Larson I've tried to make up for the crappy originial schematics. Some new detail on the pylons, most notably a couple of 'flush vents'. Loknar Same as the Larson: new details and a slightly more accurate schematic. Although I'm still not sure if the front view matches the other views. Surya Instead of G�nther's deflector dish, I've used Franz Joseph's design, because it's sleeker and simply better looking.
And the new ones: Saladin (and Hermes) Since FJ's phaser banks didn't really exist on the Enterprise model, there's no visible difference at all between the Hermes and the Saladin. Alternatively, I could make the destroyer Saladin a bit more 'shielded', with less windows and some added deflector grid lines. Ptolemy + pod Some extra detailing on the towing pad and the cargopod. I replaced the NCC-2xxxx registry of the pod to a registry similar to the U.S.S. Huron (TAS). Federation (WIP) A Work in Progress. There's a little problem with FJ's design in that he assumes the dish is a sensor, while 'modern' Trek says it's actually a deflector. I've made an alternative secondary hull, which takes the shuttlebay back to where it belongs, and has a white 'sensor cluster' aft, instead of FJ's dish.
Any comments, nitpicks, rants or suggestions for future Connie bashes are welcome.
Posted by Magnus de Pym (Member # 239) on :
Yum. Perhaps the best Schematics of these ships. Ever.
Posted by The Red Admiral (Member # 602) on :
Delicious. One day I'll get round to doing a Loknar mesh, and these will come in very handy. Nicw work.
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
Veddy nice, sah! My suggestions:
--There's no intercooler on the Larson. Suggest addition with same placement scheme as Saladin/Hermes.
--No, the bow & starbaord elevations of the Loknar stil dinnae match up. Fuck it.
--Next up...how about the Decatur prototpe concept from "Starship Design?"
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
Now you can see why I chose to re-design the Federation altogether, it has just too many strange quirks.
Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
In the meantime, I've had some fun making new pods.
Larson +intercooler Good idea. A quick cut 'n' paste from the Saladin will sort that out.
Loknar +elevations +fuck I'll wait for the 3D mesh and see which way the pylons bend and what the correct views are. In the meantime, I will indeed 'fuck it'.
Decatur Yup. Had that one in mind too. Pretty cool ship actually, with a lot of custom components.
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
Love that "shell" pod I tried something similar with the Kobayashi Maru, but it didn't turn our right.
Posted by The Red Admiral (Member # 602) on :
Does anyone know of a 3D model of the Lokanr. I can't recall seeing one. If it hasn't been done before that's special incentive for me to do it.
Posted by Topher (Member # 71) on :
ARGH! Why can't you people understand? In TOS and TOS Movie Era ships, the dish is a sensor, not the deflector. You see those little things on the side and bottom of the secondary hull? Those are the deflectors. Those are what the Miranda has. The Miranda has deflectors, just no sensor dish.
Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
I've never heard of that theory before, Topher. Sounds very plausible though. How official is it?
It does fit with the fact that TNG and later ships have the majority of their sensors located just aft of the navigational deflector.
Posted by Topher (Member # 71) on :
Well, the dish is the sensor. The little greeblie things on the sides of the secondary hull and on the bottom are the deflectors. That's why it's not such a big deal that the Miranda doesn't have a sensor dish. So, to reiterate:
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Though I'm just pulling stuff out of the aether, here, I'm pretty sure that feature being a deflector is something Roddenberry came up with during TOS. So, a face with its tongue stuck out in a charming manner.
I think Jeffries labeled it as an antenna in his first drawings, which is what it looks like, anyway. Not here, of course, but originally.
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
Oh yeah, Topher? Then how come the Constellation Class doesn't have those little bubble greeblies?
Nice artwork, Harry!
I've never really thought about it before, but maybe FJ was thinking of something like a combat fighter purpose for the Federation's original forward-facing shuttlebay? Of course, fighters and Trek is a whole different argument, but it might be a good explanation...
Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
Okay, so that theory more or less holds up for the Connie and the Relaint (especially the Reliant), and it makes the Federation somewhat more sensical. But all other ships either have the blue glowing dish or no deflector at all. Not to mention the NX-01, which certainly uses it's dish as a deflector.
Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
Regarding the Federation's forward shuttlebay: structurally it doesn't seem very sound. The neck attaches just above the empty shuttle hangar. Even ignoring all the problems with ODNs and assorted connections, the structural stresses on the neck-hull connection would probably require some stronger support.
Posted by The Red Admiral (Member # 602) on :
Yeh that's a good point. The forward facing deflector array of the Federation has a number of smaller arrays as well, so these could well be sensors, the dish, the deflector. I'd have to guess the aft dish is also a sensor. Here's an orthographical pic of the model here, gripes aside I'm still a fan of this ship.
Cheers for the Loknar link. Funny, I did a Google search after my last post and came up with the exact same page. I've since started on a Loknar model. A new thread is about to open, I could use your creative input Harry...
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
To illustrate what I am saying, I direct you to the following scans of the Star Fleet Technical Manual by Franz Joseph at The Guardian of Forever.
1. I really must plead the case that you should make two separate drawings for the Saladin and Hermes, as the one is precisely correct to neither. The Hermes should not have the two photon torpedo tubes on the bridge mound, and the Saladin should have phaser mounts on the upper surface of the saucer.
2. The "dish" emplacement was designed to be the main sensor in TOS, and that's what the Joseph diagrams (seen as computer displays in TWOK) clearly indicate them as being on these ships. The Federation has two sensor dishes (fore & aft) and two smaller dishes (obviously recessed into the hull, so as not to appear in the side view ) in the front, which are the tractor beam and navigational deflector, respectively. However, I must dispute Topher's notion that the "dish" on the refitted Connie seen in the films was also a sensor. Unless I am very much mistaken, it was designed to be the nav-deflector.
3. Your Federation is missing its phaser banks on the upper saucer surface. Also, the saucer rim looks a little too thick.
4. I'd love to see a starliner-type pod for the Ptolemy, as depicted in the FJ Manual.
I am very enamored with the quality of your drawings and am very glad to see these designs again. Excellent!
-MMoM Posted by Topher (Member # 71) on :
If the TMP-refit of the Enterprise did make the dish the nav-deflector, why still have the deflectors on the sides and bottom? I still say that the dish is a sensor and only a sensor.
As for the Constellation, it has neither a dish nor the deflector thingies, so *shrug*
As for the NX-01, it has a dish and blue glow behind it, so a big *shrug* to that.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Er, "still"?
Posted by Topher (Member # 71) on :
Okie, after some reviewing of schematics and a talk with Shik, it would appear as though I was mistaken. However, my theory worked very well when describing why the Miranda has no dish.
As can be seen, I will admit to being wrong, unlike some forumites.
However, I still say that on the unrefit Enterprise and the Federation, the dishes are sensors, and the deflectors are elsewhere. It would seem to fit with the aft dish on the Federation.
Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
Oh Mighty Monkey: IIRC, there were no visible phaser banks on the 1701 model and FJ made them up himself. Thus, that difference between the Hermes and Saladin is irrelevant, because 'really' neither of the two ships have visible phaser banks. Thanks for bringing up the torp launchers, though. Oh, and the same thing also goes for the Federation, I didn't forget to add them, they just aren't visible.
To avoid all the sensor/deflector mess, I'm just going to draw the Federation as depicted in the SFTM.
Oh, and about that saucer rim, FJ's schematics are not very accurate at all, and if the Federation's saucer is made of Constitution parts, this rim is correct, and his is too thin. HA!
Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
As requested, an FJ starliner.
And a tip: Go to ftp://logos.globale.com for a selection of corporate logos in CDR format.
Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :
Sorry to jump in so late on this, but this is darn fine work! That is all.
Posted by Woodside Kid (Member # 699) on :
I would also love to see what you would do with the Decatur prototype. I've done three or four tries over the years attempting to work out what the secondary hull would look like in a plan and bow view. I've never fully been satisfied with any of them. Unfortunately, I'm a self-taught draftsman, so I don't really know how to fix what I think is wrong. I would really love to see someone else's take on the layout.
Posted by Topher (Member # 71) on :
Where's the windows on the starliner? It at least had windows for the bridge...
Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
Ha. You're right. The fore and aft views are a few pages away from the side view, so I missed them .
I've updated the Federation WIP. I've decided to go for a double intercooler on the top nacelle, simply because Joseph's assymetrical nacelle looks strange.
Update I've added the Larson intercooler, and the Hermes has it's own schematic, without the torp tubes.
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
Here's a quick question... just why do so many people seem to take FJ's phaser bank counts as definitive, especially for the Constitution?
I've never really understood the limited phaser coverage provided by only three dual-emitter banks. (Dorsal port/starboard, and ventral forward.) This leaves can some rather glaring blind spots in the forward arc -- to say nothing of the rear arc. Given that the Constitution was partially a warship, I'd prefer to think that even the original Enterprise had the same basic phaser bank arrangement as the refit version did -- three double banks both top and bottom of the saucer.
And of course, there were no phaser banks on the actual filming model anyway, were there?
(I can't confirm it at all, but wasn't there one episode where Kirk orders "aft phasers"? I don't remember for certain.)
Posted by The Mike Who Would Be Captain (Member # 709) on :
whats the problem with the inner nacelle detail pointing up on the the Federation or pointing down on the Saladin/Hermes? i thought the specs that showed it like that worked best.
and youre not going to win any 'the dish in TOS was something else' arguments, since ENT is probably going to establish that the dish has always been a deflector, even before TOS.
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
quote:Originally posted by Harry: Oh Mighty Monkey: IIRC, there were no visible phaser banks on the 1701 model and FJ made them up himself. Thus, that difference between the Hermes and Saladin is irrelevant, because 'really' neither of the two ships have visible phaser banks. Thanks for bringing up the torp launchers, though. Oh, and the same thing also goes for the Federation, I didn't forget to add them, they just aren't visible.
To avoid all the sensor/deflector mess, I'm just going to draw the Federation as depicted in the SFTM.
Oh, and about that saucer rim, FJ's schematics are not very accurate at all, and if the Federation's saucer is made of Constitution parts, this rim is correct, and his is too thin. HA!
Okay, I can completely understand why one would want to make the Connie herself more accurate to the model than to FJ's drawings. But as to the other three FJ ships, the only thing ever seen of them onscreen was the FJ schematics themselves. (Well, not the Federation, but...) Your premise of making them all constructed solely of Connie parts is flawed, in that this is not the factual case. While the Connie might not have had phaser mounts visible, the Saladin and Federation did. And, why assume that the Federation saucer is constructed of two Connie saucer halves? Is its secondary hull a modified Connie piece? No. The thin rim on the drawing indicates it is a design-specific piece.
I definitely appreciate your work and apologize for nitpicking. Sorry.
-MMoM
P.S.
Could you perhaps also make an alternate sketch showing the Federation with its proper one-intercooler nacelle?
-MM Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim: Your premise of making them all constructed solely of Connie parts is flawed
Ummm.... the last time I checked, the saucers, nacelles, deflector dish (or sensor, whatever), and neck assemblies were all identical. The proportions of those components are identical to the Constitution.
The only major differences: The Federation's saucer is made up of two lower halves of the Constitution saucer, and has a different secondary hull. The nacelles are still the same size, though.
Furthermore, FJ's Constitution schematics from the same source are identical in their details (such as phaser banks visible on the hull) that have already been disproved on the "real" ship from the show. Therefore, such similar features on the Saladin, etc are nothing more than inaccuracies that are present in ALL of FJ's ship schematics.
There IS such a thing as being too literal, Mim. Posted by The Red Admiral (Member # 602) on :
Continuing good work. Great idea on the starliner logos, the possibilities are endless...
Ahw. It only misses that annoying Santa Claus and an even more annoying jingle.
Mim: It is quite obvious that FJ's ship's are Connie bashes. How on Earth CAN'T they be!? He reuses his own inaccurate Constitution parts! So if his Connie schematic is wrong, all of them are. I'm sorry, but it's just illogical to suggest otherwise.
My intention was to clean up his schematics with the actual Constitution's shape. If you want to say his pencil drawings are more accurate than the actual studio model, that's fine with me, but I don't buy it.
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
Well, y'know, on the Connie studio model, there were no torp tubes either. Those two little things in the front of the bridge mound were windows.
The thing is, while FJ's depiction of the Connie is inaccurate to the model, the Hermes, Saladin, Ptolemy, and Federation have no model to be inconsistent with. Why assume that they too are "incorrect" when they're fine the way they are? Why ret-con them to simply be consistent with the Connie, when they are in fact separate ships? Contemporary, similar, but not necessarily identical in all their components. Their details are different from those of the Connie. They *do* have torpedo launchers and phaser mounts visible. What's wrong with that? Last time I checked, people were COMPLAINING about the fact that the Connie had no such discernable features. Why must this flaw apply to all TOS-era designs?
-MMoM Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim: The thing is, while FJ's depiction of the Connie is inaccurate to the model, the Hermes, Saladin, Ptolemy, and Federation have no model to be inconsistent with.
What do you mean, no model? They're made of Constitution parts. Ergo, they use the same design.
The last time I checked, the Nebula Class used the exact same phaser types, windows, and just about all the same features as the Enterprise-D model.
Now, the Saladin, Federation, and Ptolemy are all made of Constitution parts, then that means that they've got the same outfit styles... It would be highly illogical to say that the little dots that represent phaser banks aren't really there on the Constitution Class, but they ARE there on the Federation and the others.
It's a little principle called Occam's Razor. The simplest answer is most likely the correct one. We KNOW that the FJ details of the Constitution Class are inaccurate. Therefore, it stands to reason that the details on the other ships are inaccurate as well -- by that I mean that they have similar arrangements as the Constitution.
Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
These are VERY nice, Harry. Two things, though. On the side view, the rear part of the impulse deck seems a bit narrow. You have these tear-drop shaped thing that narrows almost to nothing at the rear. Another problem is similar to one I've been having with the lettering on the top of the hull. Because the dorsal primary hull mound on the side view doesn't extend far enough forward and rearward on most schematics, the positioning of the lettering doesn't match that on the top view.
quote:Originally posted by MinutiaeMan: What do you mean, no model? They're made of Constitution parts. Ergo, they use the same design.
The last time I checked, the Nebula Class used the exact same phaser types, windows, and just about all the same features as the Enterprise-D model.
Now, the Saladin, Federation, and Ptolemy are all made of Constitution parts, then that means that they've got the same outfit styles... It would be highly illogical to say that the little dots that represent phaser banks aren't really there on the Constitution Class, but they ARE there on the Federation and the others.
It's a little principle called Occam's Razor. The simplest answer is most likely the correct one. We KNOW that the FJ details of the Constitution Class are inaccurate. Therefore, it stands to reason that the details on the other ships are inaccurate as well -- by that I mean that they have similar arrangements as the Constitution.
I must disagree. Whether or not the Connie has these details has no effect on whether the other ships do. There's no logic in excluding them simply for the purpose of making them identical to the Connie. They're unique ships, and even if you want to call them Connie kitbashes, there's no reason why their parts couldn't have been MODIFIED by Starfleet. They needn't be simply cut and pasted from the Connie. (Harry, I use that phrase figuratively, and by no means am implying that you drawings are cut and pasted.)
And, just to additionally clarify one of your statements, we KNOW that the FJ details of the Connie are inaccurate to particular VERSION of the ship, one of several known, which was seen in TOS. *His* version was also seen---as computer displays in later films/episodes.
-MMoM Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
[double post]
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
And even the original source of the FJ ship, namely his manual, insists that the "Constitution class" (or Class IX Heavy Cruiser) starships were produced in several time-separated batches. So it's not at all objectionable IMHO to take this as an implicit permission to treat FJ's NCC-1700 as a "variant" instead of a "poor representation of the original".
In any case, FJ's ships appeal to me in that they are less heavily armed than Kirk's vessel was. They only show two torpedo tubes (if any) against Kirk's six or more, and always a smaller number of phaser emitters than the TMP ship. This is good for preserving the "hero status" of Kirk's ride. I'd have more objections if Starfleet constructed a lowly Fleet tug out of the exact components of its top-of-the-line galactic exploration and domination supership...
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by The Mike Who Would Be Captain (Member # 709) on :
i believe that SotSF took the variant route as well, the book contained the first couple ships as representing variations shown in the series, then a separate design representing the variation shown in FJs book (especially the gridlines/incorrect bridge dome). there are a lot of different details that changed between 'the cage' and the models exhibition also.. the reason gridlines are always so evident in 70s interpretations is that the original E had no deflector grid, but one was drawn on by the model's refurbishors when it toured the country in the 70s. they are much less prominent, but still featured on the 'trials & tribbleations' E so we can conclude they were a minor feature that wasnt noticable during TOS
Posted by Woodside Kid (Member # 699) on :
quote: Originally posted by MinutiaeMan: The only major differences: The Federation's saucer is made up of two lower halves of the Constitution saucer, and has a different secondary hull. The nacelles are still the same size, though.
You must have a different copy of the Manual than I do, then. In the one I have, the lower half of the Constitution saucer (and, therefore, Hermes, Saladin, and Ptolemy) is a single curve, concave up towards the rim. Not so for the Federation. Its saucer has a two-part curve; the outer portion is concave away from the rim, while the inner portion is concave towards it. Aside from the engines, the only part you really can claim is copied directly from the Connie is the dorsal.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
quote:Originally posted by MinutiaeMan: The last time I checked, the Nebula Class used the exact same phaser types, windows, and just about all the same features as the Enterprise-D model.
Except the windows aren't the same. Or at least they weren't on the original miniture. They are the same on the CGI model. But that's just nitpicking.
Posted by The Mike Who Would Be Captain (Member # 709) on :
how do you know theyre the same phaser types and whatnot.. did Okuda and Sternbach publish a Nebula-class technical manual that i missed or are you just assuming they are the same because they look similar?
For all we know the internal arrangement features are completely divergent from the Galaxy. this would be necessitated by the fact the a Nebula in real life isnt a kitbash, but built independantly using only parts of the same spaceframe. i can almost definitely see them requiring a lot of different interior tech than the Galaxy based on the fact they have less room and a different mission profile.
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
quote:Originally posted by Timo: And even the original source of the FJ ship, namely his manual, insists that the "Constitution class" (or Class IX Heavy Cruiser) starships were produced in several time-separated batches. So it's not at all objectionable IMHO to take this as an implicit permission to treat FJ's NCC-1700 as a "variant" instead of a "poor representation of the original".
Exactly. Even if the fandom interpretations of the variant/refit/subclass sequence from Ships of the Star Fleet, etc, aren't the precise way it really happened, it's obvious that there was some kind of progressive variation in the design of the Constitution class. This much is clearly evident from onscreen evidence.
Think about it: If there were three different versions ("The Cage," "Where No Man Has Gone Before," and the rest of the show) of the Connie in the time leading up to TOS, and there were later several major refit-configurations (TMP, TNG Brahms' desktop ship, and the DS9 TM ship) then why couldn't Joseph's version (or versions, considering the drawings in the Manual and his NCC-1700 blueprints are slightly different) fit in as well. After all, it too was seen onscreen in both the movies (TMP and TSFS) and in TNG. ("Datalore")
-FtK
P.S.
How about my new handle?
[ August 27, 2002, 12:01: Message edited by: Felix the Kzin ]
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
quote:Originally posted by Timo: And even the original source of the FJ ship, namely his manual, insists that the "Constitution class" (or Class IX Heavy Cruiser) starships were produced in several time-separated batches. So it's not at all objectionable IMHO to take this as an implicit permission to treat FJ's NCC-1700 as a "variant" instead of a "poor representation of the original".
Oh god, here we go with the "variants of the Constitution Class" again... (Sorry, it's a pet peeve of mine.)
I believe that there were, at most, two versions of the TOS-era Constitution. The TMP-refit would be the third. I don't pretend to be an expert on all of the various details of the TOS Enterprise, but I'm observant enough to know that we've seen different features on the same part of the ship in the SAME EPISODE, depending on which shot was (re)used. For example, there were the "vents" on the ends of the nacelles, that also were white balls depending on which shot was used. And I specifically recall noticing the larger deflector dish in some of the "regular" TOS episodes. (I can't give specific episodes though, sorry. My only source for TOS right now is the Sci-Fi Channel.)
I know that there were a large number of changes in the Enterprise model between "The Cage" and the other episodes. They shrank the bridge module into a smaller bulge, shrank the deflector dish (perhaps after "Where No Man Has Gone Before") and they added the white balls to the warp nacelles (also maybe after "WNMHGB").
There's also the line from "The Cage" which stated that the Enterprise's crew complement in 2254 was 203 -- a whole lot smaller than the 430 from the "regular" series. My conclusion is that there was a refit at the end of Pike's five-year mission(s), which gave the Enterprise (and perhaps the entire Constitution Class) a semi-major upgrade. Heck, we know from the TNG:TM that starships are on a regular refit cycle -- ten to twenty years. If the 1701 was launched in 2245, then a refit of 2264 or so (just before Kirk's five-year mission) would fit in perfectly.
But everyone has to remember that just about ALL of the effects shots in TOS were reused whenever possible. Therefore, it's problematic at best to try to apply various "variants" to the basic (TOS-era) Constitution Class design. (Heck, they came up with a relatively lame excuse about Romulans using Klingon ships just so they could re-use the D7 model one more time!) In fact, I'm pretty sure that the big deflector dish from the original version of the model was seen in throughout the TOS run, in the form of the effects shots in the opening credits sequence. Or at least through the first and second season.
See, the problem in my mind is that "Star Trek" is still a TV show, no matter how much we try to develop its background and characters. It's fine to try to develop rationalizations and explanations, but at some point you've got to consider the fact that this was a 1960's-era TV show that basically pioneered the modern space opera genre for television. Furthermore, you have to remember that TOS was filmed under a very tight budget, and often under the threat of cancellation. And most especially, the creators had no idea that their work would spawn a multi-billion-dollar franchise, five sequel series, ten movies, and fans like us who would perpetually analyze, discuss, and deconstruct the tiniest details regarding the arrangement of equipment on a studio model.
I guess what I'm trying to say is, there's a point where trying to rationalize things is pointless. But I guess that's an IMO.
quote:Originally posted by Woodside Kid:
quote:Originally posted by MinutiaeMan: The only major differences: The Federation's saucer is made up of two lower halves of the Constitution saucer, and has a different secondary hull. The nacelles are still the same size, though.
You must have a different copy of the Manual than I do, then. In the one I have, the lower half of the Constitution saucer (and, therefore, Hermes, Saladin, and Ptolemy) is a single curve, concave up towards the rim. Not so for the Federation. Its saucer has a two-part curve; the outer portion is concave away from the rim, while the inner portion is concave towards it. Aside from the engines, the only part you really can claim is copied directly from the Connie is the dorsal.
I stand corrected. You're right, it is a slightly modified saucer. In fact...
*opens his copy of the TOS:TM*
Oh jeez, I can't believe that I forgot this tidbit! About two years ago when I first got the TOS:TM, I was using it to gather the tech specs on the FJ designs, and first noticed the discrepancy. The Federation-class saucer is actually bigger than the Constitution-class saucer! Check the specs in the original book -- The width of the Federation is actually 140 meters, while the others are all 127 meters. This means that there's a larger diameter for the Federation saucer.
Harry, it looks like you've got to reproportion your schematics. Looking at the comparison images I've used on my chart (based on the length of 320 meters), your Federation saucer is the same diameter as the Connie's.
quote:Originally posted by The Mike Who Would Be Captain: how do you know theyre the same phaser types and whatnot.. did Okuda and Sternbach publish a Nebula-class technical manual that i missed or are you just assuming they are the same because they look similar?
For all we know the internal arrangement features are completely divergent from the Galaxy. this would be necessitated by the fact the a Nebula in real life isnt a kitbash, but built independantly using only parts of the same spaceframe. i can almost definitely see them requiring a lot of different interior tech than the Galaxy based on the fact they have less room and a different mission profile.[/QB]
You're right about the Nebula needing different configurations. However, my reasoning is that they've got a ton of space on that ship, and so they had the room to fit the Type 10 arrays. (Besides, the DS9:TM says Type 10 emitters, too.) I figured that if the saucer is essentially the same, and the phasers have an identical look, then they're probably of the same type.
Of course that's not proof in and of itself, so thanks for mentioning that. Posted by Felix the Kzin (Member # 646) on :
The re-use of effects shots is just that: re-using shots. It DOES NOT MEAN that the ship "changed shape" or any other ridiculous idea. I suppose you believe the Enterprise-D also "changed shape" in TNG, whenever they switched between shots of the 2ft, 4ft, or 6ft models...
Of course, it is a different matter when a shot is being re-used TO REPRESENT ANOTHER SHIP, but this is by no means the case with the NCC-1701.
The Enterprise looked one way in "The Cage," another (quite similar) way in "Where No Man Has Gone Before," and still another way in the rest of the series. There is no real significance in the fact that episodes relied heavily on a set number of stock effects shots. The Enteprise never "really" altered in appearance from moment to moment.
-FtK Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
quote:Originally posted by Felix the Kzin: The re-use of effects shots is just that: re-using shots. It DOES NOT MEAN that the ship "changed shape" or any other ridiculous idea. I suppose you believe the Enterprise-D also "changed shape" in TNG, whenever they switched between shots of the 2ft, 4ft, or 6ft models...
No, I don't. But I read some people proposing just that solution in another recent thread...
quote:The Enterprise looked one way in "The Cage," another (quite similar) way in "Where No Man Has Gone Before," and still another way in the rest of the series. There is no real significance in the fact that episodes relied heavily on a set number of stock effects shots. The Enteprise never "really" altered in appearance from moment to moment.
Okay, we're on the same page here.
My problem is that some others were trying to present the FJ version of the Constitution as another variant of the class. I really don't think that's the case at all.
And I've also thought of a real-world reason for the "appearing" torpedo launchers and phasers in FJ's drawings -- just what would those lines and labels be pointing to, otherwise? Those dots are only there to show the location, not to prove that they were visible features on the actual hulls.
Posted by Felix the Kzin (Member # 646) on :
quote:Originally posted by MinutiaeMan: My problem is that some others were trying to present the FJ version of the Constitution as another variant of the class. I really don't think that's the case at all.
Well, for the record, I do. Think about it: If there were three different variants in TOS, (which you just stated that you accepted) why couldn't there have been an/other/s before? Why couldn't the original U.S.S. Constitution have looked exactly as depicted in Joseph's drawings? After all, those drawings are the only glimpse we've had of the NCC-1700. Why do you inist that such a variant does not exist? There is no evidence to support that, and in fact there is evidence (the aforementioned computer displays) pointing to the contrary.
You must admit that---despite the fact that SotSF, et al, made up out of thin air several Connie variants that most likely don't exist in the "actual" Trek universe---their basic ideas of a progressive series of alterations to the Constitution design do fit rather nicely with what we've seen on the shows. They also happen to make a great deal of sense and fit with present-day shipbuilding practices. Why all the protest?
-FtK Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
quote:Originally posted by Felix the Kzin:
quote:Originally posted by MinutiaeMan: My problem is that some others were trying to present the FJ version of the Constitution as another variant of the class. I really don't think that's the case at all.
Well, for the record, I do. Think about it: If there were three different variants in TOS, (which you just stated that you accepted) why couldn't there have been an/other/s before? Why couldn't the original U.S.S. Constitution have looked exactly as depicted in Joseph's drawings? After all, those drawings are the only glimpse we've had of the NCC-1700. Why do you inist that such a variant does not exist? There is no evidence to support that, and in fact there is evidence (the aforementioned computer displays) pointing to the contrary.
First off, once you get past two or three variations of the same class, it starts to get rather ludicrous. Certainly different ships can end up with different specifications, but that doesn't mean that there's still not some consistency.
And, if we were to accept your argument that the computer graphics represent literal canon, that means that there have been a disproportionate number of Admirals and Captains named Gene Roddenberry, Rick Berman, and so on. It means that there was a starship named USS Alka-selzior. It means that a military ship has quotes from Gilligan's Island on panel labels. It means that there is a sports car, Nomad,a duck, and other odd items as part of the crucial equipment outfit of the Enterprise-D.
You don't have to take things so literally!
quote:You must admit that---despite the fact that SotSF, et al, made up out of thin air several Connie variants that most likely don't exist in the "actual" Trek universe---their basic ideas of a progressive series of alterations to the Constitution design do fit rather nicely with what we've seen on the shows.
I must? Oh, okay. I guess I must agree, then...
You seem to be talking about two different things here. First is the variations of configurations for the Constitution Class. The second is your proposal that the FJ design become another variant. I have no problem with having a couple of variations on the Constitution Class, as I said above. However, I do not agree that FJ's designs represent yet another configuration. I believe that the discrepancies are simply explained by artist's errors.
Shall we agree to disagree?
The following is a somewhat snarky commentary based on the above arguments. I mean no offense by the sarcastic tone.
Here, I've got a few examples based on your line of reasoning, Felix/Mim...
-- Miranda Class. It's fairly well-known that there are some inaccuracies in the Encyclopedia's depiction of the Miranda. Specifically, the roll bar is far too small, and the support pylons for that bar are also a bit off. Shall we say that there's some variant of the Miranda Class based on the differences between the Encyclopedia illustration and the studio model?
-- How about the DS9:TM? We know that the Centaur had a different design from the "Excelsior Variant" diagram that was shown in that book. That must mean that there's another class of "Excelsior variant" out there that matches the DS9:TM diagram perfectly! Or at the very least, a "Centaur Class, ____ variant" that matches the DS9:TM image.
-- How about the Academy Trainer image in the Encyclopedia? We know that Wesley's ship looked different, but maybe we should argue that some cadets take their pilot's training lessons on Peregrine-class couriers...
Get my point? All of these examples are just as authoritative as the TOS:TM, if not a whole lot more so. And yet we still obviously have to make allowances for errors...
Posted by Felix the Kzin (Member # 646) on :
I'd just like to point out that the problem with your three facetious examples is that none of them were ever onscreen.
FJ's drawings were. And not just once, but at least three times.
But I suppose we shall agree to disagree. I still maintain, however, that the Hermes, Saladin, Ptolemy, and Federation should be presented with their proper exterior details.
-FtK Posted by Ryan McReynolds (Member # 28) on :
Just to throw more fuel into the fire, I think that the "real" TOS Enterprise had visible TMP-style phasers (though not gold in color) and NX-01-style torpedo tubes, even though there were none of these on the model or on screen. For that matter, I think she had visible RCS ports and a TMP-style airlock or two. Fuck canon. Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
quote:Originally posted by Felix the Kzin: I'd just like to point out that the problem with your three facetious examples is that none of them were ever onscreen.
FJ's drawings were. And not just once, but at least three times.
First off, the Miranda image WAS seen on DS9 at least once, as part of the image that showed Sisko's tactical plan to retake DS9 in "Favor the Bold."
And as for the fact that FJ's designs (apparently) were used on the screen, I'd again like to ask if you also believe that there have been multiple admirals named Gene Roddenberry in command of Starfleet, from the time of the Enterprise-A straight through Voyager's time. (And one of his great-something grandfathers was also in command of one of the old DY-xxx colony ships listed in "Up the Long Ladder," too!)
When you get into the tiniest details like background images, you've GOT to make allowances.
However, I shall drop the argument now. Like I said, we can disagree.
"I suppose you're entitled to your delusions..." - C3PO Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
Just to clarify a minor point... Even if (and when) I believe in the existence of a ship shaped like FJ's drawing, I never ever want to create the impression that I would think USS Enterprise (NCC-1701) ever looked like that.
The FJ ship ("Achernar") could be a prototype, since all the images bear the registry NCC-1700. Or then a separate class (which is what SotSF says) with possible sub-variants of its own. But Kirk's ship in canonical Trek never looked like that.
I can easily buy several variants of a single ship, each introducing new tech. The deflector dish or the nacelle endcaps or other similar protrusions would be very realistic targets for modification. (And given the TOS footage confusion, I'm ready to accept variable-geometry features, too.) But I can only buy one major alteration of hull form, like in TMP. And you still have to offer me a bargain price.
The FJ ship requires a major alteration of hull form from the norm represented by all of Kirk's ships before TMP, both for the saucer and the secondary hull. If the saucer suddenly grew gigantic Mickey Mouse ears, that wouldn't be a major alteration. It's just an addition. But when it becomes slightly less curved than it used to be, that's major. It means everything that existed before has to be torn down and rebuilt. I can't understand why they'd do that for TMP, but I can accept one such impossibility per starship history. RW examples of such idiocy abound. A second one I cannot.
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
Most notable updates are the new impulse engines (thanks Masao), and the finished Federation.
Oh, and for the curious, here's a little chart, including my Consitution schematic.
Posted by Felix the Kzin (Member # 646) on :
I agree with Timo. The NCC-1701 most likely never looked like FJ's NCC-1700. But my point was that the NCC-1700 and the NCC-1701 needn't look precisely the same. (And therefore, the other vessels needn't either.)
Harry, I do want to re-iterate what Woodside Kid and MunitiaeMan pointed out. The Federation's saucer is most definitely not a modification of the Connie's. Its curvature is shaped differently, and it is of a different thickness and diameter. So even with your modifications to the other FJ ships, the Federation should be more accurate than your pic. (And I still would very much like to see a version with an accurate third nacelle.)
Again, nice work.
-FtK Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
What I'd very much like to see would be a Federation dreadnought, refitted in the TMP style.
Fanfic abounds with ships that use the TMP version of NCC-1701 as the basis, and just add a third nacelle, or tamper a bit with the pylons and the neck. A precious few use a "customized" secondary hull that resembles the FJ Federation hull. They all use the NCC-1701 saucer, though. Which IMHO is idiotic - the saucer is a major defining feature of the Federation.
I just think there would be potential in a ship that featured a saucer that does to the FJ Federation one what TMP did to the Enterprise' saucer. Or even leaves the saucer unaltered in shape, and just adds TMP-style paintwork and surface detail.
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
You're right about the Federation saucer. But since I have just suffered some disastrous Master Boot Record crash, there's a very big chance that I've lost EVERYTHING. So I doubt I'll get back to these ships anytime soon .
Posted by Felix the Kzin (Member # 646) on :
Holy shit! That really sucks. I hope it all works out... Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
As it turns out, it did all work out. I'll get back to these ships in a while.
Posted by Felix the Kzin (Member # 646) on :
I'm glad. Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
quote:Originally posted by Timo: What I'd very much like to see would be a Federation dreadnought, refitted in the TMP style.
Fanfic abounds with ships that use the TMP version of NCC-1701 as the basis, and just add a third nacelle, or tamper a bit with the pylons and the neck. A precious few use a "customized" secondary hull that resembles the FJ Federation hull. They all use the NCC-1701 saucer, though. Which IMHO is idiotic - the saucer is a major defining feature of the Federation.
I just think there would be potential in a ship that featured a saucer that does to the FJ Federation one what TMP did to the Enterprise' saucer. Or even leaves the saucer unaltered in shape, and just adds TMP-style paintwork and surface detail.
Timo Saloniemi
Designing a Movie-era styled Federation-Class Dreadnaught is a very tricky thing, since there are alot of elements in FJ's original desigh that simply don't translate well. Personally I perfer a more hybridised look that incorperates a more Excelsior-ish feel, in keeping with the NX-2100 registry. Which is why I did this.
Posted by Starship Freak (Member # 293) on :
Let me be the first to say...wow Posted by Woodside Kid (Member # 699) on :
The major sticking point with the FJ hull design in regards to TMP-era technology is the forward shuttlebay; there really is no good way of reconciling the two. Unlike the upgraded versions of the Coronado class through-deck cruiser I've seen, the placement of the hangar at the very top of the hull doesn't allow enough room for the horizontal power transfer shaft to the outboard engines. You would need to do some major restructuring of the hull, and you'd still have a very ungainly design. It would be easier to simply relocate the hangar bay to the stern.
I did like the sensor mounts you placed on both the top and bottom of the saucer, Reverend. Do they mean that you support the idea that the upper module on the original dreadnought was not the main bridge (as the dreadnought plans set I have states)? To me, that made a hell of a lot of sense for a combat vessel.
Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
Franz Joseph says they're both sensors. And since he designed the ship, that's probably what they are.
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
quote:Woodside Kid: The major sticking point with the FJ hull design in regards to TMP-era technology is the forward shuttlebay; there really is no good way of reconciling the two. Unlike the upgraded versions of the Coronado class through-deck cruiser I've seen, the placement of the hangar at the very top of the hull doesn't allow enough room for the horizontal power transfer shaft to the outboard engines. You would need to do some major restructuring of the hull, and you'd still have a very ungainly design. It would be easier to simply relocate the hangar bay to the stern.
Indeed, hence my omission of a forward shuttlebay. Also an aft facing deflector dish wouldn't do you alot of good either.
quote: I did like the sensor mounts you placed on both the top and bottom of the saucer, Reverend. Do they mean that you support the idea that the upper module on the original dreadnought was not the main bridge (as the dreadnought plans set I have states)? To me, that made a hell of a lot of sense for a combat vessel.
Yeah, while I'm not a huge fan of Starfleet having warships or indeed 3 nacelles, it dose stand to reason that a Dreadnaught's bridge would be well protected. In this case that means that the bridge would be a strictly internal structure.
quote:Harry: Franz Joseph says they're both sensors. And since he designed the ship, that's probably what they are.
You heard the man.
Posted by Woodside Kid (Member # 699) on :
Yes, I know that's what the schematic says....but all of the ship designs in the manual say the same thing, even if they also another indicator pointing out the bridge. From that I infer that the "sensor array" FJ is talking about is the dome above the bridge. I meant to ask if you thought the module underneath that dome was bridge; forgive me for not stating my question clearly enough.
Posted by Captain-class, Mike-variant (Member # 709) on :
yes, if you look at the bridge page youll see that the reason the bridge has a dome over it is for the upper sensor platform, on all of his Connie variants.
the fact that FJ omitted the bridge dome on the Federation could simply mean he moved the bridge to deck 2.
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
If you look at FJ's schematic you'll see that on the dorsal view, that upper platform doesn't appear to have a turboshaft, like you would expect a bridge to have. For this reason I generally assume that the whole structure is ment to be identical to the sensor platform on the ventral side of the sauser. For those of you who are interested I did a more conventional version of the Dreadnaught, here.
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
I think I like these ramscoops better. And the exposed bridge is nice, although I agree that FJ's original wasn't supposed to have one. Just restore the third nacelle to this pic, and I'll print it out in A0 or A minus 2 size for my wall...
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by Captain-class, Mike-variant (Member # 709) on :
A Dreadnought with an Arboretum! HOORAY!!!
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
quote: I think I like these ramscoops better. And the exposed bridge is nice, although I agree that FJ's original wasn't supposed to have one. Just restore the third nacelle to this pic, and I'll print it out in A0 or A minus 2 size for my wall...
Hmm...just for you mind, its not to be distributed...it'd screw up the history I'm writing.
quote: A Dreadnought with an Arboretum! HOORAY!!!
Yeah well...the captain's gotta grow his peppers somewhere! Besides, if a Battle Cruiser can have a garden and a huge rec deck, why can't a dreadnaught have a teeny tiny little arboretum?
Posted by NeghVar (Member # 62) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reverend: Hmm...just for you mind, its not to be distributed...it'd screw up the history I'm writing.
I wouldn't mind having a large picture of what Timo described either...
Pics are looking great Reverend!
Later! Art
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
Ah for crips sake...ok, instead of wasting two hours work, I dub this Dreadnaught U.S.S. Rodger Young.
Anyone who wants a high-res copy for printing, e-mail me by Thursday evening (GMT) and I'll send you all one.
Posted by Capped In Mic (Member # 709) on :
when did we see a battle cruiser?
in some parts of town you should be careful to say 'ah, for blood's sake'
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
MALTZ: Vessel entering sector.
Torg has come up, bends over screen.
TORG: Yes... Federation Battle Cruiser . (then) Have they scanned us?
MALTZ: Not yet. Posted by Capped In Mic (Member # 709) on :
yes and that was propaganda during the Klingon cold war... thats hardly the Federation's definition of a Connie. The Klingons called them that because they liked to engage them in battles.
The Constitution was heavy cruiser, on a mission of exploration. The basis of Roddenberry's designs was that it was NOT a battleship and that they didnt NEED battleships
quote:"The Search" [DS9] SISKO: Officially she's classified as an escort vessel. Unofficially, the Defiant's a warship. Nothing more, nothing less.
KIRA: I thought Starfleet didn't believe in warships.
SISKO: Desperate times breed desperate measures. Five years ago, Starfleet began exploring the possibility of building a NEW (my emphasis) class of starship--a Federation battle cruiser
seems like it was a new classification a century later.
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
Well thats a discussion for Starships & Technology.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
