Is the Luna-class an improvement?

[Timo]

...It's somewhat ironic that they ended up using shots where not even 1017 was particularly visible, save for the very first establishing shots.

How difficult would it be to tell apart the two ships when one is intact and the other is mangled? The "distinction" created by the number choice did not really serve the audience here.

OTOH, given the poor reception issue, we could easily argue that the Constellation "actually" carried the registry NCC-1817, and we missed the crucial "-" due to screen flicker.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[SicOne]

It might well be that a key part of a torpedo launcher, as opposed to a probe launcher, is a big and complex piece of machinery that injects antimatter into the warhead.

That is, even probes might have some antimatter aboard, to power their evident warp drives. But the device needed for arming a combat-capable torpedo might be in a wholly different category, and not to be found next to just any launcher.

Similarly, a massive piece of dedicated technology might be needed for priming a quantum torpedo, explaining why on screen, q-torps and p-torps always emerge from different tubes.

I, too, thought that perhaps probes were kept in the sensor pod, preloaded with a "factory preset" amount of antimatter for the M/AM propulsion system so they were ready to launch at a moment's notice...but the more I thought about it, the more I thought that it would be a very dangerous practice to have antimatter anywhere on the ship other than in the armored and heavily-shielded antimatter storage area in the keel of Starfleet ships. If probes contained antimatter, all it would take is one severe weapons hit to the sensor pod and the AM in the probes might chain-reaction to obliterate the entire ship.

A better practice might be to have thin dedicated magnetically-shielded transfer lines from the ship's antimatter pods to the launchers, be they photon or quantum torpedos or mere probes, where they are normally kept free of antimatter but when required to fill a torpedo or probe, they are magnetized to form the magnetic bottle-thingy to keep the AM from reacting to the surface of the transfer line, shunt a small amount of AM from the AM storage pods and injected directly into the torpedo or probe to provide propulsion, then the magnetic bottle or sheathing is retracted from the launch area back down into the AM storage area, clearing the transfer line.

The difference between a probe launcher and a torpedo launcher, therefore, might be the existence of a second transfer line, this one injecting AM into the yield section of the photon torpedo. It is my understanding from the DS9 Tech Manual that quantum torpedos require antimatter to trigger the zero-point energy warhead that differentiates them from ordinary photon torpedos.

Thus, torpedos and probes contain no antimatter until they are injected with them and can be safely stored anywhere in the ship with no unwanted detonation issues.

 

[Timo]

it would be a very dangerous practice to have antimatter anywhere on the ship other than in the armored and heavily-shielded antimatter storage area in the keel of Starfleet ships

Interestingly enough, in "Errand of Mercy" our heroes take hits on the underside of the saucer, close to the area where torpedoes are fired from, and Spock then comments that there was "Blast damage in decks ten and eleven, minor buckling in the antimatter pods". If Deck 11 on the saucer features antimatter pods (as no other part of the ship was shown taking hits), they are there probably to serve the torpedo launcher...

This appears to be the only canon reference to the loading of antimatter to photon torpedoes. Although to be sure, in "Obsession", it was stated that antimatter would be "drain[ed] from the ship's engines" for the trap that would blow up the vampire cloud - but that need not reflect the practices of preparing photon torpedoes. After all, one won't use the loading machinery of a cruiser's 8 in cannon when preparing a demolition charge that will blow up a coastal fortress, even if the same type of explosive is going to be used.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[SicOne]

it would be a very dangerous practice to have antimatter anywhere on the ship other than in the armored and heavily-shielded antimatter storage area in the keel of Starfleet ships

Interestingly enough, in "Errand of Mercy" our heroes take hits on the underside of the saucer, close to the area where torpedoes are fired from, and Spock then comments that there was "Blast damage in decks ten and eleven, minor buckling in the antimatter pods". If Deck 11 on the saucer features antimatter pods (as no other part of the ship was shown taking hits), they are there probably to serve the torpedo launcher...

This appears to be the only canon reference to the loading of antimatter to photon torpedoes. Although to be sure, in "Obsession", it was stated that antimatter would be "drain[ed] from the ship's engines" for the trap that would blow up the vampire cloud - but that need not reflect the practices of preparing photon torpedoes. After all, one won't use the loading machinery of a cruiser's 8 in cannon when preparing a demolition charge that will blow up a coastal fortress, even if the same type of explosive is going to be used.

Timo Saloniemi

Good point, Timo. And perhaps some calamity regarding an AM pod in the bottom of the saucer caused the starship designers to reevaluate how they placed photon torpedo tubes on ships, and moved it to the slightly more secure location on the Constitution-refit-class.

 

[Finn]

*NCC-1017 may have originally been intended for a different ship class and was re-allocated to the new Constitution class before construction began on her.

Or despite it's external appearance, the Constellation wasn't a Constitution Class starship, but rather a different (older) class that used a similar design philosophy. Might explain why Kirk initially had a small problem finding the auxiliary control room.

Unfortunately that doesn't quite work because the defining characteristics of a class (armament, general shape, capabilities) are the same between the two ships. So, yes, they are the same class, even if the aux control room is in a different spot.

You can't use the 'fandom' definitions for ship classes, nomenclature, and all that to come up with the 'answers' to Trek's oddities. You have to use the experience that the designers, writers, et al, were drawing from. In this case, the US Navy circa 1945 - 1965. A LOT of things about TOS Trek, in particular, make a lot more sense when looking at things from that perspective.

The Soyuz and the Miranda classes looks the same (not all Mirandas have the same rollbar configuration).

 

[Vance]

Soyuz has a massively extended aft second, quad-mounted 'turrets' of some sort, a dramatically different sensor dome assembly, a different bridge assembly, and explicitly has a different mission profile. She's not the same class since her capabilities are very different than the Miranda type.

 

[Timo]

...You could say the same about the Reliant and the Lantree. Completely different capabilities and mission profiles, apparently.

Whether a design warrants a separate class name or a "subclass" name is probably not a clear-cut issue of capabilities or exterior shape. And depending on the context, our heroes might have the freedom of choice between calling the Bozeman a Miranda class vessel and calling her a Soyuz class vessel. They'd take the latter option because their intent was to indicate that this specific (sub)class was no longer in Starfleet use, unlike the umbrella class. But the people who launched the Bozeman on her mission, or the media that reported the launch, might have chosen differently.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Saquist]

Soyuz has a massively extended aft second, quad-mounted 'turrets' of some sort, a dramatically different sensor dome assembly, a different bridge assembly, and explicitly has a different mission profile. She's not the same class since her capabilities are very different than the Miranda type.

No, it's a Miranda Class Starship.

"While the designs of the final seven ships (from USS Theodore Roosevelt) are slightly different to those of the earlier ships, the US Navy nevertheless regards all vessels as a single class.[29] As the older carriers come in for Refueling and Complex Overhaul (RCOH), they are upgraded to the standards of the latest ships, as well as having their nuclear power plants refuelled."~Nimitz Class Carrier

We still (most of us) regard the Constitution refit as the Constitution.

 

[Timo]

OTOH, I'm reading a recent Aviation Week & Space Technology as I type, with an interesting article on the electromagnetic catapults to be installed on the Ford class carriers. The jump from Ronald Reagan subclass to Gerald Ford is basically just as incremental as the jump from Theodore Roosevelt to Ronald Reagan, but the USN chose to apply a new class name for CVN-79, more or less arbitrarily.

History may come to revise that choice one way or the other, of course. Starfleet, too, may once have regarded the variants of some "superclass" as separate classes, then abandoned that when there emerged too many variants with too subtle a divergence from the main design.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Vance]

...You could say the same about the Reliant and the Lantree. Completely different capabilities and mission profiles, apparently.

Well, the Lantree shouldn't actually be a Miranda class ship due to the lack of the rollbar unless you assume the rollbar is 'mission modular'. (Making the Miranda a FV instead of an FA). Of course, the real reason the Lantree lacks the rollbar is because the Reliant (then Saratoga) model was busted and couldn't be repaired in time for filming.

The Soyuz is a bit more of a radical rebuild of the entire aft section. Yes, it's another Miranda kitbash, and we all know that, but the ship is different enough so you can't just say 'oh, that's just a pod on it', and so warrants its own class.

 

[Saquist]

OTOH, I'm reading a recent Aviation Week & Space Technology as I type, with an interesting article on the electromagnetic catapults to be installed on the Ford class carriers. The jump from Ronald Reagan subclass to Gerald Ford is basically just as incremental as the jump from Theodore Roosevelt to Ronald Reagan, but the USN chose to apply a new class name for CVN-79, more or less arbitrarily.

History may come to revise that choice one way or the other, of course. Starfleet, too, may once have regarded the variants of some "superclass" as separate classes, then abandoned that when there emerged too many variants with too subtle a divergence from the main design.

Timo Saloniemi

So it's indiscriminate either way by precedent or by reasoning.

 

[SicOne]

OTOH, I'm reading a recent Aviation Week & Space Technology as I type, with an interesting article on the electromagnetic catapults to be installed on the Ford class carriers. The jump from Ronald Reagan subclass to Gerald Ford is basically just as incremental as the jump from Theodore Roosevelt to Ronald Reagan, but the USN chose to apply a new class name for CVN-79, more or less arbitrarily.

Make way for the Richard Milhouse Nixon-class CVN-80!

 

[MatthiasRussell]

If you look at airplanes, sometimes minor changes result in a letter being appended to the designation to denote the change, sometimes the plane gets a new name.
For instance, the P-51 A and D have different engines and canopies but are largely the same plane. The B-29 and 50 are mostly the same plane but different designations and names.
So in aerospace, the name game changes depending on when changes are made and who's in charge.
In my opinion, the Miranda and Soyuz SHOULD be different ship classes, largely because the book Ship of the Line says the Soyuz uses the same basic structure but has capabilities.

 

[MatthiasRussell]

I largely don't like the Luna design. It looks too nose heavy, being too thin in the back. It just doesn't look balanced to me.

That said, I've always liked the interchangable sensor/weapons modules. I also like the blisters atop the saucer that give the bridge added shielding.

 

[valkyrie013]

On Topic!
I generally like the Luna class, same as with the Aventine as well, both well designed ships with alot of time and thought going in to the design.. I generally like fan designs, just not some uber ship, or kitbashes..

only crit on the whole design is the warp engine length ( same crit as the Enterprise E) that warp naccelles were gradually growing smaller, with the nacelles of the Intrepid class showing where its going.. then came the E-E with the long tapering nacelles.... I know it was done for looks.. not a progression of technology as it should.. with the Luna, same arguement.. looks great.. but the steady miniaturization of technology ( as evidenced by current tech) leads to smaller ships performing the same tasks as larger ships with less crew..

So Sean, just to let you know, am going to start building a Luna class ship here soon ( why i stumbled on this thread.. looking for resources) so you can check it out on scifi meshes in a week or so ( haven't started yet, planning stage) so you can come cheer me on or disown me for messing with your baby

Thanks all, enjoyed the good read of the thread!!

 

[Titan Designer]

On Topic!
I generally like the Luna class, same as with the Aventine as well, both well designed ships with alot of time and thought going in to the design.. I generally like fan designs, just not some uber ship, or kitbashes..

only crit on the whole design is the warp engine length ( same crit as the Enterprise E) that warp naccelles were gradually growing smaller, with the nacelles of the Intrepid class showing where its going.. then came the E-E with the long tapering nacelles.... I know it was done for looks.. not a progression of technology as it should.. with the Luna, same arguement.. looks great.. but the steady miniaturization of technology ( as evidenced by current tech) leads to smaller ships performing the same tasks as larger ships with less crew..

So Sean, just to let you know, am going to start building a Luna class ship here soon ( why i stumbled on this thread.. looking for resources) so you can check it out on scifi meshes in a week or so ( haven't started yet, planning stage) so you can come cheer me on or disown me for messing with your baby

Thanks all, enjoyed the good read of the thread!!

Looking forward to it. Feel free to email me at stourangeau@earthlink.net if you have questions or want to shoot me WIP shots.

 

[Saquist]

On Topic!
I generally like the Luna class, same as with the Aventine as well, both well designed ships with alot of time and thought going in to the design.. I generally like fan designs, just not some uber ship, or kitbashes..

only crit on the whole design is the warp engine length ( same crit as the Enterprise E) that warp naccelles were gradually growing smaller, with the nacelles of the Intrepid class showing where its going.. then came the E-E with the long tapering nacelles.... I know it was done for looks.. not a progression of technology as it should.. with the Luna, same arguement.. looks great.. but the steady miniaturization of technology ( as evidenced by current tech) leads to smaller ships performing the same tasks as larger ships with less crew..

So Sean, just to let you know, am going to start building a Luna class ship here soon ( why i stumbled on this thread.. looking for resources) so you can check it out on scifi meshes in a week or so ( haven't started yet, planning stage) so you can come cheer me on or disown me for messing with your baby

Thanks all, enjoyed the good read of the thread!!

Some good points

 

[Distorted Humor]

Another thing to remember about Registries, In wartime sometimes builders will skip numbers as not to give the other side intel on how many ships have been built. See German U-boats numbers as a example.

 

[Saquist]

yeah that's like the paranoia of the Russians not naming their streets so invasion armies would have a clue of where they were going. I don't believe the entity of the Federation represented in Trek is consumed with this sort of subterfuge. This is the same organization that voluntarily gave up cloaking technology 60 years ago. I just don't see that scenario.

 

[Vance]

Depends on the era, Saquist. The Federation acts pretty schizo even within the timeframe of TNG-VOY. During the Dominion war, I can easily see the Fleet inflating the numbers, even if they're doing it by giving shuttlecraft their own NCC registries. :P