Here are my WIP redraws of the Franz Joseph SFTM ships along side my Connie. I'm not completely happy with the ventral command hull on USS Federation, but I didn't want to have simple dorsoventral symmetry, as designed by FJ. The shuttle bay is below the fantail.
Comments welcome!
Posted by Warped1701 (Member # 40) on :
I really like what you've done with both the Saladin and the Federation. I always thought that the deflector dish under the saucer sensor array on the Saladin looked strange, as did the shuttle bay position right above the forward deflector dish on the Federation. Very nice work, and good improvements over the original designs!
A couple of questions, though. Is that an extra nacelle cowling just aft of the dorsal warp nacelle pylon? And were the warp nacelles really that far aft on the original Connie? Just looks a little strange to me.
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
I like these, too - as "upgrades" to canon designs if necessary, or as the "real thing" as opposed to Starfleet computer display simplifications if that's more to your liking.
The only thing I'm not happy with is the primary hull of the Federation. It's just too similar to the other two now. A bit more bulk, a few changes to the bridge area, perhaps a wee bit more "armor plate" texturing... This ship deserves to look different.
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
Sweeeet
Although, on the Federation, that shuttle bay observation dome thingy doesn't serve any purpose anymore
So, how do you explain the aft-pointing dish? Are they sensor dishes, deflector dishes, or both?
Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
Warped1701: As far as I know, there's nothing extra behind the dorsal pylon. The nacelle is the same as the one on the scout. The nacelle is basically the starboard nacelle from my top view Connie schematic. And yes, the Connie nacelles are that far back!
Timo: I agree that the primary hull looks quite a bit like the Connie hull. FJ's version had no rear cutout; just a continous curve from below the deflector to the front of the hull. Since the cutout is used on almost all Starfleet ships, I thought I should include it on Federation. I also added a slight incline to the dorsum (FJ had it straight), which adds to the resemblance. I also originally had no incline to the hull top or bottom, but I thought it looked rather severe. But, the main reason Federation looks like Constitution is because the front halves of their hulls are identical, with identical detailing at this point. I never liked the front of FJ's Federation, and I figured that Starfleet would still put the largest deflector they had on the front of the hull.
Well, this is why I show WIPs. I'll play with it a bit more.
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
Umm, a slight misunderstanding. When I spoke of the primary hull, I meant the saucer, not the deflector-decorated cylinder. The former is fattened a bit, yes, but it could be more radically different, especially the bridge area. I'm happy with the latter, although perhaps the window patterns there could be altered to hide the remaining copy-paste nature...
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
Timo: Oh, the primary hull! The flat thingy, you mean. I get numbers one and two mixed up a lot.
One thing I wanted to avoid was the bloated look of the FJ ship. The top and bottom of the PRIMARY hull were the same, with dull little sensor domes on top and no real bridge. I figured Starfleet might use the same bridge module in all their ships, so used it for this one. I'll see if I can add some movie style details to suggest development in that direction, but I still want to this to be a firmly TOS design.
Harry: I don't need to explain the dish. That's FJ's job. But, I suspect it must be a sensor dish, unless the ship has a few reverse gears. The observation dome might not actually be an observation dome. I always considered a beacon, that doesn't actually need to have clear line of sight rearward to function. But maybe I'll move it down to near the shuttle bay.
Posted by Griffworks (Member # 1014) on :
Overall, I think they look alright. However, I have some stuff to comment on about your work. Only trying to offer commentary and constructive criticism here, not personally attacking you or your work, so please keep that in mind.
Hermes (Scout): the "dish" serves as the sensor array in the SFTM. I always thought that the dome which supports the FJ version of the Saladin/Hermes design was still a planetary sensor array and wouldn't be impacted that much by the large sensor dish. I kind of liked where it was and think that you somewhat ruin the lines of the original design w/the somewhat bulky, tho have no alterative suggestion to solve your dislike of the original position. When you do the other views, are you going to add a shuttlebay to the bottom of the primary hull, as I've seen in several fan drawings? I also heard that FJ had intended for that to be the case, but didn't have the room to add the bottom view in his pages.
Federation (Dreadnought): While I agree that I never liked the shuttlebay being up front in the secondary hull (the "deflector-decorated cylinder" as Timo puts it), I also never liked that aft sensor array being where it was. I'd like to suggest you remove it and place the shuttlebay there. It would make the landing bay beacon be where it needs to be so that you don't have move to a new location, as already noted.
Also, I would like to suggest you move the dorsal warp nacelles orientation so that the flux chiller is pointing up instead of down. That way, it's pointing directly into open space, instead of at the hull. I know there's no canon basis for this, but I always thought that the reason it was done this way on the Constitution class in TOS, as well as by FJ in his designs, was to keep any "radiation" from being aimed directly at the ship.
Primary hull on the Fed was designed originally as larger and w/the bridge buried in the hull, presumably to enhance survivability on a warship. I also liked the idea that it was larger, personally. Made for a more impressive ship. And the dimensions also happen to come out to what was done for the Refit. Tho I do understand your design to keep the components mostly "off the shelf" - ala your comment about the bridge module. However, it looks somewhat odd w/the lower primary hull shaped as it is w/the upper hull the standard curvature.
Again, I like the work you've done here. Very nicely executed.
Thanks again for sharing with us. Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
I agree with Griffworks about the need for a larger diameter primary hull on the Federation; with that larger secondary hull, it looks a little unbalenced with a saucer the same ize as a Connies. As for the bridge module; I do like the more 'standard' appearance of the upper primary hull but perhaps a little armour might be appropriate? Not huge slabs or anything but perhaps just beef it up a little. The term Dreadnought does suggest a more combat oriented ship than the Constitutions appear to be. I wouldn't have it as a ship designed exclusively for combat but rather have a more lopsided combat to scientific systems ratio than the Connies.
The deflector dish housing on the Saladin is a vast improvement on the orignial IMHO.
Good work!! Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
I don't approve of redesigning these ships, and in fact I rather strongly disapprove of it, but I'm always glad to see Masao's artwork...
-MMoM Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
Mim: My main reason for redrawing/redesigning these ships is that the schematics in SFTM are sort of sketchy with inaccurate proportions and details. I want to keep the general layouts but make them more plausible where I can.
Griff: Hermes: The dish on a stick was one of the things I always hated about the Scout/Destroyer design. I have assumed that the concentric rings behind the dish are an integral part of the deflector machinery, so having a dish hanging like that seemed a bit weak to me. I probably won't do additional views, just side views. Federation: I've always liked the rear deflector! I liked it so much that I've used it on some of my own ships. I think it's a very distinctive feature of Federation and will not change it. I'm also like the machinery bits of the nacelles as much out of sight as possible, usually downward or inward. I think the ship looks cleaner that way, in keeping with Matt Jeffries' design principles.
Wraith: The more I look at the primary hull of my Federation, the more I like it, despite initial reservations. One of the main things I wanted to do was add a bit of detail and difference to the upper and lower halves and make them look less bloated. I still might make the disc thicker, but I think I will retain the bridge module.
Posted by Griffworks (Member # 1014) on :
quote:Originally posted by Masao: Griff: Hermes: The dish on a stick was one of the things I always hated about the Scout/Destroyer design. I have assumed that the concentric rings behind the dish are an integral part of the deflector machinery, so having a dish hanging like that seemed a bit weak to me. I probably won't do additional views, just side views.
I can respect that. However, I just reeeaaallly don't like the way you resolved it.
quote:Federation: I've always liked the rear deflector! I liked it so much that I've used it on some of my own ships. I think it's a very distinctive feature of Federation and will not change it. I'm also like the machinery bits of the nacelles as much out of sight as possible, usually downward or inward. I think the ship looks cleaner that way, in keeping with Matt Jeffries' design principles.
All due respect to Mr. Schnaubelt (FJ), but I never did like that dish on the ass-end of the Fed design. It just doesn't flow to me and looks... wrong.
quote:Wraith: The more I look at the primary hull of my Federation, the more I like it, despite initial reservations. One of the main things I wanted to do was add a bit of detail and difference to the upper and lower halves and make them look less bloated. I still might make the disc thicker, but I think I will retain the bridge module.
Oooh! Oooh! Mistah Kottah!
I got an idea. You could expand the diameter to the original proportions and add a B/C deck area that's a bit more like the "Phase II Enterprise" drawings protray it. Or, if you will, as the Tikopai class, as seen at Starship Schematic Database, in case you're not familiar w/what I'm talking about.
Just a thought....
Posted by Sarvek (Member # 910) on :
quote:Originally posted by Griffworks: Federation (Dreadnought Also, I would like to suggest you move the dorsal warp nacelles orientation so that the flux chiller is pointing up instead of down. That way, it's pointing directly into open space, instead of at the hull. I know there's no canon basis for this, but I always thought that the reason it was done this way on the Constitution class in TOS, as well as by FJ in his designs, was to keep any "radiation" from being aimed directly at the ship.
I completely agree. The Control Reactor should be pointing into space and not aimed at the ship. The Federation is a uniquely designed vessel. I have never seen it rendered this way. How would a Surya Class Ship look with these type of modifications?
Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
quote: I completely agree. The Control Reactor should be pointing into space and not aimed at the ship.
Who's to say what those things are? I thought they were just some sort of machinery, not emitting some sort of dangerous radiation.
Posted by darkwing_duck1 (Member # 790) on :
I for one LOVE your change to the Scout/Destroyer. If you WERE to do more views of any of these, might I advocate for that one? it is a significantly different look than available anywhere else and I'd love to see it fleshed out into full orthos! Posted by Griffworks (Member # 1014) on :
quote:Originally posted by darkwing_duck1: I for one LOVE your change to the Scout/Destroyer. If you WERE to do more views of any of these, might I advocate for that one? it is a significantly different look than available anywhere else and I'd love to see it fleshed out into full orthos!
Ravenstar Studios make a design that's fairly simlar to the above Hermes. It's called Federation Scout.
Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
That's kind of like a one-nacelled Constellation. Pretty chunky looking!
Posted by Masaki (Member # 1030) on :
This is my modification here... U.S.S. STAR UNION
Replaced to my 140m - Phase II saucer. And added small rear sensor between the aft torp tubes, the phaser cannons or the tractor beam emitters.... below the shuttle bay.
How about this, Masao?
Posted by Warped1701 (Member # 40) on :
Masaki: I like the way that the larger saucer goes right along with the "bigger" feel of the Federation. That being said, the shuttlebay with a deflector/sensor/whatever you want to call it mounted underneath it looks...weird. I'd keep the rear mounted dish, and scratch the shuttlebay. It keeps with the feel of the original Federation design, but gets rid of the design elements I've disliked for years.
Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
I don't know, Masaki. As I said, I still want this ship to reflect TOS design elements. The new primary hull makes the ship look too sleek and modern. I think I'll just fatten the flat part of the primary hull a bit.
Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
Masaki: flip the secondary hull around, and you're almost back to the original design
I've been thinking. What about omitting the deflector dish altogether from the Hermes/Saladin? I think the current mini-dish spoils the original design a bit. Or perhaps some sort of deflector on the saucer?
Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
I fattened up the primary hull some more. USS Federation is now offiically a pig. Posted by Masaki (Member # 1030) on :
quote:Originally posted by Masao: I don't know, Masaki. As I said, I still want this ship to reflect TOS design elements. The new primary hull makes the ship look too sleek and modern. I think I'll just fatten the flat part of the primary hull a bit.
I also fattened up the primary hull, the lower half is upside-downed Constitution's upper half.
And I added the small fore deflector and the tractor beam emitter (starboard side). I also reduced the rear sensor.
One suggestion... why not make the saucer diameter a little bigger to match the size of the TMP saucer? A bigger diameter hull would offset the increased thickness a little bit, while not make it quite so ugly.
Posted by Griffworks (Member # 1014) on :
Masaki,
That primary hull design of having a "B/C" deck on the bottom is very close to what I've considered for a TOS Movie Era cousin to the Federation DN line. My thinking was to make a DN with a shuttlebay in that "VIP Lounge" area so that in case of saucer separation, there's a small shuttlebay on the "lifeboat" portion. I had also considered something similar for a dual-nacelled scout design. Not terribly original on my part, but something I think I'd like to do for a model.
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
Masao: Actually, the Federation with a standard bridge module is looking pretty good to me now. I like the latest update but perhaps a slightly larger diameter would make it look a little less, well, fat?
Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
"Admiral, the Tellarites have been messing with our schematics again!"
Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
I finally opened up my copy of the SFTM to get a look at the original schematics. I had been working from another fan interpretation at Starship Schematics Database (shame!). Anyway, the specs provided say that the primary hull of Federation is 140 m in diameter versus 127 for Constitution, so it looks as if I will be increasing the diameter of the primary hull by 10%. I'll post an update soon.
Masaki: I don't think that double bridge module is going to work. I wanted to get away from the top and bottom symmetry of the original FJ design, but the double bridge actually brings my design closer!
Also, those small dishes beside the man deflector dish probably won't work because the pieces now beside the main deflector are very flat.
Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
http://lobotomy.pleh.net/~flareupload/uploads/232/Federation3.jpg I widened the top mound and the central disc 10%, which would increase primary hull diameter from 127 m to 140, as specified by FJ. Notice that the central disc in the original is actually quite thin, the same as in Constitution.
Posted by Sarvek (Member # 910) on :
Masao, you might want to look at the end of the book where it talks about the parts of the nacelle. Honestly, it does not matter where the Control Reactor and Flux Chillers are in relation to the other nacelles, but it is nice to a have a balanced look and you have that. I would have never thought of orienting those external machinery that way.
Talk about "thinking outside the box". Good job I always like new ways of looking a something that could never be oriented that way. I also believe that starhipschemtics also has the version of the Federation with the Control Reactor/Flux Chiller assembly pointed outward on the top nacelle. Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
Now that looks good!!! It looks a lot more balenced now. Does the FJ version have a slightly deeper secondary hull though?
Posted by aridas (Member # 1051) on :
Masao,
Nice work. I would consider reworking the Saladin deflector however. Even though I followed FJ when I designed Surya I have come to think a cut-out of some kind in the bow of the primary hull might be the right way to go. I can't believe I'm saying to follow something done on "Enterprise" but after all, that little detail was stolen from the PA ships so turnabout is fair play, eh? (even though the PAs use the cutout for photorp launchers, not nav deflectors)
As for the dreadnought, I would consider restoring some of the heft to the ass end of the secondary hull, by making the rear deflector the same width as FJ had it, and then reducing the severity of the fantail scoop you have added. A subtle scoop will get across the feel you are looking for while remaining distinct in appearance from the CH.
BTW, nice BBS. I'll have to come here more often.
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
PA ships?
Posted by Griffworks (Member # 1014) on :
Another possible solution is that which Thomas Sasser devised for 1/537 scale models based off the ERTL/AMT Refit 'E' kitbashes. A primary hull based navigational deflector would work, as seen on my U.S.S. Patrick model:
It's an idea that was later used on the Akira class in ST:FC. Just modify it a bit to fit the TOS concept technologies and there you go.
You could also just leave any sort of nav deflector off, I guess, and say it folows the same design philosphy of the Avenger/Miranda, Oberth and Constellation class ships. Rick Sternbach is quote in an article that appears in an issue of ST:The Magazine that these vessels use a combination of force fields, Bussard collector's and tractor beams to clear their path of debris, thus don't require a dedicated navigational deflector. Perhaps the Saldin/Hermes classes are the same?
Another thing to consider is that the three round "circles" on the leading edge of the primary hull might also be navigational deflector's. I recall seeing in a set of blueprints - and want to say it was the FJ set - which show that as being the navigational deflectors for those vessels.
Just a couple suggestions....
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
Not to be a jumper of band waggons, but this is how I'd deal with the deflector arrangement on the Hermes-Class.
As for the Federation, I've had a go at that one myself more than once. In the end I just couldn't reconcile the design or the registry number so I started from scratch and made something a little more of it's time. I personally treat FJ's plans as an early concept or an NXP pathfinder vessel and not the actual appearance of the U.S.S. Entente.
Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
Believe me, I tried many other locations and solutions for the Hermes deflector, including all those suggested here, but I finally decided to go with the neck. One reason was it was something I hadn't used before. I have had deflectors on the front edge of dishes, buried in the hull, under the primary hull, etc, but never in the neck. I'm a bit wary about using an Enterprise-style hull cutout or having an Akira-style underslung deflector, since one of the main features of Connies are their smooth, round hulls. I also didn't want to get too far away from the FJ ships. I suppose I could have left the deflector off, Miranda-style, but since FJ included one I thought I should too. One thing I haven't tried is twin deflectors mounted like engine nacelles on a wing!
As for the Dreadnought, I did consider widening the rear slightly, but I worried that the hull would become to cylindrical. However, I think that the hull with the straighter sides and rear deflector is still sufficiently different from the Constitution hull. The scoop has to be fairly sharp and concave since the hanger bay is back there.
Any way, I'm not going to write a full-blown article about these ships or prepare 4-view schematics. I'm including them in my Constitution/Pyotr Velikiy article as only side views and a single line of text. So, I think what I have is good enough.
Rev: OK... But how's the bussard going to work with the deflector like that?
Finally: Welcome, Aridas! Have you introduced yourself and told the folks here a bit about your Trek tech history?
Posted by aridas (Member # 1051) on :
Masao wrote:
quote:"Welcome, Aridas! Have you introduced yourself and told the folks here a bit about your Trek tech history?"
Thanks, Masao! I have read the posts with interest here for some time and finally thought it worthwhile to break the habit of posting everything I had to say about Trek on that other BBS.
I was the owner of Star Fleet Printing Office, and produced the original "USS Avenger General Plans". Some of my other work included the "SS Kobyashi Maru General Plans", "USS Enterprise Heavy Cruiser Evolution Blueprints", "Federation Starship Recognition Chart", and last but not least my update to the FJ TM -- the "Federation Reference Series". I collaborated with Todd Guenther on several projects, and contributed to the first volume of his "Ships of the Star Fleet". Some of my ship designs include the Wright-Corder configuration of Avenger, Surya frigate, shuttlecarrier Ariel, Cochise and Cygnus destroyers and Amerind and Monoceros scouts, and other items like the Killer Bee assault pod.
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
quote: Rev: OK... But how's the bussard going to work with the deflector like that?
In the words of Tommy Cooper; Just like that! Posted by Jim NCC1701A (Member # 1021) on :
quote:Originally posted by Griffworks: You could also just leave any sort of nav deflector off, I guess, and say it folows the same design philosphy of the Avenger/Miranda, Oberth and Constellation class ships. Rick Sternbach is quote in an article that appears in an issue of ST:The Magazine that these vessels use a combination of force fields, Bussard collector's and tractor beams to clear their path of debris, thus don't require a dedicated navigational deflector.
From memory, Ships of the Star Fleet got around that by giving the Reliant and others "WADE" for Wide Angle Deflector Emitter. They were rectangular box sections at the front of the exposed machinery on the raised upper hull.
aridas, from one newbie to another, welcome. Love your work
Cheers!
Jim.
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
Aridas, i've already told you on TrekBBS how awesome your stuff is, but i have a quick Q. The Cygnus, Cochise, Monoceros and Siva: do they exist anywhere besides as silhouettes?.. ive been dying to see details since i first saw them on the recognition chart
Posted by Makotokat (Member # 1041) on :
I agree with you Masao about trying to keep the clean smooth shape FJ used. What about 2 small deflector 'pods', 30' from the front edge of the disc in either direction. Put a small deflector out of each. This would also allow a scout a much wider 'range' of view and would not require struts to break up the lines of the bow.
Posted by aridas (Member # 1051) on :
OK. If you are wedded to this approach this is what I would recommend. Lengthen the interconnecting dorsal to eliminate the visual clutter created by having the deflector so close to the nacelle. That and the bonus of having the two systems a little further apart to avoid interference between them.(Sorry Reverend) Then further smooth the way the deflector housing you have added joins to the dorsal, perhaps by having what is circular at the front slowly become rectangular in cross section until it flattens into the side of the dorsal. Then remove the pennant from the deflector housing to avoid visual clutter and competition with the pennant on the nacelle. You might instead want to add a simple circle on the housing to infer a docking port that is flush, thus anticipating the recessed docking port on the photorp housing on TMP era ships.
Oh, and I would terminate that housing before it collides with the flush vents at the aft of the dorsal. Perhaps terminate the housing at the same angle as the flush vents to set up a nice visual effect.
Posted by aridas (Member # 1051) on :
Thanks for the welcome, Jim NCC1701A!
Captain Mike, I only published them as silhouettes because they were slated for volumes 7-10 of the FRS and the compilation, neither of which were ever published. The way they appear will be revealed at some point, however...
Posted by coatlantis1745 (Member # 1034) on :
...or we could simply have one of our talented artists here present the Hermes Class as it was presented and intended from the FJ tech manual (Federation Class DN included). This constant desire to revise our understanding about ships we have come to learn about and respect in the past is very troubling.
I could accept such revisions of these class designs ONLY if one were to suggest on the print something to the effect "potential refit specifications" or some such AND present the original configuration alongside the revisiion, for the sake of those who have not yet beene xposed to the original work. Sound reasonable?
Posted by aridas (Member # 1051) on :
I think it is reasonable for the revisions to be refit specifications, or refective of variants within the class. I think it would be very strange if all the ships in the Hermes, Saladin, or Federation classes looked identical. That's certainly not the case with ships within a single naval class.
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
quote:Originally posted by coatlantis1745: ...or we could simply have one of our talented artists here present the Hermes Class as it was presented and intended from the FJ tech manual (Federation Class DN included). This constant desire to revise our understanding about ships we have come to learn about and respect in the past is very troubling.
Yeah, sure. We all know that EVERYTHING is perfect, and it's much better to assume that the 600 hours of Trek published since 1975 are wrong, and some unofficial book which has been decanonized is absolutely correct.
It's an unfortunate flaw that there are inconsistencies in Trek, but it's basically unavoidable when you've got such an incredible volume of work being made. The whole point is to make the facts fit in as well as possible. As many of them as possible.
Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
This is the final version of my Hermes completed a few days ago (before the most recent posts). With the help of the FJ original and my own front and top views I revised the deflector pod to have the proper taper and length. Also the neck is a bit longer, but I used the extra length to increase the size of the dish rather than to separate it from the nacelle. Fixed the windows too.
But I'm not going to work on this anymore. I had just wanted to include a few side views in my Connie/PV article without much comment. If someone else wants to take a shot, please be my guest!
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
quote:Originally posted by MinutiaeMan:
quote:Originally posted by coatlantis1745: ...or we could simply have one of our talented artists here present the Hermes Class as it was presented and intended from the FJ tech manual (Federation Class DN included). This constant desire to revise our understanding about ships we have come to learn about and respect in the past is very troubling.
Yeah, sure. We all know that EVERYTHING is perfect, and it's much better to assume that the 600 hours of Trek published since 1975 are wrong, and some unofficial book which has been decanonized is absolutely correct.
It's an unfortunate flaw that there are inconsistencies in Trek, but it's basically unavoidable when you've got such an incredible volume of work being made. The whole point is to make the facts fit in as well as possible. As many of them as possible.
But what is it that doesn't "fit" between FJ's ships and other Trek that we've seen? Not much that I can see. All the changes being made seem to be done simply to appease the aesthetic sensitivities of the individual artists. ("I never really liked the way such and such looked...") Of course, that's what artists do and there's nothing wrong with it. Rev and Harry and Masao and whomever else are free to tinker and play with things as they please. But personally happen to love these old FJ designs, and I too would love to see a straight rendering of the ships in their original configurations.
Besides, need I remind you that the Hermes, Saladin, and Ptolemy were all seen on computer displays in TWOK and TSFS?
-MMoM Posted by Griffworks (Member # 1014) on :
I agree w/MMoM's post above. The only thing I never really liked about the FJ designs was the sensor array on the ass-end of the secondary hull. However, I can still live w/that for the reasoning given.
Make changes as you see fit, for all I care. However, why bash the ideas of others...?
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
The only thing I really disagree with regarding the Hermes is the deflector dish, which IMO makes absolutely no sense. It's not the aesthetics, it's the equipment. Does it really make sense to have such a crucial component hanging from a little thread with no support? Even with structural integrity fields, that don't make no sense!
Posted by StarCruiser (Member # 979) on :
quote:Originally posted by Masao:
This is the final version of my Hermes completed a few days ago (before the most recent posts). With the help of the FJ original and my own front and top views I revised the deflector pod to have the proper taper and length. Also the neck is a bit longer, but I used the extra length to increase the size of the dish rather than to separate it from the nacelle. Fixed the windows too.
But I'm not going to work on this anymore. I had just wanted to include a few side views in my Connie/PV article without much comment. If someone else wants to take a shot, please be my guest!
Actually - why does the deflector have to be round? Couldn't it be eliptical instead (like the NX-01)? That way, the dish can be large enough, and the dorsal strut can stay about the same length...
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
Trying to mix concepts from "Enterprise" and the Starfleet Museum is like trying to mix fire and water.
Seriously, part of the point of Masao's stuff is that it's NOT reliant on the latest "genius to come from B&B. But within that lone exception, it does try to encompass all the rest of Trek.
I'd say that non-circular deflector dishes don't come into use until the 2330's, at the earliest. As far as canon designs go, the earliest ship I recall with an elliptical dish would be the New Orleans -- and even that one was based on the Galaxy Class project.
Of course, that doesn't mean there AREN'T any elliptical dishes out there earlier... but IMO an elliptical dish would kind of ruin the elegance of the TOS aesthetics.
Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
StarCruiser: Yeah, you're not likely to see any elliptical dishes on my ships (or variations of other people's ships). My idea of the TOS design aesthetic is that it relies on fairly simple circles and straight lines. So, I will continue to work within my TOS parts box without borrowing fromTNG or ENT. As Dax said: "I love classic 23rd century design." Of course, your idea of what TOS looks like may differ from mine.
Another editorial comment: If I were FJ, I might be surprised that anyone took my work as some sort of gospel that must be religiously adhered to. If he were still around, he would readily admit that his schematics have numerous inaccuracies in relation to onscreen images and perhaps even illogical components (such as the dish on a stick).
I'm disappointed. Is no one going to bitch about the registry? (adapted from TAS)
PS to MM: It's oil and water.
Posted by Triton (Member # 1043) on :
Horray for design in the Matt Jefferies vein! It is so nice to hear that you won't use the TNG design aesthetic in your designs. I hope that everything continues to look like 1960s modern. THINK 1960s.
Is the ship's registry your attempt to reform the NCC registry scheme in Star Trek universe? Who can quibble about the number you painted on the side, when the registry system is a complete and absolute mess? Just as long as you don't give your ship a number that has not been used by another, I think you can get away with a lot.
I am assuming that it is an S for "scout." Just as long as you are consistent with your fanfiction contribution, I think you should be OK.
Posted by Sarvek (Member # 910) on :
Masao, I noticed it. Isn't the NCC-S585 a survey designation? The "S" is for survey like on the Bonaventure. Wasn't the registry on the Bonaventure NCC-S1100?
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sarvek: Wasn't the registry on the Bonaventure NCC-S1100?
Hermes v2 looks better. It might be an early design concept, or even an early production version, of the Hermes class seen in TWOK Posted by aridas (Member # 1051) on :
Here are the revisions I suggested, quickly done:
Nothing major. Just a smaller deflector, and tapering the cylindrical deflector housing to smoothly integrate with the dorsal. I hope you don't mind, me being a newbie and all.
Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
Aridas: Newbie, Shmewbie! It don't matter! We judge on the content of your posts, not on the height of your member number.
I redrew the deflector housing by referring to the top and front views. Since the housing is smallest if it has a circular front profile, it extends furthest aft where it is widest, which is at the midpoint. I'm not sure how you would end up with a square rear like in your revision.
Posted by Jim NCC1701A (Member # 1021) on :
quote:Originally posted by aridas: Thanks for the welcome, Jim NCC1701A!
quote:Captain Mike, I only published them as silhouettes because they were slated for volumes 7-10 of the FRS and the compilation, neither of which were ever published. The way they appear will be revealed at some point, however...
Well, that's whetted my appetite. I've got FRS issues 1 through 6. Really liked your tidying up of the Renner class corvette - the original looked a little too hand-drawn (although I'm not trying to bash the artist or his work).
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
Aridas, thanks so much for the info. i thought i was simply crazy in that i could never find pics of those ships.
BTW, on the matter of Hermes revisionism,i don't think that its impossible to reconcile the different attempts at designing and redesigning it.. perhaps only a couple of vessels were built of the Franz Joseph configuration, then more vessels could have been built as a variant with the dorsal deflector. we havent actually seen the whole class though, and one of my favorite parts of SotSF was that it showed many variations witihn single classes of starships. this way, the FJ version remains accurate as the prototype, but we can tailor the rest of the class to better fit our aesthetics and understanding of Treknology..
the same goes for the Federation dreadought.. i see lots of room for in-class variation.. it was a huge wagon, im sure they revised it a few times there was lots of room for improvement.
Posted by StarCruiser (Member # 979) on :
quote:Originally posted by Masao: StarCruiser: Yeah, you're not likely to see any elliptical dishes on my ships (or variations of other people's ships). My idea of the TOS design aesthetic is that it relies on fairly simple circles and straight lines. So, I will continue to work within my TOS parts box without borrowing fromTNG or ENT. As Dax said: "I love classic 23rd century design." Of course, your idea of what TOS looks like may differ from mine.
Another editorial comment: If I were FJ, I might be surprised that anyone took my work as some sort of gospel that must be religiously adhered to. If he were still around, he would readily admit that his schematics have numerous inaccuracies in relation to onscreen images and perhaps even illogical components (such as the dish on a stick).
I'm disappointed. Is no one going to bitch about the registry? (adapted from TAS)
PS to MM: It's oil and water.
I don't care for the registry either, prefer the FJ approach there (forget that "assigned as produced" stuff).
I don't particularly care for the NX-01 design either, but I have no issue with a simple eliptical disk as I don't think it's that far off from the classic Jefferies look (by the way - TOS is by FAR my fav - grew up with it). Posted by coatlantis1745 (Member # 1034) on :
quote:Originally posted by CaptainMike: BTW, on the matter of Hermes revisionism,i don't think that its impossible to reconcile the different attempts at designing and redesigning it.. perhaps only a couple of vessels were built of the Franz Joseph configuration, then more vessels could have been built as a variant with the dorsal deflector. we havent actually seen the whole class though, and one of my favorite parts of SotSF was that it showed many variations witihn single classes of starships. this way, the FJ version remains accurate as the prototype, but we can tailor the rest of the class to better fit our aesthetics and understanding of Treknology..
the same goes for the Federation dreadought.. i see lots of room for in-class variation.. it was a huge wagon, im sure they revised it a few times there was lots of room for improvement.
Accepted, but why can't view the original configuration alongside the refits? As I stated earlier, some of us will come along here and see the Hermes and Federation as they are drawn here, and accept this particular drawing as original. I'm not bashing Masao's interpretation of Hermes (though I WOULD bitch about the hull number. I prefer Aridas's take in that department), but when you start bending and shaping Mr. Franz's material to fit artistic liscence, I get a little edgy if the original source material is not cited, literally in this case.
Like I said, I am a fan of refit specifications for Star Fleet vessels (Afterall, my favorite design is the Enterprise Class as a worthy refit of Constitution), so do not take my suggestions as an attack on creative liscence.
For example, Reverend did a fine job of presenting the original studio of Enterprise alongside a rendering of the FJ blueprints for USS Constitution.
Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
Except that this is Masao's Starfleet Museum, and not FJ's or anyone else's Museum. And knowing the quality of both the EAS and SFM sites, I'm sure credits will be given wherever due.
Posted by coatlantis1745 (Member # 1034) on :
quote:Originally posted by Harry: Except that this is Masao's Starfleet Museum, and not FJ's or anyone else's Museum. And knowing the quality of both the EAS and SFM sites, I'm sure credits will be given wherever due.
Again, accepted Harry. I did not presume that Masao would re-draw FJ's original work and leave it go un-credited. Its just perhaps wishful thinking that the original drawing might be presented alongside this refit to compare and contrast. Makes for decent engineering discussion. Posted by Anduril (Member # 654) on :
Interesting work Masao.
May just have to put them in 3D form.
Your cutout on the bottom of the Federation is not out of line at all. On a sketch FJ did in '73 or so it had a more pronounced slope which allowing for the crudeness of the sketch could have been considered a cutout. Also in that drawing he placed the shuttle bay at the rear and had a much smaller "sensor dish" below it.
Always wonderd what FJ's reaction was when someone said.... Yo Franz, that dish thingy on the front of the Enterprise is a deflector dish....
Posted by coatlantis1745 (Member # 1034) on :
There is always room for subclass discussions in engineering. Take the Constitution (II) in comparison with the Tikopai and Enterprise Class' in SotSF for instance.
It would be interesting if Masao would present this refit specification as a possible subclass variant for the Hermes, by choosing one of the appropriated names from the FJTM. Think?
Posted by aridas (Member # 1051) on :
Masao posted:
quote:"I'm not sure how you would end up with a square rear like in your revision."
It's hard to explain in words, but it would be even harder for me to try to figure out how to show you in Cinema 4D, due to my lack of experience with my chosen CGI software. So words will have to suffice. The deflector housing is circular in cross section at the front, just behind the dish. It would gradually become rectangular in cross section until it is fully rectangular with a width that matches the width of the dorsal. At that point it smoothly tapers into the dorsal, just ahead of the flush vents. So, if you could extract the deflector housing from the ship and look at it in isolation, it would be circular at one end, and at the other be rectangular, with the rectangle being the height of the original circle, but the width of the dorsal.
I'm assuming that the deflector housing is smaller in diameter than the maximum width of the dorsal. If it is larger, then the cicle at one end will have to taper to a square that is the width of the dorsal.
Now I know what it means when they say that a picture is worth a thousand words. I could have sketched it and scanned the sketch and posted the thing in the time it took to describe it. If you don't understand my convoluted explanation, I will try to do just that.
Posted by StarCruiser (Member # 979) on :
quote:Originally posted by Anduril: Interesting work Masao.
May just have to put them in 3D form.
Your cutout on the bottom of the Federation is not out of line at all. On a sketch FJ did in '73 or so it had a more pronounced slope which allowing for the crudeness of the sketch could have been considered a cutout. Also in that drawing he placed the shuttle bay at the rear and had a much smaller "sensor dish" below it.
Always wonderd what FJ's reaction was when someone said.... Yo Franz, that dish thingy on the front of the Enterprise is a deflector dish....
This is my take on this. FJ's schematics were an attempt to accurately represent the onscreen appearance of the Connie. However, he made a lot of errors. So, I can't accept the differences between his schematics and the filming models as anything but errors. I can't see them as an attempt by him to make "variants" or early versions of Constituion. So, using more accurate, modern schematics to build ships in the FJ style is fitting and proper.
I don't think I would post FJ's schematics in the museum article. First, doing so would be a violation of copyright. (of course I could ask Karen Dick for permission, which I have gotten in the past to use her father's picture on a patch). Second, I don't think they are acturate representions of an existing ship. Third, FJ has his ideas and I have mine!
Posted by Jim NCC1701A (Member # 1021) on :
quote:Originally posted by MinutiaeMan: Does it really make sense to have such a crucial component hanging from a little thread with no support? Even with structural integrity fields, that don't make no sense!
Here's the approach I took when making my movie-era Saladin / Hermes type ship...
Sorry about the fuzziness of the pic - I was having a bad camera, lighting etc day.
Cheers!
Jim.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Wiggy! I takke it your nacelle is off for refit or something but the nacelle pylons replacing the "neck to nowhere" is a cool idea.
I'm undecided about the deflector though....Someone would have to be down there for maintence, emergency controls and repairs.
Plus it's a HUGE target sticking out like that! Posted by Jim NCC1701A (Member # 1021) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon: Wiggy! I takke it your nacelle is off for refit or something but the nacelle pylons replacing the "neck to nowhere" is a cool idea.
I'm undecided about the deflector though....Someone would have to be down there for maintence, emergency controls and repairs.
Plus it's a HUGE target sticking out like that!
The nacelle (all half-a-meter of the scratch-built thing) hadn't been fitted at that point.
Here's a view from the front (again, apologies for the fuzzy pic)
It's not actually that big - smaller diameter than the Enterprise's deflector. Plus I had to have it big enough for the Space Energy Field Attraction Sensors to fit on the side and look like they were in proportion. Although it does give it a certain Mickey Mouse ears look
2nd pic I've posted after finally getting into gear and using that 5MB of homepage that came with my account...
Posted by Axeman 3D (Member # 1050) on :
Check out the following pics I mocked up using parts from the Ptolemy myself and Reverend made. It shows the part can be made, but the results look a little different from those drawn. Not uncommon of course, turning 2D designs into 3D models usually involves rejigging parts like this.
That's beautiful! Posted by Axeman 3D (Member # 1050) on :
What is? The original drawings, the photos or the renders?
Posted by aridas (Member # 1051) on :
Nicely done Axeman 3D . That is very close to what I was trying to describe to Masao, and to anyone else that was interested. Only the diagonal terminus at the rear of the deflector housing is different from what I envisioned. I had the angle echo the aft of the dorsal. But otherwise, your impressive visualization is right on the mark.
What software are you using?
Posted by Axeman 3D (Member # 1050) on :
I use Lightwave 3D right now, very powerful and one of the easier packages to learn. I had to stretch the neck of the Ptolemy so that it looked more like the drawing, which explains why the neck angle changed and all the image maps are fouled up. I also removed all the windows as well since they got screwed up badly as well.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Yeah, sure. We all know that EVERYTHING is perfect, and it's much better to assume that the 600 hours of Trek published since 1975 are wrong, and some unofficial book which has been decanonized is absolutely correct.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)