looking very cool
USS Constellation, NCC-1017
- Thread starter MadMan1701A
- Start date
I like the idea. I still think it's too similar to the Constitution in terms of shape. But I really like your idea that the Constellation wasn't Constitution-class at all, based on its registry. Either the registry has to change, or the ship, in my opinion. I don't like those 1600-series Constitutions either. They should be a different class as well. Maybe 1600s are just slightly further behind Constitutions, and the 1000s are quite a bit older.
Maybe you should look at it as designing the NCC-1000?
Maybe you should look at it as designing the NCC-1000?
I like the premise, but the design leaves me a bit cold (but then, anything that smacks of JJTrek is gonna rub me the wrong way at this point).
I'm still a supporter of the idea that the AMT model, circa 1967, makes for a good example of an earlier starship class, with no modifications at all. It's just different enough to differentiate it from the Constitution class, as exemplified by the Enterprise.
I'm still a supporter of the idea that the AMT model, circa 1967, makes for a good example of an earlier starship class, with no modifications at all. It's just different enough to differentiate it from the Constitution class, as exemplified by the Enterprise.
Hmmm, I was going on the idea that I would make it arranged more like the original Enterprise, with Kelvin-like detailing. I've deviated from that some, though. The idea is for it to be very similar to the Constitution class, but older. If I change it too much, it kind of messes up the whole idea.
I will probably make up an NCC-1000 too... any idea what class name I should use?
Well, in the new timeline, maybe they built the thing earlier, or they kept older styles around longer... who knows.
I agree about the AMT model... It's similar enough, though, that I don't know if it's old enough to justify the 1017 number, though... Unless Starfleet was pumping out tons of ship designs at the time.
Hmm, I never heard that one. Sounds interesting...
Something like that. I think the Constellation was supposed to be of a Daedalus-like class that actually came later (Horizon maybe? not sure who originated that idea...) and then, like you said, the other pre-1700s were supposed to be an immediate predecessor (like Baton Rouge) that were easily refit to Constitution specs.
I'd still have rather had a NCC-1710 for the Constellation and used the Jefferies-inspired FJ scheme for all the others. Then no rationalizations.
Carry on, MadMan.
The Constellation was obviously a Constitution Class vessel, the sets were exactly the same as the Enterprise to virtually every detail.
A different number was chosen to avoid it being mistaken in anyway with the USS Enterprise. Personally, I think retconning the number to like NCC-1710 would have been far more practical than instead making the Constellation a different class of ship.
CuttingEdge100
A different number was chosen to avoid it being mistaken in anyway with the USS Enterprise. Personally, I think retconning the number to like NCC-1710 would have been far more practical than instead making the Constellation a different class of ship.
CuttingEdge100
I agree, and I also have my problems with deciding that a model kit of the Enterprise that was also used to represent the Enterprise herself in "Trouble with Tribbles" should represent another variant. I mean, there are tons of differences between the three-footer and the eleven-footer, yet we still accept they're the same ship.
But I still like MadMan's design and I don't want to derail his thread. So I'll shut up now.
But I still like MadMan's design and I don't want to derail his thread. So I'll shut up now.
I think your Constellation could conceivably fit in both "Classic TREK" and NuTREK timelines, with slight modifications, like maybe spires on the front of the nacelles, and maybe an "anthill" atop the saucer, other TOS/TAS details to make it a "missing link" between Pike's Enterprise and the NX.
As far as it being strictly NuTREK, I don't think the secondary hull is big and ugly enough. The images of the Kelvin would suggest (to me, at least) that a full-blown cruiser would have an even bigger and uglier secondary hull.
As far as it being strictly NuTREK, I don't think the secondary hull is big and ugly enough. The images of the Kelvin would suggest (to me, at least) that a full-blown cruiser would have an even bigger and uglier secondary hull.
Thanks, that's exactly the look I am shooting for... that it could maybe probably fit into both universes. I do plan on adding some more "The Cage" era details... I thought probably those black objects by the running lights on the saucer, and I was thinking about the spires just a while ago... even the new Enterprise seems to have vestigal ones.
About the Secondary Hull.... It's still just a place holder. It may get longer, and fatter, as I build the new one. It's going to have a more "curvy" undercut, as well. Maybe I'll make some progress on that this weekend...
Well, yes... It was a refit to Constitution class specs.
Just like the Enterprise in the movies was still the same Enterprise, but drastically refit to a newer specification. There are obviously huge differences, such as the exact shape of the secondary hull and saucer diameter, but it's the same ship refit to a newer spec.
Therefore, it's really not that foreign an idea for the Constellation to have been built as a Daedalus or a Horizon then refit to Constitution specs.
Besides... Look at the current US Navy's USS Enterprise CVN-65. It's been drastically refit a few times and doesn't look the same. There's a precedent set for such things. I mean, at one point the whole ship was LENGTHENED!
I've never understood the fandom fascination with refitting ships of one class to become a ship of another class. It does not make logical sense. it would make more sense to build a new ship and launch her before you decommission the older one you always have that spot on the order of battle filled. If you pull a ship off the line and rebuild her that spot on the order of battle is now vacant.
Now if you consider the design aspects there is no way to turn a Daedalus into a Constitution. There is nothing alike about them. That's like trying to turn a P-51 into F4U. Yeah they both are propjob mono planes with an inverted cruciform tail. That's where the similarity ends. The power plants are completly different. The airframes are different. The wings are different. It makes no sense.
I propose that Constellation is NCC-1017 but a different class than the Constitution but shares the same design philosophy much like the F4F and the F6F share similar shapes but are most definitely different aircraft. If you note the trailing F stands for Grumman you'd realize that the F6F was the replacement for the F4F and served aloneside it for a time much as the Constitution replaced the Constellation but clearly were in service together.
I always assumed that starships are a monocoque structure and that's a design that does not lend it self to easy modification. I still can't rectify the changes from TOS to TMP as there is not a single shape that is the same on her hull. The only thing I can figure and I got the idea from here is that she was stripped to her most basic internal stucture, just her core section of primary hull and then rebuilt from scratch. Or as someone else mentioned the only part left is a framed bolt on a velvet background in the Chief Engineer's office.
I've never understood the fandom fascination with refitting ships of one class to become a ship of another class. It does not make logical sense. it would make more sense to build a new ship and launch her before you decommission the older one you always have that spot on the order of battle filled. If you pull a ship off the line and rebuild her that spot on the order of battle is now vacant.
Now if you consider the design aspects there is no way to turn a Daedalus into a Constitution. There is nothing alike about them. That's like trying to turn a P-51 into F4U. Yeah they both are propjob mono planes with an inverted cruciform tail. That's where the similarity ends. The power plants are completly different. The airframes are different. The wings are different. It makes no sense.
I propose that Constellation is NCC-1017 but a different class than the Constitution but shares the same design philosophy much like the F4F and the F6F share similar shapes but are most definitely different aircraft. If you note the trailing F stands for Grumman you'd realize that the F6F was the replacement for the F4F and served aloneside it for a time much as the Constitution replaced the Constellation but clearly were in service together.
I always assumed that starships are a monocoque structure and that's a design that does not lend it self to easy modification. I still can't rectify the changes from TOS to TMP as there is not a single shape that is the same on her hull. The only thing I can figure and I got the idea from here is that she was stripped to her most basic internal stucture, just her core section of primary hull and then rebuilt from scratch. Or as someone else mentioned the only part left is a framed bolt on a velvet background in the Chief Engineer's office.
I think that many fans expect that the TMP refit Enterprise was not simply a modified version of the original, but rather a complete tear-down and recycle of the original's components, maybe discarding a little and adding some, to essentially recycle the old ship mostly into the new "refit" one.
Many fans probably assume (I know I do) that some technologies and hull-building materials and techniques may remain largely the same over the years, so tearing the ship apart, discarding the worn-out or useless junk, and recycling/remanufacturing as much as possible probably makes good sense. It probably costs a ton in materiel, manpower, and manufacturing to build an all-new starship from scratch. Assuming that the Constitution starship class represents a link in an ongoing evolutionary chain with her predecessors sharing at least some components in common, maybe the Federation philosophy would amount to "Why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free?"
I would also point out the Archer philosophy: Captain Archer and Commander Tucker not only served aboard the NX-01 Enterprise, they were responsible for testing Warp 5 Engine prototypes, later building the NX class prototype (the Enterprise) and putting her into service. Maybe this kind of "you fly it, you build it" culture, combined with the Federation's philosophy of refit/recycle, makes for a more effective technical culture within Starfleet. This seemed to be the case with Scotty in TMP drydock.
I agree that there's no way a Daedalus could ever become a Constitution class. They're just way too different. I wish TOS-R had took a stand on the Constellation and either (A) given it the registry NCC-1710 or (B) made it a different class of ship. Instead, they just redid it with the mistake intact. And that just makes me go GRRRR!
The 1600s I'm not comfortable with becoming Constitutions either, but it's still far more believable than a 1000-series becoming a 1700-series.
Anyway, more pictures are in order I believe. And I say come up with a new class name for these 1000-series ships. I'm not a big fan of many of the FJ ships myself.
The 1600s I'm not comfortable with becoming Constitutions either, but it's still far more believable than a 1000-series becoming a 1700-series.
Anyway, more pictures are in order I believe. And I say come up with a new class name for these 1000-series ships. I'm not a big fan of many of the FJ ships myself.
The thing I've heard most often is that sometimes the only remaining part is the keel that was originally laid when building the ship.
You know, I can't find it, but there was a picture somewhere of a couple US Navy ships that were refit several times over their lifetimes and if you were to look at the first and last iterations you'd never, ever think they were the same ship. I'm talking major structural changes.
Similar threads
