Constellation class

[Bill Morris]

Maybe so. I thought the thing you drew below the bridge of the Miranda class was an ODN trunk line, not being an expert like you guys. Maybe I should do it like that with this one. It looks nice.

But here it is with the warp core lengthened a little, the misplaced intermix chamber restored, and antimatter storage where Gerard Gillan thought it should be.

I know it's traditional on TrekBBS to drag out making a schematic for one ship for years, but I'd like to call this one done, if possible. Of course, if there are any corrections to make, I'll make them.

 

[Plecostomus]

Looks fine as it is, at least to me. All the relevant parts are there, in logical locations.

 

[ancient]

I really like this ship, even though it suffers a bit from ship-of-the-week syndrome. I think it'd be neat to come up with a sleeker, less junked up version.

Anyway, good work on the diagram!

 

[Praetor]

Maybe so. I thought the thing you drew below the bridge of the Miranda class was an ODN trunk line, not being an expert like you guys. Maybe I should do it like that with this one. It looks nice.

But here it is with the warp core lengthened a little, the misplaced intermix chamber restored, and antimatter storage where Gerard Gillan thought it should be.

I know it's traditional on TrekBBS to drag out making a schematic for one ship for years, but I'd like to call this one done, if possible. Of course, if there are any corrections to make, I'll make them.

Yeah, I think the TMP-era ships maybe all had those direct ODN trunks, but later they drifted away from it by TNG times. Anyway, I think the Constellation looks great as it is.

 

[Bill Morris]

Well, here it is with the Praetor touch. I like it better this way.

 

[SoM]

Okay, I'm probably looking right at it, but where's the warp core on the last few versions?

 

[miraclefan]

Well, here it is with the Praetor touch. I like it better this way.

Looking much better man!

 

[Praetor]

Well, here it is with the Praetor touch. I like it better this way.

Well, I like it but I may be biased.

Okay, I'm probably looking right at it, but where's the warp core on the last few versions?

It runs vertically from upper pylon to lower pylon, just between the bussards and warp coils. It's the orangey stripe looking thing.

 

[Rick Sternbach]

I might suggest the "auxiliary bridge" is in fact the location of the warp core. For one, it would have an unobstructed vertical path for ejection, unlike in the case of a vertical core in the pylons. And its hatchlike elements could be how the fuel tanks are topped up. The drive plasma would fire up along the leading edge of the pylons, then.

That's a nice idea, but that would also lead to a LOT of power transfer conduits. Still, other ships seem to have a lot of PTC, and perhaps the main part of the core with the dilithium chamber can be ejected after the antimatter pods anyway, leaving behind just PTCs? Alternatively, it could be some type of dedicated astrometrics-type 'observatory.'

The lance-like protrusion underneath the hull could be a sensor element - but it also shares something with the cylinders we see at the corners of Miranda class roll bars.

So perhaps a supergun, even though we never saw those cylinders act in a gunlike manner on the Mirandas. Or, as I'd prefer, this cylinder could be a miniature form of the front end of Kirk's ship: this could be the main deflector of the Constellation, just like the pods on the Miranda would be its main deflectors.

I think Rick Sternbach wrote in his writeup for the Star Trek Magazine that it was a long-range 'sensor gun' more or less like you say it's analagous to the main sensor on the Constitution. The main deflector could still be kept where it is.

Also, the big bulges on the underside flanking this "lance" could be the fuel tanks of the ship. That is, instead of the neat multiple "canisters" inside the hull, this ship could have two large volumes basically similar to the tanks of the Galaxy.

You know, those have always bothered me. I'd say they're either deuterium tanks or the Starfleet ship equivalent of 'radar domes.'

Just wild suggestions. The ship appears just fine as it is in that latest MSD.
Timo Saloniemi

Agreed.

The big "gun" is a long range sensor, very very narrow angle FOV. The STM article described it. The bulges are short range sensor domes. Starfleet says the Constellation class is a class of science vessel but shhhh don't tell anyone it's really a fast recon ship.

Rick
www.spacemodelsystems.com

 

[Praetor]

Thanks for clarifying, maestro!

 

[ancient]

Ahhhhhhh! Facts!

 

[Praetor]

I know... I was scared at first.

 

[Bill Morris]

Thank, Rick. I just labeled it narrow-beam sensor here for brevity, even though it's called SNARE (Super Narrow Angle Reconnaisance Emitter) sensor, probably referenced from your article, in one schematic I've included in my package.

Large MSD with SNARE ref:
http://lcars24.com/NCC-3890.jpg

I also cut the mass a little, upon Vance's advice, and lengthened the warp core a little.

 

[Praetor]

Looks spiffy to me. Great job!

 

[JNG]

I also cut the mass a little, upon Vance's advice, and lengthened the warp core a little.

Volumetrically, it's three times what a TOS-configuration Constitution is (Jaynz.info giving the 190,000 ton figure for that ship), and with twice as many sets of warp coils in there, I'd expect it'd be even more massive than that comparison would normally warrant. I was curious as to the rationale for making it one third as dense instead.

 

[Bill Morris]

I also cut the mass a little, upon Vance's advice, and lengthened the warp core a little.

Volumetrically, it's three times what a TOS-configuration Constitution is (Jaynz.info giving the 190,000 ton figure for that ship), and with twice as many sets of warp coils in there, I'd expect it'd be even more massive than that comparison would normally warrant. I was curious as to the rationale for making it one third as dense instead.

That's logical. Are the nacelles longer on the TOS Ent, though?
Can you give me a good mass figure for the Constellation class?

Your insights and suggestions have been helpful to me in the past.

The figures as of now:

TOS Ent: 190,000
1701-A: 210,000
Miranda class: 150,000

The figure I had orginally estimated for the Constellation class was 304,700 metric tons. Maybe that was pretty close.

 

[JNG]

^

If you were to assign the Constellation a density similar to the one you have given the Enterprise 1701-A on your schematic, which would seem appropriate for the era and technology, it would have a mass similar to that of Voyager. This seems okay to me: the volume figures for Voyager and Constellation match one another to within the margin of error, and while we must expect that the warp coils are much more dense on the far more advanced Intrepid-class ship, the double pairs of nacelles on the Constellation probably make up for it.

My own files I write up for ships have a Constellation-class starship massed at 650,000 metric tons. I think I shaved that number down from Voyager's mass because I really liked the idea of that chunky Constellation primary hull and its big doors having lots of space inside for shuttle operations and cargo and all sorts of goodies (even more than is usual for a big Starfleet cruiser).

Rick Sternbach's article on these cruisers for Star Trek: The Magazine has the U.S.S. Constellation launched in 2284, and they are really quite big compared to the other canon ships we know from that era, aren't they? I am a fan, though.

 

[Bill Morris]

I just noticed that I had misread your post on page 1, JNG. You wrote "light," which I took as "right" at a glace. I'm always in too much of a hurry, I guess. Sorry. I checked that volumetrics site. It shows 700,000, and I see wildly conflicting figures around the Web for a lot of these ships. I just noticed one that put the Miranda class at 150,000 while another had it at over 2,000,000. Ugh. And a lot of people on this board badmouth volumetrics. Double-ugh.

 

[kent]

Not bad, a few things though.

1) I'm pretty sure the torpedo launchers should be at the extremes of the nacelle struts (where you have the orange strip on the upper one). The ones on the model don't precisely match those found on the refit Enterprise, but there do seem to be tube openings there.

2) The impulse engines shouldn't cross through the centerline, and should run vertically in the two 'blocks' to either side of the rear section. Also, according to an article written for the Star Trek: Magazine a few years back, the antimatter pods should be stored basically where you show the impulse engine now, because they can be ejected out the back. (That article also had a cross section from forward. It can be found on Ex Astris here, down the page a bit.)

3) I blinked at the launch date of 2291. It seems a little early for a ship with a registry of NCC-9754. Maybe more like 2305?

Other than that, very nice.

I agree. The torp launchers should be in a similar location to the refit enterprise if they're using the same struts. No on screen evidence but it makes the most sense. Also, on screen wise, there aren't torpedo launchers in the saucer. I also don't like where the warp reactors are. Two? I don't know about that one. I would've liked to see it horizontally in the flat part that extends aft of the saucer. If the antimatter pods are to be where this says the impulse engines are, then it would make sense to have the ejection ports in close proximity.

 

[JNG]

I just noticed that I had misread your post on page 1, JNG. You wrote "light," which I took as "right" at a glace. I'm always in too much of a hurry, I guess. Sorry. I checked that volumetrics site. It shows 700,000, and I see wildly conflicting figures around the Web for a lot of these ships. I just noticed one that put the Miranda class at 150,000 while another had it at over 2,000,000. Ugh. And a lot of people on this board badmouth volumetrics. Double-ugh.

You can do your own calculations of the ship's volume if you do not trust any of the ones kicking around the web, but Akimoto did show the work associated with his figures on Trek BBS a few years back; while some ships are hard to get figures for, the Constellation isn't one of them, being made up of some (slightly modified) parts with undisputed sizes against which we can measure the rest. Hey, she was put together using multiple model kits of ships using some of those parts. Thus, if anyone's math on the volume of this ship is "wildly conflicting" with the idea that it is very similar to that of Voyager, I have to figure they goofed with their calculator somewhere.

Measuring the volume of a ship, as a general thing, doesn't make much sense to me as something to badmouth; comparing the sizes of ships is a common activity around here. I don't know what method for doing so is being advanced as more accurate. Anyway, one ship at a time:

In this case, you have already done a schematic for 1701-A and set it at 260,000 (I think that's high, myself, but you've set it), and I don't see any reason to suggest that the Constellation, being around two and three quarters times the volume, would be even less massive than that. Why would it be only slightly more than a third as dense? With more warp coils in the mix, I would expect it would be even more dense, not so much less dense. I can understand some desire to keep it a little lighter than Voyager, but 650,000 was as low as I felt comfortable going. 700,000 is justified as well.