@@venomgeekmedia9886 There is also a legend, that Roddenberry, wanted Troi to have four breasts and had to be talked down from it by eternal voice of reason, DC Fontana
I think seeing a refit on screen would have been nice just to keep the look current to later eras. Some of the newer ships on new shows just look strange in comparison.
With many more 4 nacelle ships being created within the last decade, I do appreciate the Constellation and the Cheyenne for their role in being the progenitors of the designs. Also combining my own thoughts with those of the video and some of the comments here: The 4 nacelle design, it's bulk, and it's armaments gives it a great deal balance of speed, redundancy, and prowess. It would be excellent for recon, rapid response, and hit & run; while also still being able to bring a stronger punch compared to lighter ships if needed.
The cheyenne was one of my fav ships in STO. It was not the best by any means, but heck it looked gorgeous, especially with modified nacelles. I especially like the shorter nacelles version of the Cheyenne as seen at 3:08 it makes the ship look very balanced and it looks good from almost any angel.
2:36 Perhaps they were thinking "Well, if we have trouble getting it back together, at least the tugs won't have to struggle as much getting this much smaller piece plugged back in to the saucer". Maybe, something to do with being able to create a perfectly symmetrical warp bubble for testing at warp speeds? -- Regardless, this is actually one of my favorite designs, really captured my imagination seeing it on the early 2000s internet, after some higher resolution pictures were captured.
I would think that the stargazer type could have been upgraded to make up numbers.. just moving the warp naceeles wider port and starboard with a bit of structure added for this and perhaps some equipment.. maybe dorsal and ventral on this structure..
🖖😎👍Very cool and very nicely well done and very well informatively explained and executed in every detail way shape and form possibly provided indeed, And I myself have always liked the 4 nacelle designed starship's like the Constellation and so forth indeed, And I myself own quite a few of the various Eaglemoss models of these vessels and have quite a few model kits of these class of ships as well...
The Cheyenne class is a really amazing looking Starship definitely 1 of my favourite Federation Starships & is quite beautiful & I have a model of the Cheyenne class aswell as the New Orleans, Springfield, Freedom, Challenger, Niagara, Ambassador, Galaxy, Constitution, Miranda & Constellation class Starships & more than 100 more model Starships
@@ussvoyager8650 yeah, since I only gotten them at conventions mostly, the last two years have obviously been very dry, for finding some. Or I could plump for an Amazon-account. Definitely prefer the original look to the ST Online version, though.
Considering the orientation of the grilles on the nacelles, I’ve always assumed that the Constellation Class ‘paired’ nacelles from top to bottom, whereas the Cheyenne Class’ grilles suggests that they are paired laterally.
It's telling how popular the design is when in Star Trek Online you have the player base constantly asking for a tier 6 variant, and the devs know it as they made mention of this when they updated the model several months ago. Too bad they haven't added it, and that 25th century Federation Pack would have been an excellent opportunity for a Legendary version of the Cheyenne Class(Amongst many other deserving classes), but alas, that was not to be. Oh well, one can hope that they add a T-6 version of a Cheyenne one day...
A gem indeed. I'd love to see her in future media, though maybe with tweaked nacelles that look less like highlighter pens. In the same vein, I think it'd be fun to explore saucer separation pros and cons in the future. Happy New Years VGM!
I seem to recall that in the old Starfleet Battles tabletop games (I know, not canon), it was possible to separate the saucer section on a number of Starfleet designs. If I recall it was even possible for a Klingon cruiser to separate the neck and bridge module from the drive section. This resulted in an example of a very strange hybrid of a captured Klingon drive section mated to a custom forward section from another race (I want to say it was the Tholians, as I think the Hydrans captured and refitted a complete D7 series hull, and operated her as HMS Anarchist). Admittedly none of these ships were able to re-connect the sections without a shipyard!
I think the real-life reason is that they used numbers from model kits that were meant for bigger models. My in-universe reason I came up with is that there is a "standard size" for the numbering, so on bigger ships they look smaller and on smaller ships they look bigger, but the numbers are the same size. Probably won't hold up to careful scaling scrutiny but as a quick and dirty in-universe explanation it's what I go with.
Loved the video Venom Geek Media 98! Have you ever heard of Star Wars games like "X-wing", "Armada", or "Legion" before? If so, then you can probably understand why I'm wondering about the possibility of a Star Trek version of all three of said games. I myself only have the Starter pack for X-wing.
Hello Venom. I happen to agree with you that the Cheyenne Class is 'elegant'. It is also somewhat unique in a manner of speaking as well. With four nacelles, it's warp bubble is far more stable and configurable than any 'ordinary' star ship. Thus making the class far more fuel efficient and durable. In a pinch, the Cheyenne can shut down one or more of it's nacelles for maintenance and minor repairs while the ship is in warp, although doing so does drop the efficiency and fuel economy. About the only 'missed bet' that Star Fleet had with this Class is the lack of a Dual Warp Core for power. A single core powering four nacelles is expecting a bit much of the core, and one would be pushing the core to nearly its maximum ability to provide power for that many warp coils. A dual core design would have easily solved the 'core stress' problem, and provided far more power to the nacelle's coils, as well as more power availability to the ship overall. Allowing such things as full warp capacity, or full impulse, as well as powering heavier shields, all weapons, and still have a wide margin of power available for life support and other needs. Since the Cheyenne was designed to be a quad nacelle ship from the start, it's warp core was larger in relation to those normally seen in ships of its relative size, since it needed the extra power to run twice as many nacelles and their warp coils. So, not only was the ship testing the 'saucer separation' feature of the later Galaxy Class, but it was also probably the 'test bed' ship for the Galaxy's Warp Core as well. Another overlooked aspect of the Cheyenne Class that served it well in its various deployments was maneuverability. Ships with 'high' mounted nacelles were generally faster designs, whereas those with 'under slung' nacelles were more maneuverable for the most part. The Cheyenne, by having both, was both capable of higher overall warp speeds as well as being more maneuverable than other ships. This translates into a more dangerous opponent for single paired star ship designs, since the Cheyenne would have either the tactical advantage of maneuvering, or overall speed, over similar sized ships with a single pair of nacelles. just a few thoughts, spoken Frank-ly
interesting idea with that dual core, although i think a warp core can provide plenty of power most of the time its about having the systems strong enough to channel that potential energy. it could definitely fit a galaxy warp core (Bearly) i also agree with you on the impacts of different nacelle configurations. and it definitely is a harder ship to knock out of warp.
@@venomgeekmedia9886 Presumably largely headcanon, yes. One way I discovered the ship was by the fan blueprints by Don Shanks, found on Cygnus-x1. net, which included it's own backstory and history: www.cygnus-x1.net/links/lcars/USS-Cheyenne-Ops-Manual.php
My second favorite Heavy Cruiser in STO. I am a sucker for any ship that has a hanger and able to launch shuttles or fighters. Personally find it far more logical.
It really does bug me when fanart uses the dorsal side of the Galaxy saucer for the Cheyenne. Yeah, wish they would have used that model for a background ship on DS9 - surely it looked better than some of the kitbashes they used.
5:17 that does look silly, but the New Orleans class style nacelle would probably feel more at home with that design. Longer, and when scaled to the same length, thinner.
Given how phaser arrays work, basically longer they are the more powerful their best shot can be, a ship this small and nimble packing such huge arrays would be game changing pocket battle cruiser. It would outgun the capital ships its escorting like the Ambassador or Niagara Class by a factor of 2 or 3, a couple of pre dreadnought battleships by comparison. Properly upgraded, these pre galaxy oval saucer ships should match the phaser firepower found on the likes of the later akira and sovereign class.
interesting, although i'd always assumed that the Ambassador and others would see their phaser strips upgraded to full arrays since the technology isn't that different.
@@venomgeekmedia9886 The very ribbing of the hull frame on ships with phaser arrays incorporates room for the arrays hardware to reside, such fundamental structural components cant be cut and rearranged on existing ships to try and make room for arrays, or trying to lengthen existing ones. At least, there's nothing in canon showing that they ever tried, none of the the pre-array ships classes every get any sort of phaser array refit. I glossed over how arrays work in my first post, I'll go over how they function, biased on what we see on screen and whats in the tech manual. Arrays are made up of numerous individual phaser banks linked together in a line, sharing a common emitter strip on the surface of the hull. Each bank can fire independently, each holds its own charge and has its own power tap. These individual banks are also linked, and can shunt their individual charge across the array, to fire a phaser shot with the cumulative power of any number of banks in the array. This is that moving glow effect across the array to the point the beam is fired from in the shows. On the largest array on a galaxy class, there are 200 emitters, its most powerful shot could utilize all 200 of those emitters to hit any target with line of sight with any part of the array, making it vastly superior, but vastly more over complicated than a cannon like weapon or old style ball turret beam banks. Plus you need a lot of surface area to field such a large, unorthodox weapon, like a saucer. Ships like the Cheyenne might have as many as 75-100 emitters on their main arrays, wile the ambassador would only have like 30-45 at most. Though an ambassador could proboly hit most targets with 2 or 3 of its main arrays at once, their firepower is hardly proportional with its weight class combared to these newer, pre galaxy oval saucer ships. There are surely several limitations and penalties you could apply the reign this in, but the basic truth is the longer the array, the more powerful a ship's phaser shots can be, all tech levels being equal. There's sure to be some parasitic loss during the prefire energy accumulation, the power draw would be incredible, trying to recharge all those emitters could brownout the rest of the ship, and thats assuming the EPS taps are large enough to flow plasma at a rate the array could fire it off. Rate of fire for high emitter numbered shots could not be very high unless a ship was totally optimized for turning plasma into phaser fire at the expense of everything else. it should be noted, this is NOT the way the Enterprise D was optimized, quite literally the opposite, and why it largely did poorly in combat, wile the combat potential for the class of ship should be enormous, if properly set up as a warship. This might provide more context to that effort post i made on your nebula class video. On a side note, this is why i HATE the galaxy X. Ship's already got huge death rays, with essentially a 360 degree fireing arc, and you stuck a cannon with no fireing arc on it thats supposed to be even more powerful than the longest arrays in the fleet? Horse shit.
intresting, i didn't realize that larger arrays mean't greater potential yield, but it does make sense, since you can channel a greater yeild from the same size of banks. i do wounder though would Damage to any part of the array or the power lines completely disable it since the 'circuit' would be broken?
@@venomgeekmedia9886 That's why the array is made of many banks, each completed enough to function on their own, and each with its own EPS tap, each holding its own charge. If the array is damaged, all the banks on ether side of the damage should be able to continue functioning, they just couldn't utilize the whole array anymore for 1 big shot. Damage deeper in the hull to the EPS network, directly below the array, that could knock the whole array out.
@@venomgeekmedia9886 Perhaps, but it does seem appropriate since this is a vessel from the last years of the Federation Golden Age, when the Federation had no real enemies, the galaxy seemed a boundless horizon of discovery and opportunity and Star Fleet could confidently call themselves "Explorers Not Soldiers". To further paraphrase Star War, that was before the Dark Times, Before The Borg, when Star Fleet and the Federation, got a wake up call, that there were terrors beyond the rim, horrors of the outer dark that were not interested in coexistence, understanding or peace.
very true, although the Cheyenne remains one of the more Practical of the 'Golden age' designs. since it was along with the ambassador still bridging that gap.
@@venomgeekmedia9886 Agreed. I've always believed that as these pre-Galaxy vessels were built in (c.2330-c.2355), following First Contact with more hostile medium-threat races like the Cardassians/Tzenkethi/Breen, they featured more practical design elements that met Starfleet's more defense-oriented mission requirements in that era.
interesting fact ist, that the USS - Ahwahnee was the only ship that has survived the masacre of Wolf 359. heavly damaged, but still intact. The question is, has she survived the Dominion War too? Is it true, that is that a lucky ship ^^
I would like to see this useing full scale Galaxy Class parts Also ive been kitbashing an Miranda/Nebula type based on the 1/2500 Ambassador Class model and would like some help fleshing it out (and where the supposed 10th phaser strip is, I can only find 9)
Needing aft, rear, facing torpedo launchers shouldn’t be an issue in reality. The torpedos are more missiles then torpedos so presumably if you launch one it should track to target.
Or you could have a 4 engined nebula which would have the best speed and range of any starfleet vessel... but lose the specialist pod... let's call the lead vessel USS Britannia as a nod to doc smith
If only they had gone with the quad nacelle paradigm for the Curiosity class in Picard. The primary and secondary hull with two nacelles up high on pylons just _looks unbalanced._
if only they had shown more than one starfleet class in picard... its a shame because i actually like a lot of the starfleet ships we see in discovery.
Like other Starfleet ships they are powered by Anti Mater Warp cores, I've never in any Star Trek show or movie heard of a reference to running out of fuel like a car running out of gas@@venomgeekmedia9886
@@Spindrift-id1ez they do in enterprise, deuterium is easy to come by, but anti-matter is obviously much harder to come by, as are Dilithium crystals. and are perishable. only the Romulan ships can go without fuel.
@@venomgeekmedia9886 I'm an original Trekie from the 60's, Yes I'm that old. I've seen all the shows and had all the Tech manuals and blue prints and built all the models. I know all about how warp cores work etc etc etc, Hell I was a Trekie before anyone even coined the term Trekie, And I do understand what you're trying to get at, But to me the point is this, As with today's nuclear submarines, I imagine that refueling is so far and in between with warp core powered Starships that saying that a particular class of Starship design is based on it's fuel consumption just doesn't work for me, It's not like Starships need refueling ever few weeks or even every few months. These ships go on multiple year long missions before they need to find a deuterium and or negatively charged hydrogen "anti-matter" replenishment source. And by the time of the Next Generation era they could readily recrystallize dilithium in the warp chamber as indicated by Chief Engineer La'Forge in the TNG episode "Relics" . A procedure that was invented by Spock and Scotty back in the 23rd century in the movie Star Trek IV The Voyage Home.. If I remember right it involved injecting Anti Protons directly into the dilithium chamber matrix ( Yes, I have no Life! ) *lol* I guess what I'm getting at is it is more logical to state that the Cheyenne design is about creating a more efficient warp field and higher warp factors than actual warp core fuel consumption. Stating that the Constellation class was a ship that quickly runs out of fuel makes it sound like some sort of gas hog that simply goes from star system to star system looking for all night gas stations, And I couldn't help but feel the need to challenge that statement.
@@venomgeekmedia9886 charge reversal device - it's there in the TNG manual. So deuterium can be converted to antimatter, yes. Maybe not so much in the 2280s, though?
I seem to recall that in the old Starfleet Battles tabletop games (I know, not canon), it was possible to separate the saucer section on a number of Starfleet designs dating back as far as TOS. If I recall it was even possible for a Klingon cruiser to separate the neck and bridge module from the drive section. This resulted in an example of a very strange hybrid of a captured Klingon drive section mated to a custom forward section from another race (I want to say it was the Tholians, as I think the Hydrans captured and refitted a complete D7 series hull, and operated her as HMS Anarchist). Admittedly none of these ships were able to re-connect the sections without a shipyard!
yeah hull separation was part of the design philosophy in TOS but it was in the case of extreme emergency and the separated hull would be pretty weak. in TNG saucer separation seems to be more routine, and both parts seem to operated reasonably well independently.
"Squat, thicc, and plump" How starfleet likes its ladies!
And with 4 NACELLES spread wide🤣
that was the look in the 80s... i mean 2360s. but Marina Sirtis did mention that all the female cast 'padded' their uniforms in certain areas...
@@venomgeekmedia9886 Let's talk about the rank of Yeoman. WTF did those go go girls Actually do?!
@@JeanLucCaptain H.R bait? but yeah they basically seem to exist so there can be a whole will they-won't they thing.
@@venomgeekmedia9886 There is also a legend, that Roddenberry, wanted Troi to have four breasts and had to be talked down from it by eternal voice of reason, DC Fontana
It's a shame they didn't use this more often, the Cheyenne is gorgeous, and you could use the nacelles if you need to do some colouring in.
yes its a handy bit of stationary to have around.
I think seeing a refit on screen would have been nice just to keep the look current to later eras. Some of the newer ships on new shows just look strange in comparison.
Put sovereign nacelles on it and it would have been amazing. The refit Cheyenne.
It's is an elegant design, for a more civilized time. Captain Kenobi.
AH, FOUR WARP NACELLES TO ADD TO MY COLLECTION! General Grevious.
I love how you give a practical explanation for the design elements of a ship. It makes them seem so much more realistic.
It's a good light cruiser in pretty much every game it's in
Hopefully we'll see a T6 version in STO.
With many more 4 nacelle ships being created within the last decade, I do appreciate the Constellation and the Cheyenne for their role in being the progenitors of the designs. Also combining my own thoughts with those of the video and some of the comments here:
The 4 nacelle design, it's bulk, and it's armaments gives it a great deal balance of speed, redundancy, and prowess. It would be excellent for recon, rapid response, and hit & run; while also still being able to bring a stronger punch compared to lighter ships if needed.
I didn't like it at first but over the past 20 years it really has grown on me.
Ships at 7:56 obviously the mirror universe version.🤣🤣🤣😂😂😂🤣🤣🤣
I'll leave quietly.
Oh, before I go, Happy New Year, Venom Geek.
you got me... although writing is always reversed in a camera... lol happy new year.
That is one of my all time favorite designs of star trek I love the Cheyenne
The cheyenne was one of my fav ships in STO.
It was not the best by any means, but heck it looked gorgeous, especially with modified nacelles.
I especially like the shorter nacelles version of the Cheyenne as seen at 3:08 it makes the ship look very balanced and it looks good from almost any angel.
2:36 Perhaps they were thinking "Well, if we have trouble getting it back together, at least the tugs won't have to struggle as much getting this much smaller piece plugged back in to the saucer". Maybe, something to do with being able to create a perfectly symmetrical warp bubble for testing at warp speeds? -- Regardless, this is actually one of my favorite designs, really captured my imagination seeing it on the early 2000s internet, after some higher resolution pictures were captured.
I would think that the stargazer type could have been upgraded to make up numbers.. just moving the warp naceeles wider port and starboard with a bit of structure added for this and perhaps some equipment.. maybe dorsal and ventral on this structure..
🖖😎👍Very cool and very nicely well done and very well informatively explained and executed in every detail way shape and form possibly provided indeed, And I myself have always liked the 4 nacelle designed starship's like the Constellation and so forth indeed, And I myself own quite a few of the various Eaglemoss models of these vessels and have quite a few model kits of these class of ships as well...
This is the perfect way to start a new year. Thank you VGM.
Ya especially with the horrific situation here in Ontario.
@@JeanLucCaptain yeah I can only imagine. Lower Decks didn't get released where I was.
@@richard1701able 😂 yup that's 2020 Extended edition
@@JeanLucCaptain You poor b*****d. There should be a rock concern for you guys!!!
This is one of my favorites.
The Cheyenne class is a really amazing looking Starship definitely 1 of my favourite Federation Starships & is quite beautiful & I have a model of the Cheyenne class aswell as the New Orleans, Springfield, Freedom, Challenger, Niagara, Ambassador, Galaxy, Constitution, Miranda & Constellation class Starships & more than 100 more model Starships
awesome. right now i'm spending some christmas money to get a Model made of the Ekoor class.
@@venomgeekmedia9886 really COOL... I've been a Star Trek fan since 2000 I started getting the eaglemoss models back in 2013
So far, I've got my Challenger, Springfield and New Orleans Eaglemoss models...
None of this beauty, yet.
@@chrissonofpear1384 oh Ok
@@ussvoyager8650 yeah, since I only gotten them at conventions mostly, the last two years have obviously been very dry, for finding some. Or I could plump for an Amazon-account.
Definitely prefer the original look to the ST Online version, though.
Great start to the New Year!..... - Thank you, - sir!..... :)
Considering the orientation of the grilles on the nacelles, I’ve always assumed that the Constellation Class ‘paired’ nacelles from top to bottom, whereas the Cheyenne Class’ grilles suggests that they are paired laterally.
Thanks. Happy new year
Lovely ship and can't wait to take on the Prometheus project
Impressive. 🖖
welcome aboard commander ;)
I always love your ship profiles
You do the hull separation on a small ship because if something fucks up you don't lose a much larger ship. A small scale test.
Whoever did this just flip the Federation Starship upside down
or right side up. doesn't really matter with this one.
Happy new year Venom
Thanks for epic start to 2021 and the covering of less well known ships.
your welcome. Happy new year :)
Looking forward to the New Orleans-class - my personal fav.
The Cheyenne isn’t seen very often, but it’s one of my favorites
It's telling how popular the design is when in Star Trek Online you have the player base constantly asking for a tier 6 variant, and the devs know it as they made mention of this when they updated the model several months ago. Too bad they haven't added it, and that 25th century Federation Pack would have been an excellent opportunity for a Legendary version of the Cheyenne Class(Amongst many other deserving classes), but alas, that was not to be. Oh well, one can hope that they add a T-6 version of a Cheyenne one day...
A gem indeed. I'd love to see her in future media, though maybe with tweaked nacelles that look less like highlighter pens. In the same vein, I think it'd be fun to explore saucer separation pros and cons in the future. Happy New Years VGM!
happy new year.
Suggestion: show the ships next to a well-known ship so we can get an idea as to it's dimensions.
Thanks for all you do VGM.
I seem to recall that in the old Starfleet Battles tabletop games (I know, not canon), it was possible to separate the saucer section on a number of Starfleet designs.
If I recall it was even possible for a Klingon cruiser to separate the neck and bridge module from the drive section. This resulted in an example of a very strange hybrid of a captured Klingon drive section mated to a custom forward section from another race (I want to say it was the Tholians, as I think the Hydrans captured and refitted a complete D7 series hull, and operated her as HMS Anarchist).
Admittedly none of these ships were able to re-connect the sections without a shipyard!
But why did Starfleet paint the name and registry in such huge letters relative to the saucer!?
Obviously because they had an excess supply of markers.
The admiral in charge was half blind
I think the real-life reason is that they used numbers from model kits that were meant for bigger models. My in-universe reason I came up with is that there is a "standard size" for the numbering, so on bigger ships they look smaller and on smaller ships they look bigger, but the numbers are the same size.
Probably won't hold up to careful scaling scrutiny but as a quick and dirty in-universe explanation it's what I go with.
Loved the video Venom Geek Media 98! Have you ever heard of Star Wars games like "X-wing", "Armada", or "Legion" before? If so, then you can probably understand why I'm wondering about the possibility of a Star Trek version of all three of said games. I myself only have the Starter pack for X-wing.
yeah i've seen quite a bit of X wing and Armada Im holding out for a Clone wars edition. a trek version would be cool and a nice continuation on FASA
That INTRO hahahahah American friends lol we taught ya something lol Great video btw
Hello Venom.
I happen to agree with you that the Cheyenne Class is 'elegant'. It is also somewhat unique in a manner of speaking as well.
With four nacelles, it's warp bubble is far more stable and configurable than any 'ordinary' star ship. Thus making the class far more fuel efficient and durable. In a pinch, the Cheyenne can shut down one or more of it's nacelles for maintenance and minor repairs while the ship is in warp, although doing so does drop the efficiency and fuel economy.
About the only 'missed bet' that Star Fleet had with this Class is the lack of a Dual Warp Core for power. A single core powering four nacelles is expecting a bit much of the core, and one would be pushing the core to nearly its maximum ability to provide power for that many warp coils. A dual core design would have easily solved the 'core stress' problem, and provided far more power to the nacelle's coils, as well as more power availability to the ship overall. Allowing such things as full warp capacity, or full impulse, as well as powering heavier shields, all weapons, and still have a wide margin of power available for life support and other needs.
Since the Cheyenne was designed to be a quad nacelle ship from the start, it's warp core was larger in relation to those normally seen in ships of its relative size, since it needed the extra power to run twice as many nacelles and their warp coils.
So, not only was the ship testing the 'saucer separation' feature of the later Galaxy Class, but it was also probably the 'test bed' ship for the Galaxy's Warp Core as well.
Another overlooked aspect of the Cheyenne Class that served it well in its various deployments was maneuverability. Ships with 'high' mounted nacelles were generally faster designs, whereas those with 'under slung' nacelles were more maneuverable for the most part.
The Cheyenne, by having both, was both capable of higher overall warp speeds as well as being more maneuverable than other ships. This translates into a more dangerous opponent for single paired star ship designs, since the Cheyenne would have either the tactical advantage of maneuvering, or overall speed, over similar sized ships with a single pair of nacelles.
just a few thoughts,
spoken Frank-ly
interesting idea with that dual core, although i think a warp core can provide plenty of power most of the time its about having the systems strong enough to channel that potential energy. it could definitely fit a galaxy warp core (Bearly) i also agree with you on the impacts of different nacelle configurations. and it definitely is a harder ship to knock out of warp.
I love your in universe histories is ship designs and other items such as Federation panzers. I wish there was a Mako type command in starfleet.
yeah that would be cool, i'd love to see what their Insignia would look like.
@@venomgeekmedia9886 maybe it would utilize the slanted Starfleet emblem
that would be cool. they would have to incorporate a Shark motiff though
@@venomgeekmedia9886 Presumably largely headcanon, yes.
One way I discovered the ship was by the fan blueprints by Don Shanks, found on Cygnus-x1. net, which included it's own backstory and history: www.cygnus-x1.net/links/lcars/USS-Cheyenne-Ops-Manual.php
i agree it's not a light cruiser it's a pocket battleship or a heavy battlecruiser
Cool video and ship can see the galaxy's underside there got to love quad warp nacelles.
A lovely looking ship this, first time I have seen it. Great accent too man.
I am going to have to add her to my fleet. Thanks for another great video.
My second favorite Heavy Cruiser in STO. I am a sucker for any ship that has a hanger and able to launch shuttles or fighters. Personally find it far more logical.
How do you feel about the Centaur?! Charlie’s ship!! Lolol
@@miamijules2149 Charlie likes to swing for the fences. 😉
It really does bug me when fanart uses the dorsal side of the Galaxy saucer for the Cheyenne. Yeah, wish they would have used that model for a background ship on DS9 - surely it looked better than some of the kitbashes they used.
5:17 that does look silly, but the New Orleans class style nacelle would probably feel more at home with that design. Longer, and when scaled to the same length, thinner.
your presentations of the ships are elegant imo, you should post some of them on playlog too
Would be nice to see all the brahma together so you can see the size difference and ability
Given how phaser arrays work, basically longer they are the more powerful their best shot can be, a ship this small and nimble packing such huge arrays would be game changing pocket battle cruiser. It would outgun the capital ships its escorting like the Ambassador or Niagara Class by a factor of 2 or 3, a couple of pre dreadnought battleships by comparison. Properly upgraded, these pre galaxy oval saucer ships should match the phaser firepower found on the likes of the later akira and sovereign class.
interesting, although i'd always assumed that the Ambassador and others would see their phaser strips upgraded to full arrays since the technology isn't that different.
@@venomgeekmedia9886 The very ribbing of the hull frame on ships with phaser arrays incorporates room for the arrays hardware to reside, such fundamental structural components cant be cut and rearranged on existing ships to try and make room for arrays, or trying to lengthen existing ones. At least, there's nothing in canon showing that they ever tried, none of the the pre-array ships classes every get any sort of phaser array refit.
I glossed over how arrays work in my first post, I'll go over how they function, biased on what we see on screen and whats in the tech manual.
Arrays are made up of numerous individual phaser banks linked together in a line, sharing a common emitter strip on the surface of the hull. Each bank can fire independently, each holds its own charge and has its own power tap. These individual banks are also linked, and can shunt their individual charge across the array, to fire a phaser shot with the cumulative power of any number of banks in the array. This is that moving glow effect across the array to the point the beam is fired from in the shows. On the largest array on a galaxy class, there are 200 emitters, its most powerful shot could utilize all 200 of those emitters to hit any target with line of sight with any part of the array, making it vastly superior, but vastly more over complicated than a cannon like weapon or old style ball turret beam banks. Plus you need a lot of surface area to field such a large, unorthodox weapon, like a saucer. Ships like the Cheyenne might have as many as 75-100 emitters on their main arrays, wile the ambassador would only have like 30-45 at most. Though an ambassador could proboly hit most targets with 2 or 3 of its main arrays at once, their firepower is hardly proportional with its weight class combared to these newer, pre galaxy oval saucer ships.
There are surely several limitations and penalties you could apply the reign this in, but the basic truth is the longer the array, the more powerful a ship's phaser shots can be, all tech levels being equal. There's sure to be some parasitic loss during the prefire energy accumulation, the power draw would be incredible, trying to recharge all those emitters could brownout the rest of the ship, and thats assuming the EPS taps are large enough to flow plasma at a rate the array could fire it off. Rate of fire for high emitter numbered shots could not be very high unless a ship was totally optimized for turning plasma into phaser fire at the expense of everything else. it should be noted, this is NOT the way the Enterprise D was optimized, quite literally the opposite, and why it largely did poorly in combat, wile the combat potential for the class of ship should be enormous, if properly set up as a warship. This might provide more context to that effort post i made on your nebula class video.
On a side note, this is why i HATE the galaxy X. Ship's already got huge death rays, with essentially a 360 degree fireing arc, and you stuck a cannon with no fireing arc on it thats supposed to be even more powerful than the longest arrays in the fleet? Horse shit.
intresting, i didn't realize that larger arrays mean't greater potential yield, but it does make sense, since you can channel a greater yeild from the same size of banks. i do wounder though would Damage to any part of the array or the power lines completely disable it since the 'circuit' would be broken?
@@venomgeekmedia9886 That's why the array is made of many banks, each completed enough to function on their own, and each with its own EPS tap, each holding its own charge. If the array is damaged, all the banks on ether side of the damage should be able to continue functioning, they just couldn't utilize the whole array anymore for 1 big shot. Damage deeper in the hull to the EPS network, directly below the array, that could knock the whole array out.
Well done sir! Well done!
you said it was IRL made of kit-bashed galaxy parts and highlighters? I always saw them more as repurposed USB sticks. :) Great episode though
bear in mind it was the 80s/90s when the model was made. memory sticks were still a way off.
@@venomgeekmedia9886 Lol, could you imagine the props department using floppy disks for nacelles? Hahaha.
It is good. And the Buran Class in STO is its worthy successor.
She's an elegant design, for a more civilized age...
i don't know if Ben Sisko would put it quite so nostalgically
@@venomgeekmedia9886 Perhaps, but it does seem appropriate since this is a vessel from the last years of the Federation Golden Age, when the Federation had no real enemies, the galaxy seemed a boundless horizon of discovery and opportunity and Star Fleet could confidently call themselves "Explorers Not Soldiers". To further paraphrase Star War, that was before the Dark Times, Before The Borg, when Star Fleet and the Federation, got a wake up call, that there were terrors beyond the rim, horrors of the outer dark that were not interested in coexistence, understanding or peace.
very true, although the Cheyenne remains one of the more Practical of the 'Golden age' designs. since it was along with the ambassador still bridging that gap.
@@venomgeekmedia9886 Agreed. I've always believed that as these pre-Galaxy vessels were built in (c.2330-c.2355), following First Contact with more hostile medium-threat races like the Cardassians/Tzenkethi/Breen, they featured more practical design elements that met Starfleet's more defense-oriented mission requirements in that era.
Another well done video sir. Happy New Year. I was the 69th like...nice.
If the model wasn't damaged, then I wish they'd reused it in the DS9 fleet shots. Could have done just as well in the background of those scenes.
alas yes, its a great shame
Next should be Springfield Class
Love it! Happy New Year!
thanks for your support.
The Springfield saucer is a lot bigger than the New Orleans saucer just look at the windows.
It's a Winamp skin for the constellation
Awesome content as per usual 👏 👌 👍
interesting fact ist, that the USS - Ahwahnee was the only ship
that has survived the masacre of Wolf 359.
heavly damaged, but still intact.
The question is, has she survived the Dominion War too?
Is it true, that is that a lucky ship ^^
I would like to see this useing full scale Galaxy Class parts
Also ive been kitbashing an Miranda/Nebula type based on the 1/2500 Ambassador Class model and would like some help fleshing it out (and where the supposed 10th phaser strip is, I can only find 9)
Did you consider the counting between the warp nacelles (either top or bottom)? Kinda what they did on the Galaxy II’s
@@miamijules2149 i found the one on the bottom but i dont see one on the top of the secondary hull
“ Nice “ “ Compact “ “ Ship “
Cheyenne is actually a French Canadian word derived from native American Sioux nation word, so you're a little right!
Yes a tribe originally. Although the name was probably coined by the French hence the spelling
ah that makes sense. thanks.
Why is the ship upside down I can't be the only one that notices this come on man
Needing aft, rear, facing torpedo launchers shouldn’t be an issue in reality. The torpedos are more missiles then torpedos so presumably if you launch one it should track to target.
Was there every a ship that has two warp coils one for the propulsion and one for weapons.
If your lucky you can find a full tech book on the design on ebay :)
Hey can you talk about the California class?
definitely on the agenda, although i'm interested to see what else the show says about it.
its too bad they didn't do cgi of the TNG ships for First contact. there were good models out there when the movie was made.
If there's no weight issues in space what's the deal with it being unbalanced.
This ship is upsidedown and we all know it.
Or you could have a 4 engined nebula which would have the best speed and range of any starfleet vessel... but lose the specialist pod... let's call the lead vessel USS Britannia as a nod to doc smith
Would you consider this a Destroyer???
I would imagine that we know a lot of things you don't know
Where’s the navigational deflector??
the lack of deflector on this ship bothers me.... or am i just not seeing it?
in the STO model its embedded in the ventral side of the saucer. so i concluded it was there all along, just plated over.
I cant be the only one to notice he casually just insults americans at the beginning
I feel like the little bulbous piece over the nacelle struts takes away from the overall design...
If only they had gone with the quad nacelle paradigm for the Curiosity class in Picard.
The primary and secondary hull with two nacelles up high on pylons just _looks unbalanced._
if only they had shown more than one starfleet class in picard... its a shame because i actually like a lot of the starfleet ships we see in discovery.
They look like run about nacelles
So you were totally oblivious of the Cheyenne people
German/Deutschuntertitel❓
Run Out of Fuel??!!
yes... why?
Like other Starfleet ships they are powered by Anti Mater Warp cores, I've never in any Star Trek show or movie heard of a reference to running out of fuel like a car running out of gas@@venomgeekmedia9886
@@Spindrift-id1ez they do in enterprise, deuterium is easy to come by, but anti-matter is obviously much harder to come by, as are Dilithium crystals. and are perishable. only the Romulan ships can go without fuel.
@@venomgeekmedia9886 I'm an original Trekie from the 60's, Yes I'm that old. I've seen all the shows and had all the Tech manuals and blue prints and built all the models. I know all about how warp cores work etc etc etc, Hell I was a Trekie before anyone even coined the term Trekie, And I do understand what you're trying to get at, But to me the point is this, As with today's nuclear submarines, I imagine that refueling is so far and in between with warp core powered Starships that saying that a particular class of Starship design is based on it's fuel consumption just doesn't work for me, It's not like Starships need refueling ever few weeks or even every few months. These ships go on multiple year long missions before they need to find a deuterium and or negatively charged hydrogen "anti-matter" replenishment source. And by the time of the Next Generation era they could readily recrystallize dilithium in the warp chamber as indicated by Chief Engineer La'Forge in the TNG episode "Relics" . A procedure that was invented by Spock and Scotty back in the 23rd century in the movie Star Trek IV The Voyage Home.. If I remember right it involved injecting Anti Protons directly into the dilithium chamber matrix ( Yes, I have no Life! ) *lol*
I guess what I'm getting at is it is more logical to state that the Cheyenne design is about creating a more efficient warp field and higher warp factors than actual warp core fuel consumption. Stating that the Constellation class was a ship that quickly runs out of fuel makes it sound like some sort of gas hog that simply goes from star system to star system looking for all night gas stations, And I couldn't help but feel the need to challenge that statement.
@@venomgeekmedia9886 charge reversal device - it's there in the TNG manual. So deuterium can be converted to antimatter, yes. Maybe not so much in the 2280s, though?
The English are notorious for mispronouncing things. The people that brought you Peking.
Sorry but i think the Cheyenne is a rushed and uninspired "meh" of a ship.
Aweful siluete for combat.
depends what vector, its pretty thin from the front. and your only going to get fleeting shots from the side.
I love how you talk about the future in past tense.
I seem to recall that in the old Starfleet Battles tabletop games (I know, not canon), it was possible to separate the saucer section on a number of Starfleet designs dating back as far as TOS.
If I recall it was even possible for a Klingon cruiser to separate the neck and bridge module from the drive section. This resulted in an example of a very strange hybrid of a captured Klingon drive section mated to a custom forward section from another race (I want to say it was the Tholians, as I think the Hydrans captured and refitted a complete D7 series hull, and operated her as HMS Anarchist).
Admittedly none of these ships were able to re-connect the sections without a shipyard!
yeah hull separation was part of the design philosophy in TOS but it was in the case of extreme emergency and the separated hull would be pretty weak. in TNG saucer separation seems to be more routine, and both parts seem to operated reasonably well independently.