RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 140,911
Posts: 5,477,960
Members: 25,052
Currently online: 515
Newest member: vova123

TrekToday headlines

New Star Trek Funko Pop! Vinyl Figures
By: T'Bonz on Nov 26

QMx Mini Phaser Ornament
By: T'Bonz on Nov 26

Stewart as Neo-Nazi Skinhead
By: T'Bonz on Nov 26

Klingon Bloodwine To Debut
By: T'Bonz on Nov 25

Trek Actors In War Of The Worlds Fundraiser
By: T'Bonz on Nov 25

Star Trek: The Next Generation Gag Reel Tease
By: T'Bonz on Nov 24

Shatner In Haven
By: T'Bonz on Nov 24

Retro Review: Covenant
By: Michelle on Nov 22

Two Official Starships Collection Previews
By: T'Bonz on Nov 21

Saldana: Women Issues In Hollywood
By: T'Bonz on Nov 21


Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.


Go Back   The Trek BBS > Star Trek Fandom > Fan Art

Fan Art Post your Trek fan art here, including hobby models and collectibles.

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old April 27 2009, 07:49 PM   #31
Irishman
Fleet Captain
 
Location: Charlotte, NC
Re: Another take on the Original Enterprise...

Brilliant, brilliant, brilliant!!!!!

Well done, sir.
Irishman is offline  
Old April 27 2009, 08:21 PM   #32
Praetor
Vice Admiral
 
Praetor's Avatar
 
Location: The fine line between continuity and fanwank.
Re: Another take on the Original Enterprise...

Wow, Cary, I barely visit for two days and then I find this. Amazingly awesome. I'm looking forward to following the developments of this project. It's remarkable how much life improves with a 1080' ship. Also, count me in as one who favors the very clever 'nomad' telescope setup.
__________________
"If you can't take a little bloody nose, maybe you ought to go back home and crawl under your bed. It's not safe out here. It's wondrous, with treasures to satiate desires both subtle and gross; but it's not for the timid." - Q
Praetor is offline  
Old April 27 2009, 08:27 PM   #33
Cary L. Brown
Rear Admiral
 
Location: Austin, Texas
Re: Another take on the Original Enterprise...

Psion wrote: View Post
Awesome. You do realize though that you and I are in the minority of opinion about the function of those ports? Most everyone thinks they're windows ... they are, after all, the same color as the other windows. Not that it matters -- most people think it's all just a TV show so what did they know?
Well, most of them ARE "windows." They're just not "sightseeing, viewing windows." So I can live with the them being described this way.

Technically, I can only recall twice during TOS that we actually saw windows on the ship. Once, where there were tons of faces staring in (but Shatner was too busy trying to seduce the last woman on the ship), and another, when we really couldn't see out them (and Shatner was too busy trying to seduce a psycho-actress-type). And in both of those cases, the windows were rectangular.

What I'm doing with MOST of these is having them be little round porthole windows, leading into "broom closets." Inside of those little "closet spaces" are whatever sensors happen to be inside, looking out.

I considered using some of them as "RCS thruster ports" but the positioning just doesn't make sense to me, so I'm going to have covered RCS ports in several locations (behind slide-back hatches, just like the phaser emitters and torpedo tube ends are).
And my apologies if I've missed this, but is it your intention to leave the turboshaft exclusively vertical? I wasn't paying close attention to your Vega because while I found the technique fascinating, the subject of your work wasn't as interesting as this old girl, but I just assumed it had the usual run of turbolift tunnels. Here it looks like just a single shaft in the primary hull. And if you are running a shaft to the secondary hull, will the car tilt and go down diagonally, or do you prefer the more orthodox sidestepping shaft?
Well, so far there's only one lift tube that I know the location for. And I deviate quite a bit from some folks, because I think it's crucial for the crew to actually walk as much as possible, just for fitness's sake if for no other reason. Still, there is a reason for SOME horizontal tubes. Just not the maze of tubes we often see.

So, I intend to have a fair spread of horizontal tubes on Deck 6, with "loop over" connections between the ends of those tubes on Deck 5 and Deck 7. This is something that also came up in Shaw's thread a while back, and he did a fine job with implementing it. I may have a few less tubes, total, but not dramatically so.

Also, with the exception of the ends of the lift chain (top and bottom) I intend for cars to have to "pull over" to a separate alcove, off of the main tube, when stopping. This will allow other cars to move past. I may also have "shoulder pull-over" stops in a few locations in case two cars come head-to-head at some point which is distant from a lift station... these will probably be more relevant in the Deck 6 "spurs" off of the inner region, and there won't be very many of them.

Part of my concern is sizing the lift cars properly. We've never seen any drawing or image of TOS lift cars, except for a few fan-made ones (which I believe don't work). My take on the cars is that they have very little internal hardware, and are entirely slaved to an infrastructure within the starship. That is, they have no life-support of their own (they get air from air which is pumped into the lift tubes), they get power from rails inside the tubes, and they aren't self-propelled, but rather are propelled by hardware in the lift tubes.

That's why I built the "box" around the vertical lift tube you see. The four corners each have "driver coils" in them which propel the car up or down.

The car will have some internal circulation machinery for climate control, a grav plate set (incorporating inertia-control), lights, a control system interface (not an actual independent car control, just a "dumb terminal") and a wireless intercom interface.

Also, probably, some sort of brake system for positive retention at "docking terminals" inside the tube system - cut power, and the brakes deploy automatically, apply power, and the brakes can be retracted.

The trick is to figure out where those various tubes and elements need to be located. And so far, my only guidance is from the bridge set and the single TOS corridor set (which, interestingly, has a lift tube at approximately the correct location relative to the corridor ring).

But in answer to your question... decks 1, 2, 3, 4, 8, 9, and 10 will only be accessed by a single common vertical tube. Deck 6 will have several major horizontal tubes. Decks 5 and 7 will have limited extensions of the system on Deck 6, mainly to allow "looping" without totally subdividing Deck 6.

Obviously, the dorsal will require at least one horizontal "jog" and the secondary hull will almost certainly have a "box" which will be very much like what Shaw created in his version.
Cary L. Brown is offline  
Old April 27 2009, 09:05 PM   #34
TIN_MAN
Fleet Captain
 
TIN_MAN's Avatar
 
Re: Another take on the Original Enterprise...

Sorry if I seem to belabor the point, but here's a pic of Shane Johnson's take on the TFF turbo shafts. The concept seems to lend itself to what you're doing here?http://i671.photobucket.com/albums/v..._2009/0001.jpg
TIN_MAN is offline  
Old April 27 2009, 10:30 PM   #35
Cary L. Brown
Rear Admiral
 
Location: Austin, Texas
Re: Another take on the Original Enterprise...

TIN_MAN wrote: View Post
Sorry if I seem to belabor the point, but here's a pic of Shane Johnson's take on the TFF turbo shafts. The concept seems to lend itself to what you're doing here?http://i671.photobucket.com/albums/v..._2009/0001.jpg
No worries...

I don't intend to implement this in my approach, however... two main reasons.

First... I consider this to be a dramatic "safety issue." The only reason I can envision for wanting a person inside the lift shaft (other than poor scriptwriting) is for extraordinary maintenance (when the tube would be shut down... and most likely in zero-G as well) or if a car was permanently lodged in place by a mechanical failure of some sort (and even then, this wouldn't be the first choice, since the majority of the time you could get access through an existing door panel or through a bulkhead).

Second... we've seen ladderways in the ship, and even know where they are (at least in the "central corridors"), on-screen.

The biggest problem with doing this sort of design is determining the line of separation between "earthbound engineering" and more application-specific engineering. I'm afraid that this idea, to my eyes, falls into that category... carrying too much from earthbound "elevator shaft" design into a dramatically different application.

I like most of what Shane has done, but I don't consider his work to be authoritative (then again, he probably won't consider mine that way either, and since it's all fictional that's perfectly fine! )

Can you give me a reason I haven't thought of for having the tubes (which are currently close-fitting to the exterior of the car) enclosed in a volume which incorporates a trio of ladderways?

At MOST, I can envision some handholds in the smooth metal tubing along one edge... not easy to climb, but serviceable in an emergency. But I'm having a hard time imagining a time that you'd really need to use those...
Cary L. Brown is offline  
Old April 28 2009, 12:03 AM   #36
TIN_MAN
Fleet Captain
 
TIN_MAN's Avatar
 
Re: Another take on the Original Enterprise...

Cary L. Brown wrote: View Post
Can you give me a reason I haven't thought of for having the tubes (which are currently close-fitting to the exterior of the car) enclosed in a volume which incorporates a trio of ladderways?
Nah, not really, It just seems that such a design might explain the differance in the external and internal circumferance of the T/L shaft (behind the bridge) at the 1080 length you're using? But maybe it's not as big a differance as I'm assuming, and at any rate, I'm sure you've got it all thought out anyhow, so keep up the good work!
TIN_MAN is offline  
Old April 28 2009, 01:52 AM   #37
Cary L. Brown
Rear Admiral
 
Location: Austin, Texas
Re: Another take on the Original Enterprise...

TIN_MAN wrote: View Post
Cary L. Brown wrote: View Post
Can you give me a reason I haven't thought of for having the tubes (which are currently close-fitting to the exterior of the car) enclosed in a volume which incorporates a trio of ladderways?
Nah, not really, It just seems that such a design might explain the differance in the external and internal circumferance of the T/L shaft (behind the bridge) at the 1080 length you're using? But maybe it's not as big a differance as I'm assuming, and at any rate, I'm sure you've got it all thought out anyhow, so keep up the good work!
Ah, that makes sense then.

No, it's not a big difference at all. Note that various plans I have show different bridge dome dimensions (and lift shaft locations and heights) anyway... in this case, I'm using Sinclair's bridge dome, but have tweaked his lift shaft nub a bit (making it slightly taller, though I may reduce that once I know exactly how I want my cars set up.

I was working from the plan view, and basing my location on McMaster's bridge plan (with his centerline to centerline - bridge to lift tube - distances). I then added in sufficient thickness for internal "tube" and also added a full hull-wall-thickness. It came very close to Sinclair's diameter for the nub, and almost exactly at his location, too. I'm still very slightly taller than his, but if you look at my section earlier in the thread, you can see that I left a LOT of headroom above the lift car ceiling... and I'm prepared to reduce that.

That said... here's an image of the shaft... from the inside of the tube to the outside hull. Remember, the tube is one element... the hull is another... and it's not all solid, though I've portrayed it that way here. The car is a relatively thin-walled element that will add a bit more wall thickness on top of what you see, into the shaft obviously. But I think this illustrates that there's not nearly as much "extra diameter" as you were thinking that there would be.

Cary L. Brown is offline  
Old April 28 2009, 04:03 AM   #38
TIN_MAN
Fleet Captain
 
TIN_MAN's Avatar
 
Re: Another take on the Original Enterprise...

Yeah, that makes sense, I guess I'm just used to seeing all those differant plans over the yaers for the 947 footer, that always show a very thin T/L "wall" back there, that it never accured to me that a thicker wall would actually make more sense.
TIN_MAN is offline  
Old April 28 2009, 05:02 AM   #39
Cary L. Brown
Rear Admiral
 
Location: Austin, Texas
Re: Another take on the Original Enterprise...

Before going to bed tonight, I wanted to take a quick look at something... and I decided to go ahead and share it with you guys. Obviously, the 1701 isn't completed, but this should be sufficient to convey scale among the various designs...

Cary L. Brown is offline  
Old April 28 2009, 05:55 AM   #40
Praetor
Vice Admiral
 
Praetor's Avatar
 
Location: The fine line between continuity and fanwank.
Re: Another take on the Original Enterprise...

Spiffy! I've always liked your take on the ringship.
__________________
"If you can't take a little bloody nose, maybe you ought to go back home and crawl under your bed. It's not safe out here. It's wondrous, with treasures to satiate desires both subtle and gross; but it's not for the timid." - Q
Praetor is offline  
Old April 29 2009, 03:55 AM   #41
CuttingEdge100
Commodore
 
CuttingEdge100's Avatar
 
Re: Another take on the Original Enterprise...

That is truly amazing, keep up the good work!
CuttingEdge100 is offline  
Old April 29 2009, 04:09 AM   #42
Cary L. Brown
Rear Admiral
 
Location: Austin, Texas
Re: Another take on the Original Enterprise...

Praetor wrote: View Post
Spiffy! I've always liked your take on the ringship.
Thanks! It's one of those things that is so ill-defined, you can put more of your own creative juice into it.

I haven't really done much on the Enterprise itself today. Or rather, nothing tangible. However, I did spend some time tonight on something very Enterprise-related... the shuttlecraft and shuttle bay.

I asked Warped9 if he'd mind my using his drawings, and he said OK. I thought I might just use them as reduced-size images to do some sizing, but the more I thought about it, the more I wanted to have a real shuttle. So, I've started (and only JUST started) making a shuttle model based upon his drawings. I thought I'd caught an error at one point, but it turned out that there was only a scaling factor difference... and I'm now getting the basics of his shuttle down in 3D. I won't do the guts (at least not for the moment) but since I think his work represents the best take on the shuttle to date, I wanted to try to fit that version of the shuttle in.

Here's where that model stands so far. There's a lot of work to go. For the time being, it's sufficient for my needs (determining necessary space), however.



Putting that into the 1067' starship's shuttlebay, it looks like this.



Seen from the side... and parked near the forward bulkhead of the bay (which will be defined by the pylons)...



Now, I was wondering if I needed to use different deck spacing in the secondary hull. In THEORY, using Warped9's shuttle, I could get by without doing so. You'll note that the upper "lips" of the shuttle (indicated by the parallel blue lines) actually intersect a 9' ceiling, and would just barely clear a 9'4" ceiling (see Ancient's post a few lines up). I'm not sure I like being that close, so I may space that deck out a bit more. But technically, it's not "necessary" if I leave this at 9'4" per Ancient's calculation.



Now, a pair of wireframe images to help visualize the general size and shape from end-on and from above.





With the 1080-ish scale, you can fit the whole shuttlebay behind the pylons, though I might choose to "halve" the pylons in this region... I haven't decided yet I'd still really like to keep them continuous all the way to the secondary hull axis... but I don't want to compromise on the on-screen shuttlebay. My intent is to have a pair of "accessways" coming aft next to the pylons from the shuttle parking areas on either side. The area with the elevator will be the repair/maintenance shop, not a parking area... but will have enough space to allow "shifting around" the several shuttles carried by Enterprise.

I'm not sure how many shuttles the Enterprise would carry... I know that this has been debated extensively, but as far as I know, there hasn't been a consensus arrived at, has there?
Cary L. Brown is offline  
Old April 29 2009, 04:18 AM   #43
number6
Vice Admiral
 
Location: number6 has left the village through some inexpicable hole in the ground to head the corporation.
Re: Another take on the Original Enterprise...

That's some cool stuff right there. Nicely done.
number6 is offline  
Old April 29 2009, 09:03 AM   #44
Psion
Commodore
 
Psion's Avatar
 
Location: Lat: 40.1630936 Lon: -75.1183777
View Psion's Twitter Profile
Re: Another take on the Original Enterprise...

How much of the nacelle struts are structural? I'm asking because you show the struts as one continuous volume reaching down into the secondary hull that seems to include the outer skin. I can imagine their interior containing structural components that support the attachment of the nacelles along with engineering components for cooling, power transfer, etc. woven between them. If the forward and aft parts of the struts aren't structural, but coverings over engineering bits, might you save yourself a couple of meters here and there? Only the structural support elements need to meet at the axis of the secondary hull. The sheathing stops at the secondary hull's skin, and the engineering bits fan out and get where they're going by whatever route necessary.
__________________
Twinkies are back. I knew they couldn't stay away from me for long.
Psion is offline  
Old April 29 2009, 04:06 PM   #45
Cary L. Brown
Rear Admiral
 
Location: Austin, Texas
Re: Another take on the Original Enterprise...

Psion wrote: View Post
How much of the nacelle struts are structural? I'm asking because you show the struts as one continuous volume reaching down into the secondary hull that seems to include the outer skin. I can imagine their interior containing structural components that support the attachment of the nacelles along with engineering components for cooling, power transfer, etc. woven between them. If the forward and aft parts of the struts aren't structural, but coverings over engineering bits, might you save yourself a couple of meters here and there? Only the structural support elements need to meet at the axis of the secondary hull. The sheathing stops at the secondary hull's skin, and the engineering bits fan out and get where they're going by whatever route necessary.
Yeah, that's something like what I was thinking, too... the real question is "what do the structural elements look like?"

What you see below is my "first pass" on this.

My initial take on the nacelle pylons is that they've got a largish "box beam" in the center, with a pair of "C-channels" on the leading and trailing edges, all linked together with only intermittant drilled-out regions for pass-throughs of various types.

Note that, unlike MOST of what you've seen from me, what you see here as "solid" is intended to be just that... solid. Imagine these as extruded steel (or "duranium" or whatever) shapes, welded together and given a heavy coat of paint.

There's plenty of room inside the channels for running power and utilities and so forth, as well as having a "jefferies tube" (or more than one?) for access to hardware. Maybe even a lift of sorts for maintenance access to the nacelle?



Now, I plan to use something similar to that, but I'm not convinced I've got it "right" yet. Perhaps I go with three identical "box beams," or a single extrusion, or two boxes with a structural linkage between them?

The reason I want box-beams is that they're very effective at resisting torsion, something that more conventional open beams (like I-beams) aren't nearly so effective with. I see the nacelles as being under tremendous torsional force, so the nacelle pylon needs to be designed to resist that. Tensile force isn't nearly so much of a concern... the majority of force seen by this structure will always be torsion, around any of the three principle vectors.

I'm actually thinking about doing a little FEA problem to determine the best practical construction for this structure. Maybe even doing it with the "strongback" and dorsal included as well?

The one weak point in the TOS design which I can't see a practical way around is the interface between the primary hull and the dorsal. It's fine in any of the three major translational vectors (forward-aft, port-starboard, up-down) and for torsion in two of the vectors (yaw and pitch) but it's inevitably going to be fairly weak in roll. Unfortunately, there's nothing to be done about that other than adding additional structure to the dorsal (not in the way that was done for ST-09, by the way, which really doesn't help in roll, does it?). The Galaxy class "flair" (or a triangle with two dorsals at angles, perpendicular from the secondary hull axis) would be the best solution... but that's a different design, not the TOS Enterprise. Oh well...
Cary L. Brown is offline  
Closed Thread

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:35 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.