posted
The lid has been blown, the cat has vacated the bag.
For those of you who had been following the thread over in "Starships & technology", on behalf of the ASDB I present a charybdis design concept.
Thanks mainly to your diligent analysis, most of the bugs have been worked out of the design. Still it's not perfect and I'd gladly listen to any suggestions you might have...that is the ones not involving short piers and long walks The corrected LCARS display. Full colour side view.
posted
Groovy. Now, is that a M/AM reactor assembly behind the cockpit? It's a little early for that, I think. However, it also looks like they could be pods similar to the ones that Apollo 13 had.
I say Apollo 13 because I saw the movie and it's the only semi-modern space vehicle other than the shuttle that I'm at all familiar with.
posted
I noticed the similarity to the Ares IV as well.
Although there's a big difference in tech between the old DY-100's, I think that this design works very well with the Ares. Looking mainly like a cobbled-together probe, but with the basic elements of future starships as well.
And is it just me, or does the cockpit module look a lot like the forward section of the SS Valiant?
-------------------- “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
posted
...Which makes the ship very similar to the "Deep Impact" Orion-type vessel, really.
One wonders why a shuttle forward section would be used here. It's not the most practical design imaginable, especially since this baby apparently isn't intended to re-enter in one piece. The "Deep Impact" craft was a rush job - was this one as well?
It should be noted that in "The Royale", the Charybdis crew supposedly took a "shuttle" down to the surface. Where is this craft located? Or is the forward section supposed to be this shuttle?
I have to check the details, but I believe the *entire* Charybdis crew shuttled down. This might best be explained if we made Charybdis a Nostromo-like design: the habitat section doubles as the surface-to-orbit craft, and the rest of the ship is just machinery (albeit potentially man-accessible machinery).
Another mystery: why design a landing craft for a ship that wasn't supposed to go to a planet? The REAL Okudagram specifies a mission range of about 100 AU, so this was no interstellar flight. No planetary mission within our star system was suggested in the 'gram. A landing craft would only have been needed for return to Earth.
Perhaps you should omit the conical pods altogether, in favor of a really large shuttle-like habitat section. This section could be launched from Earth to meet an orbitally built drive section, ride that section to 100 AU and back, and then detach for re-entry. What you lose in visual continuity wrt the Ares ship, you gain in continuity wrt the storyline.
I like it, though I would suggest a less multicolored appraoch. The ISS and similar modern structures are mostly white with greys and black. Alternatively, a more neutral color palette would take the edge off of the brightness of the scheme.
quote: ...Which makes the ship very similar to the "Deep Impact" Orion-type vessel, really.
That was a very intentional homage.
quote: One wonders why a shuttle forward section would be used here. It's not the most practical design imaginable, especially since this baby apparently isn't intended to re-enter in one piece. The "Deep Impact" craft was a rush job - was this one as well?
My main reasoning behind using a command section design similar to the shuttle was to make it easier for nasa pilots to familiarise themselves with a new layout and thereby cut the ammount of training required. It's also sort of a tongue-in-cheek nod to Nasa's constant budget problems
quote: It should be noted that in "The Royale", the Charybdis crew supposedly took a "shuttle" down to the surface. Where is this craft located? Or is the forward section supposed to be this shuttle?
Really? I don't recall that. I am in the process of desinging a pair of Maintenance pods that look like they could make planet fall....if the manipulators were removed.
quote: I have to check the details, but I believe the *entire* Charybdis crew shuttled down. This might best be explained if we made Charybdis a Nostromo-like design: the habitat section doubles as the surface-to-orbit craft, and the rest of the ship is just machinery (albeit potentially man-accessible machinery).
I'd like to get confirmation on that before I go radically altering the design. Currently I have half the crew in hibernation, after all I don't think its feasible to have 15 people crammed into a tin can for a couple years. For one thing there wouldn't be enough room for all of the consumables.
quote: Perhaps you should omit the conical pods altogether, in favor of a really large shuttle-like habitat section. This section could be launched from Earth to meet an orbitally built drive section, ride that section to 100 AU and back, and then detach for re-entry. What you lose in visual continuity wrt the Ares ship, you gain in continuity wrt the storyline.
Those pods are meant as last ditch escape pods, equipped to cryogenically freeze any survivors until a rescue crew can pick them up. They're not meant as the primary means to return to earth, I see this ship being totally built in and returning to an orbital facility. Perhaps the ISS or it's successor.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
