Some things never change. Support, repair and maintenance functions are the dull, dreary underpinnings of everything seen as "flashy" or "glorious." Nobody sees it and few know it's there. But then again, that's as it should be. If support and maintenance are doing their jobs well, nobody knows they're there! I speak from experience. 20 years as a USAF maintainer. We measured our success by our invisibility. Nobody noticed us until something went wrong. It takes a strange twist in viewpoint to think like this, but it works.
I've wanted to build this ship since I saw it in the Technical Manual at the library when I was ten. Finally am doing it. Almost done. Short video on my channel if you want to look.
Star Fleet Battles really did a lot of work on trying to see what this class was capable of. I think they were the game that came up with the idea that linked pods could serve as a forward base platform which could then be converted into a micro-starbase. Interesting to check out.
The deep-space exploration and science vessels would've been the flashy, well-known ships, but tugs like this are the workhorses that keep everything running.
In the Tactical Board-Game, SFB, the Tugs with 'battle Pods' had Impulse Engines in the Battle-Pod, and Auxiliary Warp-Reactors (for powering-up Photo Torpedoes; Not for 'warp-drive'), and the Pod also added to the Ship's Shielding. With 4 or 6 Photon launch-tubes, and an additional 2 or 4 Phasers, they became 'slow-but-deadly' Pocket Battleships (or, perhaps, Heavy Monitors?). Utterly ineffective on their own, but great in 'Fleet-Actions', if protected by other ships that could rapidly maneuver nearby. Also, the Original Blueprints (Trek Manual ) did note that Tugs could tow 2 pods at a time, though F. Joseph never noted whether the Warp-speed had to be slower? Anyhow, this design was a great one, very capable, and versatile.
Loved the SFB! Spent many a snow day playing that game with the kid who lived up the street. I would think the warp speed would have something to do with the mass of the vessel. It may have taken longer to accelerate, decelerate or there might have been stress limitations.
I always loved the idea of the modular pods that could move massive amounts of refugees, troops, food, fuel, etc to wherever they needed to go at a moment's notice. I like to think that there were Starfleet depots filled with these container pods just waiting for activation and pick up. It's such a shame that the logistics side of running massive space fleets is massively underappreciated and unexplored across science fiction in general. After all, it was Napoleon who so famously said, "The amateurs discuss tactics: the professionals discuss logistics."
@@reexaminedreads2161 thanks man. General Dwight D. Eisenhower had his own quote which went, “You will not find it difficult to prove that battles, campaigns, and even wars have been won or lost primarily because of logistics.” If you use these awesome quotes, could I get a shout out? It would be my first one.
My only problem with the design was the belief the warp nacelles had to have open space between them. Nothing said colony seeding failure quite like irradiating "all' of your colonists right before dropping them off on a new planet. It is my only complaint however. It pretty.
Doesn't matter why it's cool, it's just cool. Felt that way about Trek back in the 1970's when my brothers made fun of me for watching it. Didn't care, thought then and still think it's cool.
The 1701-A was older than 7 years. I think it was in Mr. Scott's Guide to the Enterprise (though I'm not 100% since that book is buried in storage 2000 miles away and I haven't read through it in almost 20 years) that the Enterprise 1701-A was actually the USS Yorktown (though in another one of the books I have it was a different ship name) that was the test bed for refitting Constitution-Class cruisers with the new transwarp drive system. The Excelsior was designed from the start to test and use the new transwarp drive, but it was also being tested for refit to the older cruisers. It explains the funny scene in ST: V when Scotty says "I know this ship like the back of my hand" right before knocking himself out on a low-angled beam. There were subtle differences between the original 1701 and the refitted transwarp Constitution-Class that would be renamed to 1701-A Enterprise. Point is the 1701-A was older than 7 years and couple that with the failure of transwarp drive (Excelsior and Enterprise were the only 2 ships ever to us it, and though it led to vast improvements in warp drive for the next generation of ships, it failed to reach the projected speeds and break the Warp 10 barrier as defined at the time) it was more likely set to be decommissioned because it was closer to the 20 year life of other Constitution-Class cruisers.
Gene Roddenberry wanted to name the Original Series ship Yorktown before they later settled on Enterprise. The 1701-A was a new keel-up build from the start. They were going to name her the Ti-Ho until the destruction of the 1701 Refit and the incident with Whale Probe. Once Kirk was busted back to Captain, he needed a new ship to command. Since the Ti-Ho was just finishing up construction, Starfleet quickly decided to rename her to Enterprise and give her the designation NCC-1701-A. I think it was also a political move to piss off the Klingons for their involvement in the Genesis incident and the destruction of the 1701 refit.
You're incorrect. There was a heavy version of the ptolemy class before the Miranda class. It looked similar but had heavier pylons and a stronger warp engine. It didn't go faster that I can recall, but its speed was less affected by docked pods.
...I'd like to see the deck plans. It would answer some questions I have about this class, like, 'Does it have a vertical or horizontal warp core...and how would it be ejected if needed?' Crew quarters and what facilities would it have standard. ...Oh...and wouldn't this ship be Really Good, if up graded, for battle? ..Thanks for the video.
2:50 Do you still call it the "Primary Hull" when there is no secondary hull of the ship ? Thank you for this. I have my father's Star Trek Technical Manual and love the idea of all these other vessels. You bring the blueprints to life.
Looks great my only question is, where is the warp reactor located, is it vertical or horizontal. Dont get me wrong i love the model, but For some of us a little engineering though behind the construction would make more sense.
The dish is not a sensor. It is the source of so-called deflector beam. It is a necessary component for faster than light travel in the Star Trek universe. Its function is to sweep ahead of the ship as it moves at incredible speeds sweeping open a path that is free of all particles and matter so that the ship is not destroyed by a collision. Even a collision with a speck of dust while traveling faster than the speed of light would be catastrophic.
Very good vid but I always saw a problem with this class correct me if I am wrong please but did gene himself state that warp can only be achieved if two nacelles are facing one another thanks
How can this ship do up to WARP 8 with out navigational deflectors? Where is all the fuel and engine infrastructure normally kept in the secondary hull? Why have such a large crew for just transporting? 22 officers for a transporter? 100+ crew? How has such a narrow neck got the strength to structurally handle the inertia of such big pods? There are lots of questions re the design here. But I am sure I have it wrong...
In TOS, the warp reactors are, in fact, in the front of the nacelles, along with the antimatter storage pods. The secondary hull contains little more than redundant primary systems and cargo bays.
I would disagree with lifetime of the spaceframe. I would submit the following examples of longevity. first the Boeing B-52 it is approaching 70 years of active service with few oppertunities for retirement at this point some are even saying it will be the 100 year bomber. Two CVN 65 served for 60 years before retirement. finally in universe examples Excelsior, Miranda, Oberth classes, even the Klingons still have K'tinga in service for more then 100 years. With the refits of Constitution class and variants Hermes/Saladin's spare/secondhand parts would have become cheap and plentiful, keeping the class in service for a very long time.
The only problem with this idea would be how long the ships would be useful as vessels, and not as materials for better crafts. During that period from ToS and the movies, there were massive design and tech upgrades everywhere. For the federation, would it be more feasible to upgrade the nacels and systems for a Ptolemy vessel, or just use it's parts to make a newer Miranda class vessel. Odds are the Miranda came out of direct upgrades to the Ptolemy ships, and at some point, they just said 'fck it, lets just remake the whole thing'. Two things about ST we have to remember, Money and energy are no longer so much an issue anymore. Materials and time ARE. If you can break down a lower class ship, and use it to make a higher class ship, why wouldn't you? That said, the Miranda became the F150 of the star trek universe, which is why it stuck around so long.
Could it be that new and stronger alloys were discovered in those years? Perhaps not easy to make, and only put in certain classes with the idea that they would last longer.
The concept for this ship is a good one. However the design looks flimsy as hell. It just does not work for me. Put communications dish being stuck on a stick looks not only looks cheep, but it looks fragile. Should have embedded it in the hull of the saucer similar to teh Akira class. The neck to to small for the large container. extend it to the dorsal dome of the saucer, then have a secondary hull extend farther back. So that the large cylindrical container has two points of contact with the ship. This would make it a lot more sturdy.
The sensor/communications mast might be able to (partially) retract into the saucer hull during normal flight and extend when greater range or sensitivity was needed. The cylindrical cargo modules obviously won't mass as much as a full starship, the flimsy struts might be used only to hold alignment while tractor/tug beams actually anchor the structures in place. Although I do agree, it does have a generally cheap and wimpy look to it. Cheap is understandable if it's intended to be a mass-produced military freighter, easier to build, easier to maintain. Weak is only understandable if hull construction materials cost more than tractor-beam energy. Remember that Starfleet was already starting to prefer the stupidity of powered "structural integrity fields" in place of actual hull metal by the end of Kirk's era.
This class of ship is ugly & basic, it remind me of the old 1980's Plymouth Reliant, it was ugly as hell but was reliable & easy to keep up maintenance wise & very economical Poor comparison but the idea of it is there, seems the uglier & utilitarian a vehicle is, the more reliable useful it becomes. I shouldnt say ugly, it still has the saucer section unchanged. I do like the possibilities this ship can offer though cant put that down
Some things never change. Support, repair and maintenance functions are the dull, dreary underpinnings of everything seen as "flashy" or "glorious." Nobody sees it and few know it's there. But then again, that's as it should be. If support and maintenance are doing their jobs well, nobody knows they're there! I speak from experience. 20 years as a USAF maintainer. We measured our success by our invisibility. Nobody noticed us until something went wrong. It takes a strange twist in viewpoint to think like this, but it works.
I've wanted to build this ship since I saw it in the Technical Manual at the library when I was ten. Finally am doing it. Almost done. Short video on my channel if you want to look.
Star Fleet Battles really did a lot of work on trying to see what this class was capable of. I think they were the game that came up with the idea that linked pods could serve as a forward base platform which could then be converted into a micro-starbase. Interesting to check out.
Loved the early games. Mentioned to someone here it was the game we played in middle school on snow days.
The deep-space exploration and science vessels would've been the flashy, well-known ships, but tugs like this are the workhorses that keep everything running.
Enjoyed this video would love to see more like this
Great new style of video
This is so damn good why is this channel so underrated
Thank you very much.
In the Tactical Board-Game, SFB, the Tugs with 'battle Pods' had Impulse Engines in the Battle-Pod, and Auxiliary Warp-Reactors (for powering-up Photo Torpedoes; Not for 'warp-drive'), and the Pod also added to the Ship's Shielding. With 4 or 6 Photon launch-tubes, and an additional 2 or 4 Phasers, they became 'slow-but-deadly' Pocket Battleships (or, perhaps, Heavy Monitors?). Utterly ineffective on their own, but great in 'Fleet-Actions', if protected by other ships that could rapidly maneuver nearby. Also, the Original Blueprints (Trek Manual ) did note that Tugs could tow 2 pods at a time, though F. Joseph never noted whether the Warp-speed had to be slower? Anyhow, this design was a great one, very capable, and versatile.
Loved the SFB! Spent many a snow day playing that game with the kid who lived up the street. I would think the warp speed would have something to do with the mass of the vessel. It may have taken longer to accelerate, decelerate or there might have been stress limitations.
i sort of saw the FASA Derf class as one of the ships that took on some of the maintenance retrieval tasks that sometimes would got to the Ptolemy.
This is excellent! This is so interesting. Great job.
Thank you. Always loved this ship when I first read about this. Plus I like your format.
I liked the Ptolemy class since I saw the U.S.S. Masada in the Star Trek 25th Anniversary game.
I always loved the idea of the modular pods that could move massive amounts of refugees, troops, food, fuel, etc to wherever they needed to go at a moment's notice. I like to think that there were Starfleet depots filled with these container pods just waiting for activation and pick up.
It's such a shame that the logistics side of running massive space fleets is massively underappreciated and unexplored across science fiction in general.
After all, it was Napoleon who so famously said, "The amateurs discuss tactics: the professionals discuss logistics."
That's a great quote. I will have to remember that one.
@@reexaminedreads2161 thanks man. General Dwight D. Eisenhower had his own quote which went, “You will not find it difficult to prove that battles, campaigns, and even wars have been won or lost primarily because of logistics.”
If you use these awesome quotes, could I get a shout out? It would be my first one.
Passenger containers, the MK-IV Starliner had impulse engines. Starfleet Technical Manual TO:01:04:21
Probably as a safety measure, just in case it got lose, or perhaps for longer sustained orbits when it reached its destination. Just a thought.
@@reexaminedreads2161 Makes sense.
The first time I remember seeing a Ptolemy-class tug was in the Star Trek 25th Anniversary video game with the USS Masada.
My only problem with the design was the belief the warp nacelles had to have open space between them. Nothing said colony seeding failure quite like irradiating "all' of your colonists right before dropping them off on a new planet. It is my only complaint however. It pretty.
I find the idea of massive habitat tube modules that can be tugged around so stinking cool and I don't know why.
Doesn't matter why it's cool, it's just cool. Felt that way about Trek back in the 1970's when my brothers made fun of me for watching it. Didn't care, thought then and still think it's cool.
can a galaxy class version of the ptolemy be done I suspect that it is the same as the new animated lower decks.
That would be interesting.
Love those Franz Joseph starships.
Great breakdown with some lovely schematics and animations
The 1701-A was older than 7 years. I think it was in Mr. Scott's Guide to the Enterprise (though I'm not 100% since that book is buried in storage 2000 miles away and I haven't read through it in almost 20 years) that the Enterprise 1701-A was actually the USS Yorktown (though in another one of the books I have it was a different ship name) that was the test bed for refitting Constitution-Class cruisers with the new transwarp drive system.
The Excelsior was designed from the start to test and use the new transwarp drive, but it was also being tested for refit to the older cruisers. It explains the funny scene in ST: V when Scotty says "I know this ship like the back of my hand" right before knocking himself out on a low-angled beam. There were subtle differences between the original 1701 and the refitted transwarp Constitution-Class that would be renamed to 1701-A Enterprise.
Point is the 1701-A was older than 7 years and couple that with the failure of transwarp drive (Excelsior and Enterprise were the only 2 ships ever to us it, and though it led to vast improvements in warp drive for the next generation of ships, it failed to reach the projected speeds and break the Warp 10 barrier as defined at the time) it was more likely set to be decommissioned because it was closer to the 20 year life of other Constitution-Class cruisers.
Gene Roddenberry wanted to name the Original Series ship Yorktown before they later settled on Enterprise. The 1701-A was a new keel-up build from the start. They were going to name her the Ti-Ho until the destruction of the 1701 Refit and the incident with Whale Probe. Once Kirk was busted back to Captain, he needed a new ship to command. Since the Ti-Ho was just finishing up construction, Starfleet quickly decided to rename her to Enterprise and give her the designation NCC-1701-A. I think it was also a political move to piss off the Klingons for their involvement in the Genesis incident and the destruction of the 1701 refit.
Sorry what I mean is there can be no obsuctions in line of sight of nacelles
You're incorrect. There was a heavy version of the ptolemy class before the Miranda class. It looked similar but had heavier pylons and a stronger warp engine. It didn't go faster that I can recall, but its speed was less affected by docked pods.
...I'd like to see the deck plans. It would answer some questions I have about this class, like, 'Does it have a vertical or horizontal warp core...and how would it be ejected if needed?'
Crew quarters and what facilities would it have standard.
...Oh...and wouldn't this ship be Really Good, if up graded, for battle?
..Thanks for the video.
That is an interesting question. Why does the warp core have to be vertical? Nothing I've ever read says it must.
In TOS, the warp reactors are, in fact, in the front section of the nacelles themselves.
I really enjoyed this video! Thanks :)
Thank you.
Not sure where you got the idea that the sensor dish is optional. It isn't in the Tech Manual.
It's a badly positioned device in this design. As for it being optional, I could have sworn I read that someplace, can't remember where.
2:50 Do you still call it the "Primary Hull" when there is no secondary hull of the ship ?
Thank you for this. I have my father's Star Trek Technical Manual and love the idea of all these other vessels. You bring the blueprints to life.
Good question. I would say anything that isn't the saucer section is the "Primary Hull".
Looks great my only question is, where is the warp reactor located, is it vertical or horizontal. Dont get me wrong i love the model, but For some of us a little engineering though behind the construction would make more sense.
In TOS, the warp reactors are, in fact, in the front of the nacelles.
The dish is not a sensor. It is the source of so-called deflector beam. It is a necessary component for faster than light travel in the Star Trek universe. Its function is to sweep ahead of the ship as it moves at incredible speeds sweeping open a path that is free of all particles and matter so that the ship is not destroyed by a collision. Even a collision with a speck of dust while traveling faster than the speed of light would be catastrophic.
According to the technical manual, it is in fact BOTH. It's called the "Navigational Sensor/Deflector"
Very good vid but I always saw a problem with this class correct me if I am wrong please but did gene himself state that warp can only be achieved if two nacelles are facing one another thanks
I have never seen that comment. If someone know, link it.
According to Gene, warp engines work in pairs and must have mostly clear line of site with each other.
th-cam.com/video/Au9UeLfI6TE/w-d-xo.html
How can this ship do up to WARP 8 with out navigational deflectors? Where is all the fuel and engine infrastructure normally kept in the secondary hull? Why have such a large crew for just transporting? 22 officers for a transporter? 100+ crew? How has such a narrow neck got the strength to structurally handle the inertia of such big pods? There are lots of questions re the design here. But I am sure I have it wrong...
In TOS, the warp reactors are, in fact, in the front of the nacelles, along with the antimatter storage pods. The secondary hull contains little more than redundant primary systems and cargo bays.
Sounds like a very useful engine.
Would love to short videos on these from paramount. Maybe have Mayweather and his family make appearance.
"Commander, we're giving you your first command."
"I see. Thank you si-"
"...Of a cargo crate."
"...God damn it."
And if you're good at your job, we MIGHT just give you a shuttle one day.
Better than an Oberth...😉
So where's the deflector dish?
With the deflector spoon and cup? Sorry, couldn't resist. No idea why they built it that way.
@@reexaminedreads2161 okay, it has a dish, just really...awkward in how it's put on. Reminds me of accessories you'd put on spaceships for legos.
This Space Cadet 1st class liked the Vid. 🖖
I would disagree with lifetime of the spaceframe. I would submit the following examples of longevity. first the Boeing B-52 it is approaching 70 years of active service with few oppertunities for retirement at this point some are even saying it will be the 100 year bomber. Two CVN 65 served for 60 years before retirement. finally in universe examples Excelsior, Miranda, Oberth classes, even the Klingons still have K'tinga in service for more then 100 years. With the refits of Constitution class and variants Hermes/Saladin's spare/secondhand parts would have become cheap and plentiful, keeping the class in service for a very long time.
The only problem with this idea would be how long the ships would be useful as vessels, and not as materials for better crafts. During that period from ToS and the movies, there were massive design and tech upgrades everywhere. For the federation, would it be more feasible to upgrade the nacels and systems for a Ptolemy vessel, or just use it's parts to make a newer Miranda class vessel. Odds are the Miranda came out of direct upgrades to the Ptolemy ships, and at some point, they just said 'fck it, lets just remake the whole thing'.
Two things about ST we have to remember, Money and energy are no longer so much an issue anymore. Materials and time ARE.
If you can break down a lower class ship, and use it to make a higher class ship, why wouldn't you?
That said, the Miranda became the F150 of the star trek universe, which is why it stuck around so long.
Could it be that new and stronger alloys were discovered in those years? Perhaps not easy to make, and only put in certain classes with the idea that they would last longer.
The concept for this ship is a good one. However the design looks flimsy as hell. It just does not work for me.
Put communications dish being stuck on a stick looks not only looks cheep, but it looks fragile. Should have embedded it in the hull of the saucer similar to teh Akira class. The neck to to small for the large container. extend it to the dorsal dome of the saucer, then have a secondary hull extend farther back. So that the large cylindrical container has two points of contact with the ship. This would make it a lot more sturdy.
The sensor/communications mast might be able to (partially) retract into the saucer hull during normal flight and extend when greater range or sensitivity was needed.
The cylindrical cargo modules obviously won't mass as much as a full starship, the flimsy struts might be used only to hold alignment while tractor/tug beams actually anchor the structures in place.
Although I do agree, it does have a generally cheap and wimpy look to it. Cheap is understandable if it's intended to be a mass-produced military freighter, easier to build, easier to maintain. Weak is only understandable if hull construction materials cost more than tractor-beam energy. Remember that Starfleet was already starting to prefer the stupidity of powered "structural integrity fields" in place of actual hull metal by the end of Kirk's era.
This class of ship is ugly & basic, it remind me of the old 1980's Plymouth Reliant, it was ugly as hell but was reliable & easy to keep up maintenance wise & very economical Poor comparison but the idea of it is there, seems the uglier & utilitarian a vehicle is, the more reliable useful it becomes. I shouldnt say ugly, it still has the saucer section unchanged. I do like the possibilities this ship can offer though cant put that down
I remember the old Plymouth Reliant, and the analogy is a good one.