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 ]
capped
I WAS IN THE FUTURE, IT WAS TOO LATE TO RSVP
Member # 709
posted
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.
-------------------- "Are you worried that your thoughts are not quite.. clear?"
Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
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....
posted
Decatur class, eh? Do the warp coils shred to pieces when run at Warp 9 in a hot environment?
-------------------- "I was surprised by the matter-of-factness of Kafka's narration, and the subtle humor present as a result." (Sizer 2005)
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
capped
I WAS IN THE FUTURE, IT WAS TOO LATE TO RSVP
Member # 709
posted
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
-------------------- "Are you worried that your thoughts are not quite.. clear?"
Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
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.
-------------------- The difference between genius and idiocy? Genius has its limits.
Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
capped
I WAS IN THE FUTURE, IT WAS TOO LATE TO RSVP
Member # 709
posted
same image actually.. the FASA image is tiny, but it protrays a different ship than the cut&paste on shipschematics.net
-------------------- "Are you worried that your thoughts are not quite.. clear?"
Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
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?
-------------------- "My theories appal you, my heresies outrage you, I never answer letters and you don't like my tie." - The Doctor
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
capped
I WAS IN THE FUTURE, IT WAS TOO LATE TO RSVP
Member # 709
posted
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
Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
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?
capped
I WAS IN THE FUTURE, IT WAS TOO LATE TO RSVP
Member # 709
posted
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.
-------------------- "Are you worried that your thoughts are not quite.. clear?"
Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
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.
-------------------- "My theories appal you, my heresies outrage you, I never answer letters and you don't like my tie." - The Doctor
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
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?
posted
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.
-------------------- "My theories appal you, my heresies outrage you, I never answer letters and you don't like my tie." - The Doctor
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
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!)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
. I also put the TMP style sensor suite..![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
