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?
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
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 by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
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.
Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
Some interior screen shots from "Pirates of Orion"
Huron is a freighter carrying a load of dilithium which is enlisted to help get a shipment of the drug strobolin to treat Spock's choriocytosis.
The windows I hope to ignore are the ones on the hull.
Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :
That must be the deadliest engine room ever.
"Hey Johnson... climb that giant ladder with so safety cage and get me that wrench!"
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
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. Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
Clearly by the 23rd century mankind has evolved beyond the need for health and safety inspectors. Good riddance too. Uptight, humourless bastards.
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
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.
Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
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.
Posted by Bernd (Member # 6) on :
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.
Posted by The Ginger Beacon (Member # 1585) on :
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 Posted by The Ginger Beacon (Member # 1585) on :
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.
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
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.
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
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.
Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
Let's not forget the apparent shuttlebay at the back of the ship. That might be used for scaling.
Curt Dannhauser's "Guide to Animated Star Trek" site puts Huron at about 165 m.
These schematics I drew when I was about 13 years old (during the original airing of the episode in question) puts this ship at about 100 m. Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
quote:Originally posted by Masao: These schematics I drew when I was about 13 years old (during the original airing of the episode in question) puts this ship at about 100 m.
You win the thread with your über geek cred. Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :
A bridge with no captain's chair!?! Folly I say.
It appears to be elliptical in shape rather than circular. Unless the forward area of the bridge extends way out. If so, perhaps there are more stations up there devoted to cargo management or docking control or something.
And maybe someone just moved the captain's chair for cleaning or something.
Posted by The Ginger Beacon (Member # 1585) on :
One other thing has popped into my head - if the nacelles are scaled to the same size as those on the cargo drone/USS Antares/Woden the Huron comes out shorter (about 85% of the cargo drone). So again, it suggests a titchy ship, a bit over 110 meters long.
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
Ooh, that makes a lot of sense. Reusing the nacelles seems like something Starfleet would do.
Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
The Robot ship is 115 m long. If the nacelles are the same length, I get a length of 95.5 m for Huron.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
You sir, are a robot ship.
Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
Why, thank you, sir!
Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
Ginger Beacon's put his money on 110 to 125 m. Anyone else want to get some bets in?
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
Looking at that comparison where they have identical nacelles, I think that works out about right. The aft section of the Huron looks like it's got similar volume to the robot ship, and since Huron seemed to have a small crew (a half dozen or so?) then that would make sense.
But I could still see that Huron being a little larger, too. Because the nacelles are basically flat cylinders, they don't HAVE to be exactly the same size. Even if it would be simpler if they were.
Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
Crew size isn't necessarily correlated with ship size. The nearly 500-m-long oil tanker Knock Nevis/Jahre Viking (et al) had a crew of only 40. The largest container ship, Emma Maersk, has a crew of only 13. On the other hand, the largest 19th century ships of the line were less than 100 m long but had crews of more than 1000.
Windows and nacelles are size indicators that the learned starship theoreticians of Flare should have advanced beyond! (or so I thought). I'm talking Gestalt here, people. If you had only the shape of the ship (without windows or nacelles on other ships), how big do you think Huron is?
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
As I said before, it's size should be easily determined by it's function, not window size or crew numbers. Since it was apparantly more of a light to medium courier, I'd say the 110 - 125m range would be about right. The similar nacelle size to the Antares/robot-tug is just a bonus and not IMO a determining factor either.
Posted by Pensive's Wetness (Member # 1203) on :
it's bigger than my penis, does that help the metrics move along?
Posted by The Ginger Beacon (Member # 1585) on :
Depends. Is your penis over 110 meters long?
(I tried to resist, but his trap was so perfect)
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
Given the Antares/Woden from TOR, then I could concur with a 95 to 100m length. (Recall that earlier in the thread I was against unnecessary downscaling from 260m . . . but the TOR references are my tipping point.)
It wouldn't hurt the window situation too badly, would fit an existing nacelle size, would keep the funny appendages and tubes on the underside from seeming quite so absurd (the bigger they are, the more ridiculous are their structural or SIF requirements), and would also help fill an odd gap wherein you don't get many Starfleet vessels between 20 and 120-or-so meters.
And last but not least, it would roll alongside Masao's drawing from however-many-years-ago, which I consider a good bonus.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by Masao: If you had only the shape of the ship (without windows or nacelles on other ships), how big do you think Huron is?
I'd go with BIG. Use the Enterprise's nacelles as the matching point for the two and extrapolate from there. After all, the Huron is crewed- if it's no bigger than a robot ship, why bother with people at all? Just use a robot ship.
I'd also give the ship some slight defensive capactity to go with it having crew- maybe the Huron ships valuable cargo only- antimatter storage pods, ship parts that have tactical importance, etc. that cant be trusted to a easily-hijacked robot ship.
Or maybe each Huron type ship serves as a mobile factory for robot ships...confusing Klingons by churning out robot ships of all sizes but in differing scales: changing the window sizes on each, making Klingon Intel look incompetent.
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
I think you answered your own question, Jason— why make the Huron the same size as the robot ship? Well, even if it's the same size it would be useful to have a crew for defensive situations.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Robots do not need any mewling meatbag "defenses"- we...er...they care only for offensive weaponry!
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
Except that after the M-5, us meatbags know better than to give a robot a fully-charged phaser bank. Posted by Mars Needs Women (Member # 1505) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon: Robots do not need any mewling meatbag "defenses"- we...er...they care only for offensive weaponry!
May I see the results of your empathy test sir...
Posted by Pensive's Wetness (Member # 1203) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mars Needs Women:
quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon: Robots do not need any mewling meatbag "defenses"- we...er...they care only for offensive weaponry!
May I see the results of your empathy test sir...
Only if his test results are larger than my penis...
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
The imaginary turtle from the void/comp test has a bigger penis than your (probably imaginary) one.
Wait! I mean tortoise!
Yes...it was a tortoise ....heh heh..silly me...
(starts sweating, looks agitated- shoots Pensive and Mars, runs away)
Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
A 110-m ship allows 4 decks in the main part of the ship. I've adjusted the windows to fit.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
What about that lower-aft finlike structure? Is that thick enough to have crew quarters or rec rooms or something?
Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon: What about that lower-aft finlike structure? Is that thick enough to have crew quarters or rec rooms or something?
It measures 21 x 11 m at the top and 11 x 6 m at the base.
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
If it were me I'd make that ventral structure some sort of docking tower. Perhaps for a cargo elevator and/or a deuterium pump so it can act as a tender.
Posted by Pensive's Wetness (Member # 1203) on :
i still just dont get the design period. you haul cargo? how much cargo? & where? (beautiful coloring however, Masao)
In terms of equating real-life to this ship, i don't think this ship would be one of the most popular models on the market, if you're a freight hauler...
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
That looks quite reasonable to me, Masao.
I like Rev's idea of the docking tower, but I'm not sure how well that would work unless there were some kind of major extensible boom mounted internally. I doubt that the Huron could maneuver that close to a Constitution without bumping into the nacelles.
Speaking of which, anyone have ideas for what those forward boom-like things are supposed to be fore? The closest that I can think of in the Museum lineage is auxiliary directional warp nacelles, but I dunno if a ship like that would really need them. Maybe those are the transfer conduits? Except that the pylons seem rather thin for cargo transfer...
But then again, why would they need to have a physical airlock for cargo transfer anyway? They've got frickin' transporters! Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
quote:I like Rev's idea of the docking tower, but I'm not sure how well that would work unless there were some kind of major extensible boom mounted internally. I doubt that the Huron could maneuver that close to a Constitution without bumping into the nacelles.
Considering there's no dorsal hatch on the secondary hull, it wouldn't have a reason to go anywhere near the nacelles. The ventral hatches on the other hand would not present a problem. I mean it's not as if the two ships' gravity fields have to be aligned to transfer cargo so in theoty it can dock just about anywhere.
quote:Speaking of which, anyone have ideas for what those forward boom-like things are supposed to be fore? The closest that I can think of in the Museum lineage is auxiliary directional warp nacelles, but I dunno if a ship like that would really need them. Maybe those are the transfer conduits? Except that the pylons seem rather thin for cargo transfer...
Personally I'd go for either refuelling booms (retracted) or heavy tractor beam mounts. Of course if it was anything but a freighter I'd say sensor pods. If the ship supported trains of cargo modules then secondary warp field controllers (not quite fully fledged nacelles) to adjust the bubble to accommodate said pods.
quote:But then again, why would they need to have a physical airlock for cargo transfer anyway? They've got frickin' transporters! [Wink]
The same reason they have shuttles I suppose. Even by the late 24th century when they had transporters that could beam massive loads starships were still equipped with expansive shuttle and cargo bays with exterior space doors. I suppose it comes down to energy efficiency, the fact that not everything reacts well to transporters and perhaps a lingering unwillingness to become totally reliant on the technology.
Posted by Mars Needs Women (Member # 1505) on :
To be honest, the whole design of the thing seems hap-hazard. Like those "stalks" at the front, are those supposed to be where the impulse engines are? I find the robot cargo ships to better in terms of size and shape vs. use.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by Masao:
quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon: What about that lower-aft finlike structure? Is that thick enough to have crew quarters or rec rooms or something?
It measures 21 x 11 m at the top and 11 x 6 m at the base.
Thicker than the Connie's neck at the widest point then- room for something. Could make a nice ampitheatre (if it were oriented along the z axis and gravity were adjusted to match).
quote:Personally I'd go for either refuelling booms (retracted) or heavy tractor beam mounts. Of course if it was anything but a freighter I'd say sensor pods. If the ship supported trains of cargo modules then secondary warp field controllers (not quite fully fledged nacelles) to adjust the bubble to accommodate said pods.
Maybe it helps maintain the warp field when transporting super-massive cargo...or, possibly, the mini-nacelles are attached to that forward "saucer" section and serve as an escape pod- though I'd think there are hull plates covering the seperation point between the "saucer" and the rest of the ship for that totally detail-less look we all love about TOS. Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
Some of the big transport I've designed also have a ventral tower. What they're for, i'm not sure, but they may be for cargo transfer or hazardous items.
I'm not sure where the impulse are on Huron, but there are various ports at the back of the ship. I don't think they're the tube sticking out in front, though.
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
Hmm... Based on the second picture, I think the impulse engine should be in that grille-like thing just above the middle of the shuttle bay.
Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
Note that the grill differs between the two pics.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
I think the impluse engines are inside the shuttlebay- a suprise for unwanted visitors.
hmmm..there really is a lot of room in that aft section below the shuttlebay: I'm thinking those are the crew quarters with the central section dedicated to cargo and the front for ship's ops.
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
Yeah, I saw they were a little different. I think the photo from directly aft has more potential because that grille thing is a bit closer to your average impulse engine size, especially for a ship that's going to carry a lot of cargo.
Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
quote:Originally posted by MinutiaeMan: Yeah, I saw they were a little different. I think the photo from directly aft has more potential because that grille thing is a bit closer to your average impulse engine size, especially for a ship that's going to carry a lot of cargo.
While the view from directly aft allows a taller impulse port (about 1.4 m tall vs. 0.5 m), the rear view is less consistent with other views.
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
I wouldn't get too hung up on the exact details of anything from TAS. As you say, it's often inconsistent so when adapting some of these AS ships in the past I've always felt free to exert a little creative interpretation where necessary.
As for the impulse engines, actually looking at those screen grabs I'd say that they were indeed intended to be on those mini-nacelles. Remember at the time the thinking was that impulse engines were essentially really big rockets so aft clearance was thought to be a consideration.
On the other hand one would just as easily make up some other use. Medusan passenger pods perhaps? Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Ah..,Medusans. The gag gift that keeps on giving: put one in a PS3 box and wait for the hijinks to begin.
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
[ August 22, 2010, 05:02 AM: Message edited by: MinutiaeMan ]
Posted by Whorfin (Member # 2208) on :
Mr. Rune,
quote:Originally posted by Aban Rune: That must be the deadliest engine room ever.
"Hey Johnson... climb that giant ladder with so safety cage and get me that wrench!"
Oh, this nearly killed me. Couldn't stop laughing.
You have a career in Star Trek Cartoons, I have no doubt.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Masao,
Well, one factor I always keep in mind when making Treknological estimates is precedent: what have the Treknological forefathers concluded, and does available evidence rule it out? In this case the earliest prior published researcher (that I am aware of) was Geoffrey Mandel, who as we all know is no 'slouch'. So does the evidence indicate that he is wrong?
The EAS estimates are:
260m based on Nacelle size 214m based on window placement >=100m based on relative size (TAS MK I eyeball)
Your own estimates are: 190m based on window placement 100m infinitely cool 13y old Masao 70m based on window size
I think we don't have an estimate in yet on size based on shuttle bay configuration. Assuming that is a shuttle bay, and not a cargo loading door (the 1701D is plastered with them and they apparently aren't used for shuttles) or the impulse deck.
So the results are falling into three peaks: 70-100m based on window size & relative size 190-214m based on window placement 260m based on Nacelle size
Which of these possibilities is most likely? Component compatibility (for economy of scale and repair availability would be desirable) throughout a fleet is desirable in my opinion (and therefore logical), but as depicted the Huron design has differences between that and standard Production or Pilot TOS Heavy Cruiser, most importantly there is no taper to the nacelle, which may indicate structural differences to the interior (perhaps the "warp coils"). If this is correct, then the similarity is superficial and there is no reason to assume that the nacelles are intentionally similar as the would not share (at least all) identical components.
I personally don't think the windows should be ignored. The presumable alternative would be that they represent cargo loading points (perhaps somewhat similar to the access hatches depicted on the top of the saucer in TMP and perhaps identical to the white rectangles in TOS). Access hatches would be larger than windows, and might therefore explain both the placement and size of these features.
But, whoever the designer of the Huron was (do we know?) I doubt if these features were intended to be anything other than windows. Why? Well, you would have to know a lot about UFP Starfleet design. As in being the originator of it, or a collaborator with behind-the-scenes insight. If Matt Jefferies was the designer, this is possible, otherwise we are probably much safer to assume they are windows even if very large, either incorrectly depicted as overly large, or depicted as such to indicate the light cast by their glow.
Is there any other evidence indicating overall size? If one can estimate the minimum height of the ladder and overhead deck depicted in the "engine room" (or cargo hold) screenshot, this could give a minimum estimate of vertical height for one of the cargo holds. Which is better than nothing. The feature on the stern is of interest, but I can't say for sure if that is a clamshell door in there or an interesting impulse exhaust configuration, and the most reasonable determination of likely function may rest on its size, i.e., the reverse of what has been suggested.
As to the forward "pods", if the ship were capable of towing additional cargo pallets, or a cargo pod, or had to move very large objects, to lift cargo pallets out of a gravity well, or push or tow starships like our modern tugboats, then these might be large tractor emitters. Other uses might be fuel transfer, and the booms might be able to move to accomplish that function. Its just an idea.
My own conclusion is that, despite the differences with Mandel's design, and because of the similarities (indicating a possible shared lineage or upgrade path), unless his work can be shown to be incorrect it should be given considerable weight in estimating the size of the Huron. Configuration of warp nacelles really isn't an issue as they are different in design, unless you plan further changes, but the main hull itself is what I am discussing. If there is strong evidence against this conclusion, it of course should over-ride precedent but at the moment its a muddle, and I think Mandel's process of estimating has been most probably recreated here by yourself and others.
Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
While Treknological precedent is important, most of the fan works of the 1970s were done by kids, who were talented, no doubt, but didn't have any greater insight than we do. When Geoffrey Mandel published his cargo ship blueprints, he was only 17 or 18 years old. He probably had less reference material to work with than we have today, as suggested by the inaccuracy of his blueprints. So, while we can consider Treknological precedent, I don't think it should be given any more weight than fact or our own conclusions.
Posted by Whorfin (Member # 2208) on :
quote:Originally posted by Masao: So, while we can consider Treknological precedent, I don't think it should be given any more weight than fact or our own conclusions.
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.
Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
The difference, I think, is in your use of the word "considerable," which suggests you give earlier Treknology more weight than I would.
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
I think "inconsiderable" is the term I'd use to when weighing the relevance of that material. Seriously, very old speculation is equally as important and very new speculation, i.e. not very.
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
"Trek is what is in your own mind, following a set of stylistic rules. There is no canon. If I modify a nacelle component to perform a more sensible function, cannot it not be so? If I create a new deflector dish using these rules, is it not as valid as the dish that came before? Do you think that is a real starship you’re building, in this place?" — Rick Sternbach
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Yeah, but Sternbach's an Excaliban- he's all about illusions and lies.
Posted by Whorfin (Member # 2208) on :
quote:Originally posted by Masao: The difference, I think, is in your use of the word "considerable," which suggests you give earlier Treknology more weight than I would.
Obviously, I'm taking the thread off track (or is that Trek?). My apologies.
Without further data on your estimates, the only thing I could do is to do my own deck placement analysis on your graphic ( such as http://www.trekbbs.com/showpost.php?p=2694976&postcount=5 ), and I would prefer to have your permission to do that (and would probably need higher resolution). So the 'clean sheet' approach in this case is to do deck placement based on window placement (window size can vary for aesthetic or structural reasons).
My own method is probably about the same as your own. I would keep the large size windows (think 10-Forward or 'picture windows' intended for unobstructed viewing) during analysis. Somewhere in the space between the windows are the deck plates, estimate appropriate distance from the floor (humanoid figures are a help here to me), calculate deck clearance and inter-deck space (0.3m?). As long as deck clearance is something in the range of 6.5-10 feet (i.e., 54% wiggle room) I think you are good to go.
If at that point you think the windows are a detriment go ahead and resize them (I don't think they are because one disrupter blast and they are gone whatever size they were, and the rest of the freighter a few minutes later).
For what its worth. Happy designing!
Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
Screen grabs are better. Anyway, the windows on the main part of the hull indicate 6 (uneven) decks with some space above and below. If you line the decks up with those of Enterprise, you get an overall length for Huron of 200 m ± 5% (i.e., 190 m [my figure] to 210 m [Bernd Schneider's figure]), at which point this ship looks too big. So, I choose to throw out the windows.
Posted by Whorfin (Member # 2208) on :
quote:Originally posted by Masao: Screen grabs are better. Anyway, the windows on the main part of the hull indicate 6 (uneven) decks with some space above and below. If you line the decks up with those of Enterprise, you get an overall length for Huron of 200 m ± 5% (i.e., 190 m [my figure] to 210 m [Bernd Schneider's figure]), at which point this ship looks too big. So, I choose to throw out the windows.
Which is certainly an option, but at that point essentially you can make the ship any size you want since you are back to no way to estimate the size (nacelles being less reliable and resulting in an even larger size). I would prefer a ship smaller than 200m myself, for the reasons I previously explained. But ultimately these come back to aesthetic reasons or based on assumptions about efficiency (at least in my case). But I also suspect we both prefer it when we can have a "fact" based Treknolgy, its just that we don't like this particular 'fact'.
The only other estimation method I can come up with is assuming the bubble forward-top is the bridge, estimate the size of that, and extrapolate from there. This seems to have been the technique you used at a young age to come up with an estimate.
BTW, the difference between Mr. Schneider's (214m) and your own estimate (190m) ends up being a 43% difference in volume. So even seemingly minor differences add up, just not aesthetically.
Ultimately though, since we have two clear sets of adjacent "window" rows (in as decent a side-shot as you can get from TAS), the the most reasonably "canon" estimate (whether anyone likes it or not) should be based on them. In my TOS 1701 deck study I referenced (whether anyone likes it or not) the result was that window placement indicated a variety of deck heights, which was somewhat linked to alleged usage. Since this is a freighter, and might be built to somewhat less ostentatious standards, its fair game to use the "wiggle room" different deck heights provide to result in a smaller size. The submarines I've been in were pretty tight to me, but people were on them for periods of time probably exceeding the runs these freighters would make. Pick some deck heights (ratchet it down to 6.5'-7' clearance for at least curiosity's sake), calculate some estimates, see what you think.
These TAS freighters all look very funky to me. Someone detailed them up in odd ways, and the Huron is no exception. My guess (as I think I expressed before) is that the "gap" beneath the "bridge" area is meant for another vertical cargo module (looking like what is seen in the lower-aft of the ship, which implies it is also modular), and the space between that might be capable of two side mounted modules, possibly capped by a larger bottom mounted module (similar to how people have envisioned the robot freighter as modular, with a series of irregular modules attached in various places). Add that to my list of things to accomplish in 3D at some future date, it looks like an interesting exercise. Adding all these hypothetical modules would "bulk" out the ship considerably and might reduce your aesthetic-size concerns. You might want to try a quick and dirty mock-up and see what you think. If it 'works' for you then your concerns over the result of the window estimates are vetoed.
In this case, looking at your work, going through the facts we have... the result has been that I've changed my opinion. I still think the ship looks like a small freighter, but the data tells us different. Its not just a haphazard collection of lines concocted for a children's television show. Its a clear (and within the limits of the media) consistent ship design. If it was meant by the designer to be a small freighter, that could have been accomplished by using fewer and smaller windows. In this latest screen shot, for example, we have the Enterprise's bridge module in the foreground and the Huron in the background and its not looking very small, at least if we assume a reasonable distance between the two ships. So, from that particular perspective, our "TAS MK-I eyeball" and the window placement estimates seem to be in agreement. So, as much as it sticks in my craw, and as much as I would like to argue with the designer over this, the facts are pointing the other way. To me. For now.
Whatever you ultimately decide will be fine. And, I'm sure over the next decade or two every one of the methods of estimating the size of this ship will be used on it by someone somewhere, and maybe they will even work up full deck plans (as has been done in the early days. But I've found over the years that a part of Treknology is finding an answer you didn't expect, and may not like, and finding a way to accept that. Sometimes one is not even sure if that is the "right" answer, but its the best one to be had at the time. Maybe this is one of those times?
Remember, if this was easy, the franchise would have done it already! Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Is that a Matt Jeffries design? Those wacky forward pylon thingies with their weird shapes seem like his stuff.
Posted by Whorfin (Member # 2208) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon: Is that a Matt Jeffries design? Those wacky forward pylon thingies with their weird shapes seem like his stuff.
AFAIK, the conventional wisdom is that they were merely created by some animator(s) at Filmation. But the more I look at TAS designs, the more I suspect that someone of Jefferies caliber, if not himself, was responsible for them. There are underlying similarities to the TOS shuttle design that are not obvious as well as variations on the standard TOS design themes (which I think are usually interpreted as simplifications to decrease the workload of animating), and to me this seems to indicate that possibly something more than superficial copying was going on. But that is speculative. I would love to know who designed them, and talk to whoever it was about the process ('was Jefferies involved even tangentially?', for example).
If anyone has additional information on the TAS designs, please let us know.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
I have a ton of Jeffries' sketches saved from the auction and I know that wacky zig-zag nacelle pylon is on something else he designed.
Gotta check.
Posted by Mars Needs Women (Member # 1505) on :
Ooooo, can you upload them?
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Hmmm...is Flareupload working? I'll have to drag the images in to work (not online at home right now- lousy cable company!). So...wedensday at the soonest.
Lots of oddball stuff in there- the NOMAD drawing, ringship and shuttle sketches and all the wacky configurations of the D-7 (like naceles up top!). There's a great looking shuttle design (rejected because the complex curves would have cost a fortune to make full scale) with very Romulan looking upswept nacelles. I like that one.
Posted by the trekist (Member # 2186) on :
Here's that awesome shuttlecraft that never got made: http://www.trekcore.com/specials/albums/sketches/STTOS_Sketch_Shuttlecraft.jpg Instead, we got the lamest trek design of all time- the shoebox. The stylized landing struts on this remind me of the Huron's forward nacelle-thingies pylons. I totally think the Huron is a Jeffries design.
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
^Oh how wonderful it is to feel needed...no really, I'm all warm and glowy.
As for that shuttle, let's be realistic, if they spent the money it would take to build a full size mock-up of that design then the rest of the show would have to have been done with sock puppets and empty cornflake boxes.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Great job with those- you need to be doing stuff for fanfilms at least -now do the shuttle, ya lazy bum!
I know there's the cost element, but if crap like Lost in Space can have curved mockup ships, trek should have had them as well, damnit!
Even if the shuttle were to turn up as a CGI thing in some New Voyages kind of fanflick, I'd be happy.
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
I already did that shuttle YEARS ago. Don't ask me where it went though, but it's probably out there somewhere.
And no, I have zero interest in fan films.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
You just stick to the "Adult" films....
Huh. I bet someone here has that shuttle if you posted it.
I've got a whole file on you. occasionally I'm asked to give a copy to law enforcment for their ongoing investigations.
Posted by Zipacna (Member # 1881) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon: Huh. I bet someone here has that shuttle if you posted it.
It's on JOAT as the Jefferies-Type shuttle. Although I'd be all in favour of it being built and the series being made with sock puppets...would give a low-budget "Pigs in Space" vibe to things.
Posted by Pensive's Wetness (Member # 1203) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon: Huh. I bet someone here has that shuttle if you posted it.
It's on JOAT as the Jefferies-Type shuttle. Although I'd be all in favour of it being built and the series being made with sock puppets...would give a low-budget "Pigs in Space" vibe to things.
While I love the overall execution, I think the pylons are a tad thick.
...tough some panels and such would allow consumables and emergency equipment to be stored in them, I suppose- floatation rafts for example (unlike our heavy friend, the Runabout).
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
The front view pylons were just place holders, so it looks like I never finished it, or Bernd just happened to have an earlier WIP image. I vaguely recall intending to have the pylons fold down for flight but don't recall how far I got with it. Either way the master file is probably buried in some old backup disk from 3 PCs ago.
Posted by Whorfin (Member # 2208) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reverend: The front view pylons were just place holders, so it looks like I never finished it, or Bernd just happened to have an earlier WIP image. I vaguely recall intending to have the pylons fold down for flight but don't recall how far I got with it. Either way the master file is probably buried in some old backup disk from 3 PCs ago.
Hmmm.... perhaps somewhere on Photobucket or some other image site? Remember, we are all nitpickers, so we are only satisfied with the best.
Seems like I *might* have had another version until my D: drive went to the 'happy hunting grounds'. I assumed that the JOAT version was the final "published version".
Masao, any thoughts to the Class name? Vance has rechristened his version of this design after Mandel's "Independence Class", if I remember right. My own thoughts on this are that (1) Mandel's design should stand on its own (warts and all) as a sister design (from the same UFP "corporation" or maybe even designer) and (2) "Independence" was a bit of an overkill for naming a freighter class in the first place (particularly a 'Starfleet' freighter as opposed to a civilian one), but presumably he was trying to emulate the WWII "Liberty" ships, as FASA later directly did. So I would encourage you to be creative and find some new name that is neither silly nor too prestigious... preferably one that isn't already in use.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
