posted
Some of the big transport I've designed also have a ventral tower. What they're for, i'm not sure, but they may be for cargo transfer or hazardous items.
I'm not sure where the impulse are on Huron, but there are various ports at the back of the ship. I don't think they're the tube sticking out in front, though.
-------------------- When you're in the Sol system, come visit the Starfleet Museum
Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Hmm... Based on the second picture, I think the impulse engine should be in that grille-like thing just above the middle of the shuttle bay.
-------------------- “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
I think the impluse engines are inside the shuttlebay- a suprise for unwanted visitors.
hmmm..there really is a lot of room in that aft section below the shuttlebay: I'm thinking those are the crew quarters with the central section dedicated to cargo and the front for ship's ops.
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
Yeah, I saw they were a little different. I think the photo from directly aft has more potential because that grille thing is a bit closer to your average impulse engine size, especially for a ship that's going to carry a lot of cargo.
-------------------- “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:Originally posted by MinutiaeMan: Yeah, I saw they were a little different. I think the photo from directly aft has more potential because that grille thing is a bit closer to your average impulse engine size, especially for a ship that's going to carry a lot of cargo.
While the view from directly aft allows a taller impulse port (about 1.4 m tall vs. 0.5 m), the rear view is less consistent with other views.
-------------------- When you're in the Sol system, come visit the Starfleet Museum
Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
I wouldn't get too hung up on the exact details of anything from TAS. As you say, it's often inconsistent so when adapting some of these AS ships in the past I've always felt free to exert a little creative interpretation where necessary.
As for the impulse engines, actually looking at those screen grabs I'd say that they were indeed intended to be on those mini-nacelles. Remember at the time the thinking was that impulse engines were essentially really big rockets so aft clearance was thought to be a consideration.
On the other hand one would just as easily make up some other use. Medusan passenger pods perhaps?
-------------------- “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:Originally posted by Aban Rune: That must be the deadliest engine room ever.
"Hey Johnson... climb that giant ladder with so safety cage and get me that wrench!"
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.
Registered: Jun 2010
| IP: Logged
posted
While Treknological precedent is important, most of the fan works of the 1970s were done by kids, who were talented, no doubt, but didn't have any greater insight than we do. When Geoffrey Mandel published his cargo ship blueprints, he was only 17 or 18 years old. He probably had less reference material to work with than we have today, as suggested by the inaccuracy of his blueprints. So, while we can consider Treknological precedent, I don't think it should be given any more weight than fact or our own conclusions.
-------------------- When you're in the Sol system, come visit the Starfleet Museum
Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Masao: So, while we can consider Treknological precedent, I don't think it should be given any more weight than fact or our own conclusions.
Which I believe is a different way of looking at what I said.
I listed precedent as a factor, but not a deciding one. More succinctly stated, if there is an existing precedent, and there is no conclusive evidence indicating it is wrong, *then* it becomes a factor for consideration. The risk of not doing so creates a condition of "too many cooks": an increasing number of varying Treknological solutions to the same problem determined by whim or novelty not firm evidence.
Mandel's estimate overlaps some of the current ones, and I believe that his footprints are being walked in while trying to work these estimates out. Whether his ideas from the past are compatible with what we are observing in the present is what I am suggesting being put on the table. And one valid strategy would be "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."
My own subjective feelings about the Huron are as follows: The "simplified" early TOS engines are more typical of small craft of the era (in Canon, we can look at the non-tapered engines of the TOS shuttle, possibly noted and furthered in TAS) which combined with my already mentioned ideas on probable non-compatibility with standard TOS engines (in this case "simplified" Pilot era technology in the late Production TOS era) leads me to believe that estimating size based on 1701's nacelle length is poorly supported.
Also, the overall design (along with the TAS "robot" freighter) does not appear to be "efficient" in terms of a large freighter: the ship consists of many irregular shapes, with void spaces. From both an aesthetic and use of space approach, my idea of large "bulk" freighters agrees better with your own large freighter designs and the SFB's freighters (among others): ovoid, cylindrical, or rectangular containers that tend to maximize the volumetric usage of the hypothetical warp bubble (whatever shape that might be). So to me Huron's design indicates a smaller, moderate performance design meant for priority deliveries (which is bolstered by it having an engine design only a partial generation behind the production 1701: a bit extravagant for a freighter, and differing from other TAS freighters I believe). Something fast enough to deliver moderate shipments of dilithium crystals or emergency vaccines, preferably while being able to out-run lower performance pirate vessels.
So, in my view, its a smaller freighter. How small ultimately hinges on the details, in this case the "windows". If I may, I would request that you provide some further information to help us determine which of the pieces of contradictory information we can "trust". Can we have your deck height and inter-deck spacing measurements you are using/deriving for the estimates based on both window size and window spacing? That would be most useful.
As to the forward struts, in addition to the items I mentioned last post, they could conceivably be meant as support struts for additional cargo pallets (by which I mean ones similar to those installed on the "robot" freighters). These could be alongside the ship (locked in or behind the struts) or conceivably could be pushed in front attached to them (obviously not an ideal configuration for high-G maneuvers, but with 23rd century technology who is to say).
But, looking at the original TAS artwork (and your plans), and noting that the aft center of the horizontal cylinder is colored red, my gut feeling (as Reverand has suggested) is that they were originally intended to be some sort of maneuvering system, probably a low-performance version of an impulse engine system. In theory the RCS system would handle most maneuvering, and these would simply be used to nudge the ship out of a planet's gravity well until warp drive can be used.
As to the need for manned freighters at all, conceivably this type of vessel and the robotic ones could work together as a squadron, with the manned vessel using a tractor emitter (strut based or internal) to move pallets to and from the planet, load them on the robotic vessels, and then escort them if needed. This would make it unnecessary for less productive planets to have orbital transportation facilities or landing facilities for small freighters. Conceivably the robotic vessels could do this all autonomously (if they have tractor emitters). But from what we see onscreen, the UFP's development of artificial intelligence applied to vehicles does not seem to have reached, or at least exceeded, our current technology. One has to assume that there has been some sort of long-standing prohibition on autonomous AI systems applied to space vessels.
And, if what I am saying is not of any assistance, please feel free to tell me to shut up. If I'm not helping you answer the original question of the thread, or giving you ideas for background material on the class, then I am being counter-productive.
Registered: Jun 2010
| IP: Logged
posted
I think "inconsiderable" is the term I'd use to when weighing the relevance of that material. Seriously, very old speculation is equally as important and very new speculation, i.e. not very.
posted
"Trek is what is in your own mind, following a set of stylistic rules. There is no canon. If I modify a nacelle component to perform a more sensible function, cannot it not be so? If I create a new deflector dish using these rules, is it not as valid as the dish that came before? Do you think that is a real starship you’re building, in this place?" — Rick Sternbach
-------------------- “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
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
