This is topic Differences between the Constellation and Enterprise? in forum Starships & Technology at Flare Sci-Fi Forums.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://flare.solareclipse.net/ultimatebb.php/topic/6/1914.html

---

Posted by Felix the Kzin (Member # 646) on :
 
I've heard mention of the noticeable differences between the NCC-1017 from "The Doomsday Machine" (TOS) and the NCC-1701 on several occasions, but never noticed any myself.

The Constellation was represented by an AMT model, so I guess the real question is what are the differences between AMT's kit and the TOS studio model?

-Ftk

P.S.

Yes, I know.

I'm about to be cascaded with replies saying things like "Look it up yourself, lazy ass!" and "Do your own fucking research!"

But I don't really care...
 

---

Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
 
I've got one of those AMT Enterprises myself... although my model was purchased less than ten years ago -- they certainly could have changed things since the first releases in the 60's...

Obviously there's a great difference in the quality of the materials and detailing on the hull (even considering how un-detailed the studio model was). However, allowing for that, I believe that most of the features are basically the same. It's got the balls on the backs of the nacelles, the small deflector dish, and the lower-draft bridge module. To my eye, I'm perfectly happy to believe that the Constellation is identical to the Enterprise.

As for why the ship looks so much smoother in comparison, well that's easy -- the blasts from the Planet Killer melted the top layer of hull down, and erased all the detailing! (The real world reason being that there wasn't enough detailing on the AMT kit to appear on film in the aired episode.)

But then, you seem to be interested in finding yet ANOTHER variant of the Constitution Class, right? (Sorry, sorry...)
 

---

Posted by Felix the Kzin (Member # 646) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by MinutiaeMan:
But then, you seem to be interested in finding yet ANOTHER variant of the Constitution Class, right? (Sorry, sorry...)

---

Actually, quite the opposite. I've got some folks on the TrekBBS insisting that differences in the AMT kit are justifiable cause to explain the Constellation's registry number. (It's not "really" a Constituion-class vessel, just a very similar make of starship. ) I wanted to dispute it, but felt like I should have the facts first.

What about the shape of the bridge module? It it teardrop-shaped like the studio model, or egg-shaped like the Franz Joseph prints? Also, how does it compare in profile? (ie, the shape of the secondary hull and saucer curvature, etc...)

-FtK
 

---

Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
 
I haven't handled this kit in about 20 years, but if I remember correctly, aren't the nacelles simple cylinders without any taper at the end?
 

---

Posted by USSMillennium74754 (Member # 822) on :
 
You might be interested in this link:

http://www.culttvman.com/jay_chladek_s_enterprise_kit_h.html

It details all the variations in the different releases of the AMT kit. Quite a few pics, too. (On first impression, it seems as if the bridge was the FJ-style egg shaped one.)
 

---

Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
 
Upon closer examination, it turns out that Masao's right. (So sue me; I'm lazy and didn't get up to look at the ship sitting on the shelf eight feet away from me... )
 

---

Posted by Ryan McReynolds (Member # 28) on :
 
The Deck 2-3 superstructure is egg-shaped, not teardrop... the Constellation also had no balls on the end of her nacelles, so she was clearly one of the earliest AMT model variants. All in all, she was actually midway between the TOS and FJ versions of the ship. I think AMT and FJ both used the original Jeffries drawings as references, since they all make the same errors. Intersting that people rarely remember that FJ's version of the ship is pretty much the one Jeffries drew for The Making of Star Trek.
 

---

Posted by Captain-class, Mike-variant (Member # 709) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ryan McReynolds:
the Constellation also had no balls..

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Captain-class, Mike-variant:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ryan McReynolds:
the Constellation also had no balls..

---

aint it the truth though...

---

I wouldn't say that...Scotty was able to get the gallant lady up and running again with just a few men. He was even able to recharge a phaser bank.

Constellation was a tribute to her class, durable and resiliant. She gave her all for her sister, the Enterprise and deserves to be better spoken of...
 

---

Posted by Austin Powers (Member # 250) on :
 
Why is everyone talking about the Constellation being made from an AMT model kit? (I know, I've heard the theory myself, but I don't believe it.)

On Star Trek - The Exhibition they displayed the studio model of the U.S.S. Valkyrie.
This was the official Constellation studio model first seen as the Stargazer I believe.

This model is about 1.5 metres long. No way this was made from an AMT kit.
I have a somewhat crazy theory, yet hear me out before you start bashing...

I think they took the Phase II Enterprise model and used the saucer and nacelles as a basis for the Constellation. Then they added all the other parts to it.
Anyone who has "The Art of Star Trek" can look into the chapter on Phase II. The pics of the half-finished Enterprise clearly show it to have a very smooth saucer surface - which would comply with the comments about the Constellation having a very smooth surface.
Also look at the shape and the details on the saucer - they seem almost identical to the Constellation.

So much for my theory - comments?
 

---

Posted by Dat (Member # 302) on :
 
Um, we're talking about the other Constellation. NCC-1017. That one.
 

---

Posted by Austin Powers (Member # 250) on :
 
To cite Will Smith/Jeff Goldblum from ID4:

Ooops!
 

---

Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
 
Starship Freak's site has made me think of something. At one point during "Requiem for Methuselah", the Enterprise is shrunk down and put on a table. As tends to happen. Anyway, the model used has balls on the end of the nacelles. Is this the AMT kit? I didn't think the AMT kit had balls on the end of the nacelles until after the series had finished. And if it's a superior, more accurate version, how come they could afford to build it for this, but not for "The Doomsday Machine"?
 

---

Posted by Siegfried (Member # 29) on :
 
From Star Trek In Sound and Vision, I pulled this aft view of the Constellation entering the planet killer.

The two things that jump out at me that I don't think have been mentioned yet are the hangar bay and the impulse engines. It looks like the hangar bay is flattened; it doesn't look quite as round as the Enterprise's. The second thing is that the impulse drive's configuration differs from the Enterprise's. On the Enterprise, she has two rectangles. On the Constellation, I think she had a series of circles or squares (although you can't see much of anything in this picture).
 

---

Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
 
I think Liam is thinking of "Catspaw," though it has been a very long time since I saw the other. And the Enterprise was tiny, and made of pewter. As I recall.
 

---

Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
 
I am not, as I will now prove by stealing Starship Freak's bandwidth.

Catspaw:



RFM:



Give me money.

And on Siegy's point, The Cage Enterprise also had different impulse engines, although I am not sure how.
 

---

Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
 
Actually, I've just had an idea about how to explain the reg number of the Constellation. She'd just been in dock for repairs to her saucer and the yard techs were a little dyslexic and repainted her hull with NCC-1017 instead of NCC-1710 and didn't have the time to repaint again before she deployed. Simple as that. Problem solved.
 

---

Posted by Dat (Member # 302) on :
 
Which would conflict with the Kongo had the Constellation's number really been 1710.
 

---

Posted by MrNeutron (Member # 524) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by PsyLiam:
Starship Freak's site has made me think of something. At one point during "Requiem for Methuselah", the Enterprise is shrunk down and put on a table. As tends to happen. Anyway, the model used has balls on the end of the nacelles. Is this the AMT kit? I didn't think the AMT kit had balls on the end of the nacelles until after the series had finished. And if it's a superior, more accurate version, how come they could afford to build it for this, but not for "The Doomsday Machine"?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dat:
Which would conflict with the Kongo had the Constellation's number really been 1710.

---

Or whatever.
 

---

Posted by Dr. Phlox (Member # 878) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by MrNeutron:
I believe that's the oroiginal 3-footer Enterprise miniature built prior to the 11 footer we know and love. As I recall, it's much too big to be an AMT kit.

---