U.S.S. RUTLEDGE NCC-57295 NEW ORLEANS-CLASS Commanded by Captain Benjamin Maxwell during the Cardassian War, Miles O'Brian once served as Tactical Officer, First ship on the scene after the Setlik III massacure, Partisipated in counter attack against Klingon Forces near Ajilon Prime with the Tecumseh in 2373. OPERATIONAL
U.S.S. RENEGADE NCC-63102 NEW ORLEANS-CLASS Commanded by Captain Tryla Scott, Met Enterprise at Dytallix B in 2364. OPERATIONAL
U.S.S. KYUSHU NCC-65491 NEW ORLEANS-CLASS Lost at the battle of Wolf 359 in 2367. DESTROYED
U.S.S. THOMAS PAINE NCC-65530 NEW ORLEANS-CLASS Commanded by Captain Rixx, Met Enterprise at Dytallix B in 2364, Apart of Picard's tachyon detection grid in 2368, Assigned to diplomatic missions to Alderaan and Epsilon Aslinti III in 2369. OPERATIONAL
capped
I WAS IN THE FUTURE, IT WAS TOO LATE TO RSVP
Member # 709
posted
the most information about the calsses design can probably be found at Bernd's site: New Orleans Reconstruction and people have been building their own in plastic USS Honshu site and in 3DTrekmania
since the ship was a Galaxy-kitbash (with the windows rearranged to make it half the size) the saucer, nacelles and deflector are just scaled versions of the Galaxy-model. it'd be interesting to flesh out a new 3D version that maybe has some variations on that theme to make it look less Galaxy-like (thats what the top and bottom pods were added for, i recall)
-------------------- "Are you worried that your thoughts are not quite.. clear?"
Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
I'd have to say the NO class was designed after the Galaxy class. I believe the TNG TM states the Galaxy class was a revolutionary design, suggesting it was the first design of it's family members. Since work on the Galaxy class began in 2344, the NO class must have been designed after that year. Ships of the NO class have lower registries because even though construction started after the Galaxy class, they were launched and commissioned earlier than the Galaxy herself (due to being a smaller ships and faster to complete). This means there would be no NO at Narendra and the Cardassian War(s) happened after 2344.
-------------------- Is it Friday yet?
Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
Correct me if I'm worng but I thought that the Enterprise-C was the ONLY federation ship at Nerandra III, so while the New Orleans could have been around at the time, there couldn't have been one at that perticular battle.
I think of the New Orleans as being one of several "mini galaxys" that were developed from the early design work from the Galaxy class project the others being Challenger, Cheyenne and Springfield, I think the nebula would have been a 3rd project, seperate from the minni series but still connected to the Galaxy.
But what would be the justification for this? Well these ships would instantly benefit from the cutting edge hull shapes and warp field..blah blah blah that were being developed at Utopia Planitia.
Also these ships could have been study vessles, to test out the new hull shapes at 1/2 scale, later the more sucessful ones would have been given propper names, regs, a class designation and for the New Orleans (and possibly the Cheyenne too) full production status. This would explain why there are apparently so few Challengers and Springfields and why they were all apparently hanging around Sector 001 when the borg attacked.
posted
Someone used 22** when they should have used 23**.
Anyway, the NO should have a full history dating back to the mid 2330's at the least. The ship was definately around by the mid to late 2340's when the first Cardassian War occured [namely the Setlik 3 incident and surrounding time period].
The E-C was the only ship at Neranda 3.
The GCS was certainly not the first vessel of it's period. We already have evidence that the New Orleans was around before the NX GCS was launched in 2353. All indications are that every GCS-like ship came before the GCS itself. From the lowliest kitbash [Niagara, Challenger] to the more respectable kitbash [Cheyenne, Springfield (without that lower pod if it turns out to be real), and New Orleans], to the recognizable Nebula.
That's all I can remember, the rest should be corrected by others
-------------------- Later, J _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ The Last Person to post in the late Voyager Forum. Bashing both Voyager, Enterprise, and "The Bun" in one glorious post.
posted
As for why everyone likes the NO so much... I think it's due to the fact that we like background ships so much, and the NO is the one we've known about the longest. There was a photo in the first Encyclopedia, but we had no accurate designs for any of the other W359 kitbashes until recently (except the Cheyenne).
Also, and arguement could be made that the NO is the best-designed of the W359 ships. Although I think I would rank it alongside the Cheyenne and Springfield...
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Its definatly the best looking, for me. It just looks really tough and capable, more so than the Defiant IMHO. The Cheyenne would be a close second in my book.
posted
It is a very good looking background ship, too bad that it hasn't been seen since the mid 1990's though.
-------------------- "It speaks to some basic human needs: that there is a tomorrow, it's not all going to be over with a big splash and a bomb, that the human race is improving, that we have things to be proud of as humans." -Gene Roddenberry about Star Trek
Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged
quote:The GCS was certainly not the first vessel of it's period. We already have evidence that the New Orleans was around before the NX GCS was launched in 2353. All indications are that every GCS-like ship came before the GCS itself. From the lowliest kitbash [Niagara, Challenger] to the more respectable kitbash [Cheyenne, Springfield (without that lower pod if it turns out to be real), and New Orleans], to the recognizable Nebula.
And this is so because the Galaxy was designed first, but is also the largest of the family. All these other classes were based on Galaxy components but were smaller due to scaling down or removal of certain parts. These classes are smaller and even though designed after the Galaxy, they were completed prior to Galaxy. Hence seen before Galaxy and have lower regos. I'm just saying this is possible when Galaxy was designed first.
And the Chronology puts Setlik III at 2347 keeping in line with what I said earlier the earliest possible dates of when the NO class would be in service and when the Cardassian Wars took place.
Oh, BTW, Capt Garrett didn't seem to recognize the Galaxy class design when she saw it in "Yesterday's Enterprise" (and she came from 2344) so I would assume the NO class would come after that year.
[ January 03, 2002: Message edited by: Dat ]
-------------------- Is it Friday yet?
Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
OnToMars
Now on to the making of films!
Member # 621
posted
I'm of the philosophy that the NO and family were designed, built, and flown as precursers to GCS. The GCS is more than a new ship class, it is, like the TNGTM states, a revolutionary design and technology testbed. It is more logical to design smaller ships to make sure the technology and design are viable than to do it the other way around. It seems like putting all your eggs in one basket that way.
I also believe that Starfleet has a policy of building more than one ship to test new design theories. Take the Buran for instance. By my speculation, engineers hypothesized that placing the warp nacelles on dorsal and ventral elevations along the centerline would increase maneuverability. By warp (hyperdynamic, I call it) principles, they knew that this would also decrease it's stability, much as the principle in aerodynamics holds that the narrower the wingspan the more maneuvarable but less stable the air craft is. Ultimately, perhaps it was too difficult to control to be viable, but Starfleet engineering policy dictated that it be done at least twice to validate the data. Much like the scientific method requires any experiment to be repeatable in order to be valid.
Thus, you have a bona fide class of ships, but a reasonable explanation as to why they're not seen around. it also explains why one was hanging around Sector 001.
-------------------- If God didn't want us to fly, he wouldn't have given us Bernoulli's Principle.
Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
About the maps and diagrams I was referring to in DS9, I meant like the diagrams and maps of where ships were and fleet movements. A good example would be the diagram of Operation Return showing the planned attack to recapture DS9.
It would be interesting to see a "historical" map of this type that you could say was made after the battles like in military reference books.
One question: how big in terms of content do you plan this book to be?
Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
What episode was that map in? I'd like to take a look.
The maps and diagrams I'm planning on having are inspired by the ones often seen in National Geographic - they help set the scene for the story. It sounds like what you're talking about.
What is the scope of the book? Think of it as a Time/Life history of specific areas of the Star Trek universe. Right now there's a volume from Life magazine on the stands called "Our Finest Hour," a special look at WWII.
It's more or less my current inspiration.
Take a look at that, and you'll have a good idea of what UNSEEN FRONTIER is going to be like.
posted
Mojo: you can see the map of the fleet movements in "Favor the Bold," near Sisko when he's talking to Admiral Ross. It's also seen in a large picture near the beginning of the Deep Space Nine Technical Manual.
Printer-friendly view of this topic