Constitution, Miranda, and Constelation Class

[blssdwlf]

Undead wrote:

---

Here are some pics:

Starboard bays (1-3)
Port bays (5-7)
Nose bay (4)

Are those the re-done FX for TNG or the original ones? The screenshots would suggest that the Constellation is almost as long as the E-D. The close up of the bridge (in the nose bay picture) looks like it has a tiny bridge was stuck on top of the original dome structure suggesting a ship far larger than being a contemporary of the Connies and Mirandas...

[Dukhat]

blssdwlf wrote:

---

Are those the re-done FX for TNG or the original ones? The screenshots would suggest that the Constellation is almost as long as the E-D. The close up of the bridge (in the nose bay picture) looks like it has a tiny bridge was stuck on top of the original dome structure suggesting a ship far larger than being a contemporary of the Connies and Mirandas...

LOL, you know, in all the years I've seen this ship, I've never noticed that the bridge had that extra dome on it until now (and it's there on the original studio model, not added in with CGI). But honestly I don't think it's supposed to be a smaller bridge. It's probably just another doodad they stuck on the model with the other anime kit parts.

As for the screencaps, I view it as more of a "forced perspective." That is, the Stargazer is actually much closer to the camera than the Enterprise is, and the tractor beam is coming from the Enterprise from an angle instead of being on the same plane as the smaller ship.

Or, perhaps the Stargazer was one of those super-sized ships from Star Trek '09?

[Timo]

As for the screencaps, I view it as more of a "forced perspective." That is, the Stargazer is actually much closer to the camera than the Enterprise is, and the tractor beam is coming from the Enterprise from an angle instead of being on the same plane as the smaller ship.

This would make some plot sense in that the ship originally might fly between the E-D and the Ferengi vessel, as part of the hand-over ceremonies or whatnot. Since the later footage is achieved simply by removing the Ferengi ship, the angle of the tractor beam might be taken to remain constant.

FWIW, the comparison in "Peak Performance" suggests a smaller Constellation, basically conforming to the proper scaling of those LN-64 -style nacelles.

http://tng.trekcore.com/gallery/albu...ormance203.jpg

Incidentally, it's fun but sort of unexpected that this ship type indeed seems to have "main" and "non-main" phasers, as the dialogue of "The Battle" would suggest. In addition to the regular twin emitters on the saucer, there are these single emitters closer to the rim!

And even though these only seem to be part of the real topside, not of the inverted top that forms the saucer bottom, we could speculate that the bottom, never really seen up close on screen, does have them as well - this would be the weapon seen firing in the above wargames shot!

Timo Saloniemi

[T'Girl]

Brainsucker wrote:

---

For Constelation Class, why would they put 4 warp nescele (or whatever it is) when the performance not even better than the 2 warp Nes... errr Engine starship like Constitution.

They didn't just make the standard connie refit primary hull thicker. You can see where the connie disc ends and then there's more diameter still, and the two deck thickness at the outer disc is now what? Five or six deck worth of thickness.

The constellation with no secondary hull is still much more massive than a connie with it's secondary hull, so twice as many engines.

[Unicron]

blssdwlf wrote:

---

Are those the re-done FX for TNG or the original ones? The screenshots would suggest that the Constellation is almost as long as the E-D. The close up of the bridge (in the nose bay picture) looks like it has a tiny bridge was stuck on top of the original dome structure suggesting a ship far larger than being a contemporary of the Connies and Mirandas...

These pics are from the Blu-Ray version of TNG, which I used since TrekCore has been diligently adding those to their galleries. I don't know exactly what may have been done to "clean up" some of the FX shots for the BR discs, but it is fair to say that the numbers on the hangars are far more legible than they are on the DVD screencaps. You can't see any of those numerals clearly, but it seems likely the design intent was for them to be shuttlebays.

[Timo]

...Which is a shame, really, because I would have liked to consider the bow rectangle a state of the art navigational deflector from the 2280s.

Timo Saloniemi

[Dukhat]

Timo wrote:

---

...Which is a shame, really, because I would have liked to consider the bow rectangle a state of the art navigational deflector from the 2280s.

Actually, I consider the "cannon turret-looking" thingie underneath the ship to be the deflector

[Brainsucker]

So Constellation Class is actually bigger than Constitution Class? I just realized it now.

[Timo]

...Although not significantly so in terms of basic dimensions (length, width, height) - so she easily fits through the same spacedock doors and can be moored to the same piers. Those clever engineers!

Timo Saloniemi

[Santaman]

Another ship in the lineage is the Sydney class which is also HUGE volume wise with its blocky single hull.

[The Castellan]

T'Girl wrote:

---

They didn't just make the standard connie refit primary hull thicker. You can see where the connie disc ends and then there's more diameter still, and the two deck thickness at the outer disc is now what? Five or six deck worth of thickness.

The constellation with no secondary hull is still much more massive than a connie with it's secondary hull, so twice as many engines.

Plus one can always put the engines "on shifts" allowing one pair to 'rest', and thereby doubling the operational life of the pods. Very room ship it be.

Dukhat wrote:

---

LOL, you know, in all the years I've seen this ship, I've never noticed that the bridge had that extra dome on it until now (and it's there on the original studio model, not added in with CGI). But honestly I don't think it's supposed to be a smaller bridge. It's probably just another doodad they stuck on the model with the other anime kit parts.

As for the screencaps, I view it as more of a "forced perspective." That is, the Stargazer is actually much closer to the camera than the Enterprise is, and the tractor beam is coming from the Enterprise from an angle instead of being on the same plane as the smaller ship.

Or, perhaps the Stargazer was one of those super-sized ships from Star Trek '09?

I Was thinking that too, the Stargazer just being closer to the camera than the Enterprise.

[Tomalak]

Santaman wrote:

---

Another ship in the lineage is the Sydney class which is also HUGE volume wise with its blocky single hull.

Although that is surely just a simple transport ship. Deck after deck of bedrooms, restaurants, lounges and entertainments, like a cruise liner. Or like the passenger module from Franz Joseph's Ptolemy class.

[Santaman]

I'm not really sure if its a passenger transport, I see her more like a (for the time) large and possibly fast freighter.
Also with a streamlined hull like that probably landing capable.

[Brainsucker]

so... Constelation Class role is actually a freighter? It is make a sense then if it is. Because a freighter needs more power than a cruiser just to reach the same speed. And it should be bigger as it brings a lot of cargo.

[Timo]

Also, ships designed for bulk transport might make for particularly good deep space explorers - historically, they did, offering room for provisions and fuel plus survey gear, and some extra hull strength to cope with environmental threats such as ice, storms, or (through some "expendable" timber) longterm exposure to fancy types of water, woodworms or barnacles, or hard beachings on distant shores. Perhaps that's why Picard flew deep space sorties in this outdated-looking ship in the mid-24th century: she had only received a deep space exploration role at the end of a long career of hauling supplies for the late 23rd century combatants and explorers.

Timo Saloniemi