Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
Flare Sci-Fi Forums
»
Star Trek
»
Starships & Technology
»
How big is USS Huron?
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message:
HTML is enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Whorfin: [QB] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Masao: [qb] So, while we can consider Treknological precedent, I don't think it should be given any more weight than fact or our own conclusions. [/qb][/QUOTE]Which I believe is a different way of looking at what I said. I listed precedent as a factor, but not a deciding one. More succinctly stated, if there is an existing precedent, and there is no conclusive evidence indicating it is wrong, *then* it becomes a factor for consideration. The risk of not doing so creates a condition of "too many cooks": an increasing number of varying Treknological solutions to the same problem determined by whim or novelty not firm evidence. Mandel's estimate overlaps some of the current ones, and I believe that his footprints are being walked in while trying to work these estimates out. Whether his ideas from the past are compatible with what we are observing in the present is what I am suggesting being put on the table. And one valid strategy would be "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." My own subjective feelings about the Huron are as follows: The "simplified" early TOS engines are more typical of small craft of the era (in Canon, we can look at the non-tapered engines of the TOS shuttle, possibly noted and furthered in TAS) which combined with my already mentioned ideas on probable non-compatibility with standard TOS engines (in this case "simplified" Pilot era technology in the late Production TOS era) leads me to believe that estimating size based on 1701's nacelle length is poorly supported. Also, the overall design (along with the TAS "robot" freighter) does not appear to be "efficient" in terms of a large freighter: the ship consists of many irregular shapes, with void spaces. From both an aesthetic and use of space approach, my idea of large "bulk" freighters agrees better with your own large freighter designs and the SFB's freighters (among others): ovoid, cylindrical, or rectangular containers that tend to maximize the volumetric usage of the hypothetical warp bubble (whatever shape that might be). So to me Huron's design indicates a smaller, moderate performance design meant for priority deliveries (which is bolstered by it having an engine design only a partial generation behind the production 1701: a bit extravagant for a freighter, and differing from other TAS freighters I believe). Something fast enough to deliver moderate shipments of dilithium crystals or emergency vaccines, preferably while being able to out-run lower performance pirate vessels. So, in my view, its a smaller freighter. How small ultimately hinges on the details, in this case the "windows". If I may, I would request that you provide some further information to help us determine which of the pieces of contradictory information we can "trust". Can we have your deck height and inter-deck spacing measurements you are using/deriving for the estimates based on both window size and window spacing? That would be most useful. As to the forward struts, in addition to the items I mentioned last post, they could conceivably be meant as support struts for additional cargo pallets (by which I mean ones similar to those installed on the "robot" freighters). These could be alongside the ship (locked in or behind the struts) or conceivably could be pushed in front attached to them (obviously not an ideal configuration for high-G maneuvers, but with 23rd century technology who is to say). But, looking at the original TAS artwork (and your plans), and noting that the aft center of the horizontal cylinder is colored red, my gut feeling (as Reverand has suggested) is that they were originally intended to be some sort of maneuvering system, probably a low-performance version of an impulse engine system. In theory the RCS system would handle most maneuvering, and these would simply be used to nudge the ship out of a planet's gravity well until warp drive can be used. As to the need for manned freighters at all, conceivably this type of vessel and the robotic ones could work together as a squadron, with the manned vessel using a tractor emitter (strut based or internal) to move pallets to and from the planet, load them on the robotic vessels, and then escort them if needed. This would make it unnecessary for less productive planets to have orbital transportation facilities or landing facilities for small freighters. Conceivably the robotic vessels could do this all autonomously (if they have tractor emitters). But from what we see onscreen, the UFP's development of artificial intelligence applied to vehicles does not seem to have reached, or at least exceeded, our current technology. One has to assume that there has been some sort of long-standing prohibition on autonomous AI systems applied to space vessels. And, if what I am saying is not of any assistance, please feel free to tell me to shut up. If I'm not helping you answer the original question of the thread, or giving you ideas for background material on the class, then I am being counter-productive. [/QB][/QUOTE]
Instant Graemlins
Instant UBB Code™
What is UBB Code™?
Options
Disable Graemlins in this post.
*** Click here to review this topic. ***
© 1999-2024 Charles Capps
Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3