quote:Originally posted by Masao: The impulse thrusters are giving me trouble because of the lack of clearance past the abdomen. So, I've made some adjustments. Which is better?
The simplest way to solve the clearance problem is to move the engines back away from that rounded edge and stick them on the outer hull proper. So they don't look too sticky outy (very technical term!) I'd also elongate them back a bit so they merge with the hull a little better. The whole flower petal thing doesn't really scream warship to me! and As for the shift in mission profile, what if it performed just fine, but a political shift in the post-war Admiralty led to the program being cut short in favour of smaller, more efficient and much more numerous designs that could cover the Federation's rapidly expanding frontier. These behemoths, while fast can only be in one place at a time, while the same amount of resources could produce three smaller starships that are (9 times out of 10) just as capable at dealing with whatever is out there and if not, reinforcements are that much closer and more numerous. I see something like this eventually being relegated to transport or escort duty, perhaps even serving as an academy trainer ship...or have you already done the Republic?
That's weird, I could have sworn I pasted this in the first time...
posted
One reason I wanted to put the thrusters on the rounded end cap was that I had use a similar arrangement on my Romulan-War ships. But Rev's solution might work. However, placing the thrusters forward crowds the thorax a bit, and I'm not sure whether I like the abdomen higher or lower.
The shuttle bay is on the back of the primary hull, so isn't block regardless of the thruster's postion.
-------------------- When you're in the Sol system, come visit the Starfleet Museum
Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
I think that having a single larger impulse engine on the top of the midsection, as a wide extension of the neck, would make a lot of sense. Notice how weird it looks to have the neck end, curve down, and then have a thrust nozzle pop right back up. Makes very little sense, IMO. (Compare to the impulse engine placement of Moskva and Gagarin. I think that a single large impulse thruster at the rear of the neck, and then maybe two auxiliary nozzles is you want, would be the best choice.)
However, of the original two options for the engines that Masao designed, I like the top one better (quad arrangement on the aft curve).
-------------------- “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
Shik
Starship database: completed; History of Starfleet: done; website: probably never
Member # 343
posted
quote:Originally posted by Masao: One reason I wanted to put the thrusters on the rounded end cap was that I had use a similar arrangement on my Romulan-War ships. But Rev's solution might work. However, placing the thrusters forward crowds the thorax a bit, and I'm not sure whether I like the abdomen higher or lower.
The solution is to do both. Have the exhausts fair into the thorax & end at the cap, like so:
You've done it before on a couple ships, might as well add another.
-------------------- "The French have a saying: 'mise en place'—keep everything in its fucking place!"
Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
I like the old style thrusters, as long as they are on the quad arrangement like option 1 of the above pic. The bottom thruster seems to blend in with the deflector bulge. Looks nice that way.
-------------------- "Kosh, I'd like to introduce you to our Resident schmuck and his side kick Kick Me."-Ritten
"Fighting for peace is like screwing for virginity". -George Carlin
Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged
posted
I'm tempted to make this ship a larger class because I like how it looks. I tried to make it terrible looking, but I can't. I has a weird kind of beauty.
-------------------- When you're in the Sol system, come visit the Starfleet Museum
Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Well pretty things can still be failures. After all, a work of art that gets crappy deuterium parsecage and handles like a neutronium brick is still a shite space ship. As the saying goes, a pretty face and two darseks will bye you a cup of Raktajino.
posted
In the aviation world, attractive aircraft generally perform better than ugly aircraft. And from an evolutionary point of view, attractive people have a wider choice of potential mates, so could mate for greater intelligence!
-------------------- When you're in the Sol system, come visit the Starfleet Museum
Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Sean: Bernd,I see you changed the article to the correct fact. Are there any updates for the Ship article section in the works?
Nothing in the works. But I will sift through my folder of ideas...
-------------------- Bernd Schneider
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Masao: In the aviation world, attractive aircraft generally perform better than ugly aircraft. And from an evolutionary point of view, attractive people have a wider choice of potential mates, so could mate for greater intelligence!
Well you know full well that only applies to free range starships. Vessels that are built in captivity will bonk anything, as many a confused and somewhat distressed drydock structure has discovered.
As far as Aviation precedents go, what if it was something like the Avro CF-105 "Arrow". Looked cool (for the time), apparantly performed great but got shitcanned for mostly political reasons. I live close to Boscombe Down that, back in the day had a bunch of Arrows that the RAF were flight testing. To this day the old pilots rave about the thing, they loved it. Not sure if it says so on wikipedia but the rumour at the time was that the yanks found a way to sink it so we'd buy their plane instead, or something to that effect.
So perhaps this thing was UESN's last gasp before Starfleet really took over starship design and kicked out the old guard?
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
