posted
Here is my newest most bestest schematics for Huron.
Bernd says at EAS:
quote: "A lower limit for the ship's length is 100m, as we can see it at some distance behind the Enterprise. Under the assumption that the nacelles are the same size as on the Constitution, the Huron is 260m long, and a lot more voluminous than the cruiser at this length. We obtain a more manageable size of 214m if we match the distances between the rows of (perhaps overly large) windows with those of the Enterprise."
By my reckoning, the window size gives a ship size of 70 m, whereas window spacing gives a size of 190 m.
Clearly, the windows on Huron are kind of screwy. They're very big and very close together and, therefore, unreliable for determining the size of the ship.
So, let's get rid of the windows!
However, we can use other factors to estimate how big she is, such as the size of the various parts of the ship (much like how the Enterprise from 2009's Star Trek looks too big at its "official" size of 3 million meters long or whatever.)
So, how big do you think Huron is?
-------------------- When you're in the Sol system, come visit the Starfleet Museum
Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
I forget, was the Huron the robot drone thingy or the freighter? If it's the former then the windows make no sense at all, no matter the size. If it's the latter however then there's plenty of wiggle room since you can always postulate that the passenger areas feature these huge windows for some kind of multi-level gallery or promenade.
With that in mind, I'd take a look at what the ship was used for and pick a size based on it's presumed mission profile. If it's just a little freighter/courier thing then ere on the smaller side. If it's meant to supply whole colonies or Starbases then the bigger the better.
posted
I agree with Rev that we can probably ignore those "windows"... after all, they're on the nacelle pylons, for goodness' sake!
Also, this is the ship from "The Pirates of Orion", right? I think a smaller size ship would be more appropriate... it served more as a courier to rush the medicine out to the Enterprise, a ship for higher-priority but usually lower-volume jobs.
-------------------- “Those people who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do.” — Isaac Asimov Star Trek Minutiae | Memory Alpha
Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
That Engine Room just sereams for a "variable gravity field" prank.
Still safer that Imperial ships from Star Sars- no railings even- OSHA must get a biiig kickback for those safety violations.
Hmmm..those might not be windows at all- they cold be whatever those glowing white tectangles on the Connie's saucer are- my guess is they're proximity sensors for docking. Just what you'd want all over a freighter that loads/unloads it's cargo at various ports.
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
Clearly by the 23rd century mankind has evolved beyond the need for health and safety inspectors. Good riddance too. Uptight, humourless bastards.
posted
If there is nothing contradicting the comparison by nacelle size, I don't understand why further analysis would be required.
If the ship is 260m by nacelle size and thus more voluminous than the Constitution Class . . . why would one wish to go against that? It's a freighter, after all . . . it can be bigger and pushed by the same engines and even powerplant at lower speed and not hurt my brain at all.
In any case, the Sydney Class has twice the volume of the Constitution B-type, and the funk-nasty Norkova/Xhosa freighters have three times the volume of them.
I just don't see it as a big deal.
-------------------- . . . ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.
quote:Originally posted by Guardian 2000: If there is nothing contradicting the comparison by nacelle size, I don't understand why further analysis would be required.
The problem is that I don't think it looks like a 260-m-long ship. When Huron's blown up to that size, the components look too big and blocky. It's like the 2009 Enterprise: I don't think it looks like a 700-m-long ship.
Also, we know that not all TOS/TAS nacelles are the same size: various shuttlecraft and the Robot Cargo ship have nacelles that look like Enterprise's but are much smaller.
quote:Originally posted by Aban Rune: [QB] That must be the deadliest engine room ever.{/QB]
I think that's supposed to be the cargo hold.
-------------------- When you're in the Sol system, come visit the Starfleet Museum
Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
I was reluctant to ignore the windows altogether, so I accepted their number and distance, while their large size may be artistic license.
Regarding the nacelles I see no reason why they shouldn't be scalable. Their design is so simple that it could easily exist in different sizes (such as very small on the Class F shuttlecraft). I agree with Masao that it doesn't look big, although Guardian has a good point especially about the Sydney.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
I always got the impression that the Huron was a small ship.
Very rough eyeballing suggests the ships is really small. I assume the dome on top of the forward section is the bridge, and the bridge roughly fits inside this. A guestimate of height of the officer standing (1.9m) and the bridge height (2xish that) gives a length of 90 meters long bow-stern or 95 including the nacelle. But the width gives a much smaller figure if it fill's it of half that.
The space in picture 2, which looks like a cargo bay to me, is 25 meters from side to side if the man is 1.9m tall again. If that is the case then we can only really use it to determine the minimum size of the ship - 25 meters wide. This too small as it gives a length of about 75 meters.
It's likely that there are more than one cargo bays on this kind of ship. A completely fictional theory would put two of these bays side by side, port to starboard, with the camera angle parallel to fore->aft, giving a c.150m length.
BUT, the roof of this space is curved side to side. This, to me, suggests it's suposed to represent the space in the rear hump of the ship. I that is so the hump is about 25 meters making the ship only about 55 meters long.
One fianl thought before I make a judgement is that the lights (as Jason says) don't need to be windows but might act as a guidance/ docking system. Or they could be small windows in an array - perhaps the smaller cargo ship is made of cheaper and weaker material than the Federation flagship, so the individual panes of transparent aluminium need to be smaller? If the set of three high windows is a deck that gives anywhere between 70 and 130 meters for the ship length.
I'd be inclined to go for 125 meters and just excuse the crude drawings for any disparity. In other words Defiant sized
-------------------- I have plenty of experience in biology. I bought a Tamagotchi in 1998... And... it's still alive.
Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
posted
But then again, looking at the size choices you gave Masao, 100m looks the best fit, even compared to the 125m I get. But 125 at the most in my eyes.
-------------------- I have plenty of experience in biology. I bought a Tamagotchi in 1998... And... it's still alive.
Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
posted
Well, if the interior shot of that tiny, cramped bridge is an indication of the exterior size of the bridge module, then the ship is very small indeed.
Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
Also, those nacelles look like they've got flat sides where the Connie nacelles have sloped sides. So I think it's easy to say the Huron has scaled down nacelles.
-------------------- “Those people who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do.” — Isaac Asimov Star Trek Minutiae | Memory Alpha
Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
