posted
Mike's idea sounds interesting. I want to reiterate just ONCE more that I don't really give a damn about the bussards, (though I do think having some is a good idea) just that the nacelles are unobstructed at both ends.
-------------------- The flaws we find most objectionable in others are often those we recognize in ourselves.
Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
I suspect a DT is not the most manouverable or the fastest of ships, right? I'm not sure about the efficiency of ramscoops, but I have a suspicion that for a relatively slow tender, the amount of hydrogen collected from Bussards is insignificant compared to the massive fuel tanks it already has.
I guess it would be a lot more effective if the destroyers use their own Bussards in case of a fuel depletion emergency.
Realistically, the chance of a tender running out of fuel seems pretty unlikely. If you are low on fuel you should go to the nearest spaceport ASAP!
posted
Harry's right about how a tender works. It's not exactly a combat ship. It just supports operations by destroyers just behind the front lines. Onboard are fuels, photon torpedoes, spare parts, workshops, recreation facilities, life-support equipment, etc. It doesn't have to be particularly fast or maneuverable. The tender carries a shitload of deuterium, so would likely always carry enough for it's own needs.
-------------------- When you're in the Sol system, come visit the Starfleet Museum
Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
OK. Here's a radical transport. I'm thinking of ships to fit in between the fat, cylindrical Bisons of the Romulan War and the Sahara/Starmaster of the TOS era. I slapped together the middle one from some parts I had laying around. I got the general look from a turboprop nacelle. This could have either one large nacelle or two smaller ones. Whadya think? Is it still Trek?
-------------------- When you're in the Sol system, come visit the Starfleet Museum
Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
I'm investigating various hull shapes and nacelle locations. During times of technologic change, such as the introduction of armor plating or jet engines, the first designs usually apply the new technologies to old forms, so we get things like HMS Warrior, a broadside-firing screw steamer built of iron and the Gloster Meteor, a straight-winged jet fighter. However, after this initial stage, you get a period of experimention in which every conceivable variation is tried until a new standard is established by superiority or by convention. This same sort of experimentation process would occur when matter/antimatter reactors and high-powered nacelles are introduced.
Any way, this middle design is not really part of any developmental sequence, but is part of a chronological sequence. Putting a nacelle beneath the hull is a reasonable alternative to have it mounted in the rear and perhaps is closer to the high-nacelle configurations seen later, just inverted. The hull form is basically cylindrical and has a longer deflector housing at the nose. Not so radical really.
posted
Sorry, "HMS Warrior." I'm so used to writing "USS."
A bit of background for those interested. Warrior was launched in 1860. She basically looked like a side-firing steam frigate of the time, but had a framework and partial covering of iron. She's still afloat in Portsmouth, for you in the UK who are interested.
Ironclad ships were first used by the British and French in the bombardment of a Russian fort at Kinburn in 1855. The Battle of Hampton Roads (March 1862) is properly described as the first combat between ironclad ships.
posted
I think what's missing most in that middle design is the aft undercut. Whereas most Starfleet ships are generally leaving the bottom aft quadrant empty (for the undercut), this tender has a lot MORE hull volume in that area. It just looks... unusual. More like an overgrown shuttlecraft than anything else.
I'd suggest giving at least the hint of an undercut (sorta like the Sahara's undercut), and maybe just partially embed the nacelle in the hull? Sorta like how the third mini-nacelle was embedded in the Quetzalcoatl.
-------------------- “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: A bit of background for those interested. Warrior was launched in 1860. She basically looked like a side-firing steam frigate of the time, but had a framework and partial covering of iron. She's still afloat in Portsmouth, for you in the UK who are interested.
Moored close to HMS Victory; both beautiful ships. With the Warrior it's particularly interesting and amazing that she survived; looking at the pictures of what she looked like having spent several decades moored up as a storage ship and then walking around her now, the difference is staggering.
I like the paint scheme on the 2 nacelle version, BTW sort of reminds me of pre-war aircraft paint schemes; silver with bright distinguishing colours.
the 'radical transport' I'm not quite so keen on. The front looks pretty good, but I'm not so sure about the downward curve at the aft. It looks a little too much like a starships shuttle bay enlarged and is a little inelegant to my eye. Perhaps if the aft was to be more symettrical with the front, kind of like this:
Only with more than 5 minutes spent on it and possibly with a lengthened aft section.
-------------------- "I am an almost extinct breed, an old-fashioned gentleman, which means I can be a cast-iron son-of-a-bitch when it suits me." --Jubal Harshaw
Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
The interesting, Wraith. It sort of reminds me of the old SAC Hound Dog missile.
I like colorful paint schemes (pre-WWII, WWII German, 1960s USN), but I suspect the Starfleet brass does not. But I'd do some transports as civilian ships with lots of color.
-------------------- When you're in the Sol system, come visit the Starfleet Museum
Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged
Printer-friendly view of this topic