This is something I've been wanting to see for a very long time, and I figured I'd throw it out there as an open challenge to whomever might accept. (Though I'd say Harry, Masao, or Reverend might be the most interested parties on this board. I'm also going to issue this challenge on the TrekBBS board.)
I'd like to do a write-up on all the different versions of the Constitution-class that we've seen on the show (meaning no SOTSF variants or other purely fandom interpretations) with five-view drawings of each, all correct in small details like windows and saucer shape and nacelle ends and impulse engines and all that good stuff.
The versions I know of are as follows:
The U.S.S. Constitution The class prototype as drawn by Franz Joseph and seen on computer graphics throughout the early feature films and at least once in TNG. This is the version which the fabulous Vektor of the TrekBBS created a fabulous cgi model of, but he subtly changed some elements of the design. If needed, I can provide scans of FJ's original blueprints for the artist to draw from.
The U.S.S. Enterprise from The Original Series Highly accurate blueprints of the "final" version of the ship may be found here. (Harry, you may already have made an accurate version of this incarnation, if you used these as your guide and didn't redesign anything yourself.)
The U.S.S. Enterprise from "The Cage" This was the very first version of the ship to be built as a physical model, and has a number of distinguishing characteristics from the series version, including the different bridge module, nacelle caps ("spiked" type) and ends, ("rectangular block" type) and the like. There's a pretty accurate look at this ship here, and excellent DVD-resolution screencaps that show all the details can be found here. (The first and fifth pages have all the pertinent caps.)
The U.S.S. Enterprise from "Where No Man Has Gone Before" The second pilot version, with several notable modifications from "The Cage" including different bridge module detailing, (though I think the structure is the same) different nacelle ends ("vent/grille" type) and different impulse engines (with eight small nozzles arranged in pairs rather than two large nozzles) and hatch-like markings along the saucer-surface edge. (According to Doug Drexler, the similar structures on the NX-01 are hard-connection points, which I would be inclined to assume they are on the NCC-1701 as well.) You'll note, between all three versions of the Enterprise, that there are slight lettering differences in the hull markings. See here for drawings, and here for really good photos of the model itself.
The U.S.S. Constellation "The Doomsday Machine" (TOS) showed us the damaged Constellation, which was an AMT model kit (original, long box release). For my purposes, I would assume that the details of the intact model would also be those of the intact ship, even though I understand that this is a somewhat-arguable thing, considering how heavily damaged it was for the episode. There are many different features to this version. (Due to the model kit's inaccuracy to the physical studio model.) These include the bridge module and numerous other details. The overall structure of the ship is slightly different as well, with nacelles that are actually cylindrical rather than tapered, and a different saucer curvature. Reference may be found here for the correctly-incorrect model details and markings, and DVD reference caps here. I'm going to try to get some more photos of the actual model kit for additional reference.
I'm really hoping someone will feel up to this. Yes, I probably should at some point learn to draw myself, but I don't know when I'll ever get around to it.
These are more or less accurate schematics of the TOS series model. It probably won't stand up to extreme scrutiny, but it looks pretty close to me.
Although I see that Fleet Old School is the pilot typeface. Is there a font for the regular series typeface?
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
Ok, I think I'm up for this.
I'll start with TOS series schematics and modify it for the variants. If you can scan FJ's schematics from the Blueprints (as opposed to the tech manual) that will help me do the 1700 plans for you.
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
When I was making Fleet Old School i was trying to adapt it to the TOS-run.. where did i leave Pilot characters?
Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
Oh wait.. that was AmarilloUSAF. Amarillo is mostly like the pilot typeface (apart from the R), Fleet Old School is like the regular TOS typeface.
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reverend: Ok, I think I'm up for this.
I'll start with TOS series schematics and modify it for the variants. If you can scan FJ's schematics from the Blueprints (as opposed to the tech manual) that will help me do the 1700 plans for you.
Yeah! Go Rev! Rev up!
I'm going to do the FJ scans sometime in the next few days, and Bernd is going to clean them up for me, and once they're in pristine order I'll send them to you. And yes, they're not the low-detail Tech Manual prints, but rather the real full size ones.
-MMoM Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
I'm about to turn in for the night so this is what I have so far. TOS_dorsal-WIP1
The colours and gradients are by no means final and I have yet to figure out what those four glowing rectangles around the saucer's edge are supposed to be.
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
Wow, that looks really good, Rev.
However, it just occured to me that I should go back and do some more reading on the imfamous saucer gridline uncertainty. After rehashing it all I'll let you know definitely what I discover.
Thanks for giving it a go.
-MMoM Posted by Ryan McReynolds (Member # 28) on :
I believe it's pretty firmly established that there were lines added after the pilots, but they were done in pencil only and nearly invisible. There are shots on a couple of the various modelling reference sites that show the lines, and the fact that they aren't seen in others just demonstrates their faintness. There isn't really any other explanation for them ever being visble, unless it's a vast conspiracy to deceive nerds everywhere.
Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
Rev seems to have the situation well under control, so I don't need to pitch in. Just wondering, whose blueprints are you going to base your schematics on? Are you using the Alan Sinclair set?
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
i hope we are going into this with the awareness that the dimensions of the Franz Joseph blueprints are completely dissimilar to the dimensions of any of the models used to represent the Enterprise in TOS, right?
Posted by SoundEffect (Member # 926) on :
I suspect it's due though to the fact that FJ drawings were seen as Contitution Class displays in some of the movies. I guess it's a completist thing.
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
quote: Just wondering, whose blueprints are you going to base your schematics on? Are you using the Alan Sinclair set?
Indeed, at least for the baseline TOS schematics, it would be a waste to ignore such a well researched piece of work.
For the other variants I intend to make the appropriate modifications to this baseline schematic rather than starting from scratch every time, ith the exception of the FJ Constitution that is.
quote: I suspect it's due though to the fact that FJ drawings were seen as Contitution Class displays in some of the movies. I guess it's a completist thing.
That is my assumption also. There is some logic in having the class prototype being slightly different in construction to the full production ships, so there shouldn't be any real conflict in regards to cannon especially since the Constitution herself has never actually been seen.
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
Was there crosshatching on the four panels on the nacelle pylons on the series proper model then? Or not?
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ryan McReynolds: I believe it's pretty firmly established that there were lines added after the pilots, but they were done in pencil only and nearly invisible. There are shots on a couple of the various modelling reference sites that show the lines, and the fact that they aren't seen in others just demonstrates their faintness. There isn't really any other explanation for them ever being visble, unless it's a vast conspiracy to deceive nerds everywhere.
Yes. As far as the top of the saucer goes, that is true. The guy who built the model (his name escapes me at the moment) said he didn't put any gridlines on the ship and that they weren't on it when he modified it for the second pilot either, but rather that someone drew them on in pencil during the first season of production on the series. Therefore, the two pilot versions should not have gridlines, but the series version should. Actually, more what I was confused about was whether or not there should be gidlines on the ventral side of the saucer, as I never seem to remember seeing those until they were either darkened or just plain added by Ed Miarecki when he did the repainting of the model for the Smithsonian's 1991 "restoration" of the ship. I still haven't quite figured out which it was.
quote:Originally posted by CaptainMike: i hope we are going into this with the awareness that the dimensions of the Franz Joseph blueprints are completely dissimilar to the dimensions of any of the models used to represent the Enterprise in TOS, right?
Yes, absolutely. I am postulating that the Constitution in fact was structured just as FJ drew it, and then the Enterprise and other ships sported individual modifications in design as they were constructed, similar to how present-day navies operate, and just as we have seen in Trek with ships like the Excelsior and Enterprise-B.
Rev: fan-tastic!
-MMoM Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
Ah, I just found this pic which shows that the series model did have gridlines on the underside as well, just very very faint.
Of course, now I'm finding myself questioning those concentric lines around the hull and nacelles.
Damn, Miarecki did a really totally utterly f*cked up paintjob on the model for that 1991 renovation. Why the HELL did he over-emphasize and darken everything like that?
In case anyone doesn't know what I'm talking about, look here.
-MMoM Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
Wow, sorry about posting so many replies in a row, but it's really been quite a while in between...
Anyway, Rev, I've just been informed of an important note. The nacelles of the AMT model, aka the Constellation, do in fact taper somewhat. To be exact, they taper from 25mm at the forward end to 23mm at the rear end. That's the cylinders themselves, without the caps or ends on.
I'm talking to some folks on the TrekBBS and the Starshipbuilder boards and I'm trying to get some accurate specs for the dimensions/proportions of the old AMT model.
And, I'll try to do those scans of the FJ plans and send them to Bernd for cleanup tomorrow or the next day.
Good night. -MMoM Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
The left picture here also implies the existence of bottom saucer grid lines, unless they were added in one of the earlier restorations (which seems a bit unlikely).
Also something that I keep forgetting to ask. Why exactly did we never see those patterns on the bottom of the ship on the show?
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
They also seem to be on the 3 foot model in this picture. Or my mind is playing up.
The 3 footer appears to be in "series" form there. I never realised that was also modified from it's pilot form. Were both the small and large ships made into all 3 versions, or not?
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
quote:Originally posted by PsyLiam: Also something that I keep forgetting to ask. Why exactly did we never see those patterns on the bottom of the ship on the show?
Simply because they're too faint to show up on TV.
quote:The 3 footer appears to be in "series" form there. I never realised that was also modified from it's pilot form. Were both the small and large ships made into all 3 versions, or not?
I don't know if the 3-ft model ever existed in "The Cage" style, but it did in the WNMHGB style and in the series style. The 11-ft model was all three.
-MMoM Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
the small model was most visibly seen as the shrunken 1701 in "Requiem for Methuselah.." presumably modified to match the large..
how much of it can we see in the post-pilot photosessions, where Kirk and Spock are holding the ship?
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
quote:Originally posted by CaptainMike: how much of it can we see in the post-pilot photosessions, where Kirk and Spock are holding the ship?
um.. at the ends of the nacelles.
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
What about them?
I already said that the 3-footer existed in 2nd pilot and series-style versions. I just don't know if it was ever in 1st pilot mode. (Which it probably wasn't, as I think there are only like 2 shots of the ship's exterior in "The Cage," so they probably didn't require 2 models at that point. It was probably built during production of WNMHGB.)
-MMoM Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
It's been a while since my last post so here's an update showing how far along the starboard view is.
For those of you who care, I added an insert showing just how much detail is going into this. As you can see the sauser is complete, the nacelle is half done and I've made a start on the engineering hull.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
Nice! Reverend, again, what program do you use? Also, where do you get off having that talent!?!
That close up that you made an inset, does that mean that you can theoretically zoom in (in your art program) and see that kinda detail?
Andrew
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
quote:Originally posted by AndrewR: Nice! Reverend, again, what program do you use? Also, where do you get off having that talent!?!
That close up that you made an inset, does that mean that you can theoretically zoom in (in your art program) and see that kinda detail?
Andrew
Paint Shop Pro 7 and no, I can't just zoom in. In order to make that text ledible I had to increase the size of the vectors by about 800%.
Mim: How would you like the port-side view handled? Considering that the actual model was more or less bare on that side with the exception of a few wires and some masking tape.
Posted by Ryan McReynolds (Member # 28) on :
Obviously, this is Mim's gig, but I'd suggest mirroring the starboard side, simply because the port side was generally only shown through mirror-labeled text on the starboard side and reversing the film. The bare port side (and the gaping hole in it) are, essentially, non-canon. Posted by NeghVar (Member # 62) on :
Found this thread that Masaki started over on the Subspace Comms Network:
Later, Art
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
That's looking as fantastic as ever, Rev! And yes, I'd most certainly have the port side mirror the starboard side.
I absolutely LOVE that you're doing this!
-MMoM Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
Just found a high-resolution photo of the AMT long box model kit packaging that could be somewhat helpful when the time comes to do that version: http://www.cdeath.net/monkeyofmim/AMT_Ent.jpg
The article by Jay Chladek that I linked to in my original post has more details on specific ship components.
I've been informed that the AMT model was somewhat based on the three-foot studio model, thus the "lip" on the underside of the saucer that was not present on the 11-foot filming miniature. There are still numerous "inaccuracies" (or, in trems of this project, "variances") even to the 3-footer. (Which, BTW, I am not considering to be a distinct variant for the opurposes of this project.)
-MMoM Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim: Just found a high-resolution photo of the AMT long box model kit packaging that could be somewhat helpful when the time comes to do that version: http://www.cdeath.net/monkeyofmim/AMT_Ent.jpg
The article by Jay Chladek that I linked to in my original post has more details on specific ship components.
I've been informed that the AMT model was somewhat based on the three-foot studio model, thus the "lip" on the underside of the saucer that was not present on the 11-foot filming miniature. There are still numerous "inaccuracies" (or, in trems of this project, "variances") even to the 3-footer. (Which, BTW, I am not considering to be a distinct variant for the opurposes of this project.)
-MMoM
Now I have to ask, just what do you want schematics of in regards to the Constellation? Do you want schematics of the plastic model (lacking any gridlines, light panals, beacons, impulse engines and windows around the sauser rim) or the "real" ship as it should have been? By that I mean taking the TOS schematics and just altering the nacelles and the deflector dish while perserving the impulse engines gridlines etc ?
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
At this point, I would really like to at least see a good set of views of the actual model version, complete with all its lackings. (Wow, how oxymoronic! ) I'd like to see if it can be accepted by anyone as even marginally convincing. Of course, if it turns out to look simply too ridiculous, there might be some specific, limited changes that could be made.
For now, think of it as drawing the model. We'll see how it pans out.
-MMoM
P.S. I still haven't had a chance to make those scans of the FJ plans yet, but I'll get around to it before the weekend is out. (It's a three-day weekend for me! [Monday being Martin Luther King Day.] )
Posted by Sarvek (Member # 910) on :
I am really quite impressed with all the detail that you have given the Starship Enteprise Reverend. She looks totally awesome. The Enteprise looks like my Enterprise from Unobtanium. Keep up the great work. Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
quote: At this point, I would really like to at least see a good set of views of the actual model version, complete with all its lackings. (Wow, how oxymoronic! ) I'd like to see if it can be accepted by anyone as even marginally convincing. Of course, if it turns out to look simply too ridiculous, there might be some specific, limited changes that could be made.
For now, think of it as drawing the model. We'll see how it pans out.
Alright but I'll bet you a pint of the black stuff that it's going to look like exactly that, a drawing of a shoddy little plastic model. There is however another possibility, it won't be easy but I could try and do a schematic that recreates the damage seen in the episode and explains point for point the reasons for the missing details. For example the lack of visible impulse engines could be because the exhaust shutters were sealed during the battle, to prevent the leaking reactant injectors from leaving a trail while the ship manoeuvred away on thrusters alone and the missing shield emitters could be down to the grid being melted off by the Planet Killer's weapon.
Final version: Added in the windows and nacelle pennants as promised, also fixed the neck and added the missing beacons on the bridge module.
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
That's sooo cool, Rev! I can't wait to see the other views. (BTW, one thing I was going to point out in the side view was that I don't believe the deflector/main sensor dish and its housing should not be golden and red as you have them, but rather a copper-ish color. The golden dish was an erroneous piece added by the Smithsonian guys for the 1974 exhibit, because the original had been lost, IIRC.)
About the oh-so-problematic Constellation: I find your battle damage idea intriguing, but I'm afraid I think I still want to see the genuine article. It may turn out as bad as you say, or it may end up being passable. The model does in fact have gridlines on the saucer as well as some windows, if you examine the relevent DVD caps and other pictures. I'm still trying to find someone who can give some pictures of an assembled model kit from various angles so we can see exactly what the placement of stuff is, etc., but so far no luck. As for the impulse engines, I was told by someone that the model does in fact have the two vents of the series-proper model faintly etched into the plastic, but it's just washed out by the filming lights from the episode. But the other thing I was thinking was that I might interpret the whole seemingly-blank strip as one long vent. Anyway, I would guess that maybe you should leave that variant for last, doing the pilot versions and maybe the FJ ship in the meantime, giving me a chance to dig up some more info.
Anyway, great work so far! -MMoM Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
Here are some closeups of the old model kit (I think it's the same), perhaps you can use them:
Rev, there're your details, such as they are. There are windows to place and some gridlines and the like.
-MMoM Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
Still can't tell about the impulse engines though and apparantly knowone bothered to paint the windows on the Constellation saucer...perhaps they have some kind of shutters or blast door that were shut at the time?
Thanks Harry, that will help some but what I really ned is some hi-res closeups of an assembled model.
Posted by SoundEffect (Member # 926) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reverend: apparantly knowone bothered to paint the windows on the Constellation saucer...perhaps they have some kind of shutters or blast door that were shut at the time?
Sliding panels over the windows has been established in "The Mark of Gideon". Kirk heard the clanging sound of people walking on the hull, and Kirk activated a sliding panel to reveal the window. Even though it was an Enterprise recreation, Kirk didn't question what the switch was for; he just used it, so that's probably a real mechanism on the Enterprise.
I have almost every Trek model, including the old AMT kit. What sort of pictures do you need?
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
All kinds of pictures...
I suspect what would be really good are some schematic-type viwes. (Dorsal, ventral, port & starboard, fore & aft.) Closeups of the impulse engines and maybe some perspective shots would be nice also.
I can't remember the scene in "The Mark of Gideon," but that's pretty cool to know.
In looking at trek5's screepcaps, there *are* at least some windows along the saucer rim of the Constellation. Specifically, the three small circular ones at the bow are visible. See here.
-MMoM Posted by SoundEffect (Member # 926) on :
Would closeups on an unassembled kit be of any use? I have several unassembled and at least one that's together but not fully painted.
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
I'm sure anyhing you can provide would be of at least some use, but as to what Rev needs specifically to aid in hid drawing, I'll let him tell ya.
Personally, I would definitely like to see the aforementioned plan and elevation views of an assembled kit (even if the paintjob isn't perfect ) and a close-in shot of the impulse engines. Or at least some descriptions of window placement and the details of the impulse engines. Are there in fact the two vents etched into the plastic, or is it just blank as it appears to be in "The Doomsday Machine"?
-MMoM Posted by SoundEffect (Member # 926) on :
Not blank, there are definitely two very lightly raised rectangles on the impulse module. I just noticed today there's a small circular detail between the two impulse vents as well. It's too small for a window...it's about half the diameter of circular windows on the hull and the shape is too perfect for it to just be a mold injection point.
I'll snap some pics this evening and hopefully have 'em up tomorrow before noon.
Posted by Woodside Kid (Member # 699) on :
About fifteen or sixteen years ago I ran into someone at a convention who was suggesting that that little circle was the engine vent that the cloud creature used to enter the ship in "Obsession". Where he got that idea is anybody's guess.
Posted by SoundEffect (Member # 926) on :
OK, I've taken several pictures, many closeups, of the old AMT Enterprise model. There's some text to go along with some and a blurb I wrote on the main page. If there's anything still missing, I'll try to clarify.
AMT 1701 Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
That is so incredibly excellent, SoundEffect!
However, a word of caution to Rev: These pictures are of a "small box" release version model, for which many parts such as the nacelles and their caps/ends, the deflector/main sensor dish and its housing have been retooled. Make sure you check this article for the specific differences. However, pretty much anything that's not noted in there should be the same as far as I know.
-MMoM
[ January 23, 2003, 07:01 PM: Message edited by: The Mighty Monkey of Mim ]
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
UPDATE: Fixed the detailing on the deflector dish I'll use the correct colour just as soon as I figure out what a copper gradiant is supposed to look like.
Currently putting the finishing touches to the starboard view and should have the final ready in a few hours, then the port view shortly after that.
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
I'm a little unsure about the shadeing on the port view, I think I made it too dark.
Posted by SoundEffect (Member # 926) on :
Reverend, are those diagrams the ones you're doing for the AMT version of the Constitution Class? If so, I can list some discrepancies with the model kit version vs. your profile view. If it's just the regular on-screen Constitution, then I'll commend you on your artistic talent, it looks quite accurate! I'm learning to draw like that with Illustrator.
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
These are the ones (and fantastic, If I do say so myself ) of the standard series version.
I'm noticing some pixellation or something on the deflector though...
Posted by Sarvek (Member # 910) on :
Awesome work Reverend. I can not wait to see the other final view. Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
I dunno, Mim. The deflector looks fine to me. I do see a little bit of pixellation on the main sensor dish, though...
--Jonah
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
The pixelation you refer to is a result of the colour reduction that comes with saving these images as GIFs and the copper gradient just happens to show this up more than most, it should look fine so long as you don't zoom in. When everything is done I may release a set with a much higher resolution for the detail fanatics to salivate over.
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
quote:Originally posted by Peregrinus: I dunno, Mim. The deflector looks fine to me. I do see a little bit of pixellation on the main sensor dish, though...
--Jonah
Funny you should make such an attempt at hair splitting, as I was recently re-reading Whitfield & Roddenberry's The Making of Star Trek and found this interesting quote from page 191:
"The starship's main sensor-deflector (a parabolic sensor antenna and asteroid-deflector) is located at the front end of the secondary hull."
So technically, we're both correct. I found it quite interesting that even this earliest of sources pegged the dish as pulling "double duty" as both a sensor and deflector, which is exactly the same kind of role that's been postulated for it in more recent times by fans seeking to reconcile the tech of TOS with modern Trek.
-MMoM Posted by Spike (Member # 322) on :
quote:I was recently re-reading Whitfield & Roddenberry's The Making of Star Trek and found this interesting quote from page 191
I definately know what's coming next. Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
The fact that that book does not reflect an accurate picture of anything remotely technical? *heh*
Seriously, Mr. Whitfield never talked about the layout or systemry of the Enterprise with Matt Jeffries. The main sensor was the big dish, yes. The deflector emitters were the three boxes flanking it -- and repeated on the TMP refit design, as well. Note their carryover onto the Reliant in TWOK. That was Mike and Joe doing their homework. Ship needed navigational deflectors, but no big-ass long-range sensor dish in the now-eliminated secondary hull.
I don't think the two systems got integrated into a single unit until the Ambassador class.
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
quote:Originally posted by Peregrinus: ...and repeated on the TMP refit design, as well. Note their carryover onto the Reliant in TWOK. That was Mike and Joe doing their homework. Ship needed navigational deflectors, but no big-ass long-range sensor dish in the now-eliminated secondary hull.
I don't think the two systems got integrated into a single unit until the Ambassador class.
Unfortunately, no. Andrew Probert designed the dish on the refit as the nav-deflector and the three small modules as "space-energy field attraction sensors," which could still be a component of the deflector system and could serve the purpose for the Miranda, but the dish is the main element. And, needless to say, there are plenty of other instances (most notable in First Contact) of the dish itself being explicitly called the deflector.
I see no reason to claim that the obviously homologous feature on the E-nil is not the same thing, especially when---as I pointed out above---any conflicts with the designer's intent may be reconciled by simply saying that it serves a dual function.
And while I am beginning to understand your beef with TMoST, it *is* the only "official" publication that includes details of starships' workings during the TOS period. Whatever doesn't conflict directly with what was seen on the actual show I tend to accept.
-MMoM Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
Not quite. Andy came on to refine Matt Jeffries' and Joe Jennings' design for the Phase II TV series into a more detailed design suitable for the big screen. Joe took Matt's systemry comments to heart, but Andy never worked directly with either of them, and he readily admits he made up his own functions for the various greeblies.
Which is why I suggested the Ambassador class. Rick refined that ship from Andy's painting, and Andy designed both it and the Galaxy class from his self-admittedly imperfect understanding of what was where doing what on starships. No problem with integrating the systems within the span between TOS and TNG, so it all works. I've suggested it, and he likes the idea.
Which reminds me (non sequitur), if anyone wants to tackle the problem of fitting the rec-deck into the saucer, he'd be interested in the results.
Now I just have to track down one of my friends down in San Diego who has one of Matt's working drawings that he made for his own reference while working on TOS -- more accurate to what had been worked out than the quick-and-dirty cutaway and diagrams reproduced in "The Making of Star Trek".
--Jonah
Posted by Dax (Member # 191) on :
Reverend: The top half of the secondary hull should have 5 rows of windows, not 4. I'm surprised nobody else noticed. Anyway, otherwise that's some superb work there.
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
Shit, you're right. Wonder why Sinclair got that wrong...
Any other oddities you can spot on his plans?
Posted by Dax (Member # 191) on :
As far as I can tell, everything else is spot on.
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
I never did get around to correcting those windows. Dax, can you tell me exactly what is missing and where?
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
That is so very, VERY cool, Rev.
Can hardly wait to see NCC-1017 and the two pilot variations!
I can not wait either. Reverend, you are one very talented person and know ship design like the back of your hand. I really like how you showed the differences in the ships, nice touch. Keep up the great work.
Cheers,
Sarvek
Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
I don't know if the challenge is still open, but after confirming that Reverend's no longer working on his schematics, I thought I'd my hand at this
FYI, 'Bonhomme Richard' refers to the post-'The Cage' version(s) of the studio model. The Enterprise is based on Casimir's schematics, FJ's Constitution is based on the big sideview on sheet 1 of the Blueprints, and the AMT Constellation is based on SoundEffect's photos (and are therefore the least accurate).
(edit: I see some annoying PowerClip errors in the PNG.. will fix that tomorrow)
Posted by Captain Boh (Member # 1282) on :
I like the fact that the Constillation is being shown with a slightly different design, it reafferms my theory that it is a refit of an earlier ship (hence the low registry)
Nice work on those Harry
Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
Well, the Constellation *was* different, because they used an AMT model kit to represent her. And that model kit was in fact highly inaccurate.
The idea the Constellation was originally of another class is quite common in fandom.
I have a question for the real fandom-buffs out here. Does the Bonhomme Richard class cover both the WNMHGB and the series ship? If so, was there an upgrade of BHs? Or does fandom acknowledge the mixed usage of stock footage in TOS, and say they are both actually the same (with possibly removable endcaps)?
Posted by Captain Boh (Member # 1282) on :
Huh, didn't know that it was a common theory. Learn something new every day.
quote: Well, the Constellation *was* different, because they used an AMT model kit to represent her. And that model kit was in fact highly inaccurate.
Well I know THAT, but I didn't realise just how inaccurate it was.
Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
Updated to include the "The Cage"-era Constitution class.
This leaves the WNMHGB version, until I know how/if it fits into the fandom timeline. And BTW, if someone can explain to me the Tikopai/Enterprise/Constitution(II) mess, because I'd like to the Phase II model as a one off pre-refit prototype. I was thinking of making it the USS Endeavor.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Niiiiice.
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
quote: And BTW, if someone can explain to me the Tikopai/Enterprise/Constitution(II) mess
Timo's Hitchhiker's Guide has it all under the Constitution refit section. Essentially the Tikopai is a more science oriented version of the Enterprise without the sophistiacted tactical sensor systems. The Enterprise class is a full upgrade of the Constitution class and the Constitution (II) class is a cheaper version of the Enterprise.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
The Connie II is a cheap twianese knock off.
Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
Another update, this time including the USS Republic in it's original form as a Horizon class ship, loosely based on the established fandom Horizon class.
My take on things is that the TMP refit is Enterprise (sub)class, while the TVH version is Constitution II class. Tikopai be damned. I also won't include the Achernar class or an Endeavor class. Just the USS Endeavor as that Phase II in-between design.
Posted by MrNeutron (Member # 524) on :
Harry,
There's one possible inaccuracy I can see if you're basing the Constellation on the AMT kits: I beleive the early AMT kits had an oversized deflector dish, Also, there should be no hemispheres on the aft ends of the nacelles.
Posted by Captain Boh (Member # 1282) on :
I'd make the original class of the constillation a bit more like the Constitution, as it is, little of it would be left by the time it was refit. I might try my hand at my own concept later.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
What's with the red star on the Republic? You sayin' it's the People's Republic, you commie!?!
Posted by Sarvek (Member # 910) on :
The star represents the United Federation of Planets early during its formation. You will also see the star in the uniform insignia for command division.
Posted by Dat (Member # 302) on :
Boh, it's spelled Constellation. "e" instead of "i"
Posted by Captain Boh (Member # 1282) on :
I probably knew that
Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
The 'red star' is based on Masao's early 23rd century Starfleet liveries.
Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
quote:Originally posted by Harry: The 'red star' is based on Masao's early 23rd century Starfleet liveries.
Yeah, but I'm a commie!
BTW, Harry, I like your take on Republic/Horizon. Is it the same scale as the other ships? If so, it's pretty big. The neck looks nice and sturdy (is that circular in cross-section or is it stretched vertically?). You can probably guess how I feel about those NX-01-style bussard retainers, though! I'd probably back date the deflector mount a bit (particularly the side bars look too much like Constitution). The deflector dish on the rear looks pretty tiny: is it small to leave room for a aft shuttlebay perhaps?
Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
The Horizon has a drop-bay, and presumably a shuttlebay or other empty space right where the future Constellation shuttlebay would be.
I stole the nacelles from some early TOS ship I designed aeons ago, so I don't know if they really were based on the NX. The crossection of the neck is a rounded rectangle, not a circle.
Yeah, she's pretty big for a pre-TOS ship, but how else is it going to be a believable test-bed for Constitution technology? I even had to scale the sphere down dramatically from the original Horizon schematics to fit the rather larger secondary hull.
Posted by Captain Boh (Member # 1282) on :
Damn, I've only got 450
Posted by The Captain from M.I.K.E. (Member # 709) on :
i'm loving this, but i still don't like Republic being a Connie..
Posted by B.J. (Member # 858) on :
Harry, the label under the last picture says "NCC- 1071 ".
B.J.
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
Wow, Harry, that's pretty awesome. Any chance of dorsal/ventral/fore/aft views? (Maybe I will write that article for EAS after all!)
There's a really cool site that details the changes the AMT Connie kit went through over the years. When you look through the article, keep in mind that the Constellation was the old "long box" version. http://www.culttvman.com/jay_chladek_s_enterprise_kit_h.html
I also have a nice large reference pic, basically a bigger version of the one on the first page of that article, that I'll try to dig up and post for you if you want to "correct" the NCC-1017 a bit.
-MMoM Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
Ah, here it is. (I have also confirmed that the nacelles taper from 25mm at the front to 23mm at the rear. I'll leave it to you to figure out whether this is an equivalent taper to that on the studio model, but I suspect it is shallower.) Also, here are cleaned-up scans of all the exterior views of FJ's NCC-1700.
-MMoM Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
Thanks. I'll probably (possibly) do at least 3-views of the variants. I usually don't bother with ventral and aft views, as they are usually the least interesting bits.
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
Well, the significance of the aft views in this case is that they show the changes in the impulse engine configuration between the variants. I can't remember if there were any notable changes on the undersides, though.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)