calculate and estimate what the enemy conciders to do next.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Didn't we go through this back when the Prometheus first appeared?
"Well, according to the sensors its the most advanced ship they've got, but that number on the hull looks pretty old. Must be a computer glitch on our part. Let's move on."
Posted by Bernd (Member # 6) on :
Drexler was quite close, but some details and proportions needed more work.
Posted by Cpt. Kyle Amasov (Member # 742) on :
Let's put four wheels on it and paint some flowers on the hull and we get a hippie van.
This thing is butt-ugly, with or without corrections. But thanks anyway for letting us see what you saw. Posted by J (Member # 608) on :
Do I hear a "Dominion War Kitbash Project" coming up in the spirit of "Wolf 359 Project" ?
Posted by Ace (Member # 389) on :
Can someone post these so the rest of us can see them?
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
Nope. Mister Goody Two-Shoes (aka Dukhat) wants to get *permission* first...
Actually, I don't blame him, because we don't want to poison the well when it comes to getting stuff from Drexler.
But, in all seriousness, haven't you gotten his OK yet? We're all getting real tired of being left out.
-MMoM Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
This is the only scan I could find of the fleet from A Time To Stand:
Anyway, I was going to say that no. 2. could be the Raging Queen - with similar desruction patterns, but I had another look at the Shelly/Curry and it does seem that the nacelle pylons are out at an angle... So I look at no. 2 again and think well, the peak of the saucer section does match a intrepid, so this could indeed be the nasty 'constitution'/intrepid kit bash.
Can I ask WHY is it a connie/intrepid kitbash - does the 'secondary hull' really look like something from a Constitution class? or are they just going by the connie nacelles?
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
The secondary hull is a backwards A-wing fighter out of Star Wars... Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
LUG also has a two nacelled Niagara that looks like a baby galaxy.. so i dont give them much credit on overriding other canon.. besides, weve already dicussed the implications of taking a preexisting okudagram class name and applying it to a design that Okuda didnt really intend to be named that class: being proved wrong when he does reveal what it is.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
Does anyone think that no.1 is several ships infront/behind one another?
Posted by Cpt. Kyle Amasov (Member # 742) on :
If 3.) really is a starship, my first guess would be the Phoenix-subclass of the Nebula.
2.) I'm still saying it is a secons Shelley with full damage, named 'Raging Queen'. But until I see the pictures *hint* I can't be sure. Posted by Cpt. Kyle Amasov (Member # 742) on :
Mr Asamov, those outlines look right too me, i would agree to it....but to be fussy isnt it an 'A-Wing' hull instead of an 'X-Wing' hull???
but besides that...its good.
Buzz
Posted by Cpt. Kyle Amasov (Member # 742) on :
Yup, you're right. The A-Wing. Just a small error. But TPTB may forgive me because this is not a Star Wars-Tech forum. Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
Cap'n - thanks! That makes it very clear! At least I was on the right track about the connie/intrepid bash... that saucer gives it away.
Oh, and how that Raging Queen comes to life when you mark in the boarders!
I'm still puzzled over what this A-wing exactly looks like - not a big SW tech head - I have an idea of what they look like - I think... one crashed into the Bridge of the Executor? Anyway can someone maybe do an 'above' schematic/grab one and tweak it - to give us an idea as to what they have done to it to fit it with the intrepid hull etc - we know what that looks like from lots of angles.
Andrew
Posted by Cpt. Kyle Amasov (Member # 742) on :
I was looking for a sideview of an A-Wing, but there is none, as far as I can tell. Oh boy, they always tell us how fantastic and wonderful Star Wars is, but if it ever comes down to something like a simple schematic, they have none. We can be really happy we're Trek-fans. Posted by Topher (Member # 71) on :
You know, ugliness aside, the Elkins is the first canon design with a double-hull/double deflector assembly. Something to think about...
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
I've found out who the Elkins is named for. Judy Elkins was a VFX coordinator on DS9. Way back in the 80's, she was also a animator for TWOK.
So, do I earn a peek?
-MMoM
P.S.
I'm really having trouble visualizing this whole Centaur saucer thing. Can someone at least post a simple (crude, cut & paste, anything) illustration of the point?
That's amazing! It almost convinces me that there is actually a Raging Queen besides the Curry - although I still have the impression that the Curry damage patterns are identical to that on the Raging Queen. Or did they shoot the scene with the Curry, modified the model and then inserted the RQ into the background?
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
So just what is the deal here? Are those pictures EVER going to get posted? Do you really think he would have even sent them to you if they needed to be kept from being viewed?
Sorry, just venting...
-MMoM Posted by Dat (Member # 302) on :
One of the rare times I will ever agree with Mim. So when can we see these models? It's not like they're a closely guarded secret...unless they are. Mark (Dukhat) have you gotten any word from Drexler on whether we can have them previewed on this board?
Posted by Dax (Member # 191) on :
Fact is, Drexler wouldn't have sent out the photos in the first place if they weren't meant to be seen. At the very least, he would've mentioned that they're not to be distributed. What's the problem?
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
Since the Elkins is the only ship that actually combines recognizable elements from two distinct eras (Intrepid hull, Constitution nacelles) instead of from adjacent eras (Connie nacelles on Excelsior hulls), I think the ship might warrant a more detailed excuse/explanation than the rest.
The idea that one could attach mismatching nacelles to damaged ships like so many spare tires is just not believable. If it were that easy, surely we would be seeing much more ships deliberately refitted with modern nacelles (see the other thread). In fact, the whole "Paramount kitbashes are Starfleet shipbashes" idea just plain sucks.
So here's an alternate idea: the A-wing plus the pylons plus the nacelles equals one whole tugship, dating from late TOS movie era. The said tug is hauling a surviving Intrepid (or more probably Yeager, given the low rego) primary hull... It would be a much prettier tug than the one we saw hauling the Frederickson!
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by Veers (Member # 661) on :
Just post the pictures! It's not like he can do anything besides send an angry e-mail and tell us he'll never talk with us again.
Posted by Cpt. Kyle Amasov (Member # 742) on :
Mim and all the others are right. Look at my sig!
When I looked at the Elkins from the DS9TM first I thought the secondary hull is a reuse of the flying bomb from BoBW. And with those Danube-phylons/Constitution-nacelles, it looked like the soliton wave testship from TNG (as far as I know, the testbed for the drive was a reuse of the bomb). That wold have made sense, an old design used as a tug. But since it is an A-Wing, how dioes it work? I really don't think Starfleet has tugs looking like A-Wings with warp-nacelles flying backwards.
Posted by Bernd (Member # 6) on :
I haven't seen anything new in the last three days either. Mark?
Posted by Cpt. Kyle Amasov (Member # 742) on :
Might I add that Gary Hutzel didn't tell me I'm allowed to show you the image of the Moore? Nontheless I did it. Because it was pictured in every damn 2001-DS9 calendar. Because it was painted on the sidewall of a paramount hall.
Same here: If TPTB don't want us to see the pictures, why did they include schematics of those ships in the DS9TM??? Those are no secret informations. We're not talking about the a picture of Breman's salary statement or a copy of the Nemesis-script. Everyone who has the privilege to enter the Paramount lot could open those crates and take some photos of those ships.
The only reason I could imagine for not releasing them is you are currently preparing a page for those ships. If so, let me tell you we only want to see the pictures. What if we promise we don't show them to anyone else until you released your page? The only thing you have is my word that I wont show them to anyone else, so you have to live with it.
Could you at least tell us when we are supposed to see them?
[ March 11, 2002, 06:17: Message edited by: Cpt. Kyle Amasov ]
Posted by Spike (Member # 322) on :
It's somehow amazing that we haven't reached the point yet where everyone at Flare has the pictures because he or she promised not to distribute them.
[ March 11, 2002, 06:32: Message edited by: Spike ]
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
OK, thanks for the A-Wing pic, why is it called "A" Wing!?! ANNNYYYYWAYYY - how is it orientated on the model... and what is that 'gold' deflector dish thingy is this just one of the two 'engine' bits of the A-Wing?
Andrew
Posted by Cpt. Kyle Amasov (Member # 742) on :
I think there's a thired 'hole' between the engines. And I suppose the wings above and below have been removed to attach it to an Intrepid-saucer. Furthermore I think the cockpit windows have been removed and the thing behind the cockpit window serves as connecting dorsal. The Danube-phylons could have been attached somewhere below the saucer, probably running over those laser things left and right of the ship, to cover their existence.
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
Well, this is like the case of Okuda and his W359 ship photography. The depictions of ships we have from the TMs an the CCG are pretty much public domain because everyone has scanned them. But new, unseen photography is the area of artists copyright. They are preserving the rights and distribution of these images because Okuda wants to publish more books (with his W359 photography), and if the images get out no one will have much reason to buy them. As someone who is an art major I have to say the we are very much in the right by not distributing them. The men are artists and this is their work, and we are priveliged to be first up at seeing it, but they are using their right to their work to make profit off that. At least thats the understanding i gleaned whenever I read Bernd's page and read the multiple warnings about not redistributing Okuda's photography. In the case of Drexler he might not care enough, but I feel it is at least respectful to seek permission.
Once we have permission however, I want to photoshop in a star background, adjust the hull colors back towards bluegray and make the nacelles glow!
Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
I WANT TO SEE THEM
Posted by Mark Nguyen (Member # 469) on :
"...Please".
Mark
Posted by Cpt. Kyle Amasov (Member # 742) on :
Is it just me or did Dukhat disappear after he told us he had the photos? I assume no one here is responsible, so maybe it is a conspiracy.
Wanna hear my tale? There are no pictures. Really. How many of you have seen them? And how many can proof they've seen them? They are a myth, created by some clever guys. But I know the truth! I know the truth! *mad laugh*
Maybe I jsut had too much coffee. You know what happend last time... Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
You guys are the biggest bunch of fucking whining crybaby cockknocker assholes I've ever seen. You're worse than the guy in the apartment next to me who begs his girlfriend for sex & whines that they haven't had it in 8 days.
If I were Doug Drexler...if I were Gary Hutzel, or Ron Moore, Ed Miarecki, or Mike Okuda...& I saw you acting the way you've been acting for the past 3 or 4 days, I wouldn't EVER send ANYone ANYthing ever again. I'd think, "Oh...typical fanboys. Ho-hum..." and move on.
How long did we wait for those Excelsior study model shots? Or for the Springfield & Challenger images? A long damn time. But no one there got all whiny & bitchy & complainy.
You disgust me. We're supposed to be a better breed here, different from & above all the other fanboys. That's what we've always liked about Flare, what we've prided ourselves one. Now you're all jerking your cocks, massaging your scrotums with the other hand so you don't get blueballs from all the backup....& when you DO see those pictures, you'll let the jizz fly.
I for one am glad to calmly sit, & wait, & maybe never ever see those pictures. Sometimes that's just the way it is. The textual descriptions are more than we could have asked for as well, & I know I could probably reproduce the models as such with a fair amoutn of accuracy with those statements. Yes, I'd love to see the pictures, but there's no point whining like little colicky babies about it.
They're just pictures of some stupid models. Grow up.
[ March 11, 2002, 11:51: Message edited by: Shik ]
Posted by 359mph (Member # 37) on :
What he said...
Posted by Cpt. Kyle Amasov (Member # 742) on :
quote:Originally posted by 359mph: What he said...
Of course.
If he really takes anything of this serious, it's his own fault. If Okuda or anyone else reads this, I'm sure they see this is only kidding, something we do to pass the time until Dukhat or anyone who has them thinks the time is right to show them to us, in other words when Drexler told him.
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
Whatever, dude. I think people have at least some entitlement to complain. I mean, look what's gone on here. After all this time that people have been rabidly wondering about these ships, Dukkie e-mails Drexler, who openly sends him the pictures, without any kind of special conditions mentioned. Dukkie receives the photos, tells us all about how wonderful they are and even shares them with a few select people, but keeps them from everyone else, and then leaves us to discuss stuff without having all the information.
But, like I said earlier, I can understand his motivations. He's got the right idea about how to handle it. But couldn't we get things moving here? It's been days.
-MMoM Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
quote:You guys are the biggest bunch of fucking whining crybaby cockknocker assholes I've ever seen.
Yes.
[ March 11, 2002, 12:18: Message edited by: Harry ]
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Shik: So, which is worse? Whining, or whining about the fact that people are whining?
As far as the pictures go... At first I thought Dukhat's desire to get permission first made sense. But then I realized that we've only ever seen a single picture that was non-distributeable, and Okuda said, even before sending it, that it was copyrighted and couldn't be distributed.
If these pictures fell into the same category, I'm sure Drexler would have either said "sorry, I'm not allowed to give them out" or "I'll show them to you, but if anyone else sees them, I will personally come to your house and murder you".
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
I've been keeping quiet so far, but after Shik's wonderful commentary, I think it's time that someone spoke up.
If the question of whether it's right to distribute these photos or not is what's holding things up, then why the hell did SOME people get to see them already? They've already been distributed, then.
I see some serious hypocrisy here...
I mean really, what's the point of bragging "hey look I've got these pictures, let me describe them... oh, but you can't have a look because you're not on our elite list"? I think it's quite rude.
Please note that I'm not whining because I haven't seen the pictures -- I'm curious, but not desperate. I'm just pissed off at the attitude here, and the contradictory premise that they can distribute the photos to their elitist friends, but not to everyone else. As if there's any difference as far as Drexler is concerned.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Time for my favorite nonverbal form of communication.
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
Completely agreed here. My patience for people treating Treknology discussion like immunology research has eroded incredibly rapidly over the past year.
I mean, seriously. Stop, and take a look at yourselves. Can we stop taking everything so seriously? Can we stop forming "research groups" and embarking upon round after round of snotty cliquey back-slapping for working together to solve the intricate mysteries of kitbashes like you were curing bloody cancer? Likewise, can we stop crawling up to these people and crying like little babies that we need to see these pictures now-now-now or else?
Having this place show a little maturity and rise above a fanboy circle-jerk takes two things. Firstly, like Shik said, is to stop getting our panties in such a twist over not seeing photos. But secondly, can we start treating this like it was, well, I dunno, fun? And between friends? And not enormously important to the Earth's rotation about the sun? Our "research-group" strikes me as being just as guilty as this as the hordes of brownnosers crawling about their feet begging for a look-in.
Instead of passing around photos clearly intended to be seen by anybody to whoever can suck up the most, can we just smile and laugh and concede that's irrelevant if you or me or Bernd of the Russian Secret Service see them? Instead of worrying about incorportating ships we didn't know existed after watching the episode fifty bazillion times into canon and proceeding to scream and yell and curse at one another, can we just inject a little bit of Timoism into the whole affair and at least acknowledge that it is a frickin' TV show with real-world variables that are invariably going to make rationalizing everything an exercise in silliness?
So, listen up guys:
Post the frickin' pictures. Ask that they not be distributed if you wish. Put big ugly copywrite notices across them. Whatever.
I'll look at them for five minutes, and if inspiration strikes me to write a comment or two, then I will. I won't use them to build a thermonuclear bomb. I won't suddenly stop respecting the illustrious Corps of PhD. Starshipologists who spend a week after getting concrete proof still arguing if a saucer was elliptical or not.
And if you don't want to post them, and would rather listen to the plaintiff whining mews of those who will lose their erection if they don't see them within 48 hours, then do so as well.
Either way, somewhere right now in the real world someone will be born, someone will get their first kiss, someone will get married, and someone will die.
I don't really care that pictures of these ships exist. I do care that there are too many sticks up too many asses and that its making this place a less-enjoyable place to be.
Posted by Cpt. Kyle Amasov (Member # 742) on :
^^^^
Amen. I agree 100%.
Posted by Veers (Member # 661) on :
What, was Dukhat killed or something? Did a bomb suddenly blow up when he booted up his computer? If you are out there, Dukhat, can you at least respond to our incessive whining?
Posted by Cpt. Kyle Amasov (Member # 742) on :
With our luck, I bet he's on vacation for the next 3 weeks. Posted by Boris (Member # 713) on :
I had a joke here, but changed my mind. Forget it.
[ March 11, 2002, 14:57: Message edited by: Boris ]
Posted by Veers (Member # 661) on :
Who lives near Los Angeles? Attack Paramount Studios! Render them defensless! Go in and take those pictures yourself! Raid Drexler's files!
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
Amazing. I finally get round to catching up on this thread, and as I read it I get angrier and angrier. But then finally someone speaks up (and, in fact, in far worse terms than even I would have used). Shikky, I can state with full confidence that you are The Man. 8)
I mean, seriously, haven't you lot ever heard of something called Email? You're all so full of how wonderful your poxy little ASDB websites are, set up your own fucking forum where you can amuse yourself in a mutual-masturbatory orgy of nediness.
You really should all be fucking ashamed of yourselves.
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
You know, I'm thoroughly disgusted with some of you people.
If you all must really know, I actually HAVE been on vacation. I left Maryland Saturday with my girlfriend, & flew to Florida to see my parents. The last thing on my mind was these damn pictures. You see, I have a life beyond this forum, & I haven't even had a chance to get online until just now. However, I thought I'd be a nice guy & take the pics on a floppy disk to Florida so that if Drexler did reply to me with his permission, I'd be able to email the pics to everyone who was interested from my dad's computer via webmail.
So what do I find here once I log on? A bunch of impatient ingrates. I mean, I'm going to be in Florida for a week. What if my father didn't have internet access? By the time I returned home, would you guys be at the point where you're actually calling me an asshole or a jerk, or "rude" for sharing the pics with Bernd & Timo and not anyone else? And all of this, just because I decided to take the initiative & contact Drexler ON BEHALF OF THE PEOPLE AT FLARE, and just wanted to do the right thing & get his permission.
Well you know what? I DID get a reply from Drexler. And he DID say that I could distribute the pics to everyone here, as long as everyone keeps his name out of it in case Paramount happens to see the pics & wants to know where they came from.
As far as I'm concerned, some of you don't deserve to see shit. But that was never my choice, it was Drexler's. And since he's given his OK, I will email the pics to whoever wants them. But I think I deserve an apology.
PM me with your email address, or if you still have some semblance of patience, wait until Bernd posts links.
Mark
Posted by Bernd (Member # 6) on :
I dislike the tone in this thread lately. The reason why pics are not posted here is not because an elite wants to keep their knowledge and glory for themselves, but because there was some sort of an agreement with Doug Drexler. I don't know what exactly Mark/Dukhat has been negotiating with him, but until he does not have the explicit permission please respect that nothing will be posted here where it is available for everyone who drops in. No matter if with or without a copyright notice, there may be stuff that just isn't meant for the public (yet), and that certain people at Paramount may not like to be published. Having received some information by Doug myself, I know that it isn't always that easy, even if it's only some old starships. It should be in our interest and most of all in the interest of the person who provides pics or inormation that they are treated confidentially. Doug was very forthcoming (again), and we shouldn't disappoint him by spreading everything through the web.
Mark happened to be the first to receive the photos, and he provided them to a few people he knew he could trust - not some self-declared group of fans who want all the glory. Minutiaeman, The_Tom, Kyle Amasov: It's not that you wouldn't fall in the category of persons to be trusted too. But this is just not the place to publish them ATM.
I don't know. Mark may have reasons to stay offline or to keep the rest of the images for himself. I think there is not the slightest reason to complain about a few days of delay. Be patient. It has taken four years or so to finally dig up these obscure ships, and a few more days won't hurt. And another thing I want to make clear is that this is all a common project. Mark let all of you be a part of it since he began this thread. I don't understand all these reproaches, considering that he could have kept everything secret until it was finally published at EAS or somewhere else.
Posted by Bernd (Member # 6) on :
Oh well, you're back, Mark. Seems my previous post is redundant, although I'm glad to see that we are in agreement.
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
Mark, you do make a good point there -- you ARE the one who took the initiative. I had no intention of insulting you because of that.
I have no problem with the fact that you were waiting for confirmation from Mr. Drexler before posting these photos on the board. I've seen the lengths that Bernd went to with pics such as the Cheyenne/Springfield one.
The ONLY point that I was upset about was that these photos were apparently still distributed while you claimed to be waiting for permission to distribute them -- and that no secret was made of this on the board. If you were going to post textual descriptions yourself, that would have been fine as a sneak-peek before you got confirmation from Mr. Drexler. But no, we got the details from other people. And despite the fact that I'm willing to wait for them, there's still a little voice that says "why can't I see them now?"
This is supposed to be a friendly board to discuss and share opinions about "Star Trek." But the fact that some people were openly sharing material with certain others -- but not all -- seemed to me to be rather unfair and impolite.
Okay, so this whole thing definitely got overblown. I apologize for any insult I may have caused. But I don't believe that invalidates my concern.
Dan
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
Absolutely it doesn't invalidate your concerns. As long as this was some private fanboy jerk-off session over these photos, the discussion should have been kept private. Bernd is OK, but the rest of you are just wankers, really. And now we're expected to feel all guilty and repentant, I gather. Tough.
Aw, look. The old "I do have a life outside these Forums" line. Funny how that gets trotted out whenever the more obviously geeky ones here feel even slightly insulted. Never mind that at no time is there any evidence of said life. Instead it's "There's no evidence the Horizon was a Daedalus!" "I do have a life outside these Forums, you know." "You made a spelling mistake in that post!" "I do have a life outside these Forums, you know." Comical. 8)
Posted by Veers (Member # 661) on :
I apologize for any remarks I may have made about Dukhat. I was impatient and wanted to see some stupid pictures of ships that appeared as obscure white blobs in the background of some Star Trek episode. I should stick to my friend's advice and not care kitbashed freak-ship. (No, this is not a suck-up attempt to get the pictures posted so I can see them.)
[ March 11, 2002, 18:40: Message edited by: Veers ]
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
What the fuck has this thread turned into!?! Sheesh, I hope I'm not being included in the 'whining' - cause I've just been trying to piece together in my mind from the verbal discriptions of the ships as to what they might look like - AND I post a bizarre picture from ATTS, and another mystery was solved! What the HELL no. 1 and no. 2 were!
So again, what do we have to do to have a look at these pics? Is it possible they are put on the web, and if we have to PM/E-mail then we can just get the URL - I'm assuming that the size of the pics are quite large - from other posts.
HOW do you PM again - never used it.
Andrew
Posted by Mark Nguyen (Member # 469) on :
The PM function is under the "My Profile" button.
And for what it's worth, I believe that at least some of the misunderstanding/overreaction about all this has been cleared up. When it has been resolved to peoples' satisfaction, I recommend closing the thread and starting another one with level heads.
Mark
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
BTW, just to clarify things about the three-naceller: Even though it has no name or registry, I know that Drexler drew the ship upside-down. The top half of the saucer is actually from the Enterprise-B kit, while the bottom half of the saucer is the standard Excelsior. So the extra impulse engines are where the Excelsior pylons are, making the Connie pylons on the bottom.
Also, the Raging Queen got its namesake from a Saturday Night Live skit, with John Belushi as pirate Captain Ned. "Raging Queen" was the name of his pirate vessel.
As far as I know, the ship was never called or relabeled the Curry, only that the nacelles & pylons were switched w/ more believable looking ones for filming. So "Curry" & the erroneous registry should be stricken from anybody's shiplists.
Posted by Dat (Member # 302) on :
Well I only posted once about the pics, and i never thought I was rude about. I politely asked if Drexler had given his okay for distribution. Still, if i did come off as rude, then I also ask for forgiveness. I would still like to see these pics. I don't think my email address appears in my profile, so whoever has them and can send them to me at [email protected], I would be grateful.
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
Didn't the Curry name & number come from Okuda?
EDIT: I know what the "small pylons" on the Raging Queen are. They're the corrugated bands on the AMT Danube-class model. Also, on the Yeager, the nacelles are actually "inside-out." The outer grills are really the connection points for the the Voyager pylons.
[ March 11, 2002, 21:07: Message edited by: Shik ]
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
[ March 11, 2002, 21:50: Message edited by: CaptainMike ]
Posted by Spike (Member # 322) on :
quote:As far as I know, the ship was never called or relabeled the Curry, only that the nacelles & pylons were switched w/ more believable looking ones for filming. So "Curry" & the erroneous registry should be stricken from anybody's shiplists.
Did you ask Drexler about the Genesis/Centaur too?
Posted by Cpt. Kyle Amasov (Member # 742) on :
Sorry, Dukhat. And thanks for your opinion on this. I think it really has gone too far.
I'll leave my signature changed for the next few days until change it to something *normal*.
[ March 12, 2002, 03:05: Message edited by: Cpt. Kyle Amasov ]
Posted by Bernd (Member # 6) on :
Mail me, and I'll point you in the right direction.
But like Star Trek is just a TV show, this forum is just a forum. Our whining here is nothing compared to real-world whining
But anyway, over with the profound ethical and moral posts, and on to our usual nonsensical Trek debates, I say.
Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
My only comment so far in this topic is to point out that the secondary hull of the Elkins is an F-14, not an A-Wing.
Cheers, --Jonah
Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
My thoughts...
Three-Nacelled Excelsior Variant/No Name or Rego
The model is a bit better than the schematics, IMO. It reminds of some sort of a tug or tender. Imagine a cargo pod attached to the aft greeblies. This ship is not that outrageously ugly, though. The three nacelles are in the same config as the Niagara, and it looks reasonably balanced.
Constitution Variant/ No Name or Rego
Nothing too terribly wrong with this. There probably exists something similar in fandom?
Shelley/Raging Queen NCC-42285
The Constitution nacelles make the ship look really weird. We could assume that they are 'actually' custom nacelles, having nothing in common with the Connie. How is the saucer connected with the rest? I can't see it!
Centaur/ U.S.S. Illegible NCC-42043
I think I like this ship. Are those any nacelles we know of? Constellation perhaps? I like the Constellation-ish details. Perhaps this ship was something of a low budget-Constellation?
Intrepid Meets A-Wing/ U.S.S. Elkins NCC-74121 (I think)
Really awkward ship, this. It does look like it's a sister ship to the Yeager class (and I wouldn't be surprised if some of the ships we thought were the Yeager, were this thing), and is just as dificult to rationalize. Why would there be Constitution class nacelles on this ship? And why a seemingly brand new Intrepid saucer?
U.S.S. Yeager NCC-65674
Another really strange ship. The blue finish is nice, but hardly makes it any better .
Perhaps the Elkins and Yeager are some sort of Intrepid prototypes? Or they really must be Starfleet kitbashes, although their arses have been ripped from unknown ships
Mark, thank you very much for this! And thanks to Drexler to, for putting up with us. Oh yeah, and thanks to Shik, for beating some sense in this truly historical thread
But what was that about the ASDB?
(edit: teh fooking typos)
[ March 12, 2002, 06:46: Message edited by: Harry ]
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
So to just summarise what pictures are new
The Intrepid/A-wing (Int/Connie from DS9TM) The Yeager (Intrepid/Maquis combo) The Raging Queen (poss. the same as the shelly/curry) The Centaur The wierd double Excelsior saucer/three naceller
so... no "Connie with 1? Nacelle", ?Klingon? (hey it LOOKS Klingon to me) Tug?
Posted by Spike (Member # 322) on :
There were schematics of the tug in the last Fact Files issue.
Posted by NeghVar (Member # 62) on :
DD provided for the Connie variant both a top view picture and side view picture. Two nacelles (not one)...like I expected, but not like I expected? That make sense?
Someone else on the forum may be right...it does look like a F14 body instead of an A-Wing body (on the Intrepid/Connie variant)?
Later! Art
quote:Originally posted by AndrewR: So to just summarise what pictures are new
The Intrepid/A-wing (Int/Connie from DS9TM) The Yeager (Intrepid/Maquis combo) The Raging Queen (poss. the same as the shelly/curry) The Centaur The weird double Excelsior saucer/three naceller
so... no "Connie with 1? Nacelle", ?Klingon? (hey it LOOKS Klingon to me) Tug?
[ March 12, 2002, 08:49: Message edited by: NeghVar ]
Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
Summary:
3-Nacelled Excelsior -Top View -Side view
Constitution Variant (the one with two nacelles attached directly to the neck) -Side view -Top view (and it does have two nacelles)
[ March 12, 2002, 08:59: Message edited by: Spike ]
Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
Could be the bottom view, yes... But if that's the case, the model's upside down in the side view, since the ribbon is clearly hanging down... But the DS9TM shows the model with the Excelsior pylons down, so that was probably considered the right way during construction.
Posted by Cpt. Kyle Amasov (Member # 742) on :
I'm quite sure I've seen that constitution-design before. Hmmm...
About the Centaur/Genesis/whatever: Since the registry clearly says 42043, the registry of the Centaur, and the ship is the filming miniature of the Centaur, I think we should live with the fact that it simply says Centaur, nothing else. Just to avoid headache...
Can we be sure the Shelley is the one seen in the foreground of 'A Time to Stand'? I mean they don't change the nacelles without a reason. What if there's another, larger version of that model?
Posted by NeghVar (Member # 62) on :
quote:Can we be sure the Shelley is the one seen in the foreground of 'A Time to Stand'? I mean they don't change the nacelles without a reason. What if there's another, larger version of that model?
Don't think there is a different/larger model. The damage patterns look right to me...when compared to ATtS (crappy scans on my end though). For grins, anyone got a good/high quality pic of the Shelley to compare the "Raging Queen" with?
Later! Art
Posted by Cpt. Kyle Amasov (Member # 742) on :
Just had an idea. What if the Curry's/Queen's nacelles are variable geometry warpfield nacelles just like Intrepid's? Maybe the ship turns them 90� to create the warpfield and later turns them beck to a normal position when it is at impulse?
(And the Curry/Queen-naming problem can be solved if we say there were two of them, the Curry in the foreground, what Okuda said, and the Raging Queen in the background, visible at my picture. Can anyone proof that the foreground ship was not the Curry? )
Posted by The Red Admiral (Member # 602) on :
On close inspection the 'Raging Queen' on the Curry hull does not appear to be in the regular Starfleet font at all, in stark contrast to the registry below it. So I agree with the comment that it was possibly quickly stuck on.
Although these ships look pretty beat up, I'm glad the photo quality is as good as it is. Good enough to analyse the name printed on the Centaur saucer. I've come up with:
USS ***EATS.
The first three letters look like FIR or FIK. If it is, I've got no idea what FIKEATS is...
Posted by Cpt. Kyle Amasov (Member # 742) on :
I think the 'Genesis' was a pretty good guess. I came up with 'Secrets'. Fitting, in some weird way.
We could ask him. Drexler should know it.
Posted by Boris (Member # 713) on :
Gary Hutzel ought to know a lot more about how these models were built and filmed -- after all, all Drexler did was take photos, and maybe look at the models for a while. David Stipes would also know a thing or two, although he's primarily the CGI guy. But we ought to wait until the list of questions is complete.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
quote:Could be the bottom view, yes... But if that's the case, the model's upside down in the side view, since the ribbon is clearly hanging down... But the DS9TM shows the model with the Excelsior pylons down, so that was probably considered the right way during construction.
But they film a lot of the models upside down in Motion Control Photography... I've seen one of those "Effects" shows were they show the Runabouts being filmed... they're upside down... Smaller models might be shot upside down.
Also, reguards the Raging Queen... those nacelles are HUMUNGOUS compared to the exxie saucer... could they be a sort of 'pre-excelsior' excelsior length nacelle - but still in the style of the Connie refit?
ALSO reguarding the Ragin Queen name/font etc. It could be a 'crew' thing... naming it themselves - doing a sort of 'HMS Bounty' like McCoy dubbed the Klingon Scout in TVH. Someone on board might have a few existing copies of Saturday Night Live!
Also, what are the nacelle pylons made out of on some of these... like the Connie variant? (This I think is a real class... it looks more 'normal' - i.e. components sticking within it's own class) or the strange 'thin' pylons on the RQ?
ANNNND, which is the E-B saucer in the pic of the 3-N-Exxie? top or bottom according to the pic.
AND, the two connie nacelles coming down is a nice touch - instead of just one nacelle, I think this might point to the fact that there are two 'conduits' - you know what I mean, from the warp core) going down each pylon and feeding into the one nacelle... could this mean that there are two sets of coils (smaller versions) within the same nacelle housing? Or is it like that Blue car with the three wheels in Mr. Bean!?! ;o)
Oh, and anyone notice that the 3-N-Exxie, saucers aren't 'flush' together, but are separated by that metallic/copper looking arrangement? Large Scale Sensors? Big Arsed Phasers?
ONE MORE OBSERVATION - on the 'roof' of the saucer of the connie-variant, did anyone notice the additional 'squares' the coppery one to the aft looks like a Transporter emitter. What are those 'red squares' though? Phaser turrets? Escape Pods?
OK, off to look at the rest.
Andrew
Posted by Mark Nguyen (Member # 469) on :
My big comment here is with the paint schemes of the various models - they range from ugly to just plain bad, even in the harsh/flash lighting. These ships were obviously part of the Rainbow Fleet.
As for the Raging Queen, my guess is that this particular Shelley-class ship is one which has gone into civilian service, possibly as a freighter. We have no idea what the fleet the Defiant was part of at the beginning of the episode was actually *doing*... Perhaps a convoy that was ambushed, or which had to be resuced. Granted the ships were probably *meant* to be combatants, but the evidence seems to be mounting to the contrary.
Mark
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
The Centaur:
Anyone notice the WINDOWS!?!
All those greeblies!?! on top - a product of having to 'kitbash' in Starfleet? Exposed due to battle? Or maybe an extreme Sensor starship?
That name is hard to work out... I think the last two letters maybe an T and an S? Can I spin again!?! *TOP DOLLAR!*
Oh, should we take note of the warp 'grills' - they seem to be red, and the RQ has yellow, but I guess as we've seen on the actual episode the glow is still blue.
The Elkins
I STILL CAN'T make heads or tails of that A-Wing... where is that picture of one again?
And WHAT is that triangular thing at the back on top, with the three red stripes!?! And is that a deflector or just something under the saucer... Could be a 'weapon pod' of some sort? I can't see this being the connie part... I'd say the only connie part is the nacelles.
What is the registry on the nacelles? 74121? 74131?
HANG ON That doesn't say ELKINS!!!! It says El Nino!!!!!!! Or at least ELNIN*
I don't mind the 'fanned out' secondary hull section - balances the saucer up.
Some panels are painted yellow/gold while others are blue/green.
The Yeager:
What a cruel irony, the two types of ships that were pulled to the DQ - together... as one! ;o)
Andrew
Posted by Constellation of One (Member # 332) on :
NeghVar, you're right about the F-14/Elkins connection. From the parts breakdown and the apparent scaling, I'd say that's a Monogram 1/48 scale F-14A upper spine/cockpit area grafted atop the A-Wing and facing rearward. Butt ugly, too, I do say so. I'm holding one right now and its a spot on match, sizewise, although the little antenna and bumps under what would be the F-14's glove vane makes me wonder if someone didn't sacrifice a Hasegawa F-14D. Oh please, no! Those are too sweet to chop up! I wonder what the rear of the Elkins looks like? Did they fill in the aft secondary hull?
Robert
Posted by The Red Admiral (Member # 602) on :
It's hard to tell if it does say ELKINS or not, EL NINO though is two separate words, isn't it...? I don't think that's what it says here.
When I look at the saucer module of the Centaur it just constantly reminds me of the front of a Boeing 747! Is there any model kit they didn't cannibalize to make these ships?!
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
Yeah, I guess El Nino is two words... but were talking about people here, who put these MONSTERS together! ;o)
I like the idea of the shuttle bay on the top of the saucer like that on the Centaur... although what was wrong with doing a 'galaxy' type thing and putting it like that but behind the bridge!?! I.e. facing aft.
Andrew
Posted by NeghVar (Member # 62) on :
quote:I like the idea of the shuttle bay on the top of the saucer like that on the Centaur... although what was wrong with doing a 'galaxy' type thing and putting it like that but behind the bridge!?! I.e. facing aft.
I don't know...I kind of like it the way it is. True you lose the upper forward phaser bank...but it looks like you pick up the phaser cannons by the nacelles...
Later! Art
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
Since there's no restrictions on the photos, can someone please post them for quick cross-reference? (And for the benefit of anyone who might just be stopping in, not having any idea what we're talking about...)
-MMoM Posted by nx001a (Member # 291) on :
Just wondering has permission been given to view these pictures yet. I wouldn't mind seeing these pics if possible.
Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
I may have misunderstood. Who here has not seen the large photos yet?
Regarding the Elkins (or whatever):
That is so blatantly an F-14, it's silly. I can't belive you can't all see it. It is a complete fuselage, minus nose. No wings, no elevons, no vertical stabilizers. In the top view, just fore of the pylons, you can see the cut-ins for the swing-wings. The long rectangular pieces on top of the intakes are two of the launch rails for the Phoenix missiles. And the exhausts (or navigational deflectors, in this case) are unmistakable.
I know it's easy to mistake for an A-Wing. That's because the A-Wing was orignally made from two F-14 fuselage tops, cut off just aft of the wing roots, and with the central part of the fuselage removed just inboard of the intake scoops. Plus, of course, a new cockpit and other details... But that is a complete F-14 fuselage on the Elkins.
Regarding the Centaur:
I've been slowly building a Centaur-type ship model out of an Enterprise-B and a Reliant, plus the conversion kit. These pictures are very helpful. I've mapped out the windows -- with some modifications to make the layout a bit more symmetrical -- and am in the process of drilling them out. Now that we can see the Reliant bridge is used on this model, I'm making appropriate modifications.
As far as the Excelsior shuttlebay... Well, when I glued it in place I noticed three things: First, the trailing tips must be pinched in to make them lie alongside the superstructure; Second, pinching them in causes the other end to curve down in an arc that exactly matches the curve of the saucer top; Third, when I looked at it from the front, it practically screamed deflector -- not shuttlebay. So I now have every intention of painting the former shuttlebay doors fluorescent blue. The p/s aft flanking boxes will be the shuttlebays as I originally intended -- and as I still believe the boxes on the E-B are. But that's a can of worms I'm not opening.
Regarding the others:
I'm still ambivalent about the Shelly. I'm also beginning to like the three-nacelled Excelsior bash (BTW, the gold bits previously mentioned are the saucer rim of the stock Excelsior saucer painted copper, opposing the grey-painted saucer rim of the Enterprise-B). The Yeager is troubling to me. I like the variable-geometry nacelle pylons, but the mating of those two ships makes my teeth itch... The Constitution variant is nice also, but the paint job is ass, like all of them.
--Jonah
Posted by Spike (Member # 322) on :
If that's the bottom-view of the 3nacelled excelsior then maybe there's a name and a registry on the top view. I hope the top-view is one of the 2 missing pictures.
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
I bet a combination of the paint job and the typical Trek lighting will make the ships look suitably battle-scorched, though. The Constitution-bash looks like a veteran of a century of battles...
The Centaur is a beautiful little ship. How little exactly is up to discussion now: the most identifiable pieces are the Miranda bridge, torp module and phaser cannon, so perhaps the ship should be scaled according to those. In that case the "shuttlebay" should definitely be a deflector, since it's too small to be practical for shuttle ingress/egress. Not all modern warships have helicopter hangars - and not all starships need shuttle hangars, not when there exists this thing called the transporter.
The other ships probably have to be scaled according to their primary hulls. The Intrepid or Constitution hulls leave no room for speculation, and the 3-naceller and Shelley saucers retain the small Excelsior bridges and are otherwise very clearly recognizable as Excelsior offshoots.
BTW, what the heck are those little boxes glued on both sides of the 3-naceller stern? In the original drawing, I thought they were poorly drawn Constitution impulse engines, but clearly they aren't. What purpose could they serve? What prompted the modelmaker to add these dangling bits?
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
quote: What prompted the modelmaker to add these dangling bits?
Drugs... and lots of them!
Has Mojo seen these pics?? I wonder if he is doing any NICE versions of these monsters for his book!?!
OK, out of these, who reckons that the Centaur and the Connie variant are actually real classes and not 'war time piecemeal concoctions'!?! (I got sick of saying 'kitbash') ;o)
So there are two missing picture eh? So Marge was made of Chimps eh?
Has anyone got a top and side schematic of this 'aeroplane'/'jet' that is now the El****'s (what ever the word I reckon that third letter is an 'n'.) AND is the 'nose' of the jet now the 'deflector' or does this baby have two deflectors!?!
AND is the RQ/C/Shelly saucer connected to the secondary hull via the 'neck' of the Excelsior? "Chicken necks!?!"
quote:OK, out of these, who reckons that the Centaur and the Connie variant are actually real classes and not 'war time piecemeal concoctions'!?! (I got sick of saying 'kitbash') ;o)
I've always figured that the Centaur was a "real" starship class, because the Excelsior-style saucer and nacelles are from the same model, and apparently the same scale. Likewise for the Constitution-bash -- maybe this design was a little-seen alternative to the Miranda Class?
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
Since I just can't believe in the concept of hastily thrown-together starships, ALL of these classes are "real", factory-built, series-production vessels to me. Except when I feel really desperate about getting rid of the ugliest of them...
So the Intrepid/Tomcat/Constitution kitbash could be two ships instead of one - say, the remains of an Intrepid being moved around by a special tugship (would explain why the nacelles are at an angle to the primary hull...). And the 3-naceller and the Raging Queen could have some jetsam temporarily welded onto the hulls for salvage purposes, or be missing major hull parts.
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by Cpt. Kyle Amasov (Member # 742) on :
There's something wrong with the Medusa sideview. I first didn't notice, but it is obvious: The decals used to create the ships (best example the rearrangement of the Voyager-registry to represent the Yeager) are obviously parts of the model-kits. if so, you have to make them wet to put them onto the kit (I did it several times, I know how it works ). One thing, however, is curious: The Medusa and the Constitution have starfleet insignias on their hulls that seem to be mirrored. Only way to get a mirrored insignia is to turn the decal around. Since the decals only stick on one side, you can't do this easily, and I doubt the guys at the studio just turned them around if they knew they would stick easily if they were added the right way.
What I want to say is the following; I just noticed that while looking at the Constitution and the Medusa, but if the decals are not mirrored, the pictures are. It could have happened while they were saved to the harddrive (I assume they were taken with a digital cam) or when they scanned them. Fact is I believe the Medusa-sideview is upside-down. We have to horizontally mirror it again to get the real image. Same thing with the Constitution-topview (the insignia behind the bridge-dome) and the Medusa-topview, allthough it doesn't make a difference here.
Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :
Since someone asked, I'll say for the record that I have not seen the pictures yet And I've been very patiently waiting until the permission dispute is resolved. Posted by Veers (Member # 661) on :
I haven't seen them either. I'm patient now, and I can wait for someone to post them.
[ March 13, 2002, 05:44: Message edited by: Veers ]
Posted by Spike (Member # 322) on :
--posted in wrong topic--
[ March 13, 2002, 06:26: Message edited by: Spike ]
Posted by Mark Nguyen (Member # 469) on :
Mojo knows of the pics.
Mark
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
In the Exxie 3 naceller... how do you tell which is the E-B and which is the Exxie saucer? And what is that coppery gap between the saucers again? Something to do with the E-B!?! Is it just the edge painted copper? And I think I get it - the top one is the E-B because of the impulse engines are visible in the top view - being further out to the side!?!
Anyone notice the red squares on the top of the Connie variant? Are these supposed to be windows or weapons?
What did they use for the nacelle pylons on the Connie variant? Ambassador pylons?
Also do the bottom 'connie nacelle pylons' on the Ex-3-naceller meat at the bottom of the saucer section? I think that is another 'difference' in DD's schematic.
The Elkins - yeah I guess it could be EL*K* being in captials and all, makes it harder to read... ;o)
I like the 'warp sled' idea... something to pick up remains of ships... there could even be 'saucer section' temps... might the 3NExxie fit this? Andrew
[ March 13, 2002, 07:31: Message edited by: AndrewR ]
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
I haven't seen them yet. I'm NOT going to bug Dukkie, considering he's been hassled enough by me. But I sure would like to see what you're all talking about. And he said Drexler said there was no problem with display of the pictures...
-MMoM Posted by Matrix (Member # 376) on :
17 pages, wow, haven't seen this long as that Wolf 359 topic a year ago. Of course each page is shorter.
I really hate the 3 nacelle Excelsior. It is ugly, makes no sense, in terms of design to have one of them be supported by a Constitution refit nacelle pylon. I hope we never see it on screen.
Posted by Bernd (Member # 6) on :
quote:Since I just can't believe in the concept of hastily thrown-together starships, ALL of these classes are "real", factory-built, series-production vessels to me. Except when I feel really desperate about getting rid of the ugliest of them...
Here is something that came to my mind when I created the Centaur side view: Could the ship be actually much smaller than the Excelsior, also considering that there is a Miranda bridge and a complete Miranda roll bar, even with the phaser cannon? The nacelles are not from the Excelsior, although they have similar overall proportions. I have no idea where they are taken from, but the cross-section is more rounded. Finally, the saucer is hardly recognizable as one of the Excelsior. So may we be dealing with a 200m long scout ship after all?
The same may go for the Curry and Raging Queen (once I stop denying that the nacelles are really that large), but here the problem with the quite obvious Excelsior comnponents is more severe.
Posted by Vice-Admiral Michael T. Colorge (Member # 144) on :
Are there actual photos of the models used floating of these ships online?
Posted by Bernd (Member # 6) on :
Until further notice:
Please contact me at [email protected] and I'll show you the pics. Maybe a strange deal, but the images are not (yet?) supposed to be posted here.
Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :
Ok...now that I've seen them...I have a thought on the coloration. It's really odd, and my only guess is that they were were painted ao gaudishly so that the various parts would stand out at least a little bit when they were on screen. Remember these ships were only seen in the far, far background, right?
Or maybe, they were painted that way to show what the different parts were supposed to be for the enlightenment of the guys who did the final paint job before filming.
My guess is the first one. TV screens display in blue, green, and red...and alot of the panels are colored in those colors.
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
Okay, I've seen them. Gee...doesn't the centaur almost look like it says "TRIESTE"? As in Merced-class??
-MMoM Posted by NeghVar (Member # 62) on :
quote:Okay, I've seen them. Gee...doesn't the centaur almost look like it says "TRIESTE"? As in Merced-class??
Damn Mim...you could be right?
Later! Art
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
It definitely looks like it starts and ends in 'S', though...
Posted by The Red Admiral (Member # 602) on :
I instantly thought Trieste as well, but on closer inspection I had to decide the last three letters are EATS.
Now I hope I will not cause any trouble here, this is tiny cropped image of the Centaur name, enhanced and blown up so you can make your own minds up.
Posted by Boris (Member # 713) on :
How about Duckats?
Boris
Posted by NeghVar (Member # 62) on :
Could be Rugrats? (this was supposed to be funny)
Later! Art
Posted by Veers (Member # 661) on :
I have just requested the pics...
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
Well, one thing's for sure...it DOES NOT say "Genesis."
-MMoM Posted by Mark Nguyen (Member # 469) on :
GENESIS?!
Genesis allowed is NOT! Is shipname FORBIDDEN!
Mark
Posted by Cpt. Kyle Amasov (Member # 742) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mark Nguyen: GENESIS?!
Genesis allowed is NOT! Is shipname FORBIDDEN!
Mark
"Now listen to me, my backwards friend! Genesis may be "shipname forbidden," but I'm damn well..."
...okay, it does not say 'Genesis'. My 'Secrets' was close. I think the first one is an 's' and the last three are 'ats', maybe 'kats'. I checked the Encyclopedia for a DS9-guy, probably from the art departement, with a similar name. Nothing. Until we are sure the first one is an 's', that search could take some more time. My next guess is 'Surkats', whatever this may be.
Posted by Constellation of One (Member # 332) on :
Mea culpa! You're right, Peregrinus, it is an entire F-14. And, it is a Monogram F-14A judging by the exhaust rings. It think not seeing the stabilators threw me off. I just compared it to the one I'm building and they're the same.
So, does this mean that the Elkins has TWO main deflectors? Butt ugly!!!
Robert
Posted by Dat (Member # 302) on :
Ya know, I first thought it was Trieste as well, but her number is lower that the 40000 range isn't it. And knowing the in-jokes all these departments have, Rugrats could be it. Besides I think we can all discount the name anyway because the ship was mentioned as USS Centaur and that registry established for her anyway (unless the model was relabled and Centaur had a different number we never heard of)
Posted by Cpt. Kyle Amasov (Member # 742) on :
Actually, it has three deflectors, if you count the saucer-auxiliary, too. Weird little ship...
Posted by Constellation of One (Member # 332) on :
Crap, you're right. I'm an idiot.
Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
The problem left to resolve with the Centaur (or whatever) is the matter of the windows... If each row is meant to represent one deck, then it's bigger than Excelsior-sized. If the Miranda bridge is meant to set scale, then it is much smaller than the Excelsior. Indeed, smaller even than the Constitution saucer the Miranda's built off of. What this means for windows in that case, I'm not sure...
Yes, the Elkins (or whatever) has three deflectors. I guess this is one ship that's never going to run into an asteroid. Has the evolution of deflector dishes ever been filled in? Back in the old days, the dish was the main long-range sensors and the deflectors were the three little boxes flanking the dish. This held at least up until Star Trek II, as the Reliant has no dish, but does have the deflector greeblies. The Galaxy definitely merges the two systems into a single component, and it looks like the Ambassador does, too. I'm not sure about the Excelsior, but the two greebled panels in the neck might be deflectors, leaving the dish free for sensor duty. So, with the Elkins, if the saucer unit is the main deflector array, and the two secondary hull dishes are the main long-range sensors, we could have a nice border patrol craft... Or the systems could just be merged and it has three sensor/deflector dishes and this whole paragraph was pointless...
Not sure about the "Medusa" now... I preferred it with two up, one down.
And the Constitution variant has a Constitution neck with what looks like Constellation pylons. Since there's no mass-market Constellation model kit, they're probably just sheet styrene.
--Jonah
Posted by Constellation of One (Member # 332) on :
Three nacelled Excelsior questions questions...
First, is there just one lower pylon leading down to the single warp nacelle? I seem to be seeing a sliver of a pylon behind it. Perhaps there is a pylon on the other side, for a dual pylon system? This may have been mentioned earlier, but after 17 pages its getting hard to remember.
Second, from the overhead shot it looks like that single nacelle is of the Centaur type, while the othe two are standard Excelsir types. If so, we've got a ship with dissimilar warp nacelles. Other than that one Nebula study model, are there any other Starfleet ships with such an arrangement?
Posted by Boris (Member # 713) on :
I don't know if this has been mentioned, but the Elkins was probably named after Judy Elkins, Visual Effects Coordinator on "A Time to Stand" and some other DS9 episodes.
[ March 13, 2002, 18:07: Message edited by: Boris ]
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
Yes, I mentioned that a few pages back.
It would seem that the Elkins would have 3 deflectors, but perhaps there is the possibility (since we don't have a forward or ventral view) that the modellers filled in the space between the two "hulls" with some other piece or something.
I think the Chimera/3-naceller has two Connie-refit pylons tapiring inwards to the single nacelle.
The more I look at it, the more the mystery name looks like Trieste, but I may be deluding myself. But I've played around with trying to enhance numbers and letters in Adobe Photoshop in the past to know that what appears to show up through the "enhancement" to be can't always be trusted. What some people keep saying looks like an 'A' towards the end is actually an 'S' I think.
And I agree---whatever the ship's name is, it's a scaling nightmare. But then again, so is the Yeager...
-MMoM Posted by Dax (Member # 191) on :
Someone might've already mentioned this - the Centaur nacelles look like each is made of two Excelsior nacelle bottom halves stuck together. The fin arrangement gives it away. The warp field grilles are simply the lower bulges of a regular Excelsior nacelle coloured in.
And yes, the 3 nacelled Excelsior appears to have two Connie-refit pylons leading in to the single nacelle (a regular Excelsior nacelle here). Each pylon is attached on the saucer edge and angles in to the central nacelle.
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
Definitely looks like that to me, too.
I don't buy the argument that the "mirrored" Starfleet symbols would prove that the 3-naceller picture is upside down. For one thing, the mirroring could be due to horizontal flipping. And for another, those things already come mirrored to begin with! A typical kit features a "port" and "starboard" symbol for a starship, each a mirror image of the other.
I'd hesitate calling the 3-naceller a Chimera, since that class already exists and in the 57000 registry range which is otherwise associated with Galaxy-kitbashes... Something in the 10000-45000 range would be better.
As for the Centaur, I'd forget about the tiny windows. They can easily be skylights on a single deck instead of indicators of the existence of seven discrete decks on the saucer upper half. A scaling based on the Miranda bridge and roll bar would give a ship perhaps 190m long and 115m wide, allowing for just a single deck on the saucer topside.
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by 359mph (Member # 37) on :
whoopsie....
[ March 14, 2002, 01:18: Message edited by: 359mph ]
Posted by 359mph (Member # 37) on :
Well, I believe that the "Chimera" is actually drawn correctly in the DS9TM, merely because you can see where the mounting points are for motion control, as well as the electrical wires (did these things actually light up?), and those usually go on the bottom of a model. It could be just like the Stargazer, where the top and bottom are nearly identical except the bridge dome is replaced by a sensor dome.
[ March 14, 2002, 01:06: Message edited by: 359mph ]
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
Still, as long as there is nothing to prove that the two-up, one-down orientation is false, I'll stick to it because it looks cool.
Those E-B-style shuttlebays look better if they are on the top half of the saucer, too...
Anyways, the mounting point and lighting wireworks will be placed where it's the most practical - and you ain't gonna mount a motion-control rod on the side of that ship that has the single nacelle, not if you want it to go anywhere near the center of gravity.
Interesting that this model has been wired for lighting while the Raging Queen apparently doesn't even have transparent nacelle grilles (the originals are heavily painted over with yellow paint, and there is blue paint on the former nacelle bottom to suggest the new "warp field grille"). Yet it was the RQ which eventually ended up being used in a close-up shot, with the new nacelles apparently being the only lit part...
Timo Saloniemi
[ March 14, 2002, 02:36: Message edited by: Timo ]
Posted by Identity Crisis (Member # 67) on :
quote:Originally posted by Timo: Still, as long as there is nothing to prove that the two-up, one-down orientation is false, I'll stick to it because it looks cool.
Although I've not seen the photos yet I tend to agree that two-up, one down would be cooler. It makes this ship an excelisor version of the War destroyer from Star Fleet Battles.
WOW Bernd... what program did you use to make the Centaur schem? How do you whip them up so fast!?!
Love the Centaur, but you forgot the windows in the saucer.
---------------
Also, about the nacelle pylons on the 3NExxie... the connie ones - in DD's schem - he has them connecting to the middle... they appear to connect to the actual saucer.
AND Could the 3NExxie be a TOSMovie version of the Niagra!?! Two up, on down!?!
Andrew
[ March 14, 2002, 05:55: Message edited by: AndrewR ]
Posted by Cpt. Kyle Amasov (Member # 742) on :
Did I get it right? (And I didn't add the Baracus-class yet. )
Posted by Vice-Admiral Michael T. Colorge (Member # 144) on :
I just saw the pics... I think I'm gonna be sick. They look like they were assembled with drunken men...with lots of putty. I don't know, it looks strange to me since I've seen nicer looking versions that fans have made.
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
youre just jealous because you love to assemble with drunken men...
Posted by nx001a (Member # 291) on :
About certain ships with no registries or names. Didn't the technical manual say that some vessel were launched without a NCC or a name then.
I have rotated the image of the Excelsior/Constitution Variant and IMHO it looks better upside down.
Finally what is this chimera i keep reading about?
[ March 14, 2002, 08:44: Message edited by: nx001a ]
Posted by Mark Nguyen (Member # 469) on :
Where should I be looking for the three deflectors on the Tri-Ex? I can't seem to find 'em...
Mark
Posted by The Red Admiral (Member # 602) on :
I think 'SURKATS' is a damn good possibility for the Centaur.
Regarding the Medusa, I also prefer the look of it as two up, one down. But I think it has to be the ohter way round. This may have been mentioned before, but consider this evidence:
In the over head view it has the ribbon protruding from the the saucer module, this suggests this could be the underside. Secondly, no name or registry is apparant, this is again because the photo is of the underside, and as yet we've seen no clear view of the topside.
Posted by Cpt. Kyle Amasov (Member # 742) on :
I've checked three search engines, and no one found a single match. If it is Surkats, we have to deal with the fact that this is obviously another in-joke.
Curry, Stipes, Elkins, Eaves, Matz, Williams, Monak, Delara, Buckner. Those are the people listed at startrek.com as the more important guys in the art department around season 5-7. I didn't check everything, but if the name is from someone from the art department, it is probably one of those.
I assume there has never been a starship named Centaur. A provokative theory, but I assume the script called for a ship named Centaur to attack the bug. And they just pulled out one of the models they built for the war arc, namely the kitbashes. The registry/name was never clearly readable, so it didn't matter. Then the factfiles-guys took a close look at the model and realized there was no model labeled Centaur, just one with the name 'xxx'. It had a registry, so they didn't think about it and said 'Hey, look, people, we have the Centaur with registry'. And that's the whole story. So, since the factfiles obviously made the name/registry-connection up, I say let's go with the idea that there is a Baracus-class 'xxx' with the 42043 and a Baracus-class Centaur with an unknown registry. We could say the ship seen in one of the stock-footage shots hanging around at SB375 was the 'xxx'.
Posted by Mark Nguyen (Member # 469) on :
Other suggestions are welcome. Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
quote:Originally posted by nx001a: Finally what is this chimera i keep reading about?
The LUG RPG supplement Ship Recognition Manual, Volume 1: The Ships of Starfleet calls the 3-naceller the Chimera-class. That's non-canon, of course...but far closer to it (ie, officially licensed) than "Medusa."
-MMoM
[ March 14, 2002, 11:38: Message edited by: The Mighty Monkey of Mim ]
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Probably the USS Sucrets, along with her sister ships USS Vicks, USS Halls, and USS Nightime Sniffling Sneezing So You Can Wake Up And Not Die A Horrible Mucus Related Death Starship.
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim: The LUG RPG supplement Ship Recognition Manual, Volume 1: The Ships of Starfleet calls the 3-naceller the Chimera-class. That's non-canon, of course...but far closer to it (ie, officially licensed) than "Medusa."
Except for the tiny detail that there's already an established Chimera-class starship with a registry in the NCC-57xxx range... which makes that class far older than the Dominion War.
It'll be a cold day in hell before I accept the DS9 kitbashes (Centaur excepted) as deliberate and fully realized starship classes. With such graceful and meticulous designs such as the Constitution, the Excelsior, the Galaxy, the Intrepid (choose from among these as you wish), I find it hard to believe that Starfleet would stoop to build such a clunky, ugly beast in a time of non-emergency.
Posted by Cpt. Kyle Amasov (Member # 742) on :
Maybe they built them as part of a strikeforce during the cardassian war.
Posted by Veers (Member # 661) on :
I have finally seen the pics. I seem to have grown attracted to these ships now. But I do have one thing to add: What is this, Rainbow Land? Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
Hahahahahahaha....
Mark, you silly bitch...how I adore you. I built that model of the Phobos for the Dominion War Contest back in 1999. I used the 1/1400-scale (well, actually 1/1375) 3-piece VGR kit. I rather liked the way that the hulls mated & the smaller raider size lent the ship a better overall size/form in my eyes. It was an inCREDibly easy bash as well.
I just built another one about 2 months ago to give to my girlfriend; that one had custom decals, but no picture of it. Yet.
[ March 14, 2002, 15:24: Message edited by: Shik ]
Posted by Mark Nguyen (Member # 469) on :
"Bitch"..?
Mark
Posted by Bernd (Member # 6) on :
quote:WOW Bernd... what program did you use to make the Centaur schem? How do you whip them up so fast!?!
Love the Centaur, but you forgot the windows in the saucer.
It's basically a re-arrangement of scanned Miranda and Centaur components. I put them together in Micrografx Picture publisher where one may operate with objects (which would be called layers in Photoshop), and I added the copper bits that I quickly sketched up myself.
BTW, the newest version has some detail corrections. I still didn't include the green saucer windows, because I think their spacing is too dense. It seems they are spread at random over possible quarters, corridors and other rooms.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
There was a suggestion earlier that maybe the Elkins is just a disembodied (disenshipped?) saucer being towed by a tug (made of an F-14 and some nacelles). I liked this idea, and started to draw a diagram of the tug by itself. Unfortunately, just as I finished the top view, I noticed something: the Elkins' registry is also on the nacelles. So the tug theory doesn't work. Too bad...
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Well, I've corrected my diagram of the Curry (top and side) and I have most of a side view of the Medusa. I haven't done whatever forms the back end of the Medusa since we still dont' know what it is.
Once I have a place to upload the diagrams, I'll show them off.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
quote:Well, I believe that the "Chimera" is actually drawn correctly in the DS9TM, merely because you can see where the mounting points are for motion control, as well as the electrical wires (did these things actually light up?), and those usually go on the bottom of a model. It could be just like the Stargazer, where the top and bottom are nearly identical except the bridge dome is replaced by a sensor dome.
This means nothing... models can be mounted upside down... I know the Danube/Runabout was as was DS9.
Posted by Mark Nguyen (Member # 469) on :
Most models are/can be - it makes 'em easier to be shot from below, which make them look bigger on the screen.
Mark
Posted by Akula (Member # 319) on :
Now that I'm seen the pics some thoughts, Elkins- This ship looks like some type of science vessal or possibly a transport or hospital ship. Of course the pod below it could have a totally different use. Excelsior combo- Makes me wonder if a twin galaxy saucer ship built, sort of remides me of the stargazer. Yeager- Does this mean that there may be a even bigger version of the maquis raider, possible the difference between swoop and corvette. Raging Queen- I still think this is some type of carrier. By the way do we know if there are any ships that were built for DS9 or TNG that our lying around, especially from Embissary or the other battle scenes?
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
I see you choose the 'easy way' by drawing the saucer/sec hull connection behind the phylon. But I'd really like to know what that is that connects them. From the pictures you can only guess it's some sort of triangular thing, similar to the thing Drexler has drawn in his diagram. Could it be a part of the F-14-kit? Maybe the front end openings of the engine shafts? Or a part of the Danube cockpit?
(Hey, who's the lucky bastard who writes the 300th-anniversary-post? )
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
Well, I've seen the pics, time for the theories.. Centaur: I think this is pre-war (not too keen on shipbash idea, particularly not in war). Some kind of Excelcior era Miranda equivilent or predecessor to the Sabre. Curry: Again pre-war, either a transport or possibly an attempt to create a quite well armed starship with a small combat turning radius and a shield bubble smaller that a conventionally configured cruiser. Elkins: I did like the idea of it being a tug attatched to an Intrepid hull but with the reg nos on the nacelles this is impossible so I'd go with some kind of border patrol ship. The only problem is the age difference between the nacelles and the saucer, not sure how to explain this one. Medusa: I actually rather like this design; I can see no problems with it being an earlier equivilent of the Niagera. Yeager: IMO there is no way this could be a shipbash; the work in scaling up the secondary hull would take too long. It could be some kind of light cruiser derivative of the Intrepid era.
Posted by Cpt. Kyle Amasov (Member # 742) on :
I think we have to face this one question: How did they originally look like? Being a kitbash does not mean they are scratch-built. There was no Admiral at Utopia telling his crew 'We have two Constitution-nacelles, an Intrepid-saucer and a Miranda-rollbar, and now take those things and build a ship for me'. I think these were all 'normal' classes, some older classes, maybe even some prototype designs, but nothing built from parts left over at the yard. Then the war came and some of them were heavily damaged. Usually, you'd take them out of active service and pull them to the nearest junkyard. But since sterfleet was in need of ships, they decided to repair them - they had to become combat-ready again, no matter how. So maybe the Elkins was a ship with some common nacelles, but the ship was damaged and there were no replacement-nacelles. So Starfleet used some old Miranda-nacelles instead. It worked, the ship wouldn't win a beauty competiton, but it was space-worthy and armed. And that's all it had to be. Just an example. But I really want those ships - all those ships - to be part of Starfleet's active forces. Even if some are ugly - we can solve the problem the way I explained.
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
quote:Originally posted by Cpt. Kyle Amasov: I think we have to face this one question: How did they originally look like? Being a kitbash does not mean they are scratch-built. There was no Admiral at Utopia telling his crew 'We have two Constitution-nacelles, an Intrepid-saucer and a Miranda-rollbar, and now take those things and build a ship for me'. I think these were all 'normal' classes, some older classes, maybe even some prototype designs, but nothing built from parts left over at the yard.
Then again, maybe there was. I've personally NEVER had a problem with the take-whatever's-lying-around-the-scapyard-and-make-a-ship-out-of-it idea. I kind of like it, actually. Besides, I like to go along with what is written in the official reference sources, so I'm reluctant to disregard the explanation in the Technical Manual.
quote:So maybe the Elkins was a ship with some common nacelles, but the ship was damaged and there were no replacement-nacelles. So Starfleet used some old Miranda-nacelles instead.
You're forgetting that there's NO WAY those are Miranda nacelles. They're far too huge.
quote: But I really want those ships - all those ships - to be part of Starfleet's active forces. Even if some are ugly - we can solve the problem the way I explained.
How come everybody wants this? Why can't they just be simply what they are: KITBASHES. I like 'em that way.
-MMoM Posted by Cpt. Kyle Amasov (Member # 742) on :
We still have about 15 names from the Encyclopedia without a ship assigned. And maybe we'll never see the 24th century again after Nemesis. So I have no problem with assigning 6 of those names to the kitbashes. If they really are kitbashes, unique ships, there shouldn't be a problem. But some of them, the Centaur for example, look really nice. And I don't want to waste a nice design. Maybe we can say some of them were totally kitbashed while others were 'heavily damaged originals' (HDO). I'd nominated the Centaur, the Yeager and the Medusa for the HDO-category. We have far too many 23rd-century designs from diverse books and technical manuals, so we can say the Constitution-type was a kitbash. And the Shelley was a kitbash. That thing looks loke a clown with the large shoes... err nacelles. And the award for the ugliest kitbash of all times ('U.K.O.A.T.', spelled 'oh-god!') goes to: Yeager. I hate the Maquis raider. I hate the Intrepid. But most of all I hate it IF SOMEONE TAKES BOTH SHIPS AND THROWS THEM INTO A MIXER!!! Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
Hi everyone,
I'm back from my vacation, so I'll make this short & sweet: I've had a lot of requests for the pics, either through the Flare PM or by my email. I'm sorry if I wasn't able to reply to everyone, but I'm guessing that Bernd or someone else was able to distribute the pics while I was gone. But I'd still like to show the pics to anyone who hasn't seen them, so to make everyone's life easier, ONLY PEOPLE WHO HAVE NOT SEEN THE PICS YET, COULD YOU PLEASE PM ME. Also, you don't have to write a message. Just write your email address in the PM title. It's easier to copy & paste that way. Also, for people who lurk here but are not members: Please email me at [email protected]. I'd really like to discontinue using my Netzero address (which my Flare email links to).
Thanks,
Mark
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
The reason I left out the extra "pylons" on the Curry is that there's no evidence that they were present on the Curry configuration (as opposed to the Raging Queen configuration), and they look kind of silly (IMO).
Also, I didn't intentionally put the "neck" behind the pylon. That's just the way it turned out. I got lucky.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
My theories.
Centaur: real ship - not a kitbash
Connie Variant: real ship - not a kitbash
Medusa: real ship - a forerunner of the Niagra
Elkins: A ship that was used to test the new 'Intrepid' saucer shape hull under warp stress - using an engineering section from an older ship.
Curry: A real ship - not a kitbash
Yeager: A ship that used older engineering section again to test the 'Intrepid' shape hull and maybe to investigate the feasibility of articulating nacelles after the events of "Force of Nature". (guessing the 'maquis variant' that they used already could 'move it's wings'.
[ March 17, 2002, 23:33: Message edited by: AndrewR ]
Posted by Fedaykin Supastar (Member # 704) on :
quote:Originally posted by AndrewR: My theories.
Centaur: real ship - not a kitbash
Connie Variant: real ship - not a kitbash
Medusa: real ship - a forerunner of the Niagra
Elkins: A ship that was used to test the new 'Intrepid' saucer shape hull under warp stress - using an engineering section from an older ship.
Curry: A real ship - not a kitbash
Yeager: A ship that used older engineering section again to test the 'Intrepid' shape hull and maybe to investigate the feasibility of articulating nacelles after the events of "Force of Nature". (guessing the 'maquis variant' that they used already could 'move it's wings'.
i agree with this AndrewR, quite plausible, and i too dont like the idea of throwing ship parts together to make spaceworthy and combat ready hulls. I reckon it would be more effort to do a "shipbash" than to build a common ship from like parts which are in storage.. They might have Miranda spaceframes at storage yards, sort of like that Aircraft yard in Nevada or Arizona (cant remember where exactly though). and just adding weapons components to empty spaceframes (with perhaps a warpcore already installed). i think that system would have been more feasable than trying to get parts to fit together which arent from the same ship class. IMHO the DS9 production crew should have just used familiar designs in there fleets with maybe 1 or 2 new ships - i personally think that the Raging Queen design was nice and looked acceptable even with those oversized nacelles. I also thought that the Centaur type was also a very good design. Because in real life fleets, there would probably be like 5 different ship classes at most (dont quote me on this i'm just guessing), and a Navy (even in war time) would not throw together parts from different ships to make a new ship. Sure they might use components such as hull plating but i doubt they'd take an entire conning tower of one ship and mate it with a half the hull or another ship, and another half of a different ship. At the most i'd accept the 'shipbashed' classes as original but had some heavy repair work due to damage.
Buzz
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
There is one situation where real-world navies may "shipbash" - to perform a single special mission where the seaworthiness of the ship is nonessential. To return to an old subject, CSS Virginia was a "shipbash" of sorts, and USS Monitor was no good for anything else except challenging the Virginia. And "shipbashes" of sorts played a role in amphibious actions in, say, WWII.
The situation in "A Time to Stand" may have involved a special mission for which almost unspaceworthy special-mission shipbashes were needed (a failed mission from the looks of it!). In contrast, the "regular" appearances of the Centaur (or her sisters) and the Yeager (or her sisters) are IMHO solid proof that these are not one-off special-mission 'bashes of any sort.
They just barely *might* be one-off testbeds in operational use, though. The Defiant was one, after all... But there's nothing explicitly testbed-ish about the Centaur or the Yeager, and no evidence of a NX registry on either of them (well, okay, perhaps the Centaur's registry is NX, but there's at least one non-NX ship of that class if we believe the photo and choose to ignore that this is not a screencap).
There does exist the concept of "war cruiser", a cheap-o attrition unit thrown together from easily available stuff as fast as possible. Some of the older-looking ships in the collection could be "war cruisers", built not for the Dominion war but for an earlier (Cardassian?) one if we believe in the registries.
None of the above ideas explains the Elkins very well, anyway. It's not a war cruiser if it uses the supposedly expensive Intrepid hull. It's not a likely prototype because it has the antiquated Miranda nacelles and a NCC (albeit a very high, modern one) instead of NX. But perhaps it is a special-mission vessel, a hastily built deflector weapon?
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by NightWing (Member # 4) on :
Can somebody please send me the pictures? My e-mail is: [email protected] Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
New idea here... I know we're pretty much reluctant to introduce yet another ship class, when there are still quite a few left unseen, but I've been thinking about etymology and the fuzziness of available data. How about if the Centaur is the lead ship of her class (whatever her registry) and a stablemate of the Chimera class. Both Excelsior-era designs, and roughly contemporary with each other.
--Jonah
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
quote: They just barely *might* be one-off testbeds in operational use, though. The Defiant was one, after all... But there's nothing explicitly testbed-ish about the Centaur or the Yeager, and no evidence of a NX registry on either of them (well, okay, perhaps the Centaur's registry is NX, but there's at least one non-NX ship of that class if we believe the photo and choose to ignore that this is not a screencap).
[snip]
None of the above ideas explains the Elkins very well, anyway. It's not a war cruiser if it uses the supposedly expensive Intrepid hull. It's not a likely prototype because it has the antiquated Miranda nacelles and a NCC (albeit a very high, modern one) instead of NX. But perhaps it is a special-mission vessel, a hastily built deflector weapon?
I said only the Elkins/Yeager were possible test bed ships. The others including the centaur were original ships.
The Elkins - Even if there is a registry on both nacelle and saucer - this might have only been put there when it was put into service for the Dominion war. Before that - it could have - as I said - just been used originally to do tests on the new Intrepid saucer shape. Possibly no need for a registry - or maybe even a nick-name for it's tests... nothing official - until it was actually brought into service.
The Nacelles/Engineering section I believe would have been just the 'propulsion' parts they originally needed for the tests on the saucer. (They probably used an older ship or such an assembly is built for such tests on new tech... for its age - it could have been used to test other saucer types including the Galaxy class! Just to get it to warp, you see.
Maybe the second in this group of test vessels - was the Yeager - as I mentioned this time to test variable geometry nacelles etc.
Registries/names could have been added when they were put to use for the war and could have even been the original 'older sections' or what the saucers were going to be called in a completed ship - or something new altogether.
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
I'm still sticking with my idea that the Curry/Raging Queen was an attempt at a more combat oriented varient of the Excelcior, possibly from the Cardassian Wars. The Medusa, Curry and Centaurs are IMO almost certainly standard builds, along with the Connie varient (some kind of Freedom equivilent, high speed scout. BTW is there a class designation for this, I have heard Polaris used). The Yeager is either a tesbed for the 'swing wing' warp nacelles, possibly a limited batch production run. As for the Elkins i would call it either a testbed or a long range sensor/survey vessel. It is not unknown for navies to commission testbed vessels after they have completed their trials, eg. the USS Long Beach, the first nuclear powered ship. I also think it is highly probable that some of the ships could be from those mentioned but not seen classes, such as the Renaissance or Mediterainian (sp?).
Posted by TheF0rce (Member # 533) on :
Can I see the pics please where ever they are? LOL
Posted by targetemployee (Member # 217) on :
Conjectural
Captain Reynolds is said to command a destroyer in "Sacrifice of Angels". He is believed to be the same captain of the USS Centaur NCC-42043 . Additionally, we have a confirmed sighting of this type of ship in the episode prior to the one named. So, what is my conjecture?
USS Centaur NCC-42043 and her sister ships are destroyers. They have served before in other wars, most likely the Border Wars.
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
You have your own domain and you put these on GeoShitties? Buh?
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
only because im preserving my upload space for important stuff.. (damndest thing.. i have plenty of bandwidth.. about 25 times what im using at present.. but im almost at the end of my filespace)
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
Gotcha... I've got a mirror on the way, then... Hope that's OK by all involved, and that this isn't the start of some slippery slope where these pictures end up plastered on the walls of a Moscow alleyway.
Edit... right-eo... Here's hoping this won't trigger another spastic snippyfest http://the.tom.8m.com/cosmic_ratatouille/dsn601_a_time_to_stand/index.html The server shouldn't have a bandwidth attack in the unlikely event that every Trek fan online will descend on these pictures like vultures with schemes of using them to seduce Jessica Alba.
Edit again... thanks Dat... done.
[ March 18, 2002, 22:53: Message edited by: The_Tom ]
Posted by Dat (Member # 302) on :
Even though Drexler gave his blessing to distribute the pics, please remember his request that he not be credited for supplying them in the first place. So do note that on your websites should you let the rest of the world know about them.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Oh my.
Posted by TheF0rce (Member # 533) on :
Thanks Guys
Wow these models look like they been the work of a 3rd grade school project.
Posted by Captain Cabac (Member # 354) on :
This ship could even be a forerunner of the Constellation class, with the way those pylons look. And the Constellation class was in service until at least the start of TNG, so why is it unreasonable to conclude that this ship couldn't be in service for 75+ years?
Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
Is it sure there's no fandom ship looking like this? You'd think fandom has tried every possible combination of the Connie parts..
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
this resembles a 'fast destroyer' refit version of the franz joseph saladin/hermes-class.. the only difference being these nacelles are upside down... im not sure where the fan-bash version is from tho
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
Here's another reply to an email I sent to Drexler...make of it what you will. My questions are in italics.
Upon discussing the kitbash photos with the other members of the Wolf 359 team, I was reminded that you originally said there were 16 photos, although I received 14. Were there two others that you didn't send, or did you just miscount?
Send me the numbers and I will check them against my files!
Do you know if any of the ships were ever relabeled "U.S.S. Curry"? There was some rumor at the rec.arts.startrek.tech newsgroup years ago that one of the kitbashes was named after Dan Curry.
I would not be at all surprised, although I don't have a shot of it. That model might have been lost or even taken home by Dan.
In one of DS9's sixth season episodes, "The Sound of Her Voice" showed the wreckage of the U.S.S. Olympia, crashed on a planet. However, it was very hard to make the ship out in the scene. Do you have any idea what parts the wreckage was made from?
That's a good question and I don't have the answer. That was a Gary Hutzel show and Gary is elsewhere these days. That reminds me I should call him!
Finally, when "Emissary" premiered, Robert Legato, then VFX dept. head, had made a preliminary Wolf 359 shot, incorporating both the wreckage of models originally built for "Best of Both World's", and new ships & wreckage. However, the footage was never shown once the script changed. Would you know anything about this, such as if there were any new ship designs? Would you know how or if I'd be able to get in touch with Legato?
Last I heard Legato was at Digital Domain, but not sure. I don't want to discourage you but I would guess he wouldn't remember.
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
And now here's something you might enjoy..
I drew a paint scheme accurate schematic of the connie variant... BTW, I hate calling it the 'connie variant'.. thats like saying the Miranda is a connie variant, but since we all refer to it as a 'connie' i figured a name that starts with 'con' would be appropo.. ok, here's the: whadddaya tink?
[ March 19, 2002, 14:00: Message edited by: CaptainMike ]
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
Suitably hideous.
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
Why not Saladin-refit instead? Since the FJ's schematics were spotted in TWOK it seams reasonable Posted by Mark Nguyen (Member # 469) on :
Re: similar ships
Jackill's reco guides and the "Starfleet Dynamics" series from the early 90s have a bunch of similar designs to this. They have essentially the same profile but mate the two nacelles directly together, have them right-side up, and add various sensor pods, megaphaser turrets and pocket hangars to them. They share such diverse classifications as superscout, interceptor, heavy destroyer, etc.
Mark
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
That is true.. but most Saladin-refits I've seen still feature one nacelle (i.e. Siva-class).. BTW the two nacelle variant I've seen of this ship was called Thunderbolt class, but also featured big Miranda phaser turrets and an extended Decatur-style neck... i decided that since it doesnt resemble any of the classes known to fandom, no use in trying too hard to make it into them
[ March 19, 2002, 14:52: Message edited by: CaptainMike ]
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
Uhh...maybe beacuse it has *2* nacelles?
There's no reason for it to be a new class. It's just a Constitution variant. These ships are all just reconfigurations of or retakes on other vessels.
Damn, that drawing looks nice, though!
-MMoM Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
Mim.. calling this a Constitution-variant is as accurate as calling a chimpanzee a 'human-variant' ..its a whole different animal. If that was the true state of affairs, then the Miranda and Constellation would not have class names, but be Connie-variants.. and the Nebula would be a Galaxy-variant (or vice versa ;-) )
I dont see why its necessary to perpetuate that.. like the Miranda and Constellation, it simply shares design features with the Constitution, but has a different tonnage, power output, armament, crew complement and speed.. Of course, from a construction standpoint, all these ships were truly designed as Connie variations, but of course they were assigned their own class names appropriately.
I think the term 'variant' should only be applied to those ships that differ from the original Constitution design, such as the TOS refit style (lower bridge, no nacelle spires), the TMP refit style, and the 'Booby Trap' sideways nacelle/saucer indentation version (which might even serve enough of a difference to be a new class.. see: Soyuz).. rearrangement of the pieces means a new class..
[ March 19, 2002, 15:04: Message edited by: CaptainMike ]
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
Perhaps the Conni-Refit nacelles can only work in pairs where as the original TOS units could work independantly...so when the Saladin was refitted it was equipped with 2 nacelles instead of the original 1. I don't consider all of FJ's designs to be purely fandom, the ones used in TWOK should at least be considered semi-cannon, just like some of these models Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
Except this ship wasn't designed as a new class, it was just what they cobbled together out of the available Constitution parts.
quote:Originally posted by Reverend: I don't consider all of FJ's designs to be purely fandom, the ones used in TWOK should at least be considered semi-cannon, just like some of these models
Of course! All except for the Federation were in the film, with all they're technical specs, to boot! I love the FJ designs and I'm very happy that they are (try as Gene Roddenberry might to say otherwise ) ultimately canon.
BTW, it iscanon, not "cannon."
-MMoM
[ March 19, 2002, 15:08: Message edited by: The Mighty Monkey of Mim ]
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
Well, even if it wasnt designed as a new class, it still ended-up as a new class.. look at it! jeeeez... If you raided Qualor for Constitution saucers and nacelles and 'cobbled' them together, youd be up shit's creek because you wouldnt have a warp core!! So what did they do.. um.. oh .. I dunno.. designed one.. whats this .. they designed this class?! how would design factor into starship construction.. in Mim's universe it happens by accident, like a snap tite model!
I dont buy that it was cobbled together either.. it seems to me like it should be an older starship, maybe a design that has been brought out of mothballs.
[ March 19, 2002, 15:27: Message edited by: CaptainMike ]
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
I've said this before, but I'll say it again...until the DS9 Tech Manual came along, the term "variant" implied that the ships in question had minor, repeat MINOR, design differences. However, even with these differences, you could still visually tell what class of ship it was. Even though the Ent-B had extra impulse engines & outcroppings on the hull, you still knew it was an Excelsior. Even though the Saratoga's roll bar was gone & replaced with two little guns on the sides, you still knew it was a Miranda.
However, the design differences of the TM ships are so extreme, that calling the ships variants would be unwarranted. It's like saying that the Miranda isn't really a new class, it's just a Constitution variant. See how silly that sounds?
Note: I realize that the only time this differs is with the Soyuz class. However, there was a legitimate reason for this, as I'm sure everyone here knows.
Posted by The Red Admiral (Member # 602) on :
Yes, that's exactly how my theory of it goes as well, I totally agree. Although the term 'variant' is a habitual word to use. I suppose it's only used here because we don't actually have a class name to give it, so we call it Connie Variant.
For some time now I've been wondering about the proto-Nebula, you know that Nebula with two tiny extra nacelles. I think that should be another class in itself - Two more nacelles, larger elongated secondary hull, it's as different to Nebula as the Miranda is to the Constitution..
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
I wouldn't say the proto-nebula is another class, more a pre-refit prototype....just like the actual model After all the design's variance is much less than that of the original Constitution and the refit.
Posted by Topher (Member # 71) on :
Sweet jesus
I haven't seen a schematic like that since RW...!
Any chance of making a schematic of this ship without battle-damage? Please? Posted by Constellation of One (Member # 332) on :
My take on the Constitution "whatever..."
I think it probably is a new class. The lack of a nav deflector indicates another means of particle deflection (duh) and therefore some very different internal technical arrangements. The lack of a secondary hull indicates a scout or small patrol craft, as others have also stated. Its something akin to a Coast Guard cutter: small but reasonably armed for patrol missions. Naturally, the lack of a secondary hull doesn't automatically connote a patrol craft or scout, but it sure would make the ship less habitable for long endurance missions.
The only real problem I have with this ship is envisioning where the warp conduits would go. With the torpedo tubes and loading structures taking up a good portion of the connecting dorsal, cramming the rest of the warp drive equipment would make for a tight squeeze. For that matter, where is the warp core? It must be in the primary hull, but where?
Robert
Posted by Mark Nguyen (Member # 469) on :
Well, remember when Shane Johnson said that the intermix chamber went straight from the deflection crystal up top through to the antimatter pods in the ventral section? There's plenty of room in the deck for a truncated, somewhat more modern core, I'd say.
Mark
Posted by Akula (Member # 319) on :
Digital Domains site is www.d2.com, however you should access it from a cable or DSL line as it requires Flash 5 and is very large. Unfortunly, because of this it would take me forever to access, but someone might try to see if Ron works there and e-mail him. It's worth a good try to see if he has anything for us.
Posted by Akula (Member # 319) on :
oops thats www.d2.com Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
Cap'n Mike - nice schematic... both you and Amizov where have you been HIDING!?! With reguards to your schem. work!?!
Why not call it constipation class ;o)
Oh and should that be Rob Legato - not Ron - you might have been thinking of Ron Livingston... Picard's lionfish namesake.
Andrew
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
David Livingston, actually.
Posted by Akula (Member # 319) on :
Yea, that's a Rob sorry the b and the n are right next to each other.
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
Of course, the biggest complement would be if Bernd made this the official Ex-Astris-Scientia Connie variant schematic (hint hint) :-D
BTW... TrekBBS posters like my schematic and want to see the photos..
im not sure if we should give them to them... im feeling a little fanboy elitism.. this is all they can see so far heh heh.. your thoughts on this?
[ March 19, 2002, 20:25: Message edited by: CaptainMike ]
Posted by Dat (Member # 302) on :
Well, how much can they be trusted. Can they and will they honor Drexler's wishes?
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
well the last impression i got was that Drexler was OK with circulation, just as long as he wasnt the source (to avoid getting himself in trouble).. so we never tell anyone it was Drexler. But onwards from that, we hold a monopoly on some pretty nifty pictures at this board.. weve shared with each other, but are we allright with giving these particular prizes away.. the exclusivity could be used to advance our websites, etc,etc.. so I think im right in holding off on showing the general public.
thoughts?
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
Um, fuck no.
I think I made my opinions on silly elitism well known earlier Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
Yes I remember that.
Not sure I agree with it. But one of the main reasons I enjoy being a fanboy is being able to tell somebody first when i know something. Im not saying we parade around like royalty, wearing silly gold jewelry and referring to ourselves with the Queen's we, but simply to get credit for the fact the we were involved in getting the pictures and analyzing them first. I know Dukhat has done the real footwork, but everyone in this thread has had a lot invested in the study of these pics.
and if you dont like the idea of us slaving over every detail of a bullshit model not even seen in the show, then back off.. reading about the work of the wolf359 project is what led me to flare, and im proud to be involved in such an activity, even if it does seem pathetic..
And I'm going to be pretty satisfied when i see my schematic stolen and used on a really bad UsS dEfinat roorZ and uSS aKirA rAwkS lololol* page.. :-)
[ March 19, 2002, 20:46: Message edited by: CaptainMike ]
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
quote:I know Dukhat has done the real footwork, but everyone in this thread has had a lot invested in the study of these pics.
See, this is where I start to smirk. You study cardiac muscle and Catalan and containment theory. You file your findings in fancy journals that end up in dusty corners of university libraries the world over. You discuss Star Trek ships, hopefully avoiding that pesky side-effect of giving yourself an aneurysm over how the Voyager primary hull shows up on an apparently older ship. And you toss it all out into the roiling expanse of the public domain, hoping some other similarly geeky person will further the discussion. Because we discuss because its fun, right?
DD was nice to us. DD is a nice guy. If niceness wishes to course across the face of the deep, let it.
And let's be blunt here. This place isn't hermetically sealed. Things will cross-pollenate shortly. It is the way of the web.
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
So we take it seriously.. i dont care whether you think its impressive or pathetic, im still going to take it seriously.. and I'm willing to distribute these freely.. i just want to see if anyone wants to organize the presentation, rather then just throwing them around.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
I was just looking at that pic of the Constipation class above - and noticed something about the nacelle... in that why is it different at the front!?!
Then I realised I think the 'right/starboard nacelle' (the one closes to us) has had its 'bussard end' sliced off - and that 'coppery' part is the port nacelle!
Wierd! Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
i thought that might be case too, but stared at it for a while and dismissed it.. but look at how there is no difference between the bottom of the closest one and the bottome of what would theoretically be the front of the rear one.. theres almost no difference between the top and bottom of them.. it seems unlikely the angle would line up like that..
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
quote:i just want to see if anyone wants to organize the presentation
Well, mine's pseudo-organized...
Posted by Cpt. Kyle Amasov (Member # 742) on :
quote:Originally posted by Topher: Sweet jesus
I haven't seen a schematic like that since RW...!
Any chance of making a schematic of this ship without battle-damage? Please?
I don't want to speak for him, but that ship is without battle damage!
You didn't ask Drexler if he knows the name of the 'Centaur', Dukhat?
I wonder what Okuda thinks about naming those vessels. Maybe he conciders some (if not all) of them to be the long-lost classes he invented/used for the encyclopedia.
Posted by Boris (Member # 713) on :
I'll just say for the record that it's the U.S.S. Duckats, just so I can point to this post afterwards and say I was right all along.
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
I drew the ship without battle damage, but i included some hull discoloration (much as the Encyclopedia diagrams of the Constitution class include some of the discoloration that Miarecki added to the original 1701 for the Smithsonian). To tell you the truth, without the scoring it looks pretty much like the original version, so I left it all on.
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
and the top view is finished
Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
quote: In one of DS9's sixth season episodes, "The Sound of Her Voice" showed the wreckage of the U.S.S. Olympia, crashed on a planet. However, it was very hard to make the ship out in the scene. Do you have any idea what parts the wreckage was made from?
I think it has been pointed out a few times already that the Olympia wreck was a reuse of the STIII wrecked Enterprise and some other standard debris stuff (some S.S. Vico parts, according to some).
Mike: What program did you use to draw that? It doesn't seem to handle round lines very well...
Posted by Cpt. Kyle Amasov (Member # 742) on :
I don't think that's caused by the program. The lines I draw use to be very blocky, too. There'S only one thing you can do - make it larger. The originals of my drawing are about 3000x2500 pixels, bmp. I resize them for 'presentation'. That's all. And I think that's the only way to get rid of that problem.
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
confession time... Microsoft Paint.. the one that comes with windows.. we had a major blizzard here and thats how i killed an afternoon in school... when i resize it down further to fit on screens, however, the curves even out.. it looked even worse at the original size (around 2000px), but shrinking solves all that..
Posted by Bernd (Member # 6) on :
Great images, Captain Mike!
I think I will show them at EAS, if you like me to.
BTW, I made a terrible mistake when I scaled the Miranda parts for the Centaur. They actually matched the true size of the Miranda relative to the Excelsior, but not that of the two plastic models (I measured the relative nacelle sizes, but for some reason didn't use them). Anyway, here is the totally revised Centaur. Please delete the old one!
I would be honored to see my picture on your page :-D .. a hyperlink back to http://www.captainmike.org would be awesome as well, and feel free to attach my e-mail, [email protected]
:-D
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
Here's a rather sloppy re-touch of the Raging Queen sideview. The aft dome-thingee is rough, but I tried. If someone wants to fix it, I'd be pleased...
-MMoM Posted by Nemesis (Member # 255) on :
Forgive me my ignorance master but, how is the saucer section of the Raging Queen connected to the hull??? Just by this littles aft bridges???
BTW, this little bridges are parts of the AMT/Ertl Runabout Kit (The parts where the cockpit is connected to the cargo module)
Posted by NeghVar (Member # 62) on :
Centaur thoughts...
If the ship is truly based on an Excelsior saucer (my gut feeling), how many decks tall is the over-sized bridge module?
Also, why could you not fit shuttlepods (not full size shuttles) into the shuttle bay?
Might not hurt to put a different size comparison (compared to an Excelsior) for this ship on the DS9 Lost Ships page...
Thoughts... Art
Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
Bernd's revised Centaur schematic doesn't look to quite match the model. The Miranda bridge piece would be about three decks high, and the line separating the bridge from the navigation dome is just slightly above the top edge of the forward cowling.
Granted, you could fit shuttlepods and workbees in that space if it's a shuttlebay, but having a physical model to roll around and look at from all angles, it looks better as a deflector... Besides, I use the Enterprise-B saucer, so I've already got shuttlebays.
--Jonah
Posted by NeghVar (Member # 62) on :
quote:Granted, you could fit shuttlepods and workbees in that space if it's a shuttlebay, but having a physical model to roll around and look at from all angles, it looks better as a deflector... Besides, I use the Enterprise-B saucer, so I've already got shuttlebays.
Or additional impulse engines depending what you buy into... 8^)
Art
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
Harry: Yes, I remember reading the discussion about the Olympia. After reading it again, I see that there really wasn't any conclusive evidence whatsoever about what was used, other than what people "thought" they saw. I just figured that someone official like Drexler or Hutzel could give us better information, or possibly even photos that look better than the rain & cloud filled screencaps.
Here's my take on the Centaur (yet again): It's a perfect candidate for the Rennaissance class. Using Bernd's theory that the ship is actually scaled to the Miranda weapons pod & bridge (making the ship smaller than the Miranda), we can make assumptions based on the description of the Rennie class Aries. The Aries was described as a small scout ship. It's registry number is in the 4XXXX's. It has at least one shuttlepod, so there's the need for a shuttlebay. The last one was built in 2337. Only the Hokkaido had ASRV's.
All of these factors match the Centaur. It's a small ship (since the flyby between it and the Jem'Hadar fighter showed it to be roughly the same size). It's registry is in the 4XXXX's. It has a shuttlebay at least as large enough to accomodate one shuttlepod. Since no more Rennie's were built after 2337, the Excelsior/Miranda technology was probably at it's peak. Since no ASRV's can be seen on the ship, it probably has either the standard Exclesior-type escape pods (whatever those look like), or no escape pods at all.
Yes, I realize I'm pulling at straws here. But I thought it was a good match, based on the evidence we know for the class.
[ March 21, 2002, 15:00: Message edited by: Dukhat ]
Posted by Dat (Member # 302) on :
I know this isn't really contributing to the discussion, but didn't the TNGTM state that the Hokkaido was the first ship of it's class to be fitted with ASRVs during the construction period or immediately afterwards and some if not all of the rest of her sister ships were later fitted with ASRVs as well?
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
The Centaur is one confused ship. There are two suggested sizes, each of which has about the same amount of evidence going for it. The saucer, nacelles, and shuttlebay all point to ~380m. The "rollbar," bridge module point to ~210m. The VFX might seem to support this as well. However, since its classification is an Excelsior-class variant, and since that shuttlebay would be waaaay f*cking small at the 210m length, I'd prefer to have it be 380m. That's what's in the DS9TM and wouldn't the windows also indicate a larger rather than smaller ship?
-MMoM Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
The windows would probably indicate an Ambassador-sized vessel if taken seriously. Contrary to many later ships, the Excelsiors don't have a deflector grid pattern that corresponds to the internal deck structure - yet the windows on the Centaur are arranged according to the grid pattern, suggesting seven decks above the saucer rim and below the bridge. That means the bridge dome itself is about seven decks high!
I'd rather go with the 200m size range. That "shuttlebay" need not be a size-defining feature, since (as the good bird Peregrinus suggested ages ago, on page 16) it could be a navigational deflector array and thus wouldn't have to be scaled to allow even the tiniest shuttlepod to pass through.
Those 175m Curry and Raging Queen interpretations are interesting, too (although the bridges would be quite small then). Anybody think that these would make good cargo pod tugs - not with the "secondary hull" replaced by a pod, but with the FJ-style pod carried flush against the undercut of the secondary hull?
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
Interestingly, the Excelsior saucer is six decks between bridge superstructure and rim, which would be able to match the windows on the Centaur were it not for the fact that the grid spacing remains constant, while the slope of the saucer does not. That is, there's a surplus of deck height at the lowest slope deck, and less than half normal for the uppermost.
Add to that the problem of the ventral windows -- that even the ones right down by the navigation dome would be on the floor.
--Jonah
Posted by NeghVar (Member # 62) on :
Personally...
I like the 380m size for the Centaur. I do not believe the shuttle bay is used as a deflector grid, but as a shuttle bay. Fits the bill as a medium range cruiser. It probably has armament comparable to a standard Excelsior (minus the forward dorsal phaser bank - though depending on the type of shuttle bay used...some Excelsior's had phaser banks on the top of the shuttle bays).
Later! Art
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
BTW.. I just realized why it was completely necessary to label the Yeager as such: the word 'Yeager' is created by rearraging the letters in 'Voyager' without having to print any new decals, just like the registry of 65674 is 74656 backwards.
Also, is it possible that the Centaur, in its 'smaller than a constitution saucer' scaling, has the forward shuttlebay that perhaps only holds two shuttlepods hard docked (I'm thinking like NX-01 here), so its not an actual shuttlebay like we know?
Nemesis, shouldnt your Publicly Displayed Name have spoiler warnings?
[ June 06, 2002, 10:30: Message edited by: CaptainMike ]
Posted by 359mph (Member # 37) on :
quote:Originally posted by CaptainMike: just like the registry of 65674 is 74656 backwards.
It is?
Posted by Mark Nguyen (Member # 469) on :
It is if you take the hobby knife, cut the "74" from the front of the Voyager decal and put it after the "656". Mind you, if they went so far as to rearrange "Voyager" to read "Yeager", they could have/should have kept the NCC contemporary with the times.
Mark
[ March 22, 2002, 10:39: Message edited by: Mark Nguyen ]
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
I had an idea about the Centaur...
What if that huge "bridge" dome is actually some additional armor that's welded on to the hull to protect the (rather exposed) command center? There are so many other jeebles that are attached almost at random -- why not some protective armor as well?
See, I'd rather believe that the normal Centaur is a standard Excelsior saucer and impulse engine assembly with modified Excelsior-style nacelles attached by a set of pylons that coincidentally look similar to the Miranda-class rollbar. Everything else that we see on the Centaur model is stuff that was retrofitted onto the ship during the war, for whatever reason.
Posted by U//Magnus (Member # 239) on :
Yeager = 1 Y, 2 E's, 1 A, 1 G, 1 R Voyager = 1 V, 1 O, 1 Y, 1 A, 1 G, 1 E, 1 R
I'm sensing that they used more than one decal. They could have at least done something like 75664 or something. But if they used 2 decal sheets, they could have done 7465674656, so I suppose we're lucky.
Posted by NeghVar (Member # 62) on :
I am not sure if I would buy an armored bridge module. Perhaps a raised bridge module, allowing more room for the support equipment for the shuttle bay. If the saucer is the same size as an Excelsior saucer, then the shuttle bay is the sam size as an Excelsior shuttle bay...
Later! Art
Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :
I know they used the shuttle bay part from the Excelsior right under the bridge dome on the Cenatur...but I'm not sure we can say it's a shuttlebay. It certainly doesn't seem like a very bright idea to have big, moving, M/AM powered vessels flying staright towards your command center all the time.
"Boy...the Hawking seems like it's coming in a little high... I wonder if they're going to ...AHHHH"
Boom.
Posted by NeghVar (Member # 62) on :
quote:I know they used the shuttle bay part from the Excelsior right under the bridge dome on the Cenatur...but I'm not sure we can say it's a shuttlebay. It certainly doesn't seem like a very bright idea to have big, moving, M/AM powered vessels flying staright towards your command center all the time.
For that crack you will be given command of a Miranda Class w/rollbar and a faulty torpedo targeting system...(thinks a shuttle is bad - try a photorp).
8^P Art
Posted by Bernd (Member # 6) on :
I have returned to 380m for the Centaur. I don't think that the Miranda pod serves as a torpedo launcher but rather as small secondary hull with the deflector. The pylons, now holding the main plasma conduits, would serve a very different purpose too, so I don't think that these components would be taken from the Miranda.
The bridge, with all the copper bits, bears only a slight similarity to that of the Conny. It is a bit large, but doesn't strike me as oversized. Finally, I would really like to have the shuttlebay in front of the bridge.
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
you guys suck. i realize that there are two 'E's in 'Yeager'.. but thanks for bringing it up. But I'm saying that theres a reason that they didnt choose a name that had say a bunch of 'Q's and 'Z's because obviously there arent in 'Voyager'. and i know that 65674 isnt 74656 backwards, but its is a rearranging of the digits (which is easier to do rearranging two digits at a time rather than one digit at a time to yield the exact backwards).
Posted by Mark Nguyen (Member # 469) on :
But doesn't the Centeur pretty clearly launch topedoes from the torpedo pod..?
Posted by Dat (Member # 302) on :
I think Bernd is saying he believes that the Miranda weapons pod when scaled up for the Centaur is big enough to act as a small secondary hull with it's own deflector dish. That leaves the shuttlebay/deflector dish on the saucer to be the shuttlebay and not a deflector dish. And he knows the pod can be big enough to hold the torp launcher as well.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
I've always assumed that the 'pod' is a deflector assembly... just because it LOOKS like it has torp launchers doesn't mean they ARE torp launchers... ;o) ... yeah it could have both.
What if the greeblies are the deflector apparatii?
[ March 23, 2002, 03:05: Message edited by: AndrewR ]
Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
Well, that's what the greeblies were on the Reliant...
And I admit I haven't seen "A Time to Stand" in a while, but didn't the Centaur only use phasers against Our Heroes...?
And as long as we're on the subject of this ship, does anyone have the slightest clue what was used for the various greebling on the surface of the Centaur?
--Jonah
Posted by The Red Admiral (Member # 602) on :
I have to disagree with your assertions on the Miranda pod. I made the top screencap a year ago when modelling a Miranda mesh, I wanted to get the pod right. The front is the same as the back -it has both forward and aft torpedo launchers on the pod. The lower picture shows the Reliant firing a Torpedo from the aft launcher, located on the pod.
Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
Duh. We're not talking about the front and back -- we're talking about the top. Look in the right-hand column of this:
...are the same as the three thingies flanking the dish on the refit Enterrpise, which are updated versions of the boxes around the sensor dish on the TOS Enterprise, which Matt Jeffries called out as "navigational deflectors", as distinct from the dish, which he called out as the "main sensor". Far too often in later works, the two are merged because the lines were pointing at almost the same part of the ship. Andy Probert was working from Jeffries notes when he redesigned these things for the TMP Enterprise model, and Joe Jennings and Mike Minor carried them over to the Reliant.
--Jonah
Posted by The Red Admiral (Member # 602) on :
I was replying to AndrewR, -read his post. I only highlighted that the pod definitely did have torpedo launchers.
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
I'm certain that the Centaur fired a few torpedoes at Sisko's Jem'Hadar ship. They seemed to "drop" from the central/aft pod before shooting forward -- although that may have just been a trick of the shooting angles.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
Oh, yeah... ok - but maybe they're still the same shape but they've installed deflectors!?! - OK farfetched I know. At least my reply got Peregrinus' reply with those pics. So do we know if the Centaur had that added deflector assembly?
As for the deflectors surrounding the 'dish' this makes sense in say "Scorpion Parts 1 and 2" where the beams come from around the dish not directly from the dish don't they - to open an access point to fluidic space. I'd say the deflector would do this before the 'sensor/communications' dish would?
Andrew
Posted by Micromaniac (Member # 546) on :
Alright does anyone know of a 1/250 scale F14 Tomcat around - with this I can make a microversion of the Elkins using the mico Voyager.
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
quote:Originally posted by Micromaniac: Alright does anyone know of a 1/250 scale F14 Tomcat around - with this I can make a microversion of the Elkins using the mico Voyager.
I have an F-14 Tomcat I found on the playground in elementary school . . . it's about an inch long. The proportions aren't perfect at all, but it could probably suffice for the Micro Machine Voyager.
Posted by Bernd (Member # 6) on :
My though was as follows: If the Centaur is Miranda-sized, we may want to be the pod and rollbar/pylon to be the same as on the Miranda. The rollbar, however, would now act to hold the main plasma conduits. I don't think that accidentally the old rollbar would exactly fit into this new role. Moreover, I don't think that it would be useful to route the PTCs through the launcher. As the pylons and maybe the launcher are different than on the Miranda anyway (also because of the many additional details on it), we could as well postulate that the whole thing is larger. Similar considerations apply to the bridge.
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
I threw together a couple of re-arrangements of the Constitution-refit-variant:
(Sorry, didn't bother to change the registry number in the top view.)
This also constitutes my test of the new Flare Upload Service. Posted by Ace (Member # 389) on :
Flare Upload Service...FUS...hmmm...
As to the Centaur, if the ship is a scout, perhaps all those greeblies on the underside (and possibly the copper bits on top) are sensor arrays/equipment?
Also, in the episode featuring the Centaur, I believe she did not fire torpedoes. Can anyone confirm (they don't show DS9 in my area anymore)?
Posted by Dax (Member # 191) on :
With an absense of anything better to do yesterday, I rewatched both "A Time to Stand" and "Rocks and Shoals". And yes, the Centaur most certainly fires a torpedo. It's when they are still at warp. Anyway, the torpedo comes from the underside of the ship but I couldn't tell for sure if it's from the pod (although it's most probable).
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
quote:Originally posted by MinutiaeMan: I threw together a couple of re-arrangements of the Constitution-refit-variant:
that rearranged graphic doesnt portray the shape of the nacelle pylons correctly though.. thats why i drew mine from scratch looking at the model, a couple pages ago
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
).
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
