posted
Let me first state that I am not in favor of most of the kitbashes and re-scaled ships we have seen on-screen. When you change the size of a vessel, you will almost necessarily have to change the proportions of some of the components. For example, if you doubled the size of the Enterprise-A, you would definitely have to change certain elements visible on the exterior. While you might argue that the nacelles could be scaled up, the visible top ends of the turbolift shafts that abut the bridge certainly wouldn't be twice as big, and I suspect the bridge would certainly not be twice as large, either.
On the other hand, there are many examples of "kitbashing, both in aviation and in the Navy. For example, the U.S.S. Langley, the US's first aircraft carrier, was converted from a collier (a coal-carrying ship intended to refuel ships at sea). The converted vessel had retractable rigging (masts and so forth) as well as smokestacks that were hinged to swing out to the side during launch and recovery operations. The Lockheed Constellation used a scaled-up wing design from the P-38 lightning. The Boeing 707, 727, and 737 all used the same basic fuselage, lengthened or shortened to suit the requirements of the individual aircraft. The 707 itself was modified numerous times by lengthening or shortening the fuselage, giving rise to the industry joke that "Boeing doesn't really build aircraft -- they just have a big sausage machine. You tell 'em how much plane you want and they'll crank off a length and add wings to it."
The B-52 and the 707 have both benefited from re-engining, with few modifications required to accommodate the new powerplants. There has been a proposal to refit the B-52s with a single turbofan replacing each pair of older engines, reducing it from an 8-engined plane to 4 engines, providing both greater thrust and better fuel economy.
The B-29 was the basis for an airliner and an absurd-looking cargo plane, just by altering the fuselage and little else.
(Click on the image above to get details on the Boeing "Guppy" series.)
I would expect Starfleet to occasionally build a "mutant" version of this or that vessel, either for a special purpose or to test a new technology without investing excessive time in building a new spaceframe from scratch. Sometimes they might use another ship as a basis for a different one (the Nebula is the example I believe most of you are familiar with).
Someone said they didn't like the Bradbury because it looks like an Intrepid with conventinal nacelles. Perhaps the Bradbury was constructed as a test-bed for the Intrepid-class's other systems, apart from the warp propulsion system. It could be that the Bradbury was constructed simultaneously with the Intrepid because, due to time constraints, they didn't know whether the variable-geometry nacelles of the Intrepid would not be more trouble than they're worth, and wanted the option of having an alternative ship available for production?
--Baloo
------------------ "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -- William Pitt Come Hither and Yawn...
posted
I think the main question here is where to draw the line between a refit and a new class.
For example: I myself think that the so called Constitution II or 'movie Enterprise' is a totally new class. The 'old' and 'new' Constitutions are as different as the Ambassador and Galaxy class. Almost the same goes for the Excelsior/Enterprise B.
But what about internal changes?? A 'new' and an 'old' Miranda Class has probably only got it's hull and skeleton that remained the same. The rest is (hopefully) upgraded to newer standards.
I think the best way to solve this is some kind of percentage rule. Say: over 15% different to the original is a new class, below that is a refit.
BTW: Another great real life example: Jet fighters. Especially the so called 'super' versions of sertain models. Even better: The Russian Sukhoi Flanker series.
------------------ "I'm captain Kenny Redshirt of the Miranda Class USS Killedalot, NCC-1313." "I know it is an old ship, but..." KABOOOOMM!! "Oh my God! They killed Kenny! You bastards!"
posted
As the guy who created the design for the Bradbury over six years ago (yes, I am starting to get a little miffed that people don't seem to know where the design came from, and think it's semi-official or semi-canon), I can tell you that my intention was to create a class that was an intermediate one between the Galaxy and Intrepid. The saucer is basically a Galaxy-type saucer stretched to Intrepid proportions. I drew the Bradbury very soon after seeing a sketch of the Intrepid in TV Guide before Voyager premiered.
posted
I dunno. I think it's not really a new class unless you change the basic function. With aircraft, it's different, for example, when the F-102 was modded to give better supersonic performance, they at first were going to call it the F-102a, but changed it to F-106. The F-100 was originally just a super-duper F-86, but with starships, who knows whether they'd follow aviation or naval traditions? Probably the former.
--Baloo
------------------ "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -- William Pitt Come Hither and Yawn...
posted
I'll agree with you about the movie Enterprise. I've never thought of it as Constitution II, and I prefer to think of it as Enterprise class. In fact, the Constitution II is another class entirely in tech fandom, based on an earlier design of the new Enterprise than the one finally used in ST:TMP. I believe this design may have been intended for the aborted Trek II tv series.
posted
I still think that the Enterprise-A is a Constitution Class. It's just had an upgrade. I really don't get what some are talking about. Let's compare starship upgrades to car modifications. To those who may not know, teenagers with cash to burn buy "body kits" for their cars. Whether an Acura Integra, BMW 3-Series, or a Honda Civic, there is a "body kit" on sale. Now, the kits totally change the outward appearance of the car, really. But a lot of the internal components are left in factory condition. Even though that the car may look like something from a freak show, it's still a car. Just like starship upgrades.
------------------ We did it on the floor, We did it by the door, We did it all night, We did it under a light, So how about for tonight we do it some more...
posted
About that picture-link to the "Constitution II" model:
That variant is supposed to be based on a design done for the abortive ST:Phase II TV show. I think it was Mike Minor who was told to "upgrade" the TOS ship to look presentable in 70s television, so he took some Jeffries drawings, and decided to basically just change the engines and the deflector dish (although I gather the latter was a "sensor dish" at the time).
The changes he made were
-New nacelles (not quite identical to the eventual movie ones - there was TOS-style greebling on the lateral surfaces, for one) -Triangular pylons (but there's a small cutout near the nacelle that is absent from the movie ship) -New impulse engines (very similar to the movie ones) -New deflector (but the three thingamabobs around it were angular instead of ovoid) -New torp deck (the details of this were in flux, but I think the tube/s was/were supposed to be rounded instead of boxed as in the movie ship) -New bridge (but very close to the TOS one, not much like the movie one) -New paint job and windows and docking ports and whatnot, different from the movie version
What else was different from the movie ship, and more remniscent of the TOS ship?
-The sensor array under the saucer is a simple dome, like in the TOS ship -The shuttlebay doesn't have a "lower lip" yet
The ship is sufficiently different from the movie "Enterprise subclass" that fanfic calls it by a different name. There's a further step between this ship and the "Enterprise subclass", called the Tikopai subclass - it's based on refinements by the effects house that was first hired to do ST:TMP, but produced one lousy scene of VFX in two years before Probert and pals got into the act. The Tikopai still has the lower dome, but the engines get their final shape and the bridge is a customized version, and detail is added.
posted
Laz- can I just say - hey you do some nice pics but its NOT a great leap in thinking to see that the NX Bradbury could have come somewhere between the Galaxy and the Intrepid...
I hadn't seen or known that that was 'your' Bradbury - i.e. the diagram - I just first saw Markus' ship - which I prefer as the Bradbury - i.e. the Intrepid saucer with modified engineering hull and Galaxy nacelles WITHOUT the variable geometry.
I hadn't seen and/or remembered your diagram at all... I've seen the 'stretched' saucer in one of those ship kits - and I've always wondered what it was from...
what I now hate is people taking peoples 'guesses' and SAYING that "hey this is a Bradbury" or "hey this is a Springfield" and its canon...
you've both got level headed - nice designs - its just that I have a nice gooey feeling about Markus' ship - cause its a nice looking model... 3d
------------------ "What a wonderful and amazing scheme have we here of the magnificent vastness of the Universe! So many Suns, so many Earths...!" - Christian Huygens, New Conjectures Concerning the Planetary Worlds, Their Inhabitants and Productions (ca 1670)
Starbuck "Replicate some marmalade, Commander - helm control is toast!"
Member # 153
posted
Actually, Timo, I think if you read Phase II: The Lost Series, the original drawings for the Enterprise upgrade were done by Matt Jefferies. Andy Probert based the movie Enterprise on these. Of course I could be wrong because I don't have the book to hand... Mike Minor and Rick Sternbach (yes, that Rick Sternbach) played major roles in developing the Phase II ship (as shown on the cover of the Phase II writers' bible, the USS Enterprise Flight Manual), and probably helped with the movies too (well, I know Mike Minor did). However the original drawings for the upgrade are Jefferies'. A model was also built (which, I think, was Mike Minor's contribution) but never used because a motion-picture quality model was built to Andy Probert's design for the first movie.
------------------ "Replicate some marmalade, Commander - helm control is toast!"
posted
Yes, that's what I meant, based on what I remember of the book - I thought they were Jeffries drawings, with Minor refinements to them and Minor doing the actual model. I was probably giving too little credit to Jeffries and too much to Minor, but I didn't mean it that way.
There have been rumors of a "Phase II Enterprise" appearing either in "BoBW" or "Unification", but it's impossible to tell if they refer to the Ralph McQuarrie ships (which were actually made for the abortive movie project) or a possible use of the Minor model. The Constitution-lookalike ship in "BoBW" clearly is identical to the actual TMP ship (although it apparently comes from STIII and the "death of Enterprise" scene), and not the Minor model.
posted
You're absolutely right, Timo. There are three steps in the evolution of the Enterprise from Star Trek: Phase II to ST:TMP. First is the one tech fandom calls the Constitution II class; second is the one tech fandom calls the Tikopai class; and third is the one tech fandom calls the Enteprise class, which is the movie ship.
posted
Again, Andrew, thanks for the kind words about my model.
Regarding kitbashes, I am typically not a big fan of them. It's not because I don't like the idea in general, but because they more often than not end up looking really bad (like the ones in the DS9 Tech Manual). However, I agree it is possible to do it well. For example, couldn't the Miranda-class and the Constellation-class be considered kitbashes of the refit Constitution? Yet they look nice on their own.
A well done kitbash is something that's feasible for Starfleet to build, and something that has good reason to exist. Limited reuse of hull components and nacelles, combined with a lot of new, original stuff, like the Miranda, works well. Mixing and matching only components from existing ships, especially when they're not of the same type, or same era, or even the same scale, (ahem, DS9's Yeager) ends up looking really hokey.
For another example of kitbashing in real life, the U.S. Navy's Ticonderoga-class cruisers are "kitbashes" of the Spruance-class destroyer, same hull, different superstructure. Plus, the Kidd-class destroyers are a Spruance-class "variant" that got its own class name.
posted
Just a note Baloo: The 757 also uses the same fuselage as the other three Boeing aircraft.
Perhaps some people would benefit from some clearer diagrams. These are all copied from the same source, Ships of the Star Fleet. They all appear exactly the same in several other sources, such as the U.S.S. Enterprise Heavy Cruiser Evolution Blueprints.
In The Art of Star Trek, pg. 159, there are simple design sketches of the refit Enterprise. The large door at the back of the bridge was designed as the elevator for the Captain's Yacht. The design in The Art of Star Trek features this idea, and even is labeled as NCC-1800. The bridge is similar, but no exactly the same. It's obvious that the Tikopai wasn't in any of the films, or else we would have noticed the different bridge and the Yacht elevator.
What about the idea of sub-class? Just like how all Mirandas aren't the same, all Constitution's shouldn't be exactly the same. Similar to how the US Navy's Essex Class is made of nearly half a dozen different sub-classes, all minorly different.
------------------ "The things hollow--it goes on forever--and--oh my God!--it's full of stars!" -David Bowman's last transmission back to Earth, 2001: A Space Odyssey
to them and Minor doing the actual model. I was probably giving too little credit to Jeffries and too much to Minor, but I didn't mean it that way.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
