posted
I think you answered your own question, Jason— why make the Huron the same size as the robot ship? Well, even if it's the same size it would be useful to have a crew for defensive situations.
-------------------- “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
Except that after the M-5, us meatbags know better than to give a robot a fully-charged phaser bank.
-------------------- “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
What about that lower-aft finlike structure? Is that thick enough to have crew quarters or rec rooms or something?
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon: What about that lower-aft finlike structure? Is that thick enough to have crew quarters or rec rooms or something?
It measures 21 x 11 m at the top and 11 x 6 m at the base.
-------------------- When you're in the Sol system, come visit the Starfleet Museum
Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
If it were me I'd make that ventral structure some sort of docking tower. Perhaps for a cargo elevator and/or a deuterium pump so it can act as a tender.
Teh PW
Self Impossed Exile (This Space for rent)
Member # 1203
posted
i still just dont get the design period. you haul cargo? how much cargo? & where? (beautiful coloring however, Masao)
In terms of equating real-life to this ship, i don't think this ship would be one of the most popular models on the market, if you're a freight hauler...
I like Rev's idea of the docking tower, but I'm not sure how well that would work unless there were some kind of major extensible boom mounted internally. I doubt that the Huron could maneuver that close to a Constitution without bumping into the nacelles.
Speaking of which, anyone have ideas for what those forward boom-like things are supposed to be fore? The closest that I can think of in the Museum lineage is auxiliary directional warp nacelles, but I dunno if a ship like that would really need them. Maybe those are the transfer conduits? Except that the pylons seem rather thin for cargo transfer...
But then again, why would they need to have a physical airlock for cargo transfer anyway? They've got frickin' transporters!
-------------------- “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
quote:I like Rev's idea of the docking tower, but I'm not sure how well that would work unless there were some kind of major extensible boom mounted internally. I doubt that the Huron could maneuver that close to a Constitution without bumping into the nacelles.
Considering there's no dorsal hatch on the secondary hull, it wouldn't have a reason to go anywhere near the nacelles. The ventral hatches on the other hand would not present a problem. I mean it's not as if the two ships' gravity fields have to be aligned to transfer cargo so in theoty it can dock just about anywhere.
quote:Speaking of which, anyone have ideas for what those forward boom-like things are supposed to be fore? The closest that I can think of in the Museum lineage is auxiliary directional warp nacelles, but I dunno if a ship like that would really need them. Maybe those are the transfer conduits? Except that the pylons seem rather thin for cargo transfer...
Personally I'd go for either refuelling booms (retracted) or heavy tractor beam mounts. Of course if it was anything but a freighter I'd say sensor pods. If the ship supported trains of cargo modules then secondary warp field controllers (not quite fully fledged nacelles) to adjust the bubble to accommodate said pods.
quote:But then again, why would they need to have a physical airlock for cargo transfer anyway? They've got frickin' transporters! [Wink]
The same reason they have shuttles I suppose. Even by the late 24th century when they had transporters that could beam massive loads starships were still equipped with expansive shuttle and cargo bays with exterior space doors. I suppose it comes down to energy efficiency, the fact that not everything reacts well to transporters and perhaps a lingering unwillingness to become totally reliant on the technology.
posted
To be honest, the whole design of the thing seems hap-hazard. Like those "stalks" at the front, are those supposed to be where the impulse engines are? I find the robot cargo ships to better in terms of size and shape vs. use.
Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon: What about that lower-aft finlike structure? Is that thick enough to have crew quarters or rec rooms or something?
It measures 21 x 11 m at the top and 11 x 6 m at the base.
Thicker than the Connie's neck at the widest point then- room for something. Could make a nice ampitheatre (if it were oriented along the z axis and gravity were adjusted to match).
quote:Personally I'd go for either refuelling booms (retracted) or heavy tractor beam mounts. Of course if it was anything but a freighter I'd say sensor pods. If the ship supported trains of cargo modules then secondary warp field controllers (not quite fully fledged nacelles) to adjust the bubble to accommodate said pods.
Maybe it helps maintain the warp field when transporting super-massive cargo...or, possibly, the mini-nacelles are attached to that forward "saucer" section and serve as an escape pod- though I'd think there are hull plates covering the seperation point between the "saucer" and the rest of the ship for that totally detail-less look we all love about TOS.
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
