Critique of STNV's Copernicus

[Wingsley]

I'd like to get some aesthetic feedback on the new Starship Copernicus, which will be part of an upcoming episode of "Star Trek: New Voyages".

Here are some images:

STILL PICTURES

ANIMATION

How do y'all feel about this as a TOS version of the "Reliant" design?

I like the thought of the "Reliant" torpedo banks having evolved from a dedicated secondary hull. In a kind of ass-backwards way, I guess it makes sense. The nacelle struts going through the odd-shaped saucer are a neat idea. The funny shaped secondary hull/pod is odd, but the one thing that seems out of place to me is the "ramp" amidships on the saucer topside. When I first saw the Reliant, I thought the whole ship looks weird and very un-TOS-like, especially that ramp shape. Here, Bellucci Designs seems to have softened it, but it's still there.

 

[Psion]

That is gorgeous!

If pressed for a critique, I'd say the only part I don't like is the lack of a vertical connection between the primary and secondary hulls. This means turbolift, stairway, and/or ladder access between both those sections must be routed to the outer perimeter of the primary hull and move diagonally between them. It's like the whole problem with the Grissom. I suppose if you have artificial gravity anyway, it's not hard to orient gravity differently between different areas, but it feels a bit awkward.

Still, I love the look. It fits right in with TOS and is brilliantly rendered.

 

[Venardhi]

It looks good from the angle featured in the animation but from below it seems a bit off and yeah, lacking any vertical connection is a bit off-putting, especially with the windows in the pylons, even if they're on the TOS end in a few places.

 

[USS Mariner]

Ick. Well made model but clumsy design. They should've just gone for the Coventry or Surya instead.

 

[Butters]

I like it.

 

[MarianLH]

I too would recommend either a center pylon or just using the Coventry or Surya designs. Assuming Aridas is amendable to letting them be used.


Marian

 

[Patrickivan]

I like the overall design of the ship, but there's something off about it.

I think the deflector pod might be a wee bit too close to the hull. The bridge looks like it would block the deflector's use.

The nacelles are also too close to the hull.

It also seems a little off from below. Otherwise, I like it!

 

[Herbert1]

My thinking concerning a TOS-era Miranda-class is influenced by the book Ships of the Star Fleet Volume I by Carol Riel (Guenther and Sofia?) and the drawings of the Surya-class and Coventry-class frigates inside. Because of this, I never believed that the TOS-era Miranda-class, or proto class, had a secondary hull. I would have preferred a weapons pod instead of an antenna (deflector) shuttle bay pod since I feel that the shuttle bays should be aft of the primary hull like on the original Reliant and this was the location depicted on the Surya-class and Coventry-class frigates in SOTSF. I believe that the pylons on U.S.S. Corpernicus do have turbo lifts and so there is no difficulty gaining access to the pod.

In my opinion, the pylons from the primary hull to the nacelles look too long on the Surya-class and Coventry-class frigates in the SOTSF and I would have made them shorter. Perhaps Darren Dochterman and Joel Bellucci had similar thinking and decided to shorter the pylons.

But with this nit pick aside, I believe that Darren Dochterman and Joel Bellucci have created a beautiful model. I disagree with Rick Sternbach that the Miranda-class originated about the time of Star Trek: The Motion Picture or a little later so its nice to see TOS-era version of this design. I guess we could argue that the Miranda Class was the name for the post-2273 configuration of the starship. But that is similar to using the term Enterprise Class for the TMP-to-TUC design of Enterprise.

 

[aridas sofia]

I too would recommend either a center pylon or just using the Coventry or Surya designs. Assuming Aridas is amendable to letting them be used.


Marian

I would have been happy to share the design with them for their film. Only last year I worked with our own Tallguy to finish off the detailing of the aft section of that 25-year-old design, and the model he built as a result was very fine indeed.

 

[Herbert1]

I too would recommend either a center pylon or just using the Coventry or Surya designs. Assuming Aridas is amendable to letting them be used.


Marian

I would have been happy to share the design with them for their film. Only last year I worked with our own Tallguy to finish off the detailing of the aft section of that 25-year-old design, and the model he built as a result was very fine indeed.

Aridas, where might I find more pictures of TallGuy's model rendered? It is an excellent model.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

I think it's a mistake to design every TOS-era ship using only the components of the Constitution class as if they're tinkertoy bits simply because Franz Joseph did. In the case of the Copernicus, connecting everything together with TOS-style nacelle supports looks silly - they're the part of the Enterprise design that worked least well even in the original and I don't think they work at all here.

Aridas' example is far superior in this respect. If a designer wanted to go so far as to slightly back-adapt the actual pylon structure of the Reliant, one could account for its similarity to the ST:TMP pylon design by arguing that the element was used on these single-hulled vessels during the TOS period and later applied to the Constitution-class ships.

 

[QuasarVM]

I think it's a mistake to design every TOS-era ship using only the components of the Constitution class as if they're tinkertoy bits simply because Franz Joseph did. In the case of the Copernicus, connecting everything together with TOS-style nacelle supports looks silly - they're the part of the Enterprise design that worked least well even in the original and I don't think they work at all here.

Aridas' example is far superior in this respect. If a designer wanted to go so far as to slightly back-adapt the actual pylon structure of the Reliant, one could account for its similarity to the ST:TMP pylon design by arguing that the element was used on these single-hulled vessels during the TOS period and later applied to the Constitution-class ships.

I like both the Copernicus AND the tall guy ship...both look great to me.

I'm afraid I have to disagree with Dennis on this one...

 

[HRHTheKING]

Looks fine.

It'd be better without the roll bar/pod though

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Those TOS pylons don't look like they're part of any designed structure on the Copernicus - they just intersect the hull at an arbitrary angle as if they've been driven through it like spikes.

 

[Wingsley]

^ I happen to like that aspect of it.

The Copernicus design, in some respects, reminds me of Snowscape/Starscape's Spitfire, which is essentially like a Constitution-type cruiser, but with all the hulls inverted. The difference is that the Copernicus dispenses with any neck, opting instead to connect to the saucer by putting the pylons through the saucer. I like it; it's a new twist. The only thing I don't like about it is that the pylons need to be significantly thicker in order to be useful. I wish Copernicus had thicker pylons.

So, forget everything that's ever been discussed about FJ's tech manual or SFB or all the rest. If the Enterprise is a cruiser, what would that make Copernicus in the Federation TOS fleet?

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

^ I happen to like that aspect of it.

De gustibus non est disputandum. I dislike "tinkertoy design" in general - it makes no actual sense in too many cases, like this one - except, of course, when I'm playing with my Tinkertoy set.

I also dislike the shape and cross-section of the engineering hull - it's another case, like Gabe's Enterprise, of the curves looking like some kind of subpatching or deformation of a primitive and neither particularly functional-looking or aesthetically pleasing.

 

[Starscape]

I find TOS versions of the Reliant are a difficult thing. Once the detail of the movie version is stripped away for a TOS look, the TOS version ends up with large flat areas of hull, which look fairly boring.

The Copernicus design manages to deal with this problem quite well, though: the secondary hull manages to distract the eye away from the large flat area on top of the ship.

There's a few things I'd have done differently with it, but it's not a bad looking ship.

The Copernicus design, in some respects, reminds me of Snowscape/Starscape's Spitfire,

You really do like that ship don't you? Maybe I should start paying you for advertisement.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

The Spitfire is actually much better - it avoids most of the problems the Copernicus has. I remain unfond of the TOS pylons, but the Spitfire use of them at least makes as much sense as does the Constitution class's.

 

[aridas sofia]

I also dislike Tinkertoy design, unless thought is given to why you are going with a modular design and what the various modules represent. In the case of 1701, I think we all know what the modules are meant to reflect -- a habitation module, propulsion units, and a storage module. This reflects the need for many people (that big saucer) to go on a long trip (those big propulsion units and a big trunk to carry their stuff). That design reflects the story and stated purpose of the Enterprise quite well -- a five year mission into deep space.

I have nothing against using those components in other ways -- the storage module with a smaller saucer for a transport, or the saucer with one propulsion unit for a lot of people that don't have to go that far.

It's when you just start slapping the stuff together that it makes no sense. Franz Joseph's one-nacelled-but-big-saucered destroyer didn't make sense to me -- as a destroyer. As something else, maybe. The idea of the Reliant -- to me -- was "a lot of people that needed additional hangar space, but don't have to go as far as the Enterprise". We never saw it doing anything to make me think its mission wasn't that, so I bought the design. So, that's also what I tried to do with that presumed Reliant predecessor -- Surya.

 

[Cary L. Brown]

I think it's a mistake to design every TOS-era ship using only the components of the Constitution class as if they're tinkertoy bits simply because Franz Joseph did. In the case of the Copernicus, connecting everything together with TOS-style nacelle supports looks silly - they're the part of the Enterprise design that worked least well even in the original and I don't think they work at all here.

Aridas' example is far superior in this respect. If a designer wanted to go so far as to slightly back-adapt the actual pylon structure of the Reliant, one could account for its similarity to the ST:TMP pylon design by arguing that the element was used on these single-hulled vessels during the TOS period and later applied to the Constitution-class ships.

I tend to agree with this take.

Now, there's one possible argument for using the same cross-section, and that's "economy of scale." Suppose, for example, that Starfleet construction has a lot of modular elements (primary hull frame wedges, hull plating segments, etc... I'm not talking complete "model kit sections" but rather structural framework elements). Perhaps you could argue that they had the pylons on the 1701, and the interconnects here, made from the same basic linear "pylon frame" component.

From that standpoint... well... it SORT OF makes sense. But, considering that the loading on the pylons varies dramatically between the two designs, and considering that the hardware internal to the pylon on the design presented above (at least, the portion going to the upper "service module") would be dramatically different than that going through the 1701's pylons... it's not particularly likely.

As far as I'm concerned, I have no problem whatsoever with using standard (or "semi-standard") warp nacelles, and I have no problem whatsoever with having primary hulls made from the same structural framework sections, and of course I have no problem with the same sensor/deflector dish, hangar doors, etc, being used. That's all reasonable, practical stuff which you could easily expect to see in a "real" situation. But for the interconnecting, structural elements (like dorsals and pylons), by all means you'd expect the structural components to be optimized for whatever application you'd be dealing with.

And of course... I just think that the Surya-ish designs we've seen just "feel" better, anyway.

But hey, there's nothing we're seeing to say that there are more than two or three of this particular ship design, and that there may not be Suryas and Ptolomys and so forth flying all over the cosmos!

(My only quibble with Dennis's assessment, really, is that FJ DID try some variations, with the Dreadnought. I often wonder how much of the "tinkertoy" approach was FJ's personal preference and how much was dictated by the desire to sell lots of copies of the AMT/Ertl model (which could be used to make the other ships pretty easily!)