...hehe, teasing titles, I hate them, but it works.
...Challenger class. Not the one that was identified, the Galaxy-kitbash, but the other one. The Constellation with the secondary-hull assembly. Only source is a very old comic book. My question: who did the illustrations? Maybe the guy who drew it can remember if he saw any model or if everything was pure fantasy. Just a very vague guess, but if someone has this comic or knows who created it, I could try to find out his email (if he has one).
On a similar topic, what exactly did we see there? Did he include anything else or did he mention the Challenger-class by name? Or something?
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
I dont consider 1991 such a long time ago. Maybe I'm getting old. "Thin Ice," DC Star Trek: The Next Generation (volume 2) Annual #2. Written by MJF, drawn by Matt Haley. Haley was a new comic artist at the time, and i didnt see anything out of him till half a decade later when he did some Legion of Super Heroes stuff. Haley was a good touch for the Trek comics, especially for those of us used to seeing the utter sewage that Pablo Marcos or Peter Krause drew in the monthly version around that time (to be fair, they are good artists, just not great studies of Star Trek's 'look')..
In that issue, Haley also came up with a great design for pre TNG era cadet uniforms, showed a Belknap-class training ship and an uprated (1701 refit style) version of FASA's Larson-class, the USS Caspian NCC-5507. The ship in question was the U.S.S. Marco Polo, NCC-7219, identified as Challenger-class on a computer-display readout (probably done by the letterer, not the artist, but it could have gone either way), and then shown as a Constellation-Constitution hybrid on the page, exactly as described in our false info.
But the comic was released in late summer 1991, probably just BEFORE BoBW2 aired.. and as comics go, that means that it was several months old, the work on it being done 3 or 4 months prior (even more time, allowing for the fact that Paramount was requiring advance approval of all continuity at the time, as per the 'continuity purge' that occurred, causing Peter David to leave).. So this comic was probably being drawn before the third season ended, and well before planning was being done on even BoBW1, let alone the ship graveyard in BoBW2. And comic artists working for the trek series at that time were given some studio information, like advanced stills, etc.. especially for adaptations, but usually nothing so technical as background miscellanea.. they just got to see likeness shots of the actors ahead of episode airings. And with Haley being a newbie, doing a one shot stand alone story, he probably wasnt included in one of the DC studio tours
I think its more likely that the comic itself is the source of the erroneous description.. i.e. a fan read the first Okudapedia and saw 'Challenger-class' written for the Buran, and thought it must be the same type seen in the comic
Posted by darkwing_duck1 (Member # 790) on :
I thought the C/C hybrid design was also supported by statements supposedly made by the artists that worked on the models for BoBW. It turned out LATER that they were wrong, and the description was corrected.
Posted by Cpt. Kyle Amasov (Member # 742) on :
So the Challenger-class was mentioned even before there was a Challenger-class on-screen? Maybe only some weeks before they did the BoBW-Challenger? Now that's really a coincidence.
If he also included a FASA-design (updated to movie-era), could this be a second FASA-ship, maybe? Probably updated, too (meaning he replaced the old TOS-nacelles and similar corrections). Anyway, his knowledge of the FASA-ships does not exclude some knowledge of official stuff. Could it be possible he talked to someone at Paramount regarding his designs (for example the new uniforms you mentioned?) and they suggested the Marco Polo?
I think that leads to another old rumor; someone once said Okuda or Sternbach or someone else did some design sketches and drawings of the ships mentioned in the first Encyclopedia, probably to be included, until they decided otherwise. Is this anything more than just a rumor, or did someone make that up? I heard it for the first time some years ago, but since then I found a reference to it from time to time.
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
Its not a FASA ship. All the TOS ones that are kitbashes of enterprise are known to me, and the Constellation configuration only got one glimpse in their manuals, the TNG version before the game was cancelled, so they never had a chance to kitbash it.
I say its a coincidence, because i dont think theres anyway the comics team had advance knowledge of a ship that wasnt built yet, but accidentally used the same class name (the class names, BTW, might only have been devised by Okuda for the encyclopedia, a year after that, since they were not in any scripts or plans)
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
here is the structure of the ship which appeared in the comic
[ April 07, 2002, 20:33: Message edited by: CaptainMike ]
Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
Mike, I hate to tell you this, but "BoBW2" aired in September of 1990 -- not '91. The famous Okuda convention slideshow had made its circuit, and the resulting erroneous fan descriptions were already spreading on the BBSes, by the time the Annual was published...
--Jonah
Posted by Cpt. Kyle Amasov (Member # 742) on :
How comes you are so fast with your draings? It seems you have too much time.
Anyway, I thought the upper nacelles were standard-Constellation/Constitution's, it looks strange with that bussard-collector things, IMO.
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
hrm. i havent been required to take a math class in years, but i shouldnt have let that one get by me. youre right of course.
I maintain my supposition that Matt Haley was definitely not on the inside track of the publishers or the studios informations.. as a newbie artist, he probably was doing freelance work (i.e. he might never have gotten to the DC office, and he might not have even met the people he was working with on the comic.. just got a script from FedEx and then FedExed his pages to an editor and inker)
That drawing was done in about two hours time last night after i got home from the flea market and smoking with leeanne. Pot and schematicvs go together for me.. I was a little handicapped, because its the weekend and i had to use LView Pro at home (I usually use photoshop at school)
The nacelles were definitely meant to be Constellation nacelles, but the artist cut corners with the structure, making them extremely squared off.. but since in all of the drawings of the ship, the nacelles remaind consistent to that squared off look, i inferred that they were variants. Several panels showed the Bussards glowing like that and i like the look.
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
Hey Mike,
Although I don't have that particular issue, I do have a scan of the Marco Polo from it. Your drawing is spot on! Would you possibly be able to do the Belknap and/or the Larson too?
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
Ooh.. could you mail me the Marco Polo scan? my scanner is having USB-diarrhea.
the other ships should be no problem.. once i get home and get the comic again (im at school now)
Posted by akb1979 (Member # 557) on :
quote:Originally posted by Cpt. Kyle Amasov: How comes you are so fast with your draings? It seems you have too much time.
Well I would have thought that it was because he has transwarp drive - he can do everything faster than those of use with a simple warp drive. HEHE!
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
Posted by Cpt. Kyle Amasov (Member # 742) on :
4 hours?!? *slams head on keyboard* That can't be true! *slams head again on keyboard, some kys dn't wrk an lngr* How? HOW??? *uncontrolled facial expressions continue*
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
actually i didnt sit down to get started til 1:00, and finished about 4:00, then grabbed a snack before i uploaded it.
The Belknap isnt clearly seen in the comic, I'm assuming that since its a cadet training vessel, its the Decatur, which has a very different planform from other members of the Belknap class. I'll do that one if i dont fall asleep early tonight
[ April 08, 2002, 14:29: Message edited by: CaptainMike ]
Posted by Mark Nguyen (Member # 469) on :
[Mark hauls out and dusts off the comic]
We only see the Belknap in one frame, from the fore, and it looks just like the Belknap to me... Incidentally, her bridge is contemporary to the TOS movie-era Constellation from ST 1-4.
As for the Marco Polo, your drawing is pretty much spot on. For those interested, she's classified as a "Deep Space Explorer" on Troi's research screen. I made some caps of her bridge a while ago for comparison purposes. I've put them on my unknowns page.
Additional: What's with the spikey things on the ventral dome of the Caspian? The comic doesn't show 'em...
Mark
[ April 08, 2002, 18:26: Message edited by: Mark Nguyen ]
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
Well ,I didnt actually have the comic with me at school today, so I'm just lucky i remembered the important things i needed to include.
I misremembered the dark panel on the pylon being there, while there wasnt much there in the comic.
I think that there was a revision in the artwork at some point, Haley had drawn the TOS version and was forced to change it (you'll notice that on p27, there is a TOS bridge behind Lyrinda).. b/c in the closest view, it always has a TMP bridge and nacelle, but the saucer resembles a TOS more than anything, with angular corners rather than rounded, and one panel the nacelle still looks rounded.
So I surmised the structure of the ship like this: I took a TOS saucer (with its slightly sifferent contours), put a TMP bridge on top and a TMP Nacelle on it. For the bottom, I knew it wasnt actually shown, but i know that Haley did put a deflector spire on the Marco Polo, so i assume he might also have put one on the Caspian. I just like deflector spires, especially on deflectorless ships . I also put the TMP style sensor suite..
and the history of the Belknap/Decatur-class is thus: According to the SotSF timeline, the Decatur-class was the original name of the class, and the Decatur NX-2500 was built, a TOS style ship (this occurred close to the end of the five year mission).. there was a delay in the project, and the second vessel was redesigned with TMP tech, the USS Belknap.. since the vessels were so different, the class was renamed Belknap. The Decatur was a one-off class ship, served for a while and was refit a bit to a more TMP version (but still different looking that the Belknap.. kind of like the phase-2 enterprise tech). Since it was technologically lacking, it was made a cadet training ship. Since the ship shown was only seen in front view, and was a cadet trainning vessel, i surmise it could be the Decatur.
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
This makes me wonder. The shipschematics page has a schematic of a refitted Larson, and this drawing seems to utilize the "Decatur saucer" (TOS-shaped saucer with TMP'ish detail) as well. The hull and pylons don't look nearly as cool as in CaptainMike's drawings, though! I do wonder who came up with the "Decatur saucer" idea for that ship first, and who based what on what at which time....
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
Decatur class, eh? Do the warp coils shred to pieces when run at Warp 9 in a hot environment?
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
both of shipschematic.net's Larson images are gifbash pictures that are completely inaccurate to the original FASA diagram also.. one look at Haley's shows that he proportioned the taper on the pylons correctly, according to the diagram in the FASA Tactical Starship Simulator. The on on the website was made by cut and paste of a Mastercom Achernar pieces, and looks kinda dumb.
BTW, the upgrade version, which is at least shown to be from the internet rabble and not a real manual, features an old bridge and new detailing around the edge of the saucer. The Haley version shows a new bridge and old detailing around the saucer. It also lacks the badly placed photorp launcher and inexplicable side pieces as the gifbash
Posted by Woodside Kid (Member # 699) on :
quote: Originally posted by CaptainMike: one look at Haley's shows that he proportioned the taper on the pylons correctly, according to the diagram in the FASA Tactical Starship Simulator.
I'd be interested in seeing a scan of that image, if anyone has one. The only image I've ever seen is out of FASA's "Federation Ship Recoginition Manual," and it has next to no detailing on either the basic or the upgrade versions. Not surprising, since both images are only a little over six centimeters long. The only difference I can see between the two of them is the engine; the "upgrade" version simply slaps a TMP-style nacelle in place of the TOS engine.
Still, its not a bad design. Better than some of the godawful things FASA slapped together over the years.
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
same image actually.. the FASA image is tiny, but it protrays a different ship than the cut&paste on shipschematics.net
Posted by Identity Crisis (Member # 67) on :
Fasa's upgrade just changed the nacelle, the rest of the ship kept its TOS stylings. Though some other artwork did show fully upgraded Larsons (see the cover of the Starship Tactical Combat Simulator )
The upgrade at shipschematics.net is based at least in part on a model I saw photos of on the web years ago (the landing pad at the rear is the giveaway). But can I find it now? Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
The CGI shows the different proportions of the gifbash variant.. i think the original (as seen in those FASA schem.s and the FASA miniature) looks a lot more graceful. The extended lines seen in the CGI version are quite un-attractive, IMO, compared to the compact correct version
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
I must say I agree with that. The original design is very pleasantly proportioned, and IMHO features the only tolerable FASA pylon design apart from the Loknar one. Although the original pics don't reveal much of the stern of the ship, or the structures between the pylons, the gaming miniature IMHO has that down pat. The Larson doesn't need no steenking shuttlebays!
The Caspian in turn is pretty but looks "weak". If photon torpedo launchers of that era must look as prominent as those on the Const-refit, then it's apparent that this ship has none. I'd want to think that the raison d'etre for destroyers is the packing of a lot of firepower in a minimal low-endurance, zero-flexibility spaceframe. The Caspian has 12 puny phaser turrets.
In any case, those two are the definite Larson designs for me. Or can you draw a pretty Caspian with an added TMP-style torpedo launcher? Perhaps just below the bridge, as in the TOS-era ship?
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
i was imagining that, even though the bridge dome and lower sensor suite were done in TMP style, the fact that the saucer was TOS style would infer that it had recesed lower tubes (like 1701 originally did) that dont show up because they are under hull plates.
Posted by Identity Crisis (Member # 67) on :
quote:Originally posted by Timo: The Larson doesn't need no steenking shuttlebays!
Alas, the FASA stats say that the Larson carries six shuttle craft.
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
They also give the ship something like four torp tubes while the exterior shows nothing beyond the usual Franz Joseph variety rounded portholes. FASA art is often crappy, but FASA stats easily top the art in that respect... But with a little reworking, I think the Larson can be turned into rather an acceptable starship.
If a shuttlebay has to be included, then it's time to install an extra bulge onto the hull - the saucer itself just isn't thick enough for a proper bay. But with transporters available for replenishment, and perhaps with workbees hidden behind small sliding panels, a space warfare vessel doesn't have much need for shuttles.
Of course, if we want to make the Larson into a multi-mission ship, we can install all the bells and whistles. But if those can fit into a Larson, then why the heck did Starfleet ever bother with the Constitution class?
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by Identity Crisis (Member # 67) on :
The Larson only has two torp tubes (the Loknar has four - 3 forward and 1 aft). These are presumably in the FJ position below the bridge.
It also has three banks of two phasers. Again these are presumably in the FJ positions (dorsal port and starboard, ventral forward). This makes the armament identical to that of the Saladin.
So a better questions is: why did Starfleet build Larsons if they had Saladins? Or to put it another way: what's in the extended aft section?
The Saladin blueprints I own show four shuttles in hangers on deck 8. It's a tight fit but if we're using the shuttle size taken from the external prop (as opposed to the much larger internal set dimensions) then it's possible.
Apart from moving engineering there's very little that needs to be altered on the Saladin blueprints to adapt them for the Larson, just extend decks 6 and 7, shift the impulse engines and fill in the rest of the space.
A small drop bay in the extension could easily handle another two shuttles ans uses some of the extra space. I'd use the rest either for marine quarters or mine layer equipment - the sort of stuff there isn't room for on the Saladin and which you would only put on a military ship.
I'd also like to add a couple of single phaser emitters somewhere at the aft. Either on the vertical surface either side of the impulse exhausts or on the ventral surface.
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
Good ideas there. However, I see the hull extensions of the Larson as filling the same function as the connecting neck of the Saladin - housing the main propulsion machinery (or the parts that aren't housed in the nacelle, anyway). And the fuel, be it the currently assumed deuterium or the previously suggested neutronium.
And the need for aft phasers would be met nicely by installing a full set of six twin emitters on the saucer - the lateral banks would be able to fire aft quite nicely. As all those old TOS ships seem to only have three twin banks, Starfleet presumably was originally unable to fit more aboard a hull of that size. Or then there were berths readied for a full set of six, but only for possible wartime needs. In either case, I wouldn't see Starfleet being able or willing to install special aft phasers on an early Larson.
The Loknar had 3+1 tubes and the Larson had 2? Cool. I like both designs, but I hate the idea that the Loknar would be so much larger than the Larson, and be considered a "frigate" against Larson's "destroyer". The times when RW navies have used those designations simultaneously have usually had the size relationship be exactly the opposite.
The atypical saucer shape of the Loknar IMHO allows for easy rescaling of the ship to something smaller, like the various "perimeter action ships" she so much resembles. (And those TOS nacelles did come in varying sizes, since the TAS freighters had small ones of basically identical shape!)
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by Identity Crisis (Member # 67) on :
The extension on the Larson has much more volume tham the neck of the Saladin, even before the nacelle supports are taken into account. And as this is TOS we may assume that the M/AM reaction takes place in the nacelle itself (as supported by TAS where antimatter is beamed into the nacelle). This agrees with both FASA and the Saladin blueprints I'm using. And of course the arrangement of the nacelle supports makes a movie style warp system unlikely (where would the intermix shafts go and how would they be jettisoned in an emergency?).
Rear phasers, as the Ptolemy and Coventry both have single banks mounted to cover the rear arcs I don't see why the Larson can't as well. The nacelle structure creates quite a large dead zone for saucer mounted phasers. Indeed a case could be made for inverting the saucer arrangement - placing the port/starboard pairs on the ventral surface and the forward pair on the dorsal surface. That way the port/staboard pairs give much better coverage. Still need some aft mounts though.
Loknar/Larson Frigate/Destroyer. FASA and 70s/80s fandom agreed on very little but destroyers being smaller and/or less powerful than frigates was one of them. Yes this is historically less common but wasn't the USN in the 1960s one of the exceptions?
Actually I have a theory....
Looking at the whole body of Trek ships deigns there are more or less no pre-TOS frigate designs and there are more or less no post-2300 destroyer designs.
So when starfleet was founded it used the term cruiser for large, multi-purpose ships and destroyer for smaller, primarily military ships.
As the fleet grows, more classes are introduced and the range of ship sizes and missions expands a new category was introduced that fell between the two. These were medium sized, fairly well armed but not primarily warships. These were called Frigates. This was in the decades immediately before TOS and helps explain the relative lack of Heavy Destroyer and Light Cruisers in TOS era designs - the new frigates were replacing them except in specialist cases.
Then early in the 24th century Starfleet gets all PC and drops military sounding names like Dreadnought and Destroyer. What's left of the old destroyer role is now split between frigates and escorts. This is the situation we see in TNG/DS9.
Hmm, gone off on a bit of a tangent.
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
Possibly the reason they would have a similar ship for a different purpose would be some difference in the internal configuration we dont know about
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
HEHE!
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
*uncontrolled facial expressions continue*