-------------------- "A film made in 2008 isn't going to look like a TV series from 1966 if it wants to make any money. As long as the characters act the same way, and the spirit of the story remains the same then it's "real" Star Trek. Everything else is window dressing." -StCoop
Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
Those pictures are great! The label says that the model was featured in DS9, too, but is that true? I guess this is a reference to the DS9 pilot, but I'm not aware that the Buran is in there.
Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
^I'm guessing that's wrong; they probably meant that the Buran showed up again in TNG's "Unification" at the surplus depot, which it did thanks to stock footage.
-------------------- "A film made in 2008 isn't going to look like a TV series from 1966 if it wants to make any money. As long as the characters act the same way, and the spirit of the story remains the same then it's "real" Star Trek. Everything else is window dressing." -StCoop
Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
I guess the only shuttlebay would have been a small one behind the bridge- which would have been a tricky takeoff with the nacelle pylon so close.
Also, it looks like the very aft of the ship would have been pointy- the 1:2500th scale model part used there certainly is! It's the aft torpedo launcher- but without the wide (and flat) nacelle pylon support part, it would have been a point with the boxy launcher protruding outward.
I'm a bit disapointed there's no decking inside the model like there was on the (same sized/scaled) New Orleans seemed to have.
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon: I guess the only shuttlebay would have been a small one behind the bridge- which would have been a tricky takeoff with the nacelle pylon so close.
Unfortunately we don't know if there was a shuttlebay there at all, since that part of the ship has been cut out. But if it was designed like the Chekov, then Miarecki probably just sanded the shuttlebay out and had the secondary hull mesh right into the back of the saucer.
Back during the "Wolf 359 research," something Okuda once said has come back to haunt me. He said that this version of the Buran wasn't what Miarecki originally designed, and that Okuda added the submarine conning tower and large nacelles himself. He said that the finished product ended up looking like a lollipop, which it does when viewed from the top (and his statement implies that the Buran didn't look like a lollipop before he made the changes.) So what was Miarecki's original design for the ship? Did it have smaller nacelles on the sides?
-------------------- "A film made in 2008 isn't going to look like a TV series from 1966 if it wants to make any money. As long as the characters act the same way, and the spirit of the story remains the same then it's "real" Star Trek. Everything else is window dressing." -StCoop
Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
Aside from the nacelle size- which is asinine unless it's a tug for larger starships or better still, a repair ship- I rather like this configuration.
Its sharp if you swap the lower nacelle for a small secondary hull with deflector- and reduce the nacelle size. I dig vertical configuration starships.
If anything, i'd like to see more designs using this sized saucer. It seems more of a workhorse than a explorer- something more apt to do the hard follow up when some Dyson Sphere or whatever is found by the Enterprise.
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
The Buran shared the same saucer with the New Orleans and Cheyenne classes, right? That saucer certainly looked very appropriate on those ships.
Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
^Actually, only the Springfield class Chekov used the smaller 1/2500 saucer in its entirety. The Cheyenne used two saucer bottoms glued together; the Buran used the two saucer tops from the same kits, and the New Orleans (like the Melbourne) used the larger 1/1400 saucer (but unlike the Melbourne, it was still meant to represent a smaller ship.)
-------------------- "A film made in 2008 isn't going to look like a TV series from 1966 if it wants to make any money. As long as the characters act the same way, and the spirit of the story remains the same then it's "real" Star Trek. Everything else is window dressing." -StCoop
Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
Yeah- but the saucer diameter on all those ships remains constant scale- with the same sized Galaxy bridge Made for a plausible series of kitbashes that us fans love Contrast that with the (mostly awful) DS9 kitbashed "frankenfleet"- where nothing seems to work scalewise
I think that the BOBW ships were made with the notion that the cameras would see all the details- so extra effort was made- while the DS9 shipbuilders knew the details would be indistinct, so minimum effort was made.
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon: Yeah- but the saucer diameter on all those ships remains constant scale- with the same sized Galaxy bridge
True.
quote:Contrast that with the (mostly awful) DS9 kitbashed "frankenfleet"- where nothing seems to work scalewise
I think that the BOBW ships were made with the notion that the cameras would see all the details- so extra effort was made- while the DS9 shipbuilders knew the details would be indistinct, so minimum effort was made.
Since the BoBW kitbashes were contracted out to Ed Miarecki, a professional modelmaker, to build, the production obviously wanted them to be "official." That's why they were listed in the Encyclopedia. Also, even though Greg Jein's two ships were literally just made from parts of different molds (Ambassador and Galaxy for the Niagara; Galaxy and Constellation for the Freedom), they were considered official too. They were meant to be believable ships from the Galaxy class lineage.
The DS9 kitbashes however, had no such compunction. They were literally built by whoever on the production crew wanted to build them, and were just slapped together with no accounting for scale or logic. They were also meant to be shown in the far distance so no details could be made, although the Curry, the Centaur and the tug ended up getting closeups.
-------------------- "A film made in 2008 isn't going to look like a TV series from 1966 if it wants to make any money. As long as the characters act the same way, and the spirit of the story remains the same then it's "real" Star Trek. Everything else is window dressing." -StCoop
Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
My only problem with the BOBW kitbashes is that the Galaxy nacelles on the Buran, Freedom, and Princeton just look grossly out of proportion to the rest of the ship. But I will say that the New Orleans, Cheyenne, and Springfield classes all look like they would have fit in very well in TNG.
Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
^While I can't speak for the Jein-made ships, as I said before I think the Buran looked very different than the Okuda-modified finished product. Let's look at the Miarecki models:
1. Melbourne: used the large 1/1400 Ent-D saucer and nacelles (along with nacelles from the small 1/2500 kit as add-ons)
2. Kyushu: used the large 1/2400 Ent-D saucer and nacelles. Okuda added three marker pen pods to further distinguish the model from the Ent-D.
3. Ahwahnee: used the small 1/2500 saucer parts and marker pen nacelles.
4. Chekov: used the small 1/2500 saucer and marker pen nacelles.
5. Buran: used the small 1/2500 saucer parts and two large 1/1400 nacelles that Okuda admitted adding to the model later.
Going by this, it's possible that the Buran as Miarecki originally built it also had the smaller marker pen nacelles, but perhaps Okuda thought that it would look too much like the Ent-D from a distance (like he thought the Kyushu would) and made the modifications accordingly.
-------------------- "A film made in 2008 isn't going to look like a TV series from 1966 if it wants to make any money. As long as the characters act the same way, and the spirit of the story remains the same then it's "real" Star Trek. Everything else is window dressing." -StCoop
Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
You may well be right about the Buran. The two Jein designed ships though...ugh. The Princeton at least might look ok with Ambassador nacelles, but the Galaxy ones just look grossly out of whack.
Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
Shik
Starship database: completed; History of Starfleet: done; website: probably never
Member # 343
posted
There ain't no way Kyushu used anything but 1/2500 parts for hulls & nacelles.
Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged
Printer-friendly view of this topic
