I'm working on a 3d model of the USS Horizon and USS Archon class starships. I'm using a scan I was sent of two pages out of what I think is the "Heavy Cruiser Evolution" plans. This version of the Horizon has a sensor dish on the aft part of the secondary hull.
Given that these classes were supposed to be the immediate predecessors to the Constitution Class, where would a suitable location for the hangarbay be? In the forward part of the secondary hull or somewhere in the primary hull?
Another oddity I noticed was the idea that the USS Horizon class ships were supposed to be the first class of vessels to mount the PB-18 warp nacelles. These nacelles are supposed to be 160 meters long on a vessel that's supposed to be 200 meters long.
I realized that the source of this data may have been early data given out to prospective authors by the production crew prior to the filming of "The Cage". At that time, the Enterprise herself was supposed to be a 200 meter ship, with a crew of 203.
After "The Cage", Gene decided to double the size of the ship and double it's crew. I'm not sure if this happened before the filming of "Where no man has gone before" or after, I suspect before. Either way, we now have a ship that's twice the size of the class that was apparently refit to Constitution specs, because there wasn't time for the publishers of the fan based material to go back and change thier works.
My solution has been to toss out the 180 meters and make the USS Horizon much larger. I've scaled the model to my USS Enterprise so that the PB-18's on the Horizon are about equal to the length of the PB-47s.
Thanks!
Christopher
Posted by Capt_Frank_Hollister (Member # 1639) on :
Have any pictures?
Posted by ChristopherT (Member # 1634) on :
quote:Originally posted by Capt_Frank_Hollister: Have any pictures?
Not yet, I just lost my website and I'm still looking for a place to put them. You can find my finished models on www.orbithangar.com. Try this:
Thanks, Christopher
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
You know, the reply box has wrapping lines. You don't have to hit the enter key unless you actually want to start a new line.
Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
TrekBBS search is disabled right now (again!), but aridas sofia (whose made the Evolution Charts and the Federation Recognition Chart) posted his new and improved Horizon/Archon class a few months ago. It's more detailed, fits better into the big scheme of things, and answers your question: a shuttlebay hangar is present in the aft secondary hull, in roughly the same place as on the Connies.
Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :
I take it this assumes that thr Horizon and the Archon were not Daedalus Class ships.
Posted by ChristopherT (Member # 1634) on :
quote:Originally posted by Harry: TrekBBS search is disabled right now (again!), but aridas sofia (whose made the Evolution Charts and the Federation Recognition Chart) posted his new and improved Horizon/Archon class a few months ago.
Thanks, Harry. Maybe I'll post the question over there too. With the plans I'm working off, any hangarbay in the secondary hull would be forward like the FJ Federation Class Dreadnought.
Christopher
Posted by ChristopherT (Member # 1634) on :
quote:Originally posted by Aban Rune: I take it this assumes that thr Horizon and the Archon were not Daedalus Class ships.
No Aban. While the model on Sisko's desk might be a Daedalus Class (I don't watch TNG, DS9, etc), from what I've seen on the internet, the Daedalus class is half the size of a Horizon class, with a lot less crew. See my first post about where that data came from.
My plans show that the USS Constellation, NCC-1017, and the Archon Class USS Republic, NCC-1371 were converted to Constitution Class specs. The Archon class are physically the same as the Horizon, but thier interiors are layed out to give them longer endurance.
Christopher
Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :
Without pictures, I'm having a real hard time picturing what you're talking about.
Posted by ChristopherT (Member # 1634) on :
quote:Originally posted by Aban Rune: Without pictures, I'm having a real hard time picturing what you're talking about.
Okay, I'm borrowing some space. The first file is a scan of the prints, it's a 700k file so beware!
Okay.. search is still down, so I might as well post aridas' new and improved Horizon (I hope you don't mind, aridas!). The secondary hull and nacelles have been completely redesigned. And here's the Constellation from a few years later (prior to being used as a testbed for Constitution).
And finally, as an answer to your question, the shuttlebay appears on this sketch.
Posted by ChristopherT (Member # 1634) on :
quote:Originally posted by Harry: Okay.. search is still down, so I might as well post aridas' And finally, as an answer to your question, the shuttlebay appears on this sketch.
Thanks, Harry! I can see where he was going with it now. I was actually considering doing a version of the USS Republic with an original Horizon secondary hull and a new Constitution style primary hull. I'm glad to see I wasn't that far off!
Christopher
Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :
Hmmm... doesn't look all that different from the Daedalus.
On Christopher's version, I guess I just don't understand why there's such a long neck with such a small secondary hull. Why would they not fill that space up with more usuable room?
Aridas' version does a little better in that regard.
With regards to your model, Chistopher, the nacelle struts seem a touch wide. On the schematic, the struts are about as wide as the small cylanderish part attached to the front of the big cylanderish part of the secondary hull. Yours seem a bit wider. And they just look too wide and too thick for that design, IMO.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
It occurs to me that, since this is really about purely speculative designs, it probably ought to be in the Designs Forum...
Posted by ChristopherT (Member # 1634) on :
quote:Originally posted by Aban Rune: Hmmm... doesn't look all that different from the Daedalus.
On Christopher's version, I guess I just don't understand why there's such a long neck with such a small secondary hull. Why would they not fill that space up with more usuable room?
Aridas' version does a little better in that regard.
With regards to your model, Chistopher, the nacelle struts seem a touch wide. On the schematic, the struts are about as wide as the small cylanderish part attached to the front of the big cylanderish part of the secondary hull. Yours seem a bit wider. And they just look too wide and too thick for that design, IMO.
Thanks, TSN!
In regards to your first question, if I knew who did the plans I could probably speculate. On the second question, I agree that the nacelles on the model are a little too wide. I cobbed them from my Ptolemy tug model and haven't switched them out for a smaller set yet.
Based on Aridas' current work, I'm almost considering modifying my USS Enterprise model by removing the dish, replacing the PB-47's with my PB-18s and adding the spherical primary hull.
Christopher
Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :
I don't mean the nacelles themselves, I mean the struts that connect them to the secondary hull through which the plasma counduits run.
Posted by ChristopherT (Member # 1634) on :
quote:Originally posted by Aban Rune: I don't mean the nacelles themselves, I mean the struts that connect them to the secondary hull through which the plasma counduits run.
I did say nacelles didn't I? I cobbed the pylons from my Ptolemy model and they are a little off. The nacelles were actually done by another modeler at my request, he's much better at pre-TOS nacelles than I am. So far!
Christopher
Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :
You said you agreed that your nacelles were too wide and that you got them from the Ptolemy, but I'm not talking about the nacelles. I'm talking about the struts. The nacelles are fine.
Posted by Topher (Member # 71) on :
quote:Originally posted by ChristopherT: I cobbed the pylons from my Ptolemy model and they are a little off.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Yeah, but he said "nacelles" the first time. As he acknowledges above.
Posted by aridas (Member # 1051) on :
quote:Originally posted by ChristopherT:
I'm not sure who is the author of these prints, so if someone can verify that I'd appreciate it so I can properly credit them.
I did 'em.
Posted by ChristopherT (Member # 1634) on :
quote:Originally posted by aridas: I did 'em.
Thank you, Aridas. The work is excellent and I'm sure the entire set is fantastic. I'm still leaning toward finishing the model using the older hull style. It's growing on me!
Christopher
Posted by Bernd (Member # 6) on :
I like the re-interpretation, Aridas. It is not hard to imagine that Sisko's desktop model is just an approximate model of this "true" Horizon (even if it was intended to be a still different design). And with Jefferies' original sketches that were to fit with a crew of 200 (just like mentioned for the Daedalus in "Power Play") it feels better to have a larger ship. Maybe 200m long?
Posted by Irishman (Member # 1188) on :
Since we're talking about the Horizon. About the model on Sisko's desk: Was he or was he not supposed to have served on that ship at some earlier point in his SF career?
Posted by Marauth (Member # 1320) on :
I doubt it, the Daedalus class were all retired before the 23rd C. If Sisko had served on one he'd have to be around 200 years old at the youngest by the start of DS9. And very incompetent if he only reached Commander after a 180 year career in SF.
Posted by Captain Boh (Member # 1282) on :
Though hardly canon, I've seen a few books imply that there is a Daedalus or two in service as training ships.
Posted by aridas (Member # 1051) on :
Here is a WIP of the Horizon as I had her envisioned at launch, around 2190. Also, two variants within the class from 2190-2210. Finally, the larger Archon as I saw her refit around 2245.
Eventually I'll add the Archon at launch circa 2210, and the Horizon class as refit, also around 2245.
I've recently updated these Horizon and Constellation illustrations for the new Federation reference website. Here is the link to one of the new illustrations:
Nice. I like the design evolution from a sherical "saucer" to a traditional saucer. I think I like the original " as built 2213" look the best, with the exception of the deflector. It looks weird.
Oh, and....
Posted by Toadkiller (Member # 425) on :
I like it too, but it seems like there should be something in the middle - a flattened sphere or something?
Posted by Sean (Member # 2010) on :
I assumed that although it was originally designed with a spherical primary hull, there was an "in between" design of another class ( Like Masao's Muskova), with a flattened sphere, that lead to the design being changed sometime between the time it was originally designed and the time it was launched.
Or, there could have been a new Federation member added sometime in the four years between design and launch that contributed something important ( like saucer shaped primary hulls) to Fed starship design, again leading to the design change.
Posted by aridas (Member # 1051) on :
Here are some of the designs I have leading from spheres to saucers.
Ah, the "first ship with warp drive". Posted by Vanguard (Member # 1780) on :
Interesting, but these always screamed 'Bad Flash Gordon' to me a lot more than Trek. The extra fins and more 'toonish' proportions of a lot of parts are what does it for me. We lose a lot of the elegance that defines the Enterprise with them. :S
Posted by aridas (Member # 1051) on :
A biplane is less streamline than a monoplane, and many monoplanes were less elegant than the jets that followed them.
That's the kind of thing that is being communicated here.
Posted by Vanguard (Member # 1780) on :
I'm not saying you're 'wrong', as it's purely a matter of aesthetics... but I just never liked the more 'fins and bulbs' approach to the pre-TOS ships.
I figured that earlier ships would appear to be less geometrically complex, rather than more so.
Posted by Daniel Butler (Member # 1689) on :
That makes sense to me. I'd think the early, pre-TOS designs would be boxy and ugly. But then again you can't put an ugly ship on the screen and expect people to like it Posted by Vanguard (Member # 1780) on :
Worked for TNG didn't it? Posted by Fabrux (Member # 71) on :
And for Voyager. Posted by aridas (Member # 1051) on :
quote:Originally posted by Vanguard: I'm not saying you're 'wrong', as it's purely a matter of aesthetics... but I just never liked the more 'fins and bulbs' approach to the pre-TOS ships.
I figured that earlier ships would appear to be less geometrically complex, rather than more so.
That's fair, and if I was going purely by a concern for aesthetics I wouldn't have approached it this way. I had a very clearly worked out idea of how warp drive evolved from the 1980s to the 2260s, and the look of the tech was made to work with that. The only other thing that guided it was that "Buck Rogers" idea you mentioned above -- that if Star Trek was made in the 1960s and was influenced by 1960s thoughts of what the future might look like, then the tech preceding it could use earlier ideas about what the future might look like as a way to set it apart. No rockets and flying saucers, but rather larger intercoolers for bulbous, less efficient warp nacelles that hint at the big fins from 1940s rockets.
In the end it's just one person's aesthetic choice, and to each his own.
Posted by Daniel Butler (Member # 1689) on :
quote:Originally posted by Vanguard: Worked for TNG didn't it?
Wut!?
quote:Originally posted by Fabrux: And for Voyager.
Kill me if you must, Flareites - I like the Intrepid class design.
Posted by aridas (Member # 1051) on :
So do I.
Except for the rotating nacelles.
aridas no like rotating nacelles.
Rotating nacelles BAD.
Posted by Sean (Member # 2010) on :
They don't rotate. They flap, like a pretty bird... Posted by Pensive's Wetness (Member # 1203) on :
they rotate? So Intrepid Class has a really fast reverse? that's like Warp Blast deflectors?
*snickers* say that to a true trekkie nerd and watch their eye balls explode when they think about that term... Posted by Daniel Butler (Member # 1689) on :
It's still rotation, just not along the x-axis. Posted by Vanguard (Member # 1780) on :
Actually, the nacelles would REVOLVE, not ROTATE. They're outside the axis, you see...
But, I admit, I did get the strangest image of the Voyager's nacells spinning along the yaw there for a bit.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
quote:Originally posted by Daniel Butler:
quote:Originally posted by Fabrux: And for Voyager.
Kill me if you must, Flareites - I like the Intrepid class design.
I think it's main problem was that the nacelles were too small. I mean I understand they were trying to say that technology had improved to a point where they didn't need as large nacelles as the Galaxy Class... but it just aesthetically made Voyager a little 'front-heavy'.
Posted by Daniel Butler (Member # 1689) on :
True, it did look a little like a duck with a big face and eeny little legs. That's what made the landing capability so...silly. They could have at least mentioned tractor beams or something holding the saucer up. (Actually they'd need that to hold the whole ship up; those little struts surely couldn't.)
Vanguard: OK...you have me beat on technicalities Posted by Vanguard (Member # 1780) on :
Actually, the 'swinging nacelles' of the Voyager only bugged me in that they ALWAYS swung to 'warp position', and were in that same 'warp position' regardless of what warp they were going.
Since impulse doesn't CARE about warp dynamics, wouldn't it have made more sense to JUST design the ship with the warp engines ALREADY in the 'warp position' and forget the swinging feature?
Posted by Daniel Butler (Member # 1689) on :
I had a two-foot model of Voyager once that I built shoddily; the nacelles on the model could be swung down as well. I don't know whether that was the original intention and it just never got shown, or what.
Posted by Fabrux (Member # 71) on :
As for the landing thing, surely you are away of a centre of gravity. Take your two-foot model of Voyager and balance it on your fingers in the area where the landing struts are. It will balance perfectly.
Also, in-universe, the mass of the saucer is offset by the mass of the warp coils (which are said to be the densest part of the ship).
Posted by Daniel Butler (Member # 1689) on :
They're all way on the back of the engineering hull...the thing is front-heavy. Unless the warp coils are *really* dense Empty plastic models don't really extrapolate to full ships with stuff in them, I mean.
Posted by OverRon (Member # 2036) on :
quote:Originally posted by Vanguard: Actually, the nacelles would REVOLVE, not ROTATE. They're outside the axis, you see...
But, I admit, I did get the strangest image of the Voyager's nacells spinning along the yaw there for a bit.
Don't start talking about Intrepids and rotating nacelles or we'll have Escallum in here moaning about Nebula's and trying to talk about using pens to make fully rotating nacelles. Posted by Fabrux (Member # 71) on :
quote:Originally posted by Daniel Butler: They're all way on the back of the engineering hull...the thing is front-heavy. Unless the warp coils are *really* dense Empty plastic models don't really extrapolate to full ships with stuff in them, I mean.
Yes, that's the point. Really, really dense. Posted by Vanguard (Member # 1780) on :
To be more accurate, you could spray the insides with expanding foam? Like some of the older insulation cans or something? Posted by Sean (Member # 2010) on :
quote:Originally posted by OverRon:
quote:Originally posted by Vanguard: Actually, the nacelles would REVOLVE, not ROTATE. They're outside the axis, you see...
But, I admit, I did get the strangest image of the Voyager's nacells spinning along the yaw there for a bit.
Don't start talking about Intrepids and rotating nacelles or we'll have Escallum in here moaning about Nebula's and trying to talk about using pens to make fully rotating nacelles.
With traffic cones...I need a good laugh. I think I'll re-read that thread.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)