Hi Red-Nosed Riley, I can see where you are coming from and admittedly as soon as I had posted the image I made the same observation. But saying that it's almost like saying you can't have the TMP Enterprise or Reliant because it's nacelles are too similar to those of a Klingon Warbird. It was just an idea to suggest an alternative configuration to the two nacelle/two pylon concepts that we normally see. Another part to it was that I wanted a configuration that tried to solve the top heavy/centre of mass problems associated with the traditional designs. By adding symmetry about the xz plane, the problem goes away. I'm guessing that with a lot more thought it could be made a lot less Romulan looking whilst preserving the idea. Cheers, S.O.
I'm working on a design of my own . . . it's kinda swoopy and it has two necks and short nacelles and a spherical main deflector :P no pic yet . . . still working on the rough orthos in acad
yep, two necks, and it seems it could conceivably have been designed more by Andorians than other ships in the trekverse which to date seem to be mostly human designs but still it's not so far a departure from the saucer-secondary-nacelles starfleet norm sorry to be a tease, I promise pics with my next post [edit] and since my next post would be a double . . . here it is in the trendy silhouette style :P
I'm thinking about entering, even thought I don't play STO and have never designed a ship before. I'm not a very good artist, but I have sketched out my warp nacelle. I really dig it but I am having a hell of a time cracking my saucer section. I initially wanted to do a design without the secondary engineering hull but it didn't seam "Enterprise" enough. The saucer section I sketched out, after tweaking looks to much like an alligator head. So I'm back to the drawing board as it were. I hope to have something soon. I don't know if I will tackle this in Lightwave or not, don't really have the time. Wish me luck.
If I can get the time in the next day or two, I plan to do another couple of sketches showing other views for Option B. I really think the pushed-forward engineering hull is going to look pretty good, especially from the classic aft 3/4 view. I may be able to drop the lower nacelle in each pair down a bit but I'd prefer to keep the upper nacelles at their current height. I just have this thing about the top of the nacelles being at least level with the top of the primary hull and/or the bridge decks. I get what you're saying about the primary hull bisecting the nacelle pairs and I tend to agree as long as it doesn't throw the other proportions out of whack. Also, even though I don't necessarily subscribe to the rule that the bussards must have an unobstructed forward angle, if I can make this design comply with it, I will. That's... an interesting idea, but I think the nacelles are already far enough away from the rest of the ship and that the design is sufficiently stretched-out for my taste. Unless we posit some new development in warp technology that requires them to be even further removed than the precedents that have already been set, but I don't feel compelled to do that.
The split nacelles are a nice idea, but they probably need a bit more work to distance their design from the nacelles Howard Day put on his rendition of Atolm's Chariot.
Intriguing concept. What's your rationale for two engineering hulls and two pylon connections to each nacelle? Forgive my asking, but I can't help examining the functional aspects of a design as well as its form. My first thought would be that the oval formed by the pylons is actually part of the warp propulsion system, perhaps some new spin on the old Vulcan technology. Another very interesting approach. I'm guessing that the front of the ship is to the left, correct? The first question that brings to mind is, why do you even have an engineering hull if the engines aren't connected to it? And if it's not an engineering hull, what is it and why does it need to hang back there like a fresh kill in an eagle's talons? Food for thought: What if you keep the same configuration but reverse the orientation so the front of the ship is to the right?
I remember that ship! I think I even have a copy of the model on my archive drive somewhere. Now there's a guy (Atolm) who understands how to think outside the box. I'm not too concerned about the look of the nacelles, though. I can see the similarities in the rough sketch but what I have in mind would be rather different. Atolm's nacelles are basically just vertically symmetrical, while mine are literally two nacelles in a tandem pair. Probably I will be increasing the distance between them slightly as well.
Hi Vektor, Thanks for the questions. There was no concious attempt to use ideas from other alien vessels (Vulcan or Romulan). It just panned out that way! My sketches have slightly thinner pylons and the vertical direction pinched halfway along the x-axis. As I mentioned earlier the biggest problem with the earlier designs (TOS and TMP Enterprise) was that the centre of mass was outside the ships hull (I think below the saucer). That would mean that if the impulse drive was engaged, the Enterprise would just cartwheel through space. So by adding an extra dimension of symmetry you can solve or improve the C.O.M problem. A single impulse drive could be placed down the central z-axis (mounted behind the saucer) or four drives placed on the pylons (one on the back of each). The latter would probably give better direction control. Also using two pylons per nacelle just looks more sturdy. As much as I love the TMP Enterprise, I always feel that if it was put into a quick turn, the pylons would twist and snap off! The twin hull looks a little too obvious in my quick model. The aim is for the inside of each hull to slope down to meet the other at the back of the saucer. The space between the nacelles is hollow because I read somewhere that there should be a clear line of sight between them. I'm guessing that volume would suffer the most spacetime shear, so it would be bad to have any structures there. Each hull would have its own deflector. This is partly a redundancy thing, but it also gives the deflectors a greater angular range. The single deflector mounted below the saucer limits the deflectors aim, unless you want to risk it and torch the saucer. Then a bit like the Kelvin, the rear of one hull could be used for a shuttle bay, the other for an arboretum. Alternatively one hull could have a deflector and the other could house a torpedo bay. Hope this helps to explain things, but if you want me to elaborate on certain areas, please do. Cheers, S.O.
Well, OK, but I say keep that "boom" connecting the nacelles & their pylons to the saucer/secondary hull as clean, simple, and elegant as possible. Hangar bay decks & doors should stay in the secondary hull - seems to me, that's what it's there for.
whereas the enterprise does not cartwheel through space, one must logically conclude that either the center of mass is, in fact, inline with the impulse engines, or that the impulse engines do not operate according to any mechanics (newtonian or otherwise) understood on earth in the late 20th century. est quod est.
Hi Largo, True, it's on the screen and therefore by some means the Enterprise design works - no denying that. The C.O.M problem was mentioned by Richard Taylor in an interview at Forgotten Trek, which I found quite revealing. Makes you wonder what design of Enterprise we could of ended up with if Taylor had his way! http://www.ottens.co.uk/forgottentrek/tmp_9.php The center of gravity of an object is critical with objects built for weightlessness. Well, the center of gravity of the Enterprise is outside itself. It is one of the most unbalanced objects ever created for space. It would be a real nightmare to actually maneuver the Enterprise in space. You'd have more gyros onboard than in all the flying craft on Earth. and on the impulse drive... Growing up, my father was an Air Force officer; a fighter pilot, so I grew up building models of airplanes, speedboats, racecars and the like. I still do build models but not nearly as much anymore, but I do enjoy it. I was always involved in techno-design; cars and things that are functional, mechanical. But with the Enterprise for Star Trek: The Motion Picture, I designed it so that the saucer could jettison and that the ion engine that powered it was visible and was a cool design. I know there have been a lot of ideas on how you resolve the C.O.M problem or how the impulse drive works. That's Trek science! Taylor had simpler ideas and I like to think along similar lines. Cheers, S.O.
I always assumed that whatever thrust the impulse engines produce is somehow harnessed by the artificial gravity/inertial damping system and applied as a uniform field effect to the entire ship and everyone in it, hence the ability to accelerate at thousands and thousands of gravities without crumpling the ship like a beer can or reducing the crew to a fine atomic paste on the aft bulkheads. This is supported by the fact that impulse is capable of working in reverse. In other words, the ship doesn't have a center of gravity in terms of propulsion because the acceleration force is applied everywhere uniformly, not just at the points where the engines are mounted.