Owing to the new pictures (captured by Starship Millennium) and the new analysis which was possible, I've thrown some other bits and pieces together to try and solve precisely what ships are which when it comes to the anomalies outstanding, and comment on other observations that come from the comparisons.
The first one here is the Challenger Class Buran. It's placed alongside the 3D model (position roughly true), to gage how it might look in tact (although, as with all these model comparisons there must be margin for error as they're based on incomplete schematics).
It's difficult to judge precisely what the Buran looks like or how it's configured, as it looks like a total mess. The hull looks wider than perviously thought, and one also must question whether the saucer really is elliptical like the Spingfield, et al...
Buran 2. It looks as though the upper nacelle has suffered some sort of collapse, or perhaps its even been severed, as the forward quarter seems to be resting on the secondary hull.
I'm going to update my model as I think I can identify what appears to be impulse engines. I believe that the Freedom was previously thought to lack them (or they at least have never been spotted before.). This truncated structure hanging from the saucer does appear to resemble an Impulse Engine...
After close scrutiny I have to say that this mystery ship IS the Springfield Class Chekov, and not the Excelsior study model, which I thought it might have been before. The pod structure appears to be present, and you can also make out the reddish bands toward the front of the nacelles. I think this fact confirmed it for me, without a doubt. In my view I consider the Chekov identified.
The two here are virtually identical. Also, like its sister class the Springfield, the red bands around the nacelles are just visible in this image. So with the comparison in place there can be no doubt remaining, this is the Cheyenne Class Ahwahnee at Wolf 359.
Very nice!
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
Looks nice!
I think the reason why the first Challenger shot doesn't look right is because the alignment isn't quite right. I think that you should swivel your 3D model counter-clockwise a little bit (Z-axis), and twist it around so that the port side is a little higher (Y-axis).
Posted by Starship Millennium (Member # 822) on :
Looking good!
Another thing about the Firebrand: is that structure above the warp engine still going to be considered a torp launcher like the Enterprise-A, or is it just detail left over from the Stargazer pylon? The image of the model itself really doesn't show that area well.
Posted by Akira (Member # 850) on :
Great job
now some one needs to show what they looked like in the yard with out damage
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Yes, some sort of, I don't know, speculative computer modeling would be nice.
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
That was funny Sol..., or it is 3:33 am and I am tired...
Posted by Bernd (Member # 6) on :
Impressive!
If not that, what should finally convince me that we have really seen the Ahwahnee in the initial screen view?
Seems I will have to make a couple of updates and revisions soon.
Posted by Bernd (Member # 6) on :
And here is the complete collection of Nick's (Starship Millennium's) screencaps for further analysis:
Warning: 4774 kilobytes
Posted by iam2xtreme (Member # 836) on :
I dont know what you guys think but i think that the structure on top of the saucer looks bigger than in Red Admirals CGI version. Certainly taller if not wider also.
Posted by Cpt. Kyle Amasov (Member # 742) on :
One question concerning your page, Admiral: Don't you think that "Query 1" could be the Springfield? I don't see any similarities to the Excelsior-model, IMO. Springfield? Posted by Dr. Phlox (Member # 878) on :
That impulse engine on the Firebrand doesn't show up on photo of the model, it looks completely flat behind the neck. They could have added it just before filming and after the photo was taken, I suppose.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
Maybe a reproduction of some of the wolf 359 screen caps we all know so well, with the CGI pics in-place of all the ships!?!
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
iam, look at the distances you are viewing them from, the Admiral has more nacelle showing, making the view further away, making everything look smaller....
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ritten: the Admiral has more nacelle showing
*snikker*
Posted by The Red Admiral (Member # 602) on :
Lol. It's not the length of the nacelle that matters...
Well, a lot of these models are old. I haven't had the chance to update any of them these last few days, so some details are not going to precisely match these new, and far more detailed captures. Also the spin/attitude of the models was difficult to replicate. The Buran though does need tweaking, as MM said.
SM. On my Freedom model it is a torpedo launcher. Its not possible to tell what the structure is for sure on the Firebrand picture.
Cpt. Kyle Amasov - I haven't updated that page since I made these cgi comparison pics. Now that I know it's the Chekov (or at least convinced it is), and shall now be referring to it as the Springfield and not a query.
Dr Phlox - The engine does appear to be missing on the model photo, you're right. But judging by the capture of the footage, it does appear to be present. I'm going to speculatively call it an Impulse Engine and not a random shadow. It has to have them somewhere...
AndrewR - Maybe, if time permits... It would be quite difficult to set up.
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
Red Admiral,
I must first say that your screencaps are quite superior to anything we've seen before. Very nice!
I also agree with most of your analysis, with the following exception being the Buran:
-In the cap you refer to as "Buran 2" (the viewscreen shot), you have your CGI model in a dorsal-view orientation. The actual shot is of the ship at a ventral view.
-I won't elaborate further right now, but suffice it to say that your GGI model of the Buran's top view isn't quite precise. Not your fault; you were working from a diagram of the ship that wasn't precise also. In a nutshell: The Buran's secondary hull is not the angular piece that is shown on the diagram at EAS & Copernicus Yards. Rather, it is a more curved piece, which tapers off at the end right around where the nacelles end. The submarine tower pylon is also positioned farther back on the top nacelle, and is not as long as you make it.
Posted by The Red Admiral (Member # 602) on :
It occured to me that the Buran may indeed have been upside down here, and I experimented with inverting the cgi model as well to reflect it. But I rejected the idea in the end, and put the inherent inconsistencies down to the fact that my model was simply inaccurate due to lack of precise reference material. But you might be right, it could very well be the ventral side we're seeing.
I'm thinking of remodelling the Challenger to try and get it a little closer to what it actually might look like. It's frustrating - we have several good photos of these studio models now, but teasingly we haven't seen the Buran yet, not a good one anyway.
Oh, and the screencaps were done by Starship Millennium, I simply enhanced them, and wrote an analysis.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)