For reference pictures of this ship, see this thread.
This is my interpretation of the Baton Rouge, based on the original SFC top-view, the Nordenskj�ld silhouette and a frame from some comic, which is the only reasonably accurate perspective view of the ship1. Actually, if you look closely, that comic actually seems to show a Nordenskj�ld, since it has the same large bulge underneath the saucer!
The biggest issue a lot of people had with the Nordenskj�ld was the seemingly ridiculous neck. But drawing the same ship, and paying attention to the information available on the ship, this long neck really is the only workable solution. And eyeballing the comic-Baton Rouge, it seems it actually *has* the same long neck. I think we just have to accept that this is an ugly ship!
Besides the visual references, this Baton Rouge is also (supposed to be) consistent with Timo's Hitchhikers Guide. At least as far as deck-numbers go, this should work with what Timo wrote down.
I've also tried to interpolate the NCC numbers of the Baton Rouges (I even made a complete list including names ). My assumptions are that 1390-1406 are Baton Rouges (17 ships2, 10 will be refitted to Lafayette), 1411-1430 are Lafayettes (20 ships, 1425-1430 will be refitted to Nordenskj�ld) and 1431-1450 are Ashantis (20 ships).
Feel free to comment. Especially if your name is Timo
---- 1) The perspective view by Sternbach in the SFC really shows very little besides what we already saw in the top-view.
2) There is confusing info in the TimoGuide concerning the number of Baton Rouges built. The data-list claims 18 new-builds. The second paragraph also mentions 18 ships. But then it goes on claiming an original batch of 20, and 4 of those cancelled, which makes a total of 16 ships. If you start counting from 1390 (nice number for a class ship) to 1407 (first cancelled hull), you arrive at 17, halfway between both claims Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
Beautiful, Harry. Will you do a version with the under-saucer bulge?
Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
Minor update. I'm usually a bit allergic to aft-views, but here is one anyway 8)
Posted by The Captain from M.I.K.E. (Member # 709) on :
nice.
although part of me wants to make a drawing for each configuration, because there are a lot of technical differences in each of the ship's illustrations: *USS Baton Rouge-class topview illustration by Sternbach is what your model there is based on, but then there's... *USS Moscow painted in the same book, with a different 2ndary hull aft end, and... *USS Nordenskj�ld variant drawn by Aridas Sofia for the Mastercom chart (it almost seems based on the exaggerated proportions of: *USS Republic NCC-1371 pictured in a Marvel comic
That's three (or four) different configurations of this ship appearing in various non-canon sources. add to this the mention of
*That Lawrence Miller illustration with the detailing inconsistent with the above *USS Glasgow and other BRs mentioned in Ford's "Final Reflection" novel, and *USS Churchill and USS Saladin shown in DC's comics (drawn indistincntly enough to be indeterminate as to exact structural details, unlike the above variants), and *The ships mentioned in Johnson's Worlds of the Federation, based off reference's to the Spaceflight Chronology
With the exception of Franz Joseph's designs, this is probably one of the oldest non-canon designs in Trek, first appearing in 1979, and appearing or being mentioned in both further illustrations of licensed and non-licensed sources, as well as games for almost a decade.
y'know, just saying..
Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
I'm definitely planning on doing the Nordenskjold class after this. The SFC USS Moscow is just an inaccurate painting, IMO.
Do you have any scans of the Churchill and Saladin?
The Lawrence Miller design is the one in the SF Tactical Database?
Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
quote:Originally posted by Harry: The Lawrence Miller design is the one in the SF Tactical Database?
Yes.
Harry, I think the deflector mounting is a bit weak. You have all that frontal area and the long neck, but you still put a little dish as far south as possible. Maybe larger and higher, with a mounting that flows out of the angular secondary hull more smoothly. I couldn't figure out how to do it, so good luck. I'm interested in how Woody makes the deflector mount on his model.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Really, Harry....great work! I've never cared for that design but now I do!
I'd probably make the grey of the nacelles lighter though: it currently pulls the eye right to them and they are nothing special to look at.
Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
quote:Originally posted by Masao: Harry, I think the deflector mounting is a bit weak. You have all that frontal area and the long neck, but you still put a little dish as far south as possible. Maybe larger and higher, with a mounting that flows out of the angular secondary hull more smoothly. I couldn't figure out how to do it, so good luck. I'm interested in how Woody makes the deflector mount on his model.
Actually, that dish is almost exactly as big as the one on the Constitution.
I don't want to move the dish up into the neck-area, since the ship has to be pretty modular to account for the various variants/refits, and I'd like to keep the neck, primary and secondary hulls as separate as possible.
I have however, added some more detail to the deflector housing.
ADDED the Nordensk�ld class. For the non-believers, here's a comparison with the original Aridas Sofia silhouette. Fits pretty nicely, if I say so myself.
The contraption in the forward secondary hull is a probe launcher. The big bulge under the saucer mostly consists of sensors and scanners.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Mother of Christ, the Nordensk�ld is hideous.
Great rendreing but sometimes you just cant make a crappy design look good.
Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
I'm with Jason on this one, Harry. the secondary hull of Nordensk�ld is very angular, without a single curve. Then there's suddenly this gigantic curvy breast-like appendage! it doesn't look right.
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
It could be seen as a natural "career move" for an aging type. By the time of the supposed "printing" of the recognition chart, the basic class is more than sixty years old. A special purpose variant could feature all sorts of unaesthetic add-ons, like bulbous radomes for special sensors, much like happens to real world aircraft and ships.
There are only two Nordenskj�lds in service, according to the chart, right? And not even with sequential registries. Smells very much like a special "sensor picket" modification of an otherwise retired type to me...
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by tricky (Member # 1402) on :
Cool drawing, wish i was that good, but may I make a suggestion?
As an owner of the Spaceflight Chronology, one thing I would mention is the perspective picture suggest the pylons are mounted higher on the body, and that they attach to the nacelles below the centre point (you can see the angle on the pylon ends in the picture, where the nacelle is detached).
Raising the pylon and the nacelle attached to it would hopefully give the ship a hint of Galaxy class from the side and front, and sufficiently above the secondary hull to meet the 1/2 line of sight 'Roddenberry rule'.
just a thought
Posted by Dat (Member # 302) on :
The Roddenberry Rule has been broken so many times, no one really cares about it so much. Oh, his interpretations include some artistic liberties.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
I've said this many times: The Roddenberry Rule: Phhht.
Posted by Marauth (Member # 1320) on :
The Roddenberry Rules were only made out of spite because Franz Joseph didn't want to work with him during the movies - very mature Mr Roddenberry.
Edit: very nic schematics Harry, I've seen the ones on your site too but was wondering if you plan to finish the schematics of the different Constitutions, I saw the pics in that Constitution challenge thread a bit down, very nice.
Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
I'm half working on the Connie schematics. I now also have schematics of the Potemkin in a 2290s paint job, like in SoTSF. I wanted to write a general "Heavy Cruiser" article for my site, stumbled on the Ashanti-class, and then on Timo's suggestion that the Ashanti is a Baton Rouge variant, which got me here.
Speaking of which,HERE are the Ashanti and Lafayette classes. The Lafayette is a slightly upgraded Baton Rouge, and the basis for the Nordenskj�ld survey variant.
The Ashanti is roughly based on the Tactical Database USS Moscow. It also has TOS-era markings and the new greenish colour.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
The Lafayette looks like it should have a trail of little ducklings trailing behind it.
The Ashanti is pretty cool though. I've never been a fan of that "neck:" on a starship.
Posted by Marauth (Member # 1320) on :
Wow, the Ashanti actually makes that ship look, good, sort of... Though the starfleet pendant on the neck looks a bit out of place, it's usually on the midline of the sec hulls on fed ships is it not?
Anyway, I look forward to the heavy cruiser article, and the Potemkin, will it be similar to the SOTSF Achernar? That was also a TMP variant of the TOS Connie I think.
Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
quote:Originally posted by Marauth: Anyway, I look forward to the heavy cruiser article, and the Potemkin, will it be similar to the SOTSF Achernar? That was also a TMP variant of the TOS Connie I think.
Don't hold your breath though. Knowing myself, it'll probably end up being yet another unfinished page on my harddisk
The Potemkin is a "The Cage"-style Enterprise in TMP-livery, with some minor changes. The Achernar is based on FJ's Constitution schematics.
Posted by Marauth (Member # 1320) on :
The first version of the Achernar is just FJ's rather ugly schematics I know; but there's a refit of it before the Endeavour that gives it TMP markings and a built in glowy deflector ala the Enterprise class.
Posted by aridas (Member # 1051) on :
quote:Originally posted by Timo: It could be seen as a natural "career move" for an aging type. By the time of the supposed "printing" of the recognition chart, the basic class is more than sixty years old. A special purpose variant could feature all sorts of unaesthetic add-ons, like bulbous radomes for special sensors, much like happens to real world aircraft and ships.
There are only two Nordenskj�lds in service, according to the chart, right? And not even with sequential registries. Smells very much like a special "sensor picket" modification of an otherwise retired type to me...
Timo Saloniemi
Timois very perceptive, given all he had to go on was a silhouette. Nordenskjold was supposed to be one of two heavily adapted, modified starships. One from the original Baton Rouge class, and one from a later, slightly different class. By the time of that chart they have evolved into one similar configuration, and have been so heavily altered from their original forms as to be reclassed.
It was supposed to look somewhat awkward, to strongly imply that kind of jury-rigged, evolved and adapted history.
Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
And besides, it's very difficult not to make the Baton Rouge look awkard.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
). My assumptions are that 1390-1406 are Baton Rouges (17 ships2, 10 will be refitted to Lafayette), 1411-1430 are Lafayettes (20 ships, 1425-1430 will be refitted to Nordenskj�ld) and 1431-1450 are Ashantis (20 ships).![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)