To take a break from writin' and researchin' I pulled out the old sketchpad and worked on some ideas for a post-Daedalus heavy cruiser, which was probably a failure and may not have actually entered service. This ship follows my own Starfleet Museum continuity, so forget, if you can, that Series V (ie, Enterprise) exists.
Daedalus is in-scale and about 100 m long. The name, registry, and nacelles are placeholders. Comments are welcome and appreciated. Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
INteresting. Large. Not too keen on the double-pylon assemblies, but I understand the need for them.
Yeah..I might compact the tail into the main bulb some. Not a lot, but enough to dispose of the connecting rod.
Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
I wanted the ship to look different and retro, so I added double pylons, to make you think of a biplane. The double pylons also emphasize how ridiculously large the nacelles are (or will be).
Posted by Daniel Butler (Member # 1689) on :
I don't know if I like the saucer section. It sort of seems like an egg. It's just a personal aesthetic but I don't like fat ellipsoids.
Also, what about that black paint rectangle on the nose? It doesn't seem very Starfleety.
Overall I like it; I like the double pylons (something I've doodled myself more than once ) and the sort of insectoid secondary hull - the pinch into a fore and aft section.
Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
You have to keep in mind that this is very old-school Starfleety predating TOS by a century and as disimilar from a Constitution class ship as a Brewster Buffalo is from an F-16. The flattened oblate primary hull is part of the transition from spheres to true discs.
Posted by Sean (Member # 2010) on :
It looks too big for it's own good. Must be a sitting duck in battle, kind of like a blimp
Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
Yeah, this was probably an unsuccessful ship. Moved like a pig, I'd imagine.
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
I concur on the saucer-thingy. While a transition idea is good, those of us like Butler and I who get some sort of brain itch when we see the flattened spheroid have been lucky so far.
The Moskva and Gagarin, for instance, both feature interesting transition designs without quite looking like the sketch spheroid.
I like the idea of it never being used . . . perhaps it could be thought of as a *very* early iteration of Hyperion, which is almost as large. Did Monarch make Hyperion? I don't see any reference in the text. It shares lines with Daedalus (or perhaps more correctly, Comet).
Perhaps it was a Monarch "Skunk Works"-esque dreadnaught idea that was batted around (a la the fantastical post-WW2 Cold War designs) around the end of the war, but it wasn't until Hyperion that the idea . . . with extensive modernization . . . got realized.
Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
I might refine the primary hull a bit, but it will stay fairly fat because I like it!
In most fleets, there are admirals who support the building of the biggest, most powerful ships. It's an ego/manhood thing, I guess. They'll try to get these things built even if doing so might be strategically idiotic or mechanically impractical. I think that Starfleet is no exception.This thing is way bigger than any other cruiser for the next 40 years but it was overgunned and underpowered.
Posted by Daniel Butler (Member # 1689) on :
I like the Kestrel from that chart.
What's that unlabelled ship to the left of the Daedalus?
Interesting take on the nav deflector - sort of hanging out the bottom instead of flush with the secondary hull.
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
Aha. So basically this is your version of a cross twixt the Kirov-class battlecruisers & the Yamato-class battleships. I dig.
Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
quote:Originally posted by Daniel Butler: What's that unlabelled ship to the left of the Daedalus?
That's the Comet scoutship. It's the ship from which the stripped -down Daedalus was derived.
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
I like the idea of a conceptual failure, not something you often see in fandom and something I tried to lean towards with the Korolev. As for the design I have a couple suggestions. First thing I'd do is extend the neck structure so it runs the length of the ship like a spine, with either a shuttle/cargo bay or some kind of docking umbilical at the end...or just round it off like it is now. Second I'd move the forward pylons so they attach through the new spine and thirdly I'd add a deck space between the two hemispheres of the primary hull, just to blunt the edge a bit and from a practical standpoint, give you somewhere to put the windows. Like so. Posted by Kobi (Member # 1360) on :
The secondary hull is an interesting concept: simple and plausible. My problem goes to the neck and the primary hull. Either consider Reverend's suggestion or give it a minimal non-horizontal tilt as on Moskva/Gagarin. The midpart of the secondary hull could be some sort of anchor point.
Regarding the primary hull I have just one suggestion, make the top part and bottom part asymetric. I'm thinking of something similar as Gagarin/Hyperion.
Other than that: it's good to see some development in the SFM (aka the better 2150s).
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
Ooh, I like this a lot! Here's my take on this:
There was a lot of technological advancement that continued after the end of the Romulan War, but almost all of Starfleet's emphasis was on the small cruisers like Daedalus and Comet. Starfleet kept a handful of the old heavy UESN warships (Conquerors and Yorktowns) in active reserve in case of renewed hostilities with the Romulans.
However, by 2170 these ships would be relatively behind the times technologically. Certain aggressively-minded admirals in Starfleet, who had risen to their ranks in the war, feared that the Federation was becoming complacent. And so the study for a modern Starfleet battlecruiser was developed. This ship should incorporate certain elements from Vulcan and Andorian designs. On paper, it would make perfect sense to design a new heavy warship using Starfleet's latest technology.
Of course, the end result was a ship that was out of its time, extremely expensive for its purpose, and completely unnecessary. The Romulans were in complete isolation with not a single contact made; and the Klingons hadn't been encountered yet. I could see one or two ships being built, but the entire program would've been quashed by the Federation Council after that. (I'd refer to the Paris article, like how Starfleet had problems getting approval for their "little stick" light cruisers.) And any ships that were built certainly never saw any action.
quote:so forget, if you can, that Series V (ie, Enterprise) exists.
Man, I've been trying to do that for the last seven years. Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
I swapped out the original overly-wide drawing for a new one with more definitive nacelles and some hull detailing for effect. These nacelles are a development of ones I've used before, but I'm not sure if I like them so much. Maybe straight ones are better.
Priimary hull: I thought about an asymmetrical hull, but since symmetrical hulls were used by later ships (Wasp and Moskva), I didn't want to introduce one on this ship. However, this hull shape is new by being neither a ball or an egg. The equator is flat enough, I think without adding a flat-sided slice.
Neck: I also considered an angled neck, but it made the ship look less aggressive. (Showing the front of the neck is a submissive posture in animals.) If the neck and primary hull are raised, then the secondary hull doesn't have to have that ventral extension, which is a chief part of the design. Also, I wanted to have a horizontal neck like Daedalus. This ship is probably late 2160s to early 2170s, so borrows quite a bit from Daedalus. Running the neck all the way to tail I think is excessive. The ship already has those long nacelles, so visually I think it's too much. Also, I'm not going to put the nacelle supports through the neck. That's one thing I really hate about Daedalus!
History: Minutiae, you're spot on.
Posted by Sean (Member # 2010) on :
The nacells make it look bloated.
Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sean: The nacells make it look bloated.
Yeah, I agree. I'm still working stuff out. I just started this drawing yesterday.
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
Hmm...you're right about the new nacelles. A little odd. Maybe if they were a little bigger at the front than at the back? This posited extrapolation of the ST XI Enterprise kind of shows what I mean. Like flare the fronts a little, or "bulb" them...
Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
quote:Originally posted by Shik: Hmm...you're right about the new nacelles. A little odd. Maybe if they were a little bigger at the front than at the back? This posited extrapolation of the ST XI Enterprise kind of shows what I mean. Like flare the fronts a little, or "bulb" them...
Yikes! I want to get as far away from that as possible!
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
quote:Originally posted by Masao: Yikes! I want to get as far away from that as possible!
I concur thoroughly. It looks like a badly drawn, ready-to-fall-over TOS ship.
That said, it's easy to fall into a sort of TOS era trap, wherein everything looks sorta like a badly drawn Connie.
Speaking of, may I replace the original Asia with Bernd's revised Asia for you in the Cruiser Chart? Pretty please? Nothin' but love for ya, but I gotta say it sticks out like a sore Conniewannabe thumb.
Posted by Sean (Member # 2010) on :
That "extrapolation" of the Movie E is fucking ugly! The nacells look like they got stuck in a trash compactor. Scotty DEFFINATELY wont be having any dreams about that...pug.
Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
I just realized that the top view of the ships reveals that I've been watching way too much Battlestar Galactica recently.
"Never cross the streams!"
Posted by Mars Needs Women (Member # 1505) on :
quote:Originally posted by Shik: Hmm...you're right about the new nacelles. A little odd. Maybe if they were a little bigger at the front than at the back? This posited extrapolation of the ST XI Enterprise kind of shows what I mean. Like flare the fronts a little, or "bulb" them...
Looks like the E is suffering from Elephantiasis. May I ask where got it from? It's not so bad, it looks like a sturdier version of Re-imagined Enterprise from a while back. Though I don't like the idea of the E having neck strut torpedo tubes before TMP.
Posted by Daniel Butler (Member # 1689) on :
I agree with Reverend about the neck. If you think it's excessive to take it all the way back, well, it's your baby But I do think in that case the neck should be brought "down." That 'hump' where the neck joins the secondary hull sort of makes it look like the Starship of Notre Dame
Movie extrapolation: Ah GOD! What the FUCK? Those nacelles look they have a botfly infection. Yuck.
Posted by Sean (Member # 2010) on :
I didn't even notice the neck launchers until now. Ugly...
Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
There's no way in hell the nacelles are going to look like that. The maker of that extrapolation is being fooled, I hope, by that front view from the trailer in which the bussards look enormous.
Dan Butler: The rounded end of the neck might be a good place for a shuttle bay. "Humpback" is not a bad thing for this ship. I want it to look a bit monstrous.
Posted by Mars Needs Women (Member # 1505) on :
Oh yeah, I forgot to mention that there were rumors of there being multiple versions of the E due to the Romulans altering history. God knows what they'll come up with.
Posted by Sean (Member # 2010) on :
Th...th...th...the romulans?
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
quote:Originally posted by Masao: Yikes! I want to get as far away from that as possible!
I don't mean EXACTLY like that...but like...pointier bussard caps, a & a slight flare at the fore end with a gentle taper back. Enough to give a sense of overpoweredness with a smoother like. Like...argh. Hard to explain. I could draw it, but I can't scan it.
quote:Originally posted by Mars Needs Women: Looks like the E is suffering from Elephantiasis. May I ask where got it from? It's not so bad, it looks like a sturdier version of Re-imagined Enterprise from a while back. Though I don't like the idea of the E having neck strut torpedo tubes before TMP.
It's from trek BBS, I think...someone did it based on what was shown in the trailer. And yeah, it's a lot better than the Koernerprise. My only real problem is with the winglet/intercooler size. And the pylon flanging, but that's understandable for things.
Posted by Sean (Member # 2010) on :
Kinda like those air bulbs, the ones they use to clear babies' noses and mouths, only less exageratedly tapered?
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
I'm actually thinking more like the old-fashioned "cap bombs" we had when I was a kid, but stretched a bit. Like this:
Except a pointier tip, no fins, & a slightly larger-diameter rear "tube" (relatively speaking).
Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
Too late, Shik. That Trek XI horrified me so much I'm going to go with enlarged Daedalus-style nacelles with absolutely straight sides. Thanks a lot, man!
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
Story of my life, man. Jobs, women, starship design...never fails.
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
You come on too strong, you need to be yourself...just less so.
Posted by aridas (Member # 1051) on :
Can you explain your rationale behind the split secondary hull? It's very interesting, and such a distinct combination of shapes leads me to think you have something in mind.
As for the flow with your other designs, it strikes as a possible mid ground between the Comet/Daedalus and Wasp. It's the Wasp design that makes me think this one looks a bit too convoluted, though. I find it hard to imagine such a simple and beautiful composition as Wasp following so closely on the heels of this monster, though anything's possible.
Anyhow, your thought provoking work provoked some thoughts, and before I knew it I was tinkering with the design. But without any sense of how you wanted the ship to work I went purely by eye, trying to strike that mid ground as well as find some pleasing proportions. I hope you don't mind -- it started with tinkering and ended with a bigger overhaul, mainly because I tried to keep the secondary hull assembly much closer to a cylindrical design. It just seemed more primitive that way, and yet was also used on the later Wasp.
Posted by Sean (Member # 2010) on :
Looks less like the hulking monster of a ship it was before, and since it was an idea that failed, I see no reason why it must look very similar to it's predessors, or decendants. Perhaps it failed because of the radical design, so the designers went back to a more conditional design, like the Wasp.
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
Right, since the ship didn't establish a lineage, it would make sense if they tried some ideas that didn't end up working out.
For example, separating the reactor core from the rest of the secondary hull would allow some additional strengthening of the ship's structural frame. Especially since the reactor is probably a lot bigger and heavier than most of the ones in smaller ships.
Posted by Sean (Member # 2010) on :
And possibly a lot less stable, so it might have been a good idea for core to be in a place separate from the rest of the ship. Maybe that part is ejectable, or ventable, or at least has extra radiation shielding to protect the rest of the ship.
Posted by Mars Needs Women (Member # 1505) on :
Look your work aridas. It makes the ship seem imposing, yet elegant. Not bad for failed ship class.
Posted by Sean (Member # 2010) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mars Needs Women: Look your work aridas. It makes the ship seem imposing, yet elegant. Not bad for failed ship class.
A bit early in the morning, huh? Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
I don't think the core could be ejectable or even disconnected... for one thing, with the dual pylons, the system would be pretty complicated for an emergency scenario like that. But the reactor itself wouldn't necessarily be unsafe; after all, plenty of big(ger) ones were used in the heavy cruisers during the war. I think it's just that this core wasn't efficient enough for a ship of its size. Design compromises, and all that.
Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
This ship is intended as a dead end evolving from Daedalus. The designers of this ship (not me!) developed existing technologies to their limits, but the technologies weren't good enough. Sort of like adding more pison engines to a plane in an attempt to make it faster than jets or building a very large coal-fired steam locomotive. However, some of the new equipment it introduced were used successfully in later ships, although this ship was a failure overall.
As I mentioned before, I want this ship to look brutish, a Daedalus on steroids. I wanted it too look like an overbuilt prewar tank (with multiple turrets or with the main gun in the hull ). I didn't want it took too sleek (sorry, Aridas! But the coke-bottle shape is very elegant.). The navigation deflector was specifically moved from the primary hull to allow it to be longer, which, for some reason, was necessary at the time to give it greater range and power. The secondary hull was then extended downward to accomadate it. This ship is a missile carrier, which is one reason the primary hull is flattened; missles are carried in the outboard parts of the primary hull.
The reactor is in the stern of the ship. This is an arrangement that was used in some of my later ships, such as Moskva. The reactor was not ejectable, but the rear of the ship could be broken off, like the tail of a skink. This occurs through the engineer's best friend: explosive bolts! The nacelles would also be broken off (or maybe the nacelles could also be powered with a fusion reactor in the "thorax" part of the ship).
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
Lookin' nice! I like the idea of making it a missile cruiser, with those honkin' big doors in the front.
My one big critique is the nacelles... Though I wholeheartedly empathize with your desire for simple, straight nacelles, I think they need to have SOME kind of features to them. Even if it's simple ribbing like aridas', it'll add some features. As it is, the simple nacelles contrast too much with the complex secondary hull.
My next issue is more of a personal preference. But I think that the neck needs to be lowered a bit, so that the aft end is flush with the top of the secondary hull. The whole thing looks too unstable as it currently sits.
Finally, don't forget to add impulse engines somewhere! Posted by Sean (Member # 2010) on :
The secondary hull looks kind of excelsior-ish from the front. I agree MM, the nacells need ribbing or something. Maybe fins toward the aft ends to make them look like missiles or something. The end of the "neck" would be a great place to put a shuttlebay. It is a huge ship, so another secondayr bay somewhere wouldn't hurt. Maybe Nx class ( I know, wrong continuity) style launch bay...
Wait, is that one on the forward thorax?
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
It is, yes.
Justify NCX prefix, plz.
Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
The Neck: If the neck is lowered to be flush with the top of the secondary hull, then either the primary hull is lowered (interfering with the nav deflector) or the neck hits the primary hull below the equator, which looks a bit weak.
The Nacelles: I'm still messing with them. But I think that SRB-style ribbing would be out of scale.
Impulse thrusters: They'll probably be on the curved rear part of the "thorax" someplace so that the ship will still have them if the M/AM reactor in the "abdomen" is ejected.
Shuttle bays. I still haven't decided the final location. Possibly at the end of the neck, someplace on the thorax (where one is now), or on the primary hull. The ship is big enough to have more than one shuttlebay.
NCX:I haven't decided whether this ship will be in service or just experimental, so I put on something halfway between "NCC" and "NX."
Posted by Daniel Butler (Member # 1689) on :
lol How many people have now bitched about the neck? Perhaps *some*thing should be done about it
As a failed missile carrier, this is looking very nice. Not something we'd see in service, which is of course the point.
Posted by Kobi (Member # 1360) on :
If it is a missile carrier than I know why it is a failed design: all missiles are forward facing. So your ship would need to have a greater distance to the target if it isn't facing it. If it is designed by war hungry admirals they would want a greater firing range.
About the neck (again): While I think the connection to the secondary hull has the correct size it is too small at the connection to the primary hull. You could give it some structural detail which should look as if it was added later in order to prevent the primary from breaking off the rest of the ship.
My suggestions: * instead of three tubes per side all on one deck in one direction have them spread over three decks with different directions (for example 10�, 25�, 40� off the centre line). * lower the primary hull so that the current centre line is same height as secondary hull, in order to allow the deflector free sight again, raise the lower part by giving it another curvature.
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
quote:Originally posted by Masao: The Neck: If the neck is lowered to be flush with the top of the secondary hull, then either the primary hull is lowered (interfering with the nav deflector) or the neck hits the primary hull below the equator, which looks a bit weak.
The Nacelles: I'm still messing with them. But I think that SRB-style ribbing would be out of scale.
Impulse thrusters: They'll probably be on the curved rear part of the "thorax" someplace so that the ship will still have them if the M/AM reactor in the "abdomen" is ejected.
Shuttle bays. I still haven't decided the final location. Possibly at the end of the neck, someplace on the thorax (where one is now), or on the primary hull. The ship is big enough to have more than one shuttlebay.
NCX:I haven't decided whether this ship will be in service or just experimental, so I put on something halfway between "NCC" and "NX."
I think Sternbach used "NXP-" for the Defiant-Class pathfinder vessel, which is what this sounds like. More a concept vehicle than a shakedown prototype; the Spruce Goose of the late 22nd Century.
I wonder if the Shuttlebay could go on the aft face of the primary hull, just above the neck? Perhaps with flanking P/S cargobays.
As for the impulse engines, what if you stuck them at the tail end of the neck? It has good clearance and is near enough to the centre of mass, though the machinery may make access through the neck a little tricky.
I agree the nacelles could use a little something to convey the idea that this thing is way more overpowered. Perhaps a bulge down the length of the midsection, maybe even a scooped out cooling grill, the ancestor of the features on the inside of the connie's nacelles or indeed the refit nacelle grill.
[EDIT] Sort of like this. ...vaguely. Perhaps add the SRB style ribbing to that, linking to two bulges together, then you have yourself an over designed cooling system.
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
Ooh, I like the idea of having super-hot nacelles that need extra cooling equipment on them. Yet another instance of pushing "old" technology a little to far instead of innovating new technology.
I'm a little puzzled, though, considering that Starfleet (or rather, the UESN) clearly would've had plenty of experience with the designs of much bigger ships. So what would be the problem that caused this ship to fail?
...Well, the answer just occurred to me as I was typing this. The designers were trying to slim things down, to cram a warship the size of Conqueror into a hull half its volume. (I whipped up my own comparison to see the ship next to some of its beefier predecessors.) Anyway, though the technology was basically sound, the equipment had to run too close to full capacity to be completely effective and safe.
Another explanation could be that the designers were trying to cut down on the mass of the ship (which could explain the oddly-shaped secondary hull), and went with slimmed-down nacelles. Then it turned out when the ship went into testing that they were TOO slim. But it was too late to go back to the drawing board, so they just grafted on an external cooling apparatus.
Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
A prime concern when I design Earth ships is too keep the surfaces as clean as possible. I also want to avoid any (!) hint of Series 5-inspired surface detailing. So, I want to keep the shapes fairly simple. But Rev's idea for cooling might work in a more streamlined form.
I like the neck! Kobi, I don't think the neck attachment is too small. The neck and the attachment is much thicker than Daedalus's and is at the center of the mass. I think it'll be strong enough. Non-longitudinal missile tubes might be useful, but I haven't had them on any of my other ships. For the sake of design cleanliness, I tend to avoid them.
Impulse thrusters: I'll probably put them on the "thorax" rather than the "abdomen" because the abdomen can be ejected.
Here's some ideas for the nacelles. They look a bit like the pulse jet for the V-1.
Posted by Sean (Member # 2010) on :
Either the first or the fourth. The 2nd looks like it changes shapes in sync with the hulls, and the 3rd looks like it is ready for a cartoon-esque explosion.
EDIT Actually, the first seems to change shape along with the hulls, but looks a lot better with less of a bulge, and more smooth thin length. YOu know what I'm saying?
Posted by aridas (Member # 1051) on :
Purely on aesthetics, number one.
You don't need to say you're sorry. Aesthetics are subjective things, and like I said, I didn't know what your rationale was. Now that you've explained it, the design makes sense as it is.
It's good to see you designing ships again. Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
One or two, bubby.
[ April 13, 2008, 06:43 PM: Message edited by: Shik ]
Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
quote:Originally posted by aridas: It's good to see you designing ships again.
I'm always designing ships, although not always on paper. Sometimes I'll be designing a ship and walk smack into a telephone pole.
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
I like #3 best, but that's because I've always liked the Conqueror/Comet-style nacelles. They're different. But given a second choice, I'd say #1.
As for the cooling system, why not place them on the inboard side of the nacelles only, so they don't cause obstruction on the side view? This could be the first use of the intercooler system that was used on the 1701... Which, in Museum canon, also had overly-large nacelles relative to previous designs.
For the neck, I don't have a problem with the part that connects to the primary hull... I don't like the connection to the "thorax." Specifically, the way that the neck just ends and curves down makes it look unstable, like the entire forward section could fall downwards under its own weight. (That happened to me when I was trying to assemble that shitty AMT model of the Enterprise-A. I know, I know... zero-gee and all that.)
I think if you put a large, bulky impulse engine assembly there (and you know this ship's gonna need a huge impulse engine, right?) would be the perfect location. It's midline along the center of mass for the secondary hull (if you want to at least partially obey Newtonian physics), plus it provides a visual "anchor" for the aft end of the neck.
Posted by Sean (Member # 2010) on :
The neck might look more balanced if it extended aft to the end of the first thorax section. Ending in either an impulse drive ( hopefully one of many), or a clamshell shuttlebay. Actually, now that I think of it, the impulse engines would look better on the circumfrence of the aft side of the forward thorax. That way yhty'll still be usable if the second segment has to be seperated.
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
I like the neck, Masao. It looks dinosaur-like.
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
I wasn't actually thinking of the NX-01, more like a more primitive version of the 1701's inter-coolers as Dan surmised. I do like the forward bulge, but I worry that you aesthetics may be at odds with your design brief. It's hard to see something as being streamlined and "spruce goosey" at the same time. How about having the intercoolers only on the inboard face as Dan suggested with the Daedalus style cooling rings only on the aft half of the nacelle? That should give a reasonable balance between streamlined and a bit of compromising on the part of the Starfleet engineers. Ignore them, the neck is fine.
Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
Thanks, all, for your input. Your suggestions will either be thoughfully considered or rejected out of hand. Can't say which.
I'll finish this ship up in my secret lair.
Posted by Daniel Butler (Member # 1689) on :
Rev: Unless MinutiaeMan's name is also Daniel I think you have your surmisers mixed up Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
quote:Originally posted by Daniel Butler: Rev: Unless MinutiaeMan's name is also Daniel I think you have your surmisers mixed up
It is!
Posted by Daniel Butler (Member # 1689) on :
Cool! Hi fellow Daniel!
Posted by Sean (Member # 2010) on :
The only people I've heard of who share my name are drug users and the occasional crazy person. And I think an actor, but he doesn't count. Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
One of my dogs growing up had your name. And so does my teddy bear,
Posted by Sean (Member # 2010) on :
I've always thought that my name is an odd name for a pet. Unless it is distinctly Irish... Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
He was a tricolor collie. So Scottish...BITCH.
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
This is not the comment you're looking for. Move along.
Posted by Mars Needs Women (Member # 1505) on :
(This isn't the post we were looking for. Move along citizen.)
Posted by Daniel Butler (Member # 1689) on :
I was going to be named Sean since my father's family is Irish, but after I was born my parents up and decided I didn't "look" like a Sean. End result: I was named Daniel after a kid my dad once knew for a brief period in his childhood. Whaaaat a namesake.
Posted by Sean (Member # 2010) on :
My names, first and middle, were picked out of a book. My great Grandmother was Irish, so they went with the S-e-a-n spelling, but my middle name is completely uninspiring, and doesn't even sound good with my last name.
Sean Eric Adamchick doesn't have a ring to it, ya know. My brother was named after two dead relatives, so his name means something, but sounds like it belongs in the 19 century.
Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
A small update. I added some impulse thrusters and a shuttle bay. Posted by Sean (Member # 2010) on :
It's beautiful. Too bad it failed...
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
Pop-up thrusters. Keen.
I wonder if serving on this thing is a point of prestige or embarrassment?
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
Is that a pair of aft missile tubes I see, too? Unlike Kobi, I see no problem with the unidirectional nature of the missile tubes. After all, in the Museum timeline, the primary ordinance is warp-guided missiles with a range of 1 to 10 AU. When you're talking ranges like that, initial directions don't matter very much at all.
Or should we criticize the US Navy's frigates for not having 45�-angled Tomahawk missile launchers in addition to the normal vertical ones?
quote:Too bad it failed...
See, I'm not 100% sure that it would've "failed" completely. I could see them making a very limited run of these, say 5 or 8 (at most) as a deterrent to deploy along the Romulan border. Of course they'd realize after they started building them that they were completely unnecessary and then cut back the production run, down to just two or three at most. And those few that made it into service didn't perform so swell.
After all, at least ONE ship had to have been built for it to be featured in the Starfleet Museum...
EDIT: Although I definitely see the better aesthetic of nacelle #1 (used in the latest update), I'm starting to believe more strongly that the original design with nacelle #3 is the way to go. Why? Because they're honkin' big and ugly, for such a honkin' big and ugly ship. Everything about it looks slightly too big and over-proportioned; I think the nacelles should, too. (Which is why it's such a cool design.)
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
The ships did NOT fail. They acheived a differently assessed objective level.
Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
I like this design more than I expected, so maybe it will turn out to have a better career than I've planned so far. But it definitely has a old-fashioned feel to it, so probably wouldn't have a long career, even if initially successful. Still, the ships might be useful as boarder guards (or artificial reefs).
I haven't decided what are behind doors 1, 2, and 3. I might use the outer doors (and the matching door behind) for a bi-directional beam weapon.
I like these nacelles. The big cigars were just too big and visually uninteresting. These are the same length, so still suggest massive size. Also, Shik suggested nacelles with enlarged fronts!
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
Or perhaps add Moskva-esque laser cannons? I think it would make sense to have six missile launchers, considering how the Conqueror had nine...
Another idea... would there be room to have a secondary impulse engine on the primary hull? Thinking back to the Wasp article and the problems with Daedalus, I'd imagine some form of separation might be possible.
Posted by Mars Needs Women (Member # 1505) on :
Like the route your taking with this ship. Maybe shouldn't be a failure. Maybe it was so awesome they didn't need to produce so many. Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
quote:Originally posted by Masao: I like these nacelles. The big cigars were just too big and visually uninteresting. These are the same length, so still suggest massive size. Also, Shik suggested nacelles with enlarged fronts!
It really works well. it's got that "muscled Popeye forearm" look to it.
...I wonder if this might not be Starfleet's first failed attempt at an "all-in-one" ship: heavy weapons & shielding for fleet actions, maybe a troop carrying ability as well to land them, & science labs. Like...Constitution a century before the fleet could really manage it.
Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
quote:Originally posted by MinutiaeMan: Or perhaps add Moskva-esque laser cannons? I think it would make sense to have six missile launchers, considering how the Conqueror had nine...
The number of doors isn't so important unless you're thinking about how many missilies can be launched in a single volley. On the other hand, you can have a rapid reload mechanism (like a machine gun) or mutliple missiles stacked in single tube.
quote:Originally posted by MinutiaeMan: Another idea... would there be room to have a secondary impulse engine on the primary hull? Thinking back to the Wasp article and the problems with Daedalus, I'd imagine some form of separation might be possible.
The "abdomen,* which contains the M/AM reactor, can break off. The fusion reactor, which we assume is safe, is a tokamak at the rear of the thorax. The impulse thrusters are nearby.
Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
The impulse thrusters are giving me trouble because of the lack of clearance past the abdomen. So, I've made some adjustments. Which is better?
Posted by Daniel Butler (Member # 1689) on :
I like the top one better.
I assume the missiles are launched in a similar manner to photon torpedoes, with a warp field imposed on them? I only ask because if they were chemically launched (or with impulse engines) then you really couldn't stack more than one in a tube, could you?
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
The quad arrangement looks better, as they seem less "pop-up" than the triad, which made me wonder how the thrust product was generated & channeled.
Perhaps if you rotated the quad 45 degrees, then it would look as if there were only 2 impulse systems, ont dorsal & one ventral, each exhausting to 2 ports., like this:
Then you'd also have a little more internal room to play with by not needing 4 impulse systems, & you might be able to use the associated "bulges" to fair into other things (sensor packages, beam weapons, whatever).
Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
If a chemical rocket's motor does not ignite until after leaving the tube, it should be ok. It could be ejected with a magnetic field, compressed air or something similar.
I have to go back and read my previous articles, because I've forgotten what I've written about missiles and photon torpedoes previously.
Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
quote:Originally posted by Shik: Perhaps if you rotated the quad 45 degrees, then it would look as if there were only 2 impulse systems, ont dorsal & one ventral, each exhausting to 2 ports., like this:
If the thrusters are rotated 45 degrees, the top pair will likely burn off the rear set of nacelles supports. That should be avoided!
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
Not necessarily. There could be tweaking..and...it could...might...
SHUT UP!
Posted by Kobi (Member # 1360) on :
quote:Unlike Kobi, I see no problem with the unidirectional nature of the missile tubes. After all, in the Museum timeline, the primary ordinance is warp-guided missiles with a range of 1 to 10 AU. When you're talking ranges like that, initial directions don't matter very much at all.
I really served in the wrong branch of artillery to know about the details, a quick and dirty math (I shockingly can't think of the correct formula) gave firing arcs of 50�, 250�, 500� and 750� for a wf1 missile with a capability of 0.1�/s turn at 1, 5, 10 and 15 au range (along the arc). Currently I suck at getting the effective range out of my functional.
I think (while we're creating launch types) an Andromeda-style launch would be best: just throw those missiles out of their tube, have them face the target, then ignite the warp thrusters and hope some hour later you sense a target destroyed.
Speaking of thrusters: while a three thruster arrangement gives the optimal movement for all directions, I think I as an admiral would favour four. a) I have redundancy b) I want my ship overpowered Now about placement from engineering point of view: don't have them align with the centre. Having them point outward an equal balanced set of impulse engines will annihilate the offet vertical thrust and will only result in a reduced horizontal thrust.
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
quote:Originally posted by Masao: The impulse thrusters are giving me trouble because of the lack of clearance past the abdomen. So, I've made some adjustments. Which is better?
The simplest way to solve the clearance problem is to move the engines back away from that rounded edge and stick them on the outer hull proper. So they don't look too sticky outy (very technical term!) I'd also elongate them back a bit so they merge with the hull a little better. The whole flower petal thing doesn't really scream warship to me! and As for the shift in mission profile, what if it performed just fine, but a political shift in the post-war Admiralty led to the program being cut short in favour of smaller, more efficient and much more numerous designs that could cover the Federation's rapidly expanding frontier. These behemoths, while fast can only be in one place at a time, while the same amount of resources could produce three smaller starships that are (9 times out of 10) just as capable at dealing with whatever is out there and if not, reinforcements are that much closer and more numerous. I see something like this eventually being relegated to transport or escort duty, perhaps even serving as an academy trainer ship...or have you already done the Republic? Posted by Sean (Member # 2010) on :
I personally like the top variant. The impulse thruster doesn't seem to block the...(shuttlebay?)in that version.
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reverend:
quote:Originally posted by Masao: The impulse thrusters are giving me trouble because of the lack of clearance past the abdomen. So, I've made some adjustments. Which is better?
The simplest way to solve the clearance problem is to move the engines back away from that rounded edge and stick them on the outer hull proper. So they don't look too sticky outy (very technical term!) I'd also elongate them back a bit so they merge with the hull a little better. The whole flower petal thing doesn't really scream warship to me! and As for the shift in mission profile, what if it performed just fine, but a political shift in the post-war Admiralty led to the program being cut short in favour of smaller, more efficient and much more numerous designs that could cover the Federation's rapidly expanding frontier. These behemoths, while fast can only be in one place at a time, while the same amount of resources could produce three smaller starships that are (9 times out of 10) just as capable at dealing with whatever is out there and if not, reinforcements are that much closer and more numerous. I see something like this eventually being relegated to transport or escort duty, perhaps even serving as an academy trainer ship...or have you already done the Republic?
That's weird, I could have sworn I pasted this in the first time... Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
One reason I wanted to put the thrusters on the rounded end cap was that I had use a similar arrangement on my Romulan-War ships. But Rev's solution might work. However, placing the thrusters forward crowds the thorax a bit, and I'm not sure whether I like the abdomen higher or lower.
The shuttle bay is on the back of the primary hull, so isn't block regardless of the thruster's postion.
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
I think that having a single larger impulse engine on the top of the midsection, as a wide extension of the neck, would make a lot of sense. Notice how weird it looks to have the neck end, curve down, and then have a thrust nozzle pop right back up. Makes very little sense, IMO. (Compare to the impulse engine placement of Moskva and Gagarin. I think that a single large impulse thruster at the rear of the neck, and then maybe two auxiliary nozzles is you want, would be the best choice.)
However, of the original two options for the engines that Masao designed, I like the top one better (quad arrangement on the aft curve).
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
quote:Originally posted by Masao: One reason I wanted to put the thrusters on the rounded end cap was that I had use a similar arrangement on my Romulan-War ships. But Rev's solution might work. However, placing the thrusters forward crowds the thorax a bit, and I'm not sure whether I like the abdomen higher or lower.
The solution is to do both. Have the exhausts fair into the thorax & end at the cap, like so:
You've done it before on a couple ships, might as well add another.
Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
I'm going to use the old-style thrusters, as a link to the earlier ships.
The neck will stay the same!
Posted by Sean (Member # 2010) on :
I like the old style thrusters, as long as they are on the quad arrangement like option 1 of the above pic. The bottom thruster seems to blend in with the deflector bulge. Looks nice that way.
Posted by Bernd (Member # 6) on :
The more I look at it, the more I like this monster. Still I am glad that you declare the design a dead end. Posted by Sean (Member # 2010) on :
Bernd,I see you changed the article to the correct fact. Are there any updates for the Ship article section in the works?
Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
I'm tempted to make this ship a larger class because I like how it looks. I tried to make it terrible looking, but I can't. I has a weird kind of beauty.
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
Well pretty things can still be failures. After all, a work of art that gets crappy deuterium parsecage and handles like a neutronium brick is still a shite space ship. As the saying goes, a pretty face and two darseks will bye you a cup of Raktajino.
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
Looks like a fish, moves like a fish, steers like a cow?
Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
In the aviation world, attractive aircraft generally perform better than ugly aircraft. And from an evolutionary point of view, attractive people have a wider choice of potential mates, so could mate for greater intelligence!
Posted by Bernd (Member # 6) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sean: Bernd,I see you changed the article to the correct fact. Are there any updates for the Ship article section in the works?
Nothing in the works. But I will sift through my folder of ideas...
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
quote:Originally posted by Masao: In the aviation world, attractive aircraft generally perform better than ugly aircraft. And from an evolutionary point of view, attractive people have a wider choice of potential mates, so could mate for greater intelligence!
Well you know full well that only applies to free range starships. Vessels that are built in captivity will bonk anything, as many a confused and somewhat distressed drydock structure has discovered.
As far as Aviation precedents go, what if it was something like the Avro CF-105 "Arrow". Looked cool (for the time), apparantly performed great but got shitcanned for mostly political reasons. I live close to Boscombe Down that, back in the day had a bunch of Arrows that the RAF were flight testing. To this day the old pilots rave about the thing, they loved it. Not sure if it says so on wikipedia but the rumour at the time was that the yanks found a way to sink it so we'd buy their plane instead, or something to that effect.
So perhaps this thing was UESN's last gasp before Starfleet really took over starship design and kicked out the old guard?
Posted by Fabrux (Member # 71) on :
The US at the time didn't want Canada to have its own powerful plane - they wanted us dependent. So they conned Diefenbaker into scrapping the Arrow and signing up for a missile defense system. Fucking Diefenbaker.
Posted by Sean (Member # 2010) on :
I wonder if we were ever afraid of war with Canada. For some reason, the film Canadian Bacon comes to mind.
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
No, it was probably economically motivated. I imagine the only threat Canada poses to the US is as a route through which others (the Soviets at the time) can attack.
Posted by Daniel Butler (Member # 1689) on :
Unless their guy in a hunter's vest in a john-boat Navy suddenly appeared one day, in, er, Lake Ontario and...threatened us with...fair liquor prices and friendly demeanors?
Posted by Fabrux (Member # 71) on :
And in return we'd demand sane fuel prices.
Posted by Daniel Butler (Member # 1689) on :
Hey, now, that's OPEC's fault. Oh and the terrorists.
Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
Update. I'm thinking that one reason this ship wasn't successful was that it was overloaded with soon-to-be-obsolete weapons and couldn't be adapted for other uses when a second war with the Romulans failed to occur. Conversion of weapons' spaces to other uses was possible but was considered too expensive.
Just to see how it looked, I've gone a bit crazy with the weapons.
Also, I need to pick names for these ships. I will use names of a single category. I'm thinking their will be from 5 to 10 names, at most. The categories I'm considering are: 1. Dragons (Azazel, Gorynych, Ryujin, Sirrush, Sarkany, Xiuhcoatl et al) 2. Big cats (Lion, Sabertooth, Tiger, Leopard, Jaguar, Cougar, Panther, Puma, Cheetah, Lynx) 3. Theropod Dinos (Tyrranosaurus, Allosaurus, Carnotaurus, Gorgosaurus, Ceratosaurus, Ceratosaurus, Megalosaurus, Gigantosaurus) 4. Heroes and Battles of the Romulan War (none yet).
Posted by Fabrux (Member # 71) on :
Dragons!
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
How about some Starship Troopers references? Hold on, I have the book as a txt file somewhere...
ah, here we are.
quote:I was so full of it all that I couldn't talk about it, so I studied the lists. Whew, what a lot of ships! They were posted by types, too many to locate otherwise. I started reading off the troop carriers, the only ones that matter to an M. I. There was the Mennerheim! Any chance of seeing Carmen? Probably not, but I could send a dispatch and find out. Big ships -- the new Valley Forge and the new Ypres, Merathon, El Alamein, Iwo, Gallipoli, Leyte, Marne, Tours, Gettysburg, Hastings, Alamo, Waterloo -- all places where mud feet had made their names to shine. Little ships, the ones named for foot sloggers: Horatius, Alvin York, Swamp Fox, the Rog herself, bless her heart, Colonel Bowie, Devereux, Vercingetorix, Sandino, Aubrey Cousens, Kamehameha, Audie Murphy, Xenophon, Aguinaldo -- I said, "There ought to be one named Magsaysay."
quote:I turned back and went on reading ships' names: Pal Maleter, Montgomery, Tchaka, Geronimo -- Then came the sweetest sound in the world: " -- shines the name, shines the name of Rodger Young!"
Should be some appropriately militant ideas in there. Personally I like the sound of Vercingetorix. Sound like the sort of name an Admiral with an unhealthily romantic view of military history might pick.
Posted by Sean (Member # 2010) on :
Why not name it the Edsel class?
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
I think that the laser cannons on the front are quite appropriate, but maybe only two pairs. The Moskva and the Lancaster both had fixed cannon mounts, so I think it'd actually be weird for this one to NOT have them.
Two ideas for names... how about either great generals (Hannibal, Alexander, Napoleon, Caesar, Shaka, Saladin, Akbar, etc.) or ancient gods of violence and war (Ares, Shiva, Sekhmet, Odin, Camulos, Ishtar)? And there could probably be some non-Terran names in that list, too.
Something tells me that the ex-UESN generals would probably want as grandiose a name for their pet project as they could get.
Posted by Sean (Member # 2010) on :
You could name them after tanks. Sherman, Tiger, Matilda, Lepeord,etc...
If this thing was designed to be the ultimate fighting machine, why not the names of the premier ships of different classes of battleships ?
Dreadnaught, Bismark, Yamato, Ajax ( although I think you already have a ship named that), Iowa, Maine, Brandenburg...
Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
The problem with Earth generals, tanks, battleships, and Starship Troopers is that they've already been used by lots of people (me included). Gods of war might be good, but I'm pretty sure I've seen those as well.
I think I'll limit my choices to my four alternatives.
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
My only catch with your selections are that none of them really seem to feel right. While the dragon types are interesting, they seem..I don't know, clumsy somehow, with most of them inducing a "WTF is that?" The big cats might work, but many of them evoke smaller, swifter vessels; also, I'd expect to see the Apple logo somewhere on the hull. The dinosaurs...well, maybe 1 or 2 would work, but a whole class of "saur" or "saurus"? Enh. The Romulan War idea could work as well, but as you've said, you & everyone else have done personnel & battles before. Still, out of the 4, it's the least iffy to me.
I thought about the ships & their tech & design while pondering alternatives: big, trying to be something they can't, both overpowered & underpowered in terms of weaponry & engine. The hopes should be reflected in that name scheme. Of course, the size idea came up--names like Behemoth, Leviathan, Mammoth, Olympic, or Gigantic--but those are...I dunno, weak to me. They're "too cute."
In the end, my proffered potential alternative is to use mountains. There's something majestic & imposing about mountains that seem to suit the class, or what the ideal of the class was. You can use singular ones (Everest, Kilimanjaro, Erebus, Matterhorn) or whole ranges (Rockies, Himalaya(s), Caucasus, Alps), & both can come from Earth, the Sol system (Olympus Mons, Silpium Mons, Jura Montes, Freyja Montes) or extrasolar systems (Seleya, Tar'Hana, Pointed Peaks), with the last allowing you freedom of naming some.
Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
I've done mountains before (Olympus Mons class, including Mt. Seleya). Leviathan, et al., are all ocean liner names. They don't sound so military.
This will be a small class, so any pain induced by the names will be minor. I think I'll go with dragons.
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
Oh, right. The pre-war tankers.
Posted by Daniel Butler (Member # 1689) on :
I like the idea of naming them after dragons, but those dragon names seem to be Asian in origin, which tend to be hard to pronounce for ignorant Westerners. Plus nobody'll know what they are. Then again I guess there aren't many named dragons in the west, at least not famous ones. But you could call it Dragon-class, and get the names from something else.
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
quote:Originally posted by Daniel Butler: I like the idea of naming them after dragons, but those dragon names seem to be Asian in origin, which tend to be hard to pronounce for ignorant Westerners.
Gee, can't imagine why.
Another thought: you said conversion of weapon spaces & the like was deemed too expensive. I could see that for converting to a normal front-line ship...but what if they gutted these buggers of weaponry & made them big hospital ships afterward? They've got the space, volume, so on...& maybe engine efficiencies would increase some when ferrying doctors & wounded rather than kill-o-zap rays.
Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
I don't care if people recognize or can pronounce the names of my ships! I was considering including Smaug, Vermithrax, and Temeraire, but I thought that would be a bit cute (but I've used similar names before (ie Susan Calvin).
Probably the cheapest way to convert the ship would be to cut the head off and put on a new one. The hull will be packed with weapons, which will be a real chore to take out.
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
It's a shame they never developed the Vulcans, Andorians etc to the extent they did the Klingons or Bajorans because it'd be nice to use some alien names once in a while. Actually, wasn't there a Vulcan god of war?
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
I do like the dragon idea, too. And I came across another name, Theli. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theli -- I'd link to it directly, but UBB is refusing to allow me to include a URL with any form of parentheses in it!
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
One concern is that naming them after dragons is that it may offend the Berengarians. I've often thought it'd be fun to explain the origin of Dragons in mythology as an ancient Berengarian ship crashing on Earth and stranding the crew.
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
I don't think Berengarian dragons are indigenous sapients. I think they're just local fauna that's dragon like in appearance
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
I don't think it was ever stated either way. Personally I think sapient dragons are a hysterically funny thing to have in the Star Trek universe and only slightly less silly than talking cat people. Besides, it was apparantly on par with Vulcan, Andor and Earth in terms of importance, so I highly doubt it's a colony planet and there's no mention of indigenous humanoid life. Somehow I like the idea of the Vulcan surveyor classifying the "dragons" as fauna, only to have them come over and say hello while they're laying the foundations for a colony. Most amusing.
Posted by Daniel Butler (Member # 1689) on :
You could call them... Gold, Silver, Red, Black, ... even call the different wings of the fleet Chromatic, Prismatic, and Metallic.... *cough*
Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
This is nearing completion. I sent it out to my interior guy (Allen Rolfes), and he's taking a pass at it so that the interior and exterior of the ship will actually fit! On his suggestion I've slightly modified a few things.
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
I still think there are too many laser cannons on the front. Having just a single row (four of them, probably the lower pairs only) would fit a lot better with the other designs you've done. After all, even the Conqueror only had two laser turrets. I think that four would be enough, especially considered that they're fixed mountings and can't be aimed, and the entire ship probably maneuvers like a brick in molasses.
(BTW, shouldn't there be some Wasp-style ball turrets, too? Maybe two ventral and two dorsal on the command hull?)
I think you might want to change the registry number, too. This design is about the same age as the Wasp class. But according to the ship list so far, all the registry numbers from -150 through -237 are taken by Daedalus, Comet, and Wasp respectively. I think that the original number (-291) fit rather well, myself.
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
Yeah, but that list also has Bisons with standard NCC numbers rather than the NCC-T prefixes, so it's already somewhat out of date.
Hm. You raised the bustle slightly. I dig that. And now that I think about it, perhaps a smaller aft ventral weapons emplacement somewhere? Maybe not one as large as the main guns but a something.
Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
I forgot about the Starfleet Comets. I may have to change some numbers around. I might assign Comet to a scout series or something. I have to renumber all the Olympus Mons ships. Man, more work.
Allen Rolfes is doing the interiors now. He seems to think all these weapons will actually fit ok. I'm a bit sceptical, but he knows his work.
I had to tear down and redo the back end of the thorax and the bustle. the centerlines weren't matching. Also, the bustle has been slimmed down slightly to prevent the dorsal impulse thruster from burning a hole through it.
This ship predates Wasp, so doesn't necessarily have what Wasp has. I'm thinking that this ship tried to introduce a lot of stuff in a single package, but all the new techs didn't mesh so well. The various components were finally refined and were successfully used by later ships.
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
You could also just cut back the number of Comets given over to Starfleet, maybe by half or a third.
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
Or just give it an NX or NXP registry, assuming it's a one of a kind. As for the forward turrets, for purely aesthetic reasons I'd try removing the outer two on the top row and the inner pair on the bottom row.
Dragon-Class sounds a bit odd to me. Perhaps Draco-Class would be a little less on the nose? Or even Dragoon-Class if you want to evoke lizards and the military with a single word?
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
Ooh, I like Kris' idea for the cannons!
Concerning the Olympus Mons, yeah it's out of date. But the rest of the ships are IMO valid. Besides, so what if the numbers are slightly out of order? It just means that the Wasp was planned for a longer time than Dragon. (Maybe Dragon can be NCC-243, set right after the Wasp block.)
Posted by Sean (Member # 2010) on :
The way the laser cannons are from the front view, it looks like a spider. Kind-of...
Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
I blame Minutiae Man for any confusion about numbers.
For my recent ships, the class name is not the name of a ship, but a descriptor of the kind of names that ships have. This is something the RN did. There was the "Weapon" class and the "Tribal" class. I think I already used "Draco" for one of my transport ships. And one of my Al-Burak ships is called USS Dragon.
Posted by Daniel Butler (Member # 1689) on :
Despite much googling and wiki'ing I can't seem to find what a bustle is in the context of a ship's superstructure. Enlightenment por favor?
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
The aft most bit of the ship. It comes from a 19th-century bit of women's clothing, a pad or frame that extended a skirt behind the woman.
Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
quote:Originally posted by Daniel Butler: Despite much googling and wiki'ing I can't seem to find what a bustle is in the context of a ship's superstructure. Enlightenment por favor?
I think I originally got the term from armored vehicles. Sometimes, tanks have a counterweight on the back of the turret when a large gun is mounted. This is referred to as a bustle, after the padding at the back of skirts to increase the apparent lordosis (bend of the back).
Posted by aridas (Member # 1051) on :
I can't find an instance of it being used in this way, but I seem to recollect "bustle" being an archaic term for the armor belt at the waterline on early iron warships.
Posted by Sean (Member # 2010) on :
I think it was also used to refer to the .50 cal machine gun turrets on B-17 and B-29 bombers.
Posted by Daniel Butler (Member # 1689) on :
I am flooded with info and thankful.
Posted by Sean (Member # 2010) on :
quote:I am flooded...
Time to call FEMA... Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
quote:Originally posted by aridas: I can't find an instance of it being used in this way, but I seem to recollect "bustle" being an archaic term for the armor belt at the waterline on early iron warships.
Google for turret bustle and you'll find some references. Mostly about Shermans.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
) and the sort of insectoid secondary hull - the pinch into a fore and aft section.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
