Baton-Rouge class

[Wingsley]

There were actually three futureships in the Spaceflight Chronology:

1: proposed robot extragalactic probe (side elevation drawing only)
2: proposed large cruiser (again, side elevation drawing only)
3: proposed "wedge" cruiser

All three of these "concept ships" were to be future-ultra-high-tech designs, with revolutionary hulls, no nacelles, and propelled by fourth-power "SuperWarp" drive. These ships were supposed to be huge next to the refit TMP 1701, kinda like Excelsior or Enterprise-D. They were supposed to house much larger crews and look nothing like any STAR TREK ships ever seen before.

I had mixed feelings about all of these designs. None of them looked anything like any of the TMP or TNG ships we're all familiar with. I did, however, like the basic premise behind them. I even nicknamed the cruiser-type ships "galacticruisers" to distinguish them from previous-generation Federation starships. By the writings and illustrations in the book, it was clear that the authors wanted to put forth the idea that the then-newly-refit Enterprise was about to be made obsolete by a new generation of space vessels, each capable of far greater power and capacity that would make TOS-era ships look like Model T's by comparison.

I equated the fourth-power "SuperWarp" concept with linear warp drive, and I assumed that the new nacelles in TMP-era ships were fourth-power warp driven ships. (I don't think in canon we ever saw the TMP-era Enterprise ever exceed Warp 7 in canon.) So Linear Warp Drive would be SuperWarp in disguise, and all TMP and TNG era designs would be based on it, and Linear Warp 8 would be eight times faster than Circumferential Warp 8 (TOS), which would explain alot of things.


When it comes to the Baton Rouge, I really like the design. But not as an evolutionary predecessor to the Constitution. I see her as something of an enigma now. She would've made a neat NX-01 alternative design. She could also have been a neat pre-ENT design. Or maybe a prototype battlecruiser for during the Earth-Romulan Conflict.

 

[SchwEnt]

I see Wingsley knows the SFC well. Excellent.
It remains my all-time favorite, for many many reasons.
And yes, the Baton Rouge is just terrific.

Let us continue to discuss the awesomeness that is the Spaceflight Chronology.

 

[Wingsley]

Well, at the time SFC was published, the only STAR TREK in canon was TOS, possibly TAS if you choose to recognize it, and TMP. There was no TNG, DS9, VOY or ENT. Nobody thought of a "reboot", either.

The Chronology is definitely charming, but waaaay off. It assumed that TOS took place in the waning days of the 22nd century. Presumably, TMP was supposed to take place in 2200-2215 timeframe. While canon arguments that deal strictly with interpretations of TOS by itself can be made that TOS took place anywhere from the late 22nd to hundreds of years later, STAR TREK II: THE WRATH OF KHAN and subsequent adventures made it clear that the Chronology had been thrown out the window.

Some of Sternbach's artwork in that book was quite memorable, though. The ugly-duckling-is-so-cute Baton Rouge was especially noteworthy. In the vacuum after the first movie, you could almost imagine Baton Rouge being the predecessor to the Constitution-class of starships. ENT put the last nail in that coffin, though.

The artwork and "SuperWarp" speculation are the part so the book that still make owning it a pleasure for me.

 

[Herkimer Jitty]

ENT put the last nail in that coffin, though.

Not if you plug your fingers in your ears and chant "ENT didn't really happen", like I do.

 

[EmperorKalan]

Well, at the time SFC was published, the only STAR TREK in canon was TOS, possibly TAS if you choose to recognize it, and TMP. There was no TNG, DS9, VOY or ENT. Nobody thought of a "reboot", either.

And it should be noted that the SFC definitely incorporates bits from TAS: the "Terra 10" colony ship, businessman/philanthropist Carter Winston, etc.

The Chronology is definitely charming, but waaaay off. It assumed that TOS took place in the waning days of the 22nd century. Presumably, TMP was supposed to take place in 2200-2215 timeframe. While canon arguments that deal strictly with interpretations of TOS by itself can be made that TOS took place anywhere from the late 22nd to hundreds of years later, STAR TREK II: THE WRATH OF KHAN and subsequent adventures made it clear that the Chronology had been thrown out the window.

The "publication date" of the book is 2215. Going by FASA's extension of the SFC timeline TMP took place in 2217.

Subsequent movies did erode it, but it wasn't until "The Neutral Zone" (last ep of TNG season 1) that scrapped its dating entirely, when it gave us a definitive year number for TNG (and working back from McCoy's stated age, a ballpark figure for TOS as well).

Some of Sternbach's artwork in that book was quite memorable, though. The ugly-duckling-is-so-cute Baton Rouge was especially noteworthy. In the vacuum after the first movie, you could almost imagine Baton Rouge being the predecessor to the Constitution-class of starships. ENT put the last nail in that coffin, though.

On technical matters, certainly. But for designs, not so much. Give most of the ships from the Horizon-class on a bit of a facelift, and most can be adapted pretty well.

 

[MadMan1701A]

I think what's killing this for me is the secondary hull. It had a rounder, more traditional type, I think it would be more balanced.

I probably could make a kitbash in this configuration, and I think it might look pretty neat...

 

[Cary L. Brown]

I think what's killing this for me is the secondary hull. It had a rounder, more traditional type, I think it would be more balanced.

I probably could make a kitbash in this configuration, and I think it might look pretty neat...

Ah, but that's really the point. The Baton Rouge class is a cruder design... the 1701 took the same general piece but made them into something beautiful.

From a purely logical standpoint, the Baton Rouge class makes sense. It's just not "pretty." Which makes the beauty of the Constitution class stand out even more.

(FYI, I think it's as "pretty" as the NX-01 was, or many, many latter-era Trek ships for that matter.)

 

[MadMan1701A]

I think what's killing this for me is the secondary hull. It had a rounder, more traditional type, I think it would be more balanced.

I probably could make a kitbash in this configuration, and I think it might look pretty neat...

Ah, but that's really the point. The Baton Rouge class is a cruder design... the 1701 took the same general piece but made them into something beautiful.

From a purely logical standpoint, the Baton Rouge class makes sense. It's just not "pretty." Which makes the beauty of the Constitution class stand out even more.

(FYI, I think it's as "pretty" as the NX-01 was, or many, many latter-era Trek ships for that matter.)

I don't know... I think it looks like the parts just don't match. Wouldn't a cylinder, be easier to build to keep pressurized than that weird secondary hull? I thought I had read somewhere that a square box type structure was the worst thing you could do in terms of building something that had to be pressurized.

The saucer and Nacelles aren't bad, but that side view that was posted really doesn't make any sense.

 

[Horizon]

It's certainly a difficult shape to model. My next attempt will be my fifth. Vance and I obviously see the secondary hull shape differently and I think more interpretations are good.
Corners are structural weak points, so with modern materials it doesn't make sense.

 

[RichMerk]

A while ago I tried to do a model of the Baton Rouge myself. It's not nearly as good as the one a little ways back in this thread, but here it is:

http://3d.merknet.com/free/batonrouge/batonrouge.html

I'm still working on improving my skills, and I'll probably have another go at it eventually.

 

[EmperorKalan]

I don't know... I think it looks like the parts just don't match. Wouldn't a cylinder, be easier to build to keep pressurized than that weird secondary hull? I thought I had read somewhere that a square box type structure was the worst thing you could do in terms of building something that had to be pressurized.

The saucer and Nacelles aren't bad, but that side view that was posted really doesn't make any sense.

I happen to like the boxiness of the secondary hull because it provides just the right bit of distance between the BRs and the Connies, at least in my view. And I'm inclined to think that any hull that can take the sort of stresses involved in warp travel, impulse maneuvering and other normal operations would be able to easily handle pressurization issues.

But that's all subjective. the same details that come together in ways that appeal to me and some others here come together in ways that don't appeal to you and a different set of others. That's the way the cookie bounces, and no harm done. Work on something you can get into, and if this is't it, leave it for someone else.

I do agree it's a bit clunky, and needs a bit of a "makeover" no matter how it's handled, if only so that the forward end works better. (I like RichMerc's solution the best of the three that have been shown in this thread.)

 

[Cary L. Brown]

I think what's killing this for me is the secondary hull. It had a rounder, more traditional type, I think it would be more balanced.

I probably could make a kitbash in this configuration, and I think it might look pretty neat...

Ah, but that's really the point. The Baton Rouge class is a cruder design... the 1701 took the same general piece but made them into something beautiful.

From a purely logical standpoint, the Baton Rouge class makes sense. It's just not "pretty." Which makes the beauty of the Constitution class stand out even more.

(FYI, I think it's as "pretty" as the NX-01 was, or many, many latter-era Trek ships for that matter.)

I don't know... I think it looks like the parts just don't match. Wouldn't a cylinder, be easier to build to keep pressurized than that weird secondary hull? I thought I had read somewhere that a square box type structure was the worst thing you could do in terms of building something that had to be pressurized.

The saucer and Nacelles aren't bad, but that side view that was posted really doesn't make any sense.

Oh, you're very correct about sharp corners being extremely bad, while "rounded corners" are "less bad" but still not as desirable as something circular, when dealing with applied stress.

Ideally, every space vessel would be a sphere, which is the most ideal shape. The next most idea shape is the cylinder. M.J. was thinking correctly when he laid out what we now refer to as the Daedalus class... though it could use some additional mechanical support between sections to make it "really" work. Right now, it does have a bit of "magick" involved... but it makes more sense from the perspective you just mentioned than, say, the Enterprise's structure does.

Just remember that every shape, when under a differential pressure (higher inside than outside) tries to reach the lowest-energy-state, which is a sphere. Every saucer-shaped primary hull is under internal strain which tries to draw it out into a sphere. Every nacelle is under internal strain which tries to draw it out into a sphere. Every cigar-shaped secondary hull is under internal lstrain which tries to draw it out into a sphere. I could go on, and on, and on, and on... but I think I've made my point.

SO... given that, why NOT make every ship a sphere to start off with?

Well, the obvious issue is "effective use of internal space." A ship that has parallel decks will, inevitably, be best-suited to be generally planar in arrangement. A ship that has rooms which are generally rectangular will be drive towards a shape that is, itself, generally rectangular.

The larger the vessel, the more leeway you have to deviate from that. Small ships are going to be more "boxy" if you want the most effective use of internal space, basically.

The Baton Rouge is smaller than the Constitution. From that basis, I have NO problem with the secondary hull being more "faceted," simply because it allows for more effective use of space.

And finally, well... it's worth remembering that the force applied to all these shapes, due to the atmosphere inside, is TRIVIAL compared to the forces seen in acceleration, deceleration, and so forth... not to mention potential COMBAT scenarios. It basically can be omitted from the calculation and you'll still get an accurate result, because it's almost too small to even notice. 1 atm of pressure isn't very much, when you get right down to it.

So, again, while you're technically correct, I, personally, have ZERO problem with the arrangement of the Baton Rouge class. It's actually more mechanically plausible than the Abrams-prise's nacelle pylons, after all!

 

[Wingsley]

All this seems to rotate around the notion that the Baton Rouge's roughly-shaped hull (in comparison to the Constitution-class starships) must be the way to go if you want a cruder-looking starship that fits into a evolutionary scheme of things. While I agree there was an argument for that when Goldstein & Goldstein's Chronology was first published, and the design is still very interesting to look at, one needs look no further than Warped9's Valiant/Farragut thread to see a plausible alternative. I would love to see a hybrid of what Warped9 and MadMad1701A have done!

As far as Chronology vs. canon is concerned, actually Adm. Kirk told Dr. Taylor in TMP4 that he was from the late 23rd century. That wasn't an exact date, but it was close enough to make it clear that TOS took place sometime after 2250.

 

[SchwEnt]

As far as Chronology vs. canon is concerned, actually Adm. Kirk told Dr. Taylor in TMP4 that he was from the late 23rd century. That wasn't an exact date, but it was close enough to make it clear that TOS took place sometime after 2250.

But it was mentioned already, at the time it was printed, all there was of Trek was TOS and TAS to base a chronology.

And a couple of eps refer to "two centuries" and "200 years" difference between ST's era and our time (late 1960s).
So that's roughly late 2160s.
The SFC does put TOS in the 23rd century by bumping it up into the early years (about 2207).

 

[EmperorKalan]

All this seems to rotate around the notion that the Baton Rouge's roughly-shaped hull (in comparison to the Constitution-class starships) must be the way to go if you want a cruder-looking starship that fits into a evolutionary scheme of things. While I agree there was an argument for that when Goldstein & Goldstein's Chronology was first published, and the design is still very interesting to look at, one needs look no further than Warped9's Valiant/Farragut thread to see a plausible alternative. I would love to see a hybrid of what Warped9 and MadMad1701A have done!

Not "cruder" just different. Again, it's a subjective thing. To me, Warped9's Valiant/Farragut comes across as a cruder and and duller design compared to the BR, basically just a rearrangement of the familiar "disk and tubes". I'm sure MadMan1701A or someone else with pro/semipro level of skill could flesh it out in ways that would make it look sexier (e.g., the Kelvin, which also counts as "a rearrangement of disk and tubes" and looks great), but the basic look left me flat. Nothing is going to please everybody.

 

[MadMan1701A]

All this seems to rotate around the notion that the Baton Rouge's roughly-shaped hull (in comparison to the Constitution-class starships) must be the way to go if you want a cruder-looking starship that fits into a evolutionary scheme of things. While I agree there was an argument for that when Goldstein & Goldstein's Chronology was first published, and the design is still very interesting to look at, one needs look no further than Warped9's Valiant/Farragut thread to see a plausible alternative. I would love to see a hybrid of what Warped9 and MadMad1701A have done!

Not "cruder" just different. Again, it's a subjective thing. To me, Warped9's Valiant/Farragut comes across as a cruder and and duller design compared to the BR, basically just a rearrangement of the familiar "disk and tubes". I'm sure MadMan1701A or someone else with pro/semipro level of skill could flesh it out in ways that would make it look sexier (e.g., the Kelvin, which also counts as "a rearrangement of disk and tubes" and looks great), but the basic look left me flat. Nothing is going to please everybody.

That's very true. There's quite a few ships that I really don't like to look at, but others do. The Grissom comes to mind... as does Voyager.

 

[Woody]

I'm huge fan of the Baton Rouge.

 

[Kaiser]

I'm huge fan of the Baton Rouge.

Cool Model

 

[SchwEnt]

VERY cool model. Makes the ship look even better than it did in the book. Looks to me to be a fine predecessor to the Constitution class.

How I'd love to see all the SFC ships as models like this...

 

[Knight Templar]

In FASAs "The Four Years War" sourcebook, the Baton Rouge class starships were one of the key vessels in the war between the Federation and the Klingons.