RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 135,682
Posts: 5,212,874
Members: 24,205
Currently online: 835
Newest member: JMSmith97


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 September 20 2007, 05:04 PM   #16
vaderman1701
Cadet
 
Re: Refit Dreadnought.... Question?

137th Gebirg said:
There were several refits - even variations on the original FJ design as it initially appeared in the Technical Manual. Here's the chronology:

Federation Class Dreadnaught "Proposed" - Initial FJ Design (for comparison)
Federation Class Dreadnaught "Production" - Modified FJ Design (with rotated tertiary nacelle 90 degrees for warp field symmetry and continuity)
Federation Class Dreadnaught Upgrade "Proposed" (Starstation Aurora)
Federation Class Dreadnaught Upgrade "Production" (someone thought the engine pylons were too low on the first version, so they raised them and made them horizontally linked across the top of the secondary hull - a sensible mod, IMHO)
Star League Class Dreadnaught (Jackill's version - more true to the FJ original with the forward-facing shuttlebay)

And the short answer - aside from the fact that (IIRC) one FJ-named dreadnaught was mentioned in comm traffic out of Epsilon 9 in ST:TMP, all these designs are largely considered non-canon.
These are exactly what I was looking for. I think for now, I will work with the Starstation Aurora version, but I wouldlove to kitbash a Star League version and possible kit it.

Scott
vaderman1701 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 20 2007, 05:31 PM   #17
Griffworks
Commander
 
Location: Central Arkansas
Re: Refit Dreadnought.... Question?

Wow. Say something not only on-topic, but wholly relevant to the conversation and get ignored. Funny, that.



vaderman1701 said:
These are exactly what I was looking for. I think for now, I will work with the Starstation Aurora version, but I wouldlove to kitbash a Star League version and possible kit it.
Awesome news then, Scott.

137th Gebirg said:
There were several refits - even variations on the original FJ design as it initially appeared in the Technical Manual. Here's the chronology:

>SNIPPAGE!<
You forgot JohnP/Forbin's excellent variant in the Alexander-class, Jim! I like his stunted Miranda hull as the primary hull and underslung warp nacelles.

And the short answer - aside from the fact that (IIRC) one FJ-named dreadnaught was mentioned in comm traffic out of Epsilon 9 in ST:TMP, all these designs are largely considered non-canon.
U.S.S. Entente, NCC-2120. You can only barely make it out in surround sound w/the volume turned up. Or if you've got a program that will screen out certain background clutter.

Don't forget that we also get the SFTM names and registries for two scouts, as well: Columbia and Revere, their orders signed by Commodore Probert himself.

__________________
Once Upon A Time....
Griffworks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 20 2007, 06:03 PM   #18
Forbin
Admiral
 
Forbin's Avatar
 
Location: I said out, dammit!
Re: Refit Dreadnought.... Question?

Thabnks for the plug, Jeff.

Me, I never understood the Ascension class - why make a DN with a secondary hull that's SMALLER than a Conny's? Don't make no sense.
Forbin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 20 2007, 06:16 PM   #19
Unicron
Continuity Spackle
 
Unicron's Avatar
 
Location: Cybertron
Send a message via ICQ to Unicron
Re: Refit Dreadnought.... Question?

Wingsley said:
One reason I never totally bought into the tri-nacelle concept was that Kirk introduced the Excelsior as "the Great Experiment". If three nacelles were better than two, wouldn't Starfleet have built Excelsior to that specification? (Or, for that matter, the refit Enterprise?)
Not necessarily. The Great Experiment was a reference to Excelsior being the transwarp testbed, and at that time it was the first ship to test it in operational duty. The main reason for the third nacelle, as I've often heard it, is to give the dreadnought and other tri-nacelle designs more warp power for the systems and the ability to generate a larger warp field, thus keeping such a large ship reasonably fast.

Since transwarp was still unproven when the Excelsior was commissioned, it would make sense to keep the traditional twin arrangement until the tech proved itself.

Personally, I tend to consider the Star League a small upgraded subclass which some ships were converted to, after the Federation class was modified to movie era specs. So you'd have the original Federations, then the movie refit, and then the Star League refit. The Ascension is a dreadnought conversion of the Belknap strike cruiser.
__________________

"My dream is to eat candy and poop emeralds. I'm halfway successful."


Catbert, Evil Director of Human Resources
Unicron is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 20 2007, 07:11 PM   #20
KirkTrekModeler
Commander
 
Location: Planet Fiberglass
Re: Refit Dreadnought.... Question?

Unicron said:
Wingsley said:
One reason I never totally bought into the tri-nacelle concept was that Kirk introduced the Excelsior as "the Great Experiment". If three nacelles were better than two, wouldn't Starfleet have built Excelsior to that specification? (Or, for that matter, the refit Enterprise?)
Not necessarily. The Great Experiment was a reference to Excelsior being the transwarp testbed, and at that time it was the first ship to test it in operational duty. The main reason for the third nacelle, as I've often heard it, is to give the dreadnought and other tri-nacelle designs more warp power for the systems and the ability to generate a larger warp field, thus keeping such a large ship reasonably fast.

Since transwarp was still unproven when the Excelsior was commissioned, it would make sense to keep the traditional twin arrangement until the tech proved itself.

Personally, I tend to consider the Star League a small upgraded subclass which some ships were converted to, after the Federation class was modified to movie era specs. So you'd have the original Federations, then the movie refit, and then the Star League refit. The Ascension is a dreadnought conversion of the Belknap strike cruiser.
Yep, I'd pretty much have to say that I agree with you 100%. I had similar thoughts myself. One of the gamers over at SpacestationK7, Kirk1701 I believe, made a U.S.S. Starleague that is almost perfect for our needs. I'll send vaderman over there and show him that ship. Looks like a perfect Refit Dread.
KirkTrekModeler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 20 2007, 07:20 PM   #21
Wingsley
Commodore
 
Wingsley's Avatar
 
Location: Wingsley
Re: Refit Dreadnought.... Question?

Turning that whole thing around, has anyone ever drawn a super-heavy Federation starship equipped with only the more widely used two nacelles, but those two engines being larger? (In other words, one possible example might be a ship like the Federation class, but with only two super-sized nacelles) Wasn't there a variant of the TOS-style nacelles drawn in fanon that simply took the nacelles of the Constitution-class and made them longer? I have to admit I perfer the symmetry of two-nacelle designs.

Maybe another approach to this is to question what the term "dreadnought" means in the context of a Federation starship anyway. Fanon designs have been conjuring up progressively bigger and more heavily equipped super-sized battleships dating back to the 1970's, and then DEEP SPACE NINE came along and the deadliest Federation warship ever made turned out to be that dinky little Defiant.

Don't get me wrong, though. If you want to look at uber-heavy battlewagon designs, Vance's "Couer De Leon" is probably the most elaborate.
__________________
"The way that you wander is the way that you choose. / The day that you tarry is the day that you lose. / Sunshine or thunder, a man will always wonder / Where the fair wind blows ..."
-- Lyrics, Jeremiah Johnson's theme.
Wingsley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 20 2007, 07:31 PM   #22
Griffworks
Commander
 
Location: Central Arkansas
Re: Refit Dreadnought.... Question?

Wingsley said:
Turning that whole thing around, has anyone ever drawn a super-heavy Federation starship equipped with only the more widely used two nacelles, but those two engines being larger? (In other words, one possible example might be a ship like the Federation class, but with only two super-sized nacelles) Wasn't there a variant of the TOS-style nacelles drawn in fanon that simply took the nacelles of the Constitution-class and made them longer? I have to admit I perfer the symmetry of two-nacelle designs.

Maybe another approach to this is to question what the term "dreadnought" means in the context of a Federation starship anyway. Fanon designs have been conjuring up progressively bigger and more heavily equipped super-sized battleships dating back to the 1970's, and then DEEP SPACE NINE came along and the deadliest Federation warship ever made turned out to be that dinky little Defiant.

Don't get me wrong, though. If you want to look at uber-heavy battlewagon designs, Vance's "Couer De Leon" is probably the most elaborate.
I have to admit to not being 100% certain about "Vance's "Couer De Leon"" being different than what I'm thinking, but if it's a CGI model of a four nacelled Miranda-esque variant, than that would actually be Forbin's most excellent battleship U.S.S. Coeur de Lion, named for Richard the Lion Hearted. Now, that would make for a most interesting model in 1/350 scale!
__________________
Once Upon A Time....
Griffworks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 20 2007, 07:45 PM   #23
KirkTrekModeler
Commander
 
Location: Planet Fiberglass
Re: Refit Dreadnought.... Question?

I'd have to say I'm leaning toward the Starleague version vaderman, I know it's your baby, but I could knock out that engineering section in no time.

I'll get you some screencaps of the one from the guys at SpacestationK7. I would probably have to build up the saucer a bit too.


vaderman1701 said:
137th Gebirg said:
There were several refits - even variations on the original FJ design as it initially appeared in the Technical Manual. Here's the chronology:

Federation Class Dreadnaught "Proposed" - Initial FJ Design (for comparison)
Federation Class Dreadnaught "Production" - Modified FJ Design (with rotated tertiary nacelle 90 degrees for warp field symmetry and continuity)
Federation Class Dreadnaught Upgrade "Proposed" (Starstation Aurora)
Federation Class Dreadnaught Upgrade "Production" (someone thought the engine pylons were too low on the first version, so they raised them and made them horizontally linked across the top of the secondary hull - a sensible mod, IMHO)
Star League Class Dreadnaught (Jackill's version - more true to the FJ original with the forward-facing shuttlebay)

And the short answer - aside from the fact that (IIRC) one FJ-named dreadnaught was mentioned in comm traffic out of Epsilon 9 in ST:TMP, all these designs are largely considered non-canon.
These are exactly what I was looking for. I think for now, I will work with the Starstation Aurora version, but I wouldlove to kitbash a Star League version and possible kit it.

Scott
:thumbsup:
KirkTrekModeler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 20 2007, 08:45 PM   #24
aridas sofia
Rear Admiral
 
Re: Refit Dreadnought.... Question?

Wingsley said:
Turning that whole thing around, has anyone ever drawn a super-heavy Federation starship equipped with only the more widely used two nacelles, but those two engines being larger?
Not with uber-nacelles (though that was a variant, never pictured but it was discussed). A TMP-era blend of my Ariel carrier's saucer with the frigate layout, creating an alternate-architecture dreadnought.

Kirov, from my Starship Recognition Chart. I don't know who did this illustration of the ship, but it is very close to the pencils I used to create the silhouette on that chart. I've altered it a little to make it even closer:

aridas sofia is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 21 2007, 09:46 AM   #25
Relayer
Lieutenant Commander
 
Relayer's Avatar
 
Location: New Zealand
Re: Refit Dreadnought.... Question?

Forbin said:
For my money, a refit DN would have to have the same features as the FJ DN - larger primary and secondary hulls, and foreward-mounted shuttlebay. Note that the FJ DN's primary hull has no undercut, and a "dome" shape that is equal top and bottom. To be true to the concept, one would have to create whole new parts from scratch!
I'm in total agreement. It's a refit of the TOS dreadnought not a refit of the TMP Enterprise. I'd probably get imaginative on the rear sensor array. Since an active deflector dish mounted on the rear seems unnecessary.
__________________
If Romulans aren't cowards, then why do they taste like chicken?
Relayer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 21 2007, 02:45 PM   #26
aridas sofia
Rear Admiral
 
Re: Refit Dreadnought.... Question?

At the time, the dish was the sensor array. It was labeled such in Jefferies' TMoST illustrations. In TMoST the deflectors are described as being activated by the sensors, and that is where the connection between that dish and a deflector probably came from.

FJ must have though so, because he labeled the dish "main sensor and navigational deflector". The question is, what part is the sensor and what part is the deflector?

The dreadnought had fore and aft dishes, but not the ring structures behind the dishes. Why? It is arguable that the rings were the deflector part, and that since they faced aft, the other sensor array didn't need them. This would fit with the fact that in TMP the dish is gone and yet the deflector remains.

If this is the case, the dreadnought has fore and aft sensors, but navigational deflectors that sweep forward.
aridas sofia is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 21 2007, 05:27 PM   #27
Cary L. Brown
Rear Admiral
 
Location: Austin, Texas
Re: Refit Dreadnought.... Question?

Forbin said:
Thabnks for the plug, Jeff.

Me, I never understood the Ascension class - why make a DN with a secondary hull that's SMALLER than a Conny's? Don't make no sense.
Well, I always took it that the Ascension secondary hull was nothing but engine space and a hangar with a pair of shuttles... no cargo, no living space, no botanical stuff, none of that stuff. Just a pair of engine cores, cooling hardware, controllers, etc... but nothing else.

Basically, the Ascension would be the "stay close to base" version of the Command ship and the Federation(r) would be the "distant deployment" version.

Both are equivalent in combat and C&C capability, but one has longer range and can serve in a few "multi-purpose" roles (due to the cargo space) and one is a bit faster (due to reduced mass).

That's the way I've always seen it at least.
Cary L. Brown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 21 2007, 05:35 PM   #28
aridas sofia
Rear Admiral
 
Re: Refit Dreadnought.... Question?

Basically, the Ascension would be the "stay close to base" version of the Command ship and the Federation(r) would be the "distant deployment" version.
That was my impression as well, though I can't say with certainty whether I got that from the "horse's mouth" or not.
aridas sofia is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 21 2007, 05:57 PM   #29
Forbin
Admiral
 
Forbin's Avatar
 
Location: I said out, dammit!
Re: Refit Dreadnought.... Question?

aridas sofia said:.

The dreadnought had fore and aft dishes, but not the ring structures behind the dishes.
Can you say that for sure, based only on the ortho 3-view in the TM? Tom Sasser interpreted them as existing, and his resin model has shallow rings under the aft dish:
http://www.inpayne.com/models/dominion2.html
Forbin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 21 2007, 06:12 PM   #30
aridas sofia
Rear Admiral
 
Re: Refit Dreadnought.... Question?

You raise an interesting point, because in the TM he calls the larger forward-facing dish the main sensor, and the smaller flanking dishes the deflectors. I got the impression the rings weren't there because the extensive housing that is around them on the heavy cruiser is not apparent, and the deflector function is being handled by those smaller dishes (which clearly weren't on the aft of the hull).
aridas sofia 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 05:23 PM.

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