RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 141,572
Posts: 5,514,472
Members: 25,151
Currently online: 510
Newest member: slarlac249

TrekToday headlines

Two New Starships Collection Ships
By: T'Bonz on Dec 26

Captain Kirk’s Boldest Missions
By: T'Bonz on Dec 25

Trek Paper Clips
By: T'Bonz on Dec 24

Sargent Passes
By: T'Bonz on Dec 23

QMx Trek Insignia Badges
By: T'Bonz on Dec 23

And The New Director Of Star Trek 3 Is…
By: T'Bonz on Dec 23

TV Alert: Pine On Tonight Show
By: T'Bonz on Dec 22

Retro Review: The Emperor’s New Cloak
By: Michelle on Dec 20

Star Trek Opera
By: T'Bonz on Dec 19

New Abrams Project
By: T'Bonz on Dec 18


Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.


Go Back   The Trek BBS > Star Trek Fandom > Fan Art

Fan Art Post your Trek fan art here, including hobby models and collectibles.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old December 11 2008, 08:15 PM   #31
ncc-1017-e
Captain
 
Location: atlanta georgia unitedstates
Re: If You Could Re-Imagine the Constitution-Class Refit...

^ I think the bridge set from TMP is just a outstanding design!
__________________
Jeff Thorn
ncc-1017-e is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 22 2008, 12:24 AM   #32
CuttingEdge100
Commodore
 
CuttingEdge100's Avatar
 
Re: If You Could Re-Imagine the Constitution-Class Refit...

Another thing that I would revise would be the size of the ship.

This has come up in another forum that the original concept for the NCC-1701 called for a 540 foot-long ship design which Matt Jeffries changed to 1,080 feet. While Matt Jeffries had later stated the ship to be 947 feet in length, it would appear that at least one ST-fan had actually measured the ship based on various markings on the ships hull and confirmed the 1,080 foot figure.

This would increase the Enterprise by approximately 14% (1080/947 = 1.1404435). The refit as a result would go from 304.7 meters to 347.5 meters (347.493m)
CuttingEdge100 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 22 2008, 01:11 AM   #33
Shaw
Commodore
 
Shaw's Avatar
 
Location: Twin Cities
Re: If You Could Re-Imagine the Constitution-Class Refit...

CuttingEdge100 wrote: View Post
This has come up in another forum that the original concept for the NCC-1701 called for a 540 foot-long ship design which Matt Jeffries changed to 1,080 feet. While Matt Jeffries had later stated the ship to be 947 feet in length, it would appear that at least one ST-fan had actually measured the ship based on various markings on the ships hull and confirmed the 1,080 foot figure.
The facts are that Jefferies didn't change the length (at any point) to 1080 feet, and the hull markings you are referring to only supported the original 540 foot length which existed before the final plans were finished (and models constructed) and never implied anything else. In fact those markings only made sense (as I recall) if you included the original dome cover over the dish on the secondary hull (which was absent from the final construction plans).

If you want a longer ship, use a longer ship. But please don't misstate the facts as some form of justification for it. If you don't care for the show's facts, ignore them (this is all fiction after all). But clouding the historical facts of the original production is messing with real history.

Thanks.
Shaw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 22 2008, 02:51 AM   #34
Cary L. Brown
Rear Admiral
 
Location: Austin, Texas
Re: If You Could Re-Imagine the Constitution-Class Refit...

CuttingEdge100 wrote: View Post
I know most members are perfectly happy with the Constitution Class Refit design, but "most" doesn't mean "all"...

So I ask, if you could re-imagine the Constitution-Class design's exterior/interior design and details to virtually any degree that you want, how would you go about it?


CuttingEdge100
First off... it doesn't look the same, it has different capabilities... it's a new class. So the very first thing I'd do would be to make it "official" that it's a NEW CLASS OF SHIP. And I'd stick with (since Enterprise was the first ship rebuilt to that configuration) "Enterprise Class."

Second... I've always felt that the exposed-nernies-torpedo-tube design clashed with the rest of the ship. I'd use one of the earlier ideas (probably the retractable-shutters one) Andrew Probert proposed.

Third, I'd make some clear detail on the underside of the secondary hull to indicate where the antimatter pods (and, potentially, the antimatter refill port) would be. This would occupy the location currently occupied by the four "lower phasers" most likely.

Fourth, I'd add an aft torpedo tube, where the "neck exhaust" is now. The overall structure in that area would still look much the same as it does now, however.

Fifth, I'd probably rework the general shape of the nacelles... eliminating the "stair-step" appearance and giving it a smoother shape overall (but keeping the same shape otherwise) I'd make the radiator grids on the outside flush or convex rather than concave (technical reasons) and I'd seriously revisit the front "copper bump" in front of these features... probably making them into a fully-spherical object which partially protrudes through the exterior of the nacelle (maybe even giving that the TOS-ish "swirly light" effect?) I'd keep the fin structures on the aft of the nacelle but transform them into something more technical and less artistic... something more reminiscent of what the original had (heat pipe-based radiator elements). I'd probably also eliminate the "intake grills" on the top surface (USELESS) and instead expand the amount of available intake surface on the front of the nacelle.

Oh, and I'd totally eliminate the TMP "primary hull underside notch docking ports" and replace them with edge-of-hull ports (possibly modifying the so-called main gangway hatch for this purpose. But I'd keep the other hatches we see down there, and might well keep those hatches as well... but have them all be for "rapid replenishment" operations in port, to allow loading of foodstuffs, cargo, replacement of expended atmosphere processing hardware, etc.

One last thing... not a "change" but rather something I'd work hard to KEEP... the main deflector dish on the 1701(r) wouldn't be blue all the time... it'd start as basic metal (maybe even "copper") but would gradually glow with energy output. They did something very close to this in TMP but abandoned it afterwards, and I missed that...
Cary L. Brown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 22 2008, 04:17 AM   #35
CuttingEdge100
Commodore
 
CuttingEdge100's Avatar
 
Re: If You Could Re-Imagine the Constitution-Class Refit...

Shaw,

I don't think the ship's overall length would matter whether it had that dome on the front of the sensor dish or not...


Cary L. Brown,

What do you mean regarding the torpedo design? The retractable shutter thing...


CuttingEdge100
CuttingEdge100 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 22 2008, 04:48 AM   #36
Cary L. Brown
Rear Admiral
 
Location: Austin, Texas
Re: If You Could Re-Imagine the Constitution-Class Refit...

CuttingEdge100 wrote: View Post
Shaw,

I don't think the ship's overall length would matter whether it had that dome on the front of the sensor dish or not...


Cary L. Brown,

What do you mean regarding the torpedo design? The retractable shutter thing...


CuttingEdge100
Rather than trying to describe it, I'll just give you a link...

http://www.probertdesigns.com/Folder...pedoTubes.html
Cary L. Brown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 22 2008, 05:16 AM   #37
Shaw
Commodore
 
Shaw's Avatar
 
Location: Twin Cities
Re: If You Could Re-Imagine the Constitution-Class Refit...

CuttingEdge100 wrote: View Post
Shaw,

I don't think the ship's overall length would matter whether it had that dome on the front of the sensor dish or not...
Okay... so this basically shows that you really have no idea what you were talking about when you said...
"...it would appear that at least one ST-fan had actually measured the ship based on various markings on the ships hull and confirmed the 1,080 foot figure."
It is even worse when you were misrepresenting something you know nothing about.

Just out of curiosity, do you know what you were talking about? Maybe you could link back to the person you are getting this info from... but I sure hope it wasn't me.

If you don't actually know what you are saying... consider not saying it. We don't need this misinformation. So again I ask, please don't misstate the facts as some form of justification for your wanting a large ship.

Thanks.
Shaw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 23 2008, 03:06 AM   #38
CuttingEdge100
Commodore
 
CuttingEdge100's Avatar
 
Re: If You Could Re-Imagine the Constitution-Class Refit...

Sorry, got it confused. It wasn't some desire for a larger ship. From what I read I thought it was the correct figure and as a result operated around it.


CuttingEdge100
CuttingEdge100 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 24 2008, 10:06 PM   #39
CuttingEdge100
Commodore
 
CuttingEdge100's Avatar
 
Re: If You Could Re-Imagine the Constitution-Class Refit...

Still while I'm at it. Which figures seem to be the most accurate?

Especially factoring in that the Constitution-Class (Pre-Refit) had 10-foot corridors (with almost certainly some space between the decks) at least a few inches of skin thicknesses and such...


CuttingEdge100
CuttingEdge100 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 24 2008, 11:24 PM   #40
Shaw
Commodore
 
Shaw's Avatar
 
Location: Twin Cities
Re: If You Could Re-Imagine the Constitution-Class Refit...

CuttingEdge100 wrote: View Post
Still while I'm at it. Which figures seem to be the most accurate?
The correct ones.

But when you start actually putting some time into a study of this (rather than guessing), I'll be interested in seeing what you come up with.

My studies show that 10 foot decks (with a few inches between) done exactly how Jefferies designed it works fine. But if you think you have to have two feet between decks and a three to five foot thick hull... use something bigger.

Considering that the corridors have walls that are more than 2 feet thick and were shown to house all the stuff that people assume must be in the floors, what other reason would you need more than a couple inches between decks?

Here is something to take into consideration, for anything you think would be needed size wise for supporting the Enterprise... divide that estimate by four! If you think the atmospheric equipment would need a certain amount of space, give it a quarter of that. Food storage, water storage, waste reclamation equipment, etc... quarter or less for them too. This is hundreds of years in the future, so less is more.

Honestly, if I wasn't constrained by the show... everything would be even smaller than what I'm putting forward in my plans. Tons of wasted space because 20th century standards were being applied.

The problem with most fans is that they want the Enterprise today... asking how could we do it today? rather than how might it be done hundreds of years from now. So don't feel bad if you can't imagine where technology might take us long after we are dead because you are in good company.
Shaw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 25 2008, 11:50 AM   #41
darkwing_duck1
Vice Admiral
 
Location: the Unreconstructed South
Re: If You Could Re-Imagine the Constitution-Class Refit...

I would go with either Gabe's ship or Madkoifish's ship for the exterior, slightly revamped TOS costumes, props, etc, and the corridor and bridge sets from the new movie (after de-cluttering the bridge).
darkwing_duck1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 25 2008, 03:10 PM   #42
ncc-1017-e
Captain
 
Location: atlanta georgia unitedstates
Re: If You Could Re-Imagine the Constitution-Class Refit...

^ What you have to be kidding!
__________________
Jeff Thorn
ncc-1017-e is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 25 2008, 03:22 PM   #43
Herkimer Jitty
Rear Admiral
 
Herkimer Jitty's Avatar
 
Location: Dayglow, New California Republic
Send a message via Windows Live Messenger to Herkimer Jitty
Re: If You Could Re-Imagine the Constitution-Class Refit...

Gabe's ship, while a nice model, really isn't the TOS/TMP style. It's got Campbells Chunky Hull Plating and more cowlings than a WWII fighter squadron.
__________________
STAR TREK: 1964-1965½, 1966-1969, Jan. 21-23 1972, 1979-2001, 2003-2005, 2009-?
Herkimer Jitty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 25 2008, 03:27 PM   #44
ncc-1017-e
Captain
 
Location: atlanta georgia unitedstates
Re: If You Could Re-Imagine the Constitution-Class Refit...

Question, what is this Madkoifish ship design? Imay not have seen it. I can't place it. I love Gab's design, just not for a TMP refit! TMP refit is perfect to me!
__________________
Jeff Thorn
ncc-1017-e is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 25 2008, 03:29 PM   #45
Cary L. Brown
Rear Admiral
 
Location: Austin, Texas
Re: If You Could Re-Imagine the Constitution-Class Refit...

Hanukkah Jitty wrote: View Post
Gabe's ship, while a nice model, really isn't the TOS/TMP style. It's got Campbells Chunky Hull Plating and more cowlings than a WWII fighter squadron.
Gabe's first take on it was the "parallel universe BSG version" of the Enterprise. Not surprising at all when you consider the pedigree...

Gradually, it did get more "trek-like" and I liked it better. His (I LOVE your term here) "Campbell's Chunky Hull Plating" faded off, for example.
Cary L. Brown is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:22 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.