Pretty much. I think there are a few minor differences from that point, due to the picture being concept art, but that's pretty close to what the 'planned design' was like.
Miranda Class - Original Design Intention
- Thread starter EJD1984
- Start date
Pretty much. I think there are a few minor differences from that point, due to the picture being concept art, but that's pretty close to what the 'planned design' was like.
I actually prefer the version done by the guys at TLW over the fully inverted Miranda:
Egads -- I can't help but look at that and hear in my head, "Reliant want a cracker?', with that... beak sticking out like that!!
Cheers,
-CM-
The upside down drawing is reproduced in the TWOK special edition of the star trek the magazine...
If anyone has that one, and access to a scanner, could someone make a quick scan of it?
If anyone has that one, and access to a scanner, could someone make a quick scan of it?
Best I could do...
Not a very good original pic in the mag....
(SEPT 2002/Volume-3/Issue#5/Page#68)
Here's a blow-up... It's a bit better...
Last edited:
I don't know, I kinda like that design too.
I think the Reliant was over-armed as well. After all it was a smaller class of ship than the Constitution, and the Constitution was supposed to be one of the more advanced, powerful designs.
CuttingEdge100
CuttingEdge100
Perhaps not. The Enterprise is a cruiser and has more tonnage and power, the extra powerplant size and other things probably result in greater phaser strength, endurance etc. The Miranda is probably a light cruiser, so Starfleet probably figured making it a torpedo gunship would make up for its lighter phaser power.
Meaning of course, Starfleet intended it to take on Constitution equivalents, like the D7/K'Tinga. In a fair slugging match though... the Enterprise would outlast the Reliant.
Meaning of course, Starfleet intended it to take on Constitution equivalents, like the D7/K'Tinga. In a fair slugging match though... the Enterprise would outlast the Reliant.
You know, if I was the one designing the Miranda, I think I would have preferred a design more along these lines...
Abbe, port
Abbe, aft
Abbe, starboard
... Though not exactly.
For example, I would probably have reshaped the boom located aft of the saucer (the pylons connect onto the boom).
For one I would have made it wider...
... look how thin that is?
I would have made it like 3 times wider, I think I would have also better blended it in (at least a little bit) with the back of the lower saucer.
I think I would have also wanted the top of the boom to be more flat and squarish, and to run the boom completely through the saucer rim if not partially going through at least a little bit of the upper saucer (in otherwords, make the boom a little taller)
I would have also wanted to space the nacelles further apart (at least the same spacing used on the Reliant or the USS Enterprise) and possibly move the pylons slightly higher on the boom.
Believe it or not, I'd want to get rid of the large torpedo-pack on the top of the boom. I'd instead prefer the boom be flat and relatively uncluttered.
The back of the boom I'd want to either
1.) Re-shape into some kind of shuttle bay (some kind of slanted shape) that can be entered through the rear...
2.) Remove the impulse ducts off the side of the saucer (on either side of the boom) and then put the impulse engines on the back of the boom
In the event of the latter: I was thinking of using a short but very wide impulse-duct (like the whole impulse deck of the TOS Enterprise, but except with two little holes, the whole thing would be a nozzle -- well two huge nozzles with a small divider in the middle).
Since the vessel would still need a shuttle-bay: I'm thinking a vertical bay. A huge door would be on the top of the boom (or even the bottom) which a shuttle could enter vertically. It turns out the height of the boom is about as tall as the shuttle bay of the Enterprises (truthfully speaking the bay would be much shorter in height, but a shuttle would fit, and the bay could be long enough to house four shuttles, I think)
In the event of the former: The vertical shuttle bay would not be needed -- a rear bay could be used. The ship would still need impulse engines, and the impulse engines on the model are located too close to the booms (they're on either side of it right next to it -- the exhaust would impinge on them, and the pylons), so they would have to be removed much as I said earlier. In that event, the impulse engines could be placed on the inboard warp-engine pylons not entirely unlike the NX-01's rear-engine set-up. Landing a shuttle could be possible without any risk if the impulse engines were off. Since a vessel can coast on momentum in space, this would not be hard to manage (It should be noted that in TMP as the warp-sled shuttle with Spock on it approached, the Enterprise's impulse engines were off)
Considering I figured out a place where to put the shuttle bay, the bay on the saucer section (the third image in this post...) is not needed and could carry more important things.
As for the photon-torpedo tubes, two tubes could be placed right in the middle of the saucer rim with little problem.
The reason I think this would have been a far better Reliant-Design is that it wasn't as major a departure from the Constitution-Class (which previously was the only Star Trek ship seen)
- It had a conventional circular saucer (the Reliant's saucer was much more heavily bastardized)
- Pylon configuration was much more like the Constitution-Class Refit
- It had a visible navigational-deflector
- In many respects this design has cleaner lines.
Notes: Abbe Class Torpedo Destroyer Refit by Enterprise-E / Plasma-Enterprises
So, what do you all think of my concept (heavily derived from the Abbe-Class Refit Torpedo Destroyer)? Opinions?
CuttingEdge100
edit: I changed the top images to links so they wouldn't stretch the page.
Nice pics though.
Abbe, port
Abbe, aft
Abbe, starboard
... Though not exactly.
For example, I would probably have reshaped the boom located aft of the saucer (the pylons connect onto the boom).
For one I would have made it wider...
... look how thin that is?
I would have made it like 3 times wider, I think I would have also better blended it in (at least a little bit) with the back of the lower saucer.
I think I would have also wanted the top of the boom to be more flat and squarish, and to run the boom completely through the saucer rim if not partially going through at least a little bit of the upper saucer (in otherwords, make the boom a little taller)
I would have also wanted to space the nacelles further apart (at least the same spacing used on the Reliant or the USS Enterprise) and possibly move the pylons slightly higher on the boom.
Believe it or not, I'd want to get rid of the large torpedo-pack on the top of the boom. I'd instead prefer the boom be flat and relatively uncluttered.
The back of the boom I'd want to either
1.) Re-shape into some kind of shuttle bay (some kind of slanted shape) that can be entered through the rear...
2.) Remove the impulse ducts off the side of the saucer (on either side of the boom) and then put the impulse engines on the back of the boom
In the event of the latter: I was thinking of using a short but very wide impulse-duct (like the whole impulse deck of the TOS Enterprise, but except with two little holes, the whole thing would be a nozzle -- well two huge nozzles with a small divider in the middle).
Since the vessel would still need a shuttle-bay: I'm thinking a vertical bay. A huge door would be on the top of the boom (or even the bottom) which a shuttle could enter vertically. It turns out the height of the boom is about as tall as the shuttle bay of the Enterprises (truthfully speaking the bay would be much shorter in height, but a shuttle would fit, and the bay could be long enough to house four shuttles, I think)
In the event of the former: The vertical shuttle bay would not be needed -- a rear bay could be used. The ship would still need impulse engines, and the impulse engines on the model are located too close to the booms (they're on either side of it right next to it -- the exhaust would impinge on them, and the pylons), so they would have to be removed much as I said earlier. In that event, the impulse engines could be placed on the inboard warp-engine pylons not entirely unlike the NX-01's rear-engine set-up. Landing a shuttle could be possible without any risk if the impulse engines were off. Since a vessel can coast on momentum in space, this would not be hard to manage (It should be noted that in TMP as the warp-sled shuttle with Spock on it approached, the Enterprise's impulse engines were off)
Considering I figured out a place where to put the shuttle bay, the bay on the saucer section (the third image in this post...) is not needed and could carry more important things.
As for the photon-torpedo tubes, two tubes could be placed right in the middle of the saucer rim with little problem.
The reason I think this would have been a far better Reliant-Design is that it wasn't as major a departure from the Constitution-Class (which previously was the only Star Trek ship seen)
- It had a conventional circular saucer (the Reliant's saucer was much more heavily bastardized)
- Pylon configuration was much more like the Constitution-Class Refit
- It had a visible navigational-deflector
- In many respects this design has cleaner lines.
Notes: Abbe Class Torpedo Destroyer Refit by Enterprise-E / Plasma-Enterprises
So, what do you all think of my concept (heavily derived from the Abbe-Class Refit Torpedo Destroyer)? Opinions?
CuttingEdge100
edit: I changed the top images to links so they wouldn't stretch the page.
Nice pics though.
Last edited by a moderator:
Didn't one of the early storyboards have the Reliant as a Constitution Class ship but they didn't want audiences to see two Constitution Class ships duking it out and getting confused as to which Constitution Class ship was the Enterprise and which was the Reliant?
And wasn't there a similar reason as to why Constitution Class ships were not present in TNG-era Trek? (With the exception of the Wolf 359 aftermath in "Best Of Both Worlds", "Trials And Tribblations" and various diagrams and desktop models of course)
And wasn't there a similar reason as to why Constitution Class ships were not present in TNG-era Trek? (With the exception of the Wolf 359 aftermath in "Best Of Both Worlds", "Trials And Tribblations" and various diagrams and desktop models of course)
Very nice 3d modle of the Abbe Class.
The original storyboards had a Constitution class USS Avenger, yes.
Not really. In that case, it was just Roddenberry not wanting to draw comparisons to the old series and movies (which were still active at the time) by having the Pearl Lady present alongside the D. This wouldn't have seemed odd, if they hadn't used every OTHER ST:III model in existance all the time.
I can't speak to storyboards, but the screenplay described it as a ship of the Enterprise's class, "with a slightly different configuration."
EDIT: found the quote: "an older, somewhat battered Starship of the ENTERPRISE class, with a slightly different configuration."
Marian
That upside-down Connie design looks VERY interesting. The placement of the nav-deflector up at the top would certainly give a better impression of the dish's protective functions in relation to the bridge. I can also see the placement of another deflector dish either below the sensor dome or in front of the warp nacelles (hey, we didn't have Trek-nology and Trek-nobabble back in the 60s).
What would viewers' impressions be like had this upside-down design been used for the original Enterprise design itself?!
Hey, I was thinking, with the new Abrams Enterprise and its overly forwarded deflector dish, perhaps the boom could facilitate a neck connection like the TMP Enterprise?
Your picture there got me thinking of a new starship design. The torpedo pod there would be below and not on top, and the boom would connect from aft of the bridge module (but below that aft hatch area). Meanwhile, the saucer would be as thick as the Miranda's or the Constellation's.
darkwing_duck1
Vice Admiral
You make some very good points, Wingsley. Putting the torpedo launcher in the neck seems a vulnerability in retrospect, even though I know it was Jefferies' intention as far back as the Phase II design. I wish he were around to answer the question as to why, but perhaps Mr. Probert might pop in and share his thoughts on it?
Also, putting everything in one hull as in the Miranda does seem to go backwards from the idea of putting the engines and dangerous bits at a safe distance. Did Miranda crews just have to pray their warp cores never breached? The torpedoes seem like the least of the concerns there.
Puttng it at the BASE of the neck makes more sense than putting it in a lower saucer deck. The antimatter feed conduits for "loading" the warhead have less distance to travel in the TMP configuration, and remain entirely within the secondary hulls protective mass, as opposed to snaking through the thin area of the "neck".
As for "clearance" for the torpedoes, it could no more "hit it's own ship" than the TOS version, which ALSO had to clear the saucer first.
darkwing_duck1
Vice Admiral
I wouldn't be so sure...I always saw the Reliant as more of a "battlecruiser" as opposed to an "exploration cruiser" like the Enterprise. Heavier firepower, better shields (less area to protect), a smaller crew (no need for as many science types), and a shorter "endurance" on station (meant more for patrolling and fleet action as opposed to a classic "five year mission").
