posted
Back in 2019 I finally decided to see something I'd wanted to see for a long while . . . TNG-style nacelles swapped on to the Excelsior Class. There are various reasons . . . tightening up the shield bubble, following the TNG-abandoned idea of ship refits that alter the appearance of ships, et cetera. But, in the end, I was simply curious.
This is not a full refit to TNG specs, though I'm interested in doing that sort of thing, too. But, for now, this is just the B-type Excelsior model with to-scale nacelles from a hopefully-accurate-ish New Orleans Class grafted in place. By volume, this seems about right, but given the indications of a greater mass per volume for TOS-era ships then it is entirely possible these wouldn't have the necessary push . . . a B-type Excelsior at TOS density would likely have three times the mass of a New Orleans Class running at Voyager density (or even more if the New Orleans is closer to the unclear-but-lower Galaxy Class density).
(Indeed, it may be that they kept using Excelsior nacelles on Excelsiors because about the only other thing they had off-the-shelf for a ship that massive was Ambassador nacelles, which would've looked entirely silly.)
Finally, this isn't a lit render or even an especially good effort . . . just a relative quickie done in SketchUp.
Prefaces thus out of the way . . .
(You can embiggen the first two by removing "sm" from the end of the filename, if desired.)
-------------------- . . . ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.
Shik
Starship database: completed; History of Starfleet: done; website: probably never
Member # 343
posted
Looks like shit. Not the rendering, the concept. Engines are too short & too bulky. Fucks up the asthetics.
"Put that back where it came from or so help me–!"
-------------------- "The French have a saying: 'mise en place'—keep everything in its fucking place!"
Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged
Shik
Starship database: completed; History of Starfleet: done; website: probably never
Member # 343
posted
Also, you know nacelles are just a shell, right? Like, the fanon idea of plug-&-play stock components has long been canonically negated. It doesn't matter what the outside looks like, it's the innards that matter.
-------------------- "The French have a saying: 'mise en place'—keep everything in its fucking place!"
Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
Intriguing. I agree with Shik that it doesn’t look great, but it’s an interesting thought experiment.
Concerning the nacelles being a shell and not affecting the internal warp coils, that certainly makes sense, but surely the shape of the nacelle would determine the size, shape, and arrangement of said coils inside. If the New Orleans nacelles are shorter but wider, that could easily change something technobabbly.
I’ll tell you the nacelle swap I’d like to see: put Ambassador-class nacelles on the Niagara class. (And the Freedom class too, but that one would look ridiculous no matter what you did with it.) the Niagara always looked incongruous, with an older-looking hull and newer-looking nacelles. (Since they reused the Ambassador secondary hull mold to make it, that’s kinda why I think it looks like an older ship.)
-------------------- “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
It just doesn’t look right. The now-too-long secondary hull in particular.
Though oddly it does remind me a lot of the original Observation Lounge model of the Ent-C as an intermediate between the Excelsior and Galaxy Enterprises. The Probert Ambassador I think it’s usually called?
quote:Originally posted by Shik: Fucks up the asthetics.
So it matches the rest of the Eavcelsior. Seriously, those boxes on the saucer . . . (shudders).
quote: Also, you know nacelles are just a shell, right?
No. What, like several ships could run the same coils yet have different nacelle exteriors? I suppose that's possible, but why even have different exteriors in that case? Seems to me that, at least initially, there'd be a connection between coil type and exterior design. Maybe a future class might end up with a new coil type that can be back-fitted to an earlier class, but it'd be simpler, I'd think, to just use the same nacelle.
Of course, that presumes that each coil is basically the same, which we don't know. Certainly the Sovereign should represent a nightmare of varying coils in those tapering nacelles, though interestingly the MSD seems to suggest they just have a lot of wiggle room at the front.
quote: Like, the fanon idea of plug-&-play stock components has long been canonically negated.
Negated? I wouldn't say that. Certainly, Starfleet fields an absurd number of different classes, given that seemingly every ship is multi-role capable. However, the kitbashes we were just complaining about would seem to reinforce the idea, to some extent, whether they're hasty one-offs or separate classes. See also the Soyuz, Constellation, et cetera.
What I think can most definitely be said (and which I was already working on in blog form) is that ships like the never-the-same-curve-twice Enterprise-D show that they aren't limited to pre-stamped component pieces like some modern body shop. The analogy I'm working on is that of a police cruiser glass repair shop. It's one thing to have to stock some 1992-2011 Crown Vic windshields . . . quite another to have to stock them for every cruiser going back to 1950, plus the various eras of Chevy Impala and Caprice, the newer Tahoe and Dodge Chargers, et cetera.
Still, I can't imagine it isn't simpler to have fewer classes, even if you can just run parts off on a 3-D printer. Knowing where the widget is on deck six and the method of reconnecting it should be reasonably standardized, ideally. Modularity of components would help with this issue, even if we're just talking nacelle bodywork.
-------------------- . . . ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.
quote:Originally posted by MinutiaeMan: I’ll tell you the nacelle swap I’d like to see: put Ambassador-class nacelles on the Niagara class. (And the Freedom class too, but that one would look ridiculous no matter what you did with it.)
With apologies, I don't have models of those, nor do I believe I have adequate anti-nausea medication available to look at them long enough to work with them. ;-)
-------------------- . . . ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.
quote:Originally posted by Lee: It just doesn’t look right. The now-too-long secondary hull in particular.
Though oddly it does remind me a lot of the original Observation Lounge model of the Ent-C as an intermediate between the Excelsior and Galaxy Enterprises. The Probert Ambassador I think it’s usually called?
You're right.
As for the secondary hull length, I imagine a refit featuring new nacelles might easily require more rebuilding of the innards, a la the 1701 refit, which would potentially necessitate (or give opportunities for) other changes.
Certainly, if shield bubble size is a concern, those dozens of meters of nacelle we just recouped would be great, but that shuttlebay sticking out would indeed be a sore thumb.
-------------------- . . . ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.
Shik
Starship database: completed; History of Starfleet: done; website: probably never
Member # 343
posted
quote: What, like several ships could run the same coils yet have different nacelle exteriors?
Yes, exactly. Or, different coils & same exteriors.
quote: but why even have different exteriors in that case?
It's called aesthetics. We've seen that ships are designed in toto rather than piecemealed from stores. Even Nebula had a great deal of differences from Galaxy. Same style, different & original lines. That's the canonical negation I'm talking about. No "stores", no modular standard saucers or nacelles or anything.
And while I'm here, let's talk about that word, "nacelle". It doesn't mean engine, it means a streamlined enclosure usually–but not always–containing an engine. The pods hanging off airliner wings are nacelles. Guess what? They often look the same but get different engines in them. Same with military aircraft. So there's that precedent.
It's been stated or shown several times, onscreen & in official reference works, that each starship gets developed and created on its own. There may be certain similarities in aesthetics, but every piece is made new, even if derived from earlier work on a ship. The class looks like tye class looks, with minimal differences; inside, however, each single ship can be totally unique. Bridges are the same outside & new inside. Need to up-engine? Open the nacelles & do a coil swap; you were going to anyway, might as well put something better in. FASA-style mix-&-matching went out the door as soon as Nebula showed up; earlier, if you take the 359 bashes.
-------------------- "The French have a saying: 'mise en place'—keep everything in its fucking place!"
Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged
quote: but why even have different exteriors in that case?
It's called aesthetics.
"Sir, we're receiving hails from several ugly-as-sin kitbash starships."
quote: We've seen that ships are designed in toto rather than piecemealed from stores. {…}
It's been stated or shown several times, onscreen & in official reference works, that each starship gets developed and created on its own. There may be certain similarities in aesthetics, but every piece is made new, even if derived from earlier work on a ship.
Sometimes that is true. Sometimes it is not.
The Soyuz is clearly mostly a Miranda. The Constellation clearly has a standard saucer-top with extensions and thickenings, along with lightly modified nacelles. The nacelles of the . . . wait, I'm not gonna list every last ship with similar parts. I'd be here all night. I'd be much more interested in hearing where it was stated on screen that each ship class is unique. I certainly don't recall that.
There *are* ships with very unique parts beyond the escape pods, e.g. the newer vessels of the First Contact fleet. However, they're almost the exception proving the rule when compared to the mass of Wolf 359 and Dominion War kitbash classes.
quote: Even Nebula had a great deal of differences from Galaxy. Same style, different & original lines.
Sometimes yes, sometimes not so much. It rather depended on the model, really. Certainly the variances are within the same range as the six-foot Slenderprise versus the four-foot Bulldog, but for missing windows and the like.
quote: And while I'm here, let's talk about that word, "nacelle". It doesn't mean engine, it means a streamlined enclosure usually–but not always–containing an engine.
Yes, but in the Trek context everyone knows what is being referred to. We don't call the three extra New Orleans pods "nacelles", to avoid confusion in this context.
quote: The pods hanging off airliner wings are nacelles. Guess what? They often look the same but get different engines in them. Same with military aircraft. So there's that precedent.
That's true for similar-size engines, though when testing a new engine recently the 747 testbed ended up with huge new nacelles. If the new design had been significantly smaller, instead, one would imagine a smaller nacelle, since a larger one would just be wasteful, aerodynamically speaking.
Using my car example, you can have several engine choices under the same hood, by design, with empty space around the smaller engines. However, there are some vehicles with extended front frame and hood for specific engines, and there are even some crazy SOBs who lengthen body and hood on their cars for new engines.
quote: FASA-style mix-&-matching went out the door as soon as Nebula showed up; earlier, if you take the 359 bashes.
Many of the 359 ships are literally FASA writ TNG canon. How many marker-nacelle classes were there, for instance? How many parts indistinguishable from the long-presumed-retired Constitution?
The kitbash classes favor my view.
-------------------- . . . ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.
posted
I'm an obstinate SOB who twists things and is wrong?
Dude, you're the one sitting there throwing out "it's called aesthetics" and nacelle pedantry along with this heaping BS:
quote:We've seen that ships are designed in toto rather than piecemealed from stores. {…}
It's been stated or shown several times, onscreen & in official reference works, that each starship gets developed and created on its own. There may be certain similarities in aesthetics, but every piece is made new, even if derived from earlier work on a ship.
I'm sorry if my factual and relatively gentle pushback crushed your fantasies of ships shown designed fresh and new and unique with characters discussing the freshness, newness, and uniqueness of every hull plate in scenes that, golly-gee, only you remember.
There *are* some thoroughly unique starships, as I noted. There are plenty that aren't, which you *utterly refuse to acknowledge*. And now you project that I'm an obstinate, twisting, wrong-headed ass?
If you don't want soul-crushing pushback then don't be so obviously wrong next time.
Edit: Damn, I should've printed that out, drawn the circles in crayon, then scanned it. What a missed opportunity!
Edit 2: Seriously, the fact that one would even make the all-classes-are-made-unique argument is just extremely off-the-wall weird, but to then try to insult me for having the audacity to disagree? That's just baffling.
I suppose I could've responded to "it's called aesthetics" without the equally smarmy "receiving hails" bit, but I thought it funny and hopefully disarming rather than, say, responding with tone policing. The rest of my response is, so near as I can tell, completely innocuous. Maybe the final questions about the marker nacelles could be read as pushy, but that's a stretch. In every case, I was acknowledging where there was validity to the "ALL SHIPS ARE TOTERLY UNIQUE" claim by noting that, yes, that *sometimes* is true, while also pointing out that it is sometimes not the case. That negates "ALL SHIPS ARE TOTERLY UNIQUE" as politely as possible, to my mind.
In any case, yes, the field of my F's is *now* barren, but don't try to retroactively apply that upthread. We were having a nice discussion and then you flipped out.
Folks around here have been doing that a lot lately. I'm not talking about the recent canon thread . . . I get that. I'm talking about just random threads where the sudden paragraphs of anger are just way out of place.
It isn't healthy and y'all need to manage your stress or whatever is going on. I get that blasting someone quasi-anonymous online in the vein of the Greater Internet F***wad Theory may feel like stress relief in the moment, but I suspect that only works if the other party just takes it.
As such, I'm not the best target for that. If I've proved anything over the past twenty years of dealing with my anti-me hate mobs and trolls elsewhere, it's that I *will* respond and I *am* capable of being the biggest, most defiant ass in the room. Thus, whatever stress relief exploding at me seems to provide in the moment will, in fact, not be sustained, and will likely backfire. And, if used against others here, even if they seem to take it quietly, it's just promoting a more stressful environment which will circle back and affect you just the same anyway. So, let's everyone choose to find better ways to disagree than insults, hmm?
Shik
Starship database: completed; History of Starfleet: done; website: probably never
Member # 343
posted
Don't get butthurt. I'm an obstinate son of a bitch, too, & if we can't take the piss here after 20+ years, something's wrong.
That being said, I will explain this again. Just because something LOOKS the same does not mean it IS the same. We've seen countless TWOK-era starships with bridge modules that are externally exact copies. Internally, they are vastly different. We have seen this in starship interiors as well. Ergo, it is not a difficult assumption to make that engine elements follow the same pattern, especially when backed by onsceen & franchise supportive elements.
This is very basic & simple. You, however, insist on the opposite, implying that Starfleet has these great racks of pre-made hull parts sitting & waiting to be rearranged into new classes. We've seen that this is not so, many times. We've read it. If you want to keep your beliefs for your personal universe, that's fine, but don't demand that everyone else accept it as word from the mount when really all you have is some clippings left on the floor from the Council of Nicaea.
-------------------- "The French have a saying: 'mise en place'—keep everything in its fucking place!"
Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
Earlier, we were talking about modularity of design, which you rejected:
quote:" Like, the fanon idea of plug-&-play stock components has long been canonically negated {...} ships are designed in toto rather than piecemealed from stores {...} no modular standard saucers or nacelles or anything {...} may be certain similarities in aesthetics, but every piece is made new, even if derived from earlier work on a ship. The class looks like tye class looks, with minimal differences; inside, however, each single ship can be totally unique {...} FASA-style mix-&-matching went out the door as soon as Nebula showed up; earlier, if you take the 359 bashes. "
That's different than pre-built component parts sitting on a really large shelf somewhere. That's never been my argument. Indeed, unlike the Tech Manual, I tried to avoid referring to the kitbash classes as literal, in-universe kitbashes, though the fact they did undercuts your claim of canon and official backing.
Our topic is whether Starfleet could or would swap out warp nacelles between classes, which developed into a more general argument on modularity in ship design. There are two parts to that last aspect, also, being in regards to designing new ships and also in regards to maintaining old ones.
You'd be far better served to attack the idea of interclass nacelle swaps based on notions of pylon stress, nacelle mounting and stress points, plasma conduits, and adapters in hardware and software as opposed to arguing that observed modularity in designs doesn't exist.
Could the Soyuz and Mirandas of the same vintage have different coils and other different nacelle innards? Sure, they could. Does it make sense to assume that? No, absolutely not. That's modularity of design in regards to new classes.
As for modularity for interclass swaps and maintenance, could the Excelsior warp core, power transfer conduits, pylons, and so on be incompatible with the use of the entire nacelles off of a New Orleans? Sure, they could. As I said, "I imagine a refit featuring new nacelles might easily require more rebuilding of the innards, a la the 1701 refit, which would potentially necessitate (or give opportunities for) other changes." However, that possibility is no reason to dismiss the concept of potential modularity out of hand.
That said, as I noted, "ships like the never-the-same-curve-twice Enterprise-D show that they aren't limited to pre-stamped component pieces like some modern body shop". That is, unlike the Constitution with at least a ring of the same pieces around the same saucer deck, the Galaxy ellipse has no identical parts anywhere on it.
I imagine the same sort of reasoning is true of warp coils. For whatever reason, they don't do 1701 appearance-changing refits anymore, and even built the older ship types well into the 24th Century. I don't know why. That's part of what I'd like to explore, but discussion will be quashed by trying to turn it into a damned debate with dodging and strawmanning and name-calling. This is supposed to be fun.
-------------------- . . . ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
