I'm starting to lean away from the notion of showing every cabin and accounting for each and every bunk, in favor of just blocking out an area of the saucer, labeling it "crew quarters" and calling it a day on that front. At least until I get a decent desktop system up and running and can delve into that level of minutiae.
Just out of curiosity: are you confident that you have enough deck space allocated to house the entire ship's compliment, plus possible supercargo?
Why do you think so many people in red shirts were considered so expendable? Their only job was to clean up all of the scattered bowling pins and chess pieces after a battle...
Well, AMT was originally headquartered in Troy, Michigan, but "Troy class" just doesn't carry enough oomph, "Trojan class" is just too loaded with dirty joke potential....maybe one of the heroes of the Trojan war, perhaps?
Hector or Achilles would both be very appropriate names; both refer to very powerful, fierce and ultimately doomed warriors and nobles. Or, if you want to go with Troy - but don't actually want to use the word -, then you could always use Ilium.
Did up a comparison pic of my cross section (based on Alan Sinclair's layouts) and Shaw's cross section (I'll have that pic up just as soon as photobucket.com finishes up their little maintenance bit), and while I pretty much hit the mark on delineating the decks, he's got slightly different proportions on the ship than either Sinclair or Casimiro. Curiouser and curiouser...
Something to keep in mind is that for the cross-sections I did that included warp engines... I used the engines from my 33" plans as a stand-in. Consequently, the overall length of those drawings is off... though the primary hull dimensions and secondary hull dimensions should be pretty close. I would say that the both of them together should also be right, except that I also used elements of the 33" model's dorsal as a stand-in also... so that might be off a bit too. The last time I compared my old drawings with my current research on the 11' model, the secondary hull was the same. The changes in the shape of the primary hull based on my studies is here, and is the same diameter as my original drawings (but most likely deviates much further from both Sinclair's and Casimiro's). It was the fact that I was using unfinished study drawings and elements from my 33" plans that made me realize I needed to get back to finishing my exterior before continuing with the interior. My first 11 foot plans will be strictly the model as it was in The Cage (worrying about the later modifications at a later date).
That's good, since a big part of my placement of the bridge depends on that pilot bridge dome. I need to know how much I need to fudge to make it work. Anyway, here's the comparison pic...
I think dumping the escape pods will free up plenty of space for crew quarters as well as VIP quarters. I still haven't figured out why Uhura had to give up her quarters for Elaan...maybe the VIP quarters were being renovated that week and weren't available, maybe she needed the higher security requirements accorded a department head, maybe it just the idea of some fuzzbrain in the Federation diplomatic corps as a way of being friendly towards the Elasians. Most likely, it was because Nichelle was bitching about not having enough to do and this was a sure fire way of her having at least one line that wasn't "Hailing frequencies open."
With those big goons following her like dogs?! They look like they could tear the Federation fuzzbrain in half.
Yeah, I think we'll just go with the VIP quarters being renovated that week and uninhabitable. Maybe one of McCoy's lab animals go loose made some major space doody in there....
I suppose in the meantime, I could layout the areas under those four rectangular lights on the upper surface of the saucer. I'm thinking translucent/transparent skylights over large common areas, like a precursor to the TMP rec room.
CRA, > (Still haven't settled on a class name for the > AMT model...any ideas?) In part its a philosopical question. Assuming for the moment that you believe that the Constellation (as originally depicted) is a somewhat different vessel than the Constitution class, the next question is whether you put stock in 1017 being a construction contract registry (indicating an older vessel) or simply an issue of paper work (ID code, etc., something that can be changed). Assuming that 1017 indicates construction contract number for a much older, now refitted vessel, the next philosopical question becomes whether NCC numbers for a class are generally contigious (per Franz Joseph) or whether they are more or less randomly distributed but gradually increasing over time (like TNG). Assuming that NCC numbers more or less should be similar within a given class that can help narrow down the time period. Using canon sources, one is now at a dead end, because other than the earlier Jein provided numbers for other Constitution classes there isn't anything to go on. Beyond that there are only Paramount approved materials produced by third parties or fan-created designs. If either of those last two options are of interest to you in solving this problem I might be able to help, as I have given it some thought and ultimately have to answer the question for myself at some point. The alternative is to just make it up out of whole cloth. I'll leave you to ponder these issues and let us know where you stand philosphically. I'll try to pop back up in a couple of days and see which of these paths you think is worthwhile. Regards, Whorfin
I put absolutely no stock in the "naval construction contract" feldercarb, especially since it doesn't fit all the other registries we've seen. It's a registry number, i.e., about the same as a car's license plate number. It has nothing to do with any kind of construction contract (why the hell would you advertise something like that anyway?). The best I can figure, "N" stands for Federation registry, and "CC" somehow translates into the ship being in Starfleet. The Relativity's registry having "NCV" tells me that it's the first C that stands for Starfleet, with the third letter being more specific as to what type of ship it is. Maybe a Starfleet freighter would have a registry of "NCF-xxxx". What mainly indicates to me that the Constellation is of a slightly different, and older, class than the Enterprise, is a) the registry being so much lower than the Enterprise, and b) the structural differences between the 11 footer and the AMT model. The slightly blockier 18" model works quite well as a slightly less refined design that would soon evolve into the slightly sleeker Constitution class. This approach also allows an in for the Valiant (too old to be a Constitution, too young for a Daedelus), the Republic (NCC-1371), and, if you go with Riker's line in "Where Silence Has Lease", the first Yamato (NCC-1305). Of course, this means the Constellation is a really old ship (around fifty years, if the loss of the Valiant is any indicator), but I can live with that.
Agreed with most of the above. As convenient as it is to make NCC 'Naval Construction Contract' it just doesn't make sense. The 'Navigational Contact Code' idea holds more water, IMHO. I would prefer to believe the three letters don't actually stand for anything and like you suggest just collectively indicate that it's a Federation Starship. However, regarding the AMT kit, I would urge you to consider that it is also possible that the AMT kit specs are merely the closest that the Constellation and her stablemates could be upgraded to Bonhomme Richard specs or whatever you want to call the Enterprise subclass, and the differences are a result of their radically different (Baton Rouge?) original design.