quote:So, is everything in FJ's TEch manual considered canon??
Not everything but a couple of things from the TM are canon. FJ's ship classes can be seen in TWOK and TSFS on computer displays, four of his ships were mentioned in TMP, and some of his planetary logos were used in the TWOK-travel pod.
Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
Lets not get into a cannon discussion on single nacelled ships or FJ's manual.
Anyway, just to put a more detailed face on the discussions, here is what the layout might be with more heavily shielded coils and just for fun I filled in the cargo bays too.
posted
Here's revised schematic incorporating the various suggestions. Since this is a tender, I'm thinking of some of the stuff it might carry. For example, a emergency spare mini-nacelle for getting a damaged destroyer back to a starbase and a space deflector dish.
-------------------- When you're in the Sol system, come visit the Starfleet Museum
Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Masao as always impressive! Rev's schematics are wonderful. It almost looks submarine-like! Have you considered a bussard collector mounted on the engineering pod, drawing from either side of the fin? That would allow the tender to cruise near gas giants to fill up it's tanks to refuel destroyers on patrol.
As far as the centreline nacelle, I designed a freighter along your SFM designs and used the single centreline nacelle as well....
My reasoning: The first warp experiments and warp ships would use ONE nacelle as a starting point. It simplfies matters enormously. You don't have to split the runoff of the warp reactor....no pilons needed, just a radiation splash guard at the rear of the ship....the whole nacelle/warp engine assembly can safely be disposed of out the rear of the ship in case of an overload. While two nacelles would allow greater control and higher warp speeds, a single nacelle would be simpler and easier to control for freighters, colony ships or even fleet tenders. Might be slower, but probably cheaper as well.
Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
posted
Yeah, I've been thinking about some type of bussard, but I lke the relatively clean lines of the ships as they are. If gas is only collected in emergencies, perhaps a ship could have a bussard that flips out from stowed position.
-------------------- When you're in the Sol system, come visit the Starfleet Museum
Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
I liked it better without them, at least not how they're set up now. It might work better if they were on angled pilons rather than sticking right out of the ship.
What about using the Destroyer nacelles?
Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
posted
Personally I was quite happy with the inline nacelle and don't really think that ramscoops are a necessity. However if you feel compeled to include them then I suggest one of two possible solutions. The first one being a set of blister like structures, flanking the main hull. The drawback here is that you loose some of the internal cargo space, but on the upside it provides a direct feed into the secondary fuel tanks. The second option is slightly less conventional and involves having the ramscoops completly internal, behind a grill, just below the forward loading deck. The upside to this is that it's pretty low key, maintains the slim hull lines and again is pretty close to the tanks but as I said it isn't a conventional design and people will bitch about it not looking very Starfleet (boo hoo.)
To put pictures to words, here's a quick mock up with both options installed.
-------------------- I slit the sheet, the sheet I slit, and on the slitted sheet I sit.
Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
capped
I WAS IN THE FUTURE, IT WAS TOO LATE TO RSVP
Member # 709
posted
or you could 'blister out' two warp nacelles fairly close to each other down where you put the grated bussard port.. they would be close to each other, but they would be under the ship fairly analogously to where your original inboard nacelle was, without disrupting the upper sections as designed.
Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic