Constellation class technical manual

[MichaelS]

Alex said:
I was never very comfortable with the idea that the nav-deflector functions were just blended into the shields and bussard fields and such, in part because some of that doesn't fit with the functions of those other elements (especially the bussard fields, which are attractive in nature), and in part because if that system worked at all well, we'd not be seeing all those nav deflectors on later ships.

Hm. I understand your point, Alex, though I'm tempted to keep it as Rick intended it. Maybe it was an experiment? Although that probably wouldn't be used on EVERY ship of the class, so I'm undermining my own point ...

OTOH, there are plenty of pods and such on the Constellation hull that could easily be nav deflector housings, so it's not a big leap for me to imagine that as a solution to the issue.

Exactly. I haven't really decided what each pod is going to be (despite some hastily assigned functions on the MSD and similar diagrams that I've posted already).

I continue to really enjoy this, myself, and I've passed the word of this project on to some fellow members of STARFLEET (the fan organization) who are using a Constellation-class ship for their chapter. I wonder if they're following it now, too.

Alex, I really appreciate that. Thanks! BTW, I might just have to ask you for some help when I get to the text stage. At the moment, though, I'm only building the textual framework, so to speak, nothing substantial, mostly modifications of passages from Mr. Scott's Guide and the TNG and DS9 Technical Manuals, plus some ramblings of my own.

Timo said:
Couldn't the Constellation deflector be the honking big square on the bow?
I know it was meant to be another shuttlebay, but it's never really shown to be one. And the only good bow shots we have of Constellations are of derelicts, so the fact that the big square doesn't glow blue is no proof that it isn't a deflector...

Good point. Except that there is one Constellation in "Redemption" (don't remember which part right now) that doesn't seem to be a derelict (at least, I don't think Starfleet would resort to using one if ships in better shape were available). There might be a bow shot of that one to disprove your theory.

A deflector location like that would also be good continuity with NX-01. (Or am I shooting myself in the foot with such arguments? )

Not in my thread. I happen to like Enterprise. Indeed, I like it more each season, it seems.

I guess I'm just partial towards seeing that rectangle glow blue. That if anything would spell "POWER!" in a head-on meeting with space baddies...

Don't give up just yet. You just gave me an idea ... it's possible that one day in the not-so-far future, there'll be a picture of one of the subclasses mentioned in your Guide to Starfleet. I certainly don't have a problem with giving the Harrison subclass a nav deflector instead of a bow hangar. It would also explain their increased mass.

 

[Data Holmes]

I think we might be able to find an answer to the nav defelector problem in fandom.

The nav-deflector system used on the Akyazi could be inlarged and placed above the Foward shuttle bay of the Constellation class.

This could work for two reasions:
1, none of the shots of the class were able to get in close enough to that area to discount such a placement.

2, It would carry over the NX bow deflector through a well thought out fandom design for a refit-era design.

 

[Arpy]

I'm not as well versed as others here on dates, but if the ship is meant to have launched towards the end of the E-A era, then the blue-on-blue would probably be the best option, even though I find it somewhat lackluster.

The yellow-on-peach I very much like, but they're the exact colors as on the E-D, and there are the decades of the E's B & C between the E-A and the E-D to consider. Maybe if this was the look in E-C era after the one you choose for this project?

But even then you'd probably want to a) backdate it: maybe add a little of the richer orange from the second-to-last one, and b) update it: change the overall shape in a cross between the circles of the E-A era and the rectangles of the E-D era - ovals?

I think the bright orange and bright green are too loud and monochromatic, and would probably be hard on the eyes after a while. Either could work depending on the look you’d like for if they were subdued a bit and you increased the contrast between the [same color] shades. The screen version included up top works even without a large contrast in shading because the colors are different, and the blue-on-blue is cool enough that you overlook the monochrome.

-

I don't have a problem with the lack of deflector dish: see the Miranda and Oberth Classes. Some suggest the Oberth's is somehow covered in the front of the secondary hull. If you look close, the two little knobby things atop the Miranda saucer are actually clam-shell doors (presumably for space-walks) with stairs leading down to the saucer's surface. All three ships are great regardless. If you really wanted to get picky, you'd wonder why not all Starships don't have huge Constitution deflector dishes.

 

[cardinal biggles]

While the color scheme could be different, the TOS-movie style would need to stay, since that's what the Stargazer had.

(screencap from "The Battle")

 

[MichaelS]

^Thanks for that link! These are the best screencaps of "The Battle" I've seen so far.

 

[HortaVorta]

Timo said:
Couldn't the Constellation deflector be the honking big square on the bow?
I know it was meant to be another shuttlebay, but it's never really shown to be one. And the only good bow shots we have of Constellations are of derelicts, so the fact that the big square doesn't glow blue is no proof that it isn't a deflector...

Posted by MichaelS:
Good point. Except that there is one Constellation in "Redemption" (don't remember which part right now) that doesn't seem to be a derelict (at least, I don't think Starfleet would resort to using one if ships in better shape were available). There might be a bow shot of that one to disprove your theory.

The U.S.S. Victory's (an operational Constellation circa 2365) bow is seen at the end of "Elementary, Dear Data". Now my taped copy is ancient, dating back to the first broadcast with a rather crappy signal, but the area in question looked dark--darker than the surrounding hull. It doesn't even have the recessed rim light of Miranda-class shuttlebay doors.

So, it could go either way. After all, where's the deflector on the Oberth?

 

[Albertese]

As for the absence of a visible nav deflector on the Constellation/Oberth/Miranda/Deadalus(if you want to count it)/Presumably warp-capable shuttlecraft, I always assumed (totally my own conjecture) that an "outboard" deflector dish was more effecient to use and capable of channeling more power than other "inboard/non-centralized" systems but since it eviently has to be charged with anti-protons, a la First Contact (perhaps for more power? I dunno.), it is more dangerous and probably more expensive to run safely.

In the mid 24th century, I figure the technology advanced to the point where outboard deflectors where easier to run and could be designed into almost any starship. By the 2370's even small craft like shuttles and Data's scout ship are regularly equipped with outboard deflectors.

Why not retro fit the other ships with outboard deflector units? The systems are suffeciently different to make such a refit far too involved to really be worth it. Besides, the other system worked for hundreds of years, so why fix it if it a'int broke?

Of course, YMMV.

 

[Timo]

There are three reasons to think that deflector dishes are *not* charged with antiprotons (except when taken over by the Borg and converted to transtri-isoplexing doodads):

1) The fact that Picard had to inform Worf and Hawk of the antiprotons. If they were a permanent feature, these Starfleet officers would know of them already. But only Picard would know of Borg modifications.

2) The fact that the risk of explosion exists. If it routinely did, Trek ship-to-ship combat would look very different!

3) The fact that it sounds so profoundly silly.

It's quite possible that the dishlike deflectors do more diverse things than non-dishlike ones. A simple warship wouldn't need the extra features, but a multipurpose vessel would. And towards TNG, the dish machinery would grow more affordable, so that ultimately fitting it to every vessel would be no more expensive than using a non-dish deflector.

The dish could for example be especially suited for long range sensors, which would benefit from the subspace fields that allow the deflector to reach out to distant objects at FTL speeds. For all we know, the dish shape actually diminishes the power of the actual deflecting function, yet caters for this nifty extra feature...

That's a tad too techy for this forum, though. All I wanna see is a blue-glowing Constellation bow.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Tau Ceti III]

Deluxe Paint rocked! I used DPIIe on the PC until the coming of Windows 2000, and alas, it no longer worked.

 

[MichaelS]

Timo said:
That's a tad too techy for this forum, though. All I wanna see is a blue-glowing Constellation bow.

No, that's my thread, and I don't mind the techyness. In fact, I'm grateful for it, because I'm still a beginner regarding treknology. I started the CCTM from the art angle. It's high time I start thinking about the Constellation's features and abilities.

Meanwhile, though, here's my final okudagram colour scheme and a biobed display using the same colours. As somebody suggested over at SFM, I'll keep the blue-green as the LCARS standard colour set, but the blue-orange one will be sort of custom-made for, say, Constellation or Valkyrie. Now that I think about it, I might even include an entire section about LCARS colours and layout ...

 

[Wee Bairns]

Thank god this thread hasn't died, I was going to bump it earlier this morning, as I've been salivating for more.
The okudagrams looks good, it's a unique look. I especially like the idea of custom color sets. Everything else about LCARS is said to be fully customizable, why not the color scheme?
The biobed display looks great as well!
Two

up!!

 

[MichaelS]

Oh, I won't let this thread die, rest assured. It's just that I recently got a job, sort of (one year of compulsory community service, the alternative to compulsory military service), and that reduces the amount of time I can spend on the CCTM.

Thanks for the continued interest and support, guys!

 

[Deleted 2]

Compulsory military service

 

[MichaelS]

Yup. There's talk of changing the system to a voluntary one, but that's not going to be implemented that soon.

 

[Kagan]

Just stopping in to say that I've really enjoyed viewing your work. I don't usually say anything...I just view and move on. But this shows your great patience in tedious work.

Keep it up!

 

[James Dixon]

For full specs of the Constellation class including a cutaway, consult Jackill's Ships of the Fleet manual (forgot which one!)... He's also got tech specs on the 4-nacelled predecessor of the Constellation, the Jaguar class I think it was called...

For the basic original configuration, consult the back of Star Fleet Prototype... Nice line drawing...

I've also typed up a little text file on the Constellation class that's probably still floating around here... Regarding launch and commissioning dates...

In addition, there was another fan manual detailing another ship class or two which compared the Constellation class...
This is where the date conflicts began, following the Prootype manual--and my speculation on it...

Go to the Bravo Fleet HQ website for an interesting speculative construction history of the Constellation...

 

[AlexR]

Posted by James Dixon:
For full specs of the Constellation class including a cutaway, consult Jackill's Ships of the Fleet manual (forgot which one!)...

Volume II, IIRC.

One caveat, though. Eric fell into a trap that many folks did, and MichaelS seems to have avoided so far: He took an Okudagram which had been deliberately exaggerated along the vertical axis as an accurate representation of the ship, and added an extra deck or two, especially in the upper superstructure. The proportions should in fact more closely match the Enterprise-subclass's superstructure, although the bridge module's different and there are some other changes.

MichaelS has caught the details very well, I think.

Eric's specs are okay, but since this project is vastly more detailed, we may find that somewhat different numbers might work better once the final details are worked out. We shouldn't be afraid to adjust, if necessary.

Actually, too, the cross-section in Rick's article on the class in ST: The Magazine is a very good one, although the "slice" through the primary hull along the port/starboard line, rather than the centerline, omits a lot of structural and propulsion details. Still, Tim Earls (IIRC) gets a lot of the proportions right relative to the filming model.

He's also got tech specs on the 4-nacelled predecessor of the Constellation, the Jaguar class I think it was called...

If I'm thinking of the one you're thinking of, James, it's the Cheetah-class fast cruiser.

For the basic original configuration, consult the back of Star Fleet Prototype... Nice line drawing...

Prototype got the proportions very close to accurate, though they used what look like typical LN-64 drive units. One pretty much has to take that drawing as a concept or design drawing, not a rendition of the final ship as constructed.

In addition, there was another fan manual detailing another ship class or two which compared the Constellation class... This is where the date conflicts began, following the Prootype manual--and my speculation on it...

You thinking the Cheyenne-class manual, or a different one?

Best,
Alex

 

[James Dixon]

Posted by AlexR:
One caveat, though. Eric fell into a trap that many folks did, and MichaelS seems to have avoided so far: He took an Okudagram which had been deliberately exaggerated along the vertical axis as an accurate representation of the ship, and added an extra deck or two, especially in the upper superstructure.

You said it, not Me! No, I won't say it! Sure, it's OK when you say it... I'm not putting my foot in the meat grinder This time!!

This is why I'm HERE and not down in you-know-where!


And you're right on the mark on everything else...
(But as much of Jackill's specs as possible should be preserved, as there's enough conflicting info floating around out there!)...

 

[AlexR]

Posted by James Dixon:

Posted by AlexR:
One caveat, though. Eric fell into a trap that many folks did, and MichaelS seems to have avoided so far: He took an Okudagram which had been deliberately exaggerated along the vertical axis as an accurate representation of the ship, and added an extra deck or two, especially in the upper superstructure.

You said it, not Me! No, I won't say it! Sure, it's OK when you say it... I'm not putting my foot in the meat grinder This time!!

Heheheheh....

And I'll say something else, too. The mistake that the people who fall into that trap made was in assuming that the graphic was intended to be a precise representation of the ship...which it wasn't. (Heck, even a bunch of display graphics in TMP were akin to that, especially when the production folks used FJ plans to represent interiors of a ship that was obviously vastly different inside.) Unfortunately, it was another case of people not thinking critically and asking "why", but simply following blindly, and that's always bad.

And you're right on the mark on everything else...
(But as much of Jackill's specs as possible should be preserved, as there's enough conflicting info floating around out there!)...

I've no objections to retaining as much of Eric's stuff as possible, but we have to, again, look at whether he might have actually made any mistakes. We already know his side profile's wrong. If we continue developing a manual on the detail level of what MichaelS is doing here, we might find that there are better numbers, or better ways to describe the ship, than Eric had.

(Eric himself is going to be revising some of his older materials for rerelease, based on having new information that he didn't have when he did them the first time. A hallmark of what we're doing here is the ability to look back at something and say, later, "Could this have been done better?" Nothing wrong with that at all.)

Best,
Alex

 

[USSHathaway]

Micheal,

I'd like to use your stuff as a reference in my fan film, Star Trek: U.S.S. Hathaway. I sent you an email though I never heard from you or found out if you received it.

For anyone interested check out Star Trek: U.S.S. Hathaway for information on our fan film.