Looks like a spoon turned upside down, pizza cutter, art deco door knob, posh pogo stick, glorified crowbar, deluxe nose-picker...
so... you guys like the freedom class?
- Thread starter AlphaPigeon7
- Start date
Looks like a spoon turned upside down, pizza cutter, art deco door knob, posh pogo stick, glorified crowbar, deluxe nose-picker...
I remember his being adamant on two as well. I do not remember why.
The only exception to the rule would be the 1701-D-alt from "All Good Things..." where the third unit, much to my personal adoration, adds a weird sort of balance and visual substance of depth. And, of course, more ugly shadows if lot from just the wrong direction but that's a different issue altogether...
The reason was Franz Joseph Schnaubelt's Star Fleet Technical Manual. It was one of the first ever tie-ins, and unlike everything since Franz retained the rights to the original stuff within, like the 3-nacelled dreadnought class and the single-nacelle scout. He licensed these to the makers of the Star Fleet Battles RPG game without Gene or Paramount's permission and recieved royalties. Roddenberry was not pleased.
Thus a generation of manuals and blueprints were made deliberately contradicting the original manual, with stuff like "warp nacelles have to be in pairs"
Of course, canon has subsequently ignored those later manuals with the Dreadnought Enterprise from "All Good Things" and the USS Kelvin from the '09 movie.
King Daniel beat me to it, basically the reason is Gene didn't make any money from it.
This person did a much cleaner version, showing where impulse engines certainly could be.
Other than making the neck wider and putting them there, this seems like the only reasonable spot.
I think it's a practice ship that can only fly in a circle. 
Perhaps the shuttlebay is actually the impulse engine, and the ship either doesn't have shuttles or has hidden bays elsewhere.
According to the old Fact Files, the recycled torpedo launcher was actually intended to be the nagivational deflector.
According to the old Fact Files, the recycled torpedo launcher was actually intended to be the nagivational deflector.
Not my favorite new design of that period, for me that is the Nebula class.
That said, I don't dislike it either.
There is a TOS version of that design in Star Trek: Legacy, as a scout vessel.
That said, I don't dislike it either.
There is a TOS version of that design in Star Trek: Legacy, as a scout vessel.
I think it's a practice ship that can only fly in a circle.
If only they had given it to red squad
...What can't be seen in these pics is that the underside of the saucer features an asymmetrical turret not unlike the one found at the bottom of the Stargazer saucer, with a big gunbarrel feature that Sternbach likes to call the SNARES sensor.
What else is missing from the pics, details-wise, we can't readily tell. The Eaglemoss model is supposed to be maximally detailed, and features the SNARES turret (they call it a phaser cannon) and a pair of red impulse slits just below the saucer trailing edge, much as in the above pic, which may in fact be from (the artist of?) the Eaglemoss brochure.
There's also a prominent protrusion below the nacelle bow, which the brochure labels as the main deflector, giving its forward surface an appropriate copperish finish.
Timo Saloniemi
So, are you going all technical on us to say it doesn't just go in circles?
Oh, you want technical.
Cat: "I hate to go all technical, but all hands on deck, swirly thing alert"
TNG confuses me, sometimes starships are very difficult to make and other times they just make them from the Martian sand. If Star Fleet has only a certain amount of resources and needs thousands of ships, then this seems like a good design to use less resources to have a smaller less capable ship for less difficult missions that would still require a capable ship to handle them. It's not a big ship, like a destroyer is not as big as a cruiser, usually.
It would be nice to see it from another angle, the pictures don't really seem too flattering from the back, but it seems fine to me.
It would be nice to see it from another angle, the pictures don't really seem too flattering from the back, but it seems fine to me.
I'm curious to know if the Eaglemoss people had access to the actual Firebrand and Princeton models. We've never seen them other than a few pics taken during the filming of BoBW.
Also, if Jein built the ships, and if he was trying to make tributes to FJ, then I'd think he would have meant the turret to be analogous to the deflector dish under the saucer of the Saladin/Hermes.
Also of note, the USS Franklin NX-326 from Star Trek Beyond is identified as Freedom-class in a screengraphic late in the movie. So either Starfleet had 2 ships with the same classname, or the Next Gen ship's entirely apocraphyl name needs changing.
Or then the class name of the ST:B ship is a leftover from her United Earth Starfleet days, and the few survivor war surplus vessels adopted by the UFP Starfleet as experiment mounts were considered the Pioneer class (the artist's own choice / early script name) after the oldest ship adopted...
Some details of the Eaglemoss ship are bound to be made up - after all, Jein built destroyed ships, instead of first building whole ships and then giving them to Okuda to butcher. The port and starboard sides of the Firebrand saucer never really existed, so there's no "Jein truth" as to whether there were phaser strips there (like Eaglemoss postulates) or not, say*.
This as opposed to us knowing that the stern of the Buran had a beavertail shape with dorsal and ventral protrusions that look like deployment chutes or launchers, even though the ship as filmed is completely missing her stern. Ed Miarecki built that stern, and Mike photographed it before destroying it (but not before gluing on the dorsal extra nacelle).
Timo Saloniemi
* (Okay, there's the barest hint of a phaser strip tip on the edge of the starboard blast hole, or then it's mere charring - the only photograph of that, in the group picture with the Princeton, is too blurry to really tell.)
Some details of the Eaglemoss ship are bound to be made up - after all, Jein built destroyed ships, instead of first building whole ships and then giving them to Okuda to butcher. The port and starboard sides of the Firebrand saucer never really existed, so there's no "Jein truth" as to whether there were phaser strips there (like Eaglemoss postulates) or not, say*.
This as opposed to us knowing that the stern of the Buran had a beavertail shape with dorsal and ventral protrusions that look like deployment chutes or launchers, even though the ship as filmed is completely missing her stern. Ed Miarecki built that stern, and Mike photographed it before destroying it (but not before gluing on the dorsal extra nacelle).
Timo Saloniemi
* (Okay, there's the barest hint of a phaser strip tip on the edge of the starboard blast hole, or then it's mere charring - the only photograph of that, in the group picture with the Princeton, is too blurry to really tell.)
As far as I can tell, yes, yes, and no.
Dialogue had no references to the class of the ship. A shot revealed the dedication plaque with the Starship Class thing. The 300 series NX registry was shown on all aired displays, although IIRC one of them had an incorrect number anyway in the original theatrical release and this was corrected to NX-326 for later releases.
Timo Saloniemi
Dialogue had no references to the class of the ship. A shot revealed the dedication plaque with the Starship Class thing. The 300 series NX registry was shown on all aired displays, although IIRC one of them had an incorrect number anyway in the original theatrical release and this was corrected to NX-326 for later releases.
Timo Saloniemi
Similar threads
