Can somebody explain this to me about the Neo-Connie?

captainrc1 · November 19

While I like the Constitution III class, there's one thing bothering me about it.

Considering where the torpedo launchers are presumably positioned...

... how the heck does she avoid blowing off her own lower sensor dome?!?!?!

rattler2 · November 20

Honestly I wonder about that too. Only thing I can think of is that the tubes are angled down a bit so that it doesn't shoot STRAIGHT out, but at a downward angle to avoid the Sensor Dome. Torpedoes aren't dumbfire point and shoot weapons. They are guided munitions. So shifting the angle of the tubes to allow for clearing sections of the ship makes sense.

leemwatson · November 20

captainrc1 wrote: »

While I like the Constitution III class, there's one thing bothering me about it.

Considering where the torpedo launchers are presumably positioned...

... how the heck does she avoid blowing off her own lower sensor dome?!?!?!

As if I needed another reason to dislike the downgrade

In all seriousness, torp tube placement has always bothered me on alot of ships, usually canon ones too.

Unknown · November 20

This content has been removed.

rattler2 · November 20

Another ship that has an awkward Torpedo Launcher is the Ranger class. Behind the Bridge Dome. Can either say they're angled up to avoide it, or off to either side to avoide it.

Again guided munitions don't require a straight forward tube. It may help it get to its target slightly faster, but its not an absolute requirement.
Think of it like this, a Destroyer like the USS John Paul Jones in Battleship has warhead launchers. They're not pointing straight forward. They're pointing straight UP. Doesn't stop them from hitting their targets.

legendarylycan · November 20

It doesn't matter where the tubes are, because the torpedoes themselves have thrusters - in fact, the tubes needing to be 'lined up' on a target before a torpedo is launched is absolutely ridiculous. They should all be firing as soon as they're loaded regardless of which way the launching ship is pointing in relation to its target.

spiritborn · November 20

Also the animation for DSC era ships seems to fire back then curve forward (in-game that is).

Again guided munitions don't require a straight forward tube. It may help it get to its target slightly faster, but its not an absolute requirement.
Think of it like this, a Destroyer like the USS John Paul Jones in Battleship has warhead launchers. They're not pointing straight forward. They're pointing straight UP. Doesn't stop them from hitting their targets.

a lot dumb fire torpedo tubes IRL weren't directly forward or directly back but in an angle or sometimes to the side.

phoenixc · November 20

It is still better if they have a clear fire path straight to the target since they are not just dumped into space to accelerate totally on their own like the missiles in The Expanse, they are catapulted by presser beams according to both Roddenberry and Jefferies, so if the tubes are too far off target it would add a few seconds to the travel time, and in combat that could mean the difference between a hit or an interception.

questerius · November 20

I think you're all forgetting the obvious answer: the transphasic torpedoes just go straight through it.

theboxisred · November 21

The real answer is that the people responsible for these decisions simply do not care.

This is further demonstrated by class names like Excelsior II and Constitution III.
Leaving the Excelsior II to the side, there are several obvious class names that would be a better fit than Constitution III an they would still evoke the Constitution Class:
The Liberty Class.
The Declaration Class.
The Amendment Class.
The Bill of Rights Class.
All of which would do the job of hearkening back to The Constitution Class.

Instead with Picard Season 3, in which the Constitution III makes its debut, we are given an "adventure" that seems more about a "filmmaker" who spends nearly every moment of screen time reminding the audience that the "filmmaker" has seen all the Star Treks.

This is why we have new(ish) ship designs based on the idea of Negative Space (truthfully this goes back to Star Trek III: The Search for Spock at the very least) and physically disconnected parts.
This is why you can go through the last several years worth of dialogue and find lines lifted from all properties science fiction no matter how out of place the dialogue/line reading come off (Loriss to Bashir, "This one goes here, that one goes there," in a voice that is suddenly quite harsh while Bashir remains professional. Special Thanks to The Empire Strikes Back).
Finally, this is why the torpedo tube on the Constitution III is so thoughtlessly positioned.

The people responsible for these decisions simply do not care.

jonsills · November 21

(Trolling comments moderated out. - BMR)

foxman00 · November 21

jonsills wrote: »

theboxisred wrote: »

The real answer is that the people responsible for these decisions simply do not care.

This is further demonstrated by class names like Excelsior II and Constitution III.
Leaving the Excelsior II to the side, there are several obvious class names that would be a better fit than Constitution III an they would still evoke the Constitution Class:
The Liberty Class.
The Declaration Class.
The Amendment Class.
The Bill of Rights Class.
All of which would do the job of hearkening back to The Constitution Class.

Instead with Picard Season 3, in which the Constitution III makes its debut, we are given an "adventure" that seems more about a "filmmaker" who spends nearly every moment of screen time reminding the audience that the "filmmaker" has seen all the Star Treks.

This is why we have new(ish) ship designs based on the idea of Negative Space (truthfully this goes back to Star Trek III: The Search for Spock at the very least) and physically disconnected parts.
This is why you can go through the last several years worth of dialogue and find lines lifted from all properties science fiction no matter how out of place the dialogue/line reading come off (Loriss to Bashir, "This one goes here, that one goes there," in a voice that is suddenly quite harsh while Bashir remains professional. Special Thanks to The Empire Strikes Back).
Finally, this is why the torpedo tube on the Constitution III is so thoughtlessly positioned.

The people responsible for these decisions simply do not care.

Yeah, yeah, nobody cares, you're the last of the TruFans(tm), we've heard it all before. Give it a rest, is my vote.

Also funny how they didn't mention any class names that are not from a singular Earth country, when they are very many other options in our history or the Federations history that could have been appropriate if the writers had decided to go with a different name.

(I know they will most likely counter any how the Constitution class name is from that same country

)

phoenixc · November 21

The problem is that the new designs are done exclusively for the visual 'cool factor' with no regard to the function of what they are placing or what the engineering reasons for the features on the original models was. Jefferies was an engineer and designed with an eye for those details, so a lot of the more 'modern' ship designs look weird and non-functional to people used to and expecting the function-oriented logic of the original designs.

rattler2 · November 22

Well... the Shangri-La class, which the Connie-III is based on, doesn't have that problem as I believe the Torpedo Launcher was built into the front of the Saucer. When it was revamped for the Connie-III, someone must have decided to move the launcher to the neck to add another design element from the Connie line (refit's launcher being on the neck).

Here's a Howard Day render of the Shangri-La class. The one thing the Connie-III does not share with her parent design, is the saucer mounted Torpedo Launcher.

theboxisred · November 22

(Response to moderated comments removed. - BMR)

theboxisred · November 22

phoenixc#0738 wrote: »

The problem is that the new designs are done exclusively for the visual 'cool factor' with no regard to the function of what they are placing or what the engineering reasons for the features on the original models was. Jefferies was an engineer and designed with an eye for those details, so a lot of the more 'modern' ship designs look weird and non-functional to people used to and expecting the function-oriented logic of the original designs.

Agreed, and this is an excellent observation!

It's also part of what makes an entertainment product appealing, knowing that someone cared enough to sort such things out.

theboxisred · November 22

rattler2 wrote: »

Well... the Shangri-La class, which the Connie-III is based on, doesn't have that problem as I believe the Torpedo Launcher was built into the front of the Saucer. When it was revamped for the Connie-III, someone must have decided to move the launcher to the neck to add another design element from the Connie line (refit's launcher being on the neck).

Here's a Howard Day render of the Shangri-La class. The one thing the Connie-III does not share with her parent design, is the saucer mounted Torpedo Launcher.

Yes.
I had this very discussion with one of my cohorts regarding how the Shangri-La Class was ill-used as a basis for the Constitution III class.

FUN FACT
It seems I've spent too much time in game. I just tried to rotate that image of the Shangri-La Class to get a better look.

spiritborn · November 22

foxman00 wrote: »

jonsills wrote: »

theboxisred wrote: »

The real answer is that the people responsible for these decisions simply do not care.

This is further demonstrated by class names like Excelsior II and Constitution III.
Leaving the Excelsior II to the side, there are several obvious class names that would be a better fit than Constitution III an they would still evoke the Constitution Class:
The Liberty Class.
The Declaration Class.
The Amendment Class.
The Bill of Rights Class.
All of which would do the job of hearkening back to The Constitution Class.

Instead with Picard Season 3, in which the Constitution III makes its debut, we are given an "adventure" that seems more about a "filmmaker" who spends nearly every moment of screen time reminding the audience that the "filmmaker" has seen all the Star Treks.

This is why we have new(ish) ship designs based on the idea of Negative Space (truthfully this goes back to Star Trek III: The Search for Spock at the very least) and physically disconnected parts.
This is why you can go through the last several years worth of dialogue and find lines lifted from all properties science fiction no matter how out of place the dialogue/line reading come off (Loriss to Bashir, "This one goes here, that one goes there," in a voice that is suddenly quite harsh while Bashir remains professional. Special Thanks to The Empire Strikes Back).
Finally, this is why the torpedo tube on the Constitution III is so thoughtlessly positioned.

The people responsible for these decisions simply do not care.

Yeah, yeah, nobody cares, you're the last of the TruFans(tm), we've heard it all before. Give it a rest, is my vote.

Also funny how they didn't mention any class names that are not from a singular Earth country, when they are very many other options in our history or the Federations history that could have been appropriate if the writers had decided to go with a different name.

(I know they will most likely counter any how the Constitution class name is from that same country )

Liberty class could work in the UFP naming scheme as it's generic enough to not really USA specific, same as the Constitution, even the Soviet Union had a constitution IIRC.

That said I suspect that Constitution class isn't name after the document, but rather the Frigate USS Constitution (one of the first 6 ships in US Navy), which would fit the "historical items" category for UFP naming scheme.

Closest to US specific names for UFP ships is the California-class and it's named after cities that still might have those names in 24th century rather then basing those names on a country that hasn't existed for centuries in Star Trek, USA as country ended when United Earth came to be if not sooner.

The UFP naming scheme seems to be universal concepts (Enterprise, Defiant, Voyager, Discovery, Reliant, Constitution), Historical persons(Shran or Kirk), items or locations or current locations (Cerritos). There's some exceptions to this but I don't think I've ever seen anything that would directly reference political concept from single Earth country.

EDIT: As for Alternative names for Constitution III class, I'd go with Liberty-class, Unity-class or Equality-class as they retain the intended symbolism and fit the UFP naming scheme.

phoenixc · November 22

One fanon explanation for the class name Constitution is that it actually referred to the UFP charter (technically the Articles of Federation), but the admiralty already snagged the name Federation for the class of dreadnaught that bears the name, so they substituted the name of an older equivalent document from Earth. Of course, that idea is not canon and probably never can be since it came from Franz Joseph's Star Trek Technical Manual, but it was almost universally accepted by the fans back in the day.

Personally, I like the "old famous ships" thing spiritborn talked about better since it does make a more logical fit, though from an in-story viewpoint it could have even been a mix of the two with all the focus the characters seem to have on pre-WWIII cultural stuff like old movies and novels and whatnot.

spiritborn · November 22

phoenixc#0738 wrote: »

One fanon explanation for the class name Constitution is that it actually referred to the UFP charter (technically the Articles of Federation), but the admiralty already snagged the name Federation for the class of dreadnaught that bears the name, so they substituted the name of an older equivalent document from Earth. Of course, that idea is not canon and probably never can be since it came from Franz Joseph's Star Trek Technical Manual, but it was almost universally accepted by the fans back in the day.

To be fair constitution is pretty much a general term for such documents (like I said Soviet Union had constitution, actually 3 different ones, but obviously the actual term used was in Russian but "constitution" is the term used in English), so calling the "Articles of Federation" the UFP constitution isn't exactly wrong.

Unknown · November 22

This content has been removed.

theboxisred · November 23

spiritborn wrote: »

phoenixc#0738 wrote: »

One fanon explanation for the class name Constitution is that it actually referred to the UFP charter (technically the Articles of Federation), but the admiralty already snagged the name Federation for the class of dreadnaught that bears the name, so they substituted the name of an older equivalent document from Earth. Of course, that idea is not canon and probably never can be since it came from Franz Joseph's Star Trek Technical Manual, but it was almost universally accepted by the fans back in the day.

To be fair constitution is pretty much a general term for such documents (like I said Soviet Union had constitution, actually 3 different ones, but obviously the actual term used was in Russian but "constitution" is the term used in English), so calling the "Articles of Federation" the UFP constitution isn't exactly wrong.

If you want to go in-universe the Declaration Class could be played off as a reference to The Fundamental Declarations of the Martian Colonies which were mentioned in the Original Series episode Court Martial.
There are several mentions of such documents in that episode that would serve the purpose.

Queued up Samuel T. Cogley's speech as a reference for those interested:

https://youtu.be/CVfFWs4BKBE?si=ZMrIuZXEylW0RTfH&t=108

leemwatson · November 23

Perhaps folk are getting a little too carried away with thinking Constitution refers to the legal document.

Constitution also refers to the general state of health of a person. A person with a healthy constitution rarely fall ill and undertake strenuous tasks.....which is pretty apt for a ship that lasted 40 years!

spiritborn · November 23

leemwatson wrote: »

Perhaps folk are getting a little too carried away with thinking Constitution refers to the legal document.

Constitution also refers to the general state of health of a person. A person with a healthy constitution rarely fall ill and undertake strenuous tasks.....which is pretty apt for a ship that lasted 40 years!

true but both the observed UFP naming scheme and historical naming schemes suggest either the "legal document", "historical vessel" or "vague general concept" rather then "general state of a person's health" as the namesake, as there's more then 2 definitions for the word "constitution".

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/constitution

Unknown · November 25

This content has been removed.

Can somebody explain this to me about the Neo-Connie?

Comments