Constitution, Miranda, and Constelation Class

Discussion in 'Trek Tech' started by Brainsucker, Oct 24, 2012.

  1. Timo

    Timo Fleet Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2003
    ...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
     
  2. Dukhat

    Dukhat Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2007
    Location:
    Baltimore, MD
    Actually, I consider the "cannon turret-looking" thingie underneath the ship to be the deflector :)
     
  3. Brainsucker

    Brainsucker Commander Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2007
    So Constellation Class is actually bigger than Constitution Class? I just realized it now.
     
  4. Timo

    Timo Fleet Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2003
    ...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
     
  5. Santaman

    Santaman Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2001
    Location:
    Steelport
    Another ship in the lineage is the Sydney class which is also HUGE volume wise with its blocky single hull.
     
  6. The Castellan

    The Castellan Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    May 2, 2004
    Location:
    The Plains of Cydonia
    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.

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

    Tomalak Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2003
    Location:
    Manchester
    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.
     
  8. Santaman

    Santaman Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2001
    Location:
    Steelport
    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.
     
  9. Brainsucker

    Brainsucker Commander Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2007
    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.
     
  10. Timo

    Timo Fleet Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2003
    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
     
  11. Santaman

    Santaman Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2001
    Location:
    Steelport
    ^^ 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.
     
  12. Timo

    Timo Fleet Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2003
    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
     
  13. BK613

    BK613 Fleet Captain Fleet Captain

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2008
    Location:
    BK613
    The Mirandas and Constellations would be starship designs that were geared toward assisting colonization efforts rather than exploration, maybe?
     
  14. Timo

    Timo Fleet Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2003
    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
     
  15. blssdwlf

    blssdwlf Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2010
    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).
     
  16. Timo

    Timo Fleet Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2003
    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/__cb20060821001057/startrek/images/5/59/USS_Valkyrie-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/scans/drex/constellation-yellow2.jpg

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

    http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/scans/christies/constellation-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
     
  17. Savious

    Savious Lieutenant Junior Grade Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2012
    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.
     
  18. BK613

    BK613 Fleet Captain Fleet Captain

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2008
    Location:
    BK613
    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.
     
  19. TheRoyalFamily

    TheRoyalFamily Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2005
    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 :borg:), 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.
     
  20. blssdwlf

    blssdwlf Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2010
    Whoops, you're right I mixed it the two up. :)

    On the other hand, did the USS Valkyrie ever make it to the TV or movie series? If not, does this even count?

    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/albums/s1/1x10/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.