Constellation class

Discussion in 'Trek Tech' started by Bill Morris, Jan 31, 2009.

  1. Bill Morris

    Bill Morris Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2005
    Maybe so. I thought the thing you drew below the bridge of the Miranda class was an ODN trunk line, not being an expert like you guys. Maybe I should do it like that with this one. It looks nice.

    But here it is with the warp core lengthened a little, the misplaced intermix chamber restored, and antimatter storage where Gerard Gillan thought it should be.

    I know it's traditional on TrekBBS to drag out making a schematic for one ship for years, but I'd like to call this one done, if possible. Of course, if there are any corrections to make, I'll make them.


    [​IMG]
     
  2. Plecostomus

    Plecostomus Commodore

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2008
    Location:
    Official forum sex god
    Looks fine as it is, at least to me. All the relevant parts are there, in logical locations.
     
  3. ancient

    ancient Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2005
    Location:
    United States
    I really like this ship, even though it suffers a bit from ship-of-the-week syndrome. I think it'd be neat to come up with a sleeker, less junked up version.

    Anyway, good work on the diagram!
     
  4. Praetor

    Praetor Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2004
    Location:
    The fine line between continuity and fanwank.
    Yeah, I think the TMP-era ships maybe all had those direct ODN trunks, but later they drifted away from it by TNG times. Anyway, I think the Constellation looks great as it is.
     
  5. Bill Morris

    Bill Morris Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2005
    Well, here it is with the Praetor touch. I like it better this way.

    [​IMG]
     
  6. SoM

    SoM Commander Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2007
    Okay, I'm probably looking right at it, but where's the warp core on the last few versions?
     
  7. miraclefan

    miraclefan Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2008
    Location:
    The F U state of TEXAS!
    Looking much better man!:techman:
     
  8. Praetor

    Praetor Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2004
    Location:
    The fine line between continuity and fanwank.
    Well, I like it but I may be biased. :D

    It runs vertically from upper pylon to lower pylon, just between the bussards and warp coils. It's the orangey stripe looking thing.
     
  9. Rick Sternbach

    Rick Sternbach Fleet Captain Fleet Captain

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2002
    The big "gun" is a long range sensor, very very narrow angle FOV. The STM article described it. The bulges are short range sensor domes. Starfleet says the Constellation class is a class of science vessel but shhhh don't tell anyone it's really a fast recon ship.

    Rick
    www.spacemodelsystems.com
     
  10. Praetor

    Praetor Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2004
    Location:
    The fine line between continuity and fanwank.
    Thanks for clarifying, maestro! ;)
     
  11. ancient

    ancient Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2005
    Location:
    United States
    Ahhhhhhh! Facts!
     
  12. Praetor

    Praetor Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2004
    Location:
    The fine line between continuity and fanwank.
    I know... I was scared at first.
     
  13. Bill Morris

    Bill Morris Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2005
    Thank, Rick. I just labeled it narrow-beam sensor here for brevity, even though it's called SNARE (Super Narrow Angle Reconnaisance Emitter) sensor, probably referenced from your article, in one schematic I've included in my package.

    Large MSD with SNARE ref:
    http://lcars24.com/NCC-3890.jpg

    I also cut the mass a little, upon Vance's advice, and lengthened the warp core a little.


    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: Feb 7, 2009
  14. Praetor

    Praetor Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2004
    Location:
    The fine line between continuity and fanwank.
    Looks spiffy to me. Great job! :D
     
  15. JNG

    JNG Chief of Staff, Starfleet Command

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2001
    Volumetrically, it's three times what a TOS-configuration Constitution is (Jaynz.info giving the 190,000 ton figure for that ship), and with twice as many sets of warp coils in there, I'd expect it'd be even more massive than that comparison would normally warrant. I was curious as to the rationale for making it one third as dense instead.
     
  16. Bill Morris

    Bill Morris Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2005
    That's logical. Are the nacelles longer on the TOS Ent, though?
    Can you give me a good mass figure for the Constellation class?

    Your insights and suggestions have been helpful to me in the past.

    The figures as of now:

    TOS Ent: 190,000
    1701-A: 210,000
    Miranda class: 150,000

    The figure I had orginally estimated for the Constellation class was 304,700 metric tons. Maybe that was pretty close.
     
    Last edited: Feb 7, 2009
  17. JNG

    JNG Chief of Staff, Starfleet Command

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2001
    ^

    If you were to assign the Constellation a density similar to the one you have given the Enterprise 1701-A on your schematic, which would seem appropriate for the era and technology, it would have a mass similar to that of Voyager. This seems okay to me: the volume figures for Voyager and Constellation match one another to within the margin of error, and while we must expect that the warp coils are much more dense on the far more advanced Intrepid-class ship, the double pairs of nacelles on the Constellation probably make up for it.

    My own files I write up for ships have a Constellation-class starship massed at 650,000 metric tons. I think I shaved that number down from Voyager's mass because I really liked the idea of that chunky Constellation primary hull and its big doors having lots of space inside for shuttle operations and cargo and all sorts of goodies (even more than is usual for a big Starfleet cruiser).

    Rick Sternbach's article on these cruisers for Star Trek: The Magazine has the U.S.S. Constellation launched in 2284, and they are really quite big compared to the other canon ships we know from that era, aren't they? I am a fan, though.
     
  18. Bill Morris

    Bill Morris Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2005
    I just noticed that I had misread your post on page 1, JNG. You wrote "light," which I took as "right" at a glace. I'm always in too much of a hurry, I guess. Sorry. I checked that volumetrics site. It shows 700,000, and I see wildly conflicting figures around the Web for a lot of these ships. I just noticed one that put the Miranda class at 150,000 while another had it at over 2,000,000. Ugh. And a lot of people on this board badmouth volumetrics. Double-ugh.
     
  19. kent

    kent Lieutenant Commander Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2007

    I agree. The torp launchers should be in a similar location to the refit enterprise if they're using the same struts. No on screen evidence but it makes the most sense. Also, on screen wise, there aren't torpedo launchers in the saucer. I also don't like where the warp reactors are. Two? I don't know about that one. I would've liked to see it horizontally in the flat part that extends aft of the saucer. If the antimatter pods are to be where this says the impulse engines are, then it would make sense to have the ejection ports in close proximity.
     
  20. JNG

    JNG Chief of Staff, Starfleet Command

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2001
    You can do your own calculations of the ship's volume if you do not trust any of the ones kicking around the web, but Akimoto did show the work associated with his figures on Trek BBS a few years back; while some ships are hard to get figures for, the Constellation isn't one of them, being made up of some (slightly modified) parts with undisputed sizes against which we can measure the rest. Hey, she was put together using multiple model kits of ships using some of those parts. Thus, if anyone's math on the volume of this ship is "wildly conflicting" with the idea that it is very similar to that of Voyager, I have to figure they goofed with their calculator somewhere.

    Measuring the volume of a ship, as a general thing, doesn't make much sense to me as something to badmouth; comparing the sizes of ships is a common activity around here. I don't know what method for doing so is being advanced as more accurate. Anyway, one ship at a time:

    In this case, you have already done a schematic for 1701-A and set it at 260,000 (I think that's high, myself, but you've set it), and I don't see any reason to suggest that the Constellation, being around two and three quarters times the volume, would be even less massive than that. Why would it be only slightly more than a third as dense? With more warp coils in the mix, I would expect it would be even more dense, not so much less dense. I can understand some desire to keep it a little lighter than Voyager, but 650,000 was as low as I felt comfortable going. 700,000 is justified as well.
     

Share This Page