posted
Recently we had a very successful kind of "collection of data" on the Cheyenne class and came up with some very impressive results. I think we should put all of our talents together again (discussion, graphic etc) and come up with some data for the good old New Orleans.
Specifically, I think we should storm the beaches of the expert.forum over at startrek continuum and demand to know what those pods on the New Orleans are for and not take "not sure didn't design'em for an answer"
Just a thought, feel free to express your thoughts here too.
The saucer is definitely a Galaxy type saucer with scratched windows combining two decks to one. I don't care much about the lifeboat sizes, they are just rectangles and not necessarily the same as of the Galaxy. The bridge could be taken from the 18" model while the saucer could be from the 10" version. However, the bridge looks less detailed than the Cheyenne bridge. Maybe it is supposed to represent another version, or the 18" bridge was just not available, or the image is just blurred.
Could the additional pods be textmarkers? I think we can assume the two top and the one bottom pod have exactly the same size and shape.
In the top view the nacelles look a bit different (less wide) than the Galaxy nacelles, however, the bottom view clearly shows they are the same type (only much smaller!). The pylons could be made of any bended polystyrene part, they are probably not modified Galaxy pylons as in my preliminary schematic.
The enginering hull causes some problems. First, it is a significantly extended Galaxy engineering hull. I can't imagine how they actually could assemble two hulls and nevertheless obtain a harmonic curvature. Second, I'm not so sure about the neck. It is a modified GCS neck and it has to be a lot less steep or a piece has to be cut off, since the bottom view shows the engineering hull is very close to the saucer. However, the top view looks as if it were exactly the same size and steepness of the GCS neck (maybe less steep, though). Finally, the engineering hull front end is straight beneath the saucer center, maybe even in front of it. If I'm right with my estimation, the Galaxy forward torp launcher would already be partially inside the saucer, so I didn't draw it, although there is something like a launcher visible in the bottom view.
posted
Well I went over to expert.forum myself and posted the question to Rick and here's what I got...
If we're still talking about one of the kitbashes for the ship graveyard, and the pods being glued-on Stabilo highlighter markers, then I still don't have a clue on what they were supposed to be. I'll ask Mike O.
Rick
Okay, he says the pods are the Stabilo markers but my guess is he's confusing the Cheyenne's warp engine pods. I'll try to clarify and refer him to the USS Kyushu pics in the Encyclopedia.
posted
Actually if you look at the bottom side pic of the Kyushu above, that pod does look like a highlighter marker with the endcap's bottom cut open and if you look hard enough, you can almost see the pocket clip at the aft end of the pod.
posted
Well, it reminds me of this "classic" marker.
If it's "The Boss", they have glued one and a half pens together. In this case it can't be the small saucer of the 10" model, but it would be the big 18" one. This would also explain that the bridge is so roughly detailed.
posted
I'm not sure what the extra pods are for (I never much cared about that stuff anyway), but I can speculate on how the model was built. Since the saucer was made from the smaller ERTL Enterprise kit, the neck is probably just chopped off to make it shorter. The neck on that kit is molded into the bottom saucer piece if I remember correctly, so this seems like the most likely way they would have shortened it. Of course, this raises the issue of how they got it to fit when attaching it to the engineering hull. Actually, I doubt that it really did fit well, since it was just a study model, it's unlikely that anyone went to much trouble to smooth out the fit.
IP: Logged
Pedro
Ex-Member
posted
Also, keep in mind that the pictures from the Encyclopedia (the one's on my site), are of a CGI reconstruction of the ship, so the slight variations from Galaxy parts are due to it being 'remodeled'. I'm fairly certain the study model used standard Galaxy parts.
Ooh, I almost forgot...there is a picture of the original study model that will shed alot of light on things.
posted
Alright, on to actual data on the New Orleans, instead of construction. Here's all my ideas. First, the little do-dads. I have three guesses.
1) The New Orleans class was built as Starfleet's first 'warship', loaded down with torpedoes. It's highly likely the ship can seperate, which means the top would have 2 launchers, and the bottom two as well (the one on the neck and the pod).
2) The New Orleans class was built as a new-age Soyuz class. Judging from the fact that she has all these pods, it reminded me of our four-poded friend (or fiend), the Soyuz. If she were a purely science vessel with large sensor pods, it would leave the ship with a single torp launcher, ideal for small science vessels. Unfortunatly, the names of the New Orleans class ships don't support this idea (Renegade in particular).
3) The New Orleans class is Starfleet's first try at a 'Nebulaized' class. The three pods may be interchangeable equipment pods. Each pod may contain not only a torp launcher, but extra sensors as well, or all of one and none of the other, depending on which pod is on at that time.
Anyway, i think those are the 3 main types of New Orleans there could possibly be.
------------------ "The one, the only, THE 359!"
[This message was edited by The359 on March 19, 1999.]
posted
If they have a CGI NO, why don't they friggin' use it?!
Ahem... *calms self* Anyway, back to the subject at hand, the original model seems to have the same outsized deck one as the Cheyenne, so I would guess that they used the small saucer and large bridge again. And the secondary hull is much more rounded in the back, so it looks like they probably used a regular one, not some weird, pointy one, as the CGI one suggests...
------------------ "You're a looney." -Graham Chapman, Monty Python and the Holy Grail
posted
Well its a CGI rendering, but not good enough quality or the right *type* of rendering to put in use as a visual effect. I think Sternbach is trying to refer me away from him and on to Mike Okuda who would have had the Kyushu CGI rendered for the encyclopedia.
I also agree that it is composed of the 10" model with the 18" bridge module which appears abnormally undetailed because of the rendering process.
[This message was edited by Shipbuilder on March 20, 1999.]
posted
OK, yeah the NO pods DO look like highlighter markers - in the Kyushu study model - there is also another thing that has struck me about the study model - look at the nacelles, they seem longer than a Galaxy's nacelles, I don't think the GC had two indentations on the dorsal side of the nacelles...
Andrew
------------------ With the first link, a chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably." Capt. Jean-Luc Picard - The Drumhead
posted
Now, there's a picture of the study model in the original encyclopedia, and it's intact...how did they manage that?
------------------ http://frankg.dgne.com/ Dead End: "If we surrender our energon we're doomed." Breakdown: "And if we don't we're doomed too." Dead End: "Face it. We're doomed."
posted
OK, a few suggestions for the original ency Kyushu Maybe the pic was taken before it was battle damaged
maybe the battle damaged stuff was superficial?
maybe it too is a CGI version?
We need to ask Mike Okuda...
also, some schematics have the nacelle pylons swept backwards, I believe they look perpendicular to the secondary hull? anyone else?
Andrew
------------------ With the first link, a chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably." Capt. Jean-Luc Picard - The Drumhead
posted
Fed: The Renegade database has some major flaws, including a faulty calculation of deck count and overall size, but the schematics seem to be pretty correct.
Pedro: I'm not sure about the neck, because it doesn't look shorter. It looks just the same as a GCS neck from the same angle, but I might be wrong.
The damaged NO looks actually different. Where did you get the image? There are two pronounced raised rectangles on the pods, and the pods look even more like highlighters. The nacelles actually seem to be longer, as AndrewR pointed out, but did they really attach another rear piece, so there are two indentations? The nacelles don't look that long, but I'll check it out.
Still, I'm not sure about the size of the model. If the pods are actually some kind of pens, the model would have to be much larger than the 10" E-D kit. Unfortunately, the bridge can not be identified on the damaged model.
Frank: The nacelles do look longer indeed on the Ency I photo. I'm sure it's the actual model before it was damaged.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
