Constellation Class Development

[Daedalus]

The design of the season 1 DSC ships were influenced by two factors:

1. ENT (and specifically the NX-01), and

Is there a source for that? I haven't seen anything about it in the reference books I have.

If they had instead hired someone like, say, Bill Krause, to design the ships, we would have gotten a more TOS vibe to them and in my opinion a more realistic sense of a design lineage over time.

I'd still like to think someone could sneak some of Bill's designs into SNW, with his full blessing, of course. The Repulse is beautiful, and I'd love to see the Radiant go beyond a gold model

 

[Dukhat]

Is there a source for that? I haven't seen anything about it in the reference books I have.

I didn't think I needed a source. Just look at the ships. Several of them (Engle, Walker, etc. have designs clearly influenced by the NX-01 design, and many of the ships have the in-front-of-saucer deflector that the NX-01 had.

 

[CaptChris42]

The design of the season 1 DSC ships were influenced by two factors:

1. ENT (and specifically the NX-01), and

2. They were all designed by John Eaves, who incorporates things like sharp angles, negative spaces, and superfluous fins into every ship design he makes regardless of what time period they come from.


TOS had little to no influence over the designs. Eaves can whine all he wants that 'Fuller made me do it!', but in the end, it's his design style which still permeates over it all. If they had instead hired someone like, say, Bill Krause, to design the ships, we would have gotten a more TOS vibe to them and in my opinion a more realistic sense of a design lineage over time. Some of Eaves's ships resemble the NX-01, some of them look like they should have been built in the TMP era, and some look right at home as FC ships in the late 24th century. It's just a hodgepodge of non-era-specific designs.

To be fair, an early Eaves concept for the NX-01 was a lot more TOS like in it's initial art style, and with a small secondary hull.

I do think it still had a trace of negative space to it, however.

 

[Andorian]

While I'm understanding your head-canon approach, I have to say that the leap from the TOS aesthetic to the TMP one is the more logical approach, because you're going from a less-advanced design to a more-advanced design. DSC is basically showing the opposite of that.

Star Trek: Enterprise and the USS Kelvin in ST09 already ripped that band-aid off though (unless you go with the "backwards ripple" explanation for the Kelvin's appearance).

The problem with this is the Discovery itself. Stated to be a brand-new ship, yet she has the older style nacelles.

Discovery may have been a brand new ship, packed full of science labs and spore drive tech, but the Crossfield-class could predate the Constitution-class. They just didn't see a point in updating the look.

That's my preferred explanation. I like to think there was an "original Crossfield class" contemporary with the other Starfleet ships introduced in Discovery because...

*NCC-1030 and 1031 line up with the registries of the other Disco starships, as does the name "USS Glenn" (I know the reasoning for the Discovery's # and yes, I wish the production people would stop doing this)

*interior spaces & exterior design of Discovery and Glenn jibe with the other ships introduced in the first episodes of the show

*Starfleet co-opted the mycelial network research "early in the war" and it's unlikely they could have designed and built a class of specialized starship to test the spore drive so quickly - Burnham comes aboard the Discovery a few months into the war, right?

*no "class ship" USS Crossfield was ever shown or mentioned


Let's say the Crossfield-class was designed as a carrier for fighters and/or landing craft and the initial production run was in the early 23rd century along with Walker, Cardenas, Magee etc. classes. Maybe the original configuration looked closer to Ralph McQuarrie's Planet of the Titans concepts, or like the original design of the Discovery from the first teaser (which I prefer over the final look).

Perhaps the need for fighters and landing craft never emerged or advances in technology rendered them useless (improved transporters?); anyways most the ships get scrapped or mothballed by the 2250s.

When hostilities with the Klingons commence in 2256, Starfleet scoops up Stamets' mushroom research and needs testbed starships for the spore drive. They refit two mothballed Crossfield spaceframes due to the ships having large internal compartments originally for shuttle/fighter/landing pod storage and maintenance - this becomes the "systems hub" and the spore cultivation areas we see on the USS Discovery.

*There's no scratches or wear on the Disco and Glenn because the ships never saw action OR were extensively refitted OR were spaceframes that were never finished due to the retirement/cancellation of the Crossfield class

*IF you want the two Crossfields we see in Discovery to be newbuilds, you could say they were assigned NCC numbers that went previously unused for whatever reason (this is my explanation for out-of-place Constituion class registries on Constellation, Cayuga, Intrepid etc.)

*the McQuarrie-style starships we glimpse in the background of productions set later (spacedock in Star Trek III & Wolf 359 wreckage/Qualor II surplus depot hulk in TNG) may be other classes of carrier or large transports

 

[Dukhat]

Star Trek: Enterprise and the USS Kelvin in ST09 already ripped that band-aid off though (unless you go with the "backwards ripple" explanation for the Kelvin's appearance).

I don't.

The thing is, Drexler came up with his NX class design because he had to take the Akira class (which the producers wanted for the NX-01) and work backwards from that. It wasn't a conscious decision on his part to make a ship from 100 years before TOS resemble a ship from 100 years after TOS.

And I do not see anything wrong with the Kelvin's appearance. It looks much more realistic as a Starfleet vessel operating only a few decades before TOS than any of those DSC ships do. The only problem I had was the ridiculous upscaling they did with the Kelvin and the Abramsprise. There's no way those ships should be that large.

 

[Mres_was_framed!]

original universe production

For me, series made after the end of Voyager are not necessarily part of the same continuity as those made before it, for a few reasons, and the original universe refers to the continuity of what was made from "The Cage" through either "First Contact" or "Nemesis," excluding the 2001 TV series and everything made after that.

There was, at one time, a fan theory that Picard did not fully restore the timeline after "First Contact," and that due to it, or the Temporal Cold War, what we see in Archer's adventures is not a truly accurate prequel to the history of TOS. For Voyager Season 4 through Nemesis, some include that, some don't. TAS is also debated.

I'm not saying that I agree with these theories. I'm saying perhaps the original poster meant that he/she wanted to confine the discussion of the Constellation class to TOS through Voyager, and not bring the NX-01 or ships made from 2009 onwards into the discussion

If the poster had said "Prime Timeline," that would have certainly included the NX-01, and opened debate about ships made from 2009 onwards. Since officially, there is a Prime Timeline and a 2009 movie timeline, the only other way to specify that that would have been to do what I have done in this post, and specifically exclude ships designed after the NX-01

They're either all from the same visual continuity or they're not.

To my understanding, all productions made since 2009, no matter which of two timelines in which they are set, have assumed that Archer's adventures happened as they appeared onscreen, which for some, puts all of those productions in a different continuity from TOS, TAS, TNG, DS9, Voyager, and movies through either First Contact or Nemesis.

 

[knightgrace]

I think that the Crossfield had for it's NCC-1029.

 

[Dukhat]

I think that the Crossfield had for it's NCC-1029.

There is no canon information about the USS Crossfield or its registry number.

 

[Tim Walker]

I think of the Constellation as the last gasp of Refit-era technology advancement.

While Excelsior pointed the way forward, Constellation was a way to make the most of existing tech.

Yes, there may have been an attempt to design an upgraded ship using proven technology...by over building/doubling up components.

When the Great Experiment seemingly failed, the Constellation may have been built as a stop gap.

 

[DSG2k]

When the Great Experiment seemingly failed, the Constellation may have been built as a stop gap.

I would tend to think the two projects were more concurrent-ish. Constellation is 1974, suggesting at least an initial beginning prior to Excelsior 2000 . . . both registries predate Entente 2120 observed in 2271/2272. That said, however, the Starship Mission Assignments chart suggests the Constellation retained an NX designation (and perhaps remained in trial status) for at least fifteen years, unlike Excelsior, so perhaps the Constellation Class development was shelved for a time?

Alas, that doesn't seem to work, since the Hathaway 2593, launched circa 2285 depending on Kolrami's rounding, would tend to suggest the class was already in service around the time Excelsior finally launched.

(Hathaway has a more updated bridge than Stargazer 2893, which featured the "white/blue ovoid" style of flat controls seen briefly in ST4 (2286–ish), rather than the "blue/green squircle" style of the later 2280s and beyond. Unfortunately, Hathaway also had half of one of her rounded-prism consoles with the TNG LCARS style, so YMMV.)

That said, we don't have many Constellation registries to work from. It's interesting that, as with the uncontested Excelsior Class registries known (beginning with Hood 2541 (maybe) and Repulse 2544), the earliest Constellation is also 25xx, but that doesn't tell us a great deal.

 

[Ithekro]

It is possible that USS Constellation was used for experiments for many years while they attempted to do other things (like say fit the smaller four nacelled ship with transwarp drive) while other ships of the class were built to the first acceptable specification after the starship's first successful shakedown cruise. USS Defiant retained her NX number even after other starships of her class were being built for the war.

 

[knightgrace]

There is no canon information about the USS Crossfield or its registry number.

Obviously. Which is why I said, 'I think. '

 

[Dukhat]

Obviously. Which is why I said, 'I think. '

Well, what makes you ‘think’ that?

 

[Cicero]

By registry, however, the Constellation must pre-date the Excelsior to either a large or small degree. There's no obvious reason to reserve the number 1974, after all.

Hull numbers are sometimes used out of order for symbolic reasons. The Zumwalt-class is numbered from DDG-1000 to DDG-1003, despite being produced during the (still ongoing) run of the Arleigh Burke-class, which uses DDG-51 to DDG-149. Specifically, USS Zumwalt was laid down between DDG-108 and DDG-109.

Similarly, the Seawolf-class has hull numbers from SSN-21 to SSN-23, but was built between the Los Angeles-class (finished with SSN-773) and the Virginia-class (SSN-774 to SSN-816).

In both cases, the unusual order was to show that the new ships were revolutionary. The Seawolf was highly successful but expensive, and the Zumwalt is a cautionary tale in the annals of naval construction.

I could see the Constellation-class as having been a more traditional successor the "great experiment," even if the Excelsior-class was ultimately a triumph.

There are also post-Khitomer treaty stipulations to consider. In TUC, there's discussion of "mothballing" or "[giving] up" Starfleet. The Washington Naval Treaty that followed World War I led to inadequate "treaty battleships" that were severely limited compared to the state of the art of the 1920s and 30s.

It's fairly easy to imagine the Constellation and her sisters as having been the result of similar restrictions, with only a small number of additional early Excelsiors, like the Enterprise-B, finishing construction.

Taking only visible hull numbers into consideration, non-sequential numbering wouldn't even be necessary. The only Constellations whose registries we actually see are the Hathaway (NCC-2593) and the Stargazer (NCC-2893).

While I'm understanding your head-canon approach, I have to say that the leap from the TOS aesthetic to the TMP one is the more logical approach, because you're going from a less-advanced design to a more-advanced design. DSC is basically showing the opposite of that.

The opposite does happen sometimes. In architecture, the Chrysler Building looks like an intermediate aesthetic step between the International-style Pan Am Building and the retro-futurist Burj Dubai. But It's thirty years older, and firmly grounded in its era's art deco movement.

In terms of practical technology, we've recently seen military body armor return to widespread use after mostly (cuirassiers, etc.) disappearing for hundreds of years.

 

[DSG2k]

Hull numbers are sometimes used out of order for symbolic reasons {...} to show that the new ships were revolutionary.

Of course . . . I conclude as much for 2000, popping up after 2120. In a system of registries given at or near commission/launch, this could only reflect a 'held' registry. That said, there's the open question of when registries are bestowed. They're obviously not done in blocks, as one might do at original order or some other similar planning stage . . . hence basically no class showing numbers in sequence but for very rare exception (e.g. Monitor and Merrimac). Thus, registries officially dispensed upon keel-laying is possible.

Chronological registries are absolutely true in the broad strokes, but as with any system there will be curiosities at finer resolution, in edge and margin cases, et cetera.

There are also post-Khitomer treaty stipulations to consider. In TUC, there's discussion of "mothballing" or "[giving] up" Starfleet. The Washington Naval Treaty that followed World War I led to inadequate "treaty battleships" that were severely limited compared to the state of the art of the 1920s and 30s.

I would expect a Washington Naval Treaty based on mass to impact the Excelsiors (4.1 times the volume of a 2260s Constitution) more than the Constellations (3 times the volume of a 2260s Constitution). It would also make the ubiquity of the Excelsior Class a bit odd.

One based on gunnery might adversely impact the Miranda.

One based on ship count rather than specific vessel criteria might make it worth cranking out Excelsiors and hard-hitting, comparatively-space-efficient Mirandas (over Constitutions), but it would logically also be yet another reason to try like hell to innovate rather than sticking with the same old ship designs . . . so that doesn't work, either.

All that said, a treaty that was written short-sightedly and which said "you can only build X Excelsiors, X Constellations, and X Mirandas per year" while the Klingons were limited to "X Birds of Prey and X K't'ing'a Class" and which lasted for like fifty years would go a long way toward explaining the way TNG looks, with new-build Mirandas from around the time the Enterprise-C bought the farm and the Klingons upscaling the Bird of Prey into giant cruisers. LOL