Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
Flare Sci-Fi Forums
»
Star Trek
»
Starships & Technology
»
How big is USS Huron?
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message:
HTML is enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Whorfin: [QB] Mr. Rune, [QUOTE]Originally posted by Aban Rune: [qb] That must be the deadliest engine room ever. "Hey Johnson... climb that giant ladder with so safety cage and get me that wrench!" [/qb][/QUOTE]Oh, this nearly killed me. Couldn't stop laughing. You have a career in Star Trek Cartoons, I have no doubt. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Masao, Well, one factor I always keep in mind when making Treknological estimates is precedent: what have the Treknological forefathers concluded, and does available evidence rule it out? In this case the earliest prior published researcher (that I am aware of) was Geoffrey Mandel, who as we all know is no 'slouch'. So does the evidence indicate that he is wrong? The EAS estimates are: 260m based on Nacelle size 214m based on window placement >=100m based on relative size (TAS MK I eyeball) Your own estimates are: 190m based on window placement 100m infinitely cool 13y old Masao 70m based on window size I think we don't have an estimate in yet on size based on shuttle bay configuration. Assuming that is a shuttle bay, and not a cargo loading door (the 1701D is plastered with them and they apparently aren't used for shuttles) or the impulse deck. So the results are falling into three peaks: 70-100m based on window size & relative size 190-214m based on window placement 260m based on Nacelle size Which of these possibilities is most likely? Component compatibility (for economy of scale and repair availability would be desirable) throughout a fleet is desirable in my opinion (and therefore logical), but as depicted the Huron design has differences between that and standard Production or Pilot TOS Heavy Cruiser, most importantly there is no taper to the nacelle, which may indicate structural differences to the interior (perhaps the "warp coils"). If this is correct, then the similarity is superficial and there is no reason to assume that the nacelles are intentionally similar as the would not share (at least all) identical components. I personally don't think the windows should be ignored. The presumable alternative would be that they represent cargo loading points (perhaps somewhat similar to the access hatches depicted on the top of the saucer in TMP and perhaps identical to the white rectangles in TOS). Access hatches would be larger than windows, and might therefore explain both the placement and size of these features. But, whoever the designer of the Huron was (do we know?) I doubt if these features were intended to be anything other than windows. Why? Well, you would have to know a lot about UFP Starfleet design. As in being the originator of it, or a collaborator with behind-the-scenes insight. If Matt Jefferies was the designer, this is possible, otherwise we are probably much safer to assume they are windows even if very large, either incorrectly depicted as overly large, or depicted as such to indicate the light cast by their glow. Is there any other evidence indicating overall size? If one can estimate the minimum height of the ladder and overhead deck depicted in the "engine room" (or cargo hold) screenshot, this could give a minimum estimate of vertical height for one of the cargo holds. Which is better than nothing. The feature on the stern is of interest, but I can't say for sure if that is a clamshell door in there or an interesting impulse exhaust configuration, and the most reasonable determination of likely function may rest on its size, i.e., the reverse of what has been suggested. As to the forward "pods", if the ship were capable of towing additional cargo pallets, or a cargo pod, or had to move very large objects, to lift cargo pallets out of a gravity well, or push or tow starships like our modern tugboats, then these might be large tractor emitters. Other uses might be fuel transfer, and the booms might be able to move to accomplish that function. Its just an idea. My own conclusion is that, despite the differences with Mandel's design, and because of the similarities (indicating a possible shared lineage or upgrade path), unless his work can be shown to be incorrect it should be given considerable weight in estimating the size of the Huron. Configuration of warp nacelles really isn't an issue as they are different in design, unless you plan further changes, but the main hull itself is what I am discussing. If there is strong evidence against this conclusion, it of course should over-ride precedent but at the moment its a muddle, and I think Mandel's process of estimating has been most probably recreated here by yourself and others. [/QB][/QUOTE]
Instant Graemlins
Instant UBB Code™
What is UBB Code™?
Options
Disable Graemlins in this post.
*** Click here to review this topic. ***
© 1999-2024 Charles Capps
Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3