quote:Originally posted by Masao: Rev: I don't think a ring would work so well. it would definitely be larger than a single nacelle and would be novel for the museum, but would also be sort of a random mutation!
The ventral block is a feature lifted from TAS USS Huron. I'm not sure what it does on Huron, but I was thinking that here it is some sort of cargo loading or docking device. It's probably too far forward for deuterium loading, since all the drive mechanics are at the rear.
It's got phasers, but since this is TOS you can't see 'em!
For the ring-drive I was thinking something more like the split ring from "Fusion" which it pretty close to the hull. Not that I have a problem with the present arrangement, just an option to consider if you wanted to do something a little off the beaten path. Logically I'm sure the Vulcans got the contract to do some of the Starfleet ships, although I suppose the focus there would have been on science vessels rather than logistics and support craft...which might account for the look of the Oberth, something to consider for a future article perhaps? For some reason I think the Tellarites would be the most influential in a design like this, don't ask me why.
As for the ventral fin, I assumed it was a refuelling tower simply because of it's distance from the main hull. I suppose it could also mount the major tractor/mooring beam emitters as well as refuelling and general cargo/personnel docking functions. It's certainly a substantial enough structure. As for the distance from the machinery, I rather think it's a good thing to keep the fuel pipe as far away from the internal tanks as possible. I imagine in the event of an accident you'd want as much notices as you can get to cut off the pumps to prevent an explosion travelling up the plumbing.
quote:Originally posted by Reverend: For the ring-drive I was thinking something more like the split ring from "Fusion" which it pretty close to the hull. Not that I have a problem with the present arrangement, just an option to consider if you wanted to do something a little off the beaten path. Logically I'm sure the Vulcans got the contract to do some of the Starfleet ships, although I suppose the focus there would have been on science vessels rather than logistics and support craft...which might account for the look of the Oberth, something to consider for a future article perhaps? For some reason I think the Tellarites would be the most influential in a design like this, don't ask me why.
Yeah, maybe. I've never really studied Vulcan ships much, owing to their previous small numbers. However, I do like the Vulcan ships from series 5 quite a bit. I suppose Starfleet might consider using an unusual nacelle layout, but only if it were much superior to standard nacelles. Being just as good or slightly better is not enough, since overcoming institutional inertia is difficult.
quote:Originally posted by Reverend: As for the ventral fin, I assumed it was a refuelling tower simply because of it's distance from the main hull. I suppose it could also mount the major tractor/mooring beam emitters as well as refuelling and general cargo/personnel docking functions. It's certainly a substantial enough structure. As for the distance from the machinery, I rather think it's a good thing to keep the fuel pipe as far away from the internal tanks as possible. I imagine in the event of an accident you'd want as much notices as you can get to cut off the pumps to prevent an explosion travelling up the plumbing.
So if you were to design a car you'd put the gas tank in the rear but have the refueling port at the front of the car? I'd think the problem of having a long internal fuel line is a more worrying problem.
-------------------- When you're in the Sol system, come visit the Starfleet Museum
Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Is the shuttlebay two levels tall, or does it hold some really large, semi-independant shuttle or scoutcraft from the Pre-TOS era?
Also, I think the nacelle's end would look cooler (and more retro) as the flat plane with vents (like the pilot version of the E-nil).
Niiiice work, as always.
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
It's a real big shuttle bay, able to handle multiple heavy cargo shuttles much larger than Galileo. sort of like that large shuttle Reverend designed. The door is 26 m wide and 9.5 m tall compared with 14 x 7.5 meters on Connie
I though of putting a Connie-type end cap on the nacelles, but since the nacelle is so fat, the cap was also very big and looked a bit out of scale. Rather than having the cap with parallel sides, I might try more of a cone with the tip cut off.
-------------------- When you're in the Sol system, come visit the Starfleet Museum
Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged
quote:Yeah, maybe. I've never really studied Vulcan ships much, owing to their previous small numbers. However, I do like the Vulcan ships from series 5 quite a bit. I suppose Starfleet might consider using an unusual nacelle layout, but only if it were much superior to standard nacelles. Being just as good or slightly better is not enough, since overcoming institutional inertia is difficult.
Well then scoot on over to Ex-Astris and have a goose at the Vahklas and perhaps the "Fallen Hero" shuttle too. I suppose there has to be some reason that the annular configuration beats the nacelles in the 22nd century. Even if we ignore the NX version of events there's still the ring ship, which someone must have thought was a good idea at the time and someone else thought was worthy of remembrance on the E-Nil's rec-deck. Perhaps it's something to do with the shape of the hull, where the more compact narrow hulls make for a more effiecent warp field for the ring nacelles. Whereas the dual cylinder nacelle configuration works better with the saucer/engineering hull arrangement. As for it's place in the Museum, I suppose it could mark in history the point where the various Federation member worlds started to work together in earnest with ship designing and building.
quote:So if you were to design a car you'd put the gas tank in the rear but have the refueling port at the front of the car? I'd think the problem of having a long internal fuel line is a more worrying problem.
Generally cars don't refuel from other cars while in motion. Besides, I'm not refering to the fuel tanks for this ship's own drive, but those for topping up other ships. This is a Tender, correct?
Anyway, just for a bit of fun and to clarify what I'm waffling on about, here's a quick and dirty throughline section of how I picture the arrangement of the engines and the secondary tanks. Plus a possible design suggestion for the nacelle end-cap since I agree that the currant one looks a little weird.
posted
FYI, the TMP-ringship was also seen in the 506 bar (or whatever it was called), way back in the 2140s. So the Earth ringship is older than the NX Project.
As for the refueling, it might need something similar to the Fabrux class arm, or a simpler Stratotanker-like boom.
posted
Rev: Ok. I see what you're getting at. That makes sense. That makes a good refuelling hub. Of course, when ships are refueling underway in space, it's probably much easier than refuelling by aircraft or ships. In fact, starships could even stop dead without worrying about falling to Earth. The nacelle cap is also good.
-------------------- When you're in the Sol system, come visit the Starfleet Museum
Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Irishman: It's not the vertical stacking that's canonical, it's two nacelles. There are no TOS era single nacelle starships.
Buh? Saladin? Hermes?
I do however agree that the one gigantic nacelle looks rather questionable. And BTW, in your initial drawing, you seem to have used the elevation view of the rear nacelle cap as a plan view, making it lopsided in your dorsal and ventral plans.
While I don't lend any particular credence to Roddenberry's "rules" of starship design, I must say that the imbedded nacelle with no bussard ramscoop just doesn't sit right with me. For whatever reason, it has always been a distinct feature of SF ships to have both ends of the nacelle(s) exposed. There's probably some good reason for it. But even if not, it still seems to violate a basic aesthetic continuity. And the huge bulk of the thing makes it look even more ungainly. Why should it need to be so big?
Not surprised at the suggestion of a ring-nacelle configuration, as one of my first thoughts was: "It looks like a Surak!"
-MMoM
-------------------- The flaws we find most objectionable in others are often those we recognize in ourselves.
Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
Bussard ramscoops aren't necessary for warpflight. Apart from scooping up the occasional free hydrogen molecules, it doesn't seem to do anything. There are plenty of ships that don't have them (Oberth, Peregrine, almost every alien vessel).
Inline nacelles also have some canon precedent. The Peregrine is an example. And lately, the Illyrian vessel in ENT:"Damage" clearly had one centered nacelle.
quote:Rev: Ok. I see what you're getting at. That makes sense. That makes a good refuelling hub. Of course, when ships are refueling underway in space, it's probably much easier than refuelling by aircraft or ships. In fact, starships could even stop dead without worrying about falling to Earth. The nacelle cap is also good.
Right, good to know we're on the same page. If the nacelle cap still looks too bulbous then there's always the option of bisecting, or even trisecting it with some fin structures.
quote:While I don't lend any particular credence to Roddenberry's "rules" of starship design, I must say that the imbedded nacelle with no bussard ramscoop just doesn't sit right with me. For whatever reason, it has always been a distinct feature of SF ships to have both ends of the nacelle(s) exposed. There's probably some good reason for it. But even if not, it still seems to violate a basic aesthetic continuity. And the huge bulk of the thing makes it look even more ungainly. Why should it need to be so big?
Well to be fair there is no cannon precident for a TOS era Tender so Masao is pretty much free to draw whatever he likes and I recall him explaining the reasoning for the imbedded nacelle. Being that it allows the tender to get closer to other ships without the worry of any outboard structures being clipped. Indeed I imagine a ship like this might be designed to be narrow in order to manoeuvre between a set of nacelle on a large ship in order to either refuel or service the engines. As for the bulk of the single nacelle, (my diagram not withstanding) I imagine some of the bulk is taken up by extra sheilding, to protect the crew and cargo from all that heat and radiation. The rest is just to generate a powerful enough warp field to shift all that extra mass at a speed that allows it to keep up with the fleet. After all, what use is a Tender if it can't top warp-3? As a side note it might be worth adding a set of intercoolers on that nacelle, since you'd need some way to dissipate all that heat. Say at the 4 and 8 O'clock positions?
quote:Inline nacelles also have some canon precedent. The Peregrine is an example. And lately, the Illyrian vessel in ENT:"Damage" clearly had one centered nacelle.
Does that look like the top half of a Romulan Warbird to anyone else?
posted
To clarify, I am well aware that the Bussard collector is not essential to the warp system (indeed, they are largely just an aesthetic addition, making the forward ends of the nacelles interesting to look at onscreen) and that many alien vessels have been seen with imbedded nacelles. I was simply pointing out that it seems to be a nearly invariable feature of Starfleet vessels (and human ships in general) to have nacelles that are exposed at both ends along the longitudinal axis. Given this, I would say it's likely that there is some aspect of human/Starfleet technology that requires this configuration.
The Peregrine does indeed have its nacelles exposed at the front, and even has what appear to be Bussard ramscoops. See here and here. The only example I can think of is the holoship, and even that had nacelles originally.
The original reason for suspending nacelles on pylons out away from the ship's main hull was that they were focus points of radiation that was dangerous to the crew, and in an emergency situation they might be easily jettisoned. (A reference to this intent was made in an episode of TOS.) Presumably the problem of shielding the crew from this radiation has been overcome in designs such as the Defiant, but particularly in the TOS era I can't see a ship having it so deeply imbedded in the bowels of the ship.
As I mentioned above, even disregarding any technical concerns, it is at the very least a violation the SF aesthetic, particularly for a TOS-era vessel. Just my opinion, I know, but still...
-MMoM
-------------------- The flaws we find most objectionable in others are often those we recognize in ourselves.
Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
Mim: I know that most Starfleet ships have bussards, but I decided that this ship was part of my lineage established with Romulan-War ships. Also, if there were good enough reasons to have this in line configuration, Starfleet might show a little flexibility. If figure that the nacelle is surrounded by holds and storage areas rather than crew quarters, so few if any crewmen gets exposed 24/7. Since I'm going with in-hull reactors, jetisonning the nacelles to save the ship isn't necessary.
If the nacelle front saren't exposed bow-ward with bussards, how would you feel about a detached bussard somewhere else on the hull. It would act the same as a nacelle bussard.
Rev: I was just thinking this morning about adding intercoolers. Probably at 4:30 and 7:30.
-------------------- When you're in the Sol system, come visit the Starfleet Museum
Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Well, a ramscoop somewhere certainly couldn't be a bad idea. But as I said, it was mostly the idea of not having longitudinal line of sight that soured me. But she's your baby.
-------------------- The flaws we find most objectionable in others are often those we recognize in ourselves.
Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
