RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 135,703
Posts: 5,213,835
Members: 24,210
Currently online: 690
Newest member: MaileDetty


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 > Misc. Star Trek > Trek Tech

Trek Tech Pass me the quantum flux regulator, will you?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old October 30 2012, 10:09 AM   #31
Santaman
Rear Admiral
 
Santaman's Avatar
 
Location: A little while in the past.
Re: Constitution, Miranda, and Constelation Class

^^ On top of that freighters also use engines, powerplants and other equipment that has been in use for aaaaaaaaages which makes them easy to fix and very reliable.
__________________
"Sword is personal, brings slicing to a man, you getta that personal feedback, nuclear weapons?.. Meh, goes off big bang and you don't get any feeling.."
Santaman is online now   Reply With Quote
Old October 30 2012, 12:56 PM   #32
Timo
Admiral
 
Re: Constitution, Miranda, and Constelation Class

Or then so outdated that any modern high-strung military system would be more user-friendly, less likely to break down, and with better life expectancy overall...

It's not as if the engine systems of the Stargazer or the Hathaway would have obviously differed from those of the Enterprise-A or the Reliant, either.

Timo Saloniemi
Timo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 30 2012, 01:13 PM   #33
BK613
Captain
 
BK613's Avatar
 
Location: BK613
Re: Constitution, Miranda, and Constelation Class

The Mirandas and Constellations would be starship designs that were geared toward assisting colonization efforts rather than exploration, maybe?
__________________
-------------------
"The single biggest problem with communication is the illusion that it has taken place." - George Bernard Shaw
BK613 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 30 2012, 01:50 PM   #34
Timo
Admiral
 
Re: Constitution, Miranda, and Constelation Class

The thing is, we see the dedicated transport Sydney, and she carries no identifiable armament. All the other three designs to use those engines are more or less identically armed; if anything, the Constitution is the least militant of them, with just two torpedo tubes against the apparent four of the competitors, and with just one more explicit phaser turret than the Constellation (and perhaps actually four less, if we assume the dorsal five single turrets of the Stargazer are ventrally mirrored despite the model not actually having that detail).

"Geared towards colonization" sounds a tad thin if it entails adding some shuttlebays but also quite a bit of firepower. Perhaps "geared towards planetary assault" might be more like it?

Timo Saloniemi
Timo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 30 2012, 02:04 PM   #35
blssdwlf
Commodore
 
Re: Constitution, Miranda, and Constelation Class

Speaking of the Constellation-class, looking at those screenshots it would appear that she has at least some of those phasers on the rim mirrored on her ventral as she fires one from the outer tip in "The Battle". So 22 phaser emitters at a minimum. But she seems to only have the standard two forward photon torpedo launchers (no aft facing ones).
blssdwlf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 30 2012, 02:25 PM   #36
Timo
Admiral
 
Re: Constitution, Miranda, and Constelation Class

She doesn't fire in "The Battle", but in "Peak Performance". It's fortunate that the distant shot from that episode is essentially the only one to ever reveal the underside of the model on screen, so we don't learn the sad truth:

http://images4.wikia.nocookie.net/__...alkyrie-02.jpg

As for the torpedo launchers, those were never actually painted in or lit. The torp decks of the Constitution neck piece were simply installed as is but left unpainted - just like the blue domes in the Constitution impulse engine pieces were left unlit. But supposedly there are twin launchers at both the top and the bottom pylon, giving the total of four. Good shots of them don't exist, alas.

The desktop model does nicely show where the top pair would go, though. This allows us to spot it in the Stargazer onscreen bow view as well, despite the lack of illumination.

http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/sc...on-yellow2.jpg

And here's a shot showing the great likelihood of the bottom pair also existing.

http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/sc...christies1.jpg

Might be these aren't torp launchers, of course. But the ship has those somewhere, as per dialogue from "The Battle". It would be a bit clumsy to claim that an all-new fixture (such as the odd barrel on the underside) is a torpedo launcher if also simultaneously claiming that these familiar features are not.

Timo Saloniemi
Timo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 30 2012, 02:51 PM   #37
Savious
Lieutenant Junior Grade
 
Re: Constitution, Miranda, and Constelation Class

I always viewed the Constitution class being slightly larger, with its lower hull, as having more space, more storage, giving it a greater range. Kind of like a Cruiser; whereas the Miranda didn’t have the lower hull, its range was lesser, would have to pull into ports more often, or require some kind of supply line. Another words, the Constitution could be used for missions requiring them to operate independently for longer periods of time, like deep space exploration. And the Miranda, would be used for operations closer to home, like border patrol, or assisting in colonization’s, science studies, etc. The Constellation, with its four nacelles; and still no lower hull; well speed for internal operations.
Savious is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 30 2012, 05:28 PM   #38
BK613
Captain
 
BK613's Avatar
 
Location: BK613
Re: Constitution, Miranda, and Constelation Class

Timo wrote: View Post

"Geared towards colonization" sounds a tad thin if it entails adding some shuttlebays but also quite a bit of firepower. Perhaps "geared towards planetary assault" might be more like it?

Timo Saloniemi
Well, ships do have their wartime uses...

Conversely, a ship charged with aiding colonization efforts might have fewer tactical options (no running out on the civilians) and may be required to stand and fight more often, hence the greater firepower.
__________________
-------------------
"The single biggest problem with communication is the illusion that it has taken place." - George Bernard Shaw
BK613 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 31 2012, 04:51 AM   #39
TheRoyalFamily
Commodore
 
TheRoyalFamily's Avatar
 
Re: Constitution, Miranda, and Constelation Class

Timo wrote: View Post

"Geared towards colonization" sounds a tad thin if it entails adding some shuttlebays but also quite a bit of firepower. Perhaps "geared towards planetary assault" might be more like it?
That's what I'd think. The military probably wouldn't be too interested in shipping around civilian colonies; a lot of them aren't even necessarily Federation to start with. Starfleet, of course, has an interest in protecting most everybody from everything (as long as it doesn't violate the prime directive ), so there's that.

But what would any military (de facto or official) want with fast, armed transports? Delivering stuff in dangerous situations, of course. Like a planetary assault - which Starfleet would do, if they had to drive out the Klingons or whomever. And if you can't reliably use transporters for whatever reason, you gotta have lots of shuttles, preferably in lots of bays so there's less of a bottleneck.
__________________
You perceive wrongly. I feel unimaginable happiness wasting time talking with women. I'm that type of human.
TheRoyalFamily is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 31 2012, 07:22 AM   #40
blssdwlf
Commodore
 
Re: Constitution, Miranda, and Constelation Class

Timo wrote: View Post
She doesn't fire in "The Battle", but in "Peak Performance".
Whoops, you're right I mixed it the two up.

Timo wrote: View Post
It's fortunate that the distant shot from that episode is essentially the only one to ever reveal the underside of the model on screen, so we don't learn the sad truth:

http://images4.wikia.nocookie.net/__...alkyrie-02.jpg
On the other hand, did the USS Valkyrie ever make it to the TV or movie series? If not, does this even count?

Timo wrote: View Post
As for the torpedo launchers, those were never actually painted in or lit. The torp decks of the Constitution neck piece were simply installed as is but left unpainted - just like the blue domes in the Constitution impulse engine pieces were left unlit. But supposedly there are twin launchers at both the top and the bottom pylon, giving the total of four. Good shots of them don't exist, alas.

The desktop model does nicely show where the top pair would go, though. This allows us to spot it in the Stargazer onscreen bow view as well, despite the lack of illumination.

http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/sc...on-yellow2.jpg

And here's a shot showing the great likelihood of the bottom pair also existing.

http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/sc...christies1.jpg

Might be these aren't torp launchers, of course. But the ship has those somewhere, as per dialogue from "The Battle". It would be a bit clumsy to claim that an all-new fixture (such as the odd barrel on the underside) is a torpedo launcher if also simultaneously claiming that these familiar features are not.
I'm hesitant to use the desktop model as an accurate example since it is missing the rim phaser emitters.

I'm thinking with those painted white in the front and lacking in torpedo launcher details that those are not torpedo launchers at all for the top and bottom parts.

You can see the top one clearly in this screenshot and it is painted white with no torpedo tubes.

http://tng.trekcore.com/gallery/albu.../battle069.jpg

There are also two more shots where we can see the bottom section and it too is also painted white and lacking the tubes.

Oh well, it looks like we don't know how many torpedo tubes she has.
blssdwlf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 31 2012, 08:42 AM   #41
throwback
Captain
 
Re: Constitution, Miranda, and Constelation Class

For myself, I don't understand why Captain Picard ordered his ship to be abandoned. His ship appears intact. We have seen ships in worse shape that were able to maintain sustainability for the crew. Jeez, the Voyager was ripped apart in the Year of Hell and still was able to take out another ship. It looks worse for the captain when it is revealed that a Ferengi salvage crew was able to restore the ship to functionality. Then, again, the captain is maintaining the fine Starfleet tradition of incompetence while under attack.

One of my favorite illustrations for the 2013 Ships of the Line calendars was of the Stargazer engaging the Enterprise.
throwback is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 31 2012, 08:50 AM   #42
Santaman
Rear Admiral
 
Santaman's Avatar
 
Location: A little while in the past.
Re: Constitution, Miranda, and Constelation Class

^^ Thats called "writing" it would have been pretty much impossible to tell that story if Stargazer had been a wreck with its engines shot off and the hull turned into scrap...
__________________
"Sword is personal, brings slicing to a man, you getta that personal feedback, nuclear weapons?.. Meh, goes off big bang and you don't get any feeling.."
Santaman is online now   Reply With Quote
Old October 31 2012, 09:33 AM   #43
Timo
Admiral
 
Re: Constitution, Miranda, and Constelation Class

On the other hand, did the USS Valkyrie ever make it to the TV or movie series? If not, does this even count?
The Valkyrie is not a distinct model, but a relabeling of the one and only photographic piece. Supposedly, the new labels did appear in some episode or another (because somebody went to the trouble of doing the relabeling, and it was not an idle labor of love because the workmanship is pretty crappy ). But neither the new labels nor the underside can be discerned in any episode or movie. And that "Peak Performance" shot, unlikely to be any sharper in the blu-ray release, is our only canonical glimpse to the bottom of the ship. Canonically, Constellation class ships don't have undersides!

I'm thinking with those painted white in the front and lacking in torpedo launcher details that those are not torpedo launchers at all for the top and bottom parts.
The principal problem with that is that the ship does have torpedo tubes. If we give torpedo tube identity to some other fixture that looks completely unlike a torpedo tube, then what right do we have to declare that these familiar-looking fixtures are not allowed to be torpedo tubes?

It might be that the Battle of Maxia resulted in the Stargazer having her torpedo launchers so badly damaged that we no longer can see their muzzles, and Picard would just have blown himself up when attempting firing.

For myself, I don't understand why Captain Picard ordered his ship to be abandoned.
Because there was no point in remaining aboard?

The ship no longer moved on her own. She could not take the heroes home. Shuttles could.

On the other hand, the ship no longer did anything else on her own, either. She could not continue her mission. Nobody could.

Now postulate that the ship could not be repaired on the spot, not with the resources at hand.

So, going to the shuttles and flying home would be the sensible thing to do!

Should the ship have been recovered later?

...Why bother if she was outdated junk anyway? Starfleet can afford to lose old ships; it scuttled the Lantree instead of trying to decontaminate her, say.

Should the ship have been scuttled on the spot?

...Why? She wasn't a traffic hazard. Her falling in enemy hands should not be a problem - if the enemy wants the piece of junk, he's quite welcome, as long as Picard has remembered to push the button that erases Starfleet secrets from the computers. And perhaps some friendly party in need will stumble onto her instead? Scuttling is not particularly logical except in certain very specific circumstances, such as those applying to naval warfare here on Earth.

Timo Saloniemi
Timo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 31 2012, 02:09 PM   #44
blssdwlf
Commodore
 
Re: Constitution, Miranda, and Constelation Class

Timo wrote: View Post
On the other hand, did the USS Valkyrie ever make it to the TV or movie series? If not, does this even count?
The Valkyrie is not a distinct model, but a relabeling of the one and only photographic piece. Supposedly, the new labels did appear in some episode or another (because somebody went to the trouble of doing the relabeling, and it was not an idle labor of love because the workmanship is pretty crappy ). But neither the new labels nor the underside can be discerned in any episode or movie. And that "Peak Performance" shot, unlikely to be any sharper in the blu-ray release, is our only canonical glimpse to the bottom of the ship. Canonically, Constellation class ships don't have undersides!
Well, we do see some of the underside but from a really side angle so canonically, they do have undersides, but no close-up exists. However the Hathaway does fire her ventral rim simulated weapons from the forward rim position, matching that of the forward dorsal rim.

Timo wrote: View Post
I'm thinking with those painted white in the front and lacking in torpedo launcher details that those are not torpedo launchers at all for the top and bottom parts.
The principal problem with that is that the ship does have torpedo tubes. If we give torpedo tube identity to some other fixture that looks completely unlike a torpedo tube, then what right do we have to declare that these familiar-looking fixtures are not allowed to be torpedo tubes?
Familiar-looking minus the actual familiar tube itself = not a torpedo launcher, IMO. Since we've seen in DS9 the Mirandas fire torpedoes from the bottom of the saucer ala TOS Enterprise then the Constellation-class could also have them in the same spot.

Timo wrote: View Post
For myself, I don't understand why Captain Picard ordered his ship to be abandoned.
Because there was no point in remaining aboard?

The ship no longer moved on her own. She could not take the heroes home. Shuttles could.

On the other hand, the ship no longer did anything else on her own, either. She could not continue her mission. Nobody could.

Now postulate that the ship could not be repaired on the spot, not with the resources at hand.

So, going to the shuttles and flying home would be the sensible thing to do!

Should the ship have been recovered later?

...Why bother if she was outdated junk anyway? Starfleet can afford to lose old ships; it scuttled the Lantree instead of trying to decontaminate her, say.

Should the ship have been scuttled on the spot?

...Why? She wasn't a traffic hazard. Her falling in enemy hands should not be a problem - if the enemy wants the piece of junk, he's quite welcome, as long as Picard has remembered to push the button that erases Starfleet secrets from the computers. And perhaps some friendly party in need will stumble onto her instead? Scuttling is not particularly logical except in certain very specific circumstances, such as those applying to naval warfare here on Earth.
There were some valuable items on the ship however. She still carried most of her photon torpedo load and fully armed. Wasn't there a whole DS9 episode devoted to the theft of torpedo warheads to the Maquis?

As to the damage, interestingly, the ship was "on fire" and they put everyone in shuttles. But oddly if they could travel for weeks in shuttles why couldn't they hang around and put out the fire? All her main systems were still operational.
PICARD: It was a save our skins maneuver. We were finished. On fire. We had to abandon ship. We limped through space in shuttlecraft for weeks before we were picked up. I haven't thought about this for years.
...
RIKER: Enterprise to Stargazer, please respond. Enterprise to Captain Picard aboard Stargazer. Please answer. Mister Data, what was Stargazer's condition?
DATA: Considerable fire damage to interior surface reported, sir. But none of her main systems were crippled.
RIKER: Armaments, Lieutenant Yar?
TASHA: Six photon torpedoes short, sir, probably used when the Captain destroyed his Ferengi attackers nine years ago. Otherwise fully armed.
Another reason why you don't want to leave an intact ship around also so you don't have someone else flying around in it blowing stuff up in the the Federation's name. Imagine if a Founder got a hold of the Stargazer from the Ferengi and went and destroyed the Zenkethi base?
blssdwlf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 31 2012, 03:10 PM   #45
Timo
Admiral
 
Re: Constitution, Miranda, and Constelation Class

All her main systems were still operational.
After Battle of Maxia, or after the repairs effected by Bok? We don't know.

Another reason why you don't want to leave an intact ship around also so you don't have someone else flying around in it blowing stuff up in the the Federation's name.
If an enemy really wanted to do that, he could always build a Federation starship of his own, like the Romulans did in ENT.

Timo Saloniemi
Timo 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 12:20 PM.

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