Avenger and Miranda class starships

[Timo]

...On the other hand, it would be easy to believe that Bennett would take a look at a design (upside down or right way up) and, not being a designer himself, and thus not too much in love with the work already done, would immediately see the massive benefits of giving Khan a ship that was the "opposite" of Kirk's.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Unicron]

I think it could go either way. I have no clue if the diagrams Bennett saw had text or labels on them, though it's certainly logical they would, but it's possible he liked the upside down look better anyway.

 

[nightwind1]

I think it could go either way. I have no clue if the diagrams Bennett saw had text or labels on them, though it's certainly logical they would, but it's possible he liked the upside down look better anyway.

Which, amusingly enough, is what happened when Matt Jeffries showed his original Enterprise sketches to Gene Roddenberry. The Enterprise was originally upside-down to what we've been used to the past 46 years, but GR thought it looked better the other way.

 

[Cicero]

The Miranda class is name after Prospero's daughter, a character from William Shakespeare's last play The Tempest.

Her name, in turn, is a Shakespeare-invented feminine form of the Latin Mirandus, meaning "to admire, marvel at, look at in awe/wonder/admiration" (quite appropriate for the character). That seems to me to be in keeping with names like Reliant and Majestic.

 

[nightwind1]

Or it could be the last name of a leader of the Revolutionary wars against spain in the early 19th century

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francisco_de_Miranda

I always assumed it was named after THIS distinguished Starfleet officer:

 

[Dukhat]

...On the other hand, it would be easy to believe that Bennett would take a look at a design (upside down or right way up) and, not being a designer himself, and thus not too much in love with the work already done, would immediately see the massive benefits of giving Khan a ship that was the "opposite" of Kirk's.

Yes, I'm far more of the opinion that Bennett simply liked the lower nacelles better. The problem with the previous story is that it makes Bennett sound like a moron (and the original Reliant diagrams do indeed have writing on them).

 

[137th Gebirg]

You are not recalling it correctly. Harve Bennett was given diagrams of the Reliant before construction began on the model. These diagrams showed the ship with nacelles on top. Somehow between his approval and the finished product, the model was build with the nacelles underneath instead. There was no "Avenger" model built.

Sort of. The version I've heard is that when Harve received the concept sketch of the Reliant, he opened them upside down (so that the nacelles, which were indeed dorsal or top mounted) were on the bottom, and that stuck. Personally I think it looks good that way, though it's hard to say how the alternative would look.

A while ago, I put together a speculative "prototype" version of schematics, based on the Jackill's design and an old 80's vintage assembly manual for modifying an AMT Enterprise kit into the Reliant, for what the original concept might have looked like on-screen:


Personally, I, too liked how it turned out with the engines underneath. It showed that, while still clearly a starship of Federation pedigree, it was also very distinguishable from Enterprise.

 

[137th Gebirg]

You are not recalling it correctly. Harve Bennett was given diagrams of the Reliant before construction began on the model. These diagrams showed the ship with nacelles on top. Somehow between his approval and the finished product, the model was build with the nacelles underneath instead. There was no "Avenger" model built.

Sort of. The version I've heard is that when Harve received the concept sketch of the Reliant, he opened them upside down (so that the nacelles, which were indeed dorsal or top mounted) were on the bottom, and that stuck. Personally I think it looks good that way, though it's hard to say how the alternative would look.

A while ago, I put together a speculative "prototype" version of schematics, based on the Jackill's design, for what the original concept might have looked like on-screen:

Personally, I, too liked how it turned out with the engines underneath. It showed that, while still clearly a starship of Federation pedigree, it was also very distinguishable from Enterprise.

 

[MatthiasRussell]

People you're not exactly helping me here, I once had the dimensions for the Miranda written down but have since lost the paper they were written on, I believe the given length for the Miranda was 234.9meters, can anyone confirm this?

I'm not at home so I can't check but the star trek encyclopedia and ds9 tech manual give this dimension.

Also, the saucer section of the refit Constitution and Miranda were the same. So with the diameter of the saucers,the length of the connie and a scaled picture of the 2, you can get the Miranda dimensions.

 

[Unicron]

A while ago, I put together a speculative "prototype" version of schematics, based on the Jackill's design, for what the original concept might have looked like on-screen:

One of the early sketches had paired torpedo/weapon pods instead of the now familiar rollbar. Have you considered doing that one as an alternative? Just curious.

 

[Gagarin]

That's not a made up story with Harve, the special features videos on the Bluray even show a scanned photo of Harve's initials on the design (upside down).

 

[Dukhat]

That's not a made up story with Harve, the special features videos on the Bluray even show a scanned photo of Harve's initials on the design (upside down).

So either he was a complete idiot, or he intentionally signed the drawing upside-down to affirm that that's how he wanted the orientation to be.

I prefer the latter assumption.

 

[Timo]

This doesn't indicate a "mistake" of any sort, of course - just a meeting that ended with Bennett deciding that the ship had originally been drawn poorly and had to be flipped for greater effect.

...Whoopsie, beaten by worthy competition.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Gagarin]

Not a matter of being an idiot or not - he saw a design and was so pleased with how it struck him, that he signed off on it without a second thought. Maybe the paper was turned to one side, maybe he immediately saw it this way and thought "THAT'S IT" an it never occurred to him it could be another way, or even gave it a second thought once he liked what he saw? Ever see something in a store and it immediately struck you as the perfect thing to solve a problem without really knowing what it's "supposed" to be used for? His instinct was correct - engines below saucer, opposite of the hero ship.

I don't understand why people either have to "idiots" or geniuses.

 

[Ian Keldon]

You are not recalling it correctly. Harve Bennett was given diagrams of the Reliant before construction began on the model. These diagrams showed the ship with nacelles on top. Somehow between his approval and the finished product, the model was build with the nacelles underneath instead. There was no "Avenger" model built.

Not quite right. Bennet singed the approval drawings upside down and sent them back to the US (he was overseas working on another project at the time). There wasn't enough time to get him to give a fresh approval, so they made minor changes and built the model "as signed".


This is from the extras in the 2-disc director's version of ST II.

 

[137th Gebirg]

A while ago, I put together a speculative "prototype" version of schematics, based on the Jackill's design, for what the original concept might have looked like on-screen:

One of the early sketches had paired torpedo/weapon pods instead of the now familiar rollbar. Have you considered doing that one as an alternative? Just curious.

Interesting... Not familiar with that configuration. Are they like front/back Connie refit launchers where the mega phasers eventually wound up? Also, is that version also with the engines on top like with this one? I should have enough info here to put something together, yes.

 

[James Wright]

People you're not exactly helping me here, I once had the dimensions for the Miranda written down but have since lost the paper they were written on, I believe the given length for the Miranda was 234.9meters, can anyone confirm this?

I'm not at home so I can't check but the star trek encyclopedia and ds9 tech manual give this dimension.

Also, the saucer section of the refit Constitution and Miranda were the same. So with the diameter of the saucers,the length of the connie and a scaled picture of the 2, you can get the Miranda dimensions.

Thanks for the help!

A while ago, I put together a speculative "prototype" version of schematics, based on the Jackill's design, for what the original concept might have looked like on-screen:

One of the early sketches had paired torpedo/weapon pods instead of the now familiar rollbar. Have you considered doing that one as an alternative? Just curious.

How is the back half of the dorsal primary hull defended? As best as one can see there aren't any phasers located anywhere within sight.

 

[137th Gebirg]

I would guess that those two phaser banks directly underneath the impulse engine housing would be it - but you're right, there doesn't seem to be anything topside-aft, unless the mega phaser banks have some kind of swivel-aim capability.

 

[Unicron]

Here you go. It's kind of a rough sketch, but it seems this version would have had no rollbar and instead two torpedo boxes slung under the nacelles. Other than that it's identical to the final version in most respects. According to Memory Alpha, after Bennett signed off on the "inverted" design, the rollbar was added in place of the pods because the design crew felt it balanced the underslung nacelles better.