Phew! I have to take a little break from all the ugliness of the SFC ships
First, here's a chart of several Constitution relatives. The date for the Surya was lifted directly from the Dixon timeline, the other dates were corrected by adding 27 years (accounting for the erronous 2218 launch date of the Constitution). I've not included the Larson and Loknar, basically because they're really ugly, and also because the Saladin invalidates the Larson (both Destroyers), and the Surya invalidates the Loknar (both Frigates). Notice the updated Federation, now with the custom FJ saucer.
The other thing I'd like to show you is a TOS-era Starbase design. It's still a work in progress, but it's getting there. I'll probably have to add some of those platforms around it's 'waist'. As you can all see, FJ Type cargopods can be docked and (un)loaded from this Starbase. Although admittedly, there are no clear indications as to HOW exactly you're supposed to load these containers.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
Does anyone remember/has anyone seen a wall chart of (If I remember correctly) the FASA ships? They were in shillouhettes and it was a brown and white poster. It went up to the Movie ships.
A friend's brother used to have it on his wall. Who knows where it is now.
Anyone seen scans of it on the web?
Andrew
Posted by Identity Crisis (Member # 67) on :
You're probably thinking of the Federation Starship Recognition Chart which was published by Starstation Aurora, which basically means Todd Guenther of Ships of the Star Fleet fame, hence it contains many of his designs. Agan you can see a small version at http://steve.pugh.net/fleet/images/starship-recognition.jpg Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
A lot of ugly kitbashes. But some are interesting. What's that silhouette to the left of the Connie-refit on the first chart? It's labeled - Class VII(?) Assault Ship, whatever that means.
And what's the name of the class to the right of the Decatur and Belknap on the second chart? Something with a B. Is it similar to the Belknap?
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
I like that chart, Harry! How did you decide on the different registry numbers? (Also, what was the original number of the Surya? I don't remember that one.)
Posted by Identity Crisis (Member # 67) on :
quote:Originally posted by Harry: What's that silhouette to the left of the Connie-refit on the first chart?
quote:It's labeled - Class VII(?) Assault Ship, whatever that means.
All ships in FASA's system had a Class designator that said how large they were. Class I was really small, through the Constitution at Class XI to the Excelsior at Class XIV. Assault ship basically (and obviously?) means Troop Transport.
quote:And what's the name of the class to the right of the Decatur and Belknap on the second chart? Something with a B. Is it similar to the Belknap?
quote:Originally posted by MinutiaeMan: Also, what was the original number of the Surya?
NCC-1850.
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
I hate to be picky, but that Federation saucer STILL isn't right. The rim is still too thick and I can't see whether or not it's properly enlarged compared to the Connie's.
What's with the wierd registries on the other FJ ships?
-MMoM Posted by Identity Crisis (Member # 67) on :
Now I've answered every else's points, I can get back to the start...
Really nice chart.
quote:Originally posted by Harry: I've not included the Larson and Loknar, basically because they're really ugly, and also because the Saladin invalidates the Larson (both Destroyers), and the Surya invalidates the Loknar (both Frigates).
Is there some rule that Starfleet only uses one type of Frigate at a time? IMO the Loknar looks cool and being smaller than the Surya with the focus on forward firepower it makes an excellent fast strike ship to the more patrol orientated Suryas.
The Loknar is also important because it shows a continuation of the NX-01 configuration into the 23rd century, this is further continued by the Akyazi in the 2290s and the some unseen ships until the rear end gets flipped upside down to make the Akira.
The Larson is more problematic. It's larger than the Saladin, and has major design problems if it has TNG/ENT style warp core rather than TAS/Fandom style M/AM reactions in the nacelles. As a Heavy Destroyer it would appear less capable than the two nacelled Detroyat class, however it could be a specialised vessel (the long, low extension at the rear looks ideal for minelyaing equipment).
But each to their own. I think that even in teh 2260s Starfleet has room for a main design of Destroyers or Frigates and a number of less numerous, more specialised designs as well.
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim: What's with the wierd registries on the other FJ ships?
He's probably trying to give the ships a halfway-reasonable registry number so they can fit in the "modern" Trek universe, considering that the FJ numbers make absolutely NO sense, even if they stand on their own and the movie and TNG ships aren't taken into account!
It's implicit that FJ believed in some sort of chronological assignment of registry numbers, given that each class had its own block. But... given the nearly identical design elements in all five classes (well, four actually ) I find it very illogical that the Saladin/Hermes would be that much older than the Constitution -- or for that matter, that the Ptolemy would be that much newer.
Identity Crisis, no matter how much I like some of the fandom ships, I will never treat the Larson as a "real" starship -- that thing is just plain ugly. It even gives those horrendous DS9 kitbashes a run for their money! (But again, to each their own. )
Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
The registries are supposed to fit in with the canon system. FJ's registries in particular don't make a lot of sense nowadays.
As an extra, here's also a full chart, with all my ships and the "correct" registries.
And as far as the Federation saucer goes, I thought it was pretty close. These are the original Tech Manual schematics, overlayed with my wireframe.
Posted by Identity Crisis (Member # 67) on :
Maybe I've just seen so many really bad ship designs that the Larson looks okay in comparison. Posted by Sarvek (Member # 910) on :
There are some really bad ship designs out there, but I have not found any here. These designs are all very well represented. Harry, you have done an awesome job here with these ships. I have always been a fan of the Federation Class Deadnought and it looks accurate to me. Keep up the great work and I can not wait to see more ships being represented in the ways that you have done it. Cheers. Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
I've NEVER seen a single FASA design that I thought looked halfway decent. Ever. They all look horrid...
Posted by Topher (Member # 71) on :
Nothing wrong with the Loknar. Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Or the Chandley .
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
Harry, i love your renderings.. one thing, i think that a lot of Federation-class fans had decided that we prefer the center nacelle rotated so the intercooler (the thing thats usually on the inside of the nacelles) would point up, just like the Saladin/Hermes has been revised to have the structure point down. symmetry!
Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
The Makin and Balson aren't very pretty either. They are hereby NOT nominated for updated schematics.
Re: Federation. Fixed the chart Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
Um.... where the frell do they stick the warp core on that Coronado? Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :
My vote would be for the Detroyat. Of the three, I think that one is the most unique.
Posted by Woodside Kid (Member # 699) on :
You could ask a similar question about the Federation. If the modern assumption about main engineering being in the secondary hull is correct, how the hell do you get power up to the centerline nacelle? (Without endangering the flight deck personnel, that is.)
Posted by Identity Crisis (Member # 67) on :
quote:Originally posted by MinutiaeMan: Um.... where the frell do they stick the warp core on that Coronado?
Warp Core? On a TOS era ship? No such thing. Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
All of the Coronado's engineering is supposedly in the saucer section. Perhaps that explains the raised impulse engines.
Posted by Topher (Member # 71) on :
If you do decide to do the Decatur, DO NOT do the TOS-era version. That version was never built. It was simply a computer model.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Never built? Yeah. We would'nt want to confuse it with the non-canon starships that "were" built! Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
hmph.. i thought it was built and had to be reconstructed for design flaws. besides, they might have even built more than a few of the TOS variant, and they were left out of the manual as 'disinformation to threat forces'
cuz it was a sweet looking TOS ship!
Posted by Identity Crisis (Member # 67) on :
The TOS style Decateur was merely a design proposal. The Decateur as originally built had TMP nacelles but a saucer that was mid way between TOS and TMP. Then the Belknap was built. Finally the Decateur was modified to something a bit more like the Belknap but still distinct.
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
the ones they built were top secret. hush hush. never mentioned by the manuals of the Defense Forces Institute.
Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
I know about all that. But I could still draw the TOS-era proposal. Was something ever built in this stage of the Decatur dev project, or did it only exist as a computer model?
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
quote:Originally posted by Woodside Kid: You could ask a similar question about the Federation. If the modern assumption about main engineering being in the secondary hull is correct, how the hell do you get power up to the centerline nacelle? (Without endangering the flight deck personnel, that is.)
For the Federation, though, there's a bit more room. Given how small the nacelle pylons are anyways, it's no big deal to route a plasma transfer conduit through the rear of the neck to get up to the third nacelle.
Though I wonder why they couldn't just have the third pylon mounted from the secondary hull, like Masao's Siegfried-class.
At any rate, I'd also like to cast my vote for Harry doing the Detroyat. That's one of the few fan designs of the "old" generation (those manuals that were published decades ago) that I genuinely love. Posted by Identity Crisis (Member # 67) on :
Starship Design page 1003 states that the Decatur's saucer was from an unfinished Ptolemy class (Kepler sub-class) Transport-Tug. However the warp nacelles were brand new - the Decatur was the first ship fitted with the linear warp engines. So according to the authors who invented this class no ships were ever built at the TOS style specification.
However, you can draw whatever you want to draw. Your vision of Starfleet doesn't have to be the same as anyone else's.
If you're looking for more TOS designs to do then how about the following: Kearsarge class light cruiser (NCC-1500), the Fed NCL from Starfleet Battles, can be drawn either with normall nacelles or with smaller variants. See
It's nothing very special, but if the Constitutions are heavy cruisers, then there almost have to be light cruisers of some sort...
Posted by Sarvek (Member # 910) on :
quote:Originally posted by Harry: The Makin and Balson aren't very pretty either. They are hereby NOT nominated for updated schematics.
On the Federation shouldn't there be " Starship USS Federation United Federation of Planets "? That is from the Starship Design Instellar Forum of Naval Power . Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
You know, I'd be very surprised if I were the first person to actually notice this tidbit, but I've never seen it mentioned before:
If you look at the TOS Tech Manual listing of the Constitution-class starships (and all the others, for that matter), you'll notice the description for the first batch of ships. "The following ships of the MK-IX Class were authorized by the original Articles of Federation of Stardate 0965." (Emphasis added.)
It seems to me that FJ considered the Federation to be a VERY new organization in the TOS era, assuming that he wasn't implying different Stardate systems -- and there's no reason for that kind of assumption. This might be reasonable, considering the ambiguity surrounding the operating authority of the Enterprise in the early episodes -- which might indicate a transition of some kind. (From his perspective.)
On the other hand... the date on the Romulan Treaty of Peace at the beginning of the book is dated Stardate 1200... which certainly doesn't indicate 60 years of isolation by the Romulans... (For reference, the Stardate of "Where No Man Has Gone Before" -- the first Trek episode with a Stardate -- was 1312.4.)
Gah, I don't know what FJ was thinking! But at the very least, this little quote gives us the justification for tossing his numbering system out with the other non-canonical data that doesn't suit our purposes, even if the ships themselves stay. Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
Except that the registries of the Hermes, Saladin, and Ptolemy were all on their respective computer screens in TWOK and TSFS. Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
Oh yes, and we all know how accurate some photocopied pages that flash by for a single second on the computer screen and can't even be read without HD-TV resolution are...
You're the same guy who believes that some Admiral named Gene Roddenberry was in charge of Starfleet for close to 300 years, right?
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
quote:Originally posted by MinutiaeMan: You're the same guy who believes that some Admiral named Gene Roddenberry was in charge of Starfleet for close to 300 years, right?
Don't be absurd. I'm not that silly. I would never believe in something so utterly ridiculous!
I believe that the Roddenberrys are a prominent family whose exploits as dedicated spacefaring men dates back at least as far as 2160, to the captain of the DY-1200 class exploration vessel V.K. Velikan, and who are noted for being dedicated Starfleet officers. By tradition, the name is handed down to the firstborn son of each succeeding generation.
That's what I believe.
-MMoM Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
Not only did the class ships's NCC show up (however briefly), but more importanly perhaps, we also have the NCC's of the scouts Revere and Columbia, both Hermes class, and both NCC's in the 500s or 600s.
Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
What's with this "modern assumption" of main engineering being in the secondary hull? That was Matt Jeffries' intention from the very beginning, at Gene's insistence. The fandom conceit of main engineering being at the back of the saucer and the nacelles being self-contained units goes back to FJ, who did next to no serious engineering research, and certainly didn't think to try to contact the man who had designed the Enterprise in the first place.
The Kearsarge looks quite interesting. One of the few old ships that isn't a kitbash!
The Hermes and Saladin have to have engineering in the saucer section. The Coronado probably uses a saucer design similar to these classes, and the secondary hull is solely dedicated to shuttle operations.
Posted by Identity Crisis (Member # 67) on :
Oh dear, here we go again.
There are in fact three related issues: 1. Where was main engineering in the TOS Enterprise. 2. Where did the matter/anti-matter reaction take place. 3. Where was the dilithium and what did it do?
As far as 1 goes, the intention was without doubt for it to be in the secondary hull, but there is contrary evidence from some of the episodes themselves.
There's no real evidence towards any answer to 2 in TOS, even if the location of main engineering could be pinned down there's no evidence that the m/am reactors are in that location. Isn't there an episode of TAS where they beam anti-matter into the nacelles? If so, then that could be standard procedure or a one off emergency measure. Must rewatch TAS at some point.
And as for dilithium, well that was seen in so many different locations in TOS (and even in the nacelles in TAS) that it is difficult to believe that it has the single function that it has in TNG tech.
If the Coronado has a warp core then it probably runs horizontally beneath the through deck shuttle bays, with the plasma conduits to the nacelles curving around the hull to reach the pylons. Jackill's shows the Oriskany (movie era refit of the Coronado) with the horizontal intermix chamber above the shuttle bays, but the shape of the hull in the Coronado doesn't really allow for that, and with the Oriskany the horizontal intermix chamber also has to connect to vertical intermix chamber and thence to the impulse engine.
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
The problem with the Coronado design (not Harry's rendering, which is excellent as usual) is that there's practically no room for anything like a warp transfer conduit that we're used to seeing and has been established as the general principles of warp drive. I suppose that the warp core itself could be under the through-deck level at the very bottom of the ship, but that strikes me as a very impractical and structurally unsound arrangement.
Consider that the through-deck by nature of the concept needs to go THROUGH the secondary hull. Also, any narrowing of the internal bay ends up reducing the space available to carry small craft and to maneuver them during launch and recovery operations.
Now, also consider that there needs to be physical supports to hold the pylons in place against the hull, and also needs to be some way to route the plasma conduits from the lower hull where the warp core could be and into the nacelles. (If you argue that the engineering systems are in the saucer, that only magnifies the problem rather than lessens it.)
Furthermore, I question the very need for a through-deck system in any Star Trek scenario, especially one in the TOS era or beyond. There's no need for such intense simultaneous launch-and-recovery operations, save for the direst evacuation or combat encounters which are both very rare. And in those cases, I think that the Coronado's available hangar space would be very inadequate to support the volume of small craft for a situation that would require such missions.
Therefore, I submit that the design of the Coronado as it is is both unoriginal (seeking to almost completely mimic the configuration of the original Enterprise), structurally unsound within the known engineering principles of Trek (and even allowing for a few of the exceptions due to TOS's ambiguity), and finally conceptually unrealistic.
I've got to go to class soon, but if I have time later today I'll whip up a diagram showing the maximum allowable hangar space and comparative shuttlecraft sizes, to show just how silly this idea could be.
(As a real-life example, anyone know why the naval aircraft carriers today are so huge? They need LOTS of space, first to assemble and prepare the aircraft for launch, outfitting, and recovery, and also enough space to store them when not in use. Even allowing for the increased automation of Trek's equipment, you still need enough crewmembers to maintain the systems and operate things shipboard. Not to mention enough crew to maintain the ship ITSELF!)
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
quote:Originally posted by Peregrinus: What's with this "modern assumption" of main engineering being in the secondary hull? That was Matt Jeffries' intention from the very beginning, at Gene's insistence. The fandom conceit of main engineering being at the back of the saucer and the nacelles being self-contained units goes back to FJ, who did next to no serious engineering research, and certainly didn't think to try to contact the man who had designed the Enterprise in the first place.
--Jonah
Then why does Jefferies' own cutaway, appearing The Making of Star Trek and which FJ did indeed use for reference, show the engineering room as being at the back of the saucer in front of the impulse engines---precisely where FJ placed it in his plans?
Answer me that one. Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
Okay, I've got a few additions: I took a moment to measure Harry's diagram, which I'm treating as the representative given that it's got the most precise resolution (therefore decreasing the need for me to estimate dimensions), even though some of the proportions may be slightly off. I don't think it's by much more than a few meters.
(Anal-retentive analysis follows...)
Measured from the inner edge of both clamshell doors (where it visibly disappears into the hull, I measured a distance of 176 pixels, which translates to 73.95 meters (at a scale of 238 px/100 m). Given the constant width of the secondary hull, I assume that the internal through-deck can be the full width available for the entire length. (I'll ignore for now any internal structural issues. The full width of the secondary hull is 55 pixels, translating to 23.11 meters at the same scale listed above.
A generous allowance of only one meter of wall space for the hull and equipment on each side (and ignoring the obvious curvature of the secondary hull towards the ceiling) provides a total hangar dimension of approximately 74 meters by 21 meters.
According to the dimensions provided in FJ's tech manual (which I'm using mainly because it was the authoritative text of the time, and the dimensions are perfectly reasonable) the TOS shuttlecraft was 6.9 meters long and 4.33 meters wide. Increase those dimensions by approximately one meter for both dimensions to allow for some clearance of movement, both for the shuttles themselves and for people walking among the ships. This gives a minimum allowance of 7.9 meters by 5.33 meters per shuttlecraft.
Assuming the hangar bay is a constant width for the entire length, the width of the bay is approximately 3.96 shuttlecraft widths. (Call it 4... I'm feeling generous.)
Now, you can't allow the entire hangar length, though, because there needs to be a launch/landing area closest to each of the doors. I was originally going to allow the landing area to reside primarily in the clamshell door area like FJ depicts in his floor plan of the Enterprise's shuttlebay... however, everything I remember about the TOS hangar operations imply that the entire shuttlebay had to decompress when the doors opened, and that a large atmospheric forcefield hadn't been implemented at that point. (In case I'm wrong, I'll include the figures for the additional space in {braces}.)
The landing area in FJ's shuttlebay was 11.4 meters long, from the outermost point of the clamshell doors to the approximate point where the hangar control rooms are indicated on the diagram. Assuming that the entire area is walled off in the Coronado and functions as a sort of "airlock" for the shuttlecraft before they launch or return to the hangar proper, approximately 2.5 meters would need to be subtracted from each end of the Coronado's hangar bay, for a total loss of 5 meters.
Therefore, a total of 69 meters of deck length is available for the hangar bay proper. {74 meters otherwise.} That's 8.73 {9.37} shuttlecraft lengths with clearance between included. Since you can't dock just part of a shuttlecraft, these figures have to be rounded down to 8 {9}.
Therefore, with a maximum capacity of 4 shuttles across the width and 8 {9} across the length, you get somewhere between 32 and 36 shuttlecraft as the Coronado's maximum possible capacity.
Commentary and Interpretation:
Although the 32/36 figure is the maximum that could fit assuming a clear shuttlecraft deck, this figure is highly unlikely given practical engineering considerations.
-- First, you've got to consider the need to move shuttles around, and that all of the shuttles are identical and in perfect condition. There's no accounting for maneuvering space in my calculations.
-- Second, these figures make no account for supporting equipment inside the shuttlebay for which craft can be maintained. Sure, a lot of the equipment can be portable in the advanced technological era of TOS (even before the "magical" equipment in TNG), but there's still got to be some need for maintaining shuttlecraft in a ship that's a dedicated carrier. And what about the possibility of a "machine shop" in the deck below the hangar as indicated in the FJ manuals, and used the turntable/elevator in the shuttlebay? Again, packing so many craft in lessens the availability of space for other equipment.
-- Third, the TOS shuttlecraft is hardly the most practical craft for non-generalized operations. There's no indication that the shuttle was armed at all (that I can recall), and its small size makes it highly impractical for any large-scale evacuation operations. In both cases, a larger craft means that fewer can be fitted inside the hangar. (For comparison, Masao's fighters would be hopelessly oversized: only 6 Puffins or 4 Penguins!)
-- Fourth, there's no accounting for internal structures necessary for the starship itself. You need structural supports for the mass of the nacelles (because even a strong shell is not a structurally sound arrangement), and power/supply/resource conduits, not to mention some way for crew members to get between the upper levels and the decks below the hangar itself. And this doesn't even account for the necessary warp plasma transfer conduits to get the power from wherever the warp core is located to the nacelle pylons.
To sum up, all of these issues combined convince me that the Coronado design is highly impractical and ill-conceived. As I stated in my last post, it seems the primary intent of this design was to mimic the appearance of the original Enterprise as much as possible.
There are so many changes that could be made to make this design better... mounting the nacelles from the lower part of the secondary hull (kinda like the Belknap class, I guess, though I hate that ship) so that they're closer to the (possible) location of the warp core; expanding the secondary hull to allow for larger hangar space and support; or even inverting the secondary hull so that the hangar is mounted on the very bottom of the ship and the engineering equipment is above that (although that would cause some problems of its own, most likely).
...So. Do you think I've beaten this topic to death yet? Posted by Identity Crisis (Member # 67) on :
The Coronado's were designed (by Starfleet and by Todd Guenther) to re-use as many Bonhomme Richard components as possible. Complaining that it's the same as the Constitution is like complaining that the Nebula and the Galaxy share the same saucer.
The Coronado normally carries about 14 small craft, but can carry up to 25.
My earlier suggestion of a warp core under the flight deck doesn't work because one of the six ships had a drop bay as well as the through deck. As warp engineering control is in the enlarged section at the saucer aft it makes sense to run the warp core down the interconnecting dorsal (which must be where it runs in the Saladin, etc.) (If TOS ships have warp cores, of course ), with plasma conduits going along the top of the secondary hull and then up the pylons. As the neck is thicker than that of the Constitutions there is possible evidence to support this.
If you want to see a TOS carrier with more practical configuration then you can consider the Santee class.
Posted by SoundEffect (Member # 926) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim: Then why does Jefferies' own cutaway, appearing The Making of Star Trek and which FJ did indeed use for reference, show the engineering room as being at the back of the saucer in front of the impulse engines---precisely where FJ placed it in his plans?
If you're referring to page 177 of the Making of Star Trek book, then it is in the secondary hull, with the power conduits coming down from the warp pylons behind a multilevel Engineering. What I see in the aft end of the saucer is a one level room with a turboshaft running directly up through the center of the room (if the saucer is indeed cut through the centerline.)
Where do you see the multiple level engineering?
Posted by Topher (Member # 71) on :
Now there's a ship I'd like to see Harry do... Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
Just reguard ships like the Belknap - how is that 'possible' to have nacelles connected to the bottom of the engineering hull like that? The power-transfer conduits would have to bend like 270 degrees to make it into the warp pylon and then up into the nacelle!
Also, Harry - why don't you put the Starfleet symbol of the time on your chart? The arrow-head - as seen on the sides of ships and in many a Admiral's office and starbases.
Posted by Identity Crisis (Member # 67) on :
quote:Originally posted by AndrewR: Just reguard ships like the Belknap - how is that 'possible' to have nacelles connected to the bottom of the engineering hull like that? The power-transfer conduits would have to bend like 270 degrees to make it into the warp pylon and then up into the nacelle!
From memory - the horizontal intermix chamber runs along the bottom of the secondary hull, rather than along the top as in the Constitution. So the conduits only bend the same amount that they do in the Connie.
There are full schematics showing all the internal systems in Ships of the Star Fleet. But I'm not at home right now and so can't check.
Posted by Woodside Kid (Member # 699) on :
The cutaway in Ships has the shaft going straight aft from the vertical intermix shaft, then taking a 90 degree bend down to the engine mount. Of course, it also has no space at all listed as deuterium storage, so you win some, you lose some.
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
quote:Originally posted by SoundEffect: If you're referring to page 177 of the Making of Star Trek book, then it is in the secondary hull, with the power conduits coming down from the warp pylons behind a multilevel Engineering. What I see in the aft end of the saucer is a one level room with a turboshaft running directly up through the center of the room (if the saucer is indeed cut through the centerline.)
Where do you see the multiple level engineering?
While I concede that the cutaway is ambiguous, as nothing is labeled on it and it's not highly detailed, the accompanying text in the book (on page 171) makes it clear:
"Propulsion for the primary hull is provided by impulse power. The impulse engine section is located at the bottom rear end of the saucer. Headquarters for the engineering division is also located in this same area, as are main engineering control facilities plus sufficient repair, storage, and other facilities to service the primary section when detached from the star-drive sections of the vessel."
That's as opposed to (from pages 190 to 191):
"The secondary hull is often referred to as the engineering hull, as much of the facilities and activities conducted in this area are devoted to that department. A number of deck levels (there are sixteen of them) are also devoted to fuel, supply, main repair centers, water and waste reconversion, and interplanet freight. Minimal crew quarters are located in this hull, used by duty engineers and by the star-drive crew when the saucer section has detached and is operating separately."
So, while a number of "engineering decks" are in the secondary hull, main engineering is behind the impulse engines, which are the glowing shafts we see at the back of the set on the show.
-MMoM
P.S. And those "power conduits" are turbo-elevator shafts. Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
I go with the designer in all cases of conflict. Read the "Star Trek Sketchbook" where Herb and Fern actually interviewed Matt and note his comments that Gene insisted Main Engineering be "below decks" in the secondary hull CONTRARY to what Matt would have done with it. Matt didn't want this huge power comlpex like the diesel engines in an ocean liner, but that's what Gene wanted. So Mr. Whitfield's research methods don't even score with me.
--Jonah
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
Um, problem though: didn't that surly-alien-of-the-week sabotage the Enterprise's warp core in "Elaan of Troyius"? Wasn't Scotty standing in the middle of the Engineering space when he found it?
Although if my somewhat hazy memory is correct, in that episode Scotty was working in a room that was exactly like the normal Engineering set, but had an extra equipment platform in the middle of the room that had the dilithium chamber (or whatever that piece of equipment was) in it.
So maybe the Constitution Class had two identical Engineering rooms, one in the saucer and one in the secondary hull... although I can't think of any possible way to explain the identical appearances like the impulse-engine-like features in the secondary hull's room. Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
*sigh*
I need to make a FAQ page so I can just post a link instead of restating this multiple times.
By the time we had primary hull references to main engineering, Gene, Bob, and to a lesser degree Matt, had pretty much divorced themselves from the series, and no one who was left knew what was supposed to be where, beyond "The Making of Star Trek" which was written during TOS' second season. Besides, Matt didn't review scripts as his successors on TNG did. Odds are he never knew about those references.
The red-illuminated structures visible out the aft wall of the engineering set were the main matter/antimatter reactors, built forced-perspective to fit within the soundstage walls. If you look at the ceiling, the lateral braces start low on the starboard wall and curve up to the port wall. The set as built represents the starboard half of main engineering -- or at least has main engineering occupying the starboard half of the secondary hull at that point.
It is not two identical (or nearly so) rooms in different parts of the ship. It is one room that got redressed as they could afford it between seasons (as they did with the bridge of the Enterprise-D in TNG).
--Jonah
Posted by SoundEffect (Member # 926) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim: While I concede that the cutaway is ambiguous, as nothing is labeled on it and it's not highly detailed, the accompanying text in the book (on page 171) makes it clear:
"Propulsion for the primary hull is provided by impulse power. The impulse engine section is located at the bottom rear end of the saucer. Headquarters for the engineering division is also located in this same area, as are main engineering control facilities plus sufficient repair, storage, and other facilities to service the primary section when detached from the star-drive sections of the vessel."
All you've said there is that Impulse Engineering is at the back end of the saucer. I completely agree. We never saw Impulse Engineering in the entire series. Warp Engineering is what I was saying was in the stardrive section. Like in "The Day of the Dove", where the energy creature is 'laughed' out of Engineering and it shows it leave the exterior of the Enterprise near the base of the starboard warp pylon.
Posted by StarCruiser (Member # 979) on :
What happened to the charts? It looks like the site is totally gone... Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
It is. I thought these threads were dead and buried, but I could upload the pics to my new Lycos account. Be patient.
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
Or you could try FLARE UPLOAD!!! Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
I think most of the pics are there Posted by Topher (Member # 71) on :
I'm not seeing any Larson or Loknar images there... Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
There's just no pleasing some people.
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
That's just what Jesus said, sah!!
Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
For Loknar, Larson or the TOSTM ships, visit my frikkin website.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
I forgot about this thread. About that Federation Recognition Chart... I remember staring at it for a while at my friends and the Ariandne class was always quite bizzare... I think that was the spelling Its the second from the top left on the chart: http://steve.pugh.net/fleet/images/starship-recognition.jpg
Andrew
Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
It looks like a shovel? WTF is it supposed to be?
Posted by Topher (Member # 71) on :
The only Ariadne class I know if (and its not in the SSDB) is this one.
Posted by StarCruiser (Member # 979) on :
The "Ariadne" was supposed to be a fleet carrier. It was based on the wedge shaped "Enterprise" design created by Ralph McQuarrie for ST:TMP/ST:Phase2 -
I don't remember who made them but, I have a set of prints (MasterCom Data Center, I believe) of the "Enterprise Evolution" that includes the Ariadne.
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
you're thinking of the Ariel, the McQuarriesque shuttlecarrier pictured in several SotSF works..
the Ariadne was supposed to be something completely different, a vessel shaped like a horizontal cylinder pictured on the Fed Recognition Chart from the SotSF people
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
It aways reminded me of Cousteau's "wingship" Alcyone.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
Well I can pretty much guess it's a vertical cylinder by looking at the chart - but is there anymore information/clarity for this ship!?! It's WAY too wierd! Posted by StarCruiser (Member # 979) on :
Ah yes, that - thing... Ariel is the name of the McQuarrie derived design later on that sheet. I have never seen anything else on the Ariadne (not accounting for the WWII British minelayer, of course).
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
Under the title "Misc. TOS stuff", what is the story behind the Kirov class (the "stretched Miranda" above and slightly to the left of Ariel in that chart? Is it something dreamed up for this recognition chart only, or are there specs and histories elsewhere?
From the side view, it's obvious the ship has the huge flat saucer of the Ariel shuttlecarrier, but all three-view interpretations I've seen are lazy cutandpastes where an Avenger saucer is used instead. The "Starfleet Prototype" Adamant class is the ship that has the Avenger saucer and the three nacelles, but it's clearly distinct from Kirov.
Since Kirov IIRC made it as far as a SotSF name-drop, it would be nice to know more.
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
So did this guy just cut and paste shillouettes or is there details on each of these ships out there?
Posted by Topher (Member # 71) on :
The Kirov is just as you suspected, Timo. It uses the ginormous saucer of the Ariel and adds an ass similar to the Miranda. Properly scaled to the saucer, of course.
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
But whodunnit?
Even James Dixon doesn't have a single line about the origins or specifications of Kirov. A net search turns up some Adamant references but nothing useful. Jim Stevenson's database entry on the Kirov mentions the Mastercom people behind the comparison chart but nothing else.
And who did the Ariel? Stevenson mentions the Heavy Cruiser Evolution Chart which I assume is by the Mastercom folks as well.
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
the only 'official' (i.e. published work) appearance of the actual designs i own is on the Federation Recognition Chart from Mastercom, where the Kirov and the Ariel are shown as silhouettes only. Although they are mentioned in SotSF, but not shown.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
Bugger. That Ariadne class is intruiging. How is this vertical cylinder thing supposed to work!?! Anyone think it's basically a ring structure (side on) with a very small 'crew area' at the bottom?
Can anyone get in contact with the artist/author?
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
Also, a couple of questions about naming, not answerable at this resolution:
-What is the ship to the right of Pytheas on the upper row?
-Or the leftmost ship on that row, for that matter?
-What is the name of the ship above Ingram, to the right of Mitannic? It looks like the Renner corvette from the Ianar frigate blueprints, but the chart seems to say "Renner Something class".
-Ditto for Avenger, what is this "Avenger Something class"?
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
Would have been good to have my friend's brother's copy. But he's in the US (for several years) I haven't seen the 'friend' who is also in the US in several years. All his Trek stuff is probably in storage.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
The lines beneath the silhouettes most probably read "something something shiptype". Compare for example the Tikopai and the Detroyat - the upper one must say "heavy cruiser" and the lower one "heavy destroyer", judging by the word lengths.
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
Found the bottom right is Balson.
Posted by Topher (Member # 71) on :
I think you guys have figured it all out, except for the Renner [whatever] thing and the first and second ship. The stuff in the square brackets on the chart is I think [UPRATED]. Also, it looks like Avenger Cyane is correct, as I know there's a Cyane class. Looks like there's only one thing left to do.
*summons Identity Crisis*
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
[UPRATED] rings a belknap errr bell! Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
Mehanga is spelt Menahga - well according to starshipschematics.net - and it seems to match.
Where'd you get Nordenskj�ld, Darwin (although it does look like it) and Archenar (that was from TOS wasn't it... and it looks like it fits) from?
It does look like Nordenskjold to me now - the j and o look not very clear. Do you think the diaeresis is on there (it does ring a bell - althought it was quite a long time ago that I saw it.)
Maybe a wierd doctor (well that was a denist) like on Trekkies could have that as an eye chart! I'll let you propose the idea Timo! LOL!
Posted by Topher (Member # 71) on :
Oh yeah, I forgot to correct the spelling of Menahga. Posted by Woodside Kid (Member # 699) on :
Had to dig a little to find my copy in the closet, but here goes:
Under each entry is their vessel type, using the same classification system as SOTSF:
MK-I Corsair (Leonardo) MK-II Clipper (Ariadne & Frobisher) MK-III Light Cruiser (Pytheas & Nordenskjold) MK-IV Cruiser (Horizon/Archon) MK-V Frigate (Coventry through Endurance) MK-VI Transport/Tug (Ptolemy & Kepler) MK-VII Scout (Monoceros through Darwin) MK-VIII Destroyer (Saladin/Hermes through Cochise) MK-IX Heavy Cruiser (as if I have to tell you!) MK-X Dreadnought (Federation through Kirov) MK-XI Heavy Frigate (Avenger/Cyane) MK-XII Heavy Destroyer (Detroyat through Menahga) MK-XIII Battlecruiser (Mitannic) MK-XIV Corvette (Renner/Daring) MK-XV Through-Deck Cruiser (Coronado) MK-XVI Shuttlecarrier (Ariel) MK-XVII Space Control Ship (Excelsior & Ingram) MK-XVIII Superscout (Komarov) MK-XIX Fast Frigate (Daran) MK-XX Strike Cruiser (Decatur & Belknap) MK-XXI Command Ship (Balson)
If there's more than one class in each type, it appears in this fashion: MK-IX/01, MK-IX/02, etc.
The first time I saw the Horizon, all the Connie variants, and the Ariel was on the Heavy Cruiser Evolution Blueprints from Star Fleet Department of Graphic Design. Don't remember exactly when I got them, but I know it was after STIV (the thing mentions adding the A to the registry) and before SOTSF. It was a three sheet package with plan views and port elevations of all the ships.
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
quote:Originally posted by AndrewR: Bugger. That Ariadne class is intruiging. How is this vertical cylinder thing supposed to work!?! Anyone think it's basically a ring structure (side on) with a very small 'crew area' at the bottom?
Can anyone get in contact with the artist/author?
wow, i'm guilty of two dimensional thinking... could be that the Ariadne was meant to represent a variation on the TMP-plaque of the ringship SS Enterprise.. i was a fool to not consider that.
and in the amended timelines, perhaps represents one of the earliest Vulcan-human design collaborations.
oh, BTW, i recall a while back researching the Nordenskjold, thinking i might be able to find a nice blueprint online.. all i was really able to find is that it was probably named for Swedish explorer Otto Nordenskjold, and ive seen it spelled both with and without the �
[ March 13, 2003, 11:36 AM: Message edited by: CaptainMike ]
Posted by Woodside Kid (Member # 699) on :
Good luck on finding anything about the oddball designs on the chart. I spent years looking for accurate specs on the engine on the Cygnus before I finally decided to work one out for myself.
The idea about Ariadne being a ring ship is interesting though; if you combine it with the flattened Frobisher class design, it might actually seem like a descendant of the S.S. Enterprise.
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
Cygnus
Cochise
these are WIPs of what i was able to try based on the silhouette
Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
I never liked those silly nacelles.
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
basically all we have is a silhouette, i'm trying to find a version that is attractive
just realized, the Nordenskjold probably represents a variant of the Baton Rouge class from other facets of fandom
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
Some of them look like the connie variant from ATTS. The E-A saucer with the two E-A nacelles and the E-A neck. What did we nickname that?
Posted by Woodside Kid (Member # 699) on :
I took a few passes at the PB-76 before finding a solution I could live with. Since SOTSF says the engine applies advances learned in the Transwarp project (and the silhouette looked two have a distinct break in the middle between fore and aft), I decided to make it a blend of TOS and TMP. The forward part is the TOS section (with the original style engine cap). I made my version flatter, though. In the scale I do my drawings (1:800), the Bussard cap is 2.1 cm high and 2.7 cm wide. The aft section leans more to the TMP style. I don't have access to a scanner, but if someone wants to PM their address to me, I can photocopy my reference drawing and snailmail it.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
quote:Originally posted by Woodside Kid: The idea about Ariadne being a ring ship is interesting though; if you combine it with the flattened Frobisher class design, it might actually seem like a descendant of the S.S. Enterprise.
Actually - I was just looking at that little picture of the chart again and I realised that the first three basically come together to make the Enterprise Ring Ship:
Leonardo, Ariadne, Frobisher = Ring ship?
Yeah it looks like a blur - but go back and look at the chart.
Oh and remember WK - if you do get a chance to use a scanner... could maybe scan the chart?? Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
Isn't the Kirov from Jackill? Book 2, I think... Have to dig it out of storage.
--Jonah
Posted by Identity Crisis (Member # 67) on :
quote:Originally posted by Peregrinus: Isn't the Kirov from Jackill? Book 2,
No class called Kirov in Jackill 1 or 2 (don't have 3, damn it). No design that looks anything like the silhouette either.
Posted by Jim NCC1701A (Member # 1021) on :
So, other than the recognition chart, there is nothing else known about the Pytheas and Nordenskjold?
A web search of the names comes up with explorers (figures, being the Federation) but nada on starships.
Anyone able to scan and post clearer pics of those 2 ships? Please?
Cheers!
Jim.
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
its hanging right next to my bed the pytheas is based on a jefferies sketch proposed for the original 1701 before the final design was chosen... the nordenskjold seems to be based on the baton rouge class seen in sternbach's spaceflight chronology
for the record, the pytheas in service at the time of the charts publication was NCC-1409.. and the nordenskjolds were NCC-1427 and NCC 1430
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
Michael!!!!!!!!!!
Where were you for the rest of this thread!?!?!?!?!?!
Can you perhaps scan the first three in please?
Especially the Ariadne? Is there NO information on this ship?
Posted by Jim NCC1701A (Member # 1021) on :
Since this seems to be The Topic That Won't Die, I might as well ask...
Any chance we'll see more releases, Harry? Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
Well... I have to be in the mood for these things. I've started work on refit Connie schematics as a basis for refit kitbashes, but it's a lot more complicated than the simple TOS shapes. I've already done the Coronado. I guess I could do the Detroyat quite quickly if I feel like it Posted by Jim NCC1701A (Member # 1021) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ryan McReynolds: That's because they're both based on the same Jeffries sketch.
Yup, that'd explain it alright Posted by Jim NCC1701A (Member # 1021) on :
quote:Originally posted by Harry: I've already done the Coronado. I guess I could do the Detroyat quite quickly if I feel like it
Baton Rouge would be a nice one to do. Question is though, would you use the version from Vintage Starships, or the Nordenskjold (inspired by Baton Rouge) version?
Cheers!
Jim.
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
A quickie to Mike about the registry numbers on the recognition chart:
Where? How? When? Who? Why?
That is, where are NCC-1427 and NCC-1430 specified, and how? Are they the only ships of that class to remain in service at the time? Does each class have a list of registries attached? What registries are listed for, say, the Constitutions?
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
PLEASE Mike! A nice pic of the first three would be great. You know you want to! Posted by Woodside Kid (Member # 699) on :
The table at the bottom of the chart lists "Navigational Contact Code Numbers Active:", but there's no notation as to where the info comes from. They are:
The registries listed for the previously known ships pretty much match the status given in the various source documents (SOSF, Starship Design, the Federation Reference Series, etc.). However, the list does contain a few quirks:
Although the uprated section of the Enterprise listing is supposed to be post TVH, the 1701 registry lacks the "-A".
The class listing for the Daring class corvettes adds up to 18 ships, but that doesn't agree with the corvette numbers given in the SOSF fleet strength chart (if you factor in the other corvette classes listed in the book and their given registries).
The listing for both Federation classes follows the conceit from the Starship Design magazine that only 12 dreadnoughts were built, although we heard the Entente's name and registry in the Epsilon IX radio chatter.
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
Thanks!
Although doesn't the list indicate thirteen Federations, not twelve?
If we're assumed to "realize" that there never was a NCC-2105, then all bets are off. We could then say that there were fifteen Darings, as long as we "realize" NCCs 2397, 2399 and 2492 were never built, or were sold to Ktarians at completion, or stolen by Andorian rebels, or whatever.
...Which makes no sense considering how carefully missing individuals of the Avenger family are indicated.
In any case, I'm quite happy with this chart, and intend to make it part of my personal quasisemipseudocanon. With some necessary modifications, of course.
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
Speaking of the fleet strength chart, I've had hell of a time trying to fit in the known classes in a pseudo-logical manner. Any idea how and why Guenther came up with the Ashanti class heavy cruisers, in a book supposedly listing all the relevant heavy cruisers (plus some pretty irrelevant ones)? I've half decided to consider them a subclass of Baton Rouges or something, with the Nordenskjolds another long-lived subclass. Such antiquities wouldn't be listed alongside the Constitution derivatives, even if they were nominally in "active" service.
The failure to show the Constellation class here is easily excused. Being "reconaissance" cruisers, they'd be so top secret that not even Calon Riel would have heard of them by 2291... Official reports would have the mysterious NX-1974 undergoing "pre-delivery tests" forever and then some.
Most of the "unreal" classes in the building program chart are easy to dismiss by saying that Khitomer treaty cut production in 2293. I'd have liked to dismiss the ugly Menagha/Mitannic battlecruisers the same way, but now I have to accept multiple ships of each class... Oh, well.
Those "exploration cruiser" things with five-digit registries are annoying. Perhaps those are NAR regos (Guenther doesn't give traditional prefices, after all)? And perhaps "exploration cruiser" is similar to "auxiliary cruiser" - a Sydney, an Independence or an Antares fitted with some sensors and dubbed a cruiser? It would be really, really annoying to have to accept these as vaguely Tikopai-type ships.
On the same vein, the perimeter action ships with the overlapping NCCs could have non-NCC regos. At least until I get my hands on SotSF II...
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
hey guys, i have a few more pics, but my USB drivers are doubled up, and i've to wait a few days before i can reboot and get the camera loaded.. any specific questions i can tel lyou until then (now that ive got the chart hanging in my new room.. thanks eBay!)
Posted by Identity Crisis (Member # 67) on :
quote:Originally posted by Timo: Although doesn't the list indicate thirteen Federations, not twelve?
If we're assumed to "realize" that there never was a NCC-2105,
Look again Timo. NCC-2105 is the class ship of the Balson class command cruisers.
I assume that the USS Balson was started as a Dreadnought and changed to a command cruiser during construction. Hence the out of sequence rehistry.
Posted by Identity Crisis (Member # 67) on :
quote:Originally posted by Woodside Kid: Renner/Daring: NCC 3250-3270; (Daring) 2394-2411
The class listing for the Daring class corvettes adds up to 18 ships, but that doesn't agree with the corvette numbers given in the SOSF fleet strength chart (if you factor in the other corvette classes listed in the book and their given registries).
Only if you assume that the Lautaro class fills all the registries from the given class ship (NCC-3317) through to the maximum possible (NCC-3339, one less than the class ship of the Riga class). There's no reason why that assumption has to be true. SotSF has many cases of classes being cut short before all the originally planned vessels were built.
BTW the design and names of the Renner and Daring classes come from the USS Renner Booklet of General Plans. This was published by Miami Naval Yards (which seems to be Ralph Gonzalez, hence his credit in the acknowledgements on the big chart). The only difference is that they are called Destroyer Escorts rather than Corvettes.
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
quote:Originally posted by Harry: Well... I have to be in the mood for these things. I've started work on refit Connie schematics as a basis for refit kitbashes, but it's a lot more complicated than the simple TOS shapes. I've already done the Coronado. I guess I could do the Detroyat quite quickly if I feel like it
Oh, I remember the Coronado... I still remember that overblown analysis I did of its available flight deck space in an attempt to prove that it's an illogical design.
I would *love* to see a good three-view set of Detroyat Class plans! The only ones I've ever seen online are the pitiful B&W ones on the Starship Schematics Database. The Detroyat is one of the few pre-TNG fandom designs that I honestly and truly love.
As for "in the mood"... I understand perfectly. Not demanding a rush here, just curious since it's been a few months.
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
the Balson is a technical error, on the chart its listed as active both as a Balson-class ship and also as a Federation uprated ship. unless it has a removable nacelle.
BTW, has anyone considered the Coronado might have a diagonal warp core, running from the impulse deck down the spine of the connecting dorsal to a point in the secondary hull halfway between the flight decks? this would also be accessible to the nacelle junction. oh well.
Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
Vertical reactor in the saucer, PTCs to through the neck, the ceiling (or sides) of the hangar, and into the nacelles. You could even use stock Saladin/Hermes saucer hulls (except they don't have those Coronado impulse (?) gizmos).
And damn you, MMoM, you've made me want to draw that Detroyat now!
Edit: I meant MinutiaeMan. You crazy people with all your funky nicknames. It makes my head spin.
[ May 15, 2003, 12:58 AM: Message edited by: Harry ]
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
quote:Originally posted by Harry: And damn you, MMoM, you've made me want to draw that Detroyat now!
I have? That's really interesting, considering that I've said precisely nothing to you about it... Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
I don't believe it. I've been confused with a monkey! Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
I must admit, I confuse MM and MMoM all the time. I correspond (by email) with MM by his real name, so referring to him here by MM confuses me.
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
**continued from previous post** Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
Ok.. that's the sideview. But I need some more information about what that aft section is supposed to be. The shipschematics.net image only has a side and fore view, but I'd really like to have a top view. Can anyone help me?
Posted by Woodside Kid (Member # 699) on :
The problem with getting a good top view is that in the original booklet of plans, there wasn't a complete one. The scale is roughly 1/400, and in order to fit on the sheets (which were 10 1/2 by 25"), they could only show half views of the top and bottom. The rest of the packet included port, bow, and stern elevations and a cutaway side view. The final sheet gives a brief history of the class, with the amusing note that the Niantic (NCC-1105) was the last ship to rendezvous with the Constellation before she encountered the Doomsday Machine. Since Niantic disappeared in the same area shortly after encountering the cruiser, Starfleet assumed the Planet Killer got her too.
And, before you all ask, I still don't have a scanner; I'd have to photocopy and snail mail 'em to you (actually, first I'd have to erase all the pencil notes on the sheets from when I made a 1/800 scale copy of the ship some years back.) Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
Not me. In fact, I insist that you stop looking and apply artistic license instead.
That way, the ventral extension need not be square in section, even though that's probably what the designer intended. Based on side and front views alone, it could be a winglike shape, not that much different from a Constitution connecting neck. Or a wedge or "keel" of some sort.
Also, fanfic has a ship of this class serve as the basis for the prototype of the Surya class, that is, for a TOS Miranda of sorts. You know how the Surya looks, right? It has those silly pylons starting from near the ship's axis and going out to the nacelles with a slight kink down. I think it would be best to give the Detroyat the same pylons, just without the kink.
And the aft hull should by the same logic be shaped to resemble the Surya config: the sloping surface we see peeking from behind the nacelle could end in impulse engines, "outriggered" to the same position they hold in the Suryas. The "refit" would then just add shuttlebay boxes on both sides of this impulse extension, and remove the ventral keel.
If you must give this ship a shuttlebay (although I wouldn't...), just put it in the keel thing. Gives the keel a reason to exist. Perhaps a big roll-up door opening to a bay that takes up the volume not covered by windows, just below the nacelle and aft of the docking port.
The thing below the saucer, terminating at the bottom vertex, is a long torpedo tube, of course.
Hmm. What about using the current "bridge" as a mere pedestal for the actual bridge module? You could put a "The Cage" style high bridge module there... (IIRC, the original Detroyat side view had a lower-profile structure up there than your rendition.)
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by Woodside Kid (Member # 699) on :
That structure under the saucer is the housing for the main docking port; according to the cutaway and the ship's stats, the Detroyat hasn't got any torpedoes at all. Kind of funny for a heavy destroyer designation. Oh, well....
The cutaway indicates that the ship has no shuttlebay, either. And the bridge housing is a deck-and-a-half structure. It contains the bridge plus the top half of deck 2 (which houses the ship's library functions).
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
So where does the Ariadne come from? Any more info on that?
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
The cutaway was no doubt released to confuse Klingon spies. Main docking port under the saucer? That's a negative, Houston. Never heard anything so... nonfunctional!
I'm convinced that the big frontal orifice Starfleet calls "docking port" is the muzzle of a torpedo launcher so big that it puts even the out-of-scale DS9 kitbash tubes to shame.
Umm, until I see the cutaway, that is. Where could I find it?
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by Woodside Kid (Member # 699) on :
Don't know where you'd find it online; I've had my copy of the plans for nearly twenty years.
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
perhaps the Detroyat is the historical design precedent the 1701-E refitters were paying homage to when they put all sorts of torpedo launches in that vessel's docking ports!
since ive moved into my new room and hung up the FSRC, most of my visitors have commented that the Ariadne looks like a bong. .. other than that nothing is known.. no other plans exist that i have been able to reference, and its unclear as to whether it is simply cylindrical or if it might be a ring ship.. perhaps we should ask Aridas Sofia.. he posted at TrekBBS a while back , i recall, and if he didnt derive the ship from anyone elses fanart, then he is the ships creator.
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
I don't know how reliable the source for this guy's model design is, but it certainly looks good -- maybe it'll help you out, Harry. Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
Harry, you could reverse engineer from the Menahga. I think that the M was a semi-updated D refit advemnet design. The similarities are too much to be denied.
Posted by Woodside Kid (Member # 699) on :
quote: I don't know how reliable the source for this guy's model design is, but it certainly looks good -- maybe it'll help you out, Harry.
Not too bad, considering the relative lack of information. However, there are some problems. The use of a 1701-type hull is inaccurate for several reasons:
1) Too small; the stats for the ship give a saucer beam of 151.25m. 2) Wrong shape; the upper and lower faces of the saucer are flat (like a short, shallow cone with an extremely wide base), not the complex curves of the cruiser design. 3) The B-C deck structure below the bridge; Detroyat has no such structure.
The engines are also incorrect. However, the general layout of the secondary hull structure is very close to the plans; it really does have that slab-sided shape.
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
The impulse engine area is pretty similar to the Surya one. I suggest keeping it that way... I wonder if the pylons shouldn't be farther back, however. I mean, purely aesthetically speaking. And keeping in mind that this ship is going to become a Surya later on. The original blueprints may suggest this placement for all I know.
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
Can you give more dimensions, WK? I've now scaled it using window-size, but that is of course only a vague estimate.
Timo: I've alread made Surya schematics, so I know what she looks like It's not the upgraded ship, but the 'original' one, although I replaced that rather ugly deflector dish with the sleeker one from Guenther's Saladin/Hermes schematics.
I'm now making a secondary hull similar to that model, with an impulse engine and a sloped boxy shape.
Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
Harry, what sensor dish? I've never seen a dish in the Surya plans I have access to...
--Jonah
Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
The shipschematics website shows a sensor dish on the Surya. And an "upgraded" Surya without dish and with a few extra gridlines. I suspect these might not be the original Surya schematics, as Guenther also redid Franz Joseph's schematics... But I figured the original schematics would have the dish as well.
Posted by Identity Crisis (Member # 67) on :
The Surya in Ships of the Star Fleet is from 2291 and doesn't have the deflector.
I own a copy of the Avenger Class Development Chart which shows the four classes which can be considered ancestors of the Avenger. These are the Ptolemy, Surya, Detroyat and Coventry and this, as an historical review, shows the earlier version of the Surya with the deflector. Sadly this chart only shows fore and port views.
Posted by Woodside Kid (Member # 699) on :
The data off the original blueprint package for Detroyat is as follows:
Overall Length: 258.75m Overall Draft: 55m* Overall Beam: 174.38m* Mass: 180,000 metric tons No. Of Main Propulsion Units: 2 Main Propulsion Unit Length Overall: 166.88m Main Propulsion Unit Maximum Diameter: 18m Main Propulsion Unit Distance Between C/L's: 162.5m No. Of Dual Impulse Units: 6 Primary Hull Maximum Diameter: 151.25m Primary Hull Maximum Depth: 22.51m Standard Ceiling Height Over Deck: 2.44m Cruising Speed: Warp 7 Maximum Safe Speed: Warp 10 Endurance: 15 years
Crew Complement is 316.
*The original list has these figures reversed.
Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
Thanks very much. Turns out my Detroyat was about 82% the size of what it's supposed to be. And the shipschematics.net drawing hasn't got the proportions given above. But I've followed the numbers instead of the drawing.
Posted by aridas (Member # 1051) on :
Hey guys...
Sorry for the necro-posting here, but this topic was about a bunch of my Starship Recognition Chart ships. I've been going over some of this stuff recently for inclusion at the new Federation Reference Series website, and I'm wondering... has anyone ever come up with launch/commissioning dates for any of these ships?
Timo... are you there?
aridas
Posted by Toadkiller (Member # 425) on :
Bring out the picture.....
Posted by Pensive's Wetness (Member # 1203) on :
quote:Originally posted by Toadkiller: Bring out the picture.....
can we make the guy casting the spell... well, i dunno... make it a Warforged, instead?
oh, come on! If i fucking knew where they keep the pick i'd edit it (besides, Fab has to sleep sometime. he'll post tommorrow... right?)
Posted by Daniel Butler (Member # 1689) on :
FIVE YEARS between posts and you didn't use the graphic? A plague upon thee!
Posted by shikaru808 (Member # 2080) on :
This is the most epic thing I have ever seen in these forums. Fuck, I wasn't even in HIGH SCHOOL when this thread last saw light.
My legs are shaking boys...
Posted by Fabrux (Member # 71) on :
Dayum.
Although, there are threads dating back to March 1999 on this board anyways. What were you doing THEN, shik-not-Shik?
Posted by Jim NCC1701A (Member # 1021) on :
quote:Originally posted by aridas: ... for inclusion at the new Federation Reference Series website...
It's coming back! What better news to kick-start the thread again Posted by Mars Needs Women (Member # 1505) on :
Hmm...this makes me want to reinstall Bridge Commander.
Posted by shikaru808 (Member # 2080) on :
quote:Originally posted by Fabrux: Dayum.
Although, there are threads dating back to March 1999 on this board anyways. What were you doing THEN, shik-not-Shik?
Well, lets just say that back in the 20th century, I was still having immense difficulty in multiplication math and writing in cursive.
Come to think of it, I still possess that problem...
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mars Needs Women: Hmm...this makes me want to reinstall Bridge Commander.
I tried that once....then quickly uninstalled it again. Now I'm off to play Half-Life 2.
Posted by Mars Needs Women (Member # 1505) on :
Yeah too much hassle. I'm off to play Unreal Tournament.
Posted by Sean (Member # 2010) on :
quote:Originally posted by shikaru808:
quote:Originally posted by Fabrux: Dayum.
Although, there are threads dating back to March 1999 on this board anyways. What were you doing THEN, shik-not-Shik?
Well, lets just say that back in the 20th century, I was still having immense difficulty in multiplication math and writing in cursive.
Come to think of it, I still possess that problem...
Hey, me too. I still remember watching eps of Voyager when they were new though. I used to have to video tape them because they were on past my bedtime. Gosh, do they even make VCR's anymore?
Posted by B.J. (Member # 858) on :
Yes, dumbass. There's still quite a bit out there on VHS that's not available in any sort of digital format, not to mention the fact that many people still own a large collection of VHS tapes. Besides, it's the only way I know of to record TV on basic cable, since I don't care to pay for a bunch of digital channels I won't watch.
Posted by Sean (Member # 2010) on :
Well, I only ask because I don't see them in stores, other than combined with a DVD player, and the only VCR I have operated on a regular basis is older than me.
Posted by Mars Needs Women (Member # 1505) on :
Dumbass? Aren't we being a little harsh on newest member?
Posted by Fabrux (Member # 71) on :
Working at a place that sells electronics (among other things), VCRs are harder 'n hell to find these days from suppliers. Its only once in a while that we can even get anything, and they're very very basic. So basic, in fact, that they don't have a TV tuner in them anymore!
A combination DVD/VCR recorder isn't all that expensive anymore. Not sure if you can record right on to the DVD or not, never investigated that...
Posted by Pensive's Wetness (Member # 1203) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mars Needs Women: Dumbarse? Aren't we being a little harsh/blunt/cursive/frn'ech on the newest member of the Love Boat?
*whistles* Better them than me...
?
I know my brother still used his VCR more than his DVD player back in the day (So many anime tapes on tape...) but isn't a tape only gonna last a few year at best?
Posted by Dat (Member # 302) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sean:
quote:Originally posted by shikaru808:
quote:Originally posted by Fabrux: Dayum.
Although, there are threads dating back to March 1999 on this board anyways. What were you doing THEN, shik-not-Shik?
Well, lets just say that back in the 20th century, I was still having immense difficulty in multiplication math and writing in cursive.
Come to think of it, I still possess that problem...
Hey, me too. I still remember watching eps of Voyager when they were new though. I used to have to video tape them because they were on past my bedtime. Gosh, do they even make VCR's anymore?
Your bedtime was before 8pm or so? Posted by Sean (Member # 2010) on :
8 o'clock until the 6th grade. I think Voyager was on at 9pm around me.
Posted by aridas (Member # 1051) on :
quote:Originally posted by aridas: Hey guys...
Sorry for the necro-posting here, but this topic was about a bunch of my Starship Recognition Chart ships. I've been going over some of this stuff recently for inclusion at the new Federation Reference Series website, and I'm wondering... has anyone ever come up with launch/commissioning dates for any of these ships?
Timo... are you there?
aridas
So... nobody got a damn thing I need, huh? Not even a Timo's Guide to Every Fan Ship Ever Conceived quote?
Damn necro post for nuthin'. Now I'm going to have to actually make up dates for all those ships... Posted by aridas (Member # 1051) on :
Posted by aridas (Member # 1051) on :
Posted by aridas (Member # 1051) on :
Posted by aridas (Member # 1051) on :
Please delete my several half-assed slips of the keyboard.
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
quote:Originally posted by aridas: So... nobody got a damn thing I need, huh? Not even a Timo's Guide to Every Fan Ship Ever Conceived quote?
Damn necro post for nuthin'. Now I'm going to have to actually make up dates for all those ships... [/QB]
Well, I have copies of his guide if you want to sift through it & the like....
Posted by Fabrux (Member # 71) on :
I do as well. I have a whole shit-ton of Trek fandom reference books in digital form. If there's anything else you need, let me know.
Posted by Toadkiller (Member # 425) on :
It's an Icelandic holiday this week, but I'm sure Timo will be back soon. You could IM him for the latest version, if there is a latest version.
Posted by Mark Nguyen (Member # 469) on :
You silly. Timo's from the Bronx, and runs a Chinese laundry.
Mark
Posted by Mars Needs Women (Member # 1505) on :
Really, I live Bronx. Where can I reach him? Posted by Fabrux (Member # 71) on :
Why do people think Timo is from Iceland? This isn't the first time I've seen that.... He's actually Finnish and works at the University of Helsinki.
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
It's become a running gag, bubby. TK thought he was & then we corrected him, & now it's become an LSG, like the length of a Frank, Charles' beard, Omega's initial sociopolitcal stance, & Simon's, uh, "sizer."
Posted by Fabrux (Member # 71) on :
Oh.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
I thought he was a viking, personally. And he's from Greenland, and lives in an igloo with a penguin named dave.
Posted by Toadkiller (Member # 425) on :
Actually it was a running gag 'cause the book thought he was when he wasn't but while I was.
I was just trying to find a way to have a sort-of-funny when I told him to just PM Timo and be done with it.
Posted by aridas (Member # 1051) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon: I thought he was a viking, personally. And he's from Greenland, and lives in an igloo with a penguin named dave.
That's funny. I'm a viking named Dave that lives in an igloo with a penguin named Timo. So we have something in common. Sort of.
BTW, thanks Fabrux. I would appreciate a copy of Timo's latest and greatest.
I mean Timo the viking. Not the penguin.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
And yet, both Timos eat raw fish and waddle in the snow....coincidence?
Posted by thesonofodin (Member # 1025) on :
hey fabrux, can i get a copy of timo's most awesome too, i recently lost mine when my hard drive crashed? id appreciate it.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
) I find it very illogical that the Saladin/Hermes would be that much older than the Constitution -- or for that matter, that the Ptolemy would be that much newer.![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
It looks like roadkill!![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
Cygnus
Cochise
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)