posted
Can anyone tell me how the Constitution-class variant kitbash in the Start Trek: Deep Space Nine - Technical Manual became the Polaris-class?
Is this strictly an invention of a fan that was quickly adopted by others? Has anyone involved with the television series given the model this name? Is there a reason why fans don't consider it to be a refit of the Saladin or Hermes classes like the Enterprise class refit of the Consitution.
PS -- I am using the phrase Enterprise-class to refer to the TOS movie era refit Constitution-class. There is ample evidence to support each side of the debate of what the name of this vessel's class truly is. Please do not debate my usage in this thread.
Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
posted
Polaris is the name given to it by the Last Unicorn games books and it just stuck as cool.
The ship's NOT a refit of anything because it has two nacelles on short pylons branching from the Torp bay in a kind of inverted "T" position. Hermes and Saladin have only one nacelle.
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
capped
I WAS IN THE FUTURE, IT WAS TOO LATE TO RSVP
Member # 709
posted
hey, Starfleet refit the 1701 so much that it was a different shape when it was finished, and still considered it the same class.. im sure it could be argued that the connie-bash was at least related to the Hermes, Saladin or Nelson lines
Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon: Polaris is the name given to it by the Last Unicorn games books and it just stuck as cool.
No it's not. There's no Polaris class in any of the LUG books including the PDF Ship Recognition Manuals . There is a USS Polaris, but that's a Rigel class.
-------------------- "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
Huh. I stand corrected I was certain it came from them....mabye it's the new RPG?
Cool name for the class though.
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
Nah, it's a fan name that started somewhere on the Internet (possibly these very boards). It's like calling the triple nacelled kitbash the Medusa class or Trident class, or calling the USS Curry the Shelley class (though I know exactly where that one started). I can't remember if there was ever a fan applied name for the USS Elkins.
-------------------- "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
Hey! Don't be making derogatory names on my Elkins! She's bueatiful (like a boxer dog is, anyway).
BTW, I'd think the Polaris is a destroyer or an escort and not a Frigate or scout. For her size, the ship is really just engines and weapons after all.
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
I keep meaning to do an update (with varients and production lists and everything) to my history of the Polaris that I did ages ago. I've got it planned out, just need to type it up.
And I think it's a destroyer as well, BTW.
-------------------- "I am an almost extinct breed, an old-fashioned gentleman, which means I can be a cast-iron son-of-a-bitch when it suits me." --Jubal Harshaw
Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
Graham Kennedy says he made up the name because he thinks the ship's side profile looks like the Little Dipper. I can *sort of* see the similarities... but oh well.
(Read the DITL "Comments" page for that little bit.)
-------------------- “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
posted
Thanks for the information MinutiaeMan. I suspected it was a fan-named starship class because of the name Constitution-class variant.
I think that its absurd to say that this starship was an improvisation newly constructed at a Federation shipyard for service in the Dominion war. I prefer to think of it as an old decommissioned class of starship built during the refit Enterpriseera that was recommissioned and pressed into service because of the high ship losses suffered by the Federation. From the write up in the Star Trek: Deep Space Nine - Technical Manual I am assuming that the warp core was replaced and the existing warp engines were improved in some way along with her weapons and navigation systems.
Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Triton: I think that its absurd to say that this starship was an improvisation newly constructed at a Federation shipyard for service in the Dominion war.
Why? If any of these DS9TM designs could be actual "shipbashes," this one would be the most likely candidate. All it really is is a Connie-refit saucer, neck, nacelles, and photorp pod cobbled together. Unlike the other ships, there's no issue of inconsistent scale or impossible combination...
-------------------- The flaws we find most objectionable in others are often those we recognize in ourselves.
Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
I think in this case the effort involved in intergrating all the engineering systems into the neck and saucer (the ones from the absent engineering hull) would be greater than just building a new ship from the keel up.
Besides, I much perfer the idea that it's a refit of the old Saladin/Hermes Class. So what if it has two nacelles instead of one? A refit is supposed to be an improvement!
posted
A refit as you describe it is what Todd Guenther, Aridas Sofia and folks at StarStation Aurora/StarFleet Printing Office postulated for some of the destroyers in their works. The Pompey class they show has dual nacelles that are connected directly to the saucer on very short pylons. I've also seen information which indicates their Siva class destroyer was a dual mounted version. They're supposition at the time was that the single nacelle either didn't provide a stable enough warp field to get any real speed; or that the single nacelle didn't provide enough endurance for the ship, causing long-term problems w/the warp engines, thus high maintenance.
So, I have no problem with it being a refit of a Saladin style destroyer or Hermes class scout, either.
Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
posted
I believe that it isn't a kitbash as described in the "Deep Space Nine Technical Manual" because of the reading that I have done about the development of aircraft, ships, and weapons systems.
These systems are usually in development for ten or more years during which time they are tested and thoroughly debugged.
Now if you were to just weld components together as Sternback describes, extensive testing and system debugging would need to occur before the starship was combat ready. Can the structural integrity field generators keep the starship together or are they too powerful for the revised spaceframe, do the fire control and navigation systems work properly, does the warp core eject when instructed to do so? You don't want to send 115 officers and crew to their deaths without doing extensive testing of the ship's systems.
Further, I have never seen a military power weld surplus parts of weapons system together to have more armament in the field.
Regarding the fan refits of the Saladin and Hermes so they resemble the refit Enterprise, I think that the thin single warp engine looks rather silly. Its like a shoe that ends in a single stiletto heel. The addition of the second warp engine and the little struts give the design a lot more balance and make it look much less frail.
Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
