They have an article debating the correct size of the Oberth class, but I only found a couple fan made dedication plaques for the Grissom.
I did find another interesting picture I wasn't looking for...
U.S.S. Curry - WTF?
- Thread starter Arpy
- Start date
They have an article debating the correct size of the Oberth class, but I only found a couple fan made dedication plaques for the Grissom.
I did find another interesting picture I wasn't looking for...
Thanks. I wonder what the individual artist(s) were thinking putting the design together. They weren't thinking line-of-sight or deflector (in fact, isn't there a rear-facing deflector on the back of the stardrive). They weren't thinking Bussard Collectors for the Excelsior (although I like Excelsior nacelles more than the E-B ones). They weren't thinking a Trek sense of scale with Spacedock (although it's maybe my favorite Trek station).
Do you suppose the Grissom, Excelsior, and Spacedock were all contemporary designs? I like that they're not kitbashed of each other. They were clearly designed at the same time. I wonder if they were all introduced around the same time too. There are so few canon designs, and not many fanon, ones from the period.
Do you suppose the Grissom, Excelsior, and Spacedock were all contemporary designs? I like that they're not kitbashed of each other. They were clearly designed at the same time. I wonder if they were all introduced around the same time too. There are so few canon designs, and not many fanon, ones from the period.
Last edited:
ILM and Image-G were just coming off of doing Return of the Jedi (1983) when they started work for TSFS (1984). They probably were still probably in "Star Wars mode" when they began work on Trek III. I doubt any of them had any notion of what the purpose of the forward-facing main navigational deflector was. Remember, these were the same guys who built the Reliant for Khan only a couple of years before and not a single Miranda class variant since that time had a dish either, even into the DS9 era where we see many of them during the Dominion War.
I suspect they simply felt onboard navigational shields were enough to bounce anything off the hull that may otherwise cause serious damage at high speeds to the ship (like every vessel in the SW universe). They probably weren't even thinking about putting a visible deflector on the Grissom, even though the Excelsior did have one. Probably because the latter was supposed to be a more direct-line descendant of the Connies and should have similar design aesthetics. The one "radome" picture is, of course, non-canon, but is a unique way of retconning the problem without getting too wrapped around the axle about it.
Long and short of it, ILM simply didn't know what they were doing when it came to established Trek technology (at the time). They've done a better job since then.
I suspect they simply felt onboard navigational shields were enough to bounce anything off the hull that may otherwise cause serious damage at high speeds to the ship (like every vessel in the SW universe). They probably weren't even thinking about putting a visible deflector on the Grissom, even though the Excelsior did have one. Probably because the latter was supposed to be a more direct-line descendant of the Connies and should have similar design aesthetics. The one "radome" picture is, of course, non-canon, but is a unique way of retconning the problem without getting too wrapped around the axle about it.
Long and short of it, ILM simply didn't know what they were doing when it came to established Trek technology (at the time). They've done a better job since then.
Last edited:
According to Memory Alpha, Steve Gawley was one of the head model makers for TSFS and also helped supervise the design of the Excelsior for that film and the Reliant on TWOK. Unlike previous movies, the design process for the new ships in TSFS was much more open in that ILM basically did some preliminary artwork and then handed it over to the model team for making study models, essentially giving them the chance to add details and "finishing" touches as the designs evolved. Harve Bennett and Leonard Nimoy would then look at the study models for final opinions and approval, and the overall process was described as being very positive for everyone. It allowed the model team and the producers to be on a similar page when describing the designs, and also made it easier for them to estimate what a final shooting model would cost and how filming angles would work.
For my part, I think there's a potential issue in falling into a "design trap" for fans. That is, the assumption that every design has to have components that look similar (like a dish based deflector and Bussard collectors appearing on a lot of Trek ships - even sometimes as retcons, officially or not
). I tend to assume that some ships lack Bussard systems, or may have them in a very different form, and the same with systems like deflectors. The fact that large dish deflectors are frequently somewhat goofy plot elements tends to reinforce this preference for me. 
>...
For my part, I think there's a potential issue in falling into a "design trap" for fans. That is, the assumption that every design has to have components that look similar (like a dish based deflector and Bussard collectors appearing on a lot of Trek ships - even sometimes as retcons, officially or not
THANK YOU!
This is probably the biggest thing that peevs me while I'm paying attention to a lot of fan's critiques of Trek designs. So many of us seem to be stuck in this tiny box about what a spaceship needs and how it looks (especially Starfleet ships) that they not only seem to lack imagination on the subject, but can't accept innovation, or deviation from the tiny box. To the point that some guys seem to act as though the Mirandas and Oberths are somehow wrong for "lacking" a deflector rather than just assuming that some other means (used by basically everyone besides Starfleet) works as well for doing the required deflecting.
[/RANT]
Sorry.
--Alex
I think the fact that most alien ships have very different design philosophies only reinforces the point. That's not to say, of course, they can't use similar technologies or even maybe have a design or two that happens to resemble a Federation ship aesthetically. But I think it's always good to try and avoid a design trap, and to decide for ourselves what works. I personally think Andrew Probert's concept of energy between nacelles is interesting on paper, but it's never seemed practical to me when I try to visualize it. So I don't see any need for a LOS rule to facilitate it.
I think the same issue can happen with ship systems. Because the Galaxy class, or at least the D, is a bit more luxurious than many other vessels (with the original design intent that it would be on the frontiers of Fed space for much of the time, hence families and such) has systems like the Bussard collectors and replicators, it's tempting to assume these are "standard" items on ships of the era. The reality may be that they are far less common than we might see routinely on the hero ship, but they might be in the process of being phased in. We don't really have a lot of information to go by.
I think the same issue can happen with ship systems. Because the Galaxy class, or at least the D, is a bit more luxurious than many other vessels (with the original design intent that it would be on the frontiers of Fed space for much of the time, hence families and such) has systems like the Bussard collectors and replicators, it's tempting to assume these are "standard" items on ships of the era. The reality may be that they are far less common than we might see routinely on the hero ship, but they might be in the process of being phased in. We don't really have a lot of information to go by.
I love crazy ship designs like the Curry and Raging Queen. They remind me of the old DC comics background ships.
Always loved those old comics. I think I still have mine in a box somewhere.
Dan Curry sent me the original Curry photos after many years of email correspondence, because I was building a replica of the ship. Unfortunately I got ahead of myself and built a model before he sent the pics, only to find that mine was inaccurate, so I had to build another one. I'm still trying to cut the Reliant impulse engines to fit the back of the neck above the Enterprise-A shuttle top. I can say that the movable 3D image is extremely inaccurate to the original model.
I like that one far more though. The one closer to the original is linked above — the one with the saucer sitting practically in the middle above the stardrive. Here’s another that’s close but obviously missing the forward shuttlebay. Too cramped and inelegant.
For me, the biggest weakness of the 3D model is the backward-facing front shuttlebay. Fix that, and add Excelsior nacelles, and it’s very close.
Last edited:
So @Dukhat, question, in the main nav deflector area of the original Curry model, is there a dish there or something else? It's dark in its appearance in DS9, and it really looks to me like there's a forward-facing shuttlebay there. The Eaglemoss model and pictures show a dish, but I somehow think that may be inaccurate.
I’m on the fence. Sure aliens will find different ways of doing different things, but if you’re building a car, you will need wheels. Bussards aren’t necessary, if useful — you can collect extra particles (or deploy your Crimson Shield) or not. But a deflector? You absolutely do need to clear the path ahead of you.
Given how elaborate the Enterprise’s deflector assembly is, I’m guessing it’s important. A smaller one maybe you can get by with, without matching the Enterprise’s speed and/or maneuverability, but not having one at all? Problematic.
I'm not sure what you're asking. You mean the actual deflector dish area? There was never a good pic of that, although I believe that the actual circular deflector model piece was not there. On my replica I didn't add the piece but painted the hole it goes into blue. There's definitely a shuttlebay piece sitting on top of the front secondary hull, but that's clearly visible.
Just wouldn't need to be in dish form. After all, ship's of all sorts have defensive shields. Perhaps all you really need is to form a conical forcefield in front of your ship and that's good enough for warp flight.
Then why ever have a dish? Well, for many years we called that the main sensor dish, and then for a long time it was the sensor/deflector dish, and finally just the deflector dish. I posit that the dish hardware is tied to it being a combination device that uses the deflector field somehow in the operation of their long range sensors.
YMMV
--Alex
I'd go even further. TOS and the TOS film series had the ships traveling at warp with the ship facing all sorts of different directions relative to it's warp vector. The only way that would work is if their ship's navigational deflectors operate in all directions and not tied to the dish. TNG kept the Mirandas and Oberths and even introduced the Stargazer and they lack a dish so it just stands to reason that there are more types of navigation deflectors out there than just "dish deflectors".
The FJ Connie blueprints had the saucer gridlines identified as a "deflector grid". How that might differ from the deflector dish could be open for debate, but any ship with such a grid, visible or not, would be protected.
Given the old backstage nomenclature of the dish as both a sensor and a deflector, it seems intuitively clear (to a treknonerd anyway) that there would be advantages in combining a forward-projecting FTL manipulator beam with FTL sensors. Whatever makes the beam go FTL could give a boost to the sensor beams, too, or perhaps vice versa.
As long as combining the sensors with the deflector calls for a structure taking up half the engineering hull, the system would be exclusive to certain "sensing-dedicated" ships; scouting cruisers would be excellent recipients. Once miniaturization gets going, though, all sorts of shuttlecraft would start sporting these dishes, even though there's little practical requirement for the sensor-boosting.
If need be, we can assign a specific feature in the complex deflector/sensor assembly the deflector function; classically, it has been the three boxes or quarter-domes surrounding the dish, since we find those on the dishless Reliant as well, distributed elsewhere on the hull. But it might just as well be that none of the bits around the dish are actually related to deflecting, save for the big "deflection generator" somewhere deep within the bowels of the ship.
Timo Saloniemi
As long as combining the sensors with the deflector calls for a structure taking up half the engineering hull, the system would be exclusive to certain "sensing-dedicated" ships; scouting cruisers would be excellent recipients. Once miniaturization gets going, though, all sorts of shuttlecraft would start sporting these dishes, even though there's little practical requirement for the sensor-boosting.
If need be, we can assign a specific feature in the complex deflector/sensor assembly the deflector function; classically, it has been the three boxes or quarter-domes surrounding the dish, since we find those on the dishless Reliant as well, distributed elsewhere on the hull. But it might just as well be that none of the bits around the dish are actually related to deflecting, save for the big "deflection generator" somewhere deep within the bowels of the ship.
Timo Saloniemi
The lines on the surface of ships marked “deflector grid” are where the deflector shields emenate from.
If you think the deflector or sensor dish is the main sensor, why isn’t it on the Miranda and other ships?
I’m on the fence on using shields to push off space dust coming at you at thousands of times the speed of light. For one, you’d have to divert a lot of shield to that that presumably leaves you weaker for attack. Maybe much more shield power than is even possible. But also, I think at those speeds you need some kind of very long (tachyon-based?) deflection beem stretching out pretty far ahead of the ship (what I imagine we’re seeing in the movie poster from TMP?) so that the particles are moved without producing a nuclear fireball in the front of the ship as it annihilates whatever impacts its shields.
If you think the deflector or sensor dish is the main sensor, why isn’t it on the Miranda and other ships?
I’m on the fence on using shields to push off space dust coming at you at thousands of times the speed of light. For one, you’d have to divert a lot of shield to that that presumably leaves you weaker for attack. Maybe much more shield power than is even possible. But also, I think at those speeds you need some kind of very long (tachyon-based?) deflection beem stretching out pretty far ahead of the ship (what I imagine we’re seeing in the movie poster from TMP?) so that the particles are moved without producing a nuclear fireball in the front of the ship as it annihilates whatever impacts its shields.
Last edited:
Because they don't have a main sensor. They are lesser ships, lacking this special, nice-to-have feature that serves a very specific purpose for a very special (that is, a very broad) mission.
Perhaps this is not required? After all, it's never suggested to be necessary in dialogue or events.
Possibly the warp fields themselves take care of all the FTL deflecting needed, and the "navigational deflector" is for some lesser task, such as protecting the ship during sublight maneuvers (which is where we hear our only mentions of this tech).
Timo Saloniemi
That pretty much answers my question, actually. I had a strong suspicion that there was no main deflector on the Curry, as we never saw it lit and none of the photos that came out about the model later on ever showed that spot clearly. I knew of the upper hangar bay, but I was always thinking that maybe there was a second forward facing hangar door to make it and the Raging Queen the first canonical thru-deck carriers to support the Peregrine and Raider wings seen frequently in the battles. If there was nothing in that space at all on the original, then I guess it really could be anything.
