After spending the last few months drawing cat people for a TAS webcomic, I've finally gotten back to drawing ships. Here's a refinement of my "Starmaster" transport, which has been in the WIP section of the Starfleet Museum for about 2 years (http://www.starfleet-museum.org/sf-transports.htm ). I thought the original version was sort of blobby with too-large Connie nacelles, so I gave the ship slab sides, a single nacelle, and an enormous stern shuttlebay. It's about 225 m long. I'll probably do a version with smaller outboard nacelles.
EDIT: DAMN! Wrong forum!!! Can a mod please move this thread?
Posted by Makotokat (Member # 1041) on :
Very Nice Masao!
Posted by Identity Crisis (Member # 67) on :
Looks a bit like a TOS phaser, especially the bottom view. Posted by Kazeite (Member # 970) on :
Now all we need is some kind of tank that docks to the ventral part of ship
Personally I would move registry so it's no longer on that clamshell doors, and move that red fin so it doesn't obscure path to the clamshell doors as well.
Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :
I was thinking it looks like a phase pistol. At least from the front. Very cool though.
Posted by Irishman (Member # 1188) on :
I love the overall design of it. I've always wanted to see a carrier-like ship done in the TOS-style. But the nacelle looks too much like a nacelle jammed up a ship's ass for no good reason. Any way of making it look like it belongs there?
Posted by Captain Boh (Member # 1282) on :
Very Cool Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
"Phase pistol"? What's that? Some sort of new-fangled ray gun?
For a midline nacelle, there wasn't much of a choice of where to put it, if I wanted to have a shuttle bay in the tail. I could have put it on a pylon and put it above or below the hull, but that would've defeated the purpose of a single nacelle by making the ship too tall to dock at cargo terminals easily. The grey thing beneath the nacelle is for engineering.
I thought of putting the registry right in front of the bridge and off the front dorsal bay doors but it looked a bit cramped. The doors are closedly >99% of the time, so the registry can usually be read ok.
Thanks for the comments, guys.
Posted by Irishman (Member # 1188) on :
Why the single, midline nacelle anyway? Going for more of a classic naval look?
Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
quote:Originally posted by Irishman: Why the single, midline nacelle anyway? Going for more of a classic naval look?
A lot of my Romulan-War�era ships have midline nacelles, so it's consistent with my design lineage. Also, I figure that outboard nacelles make it more difficult for ships to dock with a terminal and offload cargo (you can't beam everything off).
Also also like the look of Syd Mead's Marine Corps ship in "Aliens."
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
Interesting. looks like it might be a distant descendent of the old DYs. I'd be interested to see a through line section diagram, to see how these large shuttlebays relate to one-another. The only thing I would add would be some minimal armaments and perhaps some detailing on that ventral fin to indicate that it might have something to do with deuterium refuelling.
Posted by Irishman (Member # 1188) on :
What about two midline nacelles, stacked one atop the other? It would ring more true to canon period design and look more intentional.
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
Speaking of rings, what about a Vulcan inspired warp drive? If it's kept close to the hull it could solve the docking issue and present a somewhat unique looking design, at least as far as the SFM is concerned.
Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
Rev: I don't think a ring would work so well. it would definitely be larger than a single nacelle and would be novel for the museum, but would also be sort of a random mutation!
The ventral block is a feature lifted from TAS USS Huron. I'm not sure what it does on Huron, but I was thinking that here it is some sort of cargo loading or docking device. It's probably too far forward for deuterium loading, since all the drive mechanics are at the rear.
It's got phasers, but since this is TOS you can't see 'em!
Irishman: As for two stacked nacelles, I think that arrangement would be heavier and more complex than a single big nacelle. They certainly take up more space vertically. Also, which canon ships have this arrangement? This ship is supposed to be TOS era.
Posted by Irishman (Member # 1188) on :
It's not the vertical stacking that's canonical, it's two nacelles. There are no TOS era single nacelle starships. Plus, there are no imbedded nacelles at all, but since you've decided to go that route, you'd be breaking fewer rules by including two nacelles.
Plus, I don't think a single nacelle of oh, say, 3000 metric tonnes equals the performance and function of two 1500 tonne nacelles. I may be wrong, but bigger doesn't equal better.
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
quote:Originally posted by Masao: Rev: I don't think a ring would work so well. it would definitely be larger than a single nacelle and would be novel for the museum, but would also be sort of a random mutation!
The ventral block is a feature lifted from TAS USS Huron. I'm not sure what it does on Huron, but I was thinking that here it is some sort of cargo loading or docking device. It's probably too far forward for deuterium loading, since all the drive mechanics are at the rear.
It's got phasers, but since this is TOS you can't see 'em!
For the ring-drive I was thinking something more like the split ring from "Fusion" which it pretty close to the hull. Not that I have a problem with the present arrangement, just an option to consider if you wanted to do something a little off the beaten path. Logically I'm sure the Vulcans got the contract to do some of the Starfleet ships, although I suppose the focus there would have been on science vessels rather than logistics and support craft...which might account for the look of the Oberth, something to consider for a future article perhaps? For some reason I think the Tellarites would be the most influential in a design like this, don't ask me why.
As for the ventral fin, I assumed it was a refuelling tower simply because of it's distance from the main hull. I suppose it could also mount the major tractor/mooring beam emitters as well as refuelling and general cargo/personnel docking functions. It's certainly a substantial enough structure. As for the distance from the machinery, I rather think it's a good thing to keep the fuel pipe as far away from the internal tanks as possible. I imagine in the event of an accident you'd want as much notices as you can get to cut off the pumps to prevent an explosion travelling up the plumbing.
Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reverend: For the ring-drive I was thinking something more like the split ring from "Fusion" which it pretty close to the hull. Not that I have a problem with the present arrangement, just an option to consider if you wanted to do something a little off the beaten path. Logically I'm sure the Vulcans got the contract to do some of the Starfleet ships, although I suppose the focus there would have been on science vessels rather than logistics and support craft...which might account for the look of the Oberth, something to consider for a future article perhaps? For some reason I think the Tellarites would be the most influential in a design like this, don't ask me why.
Yeah, maybe. I've never really studied Vulcan ships much, owing to their previous small numbers. However, I do like the Vulcan ships from series 5 quite a bit. I suppose Starfleet might consider using an unusual nacelle layout, but only if it were much superior to standard nacelles. Being just as good or slightly better is not enough, since overcoming institutional inertia is difficult.
quote:Originally posted by Reverend: As for the ventral fin, I assumed it was a refuelling tower simply because of it's distance from the main hull. I suppose it could also mount the major tractor/mooring beam emitters as well as refuelling and general cargo/personnel docking functions. It's certainly a substantial enough structure. As for the distance from the machinery, I rather think it's a good thing to keep the fuel pipe as far away from the internal tanks as possible. I imagine in the event of an accident you'd want as much notices as you can get to cut off the pumps to prevent an explosion travelling up the plumbing.
So if you were to design a car you'd put the gas tank in the rear but have the refueling port at the front of the car? I'd think the problem of having a long internal fuel line is a more worrying problem.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Is the shuttlebay two levels tall, or does it hold some really large, semi-independant shuttle or scoutcraft from the Pre-TOS era?
Also, I think the nacelle's end would look cooler (and more retro) as the flat plane with vents (like the pilot version of the E-nil).
Niiiice work, as always.
Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
It's a real big shuttle bay, able to handle multiple heavy cargo shuttles much larger than Galileo. sort of like that large shuttle Reverend designed. The door is 26 m wide and 9.5 m tall compared with 14 x 7.5 meters on Connie
I though of putting a Connie-type end cap on the nacelles, but since the nacelle is so fat, the cap was also very big and looked a bit out of scale. Rather than having the cap with parallel sides, I might try more of a cone with the tip cut off.
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
quote:Yeah, maybe. I've never really studied Vulcan ships much, owing to their previous small numbers. However, I do like the Vulcan ships from series 5 quite a bit. I suppose Starfleet might consider using an unusual nacelle layout, but only if it were much superior to standard nacelles. Being just as good or slightly better is not enough, since overcoming institutional inertia is difficult.
Well then scoot on over to Ex-Astris and have a goose at the Vahklas and perhaps the "Fallen Hero" shuttle too. I suppose there has to be some reason that the annular configuration beats the nacelles in the 22nd century. Even if we ignore the NX version of events there's still the ring ship, which someone must have thought was a good idea at the time and someone else thought was worthy of remembrance on the E-Nil's rec-deck. Perhaps it's something to do with the shape of the hull, where the more compact narrow hulls make for a more effiecent warp field for the ring nacelles. Whereas the dual cylinder nacelle configuration works better with the saucer/engineering hull arrangement. As for it's place in the Museum, I suppose it could mark in history the point where the various Federation member worlds started to work together in earnest with ship designing and building.
quote:So if you were to design a car you'd put the gas tank in the rear but have the refueling port at the front of the car? I'd think the problem of having a long internal fuel line is a more worrying problem.
Generally cars don't refuel from other cars while in motion. Besides, I'm not refering to the fuel tanks for this ship's own drive, but those for topping up other ships. This is a Tender, correct?
Anyway, just for a bit of fun and to clarify what I'm waffling on about, here's a quick and dirty throughline section of how I picture the arrangement of the engines and the secondary tanks. Plus a possible design suggestion for the nacelle end-cap since I agree that the currant one looks a little weird. Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
FYI, the TMP-ringship was also seen in the 506 bar (or whatever it was called), way back in the 2140s. So the Earth ringship is older than the NX Project.
As for the refueling, it might need something similar to the Fabrux class arm, or a simpler Stratotanker-like boom.
Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
Rev: Ok. I see what you're getting at. That makes sense. That makes a good refuelling hub. Of course, when ships are refueling underway in space, it's probably much easier than refuelling by aircraft or ships. In fact, starships could even stop dead without worrying about falling to Earth. The nacelle cap is also good.
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
quote:Originally posted by Irishman: It's not the vertical stacking that's canonical, it's two nacelles. There are no TOS era single nacelle starships.
Buh? Saladin? Hermes?
I do however agree that the one gigantic nacelle looks rather questionable. And BTW, in your initial drawing, you seem to have used the elevation view of the rear nacelle cap as a plan view, making it lopsided in your dorsal and ventral plans.
While I don't lend any particular credence to Roddenberry's "rules" of starship design, I must say that the imbedded nacelle with no bussard ramscoop just doesn't sit right with me. For whatever reason, it has always been a distinct feature of SF ships to have both ends of the nacelle(s) exposed. There's probably some good reason for it. But even if not, it still seems to violate a basic aesthetic continuity. And the huge bulk of the thing makes it look even more ungainly. Why should it need to be so big?
Not surprised at the suggestion of a ring-nacelle configuration, as one of my first thoughts was: "It looks like a Surak!"
-MMoM Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
Bussard ramscoops aren't necessary for warpflight. Apart from scooping up the occasional free hydrogen molecules, it doesn't seem to do anything. There are plenty of ships that don't have them (Oberth, Peregrine, almost every alien vessel).
Inline nacelles also have some canon precedent. The Peregrine is an example. And lately, the Illyrian vessel in ENT:"Damage" clearly had one centered nacelle.
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
quote:Rev: Ok. I see what you're getting at. That makes sense. That makes a good refuelling hub. Of course, when ships are refueling underway in space, it's probably much easier than refuelling by aircraft or ships. In fact, starships could even stop dead without worrying about falling to Earth. The nacelle cap is also good.
Right, good to know we're on the same page. If the nacelle cap still looks too bulbous then there's always the option of bisecting, or even trisecting it with some fin structures.
quote:While I don't lend any particular credence to Roddenberry's "rules" of starship design, I must say that the imbedded nacelle with no bussard ramscoop just doesn't sit right with me. For whatever reason, it has always been a distinct feature of SF ships to have both ends of the nacelle(s) exposed. There's probably some good reason for it. But even if not, it still seems to violate a basic aesthetic continuity. And the huge bulk of the thing makes it look even more ungainly. Why should it need to be so big?
Well to be fair there is no cannon precident for a TOS era Tender so Masao is pretty much free to draw whatever he likes and I recall him explaining the reasoning for the imbedded nacelle. Being that it allows the tender to get closer to other ships without the worry of any outboard structures being clipped. Indeed I imagine a ship like this might be designed to be narrow in order to manoeuvre between a set of nacelle on a large ship in order to either refuel or service the engines. As for the bulk of the single nacelle, (my diagram not withstanding) I imagine some of the bulk is taken up by extra sheilding, to protect the crew and cargo from all that heat and radiation. The rest is just to generate a powerful enough warp field to shift all that extra mass at a speed that allows it to keep up with the fleet. After all, what use is a Tender if it can't top warp-3? As a side note it might be worth adding a set of intercoolers on that nacelle, since you'd need some way to dissipate all that heat. Say at the 4 and 8 O'clock positions?
quote:Inline nacelles also have some canon precedent. The Peregrine is an example. And lately, the Illyrian vessel in ENT:"Damage" clearly had one centered nacelle.
Does that look like the top half of a Romulan Warbird to anyone else?
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
To clarify, I am well aware that the Bussard collector is not essential to the warp system (indeed, they are largely just an aesthetic addition, making the forward ends of the nacelles interesting to look at onscreen) and that many alien vessels have been seen with imbedded nacelles. I was simply pointing out that it seems to be a nearly invariable feature of Starfleet vessels (and human ships in general) to have nacelles that are exposed at both ends along the longitudinal axis. Given this, I would say it's likely that there is some aspect of human/Starfleet technology that requires this configuration.
The Peregrine does indeed have its nacelles exposed at the front, and even has what appear to be Bussard ramscoops. See here and here. The only example I can think of is the holoship, and even that had nacelles originally.
The original reason for suspending nacelles on pylons out away from the ship's main hull was that they were focus points of radiation that was dangerous to the crew, and in an emergency situation they might be easily jettisoned. (A reference to this intent was made in an episode of TOS.) Presumably the problem of shielding the crew from this radiation has been overcome in designs such as the Defiant, but particularly in the TOS era I can't see a ship having it so deeply imbedded in the bowels of the ship.
As I mentioned above, even disregarding any technical concerns, it is at the very least a violation the SF aesthetic, particularly for a TOS-era vessel. Just my opinion, I know, but still...
-MMoM Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
Mim: I know that most Starfleet ships have bussards, but I decided that this ship was part of my lineage established with Romulan-War ships. Also, if there were good enough reasons to have this in line configuration, Starfleet might show a little flexibility. If figure that the nacelle is surrounded by holds and storage areas rather than crew quarters, so few if any crewmen gets exposed 24/7. Since I'm going with in-hull reactors, jetisonning the nacelles to save the ship isn't necessary.
If the nacelle front saren't exposed bow-ward with bussards, how would you feel about a detached bussard somewhere else on the hull. It would act the same as a nacelle bussard.
Rev: I was just thinking this morning about adding intercoolers. Probably at 4:30 and 7:30.
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
Well, a ramscoop somewhere certainly couldn't be a bad idea. But as I said, it was mostly the idea of not having longitudinal line of sight that soured me. But she's your baby.
Posted by Irishman (Member # 1188) on :
MMoM,
So, is everything in FJ's TEch manual considered canon?? Including his errors and starfleet HQ we've not seen anywhere on screen?
Posted by MarianLH (Member # 1102) on :
Originally posted by Irishman:
quote:So, is everything in FJ's TEch manual considered canon?? Including his errors and starfleet HQ we've not seen anywhere on screen?
Read your own post, sir. You didn't say there were no canon TOS ships. You said there were none, period. And you were wrong.
Marian
Posted by Spike (Member # 322) on :
quote:So, is everything in FJ's TEch manual considered canon??
Not everything but a couple of things from the TM are canon. FJ's ship classes can be seen in TWOK and TSFS on computer displays, four of his ships were mentioned in TMP, and some of his planetary logos were used in the TWOK-travel pod.
Posted by Kazeite (Member # 970) on :
Some of the FJ tech manual illustration appear in TWOK, so I would say that at least part of manual is canon Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
Lets not get into a cannon discussion on single nacelled ships or FJ's manual.
Anyway, just to put a more detailed face on the discussions, here is what the layout might be with more heavily shielded coils and just for fun I filled in the cargo bays too. Posted by Dat (Member # 302) on :
Great, you made the endcap of the nacelle look like the ramscoop of the refit Ambassador class nacelle.
Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
Here's revised schematic incorporating the various suggestions. Since this is a tender, I'm thinking of some of the stuff it might carry. For example, a emergency spare mini-nacelle for getting a damaged destroyer back to a starbase and a space deflector dish.
Posted by Makotokat (Member # 1041) on :
Masao as always impressive! Rev's schematics are wonderful. It almost looks submarine-like! Have you considered a bussard collector mounted on the engineering pod, drawing from either side of the fin? That would allow the tender to cruise near gas giants to fill up it's tanks to refuel destroyers on patrol.
As far as the centreline nacelle, I designed a freighter along your SFM designs and used the single centreline nacelle as well....
My reasoning: The first warp experiments and warp ships would use ONE nacelle as a starting point. It simplfies matters enormously. You don't have to split the runoff of the warp reactor....no pilons needed, just a radiation splash guard at the rear of the ship....the whole nacelle/warp engine assembly can safely be disposed of out the rear of the ship in case of an overload. While two nacelles would allow greater control and higher warp speeds, a single nacelle would be simpler and easier to control for freighters, colony ships or even fleet tenders. Might be slower, but probably cheaper as well.
Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
Yeah, I've been thinking about some type of bussard, but I lke the relatively clean lines of the ships as they are. If gas is only collected in emergencies, perhaps a ship could have a bussard that flips out from stowed position.
Posted by Makotokat (Member # 1041) on :
Perhaps side vents with magnetic guide guides
Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
Here's a variant with 2 nacelles for you bussard lovers. Don't let the colors throw you. I was just curious how they'd look. Posted by Captain Boh (Member # 1282) on :
I liked it better without them, at least not how they're set up now. It might work better if they were on angled pilons rather than sticking right out of the ship.
What about using the Destroyer nacelles?
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
I would suggest angling the pylons downwards, maybe even shortening (?) and/or widening them, bringing them in closer to the hull.
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
Personally I was quite happy with the inline nacelle and don't really think that ramscoops are a necessity. However if you feel compeled to include them then I suggest one of two possible solutions. The first one being a set of blister like structures, flanking the main hull. The drawback here is that you loose some of the internal cargo space, but on the upside it provides a direct feed into the secondary fuel tanks. The second option is slightly less conventional and involves having the ramscoops completly internal, behind a grill, just below the forward loading deck. The upside to this is that it's pretty low key, maintains the slim hull lines and again is pretty close to the tanks but as I said it isn't a conventional design and people will bitch about it not looking very Starfleet (boo hoo.)
To put pictures to words, here's a quick mock up with both options installed. Posted by japol (Member # 1149) on :
Man... I really liked the original, but...
the new version is AWESOME!
Posted by MirrorCaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
or you could 'blister out' two warp nacelles fairly close to each other down where you put the grated bussard port.. they would be close to each other, but they would be under the ship fairly analogously to where your original inboard nacelle was, without disrupting the upper sections as designed.
Posted by Captain Boh (Member # 1282) on :
What about a bussard in the nose?
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
That would be bad. Very, very bad. Unless you're into ships that look like pogo the clown.
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
Mike's idea sounds interesting. I want to reiterate just ONCE more that I don't really give a damn about the bussards, (though I do think having some is a good idea) just that the nacelles are unobstructed at both ends.
Posted by Captain Boh (Member # 1282) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reverend: That would be bad. Very, very bad. Unless you're into ships that look like pogo the clown.
Wha?
Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
I suspect a DT is not the most manouverable or the fastest of ships, right? I'm not sure about the efficiency of ramscoops, but I have a suspicion that for a relatively slow tender, the amount of hydrogen collected from Bussards is insignificant compared to the massive fuel tanks it already has.
I guess it would be a lot more effective if the destroyers use their own Bussards in case of a fuel depletion emergency.
Realistically, the chance of a tender running out of fuel seems pretty unlikely. If you are low on fuel you should go to the nearest spaceport ASAP!
Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
Harry's right about how a tender works. It's not exactly a combat ship. It just supports operations by destroyers just behind the front lines. Onboard are fuels, photon torpedoes, spare parts, workshops, recreation facilities, life-support equipment, etc. It doesn't have to be particularly fast or maneuverable. The tender carries a shitload of deuterium, so would likely always carry enough for it's own needs.
Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
OK. Here's a radical transport. I'm thinking of ships to fit in between the fat, cylindrical Bisons of the Romulan War and the Sahara/Starmaster of the TOS era. I slapped together the middle one from some parts I had laying around. I got the general look from a turboprop nacelle. This could have either one large nacelle or two smaller ones. Whadya think? Is it still Trek? Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
Uh..
I don't quite see how that is related to either of the other two designs.
Posted by japol (Member # 1149) on :
Unfortunately it seems to be losing the feel.
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
Somehow it reminds me of a mole...and I don't know if that's a good thing or a bad thing.
Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
I'm investigating various hull shapes and nacelle locations. During times of technologic change, such as the introduction of armor plating or jet engines, the first designs usually apply the new technologies to old forms, so we get things like HMS Warrior, a broadside-firing screw steamer built of iron and the Gloster Meteor, a straight-winged jet fighter. However, after this initial stage, you get a period of experimention in which every conceivable variation is tried until a new standard is established by superiority or by convention. This same sort of experimentation process would occur when matter/antimatter reactors and high-powered nacelles are introduced.
Any way, this middle design is not really part of any developmental sequence, but is part of a chronological sequence. Putting a nacelle beneath the hull is a reasonable alternative to have it mounted in the rear and perhaps is closer to the high-nacelle configurations seen later, just inverted. The hull form is basically cylindrical and has a longer deflector housing at the nose. Not so radical really.
Edited: To return Warrior to the RN
[ May 14, 2004, 06:05 PM: Message edited by: Masao ]
Posted by Dat (Member # 302) on :
Warrior was a British ship. The first iron-clad ships the Americans had were CSS Virginia (ex-USS Merrimac(k)) and USS Monitor.
Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
Sorry, "HMS Warrior." I'm so used to writing "USS."
A bit of background for those interested. Warrior was launched in 1860. She basically looked like a side-firing steam frigate of the time, but had a framework and partial covering of iron. She's still afloat in Portsmouth, for you in the UK who are interested.
Ironclad ships were first used by the British and French in the bombardment of a Russian fort at Kinburn in 1855. The Battle of Hampton Roads (March 1862) is properly described as the first combat between ironclad ships.
[ May 14, 2004, 06:55 PM: Message edited by: Masao ]
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
I think what's missing most in that middle design is the aft undercut. Whereas most Starfleet ships are generally leaving the bottom aft quadrant empty (for the undercut), this tender has a lot MORE hull volume in that area. It just looks... unusual. More like an overgrown shuttlecraft than anything else.
I'd suggest giving at least the hint of an undercut (sorta like the Sahara's undercut), and maybe just partially embed the nacelle in the hull? Sorta like how the third mini-nacelle was embedded in the Quetzalcoatl.
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
quote: A bit of background for those interested. Warrior was launched in 1860. She basically looked like a side-firing steam frigate of the time, but had a framework and partial covering of iron. She's still afloat in Portsmouth, for you in the UK who are interested.
Moored close to HMS Victory; both beautiful ships. With the Warrior it's particularly interesting and amazing that she survived; looking at the pictures of what she looked like having spent several decades moored up as a storage ship and then walking around her now, the difference is staggering.
I like the paint scheme on the 2 nacelle version, BTW sort of reminds me of pre-war aircraft paint schemes; silver with bright distinguishing colours.
the 'radical transport' I'm not quite so keen on. The front looks pretty good, but I'm not so sure about the downward curve at the aft. It looks a little too much like a starships shuttle bay enlarged and is a little inelegant to my eye. Perhaps if the aft was to be more symettrical with the front, kind of like this:
Only with more than 5 minutes spent on it and possibly with a lengthened aft section.
Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
The interesting, Wraith. It sort of reminds me of the old SAC Hound Dog missile.
I like colorful paint schemes (pre-WWII, WWII German, 1960s USN), but I suspect the Starfleet brass does not. But I'd do some transports as civilian ships with lots of color.
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
Oh, screw the brass! I must admit, I do like the commercial schemes on your site; gives things a bit of life rather than just endless Starfleet grey. I've done a marginally better version, with the end section from the Moskva class to make it look a little less truncated:
Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
My Flash Gordon Sense is tingling.
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
I had a go at reconfiguring this one to try and make it look a little less...mole-like. I think I may have gone a little too far with the alterations. Here it is nonetheless. Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
Wraith: I don't know about that one. The end cap was something I termed a "warp bustle" containing an easily separable warp reactor. If you put the reactor at the end, you lose the possibility of a stern shuttle bay.
Rev: Yikes! It's no longer my ship! What's that thing on the side?
Posted by MarianLH (Member # 1102) on :
Originally posted by Masao:
quote: Rev: Yikes! It's no longer my ship! What's that thing on the side?
It's a turn signal.
I always liked the warp bustle idea. One of the cool things about your site is that technology evolves. Things are actually different, from one time to another, beyond just getting bigger and faster. It adds realism. (Insert criticism of "Enterprise" here.)
On the other hand, because of my background in historical costume, the term warp bustle always makes me picture the ship with a giant Farthingale hoop skirt wrapped around the secondary hull, streaming behind it.
I just had a thought... I recall reading somewhere that the CVN-65 Enteprise, America's first nuclear carrier, had two big fission reactors, but that the Nimitz class ships had several small ones. Wouldn't it be cool to extrapolate a similar evolution on Star Trek? Instead of one big warp core, eight little ones. It would provide some redundancy in combat, too. Something to think about, for you guys designing post-Dominion War starships.
Marian
Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
Thanks, Marian
I also designed a warp corset, a warp chiton, and a warp codpiece, but in the interests of public sanity, those will remain under wraps for the time being.
"Bustle" is also used to refer to an extension or counterweight on the rear of a tank's turret, such as on the Sherman Firefly.
Posted by Dat (Member # 302) on :
Actually, IIRC CVN-65 had eight reactors which was reduced in number for the Nimitzs.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
quote:Originally posted by MarianLH: Originally posted by Masao: I just had a thought... I recall reading somewhere that the CVN-65 Enteprise, America's first nuclear carrier...
Does that make the next nuclear carriers Enterprise Class ships?
Posted by Dat (Member # 302) on :
No, it makes CVN-65, the first and only Enterprise class carrier. The next American carrier will belong to the CV(X) program and will not be named Enterprise and start a new Enterprise class of ships. And no, I'm not talking about USS Ronald Reagan or USS George H W Bush, both Nimitz class carriers, with the Bush being the last of them.
Posted by StarCruiser (Member # 979) on :
quote:Originally posted by MarianLH: Originally posted by Masao:
quote: Rev: Yikes! It's no longer my ship! What's that thing on the side?
It's a turn signal.
I always liked the warp bustle idea. One of the cool things about your site is that technology evolves. Things are actually different, from one time to another, beyond just getting bigger and faster. It adds realism. (Insert criticism of "Enterprise" here.)
On the other hand, because of my background in historical costume, the term warp bustle always makes me picture the ship with a giant Farthingale hoop skirt wrapped around the secondary hull, streaming behind it.
I just had a thought... I recall reading somewhere that the CVN-65 Enteprise, America's first nuclear carrier, had two big fission reactors, but that the Nimitz class ships had several small ones. Wouldn't it be cool to extrapolate a similar evolution on Star Trek? Instead of one big warp core, eight little ones. It would provide some redundancy in combat, too. Something to think about, for you guys designing post-Dominion War starships.
Marian
CVN-65, at least when she was completed, had 8 reactors of the same basic type used by early nuclear subs (Westinghouse). The Nimitz class carriers use 2 reactors that I believe were designed specifically for them.
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
quote:Originally posted by Masao: Wraith: I don't know about that one. The end cap was something I termed a "warp bustle" containing an easily separable warp reactor. If you put the reactor at the end, you lose the possibility of a stern shuttle bay.
Yeah, sorry should've explained better. The end cap section was just supposed to be representative of an aft assembly of some sort (basically a large aft shuttlebay). I have no artistic capabilities whatsoever so just grabbed a piece that looked vaguely like what I wanted Posted by MarianLH (Member # 1102) on :
Originally posted by Masao:
quote:"Bustle" is also used to refer to an extension or counterweight on the rear of a tank's turret, such as on the Sherman Firefly.
Yes, well, tanks for pointing that out.
I sit corrected on the number of nuclear reactors on various carriers. My bad. I still think multiple small warp cores on a starship is a neat idea, though. Say, starship X has eight reactors. It can function normally on as few as six, and still limp home at warp 5 on as few as two or three....just thinking out loud...
Marian
Posted by Captain Boh (Member # 1282) on :
Indeed an interesting idea. A ship desidned for this system would likely benifit greatly from it. The reactors could also be placed so that other key systems could be given sole access to certan reactors at certan times (For example, one reactor that can be switched to the phasers and/or shields in a combat situation)
Posted by Paladin181 (Member # 833) on :
A friend and I had an idea like this, only we invisioned four fullsized warp cores, each powering their own system, i.e. Core 1= Warp Engines, Core 2= Main Power, Core 3= Weapons, Core 4= Auxilary/Redundant Power. I've just been under the impression that they have to be quite large just to power the ship and use for warp, maybe if you used several Defiant sized warp cores it might work, but not for anything large comparable to a Nebula, Galaxy, or Soveriegn.
Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
quote:Originally posted by Wraith: Yeah, sorry should've explained better. The end cap section was just supposed to be representative of an aft assembly of some sort (basically a large aft shuttlebay). I have no artistic capabilities whatsoever so just grabbed a piece that looked vaguely like what I wanted
Yeah, I figured that. The type of fan-shaped shuttle bay (as on Constitution) is a fairly advanced feature in my design lineage, so I might just put a blunt end on the ship with a Reliant-style shuttle bay with curtain doors.
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
Sounds good Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
Just for fun: Posted by Ace (Member # 389) on :
Nice.
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
Now that I like (especially having just read up about the Flying Tigers). Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
A few more! The Japan Space Lines livery is adapted from a fantasy Japan Air Lines livery designed by A. Fisher at Puck's Livery Zoo. (Used with permission.) Posted by Captain Boh (Member # 1282) on :
Cool.
I'm going to have to design some ships so I can Canadian them up Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
I would suggest British Spaceways, but the abreviation would be BS...
Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
A ship with a big maple leaf (or a beaver!) would look good. Pity about British Spaceways. Maybe some variant of BOAC or BEA would work. What I really want is a Cogswell Cogs or Spacely Sprockets ship, but I haven't been able to find any logos on line.
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
How about "British Aerospace Lines"?
Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
Though "Aerospace" suggests atmospheric flight as well.
In medicine BAL is short of "bronchoalveolar lavage," meaning to use a saline solution to obtain cells and other from the lungs. That's what I think of first...
How about Astrolines, Astroways, Star Lines, Space Lines?
BTW: I was researching Canadian liveries and find that there's now no Canadian Airlines. Did it get replaced by Air Canada? (Like Swissair got replaced by Swiss?)
Posted by MarianLH (Member # 1102) on :
I'd just go ahead and use BS. In [i]Star Trek IV[i] it was implied that Anglo-Saxon profanity had fallen into disuse--for Kirk it was a historical curiosity.
And to keep viewers of the image from sniggering you could always spell out the whole name on the ship's hull.
Marian
Posted by Captain Boh (Member # 1282) on :
Canadian merged with Air Canada as far as I can remember. I don't pay alot of attention since I don't do alot of flying
Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
I actually download an eps file for the Air Canada logo and legend from their site, but I don't like the resulting plainess of the design or the name. These modern liveries with white fuselages and just a colored tail don't adapt welll to starships. Whatever happened to cheat lines? I think I need to work on this more. Maybe I'll try the Canada goose tail from the later Canadian planes. For what it's worth. Posted by Ultra Magnus (Member # 239) on :
We cannot afford picture windows!
Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ultra Magnus: We cannot afford picture windows!
Yes, I'm afraid the accomodations on this ship are all one class: Steerage!
Posted by Ultra Magnus (Member # 239) on :
It is that darn SpaceLiberal Party!
(Note: I would support the SpaceLiberal Party.)
Posted by Ace (Member # 389) on :
Hmmm, I like "Star Canada."
Posted by Captain Boh (Member # 1282) on :
As long as they arn't BC SpaceLiberals, I'm all good
Perhaps a 23rd Century incarnation of Air Canada is a good omen for the future of Canada having airlines Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
How about British Interplanetary and Colonial Star Lines? By colonial of course, I mean Earth's colonies; it has a sort of 1930s sound to it.
Posted by Makotokat (Member # 1041) on :
You're right, it does look "Liberal". And considering what that B@#tard McGuinty (Our beloved premier) just did maybe a WestJet logo would work better.
Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
A slight revision of the Canada livery using the goose from the real Canadia/en Airlines. Still no windows. Also, a British design using the traditional Speedbird emblem and the Union Flag tail flash. Posted by Captain Boh (Member # 1282) on :
Does the Space Canada say Vancouver on it? Cool
I kinda like Air Canada's 80's livery though, but I guess the 23rd centrury is retro enough already Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
quote:Originally posted by Captain Boh: Does the Space Canada say Vancouver on it? Cool
I figure that ships still have home ports, even if they are launched from orbit. I suppose I could have chosen a landlocked city, like Calgary, but that sounded a bit funny to me.
Question: What's the name prefix for modern Canadian and UK civilian ships? I remember that Titanic used RMS, but do Canadian ships use some variation of it, such as RCMS? (RMS evidently means "royal mail steamer"?)
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
I've had a look around and I'm fairly sure it's just SS (Steam Ship, originally) for Merchant navy ships. Unfortunately, most sites about civilian ships are a little erratic about prefixes. There also seem to be some with the prefix MV, I guess for Merchant Vessel.
Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
The newest Cunard liner, Queen Mary 2, still carries the RMS prefix, although it now stands for "royal mail ship" rather than "royal mail steamer."
Posted by Topher (Member # 71) on :
As I recall around here (Atlantic Canada) any passenger vessels and non-cable ferries are MV.
Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
Royal Mail Ship Queen Mary 6, out of Southampton Posted by japol (Member # 1149) on :
Masao...
This looks so great. Quick question (and it is a bit embarrassing):
What exactly does a Destroyer Tender do? Does it carry extra ammo and fuel so the destroyers don't have to be bigger and less maneuverable as a consequence of carrying their own? I'd heard the term several times in the past and was always a bit foggy on what it meant.
Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
Yeah, something like that. They repair battle damage, and provide logistic and maintenance support for destroyers and other types of ship. Their crews are mostly technicians and repair crews. So, I suspect they'll carry torpedoes, spare parts, food, fluids, etc. and do repair and maintenance on anything that needs fixing. They might also carry spare antimatter bottles and deuterium, or perhaps other specialized ships carry those fuels.
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
As I understand it, the idea of a tender is that it helps bring the repair facilities out to the combat ships, so the repairs can be done in the field rather than forcing the combat ships to travel all the way back to base every time they need to get something fixed.
Posted by japol (Member # 1149) on :
Thanks... always kind of wondered about that.
Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
For my article on transport ships, I'm looking for suggestions for companies from the world of Trek and SF. I have a lot of companies from books by Philip K Dick and Alfred Bester but would like to hear about companies from other authors, Star Trek, and other franchises.
Here's a few of what I've got so far: Rossum's Universal Robots (from R.U.R) Tyrell Corp., Prosser and Ankopitch, Tsin Tsin Vinyl (Blade Runner) Ceres Mining Company, Bo'ness & Uig, Presteign, Dagenham Couriers (The Stars My Destination) Monarch Resources & Utilities, Inc; D'Courtney Cartel (The Demolished Man) Terran Construction Corporation (The Fountains of Paradise) Weylan(d)-Yutani (Alienseses) U. S. Robots and Mechanical Men, Inc.; Solar Minerals (I, Robot) Fowler Shrocken Associates, Metropolitan Protection Corp., Starrzelius Verily; Universal Products; Chlorella Corp. (The Space Merchants) Cyberdyne Systems (Terminators) Rosen Associates, Wheelright & Carpenter, Penfield Mood Organ, Frauenzimmer Piano Company, androids; Rosen Spinet Piano & Electric Organ Factory, MASA Associates, Yee Company, Electronic Musical Enterprises, Karp und Sohnen Werke, and others (PK Dick books) OCP (Robocop)
Posted by Dat (Member # 302) on :
Wayne Enterprises. hehe.
Posted by japol (Member # 1149) on :
Oh how I wish I could remember the companies in HHGttG..
Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
Didn't an early TNG episode have some planet owned by a mining company? Starting with a D, and with L, and X?
I'm not doing an Buckaroo Banzai refs! I recently saw that movie again for the first time since its original release. I still didn't like it so much. Also, references to Buckaroo Banzai (and 1980s anime) are the exclusive domain of Okuda and Sternbach.
For Hitchhikers, I bet someone must have compiled an encyclopedia.
Posted by Captain Boh (Member # 1282) on :
Dytallix mining compangy I think
Posted by machf (Member # 1233) on :
How about Chronowerx? Or UAC?(from DooM)
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
quote:Originally posted by Topher: Oh how I wish I could remember the companies in HHGttG..
Sirius Cybernetics
Which is technically a cannon trek company too, thanks to the art department on DS9, which has very good taste in comedy sci-fi.
I had no idea that the yanks even had Red Dwarf back then.
Posted by Dat (Member # 302) on :
Jacobson's Used Photons? I think I'd rather get them new. And Spacely Sprockets? I take it Sisko wouldn't let Cogswell Cogs on the station.
Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
I've been trying to track down logos for Spacely Sprockets and Cogswell Cogs, but no luck so far. Also, what was the name of the company Fred Flintstone worked for? His boss was Mr. Slate...
Posted by MarianLH (Member # 1102) on :
Pancho's Happy Bottom Riding Club??? Just me, or does that sound a tad kinky?
Marian
Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
Pancho's was a famous hangout near Muroc/Edward's AFB where all the test pilots used to hang out. Watch or read "The Right Stuff"! Pancho Barnes was a famous aviatrix.
Posted by MarianLH (Member # 1102) on :
Darn...
Marian
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
Masao, I already have the JMC logo from Red Dwarf on my hard drive if you want it. I can also get ahold of the Diva Droid logo with the aid of a few DVD caps. I do have the HHGttG DVD so I can have a look through that too to see if there are any logos in there somewhere. I might just do one myself especially for 'Tom Servo's Used Robots' although I'll have to call on our own Axeman for a little help, given that he's quite the MST3K fan.
It might be ammusing to consider the Futurama logos too, I'm pretty sure the fonts (english & Alien) are availible for download...somewhere.
Posted by machf (Member # 1233) on :
Oh my...
Cavor's Gravity Devices? (H.G. Wells' "The First Men on the Moon")
Forbin Project? ("Colossus: The Forbin Project")
Milliways? ("The Restaurant at the End of the Universe")
Tom Servo's Used Robots?
Posted by machf (Member # 1233) on :
quote:Originally posted by Masao: I've been trying to track down logos for Spacely Sprockets and Cogswell Cogs, but no luck so far. Also, what was the name of the company Fred Flintstone worked for? His boss was Mr. Slate...
Slate Rock and Gravel, IIRC.
And did anyone mention Planet Express yet?
Posted by Dat (Member # 302) on :
Sounds like a law firm in Bedrock.
Posted by Ultra Magnus (Member # 239) on :
No, it's a mining company in Bedrock.
Posted by Dat (Member # 302) on :
Yes, I know that. I'm just saying that the name sounds like a law firm.
Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
I just had to do this.
(Traced from an old Metropolis movie poster)
Posted by Topher (Member # 71) on :
I know its not really that futuristic, but what about Fusion Industries from BttF p2?
Posted by MarianLH (Member # 1102) on :
Originally posted by Topher:
quote: I know its not really that futuristic, but what about Fusion Industries from BttF p2?
Another one they missed was Designer Genes, from Gremlins 2. I got a complimentary "The Splice Of Life" button at a con that year...
Marian
Posted by machf (Member # 1233) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dat: Yes, I know that. I'm just saying that the name sounds like a law firm.
Yes, the idea came to my mind, but it would have to be "Slate , Rock and Gravel" (notice the comma), wouldn't it?
Though a more appropiate name for a law firm would be something like "Mud, Slime and Coprolite", don't you think so?
Posted by Ultra Magnus (Member # 239) on :
Because Lawyers lie and are slimey fucks!
Posted by Marauth (Member # 1320) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ultra Magnus: Because Lawyers lie and are slimey fucks!
Oi! I'm a law student and my bro is a solicitor right now and I don't apreciate you calling us lying slimey fcuks.
Sorry, not a good way to introduce myself, but that was a bit offensive.
BTW Masao, if you have room for another airline then how about Alitalia, they have a pretty decent livery, though I don't know how it'd fit on a spaceship with no tailwing. Don't have a pic on me right now, will have a looksey for one
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
For someone who studies law, you sure aren't very perceptive of double-talk.
Because he secretly wasn't calling you anything, you see.
Posted by Marauth (Member # 1320) on :
Sorry but alot of ppl have a very bad stereotype of lawyers and so most of the time I now take it for granted that any such comments (like the 'mud, slime and coprolite' one) are serious, my bad, wasn't thinking straight.
What's the only good thing about lawyers? They're biodegradable! (Told to me by, a lawyer - so they're not all bad!)
Posted by Dat (Member # 302) on :
quote:Sorry but alot of ppl have a very bad stereotype of lawyers
Especially when lawyers "PRACTICE" law.
Posted by Marauth (Member # 1320) on :
You mean when we get a sh*tload of money by ripping people off, not to mention the government? (legal aid in this country is ridiculous - UK BTW) LOL TBH I don't really like lawyers that much but the alternative was a physics degree and quite frankly the prospects for employement and money-grabbing are much better if I 'practice' law LOL.
Anyway this is getting seriously OT.
Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
Thanks for all the suggestions. Harry, what is Diva Droid?
Posted by Marauth (Member # 1320) on :
Diva Droid International� are the company that built and supplied Kryten along with most androids in Red Dwarf. There's a hilarious ep. where Kryten's 'replacement' arrives and it looks like a slyvester Stallone type with body armour and he can break a brick in half with his 'manhood'. The company logo is visible in the commercial for the replacement in that episode, don't have any caps right now.
Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
Here's a new transport I've been working on. This is an adaptation/rip-off of a ship designed, I think, by Chris Foss which appeared in the old Terran Trade Authority book, Spacecraft 2000-2100. I suspect Foss based the ship's head on the Handley-Page Victor bomber/tanker ( http://www.wcremembered.co.uk/victors.html ). I want to put Bussards on this ship but haven't worked out where yet, though probably in pods faired into the ship's sides. I show it next to my Valley Forge, which is of the same time period. No name yet. Comments, please! Posted by Captain Boh (Member # 1282) on :
Interesting look. The nose really looks like a nose Posted by Paladin181 (Member # 833) on :
The bulge under the nose should be thinner than the primary hulls in the front view, like in the picture, to set it apart more. And then place the nacelles where those intakes are on the picture and make the struts and the nacelles a similar looking assembly to that.
Name? It reminds me of a small furry animal, how about Chinchilla (sp)
Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
I just slapped that front view together to show the bussard idea. The chin will be refined.
I think it looks like a mole or hedgehog. It even has eye spots.
Posted by Irishman (Member # 1188) on :
Masao,
Has anyone ever suggested to you that your pre-TOS ships possess a strong Anime look?
Posted by machf (Member # 1233) on :
Is it me, or does the original look a lot like a bee viewed from the rear? And it may look better if that is, indeed, the rear of the new design...
Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
quote:Originally posted by Irishman: Masao,
Has anyone ever suggested to you that your pre-TOS ships possess a strong Anime look?
No, you might be the first. If there's any resemblance to anime, it's only by unconscious osmosis. I really have never watched anime.
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
quote: old Terran Trade Authority book, Spacecraft 2000-2100
I just discovered that in a second hand book shot; pretty good actually.
quote: I suspect Foss based the ship's head on the Handley-Page Victor bomber/tanker
My dad flew those during the Falklands...
i like the way the design is shaping up; the aft nacelle looks slightly too 'fat' to me though.
Posted by Dat (Member # 302) on :
What exactly is a second hand book shot?
Posted by JC Ultra Magnus (Member # 239) on :
p
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
I should really learn to proof red.
Posted by Marauth (Member # 1320) on :
Yes you shuld learn too proof red
Posted by machf (Member # 1233) on :
Reminds me of tha famous "tupos ate bell" line...
Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
Here's the lastest version (on the bottom) of my early "turboprop" transport. I based it on the Lockheed Connie airliner. The upper two are discarded versions.
Posted by B.J. (Member # 858) on :
The newest version looks much better! I can definitely see the profile of the Connie there. I'm not sure about the small nacelles though, but it might look a little boring without it. Maybe you could add some detailing to the nacelles to make it more obvious that they're different sizes?
That didn't sound quite right, but I hope you know what I mean.
B.J.
Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
I'm still working on the nacelles. The present ones are just swiped from some of my other ships. The small nacelles at the sides are for added maneuverability, since there's otherwise just a single midline nacelle. I'm thinking of having two nacelles underneath (slightly smaller than the single large one), obviating the smaller ones at the sides.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
I may be the only one that likes the very first version best.
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
I think you should go with the dual main nacelles, Masao. Single-nacelled ships may look decent in certain circumstances, but IMO not for a bulky transport like yours.
Nice design, though! It's definitely shaping up quite well!
Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon: I may be the only one that likes the very first version best.
I like the first design, too, but I thought that the elements I liked, particularly the sloping back, was too advanced for my ship lineage. Also, I think it looks a bit too much like a airplane engine. I am recycling some of those elements for another ship.
quote:Originally posted by Minutiae Man: I think you should go with the dual main nacelles, Masao. Single-nacelled ships may look decent in certain circumstances, but IMO not for a bulky transport like yours.
One of the reasons for the single main nacelle is to reduce the bulk and size of the ship, allowing it to dock more easily at cargo terminals. I'm still experimenting with nacelles now that the main hull contours are pretty much locked in.
Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
The profile reminds me of the LNER A4 Pacific, one of the most beautiful steamlocs ever.
Posted by B.J. (Member # 858) on :
Since my son is into Thomas the Tank Engine so much, I have a hard time picturing any of those British steam locomotives without faces.
Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
Posted by Captain Boh (Member # 1282) on :
Thats just creepy
Posted by B.J. (Member # 858) on :
YEEK! Okay, that just made the hair on my neck stand up! Don't DO that!
Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
Here's my most recent ship, which was introduced in the late 2160s. It's almost 2.5 times as long as that pipsqueek Daedalus. Posted by Captain Boh (Member # 1282) on :
I like it!
Posted by Marauth (Member # 1320) on :
Snazzy, that's the Conqueror class nacelle isn't it? Shows a good evolution of your Bison based ships. One nitpick though, you might wanna cut the pinstripe on the engine off before it gets to those fins at the back looks a bit odd as it doesn't follow the 'fin' that it's on.
Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
quote:Originally posted by Marauth: Snazzy, that's the Conqueror class nacelle isn't it? Shows a good evolution of your Bison based ships. One nitpick though, you might wanna cut the pinstripe on the engine off before it gets to those fins at the back looks a bit odd as it doesn't follow the 'fin' that it's on.
Don't worry about the nacelle pennant. That's an early schematic with markings straight off a Daedalus. I haven't even decided on registries and class names yet, so everything's in flux.
Yes, that's a Conqueror nacelle. I figured that at the end of the E-R War those nacelles were the most powerful available. A few years later, when this ship entered service, the nacelle would have trickled down to large military cargo/transport ships.
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
fantastic design!
Posted by Wes (Member # 212) on :
penises with nacelles!
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
If your penis looks like any of those, I think it's time to see a doctor! Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
quote:Originally posted by Wes: penises with nacelles!
** While not displaying actual human genitalia in any form, owing to the explicit and shocking nature of this image, click "this" only if 1) you are 18 years of age or older, 2) you do not suffer from any cardiovascular, allergic, autoimmune, or respiratory conditions, 3) you do not regularly attend services of worship at a legally recognized church, temple, or shrine, 4) you do not habitually vote for the Republican party, 5) you are legally allowed in the municipality in which you reside to view schematic material of a possibly highly obscene nature, and 6) you have be told at least once in your life that you have a "sick" sense of humor. You have been warned. **
Posted by Marauth (Member # 1320) on :
ROFLMAO that pic 1z teh r0xx0Rz (as a person with poor control over their keyboard and no higher brain functions would type, erm, oh dear...)
Seriously though that was pretty funny.
Though I'd still be pretty worried if my member looked anything like that, all grey with Starfleet markings over it eew. LOL
Posted by Dat (Member # 302) on :
Just be lucking Masao didn't illustrate the ship firing a phaser beam or a deflector pulse or something out the front.
Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dat: Just be lucking Masao didn't illustrate the ship firing a phaser beam or a deflector pulse or something out the front.
On a slightly more serious note, here is my finished Ocean class transport, circa 2168: click me (172 K)
Posted by Capped in Mike (Member # 709) on :
once again, i've become aroused by treknology.
i haven't had it this bad since i bedded a lover atop Franz Joseph's Star Fleet Technical Manual while reading the heavy cruiser NCC list over her shoulder.
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
I was thinking it looks like a phase pistol. At least from the front. Very cool though.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
