Cartman
just made by the Presbyterian Church
Member # 256
posted
1) Only the big ships have deflectors because SF could care less about its uglier and smaller ships
2) Or, sometime between the TOS and TNG era, an enormous amount of spacedust suddenly appeared and then disappeared again (making deflectors required items) between TNG and TNG "AGT"
3) Or, starship designers of the future are just plain stupid and forget to include deflectors all the time
4) Or, the smaller ships have deflector arrays which are cloaked because otherwise the design would look even uglier
5) Finally, the deflectors use some sort of Inspector Gadget trick when they are needed - "go go navigation deflector... there's a large rock in our way and we can't go around it"
------------------ "Cry havoc and let's slip the dogs of Evil"
posted
Let's see if we can find the deflectors, hmmm.
Yeager: The Yeager class's deflector is on the front of the saucer section underneath it's big front sensor palette. It's the same as the secondary deflector on Intrepid classes.
Constellation: On the front of the edge of the saucer. It's a grate-looking thingy.
Oberth: Same answer.
Daedalus: I think the Daedalus has a deflector on the front of its engineering section just like the Constitution.
Centaur, Miranda, Soyuz: Could be the forward facing section of the "cross"-looking thing on the underside of the saucer.
Olympic: Probably part of the front of the engineering section.
I would guess that the nav def on the ugly-a$$ Freedom here is the same place the secondary nav def is on the Galaxy class, the underside of the saucer, right in front of the Captain's Yacht.
Remember, all nav defs don't have to be big and glowy. Some ships' nav defs may not be all that functional but restricted to the bare essential of moving crap out of the way.
------------------ "A gathering of Angels appeared above my head. They sang to me this song of hope, and this is what they said..." -Styx
posted
Aban: I agree with you on the deflector location on the Centaur, Miranda, and Soyuz - but be aware that the Constellation also has that structure on its bottom (probably deck 14).
------------------ "Forgive me if I don't share your euphoria!" (Weyoun to Dukat, Tears of the Prophets) Dax's Ships of STAR TREK
posted
Dax: I just looked at the Constellation side view on your site, and you're right, there is one of those cross things on the bottom of the saucer, evidently a fairly standard structure for ships of that era. The structure I was talking about is like one of the grates on the side rim of the saucer visible in your schematic. The Franklin Mint (or some other "stuff" manufacturer) made a model of the Constellation Class and cast that front grate in gold. I've always assumed that this was because that was the main deflector.
Oh, and I just saw a pic of the Olympic class studio model. About 3/4 of the way down the globe, there is an indentation that runs all the way around the ball. The front part of that strip appears to be glowwing blue as if there was a very thin deflector on there. Go to Hobbes' Fed Starship Datalink and you'll see the pic I'm referring to.
------------------ "A gathering of Angels appeared above my head. They sang to me this song of hope, and this is what they said..." -Styx
[This message has been edited by Aban Rune (edited January 07, 2000).]
posted
Aban Rune: Well, I think I should the following possible correction to your deflector list although this is purely my ideas (and Jackill's in some case):
Constellation: I always assumed (and Jackill's guide, although non-canon and innacurate) that that grate was the shuttlebay. The deflector may be the underside "cross" in addition to two ellispe-shaped thingies under the saucer.
Oberth: Same thing, the grate might just be the shuttle bay, although a small one. The deflector could be on the front of the engineering section behind the round hull plates (Jackill says it's also a big sensor array).
Centaur: In addition to the cross, it's got all sorts of small pods under the saucer of which some could also act as additional deflector.
Miranda, Soyouz: Jackill says that in addition of the cross, there are the two small cylinders, one on each side of the bridge where the saucer meets the rear section.
Freedom: The deflector is definitely that big thing hanging from the bottom of the saucer in the place where a yacht should go.
I'd also like to point out that the deflector does not necessarely needs to be all open and exposed to work. It could be hidden from view by the hull (Olympic, Deadalus, Oberth) and still work well (although why they'd want to hide them in the first place is beyond me).
------------------ -If you ask me, I think continuity is highly overrated... *Brannon Braga*
-Where were you when the brains were handed out? *Sonic the Hedgehog*
posted
Actually, the Freedom neck seems to be a hybrid of the Constitution/Constitution refit necks. The windows may be a different shape than the windows on either of those necks, but look at the torpedo launchers. Same shape as the Constitution refit, and probably the same size as well.
posted
I agree the thing underneath the Freedom's saucer is the deflector. When you first look at the front view, it looks like there are windows there, but there can't be a deck there because the side view shows how the area gets shallow to the rear.
What I'd like to know is, what is that thing underneath the front end of the nacelle?
posted
A horrible thought crossed my mind... Where's the core on that thing? In the neck? Possible, but how do they dump it? In the small thing under the nacelle? Too small, unless the core starts from the top of the neck and passes through the nacelle and down to that small section. Would it be "acceptable" by design standard to have a core through the nacelle?
------------------ -If you ask me, I think continuity is highly overrated... *Brannon Braga*
-Where were you when the brains were handed out? *Sonic the Hedgehog*
posted
Maybe the warp core is in the saucer. I mean look how small the M/ARA core of the Defiant Class is.
------------------ Sometimes I run Sometimes I hide Sometimes I'm scared of you But all I really want is to hold you tight Treat you right, be with you day and night Baby all I need is time
posted
I recalculated the size of the Freedom, with 24 decks, taking the neck-decks as a standard and including the thing under the nacelle. My answer is 330m. The nacelle in this case is 193m long, slightly ;arger than the New Orleans one.
The core could be at the end of the saucer, extended in the neck, I think this fits in the standard SF design.
------------------ So small, So innocent, so young, So delicately done Grown up in your poison.
posted
The warp core could be in the neck. To eject it, they would shoot it up through the rear ventral of the saucer.
As for the size... It seems that the NO and Chey. were constructed using two sizes of model kits. One was used for almost the entire ship, the larger for the bridge. If we take this to mean that the NO and Chey. bridges are the same size as a Galaxy bridge, we know that the other Galaxy-esque parts are 5/9 the size of normal Galaxy parts. We can take this further and assume that, during that time period, all the ships that used Galaxy-esque parts had parts 5/9 the size they are now. This doesn't violate the idea of non-scalable ships (aka "The Bird-of-Prey Dillemma"), because nacelles are easily scalable, and the other parts used (saucer, engineering hull, etc.) have their windows altered, meaning that the internal structure (decks) is different.
Now, if we apply this 5/9 scaling factor to the Freedom nacelle, the ship becomes 239m long. The Niagara, BTW, would be 244m, using the same principle.
To me, this makes the most sense. We know, from the New Orleans and Cheyenne, that SF used to use ship parts that look like Galaxy parts, but are smaller. Because we know the size of the model kits used (a 1/18 kit for the ships, and a 1/10 kit for the bridges), we can determine just how much these parts are "scaled down" by. Assuming that SF used these same 5/9 parts in all its Galaxy-esque ships of that era, we have the sizes. Granted, this is an assumption, but it's a perfectly logical one.
------------------ "...more people buy Harry Potter novels than the works of Alexander Pope, but that's no measure of their quality." -Tom Aylward-Nally, December 29, 1999
Printer-friendly view of this topic
