Ok, revisiting the Deneva means I really should revisit the design that inspired it. So, what I intend to do is extrapolate a design for the Erewhon that matches the partial interior and exterior sets as accurately as possible.
Based on a bunch of screen grabs and a degree of guestimation, this is what I have so far.
Now, what I would like from you cherry folks is a little help finding the original concept sketches (from the 'Making of DS9'book IIRC) and if anyone has the time or inclination. I have google-imaged it to death and to no avail, so help would be appreciated. Also if someone has a copy of "Timescape" on DVD (I think that's the title) some screen grabs of the interior of the Runabout's aft section would be a big help, as from what I understand, that set was re-jigged to make the interior of the Santa Maria. Getting an idea what the set originally looked like should help to extrapolate which portions of the set were used where and incidentally which part wall of the runabout do I have to graft to the outside of the Erewhon. Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
Shit,I'd love to, Rev--I own the book--but I don't have scanner access anymore, & Kinko's gets all bitchy about "copyright infringement" & all that.
If anyone else has the book, though, the shots he wants are on pages 164 & 165.
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
Ok, now I need a little help figuring out the whole runabout aft section bit. So, in "Paradise" Miles walks into Sisko's cabin LINK through what looks to be the Runabout's midship hatch LINK then walks past what is certainly the starboard aft pair of windows LINKLINK. Now Sisko is facing the windows with is back to a generic section of wall LINK, so for, not a problem right? They just stuck in an extra wall that can be easily moved so the camera can get behind Brooks for the over the shoulder shot, so for so good right? Well, here's where I hit a little problem; look at it again LINK, see the light/shadow pattern from the windows? Count them. Four, maybe five as if he's facing the aft windows LINK. At first I thought they were just to his right, as they should be and the lighting continuity was just off. However, when he stands and walks around LINK the wall to his right in another generic wall with a smaller door in it and not the aft windows. So I'm stumped. Anyone have any ideas? Is it possible the aft windows were hoisted up as skylights? Or is it just an odd set continuity gaff where they did one shot on one day and the turn around on another?
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
I don't think anything was reused.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
Just a sorta different tangent - I've always wondered - did they say they jettisoned the nacelles to land? Is it possible that the overhanging landing 'foot' is where one was possibly attached.
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
No, that's the landing gear, you can see the pistons and everything, plus I wouldn't put an entry gangway right next the the nacelle. It'd make docking rather fruitless.
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
The ship probably never had nacelles to begin with.
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
quote:Originally posted by Shik: I don't think anything was reused.
Uh, what do you mean? Those are the set elements from "Timescape", that's a matter of record.
quote:Originally posted by Shik: The ship probably never had nacelles to begin with.
I think otherwise Ok, this is what I've roughed out so far. I'm intentionally taking an unusual direction by sticking the bridge towards the aft part of the ship. The idea being that the engine room, computer core and all the operational parts of the ship are isolated in the rear section leaving the passengers and cargo separate in the front and rear sections.
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
So your nacelles are by the bow?
I dunno...this thing's probably better looking without them. That ship was supposed to be fairly well intact.
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
Stern. And it needs warp nacelles if it plans on going anywhere. I could opt for intergrated nacelles like the ones on the Val Jean and the Fed attack fighters, but I think on a transport this small internal volume is at a premium, so outboard engines make more sense. And yes, they could still be on the Santa Maria, just hidden behind trees and tents. If you look at the episode you'll see nothing is visible beyond about two meters further aft of the landing strut and about four meters fore of the airlock.
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
I think what you're making the stern was intended to be the bow.
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
Indeed.
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
I think we might wish to acknowledge the fact that there are many shots towards the "stern" of the ship, that is, to camera left towards the landing strut - and they all show clear sky above any section the ship might have beyond that strut, not propping above the roof level of the section above the door.
Moreover, the rock cliff with the cave dwellings sits in the direction of stern as well (although only starboard aft, again because we see blue sky to port aft). The ship shouldn't extend too far in that direction, even if it were customary to park in the shadow of a cliff for protection. A narrow stern would work; a broad one with nacelles would be a problem.
In contrast, there are basically no shots aimed towards the "bow" of the ship, that is, away from the strut. It's as if the camera dolly had a hard limiter there, to hide the imperfections of the set. All angles forward are angled down as well, to highlight the punishment box and hide the skyline.
Personally, I'd favor a design that extended significantly forward (that is, to camera right) from the struts, but truncated almost immediately aft of them (that is, to camera left) - much like in the Sternbach sketches. She could be twice or thrice as long as the sketched intentions, though, so that there would be room for a propulsion section amidships. If the ship has outboard warp engines, these might then lie just to the right of the set, flanking the hull. A dorsally mounted pair would be intriguing as well, though.
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
I'll have to watch it again to get an idea of the surrounding terrain. When I did my caps I was focused mainly on hull details. The reason I put the extra level on the aft section is because when you look out the windows in Sisko's cabin, you can see the tree line is such that it must be up higher than the piece of hull that's seen. Also, whenever anyone enters or leaves the ship they turn to, or come from the left corridor, which leads aft, so the upper deck access must be in that direction. I think I did my calculations right as I believe the bridge structure would be JUST out of sight on camera left and even then I plan of redesigning it to look a little more like the bridge I designed for the Kobayashi Maru, so I can say the colonists dismantled the roof and kept that part of the upper deck as a balcony. As for the nacelles, I assume they would be removed at some point, either the salvage the housing for some other purpose or to remove their weight and stop the ship from sinking as I imaging those warp coils would be very dense and without a fully loaded cargo bay in the bow to counterbalance might even cause a problem with stability. Regardless, I'm not happy with the design of the forward section (camera right) and intend to have another go at it.
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
As promised, a redesigned nose and bridge. Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
The crazy woman in this episode that makes all the people live without Technology - is that the same actress as Angela Patrelli from Heroes?? Maybe I'm getting my crazy women mixed up? Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
I guess it works this way, yeah.
...Although it looks like the ship would fall on her ass, with the legs placed that way, bow ballast or no bow ballast. And the very small ground clearance looks awkward on a ship of this size. The original Sternbach sketch gives a more plausible relative clearance, especially if we assume there is some stroke to those landing legs and they are pulled in all the way after landing.
I guess this is the thing that bothers me the most about the design. How long and broad can one make the ship while still retaining the logic of a one-deck structure? The smaller the ship, the more sense the single deck makes. And we do know the Santa Maria was only about four times as large as the runabout, by O'Brien's words. It could be length, as shown, but it would be more plausible if O'Brien was speaking about volume.
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
Actually I'm keeping a very strict scale here and so far the ship is a little over twice the length of a Danube and just under twice as wide.
You're right though, the ship is about as wide as I dare make it, but any "thinner" and it become too small to handle (20? 30? did they even give a figure?) passengers and crew plus cargo, hygiene facilities and short term communal spaces. That is the dilema of designing this thing though and as it is I'm pushing it as far is it can within the parameters. Even so it's a crowded ship (hence the seperation of crew and passenger sections) and to acommodate the numbers I'm going on the assumption there are only 8 or so bunks in the passenger cabins, with people generally sleeping on rotation while everyone else either showers, eats or hangs out in the communal room, children included. I'm going with the idea that O'Brian and Sisko were given the two upper cabins which used to be the Crew and Captain's quarters/map room/office respectivly.
As for the landing gear, I think those things are largly for stability as I plan on adding numerous skids to the underside of the hull and another set of gear on the aft section to balance things off. Even so, under normal circumstances the ship would have anti-grav thrusters and the SIF to hold things together. The Santa Maria of course lost all that when they landed, which is why I'm imagining they removed the nacelles, impulse reactors and warp core from that back. I assume they already vented all the plasma and dumped the antimatter pods in orbit before the containment fields failed. God knows what they did with the plasma coolant. Probably still bottled up and sitting at the bottom of the swamp, if it's not all still aboard the ship. Now that's an ecological disaster waiting to happen.
Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
One thing about the engine debate. We can presume that they weren't lost. The ship landed to make repairs, presuming a controlled situation. Whether they dismantled them later is unclear. If her anti-technology field prevented the warp drive from working, Evil-Bitch-Lady might not have been in any rush to fiddle with toxic materials.
--Jonah
Posted by Fabrux (Member # 71) on :
Well, we've always been told that the nacelles are the heaviest part of a ship, making up a large percentage of the mass... I can't imagine it would have been easy for the colonists to remove them using manpower alone...
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
Oh easy. A bit of rope, some scaff, a block and tackle, maybe an A-frame and/or a tripod. Plus it helps to have 20 or so adults on hand, so plenty of manpower. Anyway, once they're loose, gravity can do most of the work. Just put Archimedes and Newton in the driving seat and you'll be fine.
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
(Why bother, though?)
Another possibility, inspired by your looks for the ship: perhaps this was a tug-barge combination, and the Mad Matriarch organized for the tug section to be abandoned and destroyed before entry to make sure the ship could never return. Sort of like Earth 2.
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
I'm not saying they did, I'm not saying they didn't, just that they could. Perhaps the dense coils were making that end sink? Either way, they're small enough to have been hidden behind those trees and tents.
The tug idea isn't a bad one, though there's absolutely no dialogue to support it and in fact I think it was explicitly stated that they had problems with their warp drive and so had to land for repairs. Which suggests they took the warp drive with them when they went. Furthermore Sisko calls this a "Erewhon-Class Personnel Transport" not a passenger module or something that might necessitate a tug.
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
Granted, although there have been one or two misleading designations for onscreen ships before...
Skimming through the TrekCore script, it seems the ship developed (no doubt faked) life support problems and landed, after which the engines and other systems failed (probably as Alixus flipped the switch on her device, but also possibly simply because she and her son sabotaged or shut down the involved systems one by one). Probably doesn't tell us anything useful about the nature of the ship, except that she landed on "engines" and was supposed to take off again.
Of course, the ending makes it sound as if there wouldn't be a way to fly Santa Maria out again, even when the duonetic trap was turned off - transporter evacuation onto a tiny runabout would be the preferred way to move the community. But then again, perhaps that was for practical rather than treknological reasons.
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by Irishman (Member # 1188) on :
The lines of this ship are very reminiscent of a Cardassian cruiser to my eye, especially in silhouette.
Anyone else see that?
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
Well for one thing she wasn't airtight any more as wots-er-face made a point about how they removed all the doors. Secondly, as I said before I imagine they would have had to have dumped the anti-matter pods, otherwise when they set down near that whozit field generator they would have probably lost containment and exploded on the ground. I have no idea what story reason could be given for dumping the pods when at that point they were only having life support trouble, but that's not my problem. That, plus the need to dispose of various hazardous substances (plasma coolant etc.) probably means the engines are at least partly dismantled.
There's also the matter of what 10 years in a fertile swap will do to the integrity of the outer hull and whatever else they might have stripped out to make use of. Opticable for rope, insulation padding for ground sheets, that kind of thing.
One thing that is bugging me though, is there any indication of just how many passengers were on-board? There seamed to be about 15-20 hanging around outside the ship at any time, plus whomever was working in the fields, the "mine" and however many were inside. I think we only saw 2 children young enough to have been born on the planet (they're the last one in the final shot) and mention was made of three who died from the same insect that killed Meg (presumably there were other deaths.) I'd guesstimate the the original compliment would have been in the 40-50 region.
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
Added a little more detail... ...threw together a rough set of deck plans.
and here's to give a better sense of scale. Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
I think the engine design still needs work, but that's looking nice. You intentionally reusing the bow of one of the Jum Martin's designs for the stern of this design?
--Jonah
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
That's probably because I haven't worked on the engines much yet, just roughed out the general shapes and proportions. Still, I kind of like them being simple squashed rectangle looking things.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
The front is very Galactica-esque. Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
...But the design just yells for a third set of landing legs. (Although then it would look like a squashed bug.)
And the matter remains that we can't see the upper deck on screen, at least not to the left of the landing struts. So why not at least flip the whole design around so that the bow of the ship is to the left, and the stern to the right?
Yes, I know the characters turn left at the outer door. But there could be a cargo hold to the right of the door or something - a space that isn't exactly personnel-accessible, as possibly evidenced by the partial-door-thing on the outer wall (Martin's drawings have a crane of some sort protruding from there). The characters would have to go left to access a central corridor that eventually takes them to whichever spaces they desire to access.
Or then the characters could simply be on their way to the extreme bow of the ship, which could be the runabout aft cabin reversed. What we see through its windows wouldn't be treetops, but rather the sort of bushes you get in the decade after your ship has felled the earlier trees...
Why do I gripe? Because I still don't much like the idea of an upper deck, or the aesthetically and functionally annoying low relative ground clearance resulting from such a large ship. And because for this once, the unseen component of writer/artist intent isn't all that bad. If the bow of the ship is to the left, it could well be the Martin design reversed and with two quite ordinary nacelles stuck above the stern, to the unseen right.
And the "four times runabout" ratio would be internal volume against internal volume - presumably sufficient because a runabout can pack something like sixty people in discomfort, so four should be able to pack thirty and their luggage in comfort...
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
First off, there WILL be an extra set of landing gear for the aft section, I just have to wait until I've plotted out the ventral view so I can find a sensible place for them to go (not as simple as you might think.)
As for the visibility of the upper deck, as I've already explained I designed the bridge with an eye towards it being dismantled and used as a balcony by the colonists - note that the deck level of the bridge is about a meter lower than the outer dorsal hull, so it wouldn't be visible from the ground - as for the rest of the upper deck, it's far enough back so that it wouldn't be visible in the screen shots.
I did think about flipping the whole thing 180 to have the upper deck on camera left but it causes more problems than it solves. For one thing yes, there could be a central corridor, but with a ship this small it just doesn't make sense to have THREE hallways running parallel and it would make it impossible to place the passenger cabin set (the one they had meg in) anywhere inside the hull. Believe me, you're not suggesting anything I haven't already considered and eliminating the upper deck altogether just makes it worse as you have less space for passenger cabins and cargo bays.
As far as the ground clearance goes, I may yet extend the belly to ground level, or add retractable parallel skids along the entire length, I haven't decided yet and again, it will have to wait until the ventral view is sorted.
As for the Danube's capacity, 60 would be at EXTREME discomfort and strictly short term. This is a civilian personnel transport, so it requires at LEAST one bunk for every two passengers and a seat in an escape pod for every person aboard, with room to spare. So the internal volume to passenger ration goes up compared to a runabout. Then you need somewhere for them to eat and socialise, hence the midship mess hall and you need to see to their hygiene and any medical issues, so that means a sonic shower room and a very small infirmary with a stasis pod. It's as small as it's going to get and any bigger and it becomes two big for the "about 4x the size of a Danube" to be valid.
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
I'm toying with the idea of removing the front set of lading support arms. What do you think? Better, or worse? In a weird way I think it looks more balanced than before.
Posted by Bernd (Member # 6) on :
Nicely drawn!
I would have hoped that the ship could be developed into something better looking than a flounder, but with only one deck there were definitely not many options.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
