Can anyone tell me how the Constitution-class variant kitbash in the Start Trek: Deep Space Nine - Technical Manual became the Polaris-class?
Is this strictly an invention of a fan that was quickly adopted by others? Has anyone involved with the television series given the model this name? Is there a reason why fans don't consider it to be a refit of the Saladin or Hermes classes like the Enterprise class refit of the Consitution.
PS -- I am using the phrase Enterprise-class to refer to the TOS movie era refit Constitution-class. There is ample evidence to support each side of the debate of what the name of this vessel's class truly is. Please do not debate my usage in this thread.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Polaris is the name given to it by the Last Unicorn games books and it just stuck as cool.
The ship's NOT a refit of anything because it has two nacelles on short pylons branching from the Torp bay in a kind of inverted "T" position. Hermes and Saladin have only one nacelle.
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
hey, Starfleet refit the 1701 so much that it was a different shape when it was finished, and still considered it the same class.. im sure it could be argued that the connie-bash was at least related to the Hermes, Saladin or Nelson lines
Posted by Identity Crisis (Member # 67) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon: Polaris is the name given to it by the Last Unicorn games books and it just stuck as cool.
No it's not. There's no Polaris class in any of the LUG books including the PDF Ship Recognition Manuals . There is a USS Polaris, but that's a Rigel class.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Huh. I stand corrected I was certain it came from them....mabye it's the new RPG?
Cool name for the class though.
Posted by Identity Crisis (Member # 67) on :
Nah, it's a fan name that started somewhere on the Internet (possibly these very boards). It's like calling the triple nacelled kitbash the Medusa class or Trident class, or calling the USS Curry the Shelley class (though I know exactly where that one started). I can't remember if there was ever a fan applied name for the USS Elkins.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Hey! Don't be making derogatory names on my Elkins! She's bueatiful (like a boxer dog is, anyway).
BTW, I'd think the Polaris is a destroyer or an escort and not a Frigate or scout. For her size, the ship is really just engines and weapons after all.
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
I keep meaning to do an update (with varients and production lists and everything) to my history of the Polaris that I did ages ago. I've got it planned out, just need to type it up.
And I think it's a destroyer as well, BTW.
Posted by Matrix (Member # 376) on :
Don't know where he got the name though.
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
Graham Kennedy says he made up the name because he thinks the ship's side profile looks like the Little Dipper. I can *sort of* see the similarities... but oh well.
(Read the DITL "Comments" page for that little bit.)
Posted by Triton (Member # 1043) on :
Thanks for the information MinutiaeMan. I suspected it was a fan-named starship class because of the name Constitution-class variant.
I think that its absurd to say that this starship was an improvisation newly constructed at a Federation shipyard for service in the Dominion war. I prefer to think of it as an old decommissioned class of starship built during the refit Enterpriseera that was recommissioned and pressed into service because of the high ship losses suffered by the Federation. From the write up in the Star Trek: Deep Space Nine - Technical Manual I am assuming that the warp core was replaced and the existing warp engines were improved in some way along with her weapons and navigation systems.
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
quote:Originally posted by Triton: I think that its absurd to say that this starship was an improvisation newly constructed at a Federation shipyard for service in the Dominion war.
Why? If any of these DS9TM designs could be actual "shipbashes," this one would be the most likely candidate. All it really is is a Connie-refit saucer, neck, nacelles, and photorp pod cobbled together. Unlike the other ships, there's no issue of inconsistent scale or impossible combination...
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
I think in this case the effort involved in intergrating all the engineering systems into the neck and saucer (the ones from the absent engineering hull) would be greater than just building a new ship from the keel up.
Besides, I much perfer the idea that it's a refit of the old Saladin/Hermes Class. So what if it has two nacelles instead of one? A refit is supposed to be an improvement!
Posted by Griffworks (Member # 1014) on :
A refit as you describe it is what Todd Guenther, Aridas Sofia and folks at StarStation Aurora/StarFleet Printing Office postulated for some of the destroyers in their works. The Pompey class they show has dual nacelles that are connected directly to the saucer on very short pylons. I've also seen information which indicates their Siva class destroyer was a dual mounted version. They're supposition at the time was that the single nacelle either didn't provide a stable enough warp field to get any real speed; or that the single nacelle didn't provide enough endurance for the ship, causing long-term problems w/the warp engines, thus high maintenance.
So, I have no problem with it being a refit of a Saladin style destroyer or Hermes class scout, either.
Posted by Triton (Member # 1043) on :
I believe that it isn't a kitbash as described in the "Deep Space Nine Technical Manual" because of the reading that I have done about the development of aircraft, ships, and weapons systems.
These systems are usually in development for ten or more years during which time they are tested and thoroughly debugged.
Now if you were to just weld components together as Sternback describes, extensive testing and system debugging would need to occur before the starship was combat ready. Can the structural integrity field generators keep the starship together or are they too powerful for the revised spaceframe, do the fire control and navigation systems work properly, does the warp core eject when instructed to do so? You don't want to send 115 officers and crew to their deaths without doing extensive testing of the ship's systems.
Further, I have never seen a military power weld surplus parts of weapons system together to have more armament in the field.
Regarding the fan refits of the Saladin and Hermes so they resemble the refit Enterprise, I think that the thin single warp engine looks rather silly. Its like a shoe that ends in a single stiletto heel. The addition of the second warp engine and the little struts give the design a lot more balance and make it look much less frail.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
That;s it. I'm taking pics of my version this week to share. I have the nacelles on short pylins steming away from the torp launcher and a small oval pod structure under the torp launcher (a piece taken from a tiny 3900th Excelsior mini}. It looks plausable.
I really don't think the ship could be assembled from parts unless there is a small engineering section in the saucer from some unseen class already built into it and a core ejection system or the core itself in the ship's neck or in a pod built into the launcher complex.
Not standard parts on a Connie Refit in any case.
I like the idea of many of these ships patrolling the NZ border in Kirk's day and re-commisioned for the same job (with updates in weaponry) once the Dominion started pushing into Fed space.
Posted by CaptainMike[1].mp3 (Member # 709) on :
I would go for new builds myself, mainly out of personal preferance. Strafleet would have needed a modern destroyer design at that time and the Polaris fits perfectly so why have it as a shipbash (not to mention the difficulties in moving all the engineering stuff up to the saucer). As for why not refits; well, basically because I would prefer Starfleet not to have simply refit every single pre-linear warpdrive vessel with linear technology.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Uh...What he said!
Sad that my three and a half inch long model should be so superior to the actual filming model.
Jeff, you built this yet?
Posted by CaptainMike[1].mp3 (Member # 709) on :
ok, so was there or wasn't there a source for calling a ship of this class the Polaris or did somebody say that didnt actually happen? i dont have the LUG sourcebook, but i'd like to know if that was true or not.
-------------------- "C'mon, tightly hold your hand / Take a deep breath, give them the finger / Are you worried that your thoughts are not quite.. clear?" - Our Lady Peace, One Man Army -> http://captainmike.org/Galactopedia/c2.html#Constant-class <-
Posted by Griffworks (Member # 1014) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon: Jeff, you built this yet?
Not yet, but a version of it is on my list. I started on about two years ago, before I'd ever seen any pics of the ship mentioned here that's in the DS9:TM.
There are two guys over at CultTVman's SciFi Modeling Forum have some dual-nacelled destroyer designs. I forget the exact thread title, but recall the posters as being Dr. Brad and Rabbit.
Posted by Triton (Member # 1043) on :
Well, I just sent an e-mail message to Graham Kennedy the author of the "Daystrom Institute Technical Library" Web site asking him for verification.
But I think the following comments that he wrote are pretty clear from his "Comments" page:
quote: Another of the ships from the DS9 technical manual, this ship is a kit bash of the standard movie era Constitution. I named it "Polaris" after the pole star, because of that stars (apparent) proximity to the big dipper - the ship looks something like an upside-down ladle, you see. At least, it does to me!
As with all the kit bashed ships, the text is designed to explain why such an abomination of a ship came to exist. For the sake of variety, I've put this ship as having been a "normal" class which has been in service for a long time, rather than an improvisation prompted by the Dominion war.
The reduction in phaser armament is my own invention, since it seemed silly to have a ship like this with practically the same armament as a heavy cruiser. Ditto the torpedoes - I'm not sure just where the Constitutions other two tubes are, but I'd bet it's in the engineering hull somewhere so I vanished them. The crew and mass figures come from the DS9 Technical Manual, and are the only parts other than the size comparison image that do - that book gives the Polaris a top speed of Warp 9.6 and Type 10 phasers, which is just ridiculous in my opinion. Given the huge number of glitches which riddle the DS9 TM, most especially in this section, this is just one of those times I'm - reluctantly - going my own way rather than towing the official line.
To my knowledge, we've never seen a Polaris class on screen.
You can connect to his site to verify this yourselves if you wish:
By the way, there is a small scale issue with the model. The main pylon connecting the dorsal to the nacelles is the bendable pylons from Voyager, so there's a little scale-fudging going on.
Oh, and the DS9 Tech Manual lists this ship as a Light Cruiser.
Posted by Triton (Member # 1043) on :
Graham Kennedy sent me the following e-mail message:
quote:I did indeed name this ship polaris (hey, I sound like a launching ceremony!) on my website, as explained in the Comments section. If you flip the ship upside down it's kinda like a big dipper, hence polaris after the pole star
This game you mention ( Star Trek RPG by LUG --Triton) may have copied my site. Or somebody else may have copied my site, then this game copied them. Or maybe they came up with their own name and just used the same name as I did by coincidence. I have no idea, I'm not really into Star Trek games. When did it come out? The date on my comments page is March 99, which would be some time after I got my DS9 tech manual and did an entry on the ship.
See we know that Graham did indeed name this ship Polaris.
SoundEffect --- Thanks for the link to your model! I like it very much!!!!!! I also like how you determined the NCC registry number of this starship. So I presume that you didn't like the idea of it being a DS9 era kitbash either looking at the four digit registry number?
I see that you named the class for the moon of Neptune named Triton. When I read it, it gave me a chuckle.
I chose my alias because the god Triton is described as the torso and head of a man and the lower body of a fish. I thought that this alias would be appropriate for me because of my love of SCUBA and rebreather diving and interest in marine biology and diving physiology. I didn't want to have an alias like SCUBABoy, DiverDown, WreckDiver, JacquesCousteauWorshipper, or RebreatherBoy. Posted by SoundEffect (Member # 926) on :
quote:Originally posted by Triton: SoundEffect --- Thanks for the link to your model! I like it very much!!!!!! I also like how you determined the NCC registry number of this starship. So I presume that you didn't like the idea of it being a DS9 era kitbash either looking at the four digit registry number?
I see that you named the class for the moon of Neptune named Triton. When I read it, it gave me a chuckle
Well, the parts were well established (minus Intrepid Class parts) from the movie era. My girlfriend worked at the Neptune Theatre for a couple of years and I wanted to name it in her honor so when I chose the name Neptune, I had to have a number. I was going to use the theatre's phone number or something else of significance, but decided upon the street address. It coincidentally fit the era of saucer for refit craft. If Mirandas were still around by the Dominion War, why couldn't Triton Class vessels??
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Of course, Polaris isn't in the big dipper...
Posted by Triton (Member # 1043) on :
Yeah, but I didn't want to seem like a know it all smart alleck since I was asking him for some information.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
I like it very much!!!!!! I also like how you determined the NCC registry number of this starship. So I presume that you didn't like the idea of it being a DS9 era kitbash either looking at the four digit registry number?