Topic: Opinions: Do we really need ANOTHER TOS Constitution?

[USS Mariner]

Thanks for link

I dont really see much of a difference with ether Sinclairs or Casmiros prints measurment wise. Casmiro did however pay a little more attention to the details with his set. Which match to a tee with the 2000 smithsonian restoration model (obviously the only guide he had). I also  like the 3d renders he did.

With all of the photos of the model i have and between both sets of prints  im sure i can come up with a "reasonably" accurate low poly model. the only tweaking needed to the current mesh is mainly the lower saucer, and superstructure areas.

The nicest thing about Casmiro's work is that he also did the First and Second Pilot variants, which is invaluable to me, since I've been taking a crack at redesigning Rick Sternbach's Baton Rouge. Once I'm done with it, it'll be clear that it is a connie predecessor, and they havent quite optimized hull shapes, which is why the original painting (not the sh*tty schematics, which aren't terribly accurate at all,) is described as "a saucer connected to an oblong block, the warp engines in stand off nacelles".

Here's the original painting, courtesy of Steve Pugh.

http://steve.pugh.net/fleet/images/baton1.jpg

The Baton Rouge page is HERE. I envision this as the actual calss of the USS Republic, which was never, EVER stated as Constiution class. Once I'm further along with my second redrawing I'll post it and see if anyone wants to do it.

Oh yeah, there's a few things I wanted to mention. First off, the shuttlebay was ALWAYS intended to be there, as it is omni present on all of Matt Jeffries sketches immedeatly precceding the construction of the First Pilot model. The fact that it doesn't have any grid lines or door lines (though there looks like something that could point to a grid on the saucer, very very lightly sketched) was merely a matter of time and money.

Secondly, Matt Jeffries originally designed the hatches on the bottom as landing gear, as part of the original plan was to land on a new planet every week. However, although the transporter had been established, both the [triangle] landing gear for the saucer and the secondary hull remained on the deisgn throught the entiety of TOS (and Andy Probert also added saucer landing gear to the Enterprise-class too.)

But eh, whatever.

[USS Mariner]

Anyway, I disagree with Mariner Class on the Sinclair hull. After referencing the best side veiws from the series (Who Mourns for Adonis, screen capture of Apollos hand holding the Eprise is the best IMO) and NASM restoration photos, it looks to me that the Sinclair secondary hull is the most accurate. Note how the hull bottom goes almost straight back from the sensor dish base to about midway under the primary hull pylon before its starts its taper back the the tail cove. The Casimiro hull starts its taper almost immeadiately behing the Sensor dish base.

I do agree with Mariner Class on the Primary hull bottom. The Casmiro Plan features the very slight bell shape and is deeper than the top is tall. The Sinclair Primary hull top and bottom are equidistant(from the two main decks), so the bottom is a little too shallow, also it is almost straight tapered, where in the NASM resto shots and Series stills there definatly is a greater though still slight bell shape. Sinclair has a little too much roundness where the top of the domed part of the Primary Hull meets the straight part in the area on the NCC reg number. Casimiros looks more accurate. yea Cross-section accuaracy definately goes to casimiro on the primary hull, Sinclair on the Secondary hull.

Also I think that Sinclair has ever so slighty more accuarte warps, especially reference the top view, inside cutout, "Flux Chiller" area. Sincalir has the main shaft of the flux chiller parallel with the exterior of the nacelle, whereas Casimiro chiller is sharply divergent angle. Difficult to tell from the studio model photos, but it looks like Sinclair gets the nod here.

As far as Decks two-Three superstructure is concerned, where it meets the hull (from the top veiw) I think that it comes to a sharper point than either Sinclair or Casimiro, but not so sharp as Everhart. The Everhart Plans are what I based my Connie on BTW, but I adjusted in some areas considerably on the basis of photographic evidence as Stress Pup is also doing with his.

Damn. So it looks like we'd need a whole new set of bleuprints. I wonder if Charles and/or Alan would be willing to construct a "final" set of blueprints, taking the most accurate partrs of their blueprints and compiling them into one final image. This might mean having to recopy the new blueprints onto my harddrive, but I can handle it.

Right, I recall now that I had read that somewhere, probaly in The Making of Star Trek. I never corralated that with the markings, interesting!

.......(and Andy Probert also added saucer landing gear to the Enterprise-class too.)

Say What? where are they at? you mean that gear doors are visible on theTMP Eprise model?

Yes. Although it is not exactly stated in The Making of Star Trek (which happens to be sitting in my lap as I type,) it was definetley a possibility in the design process.

Also, the following quote by Andrew Probert in the ST:MAG article about Designing the E-D will show this.

Andy knew there was a precedent for the idea of a saucer seper; in the episode "The Apple," Kirk tells Scotty that, if he has to, he should break out of orbit with the main section. In fact, Andy had always assumed that the original Enterprise had landing gear.
"Popular opinion indicates that the two triangular points on the underside of the saucer are actually two landing legs; the third one would be in the dorsal cavity, so the saucer would have tricycle landing gear for planet landing. Carrying that into the STAR TREK: THE MOTION PICTURE Enterprise I designed the four landing pads on the underside of the saucer. When I did the D, I started to do that and was distracted away from it and that poor ship eventually paid the price!"

Even though only the saucer is said to have landing legs, I don't think it's too far fetched that the secondary hull could have them too.

As for the Enterprise-class, the four specially placed "pads" on the bottom of the saucer are Andy's version for the refit. Although, originally, the secondary hull did not have any markings that resembled landing gear, the Enterprise-A in TUC did have new markings there, smaller yet identical to the ones on the Constitution.

http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/scans/factfiles/connie-r-tb.jpg

Oh yeah, "Mariner" will do.

[TheStressPuppy]

Ok, this is the last post im gonna make on this thread cause its getting way too long (and off topic). Im gonna start a new one with more WIP pics. Admin, please lock this thread.

The landing legs are pretty much irrelivent right now wether they were intended to be there or not, because After the series aired it was established that the Big-E herself could not land on a planet. It was the Franz Joseph tech manual that brought up the emergency saucer separation, where the saucer can land in an emergency if the secondary hull took catastrophic damage ( in which 75 years later in ST:Gen it was utilized on the ent-d). Still there was no landing gear mentioned. it was pretty much a controlled crash landing. We can argue, and speculate till doomsday about what is what on the original enterprise. Truth be told the FX crew didnt know what was anything, they just followed Gene, and Matt Jefferies guidlines when they built the ship, and added in what they thought would look good on her at the time. Now 38 years later she still sets the standard in starship construction tho designs have changed radically. They still bear most of the same basics as the original constitution.