A little bit of conjecture I've been working on as a side project to my Antares and Kobayashi Maru plans. Supposedly the standard Starfleet escape pod of the mid 23rd century, with some stylistic links with the Travel Pod from TMP.
Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :
daaaaaaaaaaamnnnnnnn.............
Very cool. I think I even like the windshield-on-one-side-only thing....
*adds to reference pics for the Antares*
Posted by Proteus (Member # 212) on :
Why would it only have a window on one side? I love the artwork, but the design doesnt make sence.
Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :
I would only need one pilot's station. The rest of that area could be devoted to seating and/or emergency equipment. The pilot would need to have visual contact with whatever he was aiming at. Noone else really would.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
It's cool but the window shape and overall curved design makes ot look more like a TNG era travelpod than a TOS escape pod. Your pod makes the Galielo shuttlecraft look too primitave (to me at least). You could just give it a hard angled front with one cwntered window (both in the TOS shuttle style) to make it a perfect period piece. The rear is flawless IMHO. Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
quote:Originally posted by Aban Rune: I would only need one pilot's station. The rest of that area could be devoted to seating and/or emergency equipment. The pilot would need to have visual contact with whatever he was aiming at. Noone else really would.
Absolutely correct.
quote: It's cool but the window shape and overall curved design makes ot look more like a TNG era travelpod than a TOS escape pod. Your pod makes the Galielo shuttlecraft look too primitave (to me at least). You could just give it a hard angled front with one cwntered window (both in the TOS shuttle style) to make it a perfect period piece. The rear is flawless IMHO.
I tried the vintage angled approach but it just looked like a malformed shuttlecraft with no nacelles. I've since developed it into a mass evacuation life boat, like those onboard the Saratoga at W359.
As for the shape of the window... I thought it best to have a relatively wide view forward with a smaller slit trailing off to the left to save on valuable internal space. Form follows function.
Posted by Sarvek (Member # 910) on :
Great job Reverend. What would be cool to see is a comparison of the Enterprise Inspection Pod vs. the TOS era Escape Pod vs. the Travel Pod from ST:TMP.
Reverend, your design does make sense. It follows a lineage and does it quite well.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
Actually flipping through the TNG movie sketch book - I'm wondering if the front part of the Phoenix is anything like the Enterprise inspection pod?
Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
It is. They specifically designed it to look like the Phoenix cockpit. It also borrows some details from the TMP travelpod.
P.S.: Oh, and the door is copied from the International Space Station.
[ March 17, 2003, 06:22 AM: Message edited by: Harry ]
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
What I find unsatisfactory in this pod is not the TNG feeling it evokes (it does, since that window shape is so characteristic). It's the lack of functionality in the intended role.
The "First Contact" pods were full of things an orbit-to-surface evacuation pod from the 21st century would have - heat shields, retro-rockets, parachute compartments. The Saratoga pod was big and complex and had lots of greeblies that could be mistaken for these vital functions. OTOH, the ST:TMP travel pod and the ENT inspection pod clearly look like orbital craft that cannot make a controlled reentry and would be next to useless for evacuation. And this pod evokes all the wrong associations with the latter and not with the former.
Sure, one could evacuate from a dying starship to open space, and not aim for a planet at all. But carrying special pods for space-only evac would be silly when the same pods could carry the more useful planetfall gear, too.
Add a parachute compartment with a painfully obvious hinged or blowaway cover. And/or add retro-rockets for touchdown. Add legs or other protrusions (fixed, preferably) that will hold the thing upright after planetfall (the current pod would just roll to the nearest lake!) Add high-visibility markings (like, a dayglo "5" five times bigger than the current one) and big blinking beacons. Paint part of the hull differently, to make it look like a heat shield.
Most importantly, make the thing *ugly*. All scifi evac pods look ugly. Presumably, they aren't intended to operate long enough to require aesthetics.
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
First off the resemblance to the TMP Travel Pod was not my original intention, it only occurred to me much later when I started on the detailing.
Secondly if I had bestowed upon this pod a large amount of ugly surface detailing then I believe that it would be much harder for people to accept it as a TOS-era design. Rest assured that all the features you have listed (with the possible exception of landing gear) would be present but for the most part hidden behind the type of invisible panels that is typical of all TOS era designs.
If you actually look at the plans you should be able to spot little groups of strategically placed rectangles, these are meant to be RCS thrusters and landing jets. As for retro rockets; it should be noted that both the NX-01 shuttle pods and the later Galileo Shuttle seamed to be perfectly capable of vertical take off and landing without them so I don't see any real need for them here.
If there were an instance when a rapid deceleration were required immediately before touchdown then I think the best solution would be to turn the pod around in mid flight (presumably using the same shield system that makes the boxy Galileo aero-dynamic) and use the impulse thrusters to slow the craft and make touch down with the pod's nose pointing skywards.
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
I just don't feel that impulse engines, antigrav landing systems and such would be viable technologies for an evacuation vehicle. I mean, an ejection seat does not have a jet engine, a pair of wings, and a tricycle landing gear, even though its "mothership" does, and the seat itself theoretically could. Instead, it has less service-intensive, more reliable and affordable alternatives: a rocket, a parachute, and the pilot's own two (hopefully!) feet.
Furthermore, if you can afford to make an evacuation pod that in practice is a shuttlecraft, then it certainly makes no sense to carry shuttlecraft. An evacuation pod should be something the ship is *ashamed* to even possess, something that should never see use. You don't install your latest supertech on something that you hope to be useless.
Basically, I feel era-specific escape pods are impossible anyway. This technology should be so rugged that it was perfected in the early 21st century already, and will not change for the next thousand years - much as is the case with lifeboats at sea.
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by BJ_O (Member # 858) on :
I hope you don't mind my hijacking this thread, but I have my own interpretation of a TOS era lifeboat. You got my mind working on this and not on what I was supposed to be doing at work! I originally did this in Powerpoint, and just redid it in CorelDRAW when I got home. My version is more of a blend of the travel pod and the Galileo type shuttle. However, I couldn't decide between the "standard" paint job and the present day-glow orange, so I did both: TOS Lifeboat 1 TOS Lifeboat 2
Timo: Present-day ships carry both lifeboats and various launches. I'm sure you could use a lifeboat as a launch if you wanted to, but there are many reasons I can think of why you don't.
B.J.
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
My argument was more on the lines that if you build lifeboats that are like launches, then you either are breaking some rules of common sense, or have an infinite budget. In either case, launches and lifeboats then become redundant as separate concepts, and should be considered "lifelaunches" instead.
Current ships carry separate lifeboats/rafts and launches for the very reason that the former are not versatile enough to do the job of the latter, while the latter are too expensive to do the job of the former. To be believable, Trek auxiliaries should reflect the same economics. To be futuristic, they should be bold enough to ignore the economic rules altogether and go to the logical conclusion of "lifelaunches".
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
Just a question about lifeboats/escape pods. If you're in them for several days/weeks a la "Year of Hell" - what do you do about ablutions?? "Can everyone just move 10 cm to port - I've REALLY gotta go!"
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
quote: I just don't feel that impulse engines, antigrav landing systems and such would be viable technologies for an evacuation vehicle. I mean, an ejection seat does not have a jet engine, a pair of wings, and a tricycle landing gear, even though its "mothership" does, and the seat itself theoretically could. Instead, it has less service-intensive, more reliable and affordable alternatives: a rocket, a parachute, and the pilot's own two (hopefully!) feet.
Like I said, no landing gear and an ejection seat doesn't have to clear the blast radius of a warp core explosion (several thousand miles I presume) in less than a minute. Besides I intentionally made the engines here to be very distinct from other impulse configurations we've seen. I think of them as high acceleration impulse thrusters which are self contained units that only have a small fuel cell with enough fuel for 5 minutes worth of flight (sort of like the Lunar Lander) just enough to escape the mother ship plus some extra for a possible landing. You could compare them to the small rocket motors that are used (I think) to propel ejection seats, like the impulse thrusters they're smaller and much simpler, one use versions of their bigger cousins.
quote: Furthermore, if you can afford to make an evacuation pod that in practice is a shuttlecraft, then it certainly makes no sense to carry shuttlecraft. An evacuation pod should be something the ship is *ashamed* to even possess, something that should never see use. You don't install your latest supertech on something that you hope to be useless.
As I described above this is by no means as capable as a shuttlecraft, it's size and shape is determined by necessity. In regards to the level of technology, I'm sure Starfleet would want to give it's crews every possible advantage to survive a major disaster and I'm sure any crew members who do so in one of these things would be grateful that their ship did indeed carry life pods. I should also mention that depending on the shuttlebay(s) for evacuations is not a safe option for some of the ships we've seen. To use the Constitution-Class as an example, the idea that you can quickly evacuate a crew of several hundred through a relatively small facility in a handful of shuttles is ludicrous. It would be especially disaterous if the turbolift system went down and you have half the crew stuck in the sauser section and forward engineering hull.
quote: Basically, I feel era-specific escape pods are impossible anyway. This technology should be so rugged that it was perfected in the early 21st century already, and will not change for the next thousand years - much as is the case with lifeboats at sea.
Perhaps this should be the case, but it isn't since we know that starfleet uses several different designs of escape pods by the 24th century. If the take the TNG tech manual as anything close to cannon then we know that the ASRVs are only a few decades old and seam to have been already replaced by newer models.
quote: I hope you don't mind my hijacking this thread, but I have my own interpretation of a TOS era lifeboat. You got my mind working on this and not on what I was supposed to be doing at work! I originally did this in Powerpoint, and just redid it in CorelDRAW when I got home. My version is more of a blend of the travel pod and the Galileo type shuttle. However, I couldn't decide between the "standard" paint job and the present day-glow orange, so I did both:
The day glow orange colouring is quite pointless on a space based escape pod, given that any rescue ship will detect a pod on sensors long before making visual contact.
quote: My argument was more on the lines that if you build lifeboats that are like launches, then you either are breaking some rules of common sense, or have an infinite budget. In either case, launches and lifeboats then become redundant as separate concepts, and should be considered "lifelaunches" instead.
Looking at the sheer size of Spacedock One, I'd vote for the "infinite budget" option. (not to mention the tens of thousands of Starships, the hundreds of starbases and the potential millions of shuttlecraft and other auxiliary craft)
quote: Just a question about lifeboats/escape pods. If you're in them for several days/weeks a la "Year of Hell" - what do you do about ablutions?? "Can everyone just move 10 cm to port - I've REALLY gotta go!"
If you're asking if the pod should have a Head then the answer is yes, most defiantly. However the privacy of such facilities would be limited by how long everyone else can stare at a bulkhead while you do your business since said facilities are probably located under one of the passenger seats. As for other hygiene concerns; well it isn't exactly a 5-star hotel now is it? I imagine that things could get pretty ripe in one of these things after a few weeks of eating stale rations and drinking urine-recyc.
Posted by MrNeutron (Member # 524) on :
Here's a quick stab at a TOS era lifeboat. I took the general shape of the shuttlecraft, tossed the nacelles, and made the "wing" an airfoil with heat/shield type bottom (like a space shuttle), complete with an aerodynamic cross-section (unlike the "brick" wings usually seen). I also put air-brake/rudder panels on the sides and elevons on the wing trailing edges, so a pilot could guide the thing manually to a landing without engines.
Naturally, a lot more could be done to it. I did an isometric view because I think you get a better sense of the actual shape of a design than with elevation views.
One thing I wanted to illustrate here is that the "boxy" nature of the shuttlecraft isn't quite an extreme as some think. Most people forget about the "rolled" top edges and the fact that the sides actually have a bend in them. Also, the roof slopes down towards the back.
I'll play with it some more when I have time.
[ April 14, 2003, 02:50 AM: Message edited by: MrNeutron ]
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
Hey that looks cool - but to me it looks more like the warp-sled 'shuttle section' from TMP!
That with the sled and TOS-ish nacelles would be cool!
Andrew
Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
I always look at these kinds of design exercises from a component point of view. I itemize the minimum necessary components and put the the most functional (but coolest looking) package. What ya need: 1. Door from ship to pod 2. Docking collar (may be the same as 1). 3. Thruster pack for getting away from ship 4. Maneuvering/re-entry thrusters 5. Possible impulse drive? 6. Re-entry shielding (might double as anti-blast shielding 7. Communications equipment/antennae/beacons 8. Food/water (facilities for both in and out) 9. Couches (that can handle high accel) 10. Artificial Grav? 11. Pilot's station 12. Parachute? 13. A door to get out after landing (might be same as 1 and 2)
I see sort of a flat Apollo style capsule in which the passengers lie in couches around the wall with their feet toward the center. The base would have the thruster pack and a heat shield.
Mr. Neutron's design would make a nice advanced shuttle!
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
Nice work Neutron, looks similar to my other TOS e-pod. I like how you've tapered the sides in towards the front.
Now lets see how my design measures up.
quote: What ya need: 1. Door from ship to pod
Check.
quote: 2. Docking collar (may be the same as 1).
Check check.
quote: 3. Thruster pack for getting away from ship
Check.
quote: 4. Maneuvering/re-entry thrusters
Check.
quote: 5. Possible impulse drive?
Hmm....not quite.
quote: 6. Re-entry shielding (might double as anti-blast shielding
The hull is coated with some fancy heat sheilding compound and the outer hull itself is effectivly a very tough exo-skelatal shell.
One beacon on top of the pod, a portable comm unit is amoung the emergency equipment along with a dozen or so short range comunicators (in case you need to scout around after making planet fall).
quote: 8. Food/water (facilities for both in and out)
There's a waste extractor under one of the seats, which is linked to a purifier so that (along with a condenser) body moisture can be recycled to extend the water rations. Water packs and food rations are stored in the overhead compartments.
quote: 9. Couches (that can handle high accel)
Yup. Not to mention an IDF generator.
quote: 10. Artificial Grav?
One grav plate installed beneath the decking, but can be deactivated to conserve power since the pod's interior is designed with webbing and hand grips in the walls for navigating in Zero-G.
quote: 11. Pilot's station
Yup, it's right behind the window, squashed as far out of the way as possible without compromising the pilot's abiliy to fly.
quote: 12. Parachute?
As a backup to the grav thrusters sure, the logical place for it would be in the nose I belive. Perhaps there could also be some inflatable boyancy baloons hidden around the docking ring too?
quote: 13. A door to get out after landing (might be same as 1 and 2)
The entry door is at the back and the escape hatch is on top.
quote: I see sort of a flat Apollo style capsule in which the passengers lie in couches around the wall with their feet toward the center. The base would have the thruster pack and a heat shield.
That was my first idea too, but I had already used that design on the Charybdis. Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
I originally did this in Powerpoint, and just redid it in CorelDRAW when I got home. My version is more of a blend of the travel pod and the Galileo type shuttle. However, I couldn't decide between the "standard" paint job and the present day-glow orange, so I did both:
![[Wink]](wink.gif)