I'm writing an essay about the conjectural Starfleet vessel classes and what they might possibly look like based on such factors as registry numbers, time of commissioning, verbal descriptions, etc., and I need some art help as, quite frankly, I suck at photoshop.
I've posted what I've done so far, just to give an idea of what I'm doing. Each class will have it's own analysis page, along with a placeholder of a canon ship that I think the conjectural class is related to. In the future, once the writing is complete, I want to replace the placeholders with a unique design.
For now, I'm focusing on the Ambassador class. I'm going under the assumption that the Antares, Apollo, Hokule'a and Wambundu classes are all variants of the Ambassador, because they have similar registries, have only a few ships in service (like the Ambassador), and that the Ambassador class has no known variants like the Galaxy, Excelsior, or Constitution classes do.
I'm using the side-view diagram of the Enterprise-C as a place holder, but I'm looking for the following variant designs:
1. Antares: a Hermes/Saladin/Freedom style variant.
2. Apollo: a Miranda/Nebula style variant.
3. Hokule'a: a Constellation/Cheyenne style variant.
4. Wambundu: A Daedalus/Olympic style variant.
I only need a side view of the designs for the essay. I'd appreciate any help anyone can give me. Thanks in advance! Posted by Pensive's Wetness (Member # 1203) on :
ive seen one of those model looking ones that Jason makes of the Miranda-sorta looking Apollo.
Posted by Fabrux (Member # 71) on :
Well, our own Reverend has already done an Apollo as you've described and can be seen here. There are a few 3D meshes of this ship poking around as well.
As for the others, I might take a crack at it. They won't be nearly as good as Kris's work, however. I'm still stuck on raster. Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
quote:ive seen one of those model looking ones that Jason makes of the Miranda-sorta looking Apollo.
IIRC, Jason based his model on Sternbach's diagram of an "Ambassador-ized" Pegasus. Which is sorta like what I wanted for the Apollo, but not quite (i.e. the nacelle pylons are stuck to the underside of the saucer, which never made much sense to me, unless engineering was located in the saucer instead of the secondary hull. But Sternbach's LCARS display kinda refutes that.)
quote:Well, our own Reverend has already done an Apollo as you've described and can be seen here.
I know all about that design, and it's about 90% perfect as to what I want. However, I think Rev said he wasn't happy with that drawing, and I wouldn't want to use his design if he has a problem with it.
quote:As for the others, I might take a crack at it. They won't be nearly as good as Kris's work, however.
What you'd come up with would be infinitely better than what I could come up with, unless I drew the design on a piece of paper Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
There's a model kit conversion for the 2500th scale Ambaddasor that makes Rev's kind of Apollo- though the kit has a different pod.
Personally, I like Rev's pod design- though I'd have to add windows and lifeboats- it always seemed inplusable that the Nebula pods wither were unmanned (very unlikely) or lacked windows and emergency escape pods.
Besides, we've never seen evidence of a nebula's pod giving the design better sensors than a Galaxy has...which is unfortunate, They should be like mobile listening posts/telescopes/sensor arrays- making them vital to both research and defense.
...and there's always the chance to make a hangar pod- something that's just a giant launch facility for shuttles, Runabouts and fighters. Such a ship could serve as a mobile outpost for colonizing a system- or assisting a world in times of strife or natural disaster.
Gotta build a model with one of those on it- maybe through-deck is the way to go- open at fore and aft.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by Pensive's Wetness: ive seen one of those model looking ones that Jason makes of the Miranda-sorta looking Apollo.
Thsi is how mine looks- still an obvious Ambassador variant but the secondary hull is about a third longer than a standard Ambassador class. The greater internal volume, coupled with the engineering section being saucer-based- would make for a huge amount of research and lab space.
If nothing else, Rick Sternbach liked it! (he's a member of the Starshipmodeler.net forums)
Posted by Pensive's Wetness (Member # 1203) on :
Jason, there's nothing saying that you couldn't use both designs. they both appear to use Ambassador components... maybe not the same same class but simular functions?
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
quote:Originally posted by Fabrux: Well, our own Reverend has already done an Apollo as you've described and can be seen here. There are a few 3D meshes of this ship poking around as well.
As for the others, I might take a crack at it. They won't be nearly as good as Kris's work, however. I'm still stuck on raster.
Holy crap that's OLD...and really shite. I'm sure I did a much more detained rendition than that at some point. I'll have to check my old back-ups.
[EDIT]
Well it looks like I never finished it (the sheer size of the file gave my old PC fits as I recall) but it's much better than that old thing and all the major design features are in place: -
[ February 16, 2011, 04:37 PM: Message edited by: Reverend ]
Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :
Nice. Love the detailing in the saucer and the bridge module you designed.
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
quote:Well it looks like I never finished it (the sheer size of the file gave my old PC fits as I recall) but it's much better than that old thing and all the major design features are in place:
Rev, if you ever decide to finish the side view, would you mind if I used it for my essay? It's like 99% what I'm looking for for the Apollo entry.
Posted by Pensive's Wetness (Member # 1203) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reverend:
quote:Originally posted by Fabrux: Well, our own Reverend has already done an Apollo as you've described and can be seen here. There are a few 3D meshes of this ship poking around as well.
As for the others, I might take a crack at it. They won't be nearly as good as Kris's work, however. I'm still stuck on raster.
Holy crap that's OLD...and really shite. I'm sure I did a much more detained rendition than that at some point. I'll have to check my old back-ups.
[EDIT]
Well it looks like I never finished it (the sheer size of the file gave my old PC fits as I recall) but it's much better than that old thing and all the major design features are in place: -
on suggestion for edit. the phaser strips. since this is a ambassator-type hull, shouldnt the phaser strips still be arc'd in the principle cardinal directions? from all the kitbashs & phyiscal studio models (as well as the STFC ships) the Gaxaly-type hulls had the full 300 degree (+/-) axial phaser strips on the primary hulls. the ambassator, Niagara & Freedom classes all had some form the segmented systems covering larger arcs. Now of course, the nature of the BoBW ships very kitbase nature makes them somewhat suspect on where the proper locations should be since some strips looking loike they could fire into their nacells.
anyway, im high 7 gassy on Taco-Smell so please review your art. perhaps generate a less current version (perhaps the full strips came with a major upgrade of the ship during a yard period? so what guns were mounted before? etc)...
*fart*
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
^Details like the bridge substructure, the hull markings and the phaser arrays differ from those of the Ambassador by design. I intended it too look like a closely related ship but also unique and not just a straight-up kit-bash (I hat kit-bashes!)
As for the phaser arrays in particular, it's an aesthetic choice but if you insist I can quite easily pull a treknical explanation out of my arse; these are early model linear arrays that pre-date those on the Ambassador and others. Though much more powerful than the earlier ball turrets they had a longer recharge cycle (by 0.37 secs) so later ships like the Ambassador were fitted with "shorter" independently powered arrays that could fire in sequence to compensate. It wasn't until the development of the Nebula-class that more efficient linear array were perfected.
quote:Originally posted by Dukhat:
quote:Well it looks like I never finished it (the sheer size of the file gave my old PC fits as I recall) but it's much better than that old thing and all the major design features are in place:
Rev, if you ever decide to finish the side view, would you mind if I used it for my essay? It's like 99% what I'm looking for for the Apollo entry.
Sure, go for it. The side view is already 90% done as is, it's just missing a few details. Structurally the design is all there but if I have time I'll see what I can do. Keep in mind though I haven't touched anything like this in a bloody donkey's age.
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
Thanks, Rev.
quote:I intended it to look like a closely related ship but also unique and not just a straight-up kit-bash (I hate kit-bashes!)
And I'm actually not looking for kit-bashes for the four designs. If it was just rearranging parts, I could do that myself. Rather, I'm more interested in showing "variants" of the Ambassador (a la Constitution/Miranda) rather than just rearrangements of the same parts. That's why I don't particularly like Sternbach's Pegasus concept, even though it could technically be a candidate for my Apollo class: because it looks too much like a kit-bashed rearrangement of the original parts, and the arrangement doesn't make a lot of sense design-wise.
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
Indeed. Mind you, I'd caution against oversimplifying your perception of some of these ships based on the registry alone. I remember back in the old ASDB days we had very lengthy discussions about just this sort of thing.
My feeling was always to keep the general "feel" of the era a ship was from without resorting to the kind of unimaginative component swapping a lot of fan designers lean on. I also liked to mix things up a bit so that just because the two or three ships we know of from one of these classes had regs within a certain range, that need not require them to have originated from the corresponding era.
Take the Hokule'a for example; a 10000 range reg as I recall, but we chose to make it a derivative of the Excelsior design, with the Tripoli being from a later production batch.
Same story with the Antares, (which I thought of as being somewhat related to the Hokule'a) a higher number but again, a late build or even refit of an even older design (late 2260's/early '70's.) The logic as far as I was concerned was that the big ships of the line come and go, but the utilitarian designs are the ones that stick around longer.
I also rather dislike the ridged idea that each era *must* have a "configurational equivalent" of the Miranda, the Constellation, the Constitution etc. etc. To me that's just coming at a design problem from entierly the wrong angle. Just take a look at the history of aviation and you won't see a nice neat progression from one era of craft to the next you'll see a process of trial and error shaped by the circumstances of the day. Sure there's a clear technological progression but there's also countless dead enders, failed experiments, promising designs that were sunk for political or commercial reasons, exotic designs that innovated and went way out there but were never followed up and just straight-forward no frills work horses.
More than anything, what I tried to do with all of my designs is to come up with ships that were A) NOT kit-bashes B) could add something new or different into the mix and C) look cool and unique.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dukhat: Thanks, Rev.
quote:I intended it to look like a closely related ship but also unique and not just a straight-up kit-bash (I hate kit-bashes!)
And I'm actually not looking for kit-bashes for the four designs.
You'll notice that I kitbashed (stole) Rev's blue whatever the hell that isstructure from his bridge structure...hell, it's a (crappy) crib on his entire saucer.
Always steal from the best, that's my motto.
Hmmm...I wonder what that model would look like rebuilt (with my current skill level) and with a pod added...maybe on a Miranda-ish rollbar holding it up instead of the Apollo's central stem?
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
When I talk about kitbashing, I don't mean the literal thing model makers do to fabricate something out of existing parts but the cut & paste type fan designs that just rearrange existing designs into new configurations.
As for that blue thing, it's the arboretum. You might also notice that large bank of aft facing windows just behind it; that's meant to be a large rec deck. The concept being that it'd have a balcony view of the garden area.
I actually tried several variations on how to mount the pod, including a Miranda style rollbar. The problem I found is that in order for the pod to clear the bridge module, you'd either have to attach the pylons to the rear quarters of the saucer (which interferes with the nacelle pylons) or have them sit right on top of said pylons, in which case the roll bar appears overly tall and odd looking to the point of being impractical.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reverend: When I talk about kitbashing, I don't mean the literal thing model makers do to fabricate something out of existing parts but the cut & paste type fan designs that just rearrange existing designs into new configurations.
As for that blue thing, it's the arboretum. You might also notice that large bank of aft facing windows just behind it; that's meant to be a large rec deck. The concept being that it'd have a balcony view of the garden area.
I actually tried several variations on how to mount the pod, including a Miranda style rollbar. The problem I found is that in order for the pod to clear the bridge module, you'd either have to attach the pylons to the rear quarters of the saucer (which interferes with the nacelle pylons) or have them sit right on top of said pylons, in which case the roll bar appears overly tall and odd looking to the point of being impractical.
Yeah, on your Apollo it's an odd thing to have an alternate pod configuration- but on the Sternbach design (which I built) it's kinda neat to follow the vertical nacelle pylons seemingly through the saucer- to a field-goal configuration like the Phionex has. Hmmm..maybe I'd angle the nacelle pylons inward a bit ala the Miranda- smaller pod that way.
You know, my model has those rear-facing windows on the arboretum too- I glommed them thinking it was a large lounge or their ship's bar- they could have called it "Two Backward". Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
^I don't know, there's something about that type of configuration that just bothers me. It works fine for the Miranda but once you add a secondary hull into the mix it looks incomplete. Almost like an insect with it's wings pulled off.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
I think there's a design in the NuTrek with this general configuration.
Really, I just love it as a variant that does not retread old ground- it's not an Enterprise or Reliant, nor any FJ design.
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
quote:I think there's a design in the NuTrek with this general configuration.
There is. It's a three-nacelled ship where the third one is where the secondary hull is on your model. Which pretty much reinforces Rev's ill feeling toward kitbashes, because all those ships in the fleet were literal kitbashes of the Kelvin.
No offense Jason, I like your model (I wish I was that talented modeling-wise). It's the design I don't particularly care for, or at least Sternbach's rationale for it. Why stick the nacelle pylons underneath the saucer if the conduits have to snake through the saucer into engineering in the secondary hull? (Which they do in his LCARS display.)
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
Yeah, that's pretty much the crux of it for me. I tend to approach designs with a practical mindset and I like my ships to not only look good but also feel as if they could work. In this case is just looks like the type of arrangement someone would arbitrarily do just because it looks cool.
I'm not sure if I'm articulating this very well but the way I look at it, it's the same principle why art students who are expected to be able to draw people must start with nudes first (and a little basic medical anatomy helps too.) It's very hard to draw a person wearing clothes unless you have a pretty good idea how they're built. Similarly, when drawing a machine you really ought to have at least a rough understanding on how it works, how things inside fit together, what the details mean and how they relate to one another.
I don't want it to sound as if I'm singling this one out or anything, believe me there's plenty of fan designs that I dislike for this and other reasons. Indeed that's why I stopped reviewing JoAT submissions for Bernd way back when. It got depressing.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
I dont think there has to be any engineering in the secondary uhll though- which would make the secondary hull almost like a swappable Nebula pod.
Consider this design with no secondary hull- it's cheesy looking but not impossible- particularly when you think of saucers with their own warp capability- they'd have to have a saucer-bound engineering section.
BY TNG, weknow that engineerng functions can be easily transfered to the bridge (and bridge functions to engineering, of course), so it's just a matter of locating the warpcore in the saucer and having the conduits follow the saucer's curve to the nacelle pylons.
On large ships like this, it might even be more efficent to have engineering, the impulse plant and the warpcore all centrally located: less time to feel bad as the core breaches...spare you that .0004 seconds of self-recriminations. Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
That's just putting the cart before the horse; coming up with a configuration you think looks cool and trying to justify it without really thinking through the design implications.
Leaving aside for a second the impracticalities behind cramming all your engineering and major industrial facilities into the primary hull--warp core, antimatter injectors, primary deuterium tanks & all of your power distribution systems--with everything else while leaving the secondary hull mostly empty for cargo space; If one were to design a Miranda style Ambassador variant with a large modular cargo capacity, you simply wouldn't want to do it like that.
For one thing you ship's only shuttle bay, impulse engine and the main deflector are all integrated into the secondary hull. Hardly something you can just swap out and not very economical when it comes to manufacturing spare modules.
The way I would approach such a design brief is to take a cue from the Miranda and expand the aft section of the saucer to house include all the aforementioned extra equipment, the shuttle facilities and mount a permanent deflector (either integrated into the primary hull somewhere or on a smaller outboard secondary hull.) Then I'd figure out where the best location for a modular cargo unit would be and designing it specifically for that purpose.
What I'd probably end up with is something more like a cross between the Akira and the old Ptolemy class. Indeed the Bristol class; our old rejected Deneva design would suit that brief rather nicely.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Yes but "putting the cart before the horse" covers every Trek design ever (except the Galaxy, which Probert really went nuts on). Hoestly I have tons of Jeffries sketches trying to find a cool look- most of which were terrible and discarded.
There is an impulse plant on the primary hull on my model it's just powered down like the extra impuklse plants on the Galaxy. The secondary hull's impulse plant would be needed in case of emergency seperation and provides additional power to make up for the huge additional mass the addition of the secondary hull add. As to the engineering, the Ambassador's saucer is HUGE- far far more than adequate to house the ship's engineering. The secondary hull could be all science oriented, not just cargo or whatever....though I agree that the saucer needs some sort of shuttlebay and deflector system for the design to make sense this way.
Of course, this is all fanboy rationalizations for an implusable design but hey..... thats. what. we. do.
No one bends logic to make Trek work like we do at the Solar Flare Forums.
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
quote:Yes but "putting the cart before the horse" covers every Trek design ever (except the Galaxy, which Probert really went nuts on). Hoestly I have tons of Jeffries sketches trying to find a cool look- most of which were terrible and discarded.
To my knowledge the only major design that wasn't completely thought through was the Defiant and that was because they didn't have a lot of time or money. All the others, Jefferies's original, Probert's refit & the E-D, Sternbach's Voyager and the NX-01. All of these were highly detailed designs where their internal configuration was defiantly considered.
The trick is in finding a balance between the aesthetic and the practical. Yes it's nice if it looks cool but it still has to actually work and no amount of rationalization will make be think that type of configuration is practical.
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reverend: All of these were highly detailed designs where their internal configuration was defiantly considered.
No, I'd say that the Defiant's internal configuration was defiantly considered. The other ships' internals were definitely considered. Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reverend:
quote:Yes but "putting the cart before the horse" covers every Trek design ever (except the Galaxy, which Probert really went nuts on). Hoestly I have tons of Jeffries sketches trying to find a cool look- most of which were terrible and discarded.
To my knowledge the only major design that wasn't completely thought through was the Defiant and that was because they didn't have a lot of time or money. All the others, Jefferies's original, Probert's refit & the E-D, Sternbach's Voyager and the NX-01. All of these were highly detailed designs where their internal configuration was defiantly considered.
The trick is in finding a balance between the aesthetic and the practical. Yes it's nice if it looks cool but it still has to actually work and no amount of rationalization will make be think that type of configuration is practical.
I cant agree- whehn you see all the possible configurations of what would become the Enterprise and D7 sketched out, it's obvious that the look was paramount (no pun intended) and we've had to justify things like the Oberth and Nebula. The Excelsior made sense, coming from a design legacy of the Enterprise...well, except that pointless lower shuttlebay anyway.
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
That's just thumbnail concept sketches playing with shapes and proportions. The final designs were much more refined than the initial sketches.
Ships like the Nebula don't really count any more than the Wolf 359 wreckage or those horrible Frankenstein things from DS9. Those are all models put together on relatively short notice, often for only a fleeting appearance so they can't be held to the same standard as the E-D, Voyager or the Runabouts. I'm talking about ships that are designed and when I do I design saying "other ships are just as illogical" is not a very good excuse for lazy thinking.
I don't see anything about either the Oberth or the Excelsior that are particularly problematic. Even if there were, IIRC both were done by ILM and only used in what? Three shots each? I'm sure they never indented for them to recur quite so frequently or hold up under particularly close scrutiny.
quote:Originally posted by MinutiaeMan:
quote:Originally posted by Reverend: All of these were highly detailed designs where their internal configuration was defiantly considered.
No, I'd say that the Defiant's internal configuration was defiantly considered. The other ships' internals were definitely considered.
You should know by now spelling jokes are wasted on me. Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reverend: QUOTE]You should know by now spelling jokes are wasted on me.
Anmen, brother! I dont agree that the Nebula was no better than the W359 stuff: they went to the trouble of making tons of custom parts for that- new secondary hull, bridge, saucer...really, if it's not thought out, why make those particular parts? The problem was that, as par for the course on TNG, the models were scaled very poorly when the shots were composited, making the Nebula the same size as the Galaxy (and it was intended to be maybe 2/3 that size).
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
Originally, it WAS one of the W359 kitbashes! It wasn't until later that they scratch built a proper filming miniature and refined the basic configuration into a workable design.
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
quote:Mind you, I'd caution against oversimplifying your perception of some of these ships based on the registry alone. I remember back in the old ASDB days we had very lengthy discussions about just this sort of thing.
Let me make it clear that this project is just my own personal take on how these ships might look (and registries are only one factor). I'm not trying to argue that this is anything close to definitive. I've always had nothing but respect for the work that the ASDB did way back when, and also a respect for your dislike of kitbashes.
Now with that being said, I've just found that most hero ships (i.e. Constitution, Excelsior, Galaxy, etc.) seem to have many variants. I also consider the Enterprise-C (and the Ambassador class in general) to be a hero ship as well; if it weren't, why name one of the class "Enterprise?" And yet...no variants. Not only that, but there just doesn't seem to be a whole lot of them around for some reason. And interestingly enough there are several other conjectural classes with nearly the same registries, that only have one or two ships operational as well. Coincidence? Maybe, maybe not. But I'm definitely in the "maybe" category.
P.S. While this ship discussion is all fine and good (and I'm not suggesting that it stop), my original OP was to find if anyone could help me in designing some Ambassador variants. Just a reminder... Posted by Fabrux (Member # 71) on :
Yeah, sorry about that. Was laid off and was going to doodle but ended up getting called back to work. For how long, who knows...
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
Don't worry, while all this has been going on I have been working to finish off the Apollo. Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon: Yes but "putting the cart before the horse" covers every Trek design ever (except the Galaxy, which Probert really went nuts on). Hoestly I have tons of Jeffries sketches trying to find a cool look- most of which were terrible and discarded.
Which is perfectly fine, considering at the time there was little to no concept of how things worked on a starship. In the absence of engineering info, it's more than cool to just roll with shape and proportion.
Rev's point is that since we now have engineering info . . . knowledge of plasma conduits and warp cores and so on . . . that designs just don't feel right if they don't abide by the normal rules.
It's not that your saucer-nacelle connection is wrong . . . it's just that it's more John Eaves and less Rick Sternbach, and I gather that Rev's a more Sternbach kinda guy.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by Guardian 2000: [QUOTE]It's not that your saucer-nacelle connection is wrong . . . it's just that it's more John Eaves and less Rick Sternbach, and I gather that Rev's a more Sternbach kinda guy.
And yet...Sternbach designed this as the USS Pegasus. Maybe he was not feeling himself that day.
quote:Originally posted by Reverend: Originally, it WAS one of the W359 kitbashes! It wasn't until later that they scratch built a proper filming miniature and refined the basic configuration into a workable design.
Well, they sure could have reused Galaxy parts for it, but went and made custom everything instead- only the nacelles were straight Galaxy re-use. Then they blew it with the poorly-thought out Southerland configuration, whicj looks cool because they made a more detailed pod but lobbing torpedos right over the bridge and blocking the main shuttlebay really bother me.
Later still, some genius makes a CG Nebula from Galaxy parts and really fucks the design by kitbashing it with all the Galaxy's windows and, presumably, a Galaxy secondary hull.
At that point, the design becomes pointless.
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
I'd hardly say it "blocks" the shuttlebay. That facility is bloody HUGE and it'd be no trouble for even a fairly large shuttle craft to vector in around the central pylon.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reverend: I'd hardly say it "blocks" the shuttlebay. That facility is bloody HUGE and it'd be no trouble for even a fairly large shuttle craft to vector in around the central pylon.
It's a very hard right turn from the shuttlebay to avoid that pylon- every shuttle launch we've seen has involved the very sensible move to get clear of the ship as soon as is possible. Add to that the chances of a shuttle coming in hard or pilot error...made more likely in a combat situation (which, I'd guess STarfleet was not looking at when the Nebbie was envisioned).
eh... It's just not as good a setup as the "field goal" design of the Phoinex configuration.
A bettwr design would be to have a large hangar located at the top of the pod itself- giving complete clearance to departing shuttles and fighters.
Posted by Pensive's Wetness (Member # 1203) on :
what about twin hangers? or set the twin hangers at 150 & 210 degree angles? simply put, if they bothered or even cared, when they 'invisioned' the Nebby, the hanger(s) would have been placed someplace else. I mean, hell, doesnt the saucer separate from the secondary hull? it doesnt even have impulse engines truely visiable, LOLz
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
Although I can certainly agree that the Phoenix has a more optimal flight pattern, I think you're exaggerating the problem with the Sutherland a bit. After all, it would only require a 10-degree offset to avoid the pylon during takeoff or landing. That leaves plenty of maneuvering room with such a wide shuttlebay, considering the size of the shuttlebay. (For reference, you can make out the yellow lettering at the bottom of that picture; I'd guess that the shot shows about 2/3 of the width of the bay.)
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
That picture is hardly a good representation of the shuttlebay but okay- it's workable, if not exactly optimal, to depart the bay at a 10 degree slant- entering the same way though...tricky. Pilots would want the K.I.S.S. method, not the "looks cool" one. Just giving he secondary hull (now pointlessly seperated from the pylons) it's "tail" back (like on the Melborume kitbash) would allow the Southerland's pod o sit farther back and offer far better shuttlebay clearance.
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
^That's even assuming a horizontal flight path. These are after all space craft and there's no reason why they shouldn't be able to approach from almost any angle. Plus, let's be honest, how often have we ever seen more than one shuttle coming or going at an one time?
Posted by Pensive's Wetness (Member # 1203) on :
Nu Trek proved if you needed to get the fuck outta there quick you could do it. Now, considering how fast shit happens during a warp core breach, you think anyone would be able to get to the shuttles quick enough?
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
I'm sure if the need arose they could move at the speed of plot. Maybe as much as drama factor 5. Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Ha! So right- we've seen core breachs that allowed for plenty of evac time, and others that just pop like a baloon.
Hmm...I bet they could computer-launch a large shuttle programmed to beam off-duty personell into it even as it clears the ship and makes for safety at high impulse speed.
Kinda an enforced evacuation. Launch five or six such craft and you could rapidly evac a couple of hundred people (colonists, civillians, sickbay, etc.).
At least get the cute women to safety!
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon:
quote:Originally posted by Guardian 2000: [qb] [QUOTE]It's not that your saucer-nacelle connection is wrong . . . it's just that it's more John Eaves and less Rick Sternbach, and I gather that Rev's a more Sternbach kinda guy.
And yet...Sternbach designed this as the USS Pegasus. Maybe he was not feeling himself that day.
Oh, now if it was a preliminary idea for the Pegasus that's very different, because then you can have the engineering hull as the test section for the "experimental engine" that the ship had on board, while keeping a Mirandized Ambassador saucer and nacelle setup as the main ship.
So yeah, it still makes little sense as a proper ship of the line, but as a hacked-together testbed ship it's all good.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Yeah...as a one-off design it works much better- as do most of the various kitbashes. For the Pegasus, Starfleet could have quietly rebuilt an older Amby to serve it's needs- the ship, of built at a remote locale would have just been a registry on somone's ship list.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
