Constellation class technical manual
- Thread starter MichaelS
- Start date
Re: Improvements
What year do you believe that the Constellation was built and launched in? Judging by the registry, I theorize that the NX-1974 was officially launched in the late 2260s, just in time to be named in honor of the USS Constellation NCC-1017. In TOS Novel The Wounded Sky, the Constellation was a new vessel with the light cruiser designation.
What year do you believe that the Constellation was built and launched in? Judging by the registry, I theorize that the NX-1974 was officially launched in the late 2260s, just in time to be named in honor of the USS Constellation NCC-1017. In TOS Novel The Wounded Sky, the Constellation was a new vessel with the light cruiser designation.
Re: Improvements
Mid-2280s, for two reasons: a) the Hathaway was launched in 2285 as per "Peak Performance", and b) the Rick Sternbach article in ST: The Magazine, where he said that the Constellation (NX-1974) was launched in 2284. Of course, construction work would begin much earlier, and I also have the first prototype lost in a Klingon attack on the shipyards where it was built, which delayed the successful completion of the project quite a bit.
However, the exact timeline has yet to be figured out completely.
Mid-2280s, for two reasons: a) the Hathaway was launched in 2285 as per "Peak Performance", and b) the Rick Sternbach article in ST: The Magazine, where he said that the Constellation (NX-1974) was launched in 2284. Of course, construction work would begin much earlier, and I also have the first prototype lost in a Klingon attack on the shipyards where it was built, which delayed the successful completion of the project quite a bit.
However, the exact timeline has yet to be figured out completely.
Re: Improvements
Honestly, the Hathaway's launch date is fine given the registry, but the Constellation's really do not fit. I know he put it as 2280s, which seems he was working off of Hathaway's registry and CD from TNG Peak Performance, rather than looking at the Constellation's registry. I theorize that the Constellation was launched as an pathfinder vessel in the mid 2260s, with an SCE crew and assigned to Utopia Planitia FY to test new warp engines and other technologies. The hull design was shelved for a decade until a new Klingon Cold War started in the late 2270s, which Starfleet started to build upon the Constellation Hull Design and built the vessel as a light cruiser (I am going militaristic refernces rather than exploratory references given the militaristic tone we got from the TOS movies) to patrol the Klingon Neutral Zone. The Constellation, herself, was officially commissioned in the early 2290s and heavily refitted to do certification tests along the Klingon Neutral Zone (As evident in TUC).
Honestly, the Hathaway's launch date is fine given the registry, but the Constellation's really do not fit. I know he put it as 2280s, which seems he was working off of Hathaway's registry and CD from TNG Peak Performance, rather than looking at the Constellation's registry. I theorize that the Constellation was launched as an pathfinder vessel in the mid 2260s, with an SCE crew and assigned to Utopia Planitia FY to test new warp engines and other technologies. The hull design was shelved for a decade until a new Klingon Cold War started in the late 2270s, which Starfleet started to build upon the Constellation Hull Design and built the vessel as a light cruiser (I am going militaristic refernces rather than exploratory references given the militaristic tone we got from the TOS movies) to patrol the Klingon Neutral Zone. The Constellation, herself, was officially commissioned in the early 2290s and heavily refitted to do certification tests along the Klingon Neutral Zone (As evident in TUC).
Re: Improvements
That's sort of what I'm assuming as well. I mentioned the destruction of the first protoype/pathfinder vessel that was destroyed by the Klingons - the Constellation class development project could well have been initiated in the mid-2260s, first without a name and after the destruction of Decker's ship with the name Constellation. The second pathfinder vessel incorporated refit Constitution tech and parts and took over the name and NX number of the first one. A long test run followed, and from the 2280s on until about 2310 thirty or so ships were constructed.
That's sort of what I'm assuming as well. I mentioned the destruction of the first protoype/pathfinder vessel that was destroyed by the Klingons - the Constellation class development project could well have been initiated in the mid-2260s, first without a name and after the destruction of Decker's ship with the name Constellation. The second pathfinder vessel incorporated refit Constitution tech and parts and took over the name and NX number of the first one. A long test run followed, and from the 2280s on until about 2310 thirty or so ships were constructed.
Re: Improvements
So I've finally started the ventral view. I'd put this off way too long; I now realise that I need it to finish the other views. I've made good progress today, even though I'd had to redraw the SNARES sensor "cannon" when WinXP decided to suddenly end Illustrator without warning.
As you can see, it's not finished yet. Still lots to add.
So I've finally started the ventral view. I'd put this off way too long; I now realise that I need it to finish the other views. I've made good progress today, even though I'd had to redraw the SNARES sensor "cannon" when WinXP decided to suddenly end Illustrator without warning.
As you can see, it's not finished yet. Still lots to add.
Re: Improvements
NCC registry numbers really aren't the way to go for dating. They may make a little more sense than stardates, but not much. The reality of the matter is NCC numbers do not have consistency because to save production money they would cut and paste these numbers as they saw fit from existing models. For example the U.S.S. Constellation from the Doomsday Machine was NCC-1017 because they had the NCC-1701 decals from the model which was from an existing Enterprise model. Since there were only 12 original Constitution-class vessels this would seem to prove the NCC numbers were non-sequential. Further, ships like the U.S.S. Grissom had even lower registries as well (NCC-638) but were obviously chronologically newer than the Constitution or Miranda classes.
As to the reference to the TOS novel, unfortunately novels are not canon. Roddenberry said the only things that were canon were what was seen on TV and the movies (though he did specifically say the animated series was not canon even though it was on TV).
I suppose it's possible they could retcon a method to the madness if they wanted to, but until then there seems to be no "in story" explaination as to the registry system, we just know it is not sequential.
NCC registry numbers really aren't the way to go for dating. They may make a little more sense than stardates, but not much. The reality of the matter is NCC numbers do not have consistency because to save production money they would cut and paste these numbers as they saw fit from existing models. For example the U.S.S. Constellation from the Doomsday Machine was NCC-1017 because they had the NCC-1701 decals from the model which was from an existing Enterprise model. Since there were only 12 original Constitution-class vessels this would seem to prove the NCC numbers were non-sequential. Further, ships like the U.S.S. Grissom had even lower registries as well (NCC-638) but were obviously chronologically newer than the Constitution or Miranda classes.
As to the reference to the TOS novel, unfortunately novels are not canon. Roddenberry said the only things that were canon were what was seen on TV and the movies (though he did specifically say the animated series was not canon even though it was on TV).
I suppose it's possible they could retcon a method to the madness if they wanted to, but until then there seems to be no "in story" explaination as to the registry system, we just know it is not sequential.
Re: Improvements
Nice work so far.
In reference to FASA, their version of the Constellation is highly indadequate but I think they were limited in terms of what images were available, as someone mentioned. When they published the TNG Officer's Manual at the beginning of TNG, the only available shots of the model were from "The Battle" and pretty much all of those were either front views or side views. It still doesn't excuse FASA for getting visible details like the nacelle orientation wrong, but at least it's a little more understandable.
FASA did include something in the OM which I kind of liked, because they mentioned the histories of the various Enterprises. There was a controversy about the design of the Enterprise-B, because one group wanted it to be an Excelsior class battleship in response to tensions with the Klingons and Romulans, and another group wanted it to be a Constellation class cruiser in keeping with the traditional role of explorer. The military argument eventually won out with the B commissioned as an Excelsior. Anyway, I just think it's a interesting little tidbit.
Nice work so far.
In reference to FASA, their version of the Constellation is highly indadequate but I think they were limited in terms of what images were available, as someone mentioned. When they published the TNG Officer's Manual at the beginning of TNG, the only available shots of the model were from "The Battle" and pretty much all of those were either front views or side views. It still doesn't excuse FASA for getting visible details like the nacelle orientation wrong, but at least it's a little more understandable.FASA did include something in the OM which I kind of liked, because they mentioned the histories of the various Enterprises. There was a controversy about the design of the Enterprise-B, because one group wanted it to be an Excelsior class battleship in response to tensions with the Klingons and Romulans, and another group wanted it to be a Constellation class cruiser in keeping with the traditional role of explorer. The military argument eventually won out with the B commissioned as an Excelsior. Anyway, I just think it's a interesting little tidbit.
Re: I aten't dead!
Now, today's update: the SNARES "cannon" and the structure it's attached to. While doing this, I discovered that it was large enough for a small room. I imagine being the sensor operator there is a lonely job, but someboy's got to do it ...
Now, today's update: the SNARES "cannon" and the structure it's attached to. While doing this, I discovered that it was large enough for a small room. I imagine being the sensor operator there is a lonely job, but someboy's got to do it ...
Re: Update time
Thanks.
I recently decided to tackle the bridge once again, and this time I armed myself with screencaps of TMP and TWoK, since those movies feature the set that was later modified to serve as TNG's battle bridge. Comparing those caps with some of "The Battle", the similarities are now more obvious than ever, and I have now arrived at a solution that is satisfactory.
Many thanks to Sean Robertson, who put the Phase II bridge cross-section sketch online, which I used as the basis for the bridge of the Stargazer.
This is still a WIP, so be kind.
Thanks.
I recently decided to tackle the bridge once again, and this time I armed myself with screencaps of TMP and TWoK, since those movies feature the set that was later modified to serve as TNG's battle bridge. Comparing those caps with some of "The Battle", the similarities are now more obvious than ever, and I have now arrived at a solution that is satisfactory.
Many thanks to Sean Robertson, who put the Phase II bridge cross-section sketch online, which I used as the basis for the bridge of the Stargazer.
This is still a WIP, so be kind.
Re: Update time
I intend to make it as close to the Stargazer bridge as I can.
Here's what I think the ceiling should look like. Incidentally, while doing research for the last finishing touches for this image, I realised that I'll have to decrease the size of the central area (the circle that's covered with those "spines") ... *sigh*
I intend to make it as close to the Stargazer bridge as I can.
Here's what I think the ceiling should look like. Incidentally, while doing research for the last finishing touches for this image, I realised that I'll have to decrease the size of the central area (the circle that's covered with those "spines") ... *sigh*
Similar threads
