The Trek BBS

The Trek BBS (
-   Fan Art (
-   -   U.S.S. Constellation NCC-1017 (

uniderth December 23 2013 06:50 PM

U.S.S. Constellation NCC-1017
I've seem the effects reel for the Remastered Doomsday Machine and I was severely disappointed. One of the parts I disliked was the copy and paste use of the Enterprise model to create the Constellation. In the original version the Constellation was clearly distinct from the Enterprise. I realize that the main reason for this is because of budget constraints. They ended up using a 1966 AMT model of the Enterprise for the Constellation. But it is what it is. I just can't buy into the Remastered version of the Constellation.

So, I'm building my own Remastered version of the Constellation based on the 1966 AMT model kit. I think this will keep the feel of the episode while eliminating "this is obviously a plastic model" effect.

The most obvious differences between the Enterprise and Constellation are the color(the constellation seems more white), the rear nacelle caps, the deflector, and the bridge shape. While some may conclude that the bridge shape difference is an error and needed to be eliminated anyway, I think there is an acceptable in universe explanation. We see three accepted varieties of Constitution class bridges in the series. The 1st pilot, 2nd pilot, and main series each had their own bridge varieties. I say that the Constellation Bridge (1966 AMT) version is a fourth variety of Constitution Class bridge.

Anyway here's my progress so far:

publiusr December 23 2013 07:24 PM

Re: U.S.S. Constellation NCC-1017
Thank you for this. You might want to contact Shaw in that he is to do the original AMT as drawings, and that is what Constellation is.

Albertese December 25 2013 06:56 AM

Re: U.S.S. Constellation NCC-1017
Very nice. As I'm sure you're aware, every part of the AMT kit was differently proprtioned from the 11' Enterprise, so, to my eye, the Constellation always seemed like a different class of ship to me (which that radically lower registry number could be argued to support).

Very nice project to see happen. I hope you leave the depressed ring around the upper sensor dome, just like on the AMT kit... for me, that's one of the major stand out features that sets it apart.


aalenfae December 25 2013 12:29 PM

Re: U.S.S. Constellation NCC-1017
Looking forward to seeing the Constellation in her doesn't-look-like-a-cheap-plastic-model glory!

I never cared for the 1017 registry, though. Even if it is a totally different class than the Constitution-class, it's similar enough that it could only be a mk1/mk2 kind of thing. That doesn't really justify the low registry. Maybe the NCC-1017 was actually an entirely different ship class in decades before, and after an exemplary service record, it was retired, but rechristened as a Constitution-class starship (albeit an earlier, more primitive model than the Enterprise). Sort of like what happened with the 1701 to the 1701-A, but before the letter designations came into standard use.
So there'd be the "original" Constellation, and the Constellation we see in TOS.

Anyways, that's just some random ramblings. I eagerly await more updates!

JES December 29 2013 08:27 PM

Re: U.S.S. Constellation NCC-1017
I can tell that she has just been started, but I think she is off to a good start.

I've also read into the possibility the Constellation was a member of a class that was earlier than the Constitution class, but similar enough that she could be refitted to Constitution class specs, similar to how the Constitution class was later refitted completely, but still different enough from the Constitution and her sisters that there were some differences proportionally. It might explain the 1700- registries, without resorting to the idea that Starfleet couldn't think of the letter treatment in the first place.

Perhaps like Tobias Richter's Saladin class, perhaps early vessels used or were to use parts shared with the later Constitution class used parts similar to those used by the Kelvin. Maybe the Constellation, Eagle, and their sisters originally looked like MadMan1701's Constellation, before they were as they appeared as sister ships of the Constitution and Enterprise?

Maybe during this time, Starfleet tried to use hulls for as long as reasonable if they could be converted using a reasonable amount of time or resources, or if a ship had a distinguishing enough career?

uniderth December 30 2013 01:37 AM

Re: U.S.S. Constellation NCC-1017
Thanks for the comments. I really like aalenfae's idea that it is named after a previous ship. Yet the issue with that theory is that there is no "A" after the number. My original theory is that registry numbers are not necessarily based on the order of production. Rather they are based on the overall purpose of the ship. This might explain why, in the 100 years since Starfleet was founded, the primary registry number is only 17. So according to my theory there would be 17 primary types of ships used in Starfleet. Lets say for example that the 10's were a cargo type ship. The interior configuration of the Constellation may have been gear towards cargo transport(This is just an example and not necessarily what I think it is). This would explain why it was 1017 rather than 17--. But at this point we could arbitrarily assign any primary registry number to any general ship class.

As far as the look of the Constellation. After reading the thread about why there isn't alien technology in Starfleet designs; I came up with a theory. Suppose each planet has their own ship production facilities. Starfleet could send the ship specifications to each production facility and then each planet builds the ships. With differing construction techniques each planet might produce slightly different ships. So they would all be the same class yet look a bit different. Perhaps the the Constellation was built at a Vulcan or Andorian construction yard.

Albertese December 30 2013 03:13 PM

Re: U.S.S. Constellation NCC-1017
Having only 17 ship types in 100 years doesn't seem too unbelievable to me. After all, that's a whole new class of ship being rolled out, on average, every five or six years. Assuming a service life of only 20 years, that's still a lot of overlap between designs.

At that rate, a ship with a 10** registry might be about 40 years old, which matches the service life we know the Enterprise had, if we assume it was launched in 2245 and lost in 2283... having a fully refit ship be in service four decades later is hardly unprecedented.


erifah December 30 2013 11:46 PM

Re: U.S.S. Constellation NCC-1017
No two ships in the real world are identical. The sister ships to the Titanic are instructive on that!

So, I like where you're going with this idea. A few outstanding artists here have made the original studio Enterprise model look amazing and real and able to hold up to modern expectations.

So why not do the same thing for the AMT model?

uniderth April 28 2014 11:04 PM

Re: U.S.S. Constellation NCC-1017
I didn't have my hard drive with the Valiant on it with me today so I did a little work on this bad boy.

Bernard Guignard April 29 2014 12:17 AM

Re: U.S.S. Constellation NCC-1017
Very nice:techman:

Ensign Ro- April 29 2014 01:18 AM

Re: U.S.S. Constellation NCC-1017
I really look forward to your progress on this. It's a fun project. Best of luck to you and keep those updates coming often. ;-)

uniderth May 1 2014 06:09 AM

Re: U.S.S. Constellation NCC-1017
Not much modeling, but I've been working on some textures and render settings.

uniderth May 2 2014 11:20 PM

Re: U.S.S. Constellation NCC-1017
It took me a couple hours to get the basic hull paneling drawn. It's still need's a lot of work so it isn't as repetitive. But I just couldn't wait to pots pictures. I'm still adjusting the weathering.

drt May 3 2014 08:12 PM

Re: U.S.S. Constellation NCC-1017
Looking good.

You're making me want to go get an AMT kit.

publiusr May 9 2014 11:27 PM

Re: U.S.S. Constellation NCC-1017
AMT lives!

All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:04 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.