Have we ever decided what the large ship on the bottom right is in the opening sequence? The one with the large disk on the top? Any thoughts about why it might be a carrier?
------------------ Kiff! I have bedded a woman. Inform the crew. - Zap Brannigan
Posted by Michael Dracon (Member # 4) on :
Well, it has a shuttlebay in the front, where the deflector is supposed to be. I believe that was a reason to call it a thru-deck carrier.
That's all I know.
------------------ The Miranda Class model is not a kitbash, it is a bashkit.
(-=\V/=-)
Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :
jh: Can you (or anyone else) post a pic. The only one I can think of is what is pretty much universally being referred to as the Shelley Class. The ship is supposedly the U.S.S. Curry.
I may have totally the wrong ship here, but the one I'm thinking of is basically a rearrange of the Excelsior parts with Miranda-style nacelles attatched to the underside of the saucer.
Here is a link to a site I found on dogpile that shows the ship I think you're talking about. I don't know whose site it is and my apologies for not knowing how to properly credit the creator. It is not my site though: http://www.f1.net.au/users/worf/starship/shelley.htm
If I've got the wrong ship in mind, please post a pic so I can see which one you're talking about. ------------------ "A gathering of Angels appeared above my head. They sang to me this song of hope, and this is what they said..." -Styx
[This message has been edited by Aban Rune (edited March 14, 2000).]
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Well, that person's diagram isn't correct, anyway, but I'd say that's the ship jh is talking about. As stated, the reason it was dubbed a through-deck carrier is that shuttlebay on the front. If there is still one at the back, too, small ships (the attack fighters and such) could fly in through one end and fly out through the other, w/o having to turn around inside. However, nothing is actually "known" about the ship. It was merely shown moving across the screen. All we know is the design, and the fact that it was supposedly labelled "USS CURRY", after Dan Curry who worked on DS9's visual effects. Even the name "Shelley" is fan-created, although almost universally used by now.
------------------ "To make the merry-go-round go faster, so that everyone needs to hang on tighter, just to keep from being thrown to the wolves." -They Might Be Giants, "They Might Be Giants"
Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :
No the diagram is not quite accurate. First off, the nacelle struts go straight down, I think. But it has generally the right feel. I've only seen one actual model of this ship that someone made using an ERTL excelsior model and an ERTL Miranda model. If anyone has found any other pics of actual physical models of this ship, please post them.
------------------ "A gathering of Angels appeared above my head. They sang to me this song of hope, and this is what they said..." -Styx
Well, I don't have a vid cap card so I'm no good. The diagram here though is a little off. The struts do go straight down, and, from one angle at least, it looks as though the main body of ship runs the entire length under the saucer.
The reason being is that it is hard to put the ship in scale on the screen because there isn't anything next to it. The saucer on top could very well be a 'hangar/flight deck'. I don't find it too plausible that if they were going to have a carrier at all that they would launch them out of a shuttle bay, seems pretty limited. Multiple elevators leading up to a launching surface might be more feasible. Of course the obvious problem with that is that the deck is incredibly exposed. But then, what carrier deck isn't?
------------------ Kiff! I have bedded a woman. Inform the crew. - Zap Brannigan
Posted by Curry Monster (Member # 12) on :
Which 'ship' are we refering to? At the opening of what? *L* There's definitely a nebula in there if you are refering to DS9.
Posted by Dat (Member # 302) on :
We're taking about the Shelley/Curry. A forgot the episode's name, but it's 3 months into the Dominion War and the beginning of DS9's 6th season.
------------------ 7 alarm clock: "Do not touch me." Dilbert: "Then how do I turn you off?" 7: "Believe me, I am plenty turned off."
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Well, like the topic says, the episode is "A Time to Stand". At least, I'm taking his word for it that this is the right ep.
And, as for the diagram of the Curry, the saucer should be in the middle, not at the back, and the nacelles should be much larger, due to incongruities of model scales.
------------------ "To make the merry-go-round go faster, so that everyone needs to hang on tighter, just to keep from being thrown to the wolves." -They Might Be Giants, "They Might Be Giants"
------------------ The Miranda Class model is not a kitbash, it is a bashkit.
(-=\V/=-)
[This message has been edited by Altair (edited March 15, 2000).]
Posted by Starship Freak (Member # 293) on :
Well, don�t forget the infamous version in the ds9 tech manual. On this page of mine, you�ll find that schematic as well as a screengrab of the ship in question: http://w1.314.telia.com/~u31412332/scifi/newship.htm
------------------ "The Starships of the Federation are the physical, tangible manifestations of Humanity�s stubborn insistence that life does indeed mean something." Spock to Leonard McCoy in "Final Frontier"
Posted by colin (Member # 217) on :
The starship is very structurally strong. I would estimate that 15 to 20 percent of the saucer has been destroyed. This would have crippled or destroyed another starship. The ship's forward surface can be seen. There is a large secondary hull underneath the primary hull. A large shuttlebay complex is above the deflector in the bow of the secondary hull. Aft portion is shadowed. There may be a large connecting neck between primary and secondary. Primary hull has two nacelles connected at the rear. And the ship has a single impulse crystal. Since this ship has been seen once, after a battle, and never in action, the purpose of the ship will remain a mystery.
------------------
takeoffs are optional; landings are mandatory
[This message has been edited by targetemployee (edited March 15, 2000).]
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
I'm curious as to how you go about determining such things as the amount of saucer a ship can lose without being crippled. I would imagine, so long as part of a computer core was still connected to the engines and reaction thrusters, the ship could still move around even if the rest of the hull was slag. (Though of course it is highly unlikely that such a precise pattern of damage would occur.)
------------------ "What did it mean to fly? A tremor in your soul. To resist the dull insistance of gravity." -- Camper Van Beethoven
Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :
Well, from the screen caps posted, it appears as if almost none of the "deck" of the secondary hull is exposed. This kind of kills my (as well as some other peoples') theory that it is a flight deck of sorts. However, I could see the saucer section carrying a large shuttle launching facility. Perhaps we're simply unable to make out the bay doors in the screen cap. I don't really think it's necessary to identify this ship as a shuttle carrier though.
I would imagine that it serves some more utilitarian purpose than the excelsior or other ships of its design era as it's design is rather "cargo ship-ish".
------------------ "A gathering of Angels appeared above my head. They sang to me this song of hope, and this is what they said..." -Styx
Actually, the DS9TM diagram probably isn't as inaccurate as everyone says. For one thing, it's the only one that shows the nacelles to be marger than normal C-II style nacelles. Since they would have been ripped off a Miranda model, and the Miranda model apparently is not at the same scale as the Excelsior one, the size should be off. This can even be sort of seen in the vidcaps, even though I have yet to convince anyone of all this.
Bear in mind that someone probably told Drexler how the kitbashes were assembled. He then got some models (just like the ones actually used), and recreated the ships to draw the diagrams. In some cases, he may have used the wrong parts (e.g. C-II pylons in place of Miranda ones), but the scales of the correct parts should be right.
------------------ "To make the merry-go-round go faster, so that everyone needs to hang on tighter, just to keep from being thrown to the wolves." -They Might Be Giants, "They Might Be Giants"
Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :
TSN: You don't have to convince me pal, I already know you're right. I have both the Miranda and C-2 models from ERTL and I believe that the nacelles are about the same size so it shouldn't matter which model they took them off of. And, yes, both those models are out of scale with the Excelsior model so the nacelles are bigger than the Trek universe's Miranda.
I believe the actual studio model used for this shot (as well as shots of the Yeager Class and Centaur) was constructed from the ERTL kits. If it was a CGI shot, you'd think they'd come up with a more unique looking design. The ERTL kits were probably used to save some cash.
------------------ "A gathering of Angels appeared above my head. They sang to me this song of hope, and this is what they said..." -Styx
If (and when) the nacelles and saucer are not to the same scale, then I'd suggest we interpret the saucer as being too small instead of the engines being too large. The reasons being:
1) Seldom seen, ugly and unpopular ships ought to be smaller than regular ships whenever possible. That way, Starfleet would appear to be wasting less credits on something so useless.
2) Since so far, the LN-64 and related engines have only appeared at a single scale, be they aboard a C-II, a Miranda, a Sydney, or modified for a Constellation, it would be nicer not to invent new and larger versions unless absolutely necessary. OTOH, we have seen how Galaxy saucers can be convincingly kitbashed to different scales - and the scale of the Curry saucer is not apparent, especially considering the heavy battle damage.
3) If we downscale the saucer of the Curry, then we can more easily justify downscaling the saucer of the Centaur to make that ship better match the small Jem'Hadar battlebug in the scenes shared by those two ships.
Of course, if we downscale the Curry to match the nacelles, we lose all hope of ever squeezing one of those interceptors through the shuttlebay doors... I wonder if we should think that the secondary hull was shot to hell as well? Perhaps there is something significant missing?
Timo Saloniemi
P.S: What about the rumor that there would be a "Whorfin-class" (i.e. Lakul type) transport or two in the background in these "Curry scenes"?
Posted by Michael Dracon (Member # 4) on :
Those were Miranda class ships
------------------ The Miranda Class model is not a kitbash, it is a bashkit.
(-=\V/=-)
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Timo: Which seems more likely to you? Two nacelles of different sizes that look nearly identical externally, or two saucers/secondary hulls of different sizes that look nearly identical externally? When something like a sacuer gets rescaled, certain features have to change. Look at the New Orleans and Cheyenne. The saucers are smaller versions of the Galaxy's, but the windows and bridges are proportionally larger to make up for this. If the Ex parts on the Curry had been scaled down, things would have to change, but they didn't. However, if a Miranda nacelle were to be scaled up, what external features would need to be changed? None, really. So, it's much more likely that this is what happened.
------------------ "To make the merry-go-round go faster, so that everyone needs to hang on tighter, just to keep from being thrown to the wolves." -They Might Be Giants, "They Might Be Giants"
Posted by Bernd (Member # 6) on :
I would usually scale down the nacelles like on the NO, since their shape is less complex and scaling can be rather justified. However, Timo's proposal has some benefits too. I would have to give it some thought.
------------------ "Species 5618, human. Warp-capable, origin grid 325, physiology inefficient, below average cranium capacity, minimum redundant systems, limited regenerative abilities." Ex Astris Scientia
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
My reason for arguing that the saucer should be scaled instead of the engines was mainly the sorry state of the said saucer. Excelsior saucers do not have much in the way of windows to begin with, and those of the Curry were all chewed away. Bridge domes in turn come in all sizes, as do impulse crystals (from the minute crystal of the shuttle Chaffee upwards!). The secondary hull might have had some windows remaining, but those seemed conveniently unlit.
Engines in general seem less scaleable than hull parts. After all, a window works as a window regardless of its diameter. But try scaling down, say, a combustion engine, and you soon notice it cannot retain its original shape and still work. I'm forced to accept the downscaled-but-not-reshaped Galaxy nacelle of the Freedom class (the alternative would be to accept a humungously big one-naceller, her saucer almost Galaxy-sized), but I do that grinding my teeth and appealing to the evidence of smaller Galaxy-shaped nacelles aboard the 2+2-nacelle Nebula.
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Still, if the Curry's saucer had been scaled down, why would the bridge module look exactly the same? Obviously, it couldn't be the bridge anymore, since it would be too small. Are you saying that they put some sort of rounded dome atop the saucer, which looked exactly like a scaled-down brdige module, just to keep it looking identical to an Excelsior saucer? I doubt it. Besides, as mentioned, this would make the shuttlebay dorrs hopelessly small. We don't want the shuttles flying through and becoming convertibles in the process, do we? :-)
Like I said, nacelles are easy to rescale, since they don't really have many external details. This makes it incredibly more likely that this is what happened.
------------------ "To make the merry-go-round go faster, so that everyone needs to hang on tighter, just to keep from being thrown to the wolves." -They Might Be Giants, "They Might Be Giants"