Constitution, Miranda, and Constelation Class
- Thread starter Brainsucker
- Start date
Actually, I consider the "cannon turret-looking" thingie underneath the ship to be the deflector
So Constellation Class is actually bigger than Constitution Class? I just realized it now.
They didn't just make the standard connie refit primary hull thicker. You can see where the connie disc ends and then there's more diameter still, and the two deck thickness at the outer disc is now what? Five or six deck worth of thickness.
The constellation with no secondary hull is still much more massive than a connie with it's secondary hull, so twice as many engines.
Plus one can always put the engines "on shifts" allowing one pair to 'rest', and thereby doubling the operational life of the pods. Very room ship it be.
LOL, you know, in all the years I've seen this ship, I've never noticed that the bridge had that extra dome on it until now (and it's there on the original studio model, not added in with CGI). But honestly I don't think it's supposed to be a smaller bridge. It's probably just another doodad they stuck on the model with the other anime kit parts.
As for the screencaps, I view it as more of a "forced perspective." That is, the Stargazer is actually much closer to the camera than the Enterprise is, and the tractor beam is coming from the Enterprise from an angle instead of being on the same plane as the smaller ship.
Or, perhaps the Stargazer was one of those super-sized ships from Star Trek '09?
I Was thinking that too, the Stargazer just being closer to the camera than the Enterprise.
Although that is surely just a simple transport ship. Deck after deck of bedrooms, restaurants, lounges and entertainments, like a cruise liner. Or like the passenger module from Franz Joseph's Ptolemy class.
so... Constelation Class role is actually a freighter? It is make a sense then if it is. Because a freighter needs more power than a cruiser just to reach the same speed. And it should be bigger as it brings a lot of cargo.
Also, ships designed for bulk transport might make for particularly good deep space explorers - historically, they did, offering room for provisions and fuel plus survey gear, and some extra hull strength to cope with environmental threats such as ice, storms, or (through some "expendable" timber) longterm exposure to fancy types of water, woodworms or barnacles, or hard beachings on distant shores. Perhaps that's why Picard flew deep space sorties in this outdated-looking ship in the mid-24th century: she had only received a deep space exploration role at the end of a long career of hauling supplies for the late 23rd century combatants and explorers.
Timo Saloniemi
Timo Saloniemi
Or then so outdated that any modern high-strung military system would be more user-friendly, less likely to break down, and with better life expectancy overall...
It's not as if the engine systems of the Stargazer or the Hathaway would have obviously differed from those of the Enterprise-A or the Reliant, either.
Timo Saloniemi
It's not as if the engine systems of the Stargazer or the Hathaway would have obviously differed from those of the Enterprise-A or the Reliant, either.
Timo Saloniemi
The thing is, we see the dedicated transport Sydney, and she carries no identifiable armament. All the other three designs to use those engines are more or less identically armed; if anything, the Constitution is the least militant of them, with just two torpedo tubes against the apparent four of the competitors, and with just one more explicit phaser turret than the Constellation (and perhaps actually four less, if we assume the dorsal five single turrets of the Stargazer are ventrally mirrored despite the model not actually having that detail).
"Geared towards colonization" sounds a tad thin if it entails adding some shuttlebays but also quite a bit of firepower. Perhaps "geared towards planetary assault" might be more like it?
Timo Saloniemi
"Geared towards colonization" sounds a tad thin if it entails adding some shuttlebays but also quite a bit of firepower. Perhaps "geared towards planetary assault" might be more like it?
Timo Saloniemi
Speaking of the Constellation-class, looking at those screenshots it would appear that she has at least some of those phasers on the rim mirrored on her ventral as she fires one from the outer tip in "The Battle". So 22 phaser emitters at a minimum. But she seems to only have the standard two forward photon torpedo launchers (no aft facing ones).
She doesn't fire in "The Battle", but in "Peak Performance". It's fortunate that the distant shot from that episode is essentially the only one to ever reveal the underside of the model on screen, so we don't learn the sad truth:
http://images4.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20060821001057/startrek/images/5/59/USS_Valkyrie-02.jpg
As for the torpedo launchers, those were never actually painted in or lit. The torp decks of the Constitution neck piece were simply installed as is but left unpainted - just like the blue domes in the Constitution impulse engine pieces were left unlit. But supposedly there are twin launchers at both the top and the bottom pylon, giving the total of four. Good shots of them don't exist, alas.
The desktop model does nicely show where the top pair would go, though. This allows us to spot it in the Stargazer onscreen bow view as well, despite the lack of illumination.
http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/scans/drex/constellation-yellow2.jpg
And here's a shot showing the great likelihood of the bottom pair also existing.
http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/scans/christies/constellation-christies1.jpg
Might be these aren't torp launchers, of course. But the ship has those somewhere, as per dialogue from "The Battle". It would be a bit clumsy to claim that an all-new fixture (such as the odd barrel on the underside) is a torpedo launcher if also simultaneously claiming that these familiar features are not.
Timo Saloniemi
http://images4.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20060821001057/startrek/images/5/59/USS_Valkyrie-02.jpg
As for the torpedo launchers, those were never actually painted in or lit. The torp decks of the Constitution neck piece were simply installed as is but left unpainted - just like the blue domes in the Constitution impulse engine pieces were left unlit. But supposedly there are twin launchers at both the top and the bottom pylon, giving the total of four. Good shots of them don't exist, alas.
The desktop model does nicely show where the top pair would go, though. This allows us to spot it in the Stargazer onscreen bow view as well, despite the lack of illumination.
http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/scans/drex/constellation-yellow2.jpg
And here's a shot showing the great likelihood of the bottom pair also existing.
http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/scans/christies/constellation-christies1.jpg
Might be these aren't torp launchers, of course. But the ship has those somewhere, as per dialogue from "The Battle". It would be a bit clumsy to claim that an all-new fixture (such as the odd barrel on the underside) is a torpedo launcher if also simultaneously claiming that these familiar features are not.
Timo Saloniemi
I always viewed the Constitution class being slightly larger, with its lower hull, as having more space, more storage, giving it a greater range. Kind of like a Cruiser; whereas the Miranda didn’t have the lower hull, its range was lesser, would have to pull into ports more often, or require some kind of supply line. Another words, the Constitution could be used for missions requiring them to operate independently for longer periods of time, like deep space exploration. And the Miranda, would be used for operations closer to home, like border patrol, or assisting in colonization’s, science studies, etc. The Constellation, with its four nacelles; and still no lower hull; well speed for internal operations.
Well, ships do have their wartime uses...
Conversely, a ship charged with aiding colonization efforts might have fewer tactical options (no running out on the civilians) and may be required to stand and fight more often, hence the greater firepower.
That's what I'd think. The military probably wouldn't be too interested in shipping around civilian colonies; a lot of them aren't even necessarily Federation to start with. Starfleet, of course, has an interest in protecting most everybody from everything (as long as it doesn't violate the prime directive
), so there's that. But what would any military (de facto or official) want with fast, armed transports? Delivering stuff in dangerous situations, of course. Like a planetary assault - which Starfleet would do, if they had to drive out the Klingons or whomever. And if you can't reliably use transporters for whatever reason, you gotta have lots of shuttles, preferably in lots of bays so there's less of a bottleneck.
Whoops, you're right I mixed it the two up.
On the other hand, did the USS Valkyrie ever make it to the TV or movie series? If not, does this even count?
I'm hesitant to use the desktop model as an accurate example since it is missing the rim phaser emitters.
I'm thinking with those painted white in the front and lacking in torpedo launcher details that those are not torpedo launchers at all for the top and bottom parts.
You can see the top one clearly in this screenshot and it is painted white with no torpedo tubes.
http://tng.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/s1/1x10/battle069.jpg
There are also two more shots where we can see the bottom section and it too is also painted white and lacking the tubes.
Oh well, it looks like we don't know how many torpedo tubes she has.
