posted
I think I prefer yours. I'll have to remember that nacelle placement.
-------------------- joH'a' 'oH wIj DevwI' jIH DIchDaq Hutlh pagh (some days it's just not worth chewing through the leather straps in the morning) The Woozle!
Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
Interesting design. I'd be inclined to add some E-B style projections from the saucer, as either impulse drives or maybe as shuttle/cargo bays.
Maybe give it a phaseII/Soyuz bridge module. I'd also add some kind of overlapping feature on the rear, upper surface of the saucer. A deflector crystal perhaps?
posted
Oh, it's bigger than the Constellation-class. You cannot get a sense of scale from the renders that feature the starship by itself that you showed to us on SCN.
Sorry about the it's half the Stargazer, hence the name Star-class jibe on SCN.
Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
posted
NP Yes it's bigger, 452M to be exact. And now that I've rearranged the windows a further indication of size is suggested.
Rev, A Soyuz module might not be a bad idea, I'll work on that. She dated at being some way pre-Excelsior though - early 2260's. I wanted the top side of the saucer reasonably uncluttered, but a deflector crystal on the underside could be done...
Here's a basic 5 view image, and Reverend if ever you'd be interested in drawing up some schematics for this then that would be great.
-------------------- "To the Enterprise and the Stargazer. Old girlfriends we'll never meet again." - Scotty
quote:Originally posted by The Red Admiral: NP Yes it's bigger, 452M to be exact. And now that I've rearranged the windows a further indication of size is suggested.
Rev, A Soyuz module might not be a bad idea, I'll work on that. She dated at being some way pre-Excelsior though - early 2260's. I wanted the top side of the saucer reasonably uncluttered, but a deflector crystal on the underside could be done...
Here's a basic 5 view image, and Reverend if ever you'd be interested in drawing up some schematics for this then that would be great.
Unfortunately my schematic making abilities are going to be non-existent until further notice, due largely to a series of computer problems that have resulted in my shoving my new "superior" machine into the cupboard and reassembling my old 733 so I can at least read my e-mail. Though all my programs, settings and image resources are spread across three seperate hard-drives.
posted
Nah... I don't like the idea of a small engineering hull. I thought that the point of the Constellation-class was that everything was integrated into a monohull design. If you add a small engineering hull, then the starship begins to look more like a Constitution-class variant.
Didn't Rick Sternback write in Star Trek: The Magazine that the reason that the Constellation-class had four nacelles and the beam dimensions was that they wanted to increase the volume and mass of the starship without having to replace and upgrade existing star bases and dry dock facilities. So they decided to increase the draft of the starship (make it taller) to create more interior space and make it boxier than the Constitution-class.
So my feeling is that the warp nacelles on the Star-class are much too large and the support pylons much too wide.
If you attach the Star classes mono hull to a small engineering hull, then you get close to the Starstalker-class from Starfleet Prototype and the Alexander-class dreadnought created by J. Payne. I think that the small engineering hull is unnecessary because its a Constellation-class variant.
Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
posted
Nice work as always, Admiral. Now I have seen everything, except for a good low-fat butter.
-------------------- Fry- How will we get out of this? George Takei's head- Maybe we can use some kind of auto-destruct code like one-A, two-B, three-C... (Bender's head blows up) Bender- Now everybody knows! -Futurama's obligatory Star Trek episode
Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
what about integrating an engineering hull into the vertical pylon? that way the nacelles wouldn't look so far out and it would also make it more believeable that the nacelles could be supported. It wouldn't have to be a large engineering hull and would still be a monohull design?
Wether you change it or not I think it's great admiral. I never really liked the constellation design but the variant looks great.
-------------------- I can resist everything except temptation. -Oscar Wilde
Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
posted
I think I'm going to keep this one more or less as it is, without an engineering hull. Here's an update, now with a different bridge as Reverend suggested..
Seriously though, I think it's fine the way it is. Looks great to me - especially from that perspective.
-------------------- Lister: Don't give me the "Star Trek" crap! It's too early in the morning. - Red Dwarf "The Last Day"
Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
I like it....I'd add flush vents to the nacelle pylons though.
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
