posted
True, it might be worth considering the size of the windows on the NX-class. Yes, I know it wasn't actually designed at the time this model was made, but it shows how window sizes can differ. Those ones were at eye level and about the size of an average widescreen TV.
posted
Is it possible there was supposed to be something - like a dish stuck into the four holes at the front of the secondary hull?? It could have been lost over time? There seems to be a few things peeling off etc.
-------------------- "Bears. Beets. Battlestar Galactica." - Jim Halpert. (The Office)
quote:Back of the sphere - wouldn't that be an impulse engine? Back of the cylinder - that's the shuttlebay.
Could be. I'd rather have it vice versa, though. That is, the stern rectangles could be the impulse engine, which should look more impressive than a mere dark slit. The shuttlebay, if any, could be the entire dorsal half of the secondary hull, below those vast hatches we see.
The line I was thinking of would be in front of the sphere, though - the first line down from the plateau where the bridge dome rests. The one that makes it look almost as if there were a "sunken" rectangular area at the dorsal bow, except that there isn't - there is just this painted line atop, and two curious vertical knife-cuts on the sides, and then a horizontal cut of the same sort, but it's all flat and on the level of the rest of the sphere.
And yeah, the ship works better at 200 than at 100 meters. But it would be a fun exercise to try and figure out the interiors at the smaller scale, too. The Oberth works pretty well at the Encyclopedic 120 meters, after all.
posted
If I remember correctly - the back view in the Chronology - there is a ring around the perimeter of the back of the cylinder - that could be an interesting variant of an impulse engine... but the rectangle on the back of the primary hull matches what a lot of starships have - like the Oberth and the Constitution and the Excelsior.
Even though it's just a 'rectangle' and not something fancy - this was just an 'at home' project by Greg Jein (I think) and not a 'commissioned' piece. So he probably skimped on areas. Also depends on what the Matt Jefferies original sketch had - as that is what it was based on I think.
Andrew
-------------------- "Bears. Beets. Battlestar Galactica." - Jim Halpert. (The Office)
quote:Originally posted by AndrewR: Is it possible there was supposed to be something - like a dish stuck into the four holes at the front of the secondary hull?? It could have been lost over time? There seems to be a few things peeling off etc.
I like to think the deflector is embedded behind that structure (see the gap between the outer rich & the deflector's structure) and the cap protects a delicate array of sensors with those four circles - being the primary sensor dishes - are visible.
quote:Also depends on what the Matt Jefferies original sketch had - as that is what it was based on I think.
The various MJ sketches don't have have "motion lines" (I forget the exact jargon) or "engine exhaust" drawn in, nor do they show any apparent "rocket engine" nozzles - perhaps the original idea was that propulsion would be entirely by the nacelles?
Too bad there is only one dark and blurry rear view in the photoset. That would have been one of the most interesting areas of the ship... The aft ends of the nacelles seem to have careful finish, with dark-painted, corrugated endcaps, but it's more or less impossible to see if there's aft-facing grillework there or something like that. And yes, the secondary hull rim nozzles would be a really interesting concept!
posted
No, the impulse engines are those little dots around the rim of the main secondary hull. Sure, they're not glowing, but it's a heck of a lot more reasonable, IMO.
-------------------- “Those people who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do.” — Isaac Asimov Star Trek Minutiae | Memory Alpha
Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
The Defiant and the "Iceland class" ENT ships also had blue glow at the aft ends of the nacelles, while having separate impulse engines elsewhere. Apparently, the "warp windows" can face whichever way, including aft here, up in the newer Excelsiors and Sovereigns, to the sides and aft in Galaxies and Ambassadors, and to the sides in Mirandas et al...
The cabin portholes in that Encyclopedia picture are obviously painted in afterwards, seeing how the model itself is not rigged for such lighting. (The pattern doesn't quite match that of the black-taped viewports on the model, either.) The ends of the nacelles are probably drawn in for this picture as well, then. I wonder what they would look like in the model?
posted
I believe that the ends of the nacelles look like that at the back - I reckon it was a way to connect it with the 'original' nacelle ends of the Enterprise (The version from The Cage and WNMHGB (I think). And yes, similar to the nacelle ends of the Defiant. Does anyone know or can contact Greg Jein for questioning??
-------------------- "Bears. Beets. Battlestar Galactica." - Jim Halpert. (The Office)
posted
You know, the schematics that were published in the Fact Files were probably drawn from this model, so the aft view probably looks like it does in those.
posted
If I remember correctly, the Fact Files missed a warp nacelle in the aft view in their Daedalus views originally (it took them until issue 192 to release a sheet of stickers you needed to add to a lot of pages to correct a few errors). I'd hardly take their images as accurate when they miss something that obvious off.
Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
posted
That's true. They're not the most reliable source. Still, their diagrams of the Daedalus match what we can see of the model, so maybe they match the parts we can't see as well.
P.S. Could someone delete my extra post up there? I did the old "quote instead of edit" thing.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
They're not the most reliable source. Still, their diagrams of the Daedalus match what we can see of the model, so maybe they match the parts we can't see as well.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
