Flare Sci-Fi Forums: (UP3) Constellation Declassified!

This is topic (UP3) Constellation Declassified! in forum Designs, Artwork, & Creativity at Flare Sci-Fi Forums.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://flare.solareclipse.net/ultimatebb.php/topic/7/1464.html

Posted by Krenim (Member # 22) on :

Beginning another round of declassifications is the Constellation. This write-up was done by Epoch, with a diagram by Lee.

Conjecture info for Constellation Class:

In the late 23rd century Starfleet realized the need for a ship specifically designed for long term deep space exploration. Given only this to go on, the Advanced Starship Design Bureau (ASDB) came up with a unique design. Departing from conventional structural designs the ASDB created a 4 nacelle ship. While this 4 nacelle design is no longer necessary, at the time it was needed to allow a ship to operate at great distances without the need for refueling. With this the premise for the Constellation Class was born.

Instead of being built around the concept of exploration the Constellation was built around long term deep space. The nacelles are the start and end points for this class with everything else placed as needed. The 4 nacelle design created a warp field which was not only more stable but easier to generate, this allowed the ship to travel at much higher speeds without straining the warp core. Attached to this new warp design was the most sophisticated sensor arrays of the time which were placed under the saucer section. These arrays and their position allowed the Constellation to completely scan a planet in 24 hours. Those were only preliminary scans which needed to be completed with more time dependent information. To accomplish that the Constellation carried multiple recoverable probes and the largest shuttle bay seen on a Federation vessel. The bay is located in the front portion of the saucer section allowing for easy launch and recovery. Due to the distance the Constellation was expected to be from help it is equipped with 8 type VI phaser banks and 3 torpedo launchers capable of firing a spread of 6 torpedoes. A standard crew for this class of ship was 150, this is smaller then a crew on a comparably sized ship. This is due to considerations taken for the crew itself, accommodations were increased to make the long term assignments easier. Quarters on the Constellation were larger then even those on a Constitution class. Amenities such as gymnasiums and recreation rooms were also increased in size.

The Constellation class did the job it was designed for and did it well for almost a century. While it has been slowly phased out of deep space missions as newer class ships have been brought into active duty, it still plays a role in the Federation.

Known Constellation class vessels:

U.S.S Constellation NCC-1974: Active

U.S.S Gettysburg NCC-3890: Decommissioned

U.S.S Hathaway NCC-2593: Decommissioned

U.S.S Magellan NCC-3069: Active

U.S.S Stargazer NCC-2893: Decommissioned

U.S.S Victory NCC-9754: Active

Available pictures: (1)

Posted by Manticore (Member # 1227) on :

Y'know, I'd like the Constellation a whole lot more if the idiot who built the thing hadn't so majorly overgreebled it.

Good picture though. [Smile]

Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :

I rather enjoy the greebles. And I seriously doubt we can call the model builder an idiot seeing as he has (had) a job working on the Star Trek productions and none us do.

Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :

The individual in question is Greg Jein, although he based his work directly on a study model (the one from Picard's ready room) by Rick Sternbach.

Those idiots.

[Roll Eyes]

Posted by Dat (Member # 302) on :

People are always forgetting those 5 single phaser turrets on the upper saucer near the rim.

Posted by Manticore (Member # 1227) on :

Jeez, forgive me for trying to inject some (admittedly horrible on further reflection) humor into the discussion... [Roll Eyes]

Posted by Kazeite (Member # 970) on :

Well, in this case I'd have to say that details on this picture are kinda wrong - for example, VF-1A fuselage behind the bridge looks definitely wrong here. [Smile]

And, yup, there's no sign of those five turrets...

Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :

I have to say, I was quite pleased with that one.

Posted by Kazeite (Member # 970) on :

Well... It is a piece of good work, of course... It's just it's not 100% greeble correct [Smile]

(And I'm would settle even for 90% [Big Grin]

)

Posted by Manticore (Member # 1227) on :

Like I said, it's a great drawing of a cool-looking ship that managed to get (IMO) over-greeblied. I didn't really mean to be insulting. [Frown]