Lotus Fleet Forums

USS Armstrong 32 century Constitution Class.

 Can't say I like the 'Band-Aids', but the classic Connie style is nice to see. Releasing in the Shipyards Book 2 2nd Edition later this year.

There are a lot of engineering questions arising from this design for it to make sense (i.e. what are those braces for?). But at least it is aesthetically much more pleasing and much more respectful of Starfleet style than monstrosities like we are used to see nowadays from Kurtzmantrek.

The caption however is completely wrong. Although the general configuration is the classic ''saucer-body-twin upward nacelles'' configuration, this is not a Connie.

The constitution class is the name of a very specific design, recognizable not only by this arrangement but by tubular nacelles, straight struts, stout tubular engineering section, thin angular neck and flat saucer section with no holes or braces. It became an entirely new thing (Constitution refit) when they just changed for squared nacelles, larger and lower struts and a new deflector.

Then when other designs followed the same basic pattern, they were not called Connies; they became Excelsior class, Ambassador class, Galaxy Class, Sovereign class, Odyssey class.

Saying this thing is a Connie is like saying a modern aircraft carrier is instantly recognizable as a Roman galley because it has a hull and a rudder too. Moreover, naming it ''32nd century Constitution class'' makes as much sense as the US navy naming it's next class of warships '' 21st century triremes.'' And ''enormous'' with a crew of 2000 would mean in the range of a 24th century Galaxy class so, not revolutionary in any sense 800 years later.

Again, modern Trek pundits have no clue what they are talking about.

Still, not a bad design.