Masao has been drawing up some of the TAS ships, and he just sent me some pics today that have dispersed some commonly-held myths about the Huron from the TAS episode "The Pirates of Orion".
1.) The prefix of 'S.S.' is commonly assigned to the freighter, but this is not so. It is clearly marked 'U.S.S. Huron' on the hull.
2.) The registry has been almost universally given as NCC-F1313, but it is in fact NCC-F1913.
And this is a very nice four-view drawing by Masao, which I believe is now on display over at the Starfleet Museum: USShuron.jpg
-MMoM
[ January 15, 2002: Message edited by: The Mighty Monkey of Mim ]
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
To paraphrase Mr. Scott: "Aye, and if my granny had nacelles she'd be a starship." 8)
You might wanna think about changing your images to URLs instead. . .
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
Good idea about the pics, Vogon. Guess they were kinda big.
But what does the bit about your granny's nacelles mean? Do you doubt the info I've presented? Or did you mean you don't like the Huron's design?
-MMoM Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
Well, the Huron *is* a butt-ugly ship. The only way it has any Federation-ness to it is the warp nacelles, a la the "Aurora" from TOS. Huron, though, looks kinda like a Nebulon-B frigate from Star Wars with warp drive attached.
G2k
Posted by Michael_T (Member # 144) on :
To me that ship looks like a phaser.
Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
Gosh, guys, I like it!
I've known this ship for as almost as long as I've watched Trek, so I've sort of accepted this design as typically Federation as much as the Constitution class itself. I admit it's not the greatest design, but it's one of only 3 onscreen Starfleet ships of the era (not counting those seen only on displays or small craft).
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
Ummmm, I can read F1913 in both pics... the F is pretty clear.
And does anyone thing that the white part at the front - the dome - with the little nacelles on the long 'wing' might be a slide-out module with it's own warp system!?! there is a black line at the front where the 'wing' reaches the main bulk of the hull - where the whole dome and wing contraption could slide out. The rest of the ship might be mostly inhabitable!?! Or there might be no room for a shuttle bay - so this this might be the only auxiallary craft available!?!
Andrew
[ January 10, 2002: Message edited by: AndrewR ]
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
Very interesting ideas, AndrewR. The ship could indeed split into parts along those seams. But I don't think a freighter really has a need for that sort of capability. And the aft part has plenty of lit windows and big doorlike things that make me believe the part is inhabitable and shuttle-accessible.
Personally, I feel that the big whiskers are not engines, but something typically freighterish: crane booms. Or their futuristic equivalent, tractor beam -based. This ship clearly isn't a "container ship" or "barge tug" kind of freighter, since we saw a big internal cargo hold. It seems this is an "integrated" design, without a modular separation between the cargo, crew, engine and utility compartments. And such a vessel would need versatile cargo handling gear.
I think the big boxy part the engine pylons stick out from is the main hold area, and most of the things protruding down from the ship have to do with loading and offloading. The big thing hanging from the belly, with a funnel-like cross section, distinctly reminds me of an ore or coal car of a train. I could see the ship dumping bulk cargo through that thing to a harbor receptable of some sort, or ingesting such cargo. The "crane booms" would assist.
The upper aft bubble IMHO is a big shuttle access area with clamshell doors sliding to port and starboard (the infamous blueprints erroneously have a big B/W landing target here instead of the bubble, but I like to think of those blueprints as depicting a variant - the more expensive model would have a covered, pressurized shuttle entrance, the cheaper one just a landing target). Or then the bubble does not open and there is no shuttle access. The big lighted area below it is obviously the impulse engine. Or a set of access doors...
Anyway, it's pretty clear the forward bubble is the bridge and crew area. Below that is an intensively windowed area, possibly passenger space (although the Huron clearly carried no passengers at the time). Probably there are two window rows per deck - the ship isn't so big IMHO that there could be a deck per each row. When a crewman looks down into the ransacked cargo hold from a catwalk, he's probably standing on the aft end of this windowed volume, looking aft into the the big boxy volume. You can see a curved roof, which probably is the front part of the aft bubble.
This results in a relatively logical internal arrangement. The odd thing is the failure to separate the engine room from the other spaces - IMHO, the nacelles should stick out from a small separate engineering section, and not from the greatest single compartment of the ship. Then again, TOS warp engines were supposed to be mostly confined to the nacelles anyway, at least by the interpretation of the day...
Or then the aftmost of the ventral protrusions is the engineering compartment. Sure, it seems there are windows on the sides, but there are similar windows on the *engine pylons* as well - perhaps these aren't windows, but some sort of plasma conduit things (like the squares on the pylons of TOS E-nil, the runabouts or Voyager shuttles). This would visually tie together the engines and the ventral protrusion.
(Finally, I think tMMoMIM just meant that Huron is NCC-F1913 instead of NCC-F1313, and made a minor typo. She was an unlucky ship in any case.)
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :
The first scan especially looks more like it came from a comic book than from an animated episode. But both of the piccies provide more detail about that ship than I've ever seen. Thanks!
And Masao, as ever...great job on the four-view.
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
MMoM: I think you meant to say that the registry was "F1913," not "1913." Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
Yeah, sorry. It was just a typo. I've edited the post.
And about the source of the images, Masao scanned them from some cards which he thinks were released for the Trek 30th anniversary. What they appear to be are actual drawings/cells/whatever-you-call-ems from the animation used in the episodes. (That's why they're so clear, as opposed to the actual shots whose clarity is limited by the resolution of a TV set.)
-MMoM Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
MMoM: Could you give me the names and/or registry #'s of any other Starfleet/Federation ships in TAS? In the interest of completeness, I'm going to add them to my shiplist.
Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
You can see from these video screencaps that the card images are the same but of higher resolution. http://www.mainengineering.hispeed.com/tas_po_huron.jpg http://www.mainengineering.hispeed.com/tas_po_18.jpg My theory is that they are still photographed from the actual film rather than a video. They might be from the original artwork (cel and background) but I sort of doubt it.
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
TAS takes the cake for the Fewest Starships-in-a-Series award.
U.S.S. Enterprise, NCC-1701 (Duh!) U.S.S. Potemkin, NCC-1657 ("The Pirates of Orion") U.S.S. Huron, NCC-F1913 ("The Pirates of Orion") S.S. Bonaventure, NCC-S2100 ("The Time Trap") S.S. Ariel ("The Eye of the Beholder") NCC-G1465 ("More Tribbles, More Troubles") NCC-G1495 ("More Tribbles, More Troubles")
Annotations:
1. Obviously, a Constitution-class vessel under the command of Captain James T. Kirk, finishing the final two years (2269-2270) of the 5-yr mission started in TOS (2266-2269).
2. The same ship as from TOS and TUC, mentioned but not seen.
3. A freighter under command of Captain O'Shea, carrying dilithium and medical supplies in 2270, attacked and raided by Orion pirates on SD 6334.1. (The whole point of this thread was to refute the commonly-held notions [presented in Bjo Trimble's Concordance, I believe] that this vessel had an 'S.S.' prefix, and an NCC-F1313 registry.)
4. An older Starfleet vessel, apparently a precursor to the Constitution-class, that was lost in the mysterious area of space called the Delta Triangle, and was discovered by the U.S.S. Enterprise on SD 5267.3. (The Bonaventure seems to have caused a lot of fuss for some people. In the episode, Scotty uttered the line "There's the old Bonaventure. She was the first ship to have warp drive installed!" Many people take this as a contradiction to the facts we now know about the beginnings of Earth's warp era. There is no reason, however, why Scotty could not have merely meant it was the first Federation vessel to have warp drive installed, or some other semantic explanation like that. [In fact, this would make sense, since the ship was clearly adorned with SF sinage of the same style as the 1701. Certainly no more difficult to circumvent than his line about Romulan warp drive in "Balance of Terror" [TOS]. The Bonaventure is commonly held to be of the Bonaventure-class, though where this originated I do not know. It is also accepted that the ship bears and S.S. prefix but, like the Huron, this may be erroneous. [On the other hand, it may make sense, considering that from ENT we're seeing that SF used that prefix in its early years.])
5. The crew of the science vessel Ariel went missing in 2270 while in orbit of Lactra VII and the Enterprise crew were dispatched to search for them on SD 5501.2. (Again, the 'S.S.' prefix may be incorrect, or it may not. The ship was never seen onscreen, and as it was a science vessel it may indeed properly have an S.S. prefix, however the crew was seen to wear SF uniforms.)
6. One of two unmanned SF robot cargo drone vessels escorted to Sherman's Planet by the Enterprise in 2269 on SD 5392.4. (No name was mentioned, but the NCC was readable off the hull.)
7. The other of the two vessels mentioned above.
Hope that helps.
-MMoM
[ January 12, 2002: Message edited by: The Mighty Monkey of Mim ]
Posted by Commander Dan (Member # 558) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim: (The whole point of this thread was to refute the commonly-held notions [presented in Bjo Trimble's Concordance, I believe] that this vessel had an 'S.S.' prefix, and an NCC-F1313 registry.)
Actually, the “S.S.” prefix and F1313 registry likely originated from the Geoffrey Mandel Blueprints published in ’77. (refer to link below)
As far as the internal arrangements are concerned, I have also provided a scan of the inboard profile as drafted by Mandel (refer to link below). Certainly, these plans are not canon, but you can take them for what they are worth.
Mandel’s plans (which are deck for deck, incidentally) show no traditional shuttle bay, but there is a “shuttle maintenance shop” on deck 6. Apparently, shuttles access the cargo hold(s) (and the maintenance shop) by means of a turntable elevator (as previously mentioned by Timo.
The plans are, no doubt, inaccurate when compared to the ship as seen in TAS, but then again, so are the Franz Joseph Enterprise plans when compared to the TOS filming model.
[ January 11, 2002: Message edited by: Commander Dan ]
Posted by mrneutron (Member # 524) on :
quote:Originally posted by Commander Dan: Actually, the “S.S.” prefix and F1313 registry likely originated from the Geoffrey Mandel Blueprints published in ’77. (refer to link below)
I agree that the commonly held registries are wrong, and I'm glad someone corrected them.
But I had to offer an observtion on Mandel's blueprints. They are SO off that I'd never even consider them in any discussion about the ship. He counted windows but not the spacing of them, so his deck count is off by at least one, maybe three. On a ship this small that's a huge difference.
Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
Of course, back in 1977 there were few (if any?) home videotape machines, no WWW, and no "Star Trek" magazine. Cinefantastique and Starlog were around, but I doubt there were few official sources for references. I remember trying to photograph images off the television screen to get ship pictures. The most you can say about Mandel's blueprints are that they were inspired by USS Huron; basically everything is off (I have a copy of them). His Bonaventure is even weirder! (At least I think this is by Mandel): http://www.shipschematics.net/startrek/images/federation/researchsurvey_bonaventure.jpg
So, we technofans should be happy we're living in a time when references are easier to get.
Posted by Identity Crisis (Member # 67) on :
Well, now that the registry has been clarified it's easy to say that Mandel's blueprints depict the NCC-F1300 class whilst the Huron is a member of the more advanced NNC-F1900 class. Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :
That Bonaventure is one goofy lookin' thing!
Eesh.
[ January 11, 2002: Message edited by: Aban Rune ]
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
quote:Originally posted by Aban Rune: That Bonaventure is one goofy lookin' thing!
Eesh.
[ January 11, 2002: Message edited by: Aban Rune ]
In all actuality, though, it's not much worse than other ships of the same formula.
RANT:
There are so many fan creations which, either in an attempt to show a TOS-era ship family or a pre-TOS lineage, simply take the Constitution, screw around with the proportions and exact lines, and call it a new ship.
Sometimes, such vessels are in possession of a redeeming quality . . . the Bonaventure, for instance, has some rather interesting nacelles, though I wonder what those little flat things are coming off of the secondary hull (they remind me of the old pooping planks off of sailing ships, though I hardly think that would explain away the running "where's the toilet?" joke).
That's the reason I so adored Masao's Starfleet Museum when I first saw it . . . here, at last, was a pre-history of ships that had really been thought about and considered.
But, even the wonderful Starfleet Museum falls prey to the formula of taking Matt Jeffries' artistry and, by playing with a few lines, calling something different. The Asia class and Hyperion class come to mind . . . Asia is redeemed only by the interesting hump in the secondary hull, Hyperion by the completely interesting and relatively original old-style secondary hull . . . but overall, it's the old formula.
I hate the formula.
Thank you, end of rant.
G2k
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
Hmm . . . note to self: do not rant when freshly awake, lest you get confused and, in that confusion, run with it.
I was actually intending to talk about the Valley Forge class, not Hyperion. It's Valley Forge that follows the formula . . . Hyperion is actually pretty good, overall.
Sorry.
G2k
Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
You could of course do something completely radical like flipping the nacelles .
I quite admire Jefferies that he managed to design something so unique and so recognizable as the NCC-1701. It is by all means the prototype of ALL Star Trek ships. Without these components, a ship simply isn't recognizable Star Trek.
[ January 12, 2002: Message edited by: Harry ]
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
Actually, I hate it when every time we see a new ship - it is of a radically different design, with next to no elements the same. I like to see the whole 'progression' of tech - and families of ships - it's more realistic than having 2371 Defiant, 2372 Intrepid, 2373 Sovereign, Akira, Norway, Sabre, Steamrunner, 2374 Prometheus, Data's scout/Holoship/New Shuttle/Captain's yacht. 2375 Equinox.
ACTUALLY - I have found that the Deffie fits. Then at least the Intrepid and the Delta Flyer fit and well the Prommie, Sovereign and Equinox class fit. The rest are just all over the bloody place. That Data's Scout - it woeful - so it the holodeckship. Just plucked out of no where.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Unlike real world vehicles, which are all, without fail, identical in form?
Posted by OnToMars (Member # 621) on :
No, but they adhere to the same design principles to function in the environments they were intended to function in. Andrew's point is something along the longs of they're reinventing the helicopter over and over again. "Look! Look! We have this new kind of aircraft that doesn't even need wings!" Revolutionary, yes. Taking on many different variations, yes. But something as revolutionary and eventually far reaching as that, is a rare thing.
I however, believe that even these radical differences between starship designs can be explained as offshoots of the same basic design principles. Aircrafts are designed to fly through the air, while fulfilling some sort of specified design objective. No airplane has ever been designed unless there was a purpose to it. Be that delivering cargo, passengers, or air combat superiority. Similarily, Trek spacecraft fly through space (or more precisely, subspace) and are also required to fulfill specific design goals. The Galaxy was designed to do everything, from being fast to carrying passengers, to combat, and science. The Holodeck ship to provide the maximum amount of holodeck space. The Defiant was designed to be as small, manuevrable, fast (while still being small), and as packed to the teeth as possible. Sometimes speculation on what a ship was meant to do (ie Nebula, do everything, except be fast and do it all at once), and you can create some basic rules of design that appear to be followed in the Trek universe. Saucer/Engineering designs are faster. The large the surface area of the hull, the better the subspace field projection off that hull (ie pointy saucered ships are 'faster' than circle saucer ships). Etc etc.
I forgot what my point was.
Anyway, real vehicles may not be identical in form, but they follow identical guidelines in design, providing a cohesive reference from which to deduce purpose out of the variations in design.
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
quote:Originally posted by AndrewR: ...Equinox class...
You mean Nova-class.
(And the film commonly called 'Star Wars' is actually entitled Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope. Or, if you like, SWIV:ANH.)
Oh, where's Snay when I need him...
-MMoM
[ January 14, 2002: Message edited by: The Mighty Monkey of Mim ]
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
.