This is a large cruiser that was beat out by the Connie to be Starfleet's heavy cruiser in the mid 2240s. The lay out is similar to that of the small cruiser I posted earlier but has a large attached engineering hull. I'm saying that this ship was built around a large reactor rather than Connie's new, small reactor. I was thinking of attaching the nacelles directly to the engineering hull but liked this look better. This attachment can also be rationalized by saying the engineering hull and breaching warp core could be detached while keeping warp capability off the fusion reactors. The ship uses a lot of components also used for the Connie, probably mandated by Starfleet for reasons of compatibiltiy. After losing to the Connie, the ship was still built in small numbers and maybe led to Miranda-style ships as well.
This is still a very early WIP, so no sniping about missing phaser turrets (This means you, DC). I also know that the registry has been suggested to belong to a Connie.
Comments and suggestions are welcome!
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
Interesting. Very Swordfish. Shuttlebay(s)?
Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
The difference is that in Swordfish the "secondary hull" was actually the warp nacelle. Here's it's an actual engineering hull. The shuttle bays are those bilateral boxes on the rear view.
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
quote:Originally posted by Masao: This is still a very early WIP, so no sniping about missing phaser turrets (This means you, DC).
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
Ohhh..OK. Hey, what's that funky stuff on the bottom of the bustle that shows up on the side view & none of the others?
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
An interesting concept. I like the tailing engineering pod, it opens up several possible adaptations; Perhaps after a decade or so of service a few of the production models were refitted with the newer small reactor and that aft pod was replaced with a transport container clamp, similar to the Ptolemy-Class but attaching to the front end of the container. With it's large internal volume it would make an ideal colony transport or with it's Heavy Cruiser armaments it'd make a formidable "high risk" transport, operating near the front lines of a conflict. If one of those Ptolemy container/starliners could be outfitted with large internal shuttlebays the ship could become a command carrier of sorts.
Just spitting out ideas as they come to me, feel free to ignore...I would.
Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
quote:Originally posted by Shik: Ohhh..OK. Hey, what's that funky stuff on the bottom of the bustle that shows up on the side view & none of the others?
Umm, a phaser turret? For now it's just funky stuff that may or may not survive to the final version. For pure TOS ships, I have to keep the lines pretty clean.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
Looks very Sabresque to me. Especially the middle right picture.
Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
quote:Originally posted by AndrewR: Looks very Sabresque to me. Especially the middle right picture.
Wasn't meant to be, but I may have been influenced subconsciously.
Those are interesting suggestions, Rev. If a new, smaller reactor were installed, the E-hull might be shrunk or even cut off entirely. I'm thinking of adding a small hanger or a torp launcher back there anyway. Even with the original reactor, the ship might still have a tow pad. I think all ships should have a tow pad, just in case. Sort of like a trailer hook. However, since all those containers seem to have only top attachment points, having a special set containers with front attachment points might be wasteful.
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
I don't have my FJ Tech Manual handy, but I don't recall seeing any specific connection points on the container cylinders. I'd always figured that the tow pad was a magnetic strip of some kind, designed to just grap the container on command, without any actual internal structure to connect the two.
If this were the case, having multiple connection hardpoints would be reasonable.
I just remembered something, too -- FJ's sketches showed a Ptolemy pulling TWO containers, meaning that forward and aft connection points exist, and no visible latching mechanism is necessary.
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
If I remember correctly the Ptolemy pods could dock with each other in trains, front end to back. So presumably it is possible for them to attach to a larger ship in this manner.
On the other hand perhaps the tow pad could be integrated into the underside of the E-hull, so the container would lock on in a more compact fashion, below the centre line.
[EDIT: Looks like MinutiaeMan beat me to it ]
However, if you look at the plans there is are two turbolift connection points on top of the containers.
P.S. Masao, BBC 1 have just shown that "Dubbed for Americans" version of Mad Max you told me about. It's downright freaky, the bald police chief bloke sounds like Lloyd Bridges!!
Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
Although containers could be linked end to end, the primary connection to a ship probably is best left at the top of the container. I suspect the ends might have some sort of tractor beam emitters to allow in line linkage, but the only way into the containers are through the tops. So, I guess if you don't need to get in doing the journey (you could probably still dock a travel pod), end attachment to the ship might be ok.
Re: Mad Max. The only version I've seen is the US version. I hate dubbed movies (especially if originally in English!, so have only watched it once. )
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
Yeah, some kind of tractor beam or magnetic moorings (or whatever they called them in TMP) would be the most flexible option.
As for access, I suppose there could be a single airlock somewhere on the nose for the tug ship to soft dock with if need be...or they could just use the transporter.
Re: Mad Max. You're not missing much, the second one was much better. Bizarrely, it sounds like Gibson dubbed his own dialog, just in a slightly watered down accent. However I could be wrong. I have a certain distaste for dubbed movies too, sometimes you really don't even need subtitles to know what's going on. I remember watch this one movie completely in Spanish and having no trouble following the story, such as it was. I remember it because there was this bit where a middle aged woman squirted her breast milk into the mouth of a ten year old boy...now that's the kind of dodgy filmmaking that sticks in your mind.
*thinks about deleting that last part...*
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
*wishes Rev would do more than just think about deleting that last part*
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
The odd trailing part (reactor/engineering section) could be a antimatter storage pod for transporting antimatter from wherever the hell starfleet makes it to the shipyards that use it. The pod could be ejectable in case of emergency and the large primary hull could hold the dense matter (neutronium would be ideal, if too advanced by TOS standards)that interacts with the anti-em. ...or this culd be a one-off ship designed specificaly to dump loads of tribbles into the sun. Posted by Woodside Kid (Member # 699) on :
The Starliner pod is the only one of the cargo containers that shows fore and aft exterior views. The apparent connection point on either end corresponds to a gangway listed as being located fore and aft on G deck, so it's possible all the pods have this capability (although the Dry Bulk and Liquid container cross sections do not show decks at that level). However, since the total area of that connector (based on the scale of the plans in the Manual) is less than thirty square meters, I don't think it would provide enough of a docking surface for high-stress flight maneuvers. That's the primary reason I've always had a hard time swallowing the tandem towing arrangement the Manual showed.
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
I suppose the easiest answer to that would be to not engage in high stress manoeuvres, which shouldn't be too difficult, they are cargo ships after all.
I suppose if it was absolutely necessary the pod could simply be dumped when the mother ship needs to perform some manoeuvre or engage in battle, similar in a sense to the originally intended Galaxy-Class Saucer Section/Stardrive arrangement.
Of course if that pod is a Starliner is carrying passengers that might not be such a good idea.
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
I'm sure that structural stress concerns are the very reason why the Manual specifically states "TWO IN TANDEM STANDARD MAXIMUM" in reference to the Ptolemy pulling the pods.
-MMoM Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
Or maybe it has just as much to do with the extent of the Warp field.
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
In "real" treknical terms, sure. But I don't think in '75 the concept of how the warp field operated had even been worked out. Not outside of fandom circles, anyway, if at all. And Joseph probably wouldn't have known about it.
-MMoM Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
Did a bit more. Still not done. I think I screwed up the hangers though. I'll probably also backdate this to first-pilot specs to properly reflect the supposed date of introduction. http://lobotomy.pleh.net/~flareupload/uploads/232/Pyotrvelikiy1.jpg Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :
Not to patronize but I must concur this really would be what one would call a TOS-ized Saber class. Really neat all the same!
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
I wouldn't really; the Kestral class is more 'Sabre-ish'. I really like this Masao. If you do go with the relegated to second line duties after being refitted w/a smaller reactor scenario, you could probably have a sort of vestigial secondary hull with a vertical attatchment point for cargo pods. Another possible use could be a hospital ship- quite a large vessel, (even larger w/ specialised secondary hull), also an ex-cruiser would be quite tough and more likely to survive if attacked.
Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :
Well if I had ever seen a Kestral class I might agree with you, Mr Gorgeous Namedropper. As it is, I haven't. :-)=
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
quote:Originally posted by Nim: [QBMr Gorgeous [/QB]
Why, thank you... Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
NICE name..! When do we get to see the Admiral Flota Sovyetskogo Soyuza Gorshkov?
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
quote:Originally posted by Masao: Did a bit more. Still not done. I think I screwed up the hangers though. I'll probably also backdate this to first-pilot specs to properly reflect the supposed date of introduction. http://lobotomy.pleh.net/~flareupload/uploads/232/Pyotrvelikiy1.jpg
Nice work as always, I like the new tilt on the nacelle pylons.
I see what you mean about the hanger bays, I think it would be best it they were cut into the hull rather than trying to make them flush with the saucer rim.
Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
quote:Originally posted by Shik: NICE name..! When do we get to see the Admiral Flota Sovyetskogo Soyuza Gorshkov?
That's a bit long to fit on the hull... What do you fellows think about Soviet names for TOS ships. In the TOS alternate timeline (which diverged from out timeline in 1966), did the Soviet Union survive until the mid 21st century?
By the way, has anyone studied Russian. I've seen multiple transliterations for the name, including Petr vs Pyotr and Veliki vs Velikiy vs Veliky. the Ship that may or may not have accidentally destroyed Kursk was named Peter the Great. Here's the Russian spelling off a book cover. http://www.aviapress.com/book/oth/oth130/oth130.jpg
Regarding the shuttle bays, I was thinking of building out some little boxes, sort of like at the back of the refit Excelsior's primary hull. But I thought they ruined that nice curve at the back.
Sabre, Shmabre! Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
I prefer the "native" formats more that the Anglicized ones, thus Aleksandr Nevsky over the other. But for long names like the one I mentioned (which translates as "Admiral of the Soviet Union Fleet Gorshkov") I think it's easier to simply go for, say Admiral Nakhimov or even leaving off the rank.
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
Rain Robinson in "Future's End" insists that the Soviet Union was indeed dismantled by 1996, probably pretty much in the same manner it happened in the real timeline. And there's no good reason to assume Robinson's timeline wasn't the main Trek one in that respect.
There's nothing to say it wasn't founded again, though, to survive all the way to the mid-24th century and the Tsiolkovski dedication plaque. "Survival" being defined by the same terms as the "survival" of France, of course, given the birth of a world government in the 22nd century.
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
One difference between the Trek timeline and ours is that Trek-verse exists in a world without the Star Trek TV show. This means all of us would suddenly vanish from existence (worst-case scenario) or be posting on a Lost in Space forum (pretty bad as well).
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
So, what would a Jupiter I look like?
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
Perhaps the USSR was resurrected after WWIII. Or possibly the place names were just changed back to the Soviet ones; strange as it may seem there is a lot of nostalgia, in Russia at least, for the days of the USSR and a lot of respect for Lemin, Stalin et al. I imagine at least some, if not most of this, is due to Soviet conditioning though.
On naming starships for Soviets: I doubt it'd be appropriate to name them for Stalin and the other unsavoury types, but military leaders (We've seen the USS Zhukov, after all), should be OK, as should scientists. I'm sure there are plenty from the Tsarist period as well; possibly also members of the Provisional Government, such as Lvov and maybe even the less radical socialists of the period, Mensheviks and so on.
Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
I applied all the graphics, made the nacelles the same height on all the views, and added a fantail and shuttlebay to the engineering hull.
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
Bloody marvelous.
I take it that with the assigned hull number, you're saying "eff the Okudists" & sticking with sequential CNS numbers?
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
I concur, this looks incredible. But then, I already said that via e-mail.
As for the "Eff the Okudists" attitude... my personal belief is that Matt Decker's Constellation is actually NCC-1710, but was strangely transposed on the camera due to the intense gravitational and energy fields emitted by the Doomsday Machine.
...Either that, or one of the strange effects of the planet killer's anti-proton beam was to lift the paint markings off the hull and put them back in different positions. Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Just to open a big can of worms: The numbering system probably was sequential in tOS when there was only one large Starfleet shipyard and became non-sequential once additional shipyards were built and bega making ships without realtime communication with the other yards. It explains the two Yeagers too!
....and the Defiant is 179 meters long! Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
Let's not go down this road. I only asked because I was curious as to whether it was a placeholder or not. It's his universe & I don't care.
Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
I'm going to say that Connies are all numbered sequentially from 1700. The 1600s and 1800s on the SB 11 chart are ships of other classes. I agree with Minutiae on Constellation's registry. That makes the most sense to me.
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
Excellant, as always Masao!
As for the Constellation, the registry was just painted on wrong during her last overhaul and there wasn't enough time to fix it. Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
]![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)