Constellation-Class Starships

[Warped9]

I always figured the Constellation-class were easier and cheaper to build than the TMP era Enterprise-class cruisers while using many of the same parts. The Constellations look to be of simpler construction and less elaborate design--hell, it's really just a beefed up saucer section with the stuff normally in the support hull of a Connie shoehorned into the Constellation's main section. The four nacelles are not exact replicas of a Connie's, but serve to provide similar performance in a quad arrangement.

The Enterprise and Constitution classes were the top-of-the-line while the Constellations could have been more workhorses to perform many of the same functions while more of them could be built for less investment per unit.

The variants of the Constellations we saw could have been science survey specific variants bulging with extra sensor systems. Meanwhile there could well have been variants that were cleaner and more streamlined looking akin to the familiar Constitution-class.

 

[sojourner]

This is made with parts I had lying around and is just thrown together, but here you go. What might have been:

 

[SeerSGB]

I always figured the Constellation-class were easier and cheaper to build than the TMP era Enterprise-class cruisers while using many of the same parts. The Constellations look to be of simpler construction and less elaborate design--hell, it's really just a beefed up saucer section with the stuff normally in the support hull of a Connie shoehorned into the Constellation's main section. The four nacelles are not exact replicas of a Connie's, but serve to provide similar performance in a quad arrangement.

The Enterprise and Constitution classes were the top-of-the-line while the Constellations could have been more workhorses to perform many of the same functions while more of them could be built for less investment per unit.

The variants of the Constellations we saw could have been science survey specific variants bulging with extra sensor systems. Meanwhile there could well have been variants that were cleaner and more streamlined looking akin to the familiar Constitution-class.

Well you had at least three classes running around with the same basic parts: Constitution (refit), Miranda, and Soyuz.

It's entirely possible that the Constellation was a "budget" ship. A ship meant to save on retooling and updating Starbases and shipyards by using Off the shelf parts. With the known galaxy in a state of political flux, it might have been seen as a "stop gap" ship that wasn't meant to replace the frontline ships like the Constitution completely but allow the fleet to draw down the older spaceframes till a more suitable class (Excelsior) could be put in the field.

I get the feeling from ST II (and I can't explain why) that around that time deep-range exploration wasn't at the top of Starfleet's list at the moment.

 

[ProwlAlpha]

Given the fact that Constellations were more heavily armed, I would say the Constellations were the ships of the line, with the less armed Constitutions being in a traditional light cruiser role (which is to scout and explore). I do stand by that the Constellations were flagships with large flag accommodations such as the double bridge and large sensor bulges.

 

[Unicron]

Nice work, sojourner.

 

[Warped9]

Given the fact that Constellations were more heavily armed

Where is it written they were more heavily armed?

 

[blssdwlf]

I wonder about the armament too.

It looks to have 3 dual phaser banks on top and bottom of the saucer and perhaps a bank to cover its rear. So at least 14 phaser emitters. It has what appears to be 2 torpedo launchers (like the refit-E) facing forward so probably 4 tubes forward.

The refit-E had 18 phaser emitters and 2 tubes forward. The Reliant had also 18 phaser emitters and 2 tubes forward and at least 1 rearward. The TOS-E probably had the same phaser setup as the refit-E (forward,port,starboard,midships,aft) and 6 tubes forward.

So the Constellations seem to be able to deliver more torpedoes in a single volley.

I'd say that the Constellations definitely had an overall Volume advantage over the refit-E and maybe even more than the Reliants. But unlike the simpler Reliants with 2 warp nacelles and 1 impulse deck, the Constellations probably were more complex having double the nacelles and a second impulse deck. The extra nacelles and impulse drives might have offset the volume advantage with the need to store more fuel to feed the extra propulsion units though. But then again, maybe not and the warp core could've been underpowered and barely able to give all of them the power they need if we connect to Picard's line in "Relics".

Perhaps the payoff with the Constellations was super redundancy making it useful in combat and deep-space exploration but more expensive to maintain.

It did bug me though that the TNG Feds seem to abandon these ships all over the place

 

[Warped9]

The way the design was realized onscreen I always thought they looked less advanced than the TMP refit era ships like the Constitutions and Mirandas.

 

[ProwlAlpha]

Its not written any where, just count the torpedo tubes and phaser banks vs the Constitution Refit. Numbers speak for themselves. Visually, the Constellation looks on par with the Constitution Refit, in fact the Constellations are a tad bit bigger by like five meters.

 

[Bryan B)]

It's entirely possible that the Constellation was a "budget" ship. A ship meant to save on retooling and updating Starbases and shipyards by using Off the shelf parts. With the known galaxy in a state of political flux, it might have been seen as a "stop gap" ship that wasn't meant to replace the frontline ships like the Constitution completely but allow the fleet to draw down the older spaceframes till a more suitable class (Excelsior) could be put in the field.

Agreed- It's clearly a utilitarian design which crams everything into a volumetrically-efficient package. Rather than incorporating then-buggy Transwarp technology, they just gave it a double helping of old tech.

The Connie could also be the forerunner of apparent quad-field technology on the Galaxy class (it has 4 bussard collectors, anyway). On another thread, my conjecture was that just before building the Connies, they tested the quad layout on an existing type, such as...

http://bloss1.home.comcast.net/~bloss1/quadRefit2.jpg

 

[sojourner]

^Man, no offense meant, but that looks fanboy-ishly ugly.

 

[Timo]

Its not written any where, just count the torpedo tubes and phaser banks vs the Constitution Refit. Numbers speak for themselves.

To nitpick, the right numbers seem to be:

Constitution refit

12 saucer turrets
4 underhull turrets
2 stern turrets

= 18 total

2 fwd torpedo tubes

Miranda

12 saucer turrets
4 roll bar turrets, on the sides of the cylinders
(2 stern turrets next to the impulse assembly, visible in a ventral shot of the original Reliant model)

= 16 (18) total

2 fwd torpedo tubes
2 aft torpedo tubes

Constellation

12 primary saucer turrets
5 single turrets on dorsal saucer rim (not on desktop model)

= 17 total

4 fwd torpedo tubes (not painted or lit on the models)

Whether there are unseen emitters elsewhere, it's difficult to tell. The Constitution is relatively smooth, but the other two ships have lots of greeblies that could hide phaser turrets if need be.

CGI or commercial models tend to omit the five single phasers of the Constellation, as well as the (possible) single emitters next to the Miranda impulse engine. However, we have good reason to believe that at least some of the Constellations have those rim phasers, because Picard considered his Stargazer to have "main phasers", implying the existence of secondary ones...

Timo Saloniemi

 

[ProwlAlpha]

On TNG Peak Performance, the Hathaway fired from a saucer rim phaser bank, but other than that. the Constellation has the edge in torpedo tubes.

 

[blssdwlf]

@Timo - "Main phasers" were also mentioned in at least 7 TOS episodes. If the TOS Enterprise had them what defines a main phaser and how is it counted? Is it just the one they most frequently use?

 

[Timo]

Good question. We have never really been told whether all the guns of a starship are of the same "caliber" or not. On all the Enterprises, certain guns are used significantly more often than others, and certain others (especially in ENT) are only seen in action against weaker targets. We could argue that the saucer guns (and possibly the underbelly ones) are the heaviest, and that the other turrets or strips are mainly used when the ship can't turn fast enough to fire the main battery in that particular direction...

The E-D and the Voyager do fire their shorter strips fairly often - but seldom against big and powerful targets. Generally, if our heroes face a powerful foe, they face him head on, meaning the primary hull phasers see the most action.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Birdog]

I was going to ask where the idea of a forward shuttlebay came from because it doesn't really make sense. Then I found this screen cap and it is pretty conclusive to me that it's a bay in the bow. This evidence that the ship has at least four bays more likely seven raises interesting questions about what her mission really is and why was Stargazer so far out there by herself?

 

[Timo]

Don't let appearances or artist intent fool you: that dark blue thing in an otherwise darkened, damaged ship could just as well be the navigational deflector, too.

It's in the same position, and of the same shape, as the corresponding system on NX-01 or the various ST:FC starships. And it's a bit superfluous as a shuttlebay, considering the existence of the other four large and two small doors on that ship. We also know that TOS movie era starships may have their deflectors darkened when they are on idle mode or have lost power.

Apart from this shot of the damaged Stargazer, and shots of the equally derelict Hathaway in "Peak Performance", our only other bow view of a Constellation class ship comes from the end of "Elementary, Dear Data" when the Victory arrives. That her supposedly operational and undamaged bow rectangle isn't glowing bright blue is no proof against it being a navigational deflector, because as said, ships from that era may have their deflectors darkened when not at warp (see ST:TMP).

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Birdog]

Don't let appearances or artist intent fool you: that dark blue thing in an otherwise darkened, damaged ship could just as well be the navigational deflector, too.

It's in the same position, and of the same shape, as the corresponding system on NX-01 or the various ST:FC starships. And it's a bit superfluous as a shuttlebay, considering the existence of the other four large and two small doors on that ship. We also know that TOS movie era starships may have their deflectors darkened when they are on idle mode or have lost power.

Apart from this shot of the damaged Stargazer, and shots of the equally derelict Hathaway in "Peak Performance", our only other bow view of a Constellation class ship comes from the end of "Elementary, Dear Data" when the Victory arrives. That her supposedly operational and undamaged bow rectangle isn't glowing bright blue is no proof against it being a navigational deflector, because as said, ships from that era may have their deflectors darkened when not at warp (see ST:TMP).

Timo Saloniemi

Interesting. The same image looks much different here at work. It's much darker. On my LCD at home there is a number 4 smack in the middle of that rectangle. Save the image and tweak the contrast and you'll see what I mean. I intially thought the same as you until I saw that number in the middle.

Here's the same image with the levels tweaked. Oddly I saw the number on my phone when I was doing an image search. I sent the url to my PC and saw it there but I can't see it here at work. I have an LCD at home and CRT at work. If you turn the brightness way up on your monitor you should see it on the original.

 

[blssdwlf]

^^@birdog - Ah, I see the number 4 as well.

The size and shape matches up really well with the other shuttle bay sections though. Here is a shot with the front of ship better illuminated.

http://tng.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/s2/2x21/peakperformance203.jpg

 

[Timo]

...True, it is a 4 rather than the attachment point from which the Ferengi knocked out the NX-01 -style paraboloid antenna.

Incidentally, that "Peak Performance" screencap shows the laser beam coming from a location where there's no phaser turret on the model - only the dorsal side has rim turrets painted the usual yellow-ocre. But the model does have three similar bumps on the ventral side, one in the bow mecha, two to port and stbd. They are simply painted black. They could be interpreted as further "secondary phasers", then, if we believe that re-rigged phasers served as the wargames lasers.

Timo Saloniemi