posted
Owing to the new pictures (captured by Starship Millennium) and the new analysis which was possible, I've thrown some other bits and pieces together to try and solve precisely what ships are which when it comes to the anomalies outstanding, and comment on other observations that come from the comparisons.
The first one here is the Challenger Class Buran. It's placed alongside the 3D model (position roughly true), to gage how it might look in tact (although, as with all these model comparisons there must be margin for error as they're based on incomplete schematics).
It's difficult to judge precisely what the Buran looks like or how it's configured, as it looks like a total mess. The hull looks wider than perviously thought, and one also must question whether the saucer really is elliptical like the Spingfield, et al...
Buran 2. It looks as though the upper nacelle has suffered some sort of collapse, or perhaps its even been severed, as the forward quarter seems to be resting on the secondary hull.
I'm going to update my model as I think I can identify what appears to be impulse engines. I believe that the Freedom was previously thought to lack them (or they at least have never been spotted before.). This truncated structure hanging from the saucer does appear to resemble an Impulse Engine...
After close scrutiny I have to say that this mystery ship IS the Springfield Class Chekov, and not the Excelsior study model, which I thought it might have been before. The pod structure appears to be present, and you can also make out the reddish bands toward the front of the nacelles. I think this fact confirmed it for me, without a doubt. In my view I consider the Chekov identified.
The two here are virtually identical. Also, like its sister class the Springfield, the red bands around the nacelles are just visible in this image. So with the comparison in place there can be no doubt remaining, this is the Cheyenne Class Ahwahnee at Wolf 359.
I think the reason why the first Challenger shot doesn't look right is because the alignment isn't quite right. I think that you should swivel your 3D model counter-clockwise a little bit (Z-axis), and twist it around so that the port side is a little higher (Y-axis).
-------------------- “Those people who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do.” — Isaac Asimov Star Trek Minutiae | Memory Alpha
Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged
Another thing about the Firebrand: is that structure above the warp engine still going to be considered a torp launcher like the Enterprise-A, or is it just detail left over from the Stargazer pylon? The image of the model itself really doesn't show that area well.
Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
I dont know what you guys think but i think that the structure on top of the saucer looks bigger than in Red Admirals CGI version. Certainly taller if not wider also.
-------------------- "Marge, trying is the first step towards failure!!" Homer
Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
Amasov Prime
lensfare-induced epileptic shock
Member # 742
posted
One question concerning your page, Admiral: Don't you think that "Query 1" could be the Springfield? I don't see any similarities to the Excelsior-model, IMO. Springfield?
-------------------- "This is great. Usually it's just cardboard walls in a garage."
Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
That impulse engine on the Firebrand doesn't show up on photo of the model, it looks completely flat behind the neck. They could have added it just before filming and after the photo was taken, I suppose.
posted
iam, look at the distances you are viewing them from, the Admiral has more nacelle showing, making the view further away, making everything look smaller....
Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
