Amasov Prime
lensfare-induced epileptic shock
Member # 742
posted
quote:Originally posted by Mark Nguyen: GENESIS?!
Genesis allowed is NOT! Is shipname FORBIDDEN!
Mark
"Now listen to me, my backwards friend! Genesis may be "shipname forbidden," but I'm damn well..."
...okay, it does not say 'Genesis'. My 'Secrets' was close. I think the first one is an 's' and the last three are 'ats', maybe 'kats'. I checked the Encyclopedia for a DS9-guy, probably from the art departement, with a similar name. Nothing. Until we are sure the first one is an 's', that search could take some more time. My next guess is 'Surkats', whatever this may be.
-------------------- "This is great. Usually it's just cardboard walls in a garage."
Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
Mea culpa! You're right, Peregrinus, it is an entire F-14. And, it is a Monogram F-14A judging by the exhaust rings. It think not seeing the stabilators threw me off. I just compared it to the one I'm building and they're the same.
So, does this mean that the Elkins has TWO main deflectors? Butt ugly!!!
Robert
-------------------- Everything in life I ever needed to know I learned from The Simpsons.
Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
Ya know, I first thought it was Trieste as well, but her number is lower that the 40000 range isn't it. And knowing the in-jokes all these departments have, Rugrats could be it. Besides I think we can all discount the name anyway because the ship was mentioned as USS Centaur and that registry established for her anyway (unless the model was relabled and Centaur had a different number we never heard of)
-------------------- Is it Friday yet?
Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
Amasov Prime
lensfare-induced epileptic shock
Member # 742
posted
Actually, it has three deflectors, if you count the saucer-auxiliary, too. Weird little ship...
-------------------- "This is great. Usually it's just cardboard walls in a garage."
Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
The problem left to resolve with the Centaur (or whatever) is the matter of the windows... If each row is meant to represent one deck, then it's bigger than Excelsior-sized. If the Miranda bridge is meant to set scale, then it is much smaller than the Excelsior. Indeed, smaller even than the Constitution saucer the Miranda's built off of. What this means for windows in that case, I'm not sure...
Yes, the Elkins (or whatever) has three deflectors. I guess this is one ship that's never going to run into an asteroid. Has the evolution of deflector dishes ever been filled in? Back in the old days, the dish was the main long-range sensors and the deflectors were the three little boxes flanking the dish. This held at least up until Star Trek II, as the Reliant has no dish, but does have the deflector greeblies. The Galaxy definitely merges the two systems into a single component, and it looks like the Ambassador does, too. I'm not sure about the Excelsior, but the two greebled panels in the neck might be deflectors, leaving the dish free for sensor duty. So, with the Elkins, if the saucer unit is the main deflector array, and the two secondary hull dishes are the main long-range sensors, we could have a nice border patrol craft... Or the systems could just be merged and it has three sensor/deflector dishes and this whole paragraph was pointless...
Not sure about the "Medusa" now... I preferred it with two up, one down.
And the Constitution variant has a Constitution neck with what looks like Constellation pylons. Since there's no mass-market Constellation model kit, they're probably just sheet styrene.
--Jonah
-------------------- "That's what I like about these high school girls, I keep getting older, they stay the same age."
--David "Woody" Wooderson, Dazed and Confused
Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
Three nacelled Excelsior questions questions...
First, is there just one lower pylon leading down to the single warp nacelle? I seem to be seeing a sliver of a pylon behind it. Perhaps there is a pylon on the other side, for a dual pylon system? This may have been mentioned earlier, but after 17 pages its getting hard to remember.
Second, from the overhead shot it looks like that single nacelle is of the Centaur type, while the othe two are standard Excelsir types. If so, we've got a ship with dissimilar warp nacelles. Other than that one Nebula study model, are there any other Starfleet ships with such an arrangement?
-------------------- Everything in life I ever needed to know I learned from The Simpsons.
Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
I don't know if this has been mentioned, but the Elkins was probably named after Judy Elkins, Visual Effects Coordinator on "A Time to Stand" and some other DS9 episodes.
[ March 13, 2002, 18:07: Message edited by: Boris ]
Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
It would seem that the Elkins would have 3 deflectors, but perhaps there is the possibility (since we don't have a forward or ventral view) that the modellers filled in the space between the two "hulls" with some other piece or something.
I think the Chimera/3-naceller has two Connie-refit pylons tapiring inwards to the single nacelle.
The more I look at it, the more the mystery name looks like Trieste, but I may be deluding myself. But I've played around with trying to enhance numbers and letters in Adobe Photoshop in the past to know that what appears to show up through the "enhancement" to be can't always be trusted. What some people keep saying looks like an 'A' towards the end is actually an 'S' I think.
And I agree---whatever the ship's name is, it's a scaling nightmare. But then again, so is the Yeager...
-MMoM
-------------------- The flaws we find most objectionable in others are often those we recognize in ourselves.
Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
Someone might've already mentioned this - the Centaur nacelles look like each is made of two Excelsior nacelle bottom halves stuck together. The fin arrangement gives it away. The warp field grilles are simply the lower bulges of a regular Excelsior nacelle coloured in.
And yes, the 3 nacelled Excelsior appears to have two Connie-refit pylons leading in to the single nacelle (a regular Excelsior nacelle here). Each pylon is attached on the saucer edge and angles in to the central nacelle.
I don't buy the argument that the "mirrored" Starfleet symbols would prove that the 3-naceller picture is upside down. For one thing, the mirroring could be due to horizontal flipping. And for another, those things already come mirrored to begin with! A typical kit features a "port" and "starboard" symbol for a starship, each a mirror image of the other.
I'd hesitate calling the 3-naceller a Chimera, since that class already exists and in the 57000 registry range which is otherwise associated with Galaxy-kitbashes... Something in the 10000-45000 range would be better.
As for the Centaur, I'd forget about the tiny windows. They can easily be skylights on a single deck instead of indicators of the existence of seven discrete decks on the saucer upper half. A scaling based on the Miranda bridge and roll bar would give a ship perhaps 190m long and 115m wide, allowing for just a single deck on the saucer topside.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic