RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 138,347
Posts: 5,354,222
Members: 24,620
Currently online: 529
Newest member: StarTrekSteve

TrekToday headlines

Sci-Fried To Release New Album
By: T'Bonz on Jul 28

Star Trek/Planet of the Apes Crossover
By: T'Bonz on Jul 28

Star Trek into Darkness Soundtrack
By: T'Bonz on Jul 28

Horse 1, Shatner 0
By: T'Bonz on Jul 28

Drexler TV Alert
By: T'Bonz on Jul 26

Retro Review: His Way
By: Michelle on Jul 26

MicroWarriors Releases Next Week
By: T'Bonz on Jul 25

Ships Of The Line Design Contest
By: T'Bonz on Jul 25

Next Weekend: Shore Leave 36!
By: T'Bonz on Jul 25

True Trek History To Be Penned
By: T'Bonz on Jul 25


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.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old June 11 2011, 07:46 PM   #31
Psion
Commodore
 
Psion's Avatar
 
Location: Lat: 40.1630936 Lon: -75.1183777
View Psion's Twitter Profile
Re: Ringship 1701

TIN_MAN wrote: View Post
If anybody's intrested, MJ played around with this idea. I know you mentioned that Psion, but were you familiar with this specific example (from trekcore)...
http://www.trekcore.com/specials/alb...eConcept15.jpg

The eliptical "ring" might solve your proportion problems?
Hmmm ... I don't think I ever said I was having proportion problems. YARN and I are arguing over how graceful this ship can actually be, but the whole point of my volume studies is to mess around with sizes and shapes and placement before finding something I like and settling on it. I don't usually share that process with others unless someone else is leading the design. In this case, I thought it was an original idea and folks around here might find it fun to throw in ideas.

Cary L. Brown came up with suggestions for using the Golden Ratio, Sojourner and Forbin showed some prior art that shot down the originality of my idea (but also gave me some fun ideas to play with), and others have made good suggestions that I've worked in here and there while I mess with the general shapes like a kid playing with clay. So proportion "problems" haven't even had a chance to exist yet, because this is just a bit of brainstorming and little more, so far.

BUT! Don't think this is a long-winded rebuke, TIN_MAN, because your link illustrates (in addition to showing that Jefferies himself worked on my "original" idea ) that there is a basic flaw to my design. You see, I love that classic shot of the original Enterprise from slightly below and a little to the ship's starboard side that I've tried to emulate in my pictures above. With its perspective-distorted primary hull looming over the secondary hull, and the lights and windows blazing pink against a blue-gray hull ... it's intimidating and intimate and an icon for exploration all at the same time.

Look at the profile of the original ship and you'll see mostly linear shapes suggesting a craft that streaks forward. They nacelle pylons and "neck" are mostly negated by the hulls and nacelles and the whole thing is brilliantly balanced and beautiful.

When I took away the nacelles, I lost a lot of that balance. It still looks kind of cool from that imposing angle I'm so fond of, but, in profile, the pylon (neck, dorsal, whatever) starts to dominate the shape. This makes the whole thing look like a space-shippy rhombus. I tried to solve that problem by making the secondary hull longer, but that introduces new problems, like making the single pylon/keel too aggressively sloped.

When i looked at Matt Jefferies' approach (the link didn't work for me, but I found the picture by going to TrekCore's section for Matt's sketches, then to page seven and clicked on the first picture in the upper left of the page), it was immediately clear that Jefferies also had this problem and eliminated it by putting the saucer on a boom that stretched straight back instead of angled back and down.

I like the ring-ship idea. I don't want to change to an ellipse or rounded box shape because part of my vision included coils that would, when animated, spin around the inside of the ring, barreling along like freight trains carrying charged plasma coils and giving a mechanical analogue to the spinning/flashing lights in the nacelle domes of the original.

It's becoming apparent to me that I have to abandon the central keel concept if this ship will ever look graceful. I'll keep everyone posted.
__________________
Twinkies are back. I knew they couldn't stay away from me for long.
Psion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 11 2011, 08:02 PM   #32
sojourner
Vice Admiral
 
sojourner's Avatar
 
Location: I'm at WKRP
Re: Ringship 1701

The ring design used in sketch 16 in that Matt Jefferies collection (the one right after the previously linked image) would have worked well on the Ent-D model.
__________________
Baby, you and me were never meant to be, just maybe think of me once in a while...
sojourner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 11 2011, 08:05 PM   #33
Psion
Commodore
 
Psion's Avatar
 
Location: Lat: 40.1630936 Lon: -75.1183777
View Psion's Twitter Profile
Re: Ringship 1701

Less talk. More pictures. Something like this:

__________________
Twinkies are back. I knew they couldn't stay away from me for long.
Psion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 11 2011, 09:38 PM   #34
TIN_MAN
Fleet Captain
 
TIN_MAN's Avatar
 
Re: Ringship 1701

Let’s not get hung up on semantics here, I didn't mean for anyone to take the word "proportion" too literally, it's just the first word that came to mind that summed up all the issues being discussed earlier, specifically the following statement...

...I keep gravitating to a saucer that's bigger than the ring, but I don't want to because, in my mind, that ring defines an outer diameter for a warp field. But when i make it that way, it just looks wrong. Maybe I'm intuiting the Golden Ratio here, but, like I said, I don't know how to actually apply it consciously to ship design.
Though whether the saucer is bigger than the ring or vice versa, is a matter of basic proportions is it not? And as for the Golden Ratio, it’s also called the Golden Proportion or Devine Proportion, by the way.
TIN_MAN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 12 2011, 12:47 AM   #35
Psion
Commodore
 
Psion's Avatar
 
Location: Lat: 40.1630936 Lon: -75.1183777
View Psion's Twitter Profile
Re: Ringship 1701

Like I said, I wasn't rebuking you, TIN-MAN, but "solving proportion problems" -- emphasis on the word "problems", not "proportion" -- rubbed me the wrong way a little and I wanted you to understand why this particular thread exists. I want an idea of what elements people like and don't like and compare their reactions to my own. The folks on TrekBBS are an invaluable resource with considerable expertise about the ships of Star Trek; it'd be foolish not to consider their input.

An interesting ship can be made from the scraps here. It won't have the same grace as the original, but I'd like to explore its potential.
__________________
Twinkies are back. I knew they couldn't stay away from me for long.
Psion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 12 2011, 02:19 AM   #36
TIN_MAN
Fleet Captain
 
TIN_MAN's Avatar
 
Re: Ringship 1701

Perhaps "Issues" would have been more appropriate then? Does it really matter what adjective I use? It seems to me you're focusing on the least important parts of my post. Sorry if my choice of words “rubbed you the wrong way” but don’t let your sensitivity cloud your judgment.

I'm very well aware of why your thread exists, and curious as to why you would assume otherwise? I don't think I said anything to imply that I "didn't get it"? So stop explaining it to me, you’re not helping matters by being condescending!

But I think you're missing the point of my post, so let me do a little explaining of my own, I was simply offering my two quatloos worth on a possible avenue which you might have overlooked that could result in a possibly more graceful design down the road.

Since as you say, "the whole point of my volume studies is to mess around with sizes and shapes and placement before finding something I like and settling on it", then I seem to have understood you correctly.

Just trying to be helpful, that’s all. Good luck with your project.
TIN_MAN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 12 2011, 02:51 AM   #37
Cary L. Brown
Rear Admiral
 
Location: Austin, Texas
Re: Ringship 1701

Psion wrote: View Post
Less talk. More pictures. Something like this:

I see what you're thinking... but I'm afraid you're a little bit "tied to preconception" there.

If I were doing it, I would not try to create "TOS/TMP" style pylons at all.

I REALLY like the "keel" and I would not eliminate it. However, you can have the "keel" go to a "rail" that runs straight aft, to the ring(s). I mention this only if the rings are too far aft to intersect properly with the "neck" portion of your ship. I mean, the "keel" need not all be linear. The keel is only the main structure element. In my 1701, my "keel" consists of elments in the dorsal, in the secondary hull, and also the nacelle pylons, after all.

Again, I'd probably have two rings, rather than a single one... much as MJ did on his. But I'm not sure if that's my OWN "preconception" or if it's for some subconsciously-driven "function" idea bouncing around in my skull.

I get the point you were raising about seeming "imbalanced," and I don't object to a pair of upwards "pylons" as well... my issue with what you've done there is that it seems like you're trying too hard to replicate the 1701 we know. There are a lot of other approaches you could take to get some sort of "upright" that would serve that same purpose, but would not seem (and I'm not trying to be obnoxious here) as "derivative" as that strikes me as being.

One possible approach... have a "rib" going back along the back of your secondary hull, maybe 1/3 of the way from the "neck to secondary hull attachment"... and then have either one vertical or two angled ones go from there.

If you go with two, I'd have them at exactly 120 degrees from vertical. Symmetry is generally best from a mechanical standpoint and I think it would work better from an aesthetic standpoint as well, in this case. So all three "pylons" (including the neck extension going down) would be 120 degrees apart from each other, radiating from the center of the ring circle. You might put the impulse engine at the back of this rib, rather than on the disk proper... or you might split the impulse engine structure to "straddle" these features.

The one vertical, or two angled, upright supports would leave the secondary hull "back rib" and would have to angle to hit the ring structure. In this way, it would be reminiscent of the TMP structure, but for a real, sound, practical reason.

I've been thinking about doing a quick-and-dirty version on my own, just to show you what I mean, but I don't want to steal your thunder here. Just giving what "helpful advice" I can... which you may feel free to reject!

Last edited by Cary L. Brown; June 12 2011 at 03:03 AM.
Cary L. Brown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 12 2011, 03:26 AM   #38
YARN
Fleet Captain
 
Re: Ringship 1701

Psion wrote: View Post
Less talk. More pictures. Something like this:

No, I think the neck extending through the bottom of the hull is more graceful. It has an elegance to it and a unity that this shape lacks.
YARN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 12 2011, 10:09 AM   #39
Psion
Commodore
 
Psion's Avatar
 
Location: Lat: 40.1630936 Lon: -75.1183777
View Psion's Twitter Profile
Re: Ringship 1701

I had some video capture software I wanted to try out, so I put together a video response to some of the recent posts. This also saved us all from having to wade through another one of my walls of text.

After I finished recording, I learned that I ran a little long for YouTube to handle, so there are some skips in the presentation where I made rough edits. And the video software I used took over an hour to transcode the file into something YouTube understood.

So while that was cooking, I realized I needed to make more changes to the model that appears in the video. Here's that result:



YARN, what if I brought the keel out the bottom again and ran the spine off it like the one above?
__________________
Twinkies are back. I knew they couldn't stay away from me for long.
Psion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 12 2011, 10:38 AM   #40
YARN
Fleet Captain
 
Re: Ringship 1701

Psion wrote: View Post



YARN, what if I brought the keel out the bottom again and ran the spine off it like the one above?
Can't say without a look. Even a rough presentation would give an idea...

Interesting variations though.
YARN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 12 2011, 06:53 PM   #41
Cary L. Brown
Rear Admiral
 
Location: Austin, Texas
Re: Ringship 1701

Psion wrote: View Post
I had some video capture software I wanted to try out, so I put together a video response to some of the recent posts. This also saved us all from having to wade through another one of my walls of text.

After I finished recording, I learned that I ran a little long for YouTube to handle, so there are some skips in the presentation where I made rough edits. And the video software I used took over an hour to transcode the file into something YouTube understood.

So while that was cooking, I realized I needed to make more changes to the model that appears in the video. Here's that result:



YARN, what if I brought the keel out the bottom again and ran the spine off it like the one above?
That's not EXACTLY what I was thinking, but I like it. I agree with your comment about continuation of the "keel" as well.

The only place I deviated from what you did, in my own thought process, was the idea of having the pylons going generally upwards at angles from that spine. Since that's roughly at the centerline, you'd have to "split" the impulse deck to avoid firing into the pylons. Maybe even split them by a significant distance, more along the lines of what the 1701-D did. But that's just a thought.

When I was suggesting extending a "rib" from the back of the neck, yes, that's kind of what I meant... but not exactly. I assumed that it would "fill" and attach to the spin of the secondary hull, and that it would go rought 2/3 of the way back from the neck to the hangar bay.

I was thinking that the semi-vertical pylons would come off of that, at angles, and would be slanted (ala the TMP pylons) and would attach to "ribs" inside the ring. Those pylons could then be used, as you mentioned, as heat radiators (remember, a radiator really needs to have its normal direction pointing away from any other part of the ship, or else you're just radiating right back into the ship!)

I just spent a few moments sketching this up in CorelDraw. Ignore the lack of detail and any "iffy" proportional issues... this is just to show the concept I was thinking of.



Pictures paint a thousand words and all that...
Cary L. Brown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 13 2011, 01:31 AM   #42
SonicRanger
Rear Admiral
 
SonicRanger's Avatar
 
Location: Sheffield, England
Re: Ringship 1701

Well, what about Jeffries' take on it:

http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lg...e6exo1_400.jpg
__________________
"STAR TREK is... Action - Adventure - Science Fiction."
-- Gene Roddenberry, 1964, top of the first page of his original pitch and outline for Star Trek
SonicRanger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 13 2011, 02:26 AM   #43
sojourner
Vice Admiral
 
sojourner's Avatar
 
Location: I'm at WKRP
Re: Ringship 1701

What about it? It was linked earlier in the thread.
__________________
Baby, you and me were never meant to be, just maybe think of me once in a while...
sojourner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 13 2011, 07:21 PM   #44
publiusr
Commodore
 
Re: Ringship 1701

I like Cary's apprach in that it evens out the design and retains the inverted triangular front view of the connie--with that V-for-Victory stance.

It's hard to put an elevated saucer in front of a ring and smooth it out, since there is always going to be that voice in the back of one's head saying--why not have a sphere up front and keep everything in a straight line?
publiusr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 15 2011, 06:50 AM   #45
Birdog
Commander
 
Birdog's Avatar
 
Location: Birdog
Re: Ringship 1701

Can I get in on this? Mine's not as original as the OP. I tried to recreate one of Jefferies' designs. The impulse engine will be located in the fantail under the shuttle bay. I have worked out a saucer separation geometry which would be a regular feature and not just an emergency thing. This is a WIP. Comments?



Album Link
Birdog is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

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 12:49 PM.

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