The design similarities to the Erewhon, Raven and Danube are quite intentional in case anyone was wondering.
This may or may not be developed into the ASDB's new Deneva design, since the old one is a little big for such a small crew, but we haven't quite decided which direction to go in yet.
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
Nice, if not perhaps a bit out of place designwise for the Deneva.
Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
Sort of reminds me of a very large Eagle from Space: 1999.
Posted by David Templar (Member # 580) on :
Cool design, though it doesn't look like it can hold much cargo. A light, short ranged freighter?
Posted by Mark Nguyen (Member # 469) on :
Deep space? Long range? For a four-nacelled design...
Mark
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
quote: Sort of reminds me of a very large Eagle from Space: 1999.
I never did watch that show, but I know what you mean. The landing struts are something I borrowed from the Erewhon. I wanted something different and with lots of cool moving parts, hence the cargo cranes, the ventral cargo/vehicle lift and aft ramp. Just to irritate the 3D modellers of course.
quote: Cool design, though it doesn't look like it can hold much cargo. A light, short ranged freighter?
Not much? Those cargo pods are four stories tall and that ventral lift can hold a half dozen ground vehicles. Enough I'd say, to supply a colony for a year or two.
Also you may notice that the cargo pod section is a modular piece, so the cargo capacity can be doubled or even trebled, although it would require a short stay over in space dock.
Remember, it can't be too big since apparently the Arcos only had a crew of two, hence the need for a redesign.
quote: Deep space? Long range? For a four-nacelle design...
Pretty much yeah, it could also have something to do with being able to adjust the warp field to encompass more cargo pods. Perhaps it enables the ship to travel at unusually high warp factors for a ship it's size, for urgent deliveries.
For those among you who like more militant ships in trek, in time of war this class could easily become a military transport. All you'd have to do is enhance the shield grid, slap on a few defensive phaser arrays, replace the cargo pods with barrack modules, beef up the decent thrusters a little and Robert's your mother's brother. You have a heavy, interstellar drop ship.
Posted by Griffworks (Member # 1014) on :
Oooh! I like!
I see definite resemblances to the "Space:1999" Eagle as well, tho don't think it looks at all bad or as if it were a "rip-off", as it's also quite in keeping with design philosphy we've seen in TNG Era ships.
And we have a British SciFi fan who hasn't seen "Space:1999"?!?
What is the world coming to? Is this a sign of the Apocalypse?!?
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
Great design Rev!!
quote: And we have a British SciFi fan who hasn't seen "Space:1999"?!? What is the world coming to? Is this a sign of the Apocalypse?!?
Actually, I haven't seen it either. Although it was a little before my time.
Incidentally, has anyone ever done an intrasystem freighter? It just seems to be a bit of a waste to stick a full sized interstellar warp assembly with fuel etc. for stuff that just needs to be transported in the local area. Eg supplies to mining facilities in asteroid belts etc.(at least before replicators).
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
quote: I see definite resemblances to the "Space:1999" Eagle as well, tho don't think it looks at all bad or as if it were a "rip-off", as it's also quite in keeping with design philosphy we've seen in TNG Era ships.
I miss-labled the thread, it's more of an early 24th C design. Say around the 2300 - 2320 era. Note that the nacelles (preserved from the original Deneva design) are a deliberate cross between those of the Ambassador and of the Excelsior.
quote: And we have a British SciFi fan who hasn't seen "Space:1999"?!?
Well technically I have seen it, but I've never actually taken the time to actually watch it, ,so I don't count myself amoung it's viewers. If it makes you feel any better, as far as British Sci-Fi is concerned, I've never really bothered with Dr Who, Blake 7 or any of that Gerry Anderson nonsense either. Red Dwarf and HHGttG on the other hand...
quote: Incidentally, has anyone ever done an intrasystem freighter? It just seems to be a bit of a waste to stick a full sized interstellar warp assembly with fuel etc. for stuff that just needs to be transported in the local area. Eg supplies to mining facilities in asteroid belts etc.(at least before replicators).
I think Harry sketched up something like that a couple months back, I forget exactly how it turned out though.
UPDATE Erewhoneva Mk6 Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
Again, I like this & the update...but I still think there's just too many TNG & DS9 design elements for this to be an effective design for the Deneva. I see the Danube influences, I see the somewhat TNG-ish details...it just doesn't sit. I'd put that at like 2340, maybe 2360. It would make a great Deneva refit or follow-on, though.
Maybe instead of using a runabout & the Erehwon as your jumping-off points, you could use the Sydney/executive shuttle. Use elements from that bigass 2-man pod we see in Spacedock a lot. Things like that.
Posted by Triton (Member # 1043) on :
I agree with the others who have posted before me, I think that the design is much too small for the Deneva-class. The design should be used for a, relatively, small utility freighter, maybe to replenish ammunition or consummables for a platoon of troops or a small colony or scientific base/expedition? Perhaps a replenishment carrier for a small base like the duck blind mission in Star Trek: Insurrection.
Regarding the size of the Deneva-class and its small crew compliment,I think its fine. I would assume that a cargo container freighter like this would be heavily automated and would mostly travel routes where it would not encounter hostile starships. It wouldn't need more than the bare minimum crew. I am thinking of the USCSS Nostomo tug from Alien , not the refinery that it pulled.
If the freighter was travelling through a combat zone or an area with a high cargo piracy rate, then one or more federation starships, like Defiant or Intrepid-class starships, that would have to accompany it like the Atlantic Convoys during World War II.
By the way, I am really surprised that no has posted a huge container ship, like a fleet replenishment carrier, ultra large container ship, or Acturan Mega-freighter from Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy, that is designed to carry consummables, fuel, or munitions to a fleet of starships or a star base. Something that is two or three times larger than any Starfleet starship we have ever seen.
May be it could also be used as an emergency evacuation ship for a starbase or colony, or used as a colony transport. Something that would have been ideal when that colony needed to be relocated on that world that belonged to the Sheliak Corporate.
I am thinking of a container ship/freighter that would be capable of transporting a colony with say 60,000 people with consummables and their possessions or hundreds of cargo containers. This ship would be say 1,254 meters in length, about the size of the Son'a Collector ship, and have a maximum velocity of Warp 5 or 6.
Because of its mass, let's give it horrible acceleration rates and slow impulse speeds. But this low performance wouldn't matter because this is not a warship, its designed to carry lots of stuff, and it wouldn't need to respond to emergencies.
Because the freighter would be so large and barge like, perhaps the RCS system on the ship wouldn't be able to handle manuevaring of the ship into a space dock or starbase and would need the help of large port tugs that would need to dock or latch onto it at various points on its hull. Or maybe the cargo would need to be offloaded in space to a smaller cargo carrier or lighter, which would then deliver the cargo to a space dock or other orbital facility.
Design wise, I am thinking something that would look very utilatarian and have all the beauty and elegance of a diesel locomotive. Think of a cross between the Typhon-class carrier from the Star Trek: Invasion! game, the Battlestar Galactica, and a modern day dry-goods/refrigerated container ship, with cargo containers stacked and attached (latched with docking clamps) to the outside of the ship's hull. It would be like a wideand long brick with four Warp nacelles attached to it. Compared to the Sovereign-class it would be ugly, ugly, ugly. But it would be something that the Federation and Starfleet would desperately be needing.
If I were willing to design the specifications and write a history of theses starships like the recent Starship Spotter, for example the specification and descriptions of the Isolde-class ultra-large capacity container ship or the Foss-class port tug, could you draw something like this with the intention of placing it on the Jornal of Applied Treknology Web site? I would have participated long ago in things like JoAT and Advanced Starship Design Bureau, but I cannot draw to save my life and didn't want to give Bernd my doodles.
If not, that would be cool too. By the way Reverend, continue to keep up the good work, I like your designs very much. Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
Ok first off, in regards to the crew size there is a distinct difference between minimal and miniscule. I don't care how good the automated systems onboard a ship are, you can't run a large sized starship with just two people!
Secondly, if I made this ship any bigger then there wouldn't have been any point in redesigning the ship in the first place since Jason's original ship is otherwise solid.
Thirdly the largest sensible fan designed cargo ship I've seen out is Bernd's Java-Class. As for your idea of having a ship with 60,000 people on board; does the phrase "all the eggs in one basket" ring a bell? The potential for disaster there is phenomenal and the task of maintaining that population of a working ship would be a logistical nightmare, especially in a universe apparently devoid of service robots.
And finally, as I've told others on this board I do occasionally take on commisioned work, but not for free.
Posted by Triton (Member # 1043) on :
Thanks for your response Reverend, I appreciate the issues that you raised. After reviewing what I posted, I wish there was a message recall feature in the forums. Insert foot in mouth, chew vigorously.
Thanks for the link to Bernd's Java-class, I was not aware of this design, and it is pretty much the same idea I was thinking about when I proposed the Isolde-class.
Regarding the 60,000 person emergency evac limit, on second thought, I agree with you too. In no time that many people would be quickly living in their own stink. Logistically, you couldn't feed and tend to the sanitary needs of that many people for no more than a couple of hours. The ship, as imagined, is essentially a large number of containers strapped together on a warp sled-like space frame. Re-reading my post, it sounds like what I was proposing was in the real of the fan-boy "under" ships that are constantly being shot down, even though it was a freighter. Sigh.
I also appreciate your "eggs in one basket" comment. If you had desperate need of spare parts or munitions, you wouldn't want to entrust them all to one or a handful of freight-carrying starships. The threat of piracy or accident is too great to accept the risk of shipping them in that manner.
Sorry, you probably get the custom art request a lot too because of your frequent posts to this and other forums.
Just consider my post as a regretable example of newbie foolishness. Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
There could still be a niche for gargantuan freighters in Trek - mainly in the ore hauling business. We often hear that ore is a commodity worth shipping, and bulk cargo doesn't get much bulkier than ore, with all the waste rock attached. A sublight or low-but-reliable-warp ship 16 kilometers in length, with a crew of zero, would sound quite reasonable. Piracy of automated ore carriers shouldn't be a problem - the pirates couldn't hope to haul away a significant part of the cargo anyway, and if they try to divert the ship, it will be trivially easy to catch.
But the Deneva in my eyes ought to be a short-range ship with definite TOS movie era elements. Leaning more towards Constitution than Excelsior, even. Something similar in size and perhaps design to the Merchantman of ST3... Heck, paint that thing off-white and you've got a pretty good Deneva right there!
Or perhaps do the forward hull as a miniature Connie-style hemisaucer, the mid-hull as a series of modules, the aft hull as an impulse cluster, and the "whiskers" as Saber-attached but Connie-style nacelles. That would look really Starfleety...
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by Axeman 3D (Member # 1050) on :
I have to admit I'd like to see a substantial freighter design of some kind in the Trek universe, they must exist if Starfleet has any hope of keeping it's enormous Starbases supplied with raw material. You can't be as widespread as the Federation and not have ships far larger than the puny merchantmen and smugglers we've seen so far, they're just no good at hauling cheaper, bulky cargoes like ore in anything like economically viable tonnages. I think the only large-ish design I've seen was in one of the few Enterprise episodes I've seen, where the Nausicaans keep pissing off some slow freighter on a route to Earth.
Posted by Griffworks (Member # 1014) on :
I kitbashed a transport some years back using extra pieces/parts from the SciFi Spaceship Miniatures "Survey Conversions" kit. I call it the Roxanne, which is a civilian modified version. I also have plans to build a "stock" version of what I call the Tantive IV (yeah, blatant Star Wars reference) that's still in service with StarFleet. One day I'll get around to it....
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
I agree, there should defiantly be some huge freighter in the Federation and I find Bernd's Java-Class quite satisfying in this regard. Of course they can't be too big because that will present problems with security, maintenance and safety.
For the most part though I'm inclined to think that the smaller freighters and container hauling tugs are by far more common type of ship in use.
GRIFF: You may be a good modeler, but you have lousy taste in names. I only hope your wife names the kids. (j/k) Seriously though, I'd drop the "IV" and just call it Tantive-Class, still a tip-of-the-hat but not quite so blatant.
quote: I think the only large-ish design I've seen was in one of the few Enterprise episodes I've seen, where the Nausicaans keep pissing off some slow freighter on a route to Earth.
That be the Y-Class E.C.S. Fortunate and I quite liked it too...but then I've always perfered the bulky utilitarian looking ships to the super sleek battle cruisers (spot the oxymoron there) that fans seam to be drooling over all the time.
If you download the Enterprise episode called "Horizon" you'll get to see the old J-Class, which is smaller but still quite interesting. It's interesting to note that this is supposedly the same class as Harry Mudd's ship, in (TOS "Mudd's Women"). They did a good job designing it and it really looks like it could hold up next to the 1701.
Very well done, but I'm still concerned about four nacelles. I think it looks a bit overpowered for such a small ship. Perhaps two Cheyenne-style nacelles placed below centerline...
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
Think of the ship as a tractor trailer, Harry. Those things, if emptied of all their load but with the trailer still attached, can still go pretty darn fast, even on an incline. But if they've got a full cargo, then they're going to just be poking along.
It's the same principle. You've got to have the extra nacelles to get around the bulky cargo containers or whatever. Posted by Griffworks (Member # 1014) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reverend: >SNIKT!< For the most part though I'm inclined to think that the smaller freighters and container hauling tugs are by far more common type of ship in use.
I agree there. My thinking w/the Tantive IV class is that they're a long-haul ship, made for going out to the frontier worlds to resupply those which would likely need at least an annual "growth factor" of supplies and equipment that the smaller ships would be incapable of carrying. The SF registry ships would likely do this job, as well as resupply those ships on extended range missions beyond even the frontier, likely meeting those vessels at some halfway point and returning back to UFP space - thus the hard points for weapons. There likely wouldn't be nearly as many of these ships in civilian hands, and I'd think that the bulk of those would belong to the larger corporations.
quote: GRIFF: You may be a good modeler, but you have lousy taste in names. I only hope your wife names the kids. (j/k) Seriously though, I'd drop the "IV" and just call it Tantive-Class, still a tip-of-the-hat but not quite so blatant.
Oh, sure. Pick on the name I chose for my ship just 'cause it's related to a song about a 'ho'....
Well, in my defense, the name Roxanne wasn't totally chosen at random. It's named for a 1990 Pontiac Sunbird LE I used to drive, which was, in turn, named by one of my brothers girlfriends. She got the name from the license plate, which was RXN-316. Once I decided that this was going to be a civilian ship, I wanted a definite non-StarFleet sounding name and Miranda was taken, so....
And Wife and I named our kids just fine: Alison Blair and Daniel Logan. Nothing quite as "loud" as Roxanne for my little girl!
Anyhow, I'm going to leave the class name as Tantive IV, as I don't like re-thinking things "just 'cause". Plus, I really do like Star Wars and figure this is a good way to pay homage to it. When I get around to doing the StarFleet registered vessel, I hope to have a more fitting name for it along the lines of what I figure a StarFleet long-range freighter would have. Still haven't figured out what registry Roxanne will have, but I'll keep it similar to the civilian vessels we've seen in TNG. Something dull and boring, like Berman or Braga, maybe?
And for your information, I suck as a modeler.... Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
quote: Alison Blair
Blair?!? *shudder*
Seriously, though, I really like this design; as for hge bulk carriers, I think colony support and interstellar transport of materials (especially relatively low value ones, eg. ore) would be most logical functions. Imagine how expensive it must be (at least in societies that still use money- ) to transport stuff over interstellar distances, so the more of it you can take, the better.
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
Just a quick tidbit. This is the design for the phaser turret I intend to use on the Deneva.
It's based roughly on the phaser emitter seen on the wingtips of the smaller Maquis fighter in "Premptive Strike". It's probably just a low-powered Type-IV or Type-V, enough to deal with the less well funded pirate groups and hijackers but by no means a match for a military craft.
Bear in mind that this is just the basic armament and that ship can be upgraded with more substancial weaponary as their mission and theatre of operation requires.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
The Deneva really looks great: it looks to me like the kind of workhorse that would have a regular trading route between adjoining starsystems. Ideal for journeys of a couple of weeks to transport comerce.
I think the larger freighters would be more for colony establishing and transport of vital materials into rescourse poor or extremely distant regions of the Federation.
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
Another update, now with new and improved nacelle pylons and a still incomplete front view.
Another technical tidbit while you're waiting for the aft view.
It's a diagram of the modular spine segment, sans the cargo pods. Just to give a slightly better idea of the arrangment and scale of the ship. Mind you I should probably increase the width of the central corridor by about two thirds, as it stands moving cargo down there would be a little tricky, there certainly isn't enough room for two way traffic.
Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
Quick question, Rev. Was a landing capability mentioned on air, or is this just a choice you made?
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
It wasn't mention in the episode as far as I know. It just seamed like a logical choice for such a relatively small ship, based on the Erewhon/Danube family.
Besides that I really like ships with moving parts, it somehow makes them seam more real. The fact that it makes life difficult for any 3D artist who might try to build it is just a bonus. Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
UPDATE
Very close to being done now I belive, just need to polish off the aft view a little.
Hi Newbie here saw this thread and thought I'd throw in my two cents.In one of the novels set in TOS time frame,An enormus colony evacuation vehicle was tested.The technology turned out to be alien stuff,anymore on that would be a spoiler.Anyhow the ship was so large that it could transport medium size vessels directly into an enormus holding area.Travel inside the ship was by transporter. I'll see if I can find out the name of that novel.
Posted by Kazeite (Member # 970) on :
Kickass work, Reverend
I was concerned about the number of nacelles, but your explanation convinces me But now I wonder if those nacelles are perhaps a little short for a stormtr... er, to do their job Posted by Mountain Man (Member # 1114) on :
The use of multiple nacelles was addressed early on in TOS novels. Three Nacelles proved to be very inefficent. Four were less efficent than two. Besides one of the larger battleships,at least one passenger liner used the three nacelle populsion. Four would allow for economy cruise using two at a time. All four could be used to pull heavy loads. The warp field which takes on the shape of the chest insignia used in TOS,requires a slight difference in the placement of each nacelle as viewed from the top. One must be slightly ahead of its opposite number. This came from one of the early models used in filming the obiting scenes. To give a better sense of perspective it was asymetrical. This was later used in a parody Star Trek theme song that mentioned how it looked kind of bent. In one TOS novel the Enterprize' ability to reach higher top warp speeds was traced to a warping of her frame work caused by an ION storm. This gave the nacelles just the right alignment that had eluded Star Fleet engineers for many years.P.S. very nice job on your designs.
Posted by CaptainMike20X6 (Member # 709) on :
of course, that novel has nothing to do with the way it actually happens on Star Trek. it was just a non-canon novel
*sorry
Posted by Mountain Man (Member # 1114) on :
Thought this was a non canon zone. The little historical tidbit might be helpful to model makers in filming,or photographing scenes.
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kazeite: Kickass work, Reverend
I was concerned about the number of nacelles, but your explanation convinces me But now I wonder if those nacelles are perhaps a little short for a stormtr... er, to do their job
Any longer and they'd start getting in the way of the cargo bay I'm afraid.
As for novel info; I prefer to take the ostrich approach. If I can't see it, it isn't there. Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
This is something I've been meaning to do for a an absolute age. DENEVA-Class Cutaway If this keeps up I might actually finish my old ASDB work.
Posted by Bernd (Member # 6) on :
Resurrection of the dead. And great work!
I am more than eager to see the old ASDB stuff finished.
Posted by B.J. (Member # 858) on :
BRAAAAINS!!!
VERY nice work, Rev! I always get myself way too mired in details to ever finish a cutaway.
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
I think this cutaway should dispel any notion that this design is too small! Looking at this I'd say it's as big as it can possibly be and still be run safely by only two crewmen.
Crazy idea; what if there was a travelpod permanently docked at the aft airlock, like a Lamprey, or Remora? Like so. Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
I didn't really set out to start this, I only wanted to get an idea of what the shuttle bay looked like...then I thought I might as well design the bridge too...one thing led to another and well, here's the entirety of B-Deck.
And while I'm at it, the MSD is about done.
Posted by Bernd (Member # 6) on :
Wow. This perfectly bridges the gap between the big ships and the runabouts.
We may be able to surprise everyone with a totally unexpected ASDB site update.
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
Don't update it just yet! I'm still fiddling with this one. I've already re mapped the aft section, which means I'll need to tweak the the MSD and I'm sure I'll end up doing the other 4 decks so expect more refinements...all because I noticed there was no head in the aft section!
As for the Danube link, yeah, that was one of the ideas when I first sketched it out. Well to be precise I meant it to be a relation of the Erewhon-Class, which I saw (aesthetically anyway) as a earlier relation to the runabouts. Notice it shares a similar look to the landing gear.
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
UPDATE
Finished off B Deck (I think.) Made some revisions to the MSD. And made a first pass at A Deck.
You may notice I've added some Probert style Work Bee docking bays, between the shuttlebay and the modular section. I'm updating the full colour views as I go with any additions or revisions I make along with the deck plans, so when I finish I should have a whole new set ready to release.
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
I think the big question is, if this is Deneva, where do they stow that lifepod we saw in "Legacy"?
The ship is equipped with a large number of auxiliaries already: six distinct craft shown in the MSD. Are those two light shuttles standard issue, or only embarked every now and then in place of regular cargo? What does the ship need them for?
How many crew are supposed to be aboard anyway? If this is Deneva, should we argue that she had a crew of something like eight, and six perished?
In dialogue from "Legacy", the first estimate we hear for the crew count is Picard's "Prepare to lock onto the two crewmen", suggesting that's exactly how many there were. But there is a cut before Picard makes his first log on the emergency; perhaps the deaths of the six were established before Picard made that log?
If you asked me, I'd omit the shuttlebay altogether, and only retain the aft docking port and the workbee hive. The port could then berth the lifepod or observation pod, which could be the very same thing (we just see the 2360s model in "Legacy").
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
Well that shuttle in the MSD is really only to show scale, but to answer your question, no, the Deneva doesn't carry a Type-17 as apart of it's standard compliment but I have designed it to be able to support anything as large as a Type-6 (Type-7 at a push) while still having a usable shuttle/cargo bay. After all, shuttles can be cargo too. As for the escape pod seen in "Legacy", you can see it on the MSD on C Deck, below and to the right of the Type-17. The idea is there are always two of them stored there, each sat on it's own elevator so when the evacuation sequence begins, both of them power up and ascend to the shuttlebay so the crew can leg it from wherever they are on the ship to the shuttlebay and have two escape craft warmed up and ready to go. In the even that the shuttlebay is inaccessible to either the crew (ie the forcefield has failed) or the pods themselves (hull damage/wrekage) then what happens is the crew still go to C Deck, but instead of ascending they blow the lower cargo platform clean off with explosive bolts and then retract the pod's lift platform and simply drop out the ship's belly. Now that's a little more dangerous since if they can't wait a few seconds between blowing the platform and dropping out of the bay then they run the risk of colliding with stray cargo modules, or indeed the platform itself before it's fully clear of the ship, which is why it's a contingency escape procedure.
Of course the Travel Pod and the work bees don't have the delta V to escape a core breach, so the only other alternatives are: - 1 - Blow the bolts on the command section, though they'll only have thrusters to escape the blast zone. 2 - Blow the bolts on the aft section; they'll have impulse and possibly the cargo pods too, though they'd have a hard time steering it. 3 - Jump in an EVA suit and beam to the maximum safe distance.
Of course in the situation the Arcos was in, the best option would be to do as they did and use the pod(s) as the aft section can't land on it's own, the command section would need a good landing stretch to perform an emergency slideou, while still expecting to suffer sever damage in the process and standard EVA suits aren't able to survive re-entry.
Bottom line the shuttlebay stays. I like how it lookes with an open bay and the entire internal cargo transfer system is useless without a large bay at the end of it.
Also for the record I designed it with a minimum crew of 2 in mind. Though the optimum compliment is more like 6.
Posted by Mark Nguyen (Member # 469) on :
Awesome. Any chance of a zoom-in on the forward section of B-deck, specifically the bridge?
Mark
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
Sure. Posted by Mark Nguyen (Member # 469) on :
Sweet. Not too far off from what I was thinking about for mine, actually.
Mark
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
Curious how we've both included an aft facing, wrap-around Cargo Ops console. The design was a bit of a problem for me as the ship is supposed to be able to fly with just two crew, 6hence the large SS Raven style piloting console, which can be configured to control everything, while at the same time have enough consoles to accommodate a crew of up to six.
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
I'm not sure I see the need for a starship-style captain's chair on a lowly freighter. I'd expect that the captain would double as the pilot, or some other job. Besides, on a freighter, the extra chair is a waste of valuable cargo space. I'd imagine something much closer to the runabout style, myself.
Err, wait... I was just about to submit, when I took a second look at the drawing. Is the round arc around the front of that central chair supposed to be bridge-style steps to a lower-level floor, or is that a wraparound console? If it's the latter, then obviously you're on the same thought track as I am.
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
Yes I am ;-) That is indeed the pilot's station. I even nicked the console from the Raven bridge set, which was also not down with the captain's chairage....yeah, that's a word!
On the other hand, there is a precedent. I forget the exact episode, I think it was one of those crap ones from DS9's 2nd season. I remember Bashir (possessed by something or other) sat at the captains chair on the bridge of a Federation freighter. Though, I'm inclined to ignore it.
Posted by Mark Nguyen (Member # 469) on :
Yeah, the PRECEDENT episode has Bashir being posessed by some alien guy's DNA. He took over a freighter with a captain's chair and a couple flat top consoles. It was one of the earliest re-dresses of the "Starfleet Bridge" set that was seen as the Saratoga, Prometheus, Odyssey et. al.
And if you're looking for a two-man transport bridge design, you can always try this:
Are there more crew quarters on D deck? Or is it hot-bunking on this ship?
I'm really digging this one.
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
No and yes, respectivly. Remember that the nominal crew compliment is only six and there are four sets of quarters, each of which can be converted to double bunks, so in reality there's room enough for eight. Before anyone says that's too crowded, remember that even with eight people on board, a three shift rotation means they're not all going to be sleeping at the same time, so in reality there's plenty of private time. Compare that to the bunk rooms seen on the refit Constitution (in ST:VI) and the Excelsior (VOY - Flashback) two to a room is nothing short of luxury for a ship that small. As I'm sure our resident ex-swabbie would agree. Actually, if I recally even the Galaxy class had double bunks for the junior officers, to say nothing of the crewmen.
For the Deneva, the way I see it, with a Crew of six you're going to get two senior officers - probably Lieutenants, or one Lieutentant and an Ensign, maybe even a Lt Commander - as "Captain" and XO respectivly, with cross training in helm/ops duties. A chief engineer (Probably an experianced NCO/warrent officer) and an engineer's mate (crewman, or even an Ensign.) That leaves two spots for say a cargo specialist, security officer and/or possibly a medical officer, at least until the 2370's when LMH's and shipwide holoprojectors are included in the scheduled refit cycle. I imagine most crew members on a ship this small would probably require cross training in medical, science and engineering, at least on a basic level so everyone would have at least two jobs to fill.
In the case of the USS Arcos, they only had a crew of two, which as I recall consisted of a pilot with no rank insignia (probably an NCO) and an engineer, (probably an elisted man.)
In that situation I imagine neither is technically captain and it'd have to be a relativly short cargo run in a "safe" area of space since you can hardly expect them both to pull 12 hour shifts alone. One would think the computer is technically on watch duty most of the time, especially while at warp.
Posted by Axeman 3D (Member # 1050) on :
Is this a military transport? I doubt every small civilian ship would have a doctor, security officer, etc when their basically hauling crap from A to B. I would think the crew roster would be pilot/commander, navigator, engineer and 3 cargo guys. On a small ship probably one of them will be cross-trained as a medic, if not several of them, and they'd all have a modicum of engineering knowledge from helping out the engineer from time to time.
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
I wouldn't say it's a military transport exactly, at least not exclusively. It's supposed to be a small general purpose Federation freighter. The kind generally used for quick (re)supply runs to far flung, off the beaten track type colonies and outposts. Though the ones operated by Starfleet could certainly serve as troop transports, or even landing craft, with the appropriate refit and some well armed escorts.
But, yeah that's basically what I had in mind for the crew. Mostly engineer and pilot types with medical cross training as needed. Of course as I said by the 2370s that wouldn't be as necessary with the advent of EMH's & LMH's.
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
Some updates to the exterior, most of the modifications were done to accommodate the deck plans - for example note the work bee airlocks. Also, I got tired of the BIG RED cargo modules. Dorsal Starboard I've also redesigned the landing gear and the phaser turret. Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
Hmm... The new exteriors make me wonder if it wouldn't pay off to tweak the interiors a bit.
It's interesting how the container section of the ship is basically the same length as the enclosed cargo handling section aft of the engineering spaces, and both are of slightly different diameter from the engineering section forward of them. What would the ship look like without the enclosed area, with two lengths of container section there instead? Or with two enclosed sections? Perhaps the ship could fly with either one or two sections, and sometimes with none at all...
Creating a separation line just aft of the computer cores would require some minor tweaks on the interior - truncation of the lateral corridors and creation of a centerline access to the cargo sections, mainly.
But there could also be a separation line aft of the current upper transporter - and if that transporter were brought one deck down, things emerging from there could then be directly shoved to the central corridor of whichever cargo section type was carried. That would mean having a shorter enclosed cargo section than container section, but the former could then easily be stretched to be the same length as the latter, possibly with improved aesthetics.
Modularity isn't always good, but in this case I think it would make some sense to have a variant that only hauls those small containers; perhaps another that only has a big bulk tank for a cargo section; and just a few individual ships that have all this multimission versatility. IMHO, this ship is lacking in humility - it's too survivable and too capable to really be a Star Trek ship, especially a damsel-in-distress kind of Star Trek ship!
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by Axeman 3D (Member # 1050) on :
I have to say I agree in part with Timo, I think the majority of these ships would be all internal or all container.
I too dislike the way almost every fan designed Trek ship has to be built to try and handle every situation and have special equipment handy for it. If a ship is supposed to be a cargo ship then it will be a flying box or container tractor with the minimum of living space for the people looking after the tractor. It would likely have no weapons, or very few small ones anyway, engines and some bunks, etc. Cargo ships handle cargo; they dont fight, they dont race, they dont rescue, they just haul boxes from A to B.
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
Then again, I would have no problem with this class ship NCC-6200 having become a "showpiece" vessel, generously bell-and-whistled in order to impress the potential customers.
I mean, six auxiliary craft of four different types for a ship that sports a crew of six? Each and every one of them could serve a function, and specific customers might be attracted to specific types. But probably only the Reverend Yards Sales Dept would need all of them at once.
Incidentally, since the lifepod is the forward section of the Nenebek type civilian shuttle anyway, how about (normally) equipping this ship with multiple examples of that only? It could serve as a light shuttlecraft with the "booster stern" attached; as a lifeboat and a travel/inspection pod without it; and perhaps even as a heavy duty workbee for serious cargo hauling.
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
If this were the real world, I would agree. I mean for what's essentially a flying lorry it as all the usual Starfleet kit, shuttle bay, transporters, phasers and work bees aplenty. However this is not the real world, it's Star Trek and in Star Trek ships as small as a runabout have proportionally the same kit as a starship, even torpedoes (which, I might add the Deneva doesn't have.)
Having said that of course I didn't design this as a pure bred cargo hauler, like say Bernd's Java Class. I designed it to be a long range, resupply ship with an eye to some of them being outfitted as mid range surveyors and transports. Think of them as the workhorses of the early 24th century colonial efforts, flying in convoys to support the bigger ships, landing to help establish the first beachhead colonies then later becoming the colonies own transport/freighter fleet.
This comes from the mandate that of the two Denevas we know about, the Arcos was a two man Starfleet freighter that operated near Turkana IV (a failed colony) and the LaSalle which reported an anomaly. Of course reporting an anomaly doesn't make it a surveyor, but I can't see a "flying box" freighter being named for a 17th-century French explorer.
As for the modular nature, I think making the cargo handling section detachable takes the concept a step too far. It already has a detachable command section, aft impulse block and of course the modular cargo pods.
Remember that although it's a small ship with a small crew, all those aux vehicles are mostly for the loading and unloading people at the other end, plus a spare or two. Remember the Discovery from 2001 had 3 pods for a two man crew. As for the escape pods, I had originally intended for them to be docked to the outside of the hull (like the narcissus shuttle on the nostromo) but couldn't come up with a design that looked good so I opted to sit them in the shuttle bay as they are clearly not meant to fit inside dedicated launch bays liek the ASRVs.
You are right though, the NCC-6200 as shown is in the baseline configuration. In practice it can hold up to nine sets of cargo pods, with special spacer modules with extra landing gear every three sets or so.
Posted by Axeman 3D (Member # 1050) on :
I dont like the thought of a modular cargo handling section either, it would be a step too far. However I think there would be enough commonality of parts and engines that a fully enclosed version could easily be built, one that didn't carry those modules but was a complete, one-piece starship with good hold-space rather than modules.
By the way, the Discovery had a crew of 5. Three scientists were in hibernation as they weren't needed for the long trip to Saturn, just the two astronauts looking after the ship were active.
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
Would those scientists ever have had a need for the extra pods, though? (And which parts of the Discovery were designed for the supposed original mission, which ones added for the TMA-2 rendezvous? What was the original crew complement supposed to be? Even 2010 or the novelizations don't dwell much on this.)
Yes, I think that even if there was "modularity" in choosing the midhull configuration, it would be a factory option, not something that could be altered afterwards. But up to nine container sections? Good for outer space, but landing that thing would be awkward to the extreme. Not the least in terms of the patch of flat ground that would be needed as the landing area...
Incidentally, with just one or two container sections, this Deneva would look quite a lot like the "Merchantman" at a distance - which would be nice if we ever got a HDTV version of the visual effects that showed that this was used for the nondescript blip that precedes the explosion. But perhaps you had this in mind already?
As regards the auxiliaries, I think it would be nice to have a bit more commonality, when the lifepod design indeed can serve in multiple roles elsewhere in Trek. Replacing the travel pod (what are those good for anyway?) with one of these would go a long way.
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
I don't think it'd be particularly smart to have you lifeboats in constant use and exposed to wear and tear. I'd rather have them safe and sound and largely untouched in the shuttle bay and subject to regular safety inspections. Having the travel pod there was just an idea I had to make the ship visually interesting. It would also give the aft section - from which most of the docking and cargo operations are managed and which would double as Aux control - a degree on independence. For example, during a busy cargo operation, if someone in the aft section needs to disembark, it would be more practical for them to take the pod from the aft airlock than to traipse through to the shuttle bay or take the transporter (the transporter requiring another person to run it.) The pod would also be useful if they need to make an exterior inspection of the hull in deep space (like the inspection pods the NX-01 carried). While a Work bee could certainly do it, they're a little cramped and can only hold one person, so a pod is better. There's also the possibility that the walkways between the fore and aft section become impassable due to an accident/leak/hull breach/whatever. Remember that this is from a time before site-to-site transports were common place and there was still much more reliance on physical transportation.
As for the size/landing issues, nine modules is the MAXIMUM, but by no means common or even optimum configuration. You're right, landing a ship of that length in a 1G atmospheric environment would certainly be challenging, though with anti-grav thrusters and a robust SIF generators by no means impossible. Landing sites would have to be carefully chosen; an old seabed like the Arizona salt flats or the arid plateaus in Peru should suffice. Of course a 0.1G, class-D planetoid shouldn't pose any problem at all, nor should a station like Starbase 74.
quote:However I think there would be enough commonality of parts and engines that a fully enclosed version could easily be built, one that didn't carry those modules but was a complete, one-piece starship with good hold-space rather than modules.
I'm not opposed to that, though the idea of modules is to allow for greater versatility in the types of cargo it can carry. An empty cargo bay is great for storing boxes of self sealing stem bolts, spare tricorders and jars of Ne'sKaf'ehh brand instant Raktajino, but if you need to transport Quadrotriticale in bulk, a bulk storage silo would be more useful. Likewise if you needed to transport liqids, compressed gases or the like, a dedicated and specially designed pod is more efficient than stacking up a bunch of smaller canisters and barrels.
quote:Incidentally, with just one or two container sections, this Deneva would look quite a lot like the "Merchantman" at a distance - which would be nice if we ever got a HDTV version of the visual effects that showed that this was used for the nondescript blip that precedes the explosion. But perhaps you had this in mind already?
As I recall from the screen caps there were 2 candidates for what they actually used. One was the old Merchantman, the other was the Lysian sentry pod. As you say, it is passably of a similar shape to the merchantman and as for the other design, I ahve planned for that too. I you look at the dorsal view there are a set of 3 comb like hingey looking details. These are hatches that cover some very hefty docking latches, to which can be attached a heavy duty harness which enables the ship to support a very large pair of cargo containers (or a size that I think Kenny would approve) that are proportionally equivalent to the engine pods on that generic miniature. I've just never gotten around to designing it, though the intention has always been there.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)