“Stargazer”
Click for a better look.
07
Jul
09
55 Responses to “Eyecandy 20”
Archives
Recent Posts
Recent Comments
- DeanneM on SOTL 2011 Is A Go!
- Ryan Cornelius on SOTL 2011 Is A Go!
- Matt Wright on SOTL 2011 Is A Go!
- Eric N. on SOTL 2011 Is A Go!
- Syd Hughes on SOTL 2011 Is A Go!
- James M. Busby on Space Shuttle 2.0 – The X37 Launches In April
- Rick Sternbach on DS9 Tech Manual – 03 – Weaponry
- Paul on SOTL 2011 Is A Go!
- David Gian-Cursio on SOTL 2011 Is A Go!
- ChristopherPike on SOTL 2011 Is A Go!
- ChristopherPike on SOTL 2011 Is A Go!
- Boris on DS9 Tech Manual – 03 – Weaponry
- CX on SOTL 2011 Is A Go!
- Matt Boardman on Calling Dick Tracy! – 93
- Dwight Williams on Enterprise 100% Honest Size Comparison
Categories
Abramsverse Aviation BSG Buckaroo Banzai Dan Curry Dick Tracy Drexler DS9 Eaves ENT Enterprise J Ent Tech Eye Candy General Sci-Fi General Trek Hollywood Hutzel Makeup NASA/Science Nostalgia NY World's Fair Okuda Panel Art Pierre Drolet Pocket Books Probert Retro Design Shenanigans Site News SOTL Closeup Sternbach Steve Canyon TMP TNG TOS Treknology Uncategorized Virtuality VOY Wardrobe
Beautiful ship… I know it’s sacrilege but I honestly prefer Stargazer to the miranda class.
ZOMG! Doug, this is awesome!!!!!
What a bueaty! I’d love to see her in a remastered TOS Movie, maybe in Spacedock. I’m thinking of the scene where the Enterprise first see’s the Excelsior in III.
Is that rectangle on the front the Navigation Deflector? Or does 4 nacelles negate the need for that?
It would make sense if it is the nav deflector – personally (once I knew about them) I could never figure out why the [i]Reliant[/i] didn’t have one.
I always thought those rectangles were shuttlebays, myself.
I love the Stargazer design; it’s not super-elegant, like the Enterprises, but there’s just something about it.
This and the Miranda pic remind me of the cover of the “Ships of the Line” book, with all the Trek ships flying together.
Shuttlebays are what they’re labeled as being in the cutaway diagrams done by Sternbach et al in Star Trek: The Magazine. According to the article, the deflector field is created by combination of systems, including the warp nacelles, rather than a dedicated device.
Anyway, when did you guys do a CG Stargazer? I don’t recall ever seeing one in any of the shows.
gep, It wasn’t built for the show. I put it together for a “Stargazer” novel cover.
Love them Constellations! Doug, feel like rendering us up a rear view?
Hi Syd, Not sure if I’ll get a chance right away. Thes are mostly in stock images. This is an exploration for the SOTL book cover.
No rush, sir! And I THOUGHT the angle looked familiar…
deflector shield are all over the ship, some ships just have one focal deflector. that’s my understanding.
Its an odd ship, this isnt the most flattering view of it. looks great from behind though~
With this ship being basically a mirror image top and bottom, even the sensor domes the same shape as the bridge; In retrospect, it would have been cool if this was the original test bed for prometheus type separation. If the ship split top and bottom, then the bottom section flew with the nacelles up top like the other half.
In retrospect anyway…
Ah Doug, yer kill’n me here! With this and the Reliant, I am in starship geek heaven!!!
Jim! Don’t die!
But the Gundam stuff on the bottom helps set it apart lol
At this angle, you really get an idea of how big this type of ship is. Volume-wise, it’s very similar to Voyager.
Love it.
JNG, You’re right about that, but I couldn’t bring myself to add the toy robot.
That’s sex on nacelles.
My first practical understanding of four nacelled ships came only recently. There was a show(Discovery channel?) that had and interesting subject – Preditor X – this dinosuar had four fins for moment, and the question came up ‘why?’. The answer is a bit complex.
The studies showed that the Preditor X could swim on just two of the fins, four weren’t needed – not for just cruising. But to catch its prey, it needed all four to lunge fast enough enough.
In other words, to get up to speed faster, it the Constellation class needs all four for lunge attacks. Or to get out of the way.
Other than that to maintain high crusie speeds for much longer…
I think thats right.
Looking it up: ‘According to the Spaceflight Chronology, a three nacelle configuration gives a third more power to the warp drive, greater acceleration and faster engagement. However, in the first experiments, the third nacelle accenuated discrepancies in the warp field causing warp vibrations. This creates difficulties in steering, and would have resulted in the ship shaking itself apart at higher warp speeds. It was however noted that if the design was constructed perfectly it is possible for it to deliver what it promises. (page 139) ‘
I read in that 2 nacelles are the optimum number for a warp field as 3 creates warp field instabilities and a much less efficient system.
The reason the Constellation-class has 4 nacelles is for increased range as they can switch between nacelle pairs, allowing the engineers to degauze one set of field coils whilst still on the more.
Well…this doesn’t seem very reasonable, since half of the journey the inactive nacelles would be dead ballast, rather decreasing the efficiency of the ship. As the issue seems to be that the warp-field be symmetrical, i’d assume that this configuration should make for better acceleration and maneuverability. Above that, there is still this more-engines-more-speed-thing. Or the other way round, one could run the engines at a lower power level and thus reduce the stress on the components while maintaining the performance.
I thought the filming miniature had a bunch of big domes, etc. on the lower surface?
Maybe a refit with improved sensors?
Doug! The Stargazer has never looked better! I would love to see this model pulling off the Picard Maneuver!
Yes, it did have domes and a “turret” of sorts:
http://www.johnpearse.partsking.net/trekpics/starbig.jpg
http://www.starshipmodeler.com/trek/ss_connie-778F.JPG
http://www.stargazertwo.com/Database/Stargazer_Studio_Models/Stargazerkeel1.jpg
I think it looks far better without the blisters.
Lovely ship. What is the purpose of this CG model? Was it used somewhere?
FSL – I put this model together for one of the “Stargazer” book covers.
I knew it by yesterday, that this would happen! Nevertheless you made my day Mr. Drexler! If the Mirandas are Rock’n'Roll, those Constellations be Rock’n'Rock’n'Rock’n'…er…Roll. Think I need a cigarette and a walk around the block…and maybe a cold shower.
She’s beautiful, Doug. Never noticed the Constellation-class has two torpedo launchers.
Yes… I think Doug was making his Stargazer his own! I’ve got a little over two dozen pics of the Constellation class shooting model as well as some angles of the desktop model from Picards ready room (pinched from this very Blog site!!) – Can’t say I can spot those torpedo launchers on any of them!
From the model in the link below, seems they were there afterall.
With 4 torpedo launchers, she sure had some teeth.
What a feast for the ‘ol eyeballs! Such power and dignity, thank you again Sir Drexler.
~Mark~
I am definitely in the minority here but I never really cared for the Constellation class. I think no matter how much CG you throw at it, she is still parts bin fugly. It was to me the only ship that has always looked like a model on screen. Thanks for posting Doug and sorry if I have offended anyone.
Terry
Regarding the number of nacelles, I’ll go with the McCoy Principle: “You know engineers. They love to change things.”
Quad-nacelle designs have some sort of advantage — speed, nimbleness, endurance, whatever, and maybe it’s only significant in certain size ranges — that Starfleet has one or two classes with that arrangement at any given time.
I tend to think of tri-nacelle designs as something of a holy grail for Starfleet ship architects, because the math says there’s an advantage but the practical engineering says the practical problems outweigh it. And with every advance in technology, someone thinks they’ve got the problem finally licked…
And single nacelles are like a car without its tires balanced and maybe a slight misalignment: acceptable for most ordinary uses, but not really optimal for “high performance”.
So says me, at any rate. The “we all” may vary.
this is GORGEOUS! Got any more angles?
While you’re at it, did you ever find the d-5 “battlecruiser” images for the Klingon run of ships?
Greg, I have some D-5 renders in stock, but they aren’t the greatest.
Since no one else has ANY, they’d be more than we have now…
Any D-5 renders are good renders!
I love the Constellation class. To me, Starfleet has always needed both thoroughbreds & workhorses!
Although the current 4 nacelled superstar seems to be the Prometheus, let’s not forget that barely glimpsed ( & then only as wreckage) beauty, the Cheyenne Class!
Here’s hoping a future SOTL calendar features some of Starfleet’s more obscure yet canon designs!
I initially didn’t like this ship so much, and I found it just fitting to act as the outdated Stargazer. But the design has grown on me, since I saw it with my own eyes 12 years ago.
I always liked the Stargazer and felt it was very nicely designed to fit in very nicely with the aesthetic of the TOS-movie era, even more than the Oberth class. I suppose its my limited imagination and my youth spent in the pages of the Franz Joseph Technical Manual, but I always liked to see Starfleet ships reflect a certain modular-ness (modularity?) – i.e. these are the parts we use and these are the different ways we put them together – that you see in the Stargazer. And plus I just think she’s neat.
Looks great but some windows are missing
http://www.st-bilder.de/datein/bilder/Modelle/Constellation/V2/gallery/B_MODELL_CONSTELHQ_002.jpg
Starfleet added them after this picture was taken.
Along with those ventral-side pods?
I remember Rick establishing a backstory in ST: the Magazine with his Starfleet Technical Reports. Sorry that feature didn’t carry over to the current fan magazine. The two of you would work collaborative magic there.
On Tuesday.
The DC
Bwha ha ha ha
Classic
I like the modifications you made to the design in this plate. It looks sleaker, more effective with the weapons displacement, and more internal in component aproach; much more consistant with the established norms.
My compliments.
The DC
Lovely image. I’m another one who didn’t really warm to the Constellation when it first appeared in TNG (and for a long time I thought the Galaxy class was only slightly bigger than Kirk’s Enterprise from the scenes where the Enterprise-D was towing the Stargazer.
). But like other folks I gradually came round and now I agree it’s a classic. I like Rolando’s idea of it appearing in Spacedock in a remastered movie (that’d tie in nicely with the U.S.S. Constellation apparently being mentioned as undergoing trials in background chatter in ST6).
I’m also intrigued by Michael Jan Friedman’s idea from the Stargazer novels of the Constellation essentially becoming the prestige explorer in the first half of the 23rd century, though with the Excelsior and Ambassador still in their prime it’d be difficult to assess what role would suit which ship – there are three Comstitution replacements together there! Constellation for long-range exploration I reckon (with the alternating nacelle pairs).
Rick Sternbach or Mike Okuda, if you’re reading, any chance of some insight into potential quad-nacelle theory? Many thanks if so!
I like to think of the Constellation like those ultimate prop fighters in WW2, the McDonnell XP-67, or the Dornier Do 335, really conceptualized in the old tech, before the Jet Revolution. The Excelsior and its Huge Engines were the next generation…
Constellation was a difficult design to get used to for me…I think it might have been a result of the way it was photographed during its first appearance.
I actually like the bumps on the bottom…it makes it look like it was designed for multiple exploration & scientific purposes. Makes sense to me…a long-range explorer configured as an all-in-one charting & research lab. The enhanced weaponry, superstructure, and redundant propulsion systems could be a reaction to the apparent fragility of the Oberth class…
Over the years it has grown on me quite a bit, and would *definitely* look at home in the spacedock scenes in a “remastered” version of either STIII or STIV!
As Federation ships go this one took a while to grow on me! (it’s okay, we’re friends now!
)
This model is an absolute stunner (and I too noticed the absence of the saucer bulges; I think it looks better without them!), well done Doug! err… more views please!
The pod/blisters on the bottom of the ready room Stargazer model are from a 1984 Bandai Star Blazers Tripod Tank kit in case anyone was looking to scratch build the Stargazer.