^^ Thank you. I apprciate the sentiment. All the reboot talk in the Future of Trek forum got me thinking and so I decided to work out this idea as very much a thought exercise. I have a companion thread to this on another site and there the discussion is rather different than here. On that site the discussion (besides relating to the model) is very much about building the revamped universe I've proposed and fleshing out the historical backstory and technology. You can find it here: http://treknographics101.prophpbb.com/topic373.html I will say that sometimes I do question my own choices, and wonder if some of the approaches I've taken might be a little too odd, but then I consider that if I back off then I risk following something more conventional and familiar. When I came up with this concept I deliberately tried to push myself beyond my own comfort zones. I still wanted something that cool be somewhat cool and visually appealing, but on its own terms rather than following parameters already set. Perhaps the most controversial choice has been to make the secondary hull protrude so far forward of the dorsal as well as cut the fantail so far forward. In "official" Trek the trend after the 1701D was to have the dorsal flow smoothly into the secondary hull and have nothing protruding forward of the dorsal. That along with generally flattening the designs and making them lower in height in relation to the length. In terms of TOS and TNG the general convention was to have the nacelles slightly above the saucer's upper surface. But I thought the design would look somewhat more purposeful if the nacelles were set somewhat more centrally as seen in elevation. They did this with the 1701D and while it took awhile to get used to I can see some appeal in it. How I basically started this (after settling on the basic concept) was I traced over (in a sketching manner) an image of the TOS E. I made the saucer edge the same angle (or very close to it) and followed the basic saucer contours except I inflated them somewhat. I did that similarly with the hangar area. From there I began to make the design even more my my own. The initial idea was to have a ship comparable in size to the TOS E, but as I progressed I realized I could easily allow for the ship to be moderately larger. The superstructure and dome atop the saucer was to be taller originally, but as the model took form I felt that component needed to be of lower profile to look more integrated with the rest of the design. I do see it as something of a challenge to take an idea that could be seen as maybe stubby and upright and make it look appropristely sleek with a sense of speed and power.
While the model is far from complete it is far enough along that I can get some hard dimensions. From that I can give a minimum and maximum size which will depend ultimately on how big I want to make the hangar area. Another consideration is average ceiling height along with thickness of hull and average deck/ceiling thickness. Minimum size: L.O.A. = 1121.5205 ft. (341.8395 m.) W.O.A. = 616.2078 ft. (187.8201 m.) H.O.A. = 321.7027 ft. (98.055 m.) Maximum size: L.O.A. = 1335.1507 ft. (406.9539 m.) W.O.A. = 733.5846 ft. (223.5966 m.) H.O.A. = 382.9815 ft. (116.7328 m.) I am thinking about ceilings being 8ft. on average with some areas having 9 or even 10ft. Some specialized areas might even be double deck in height. Now this raises the issue of how thick should the exterior hull be on average--1 or 2 feet? Same with the floor/ceiling between decks--2 feet? I would think one would have to leave some room for mechanicals and such. I certainly have no idea what the floor/ceiling thickness is on naval or cruise ships. So my final dimensions will likely be somewhere between the minimum and maximum I've listed above.. Just for fun here's an interesting view as if you were approaching the hangar flight deck by shuttlecraft prior to landing.
I'm involved in a rather time consuming task: smoothening (with a rounded corner) the joint where the pylons meet the secondary hull. The task is complicated because I have two compound curved surfaces intersecting and as a result the curvature or radius of the rounded corner changes constantly as it goes around the intersection point. I'm about halfway done, but this could take awhile.
That reminds me of the side view of the more narrow Planet of the Titans eunterprise from Ralph's asteroid painting. That would suit me just fine. As far as the scale...when in doubt, max it out.
Here's a question: how thick should the deck/floor be on average? 2 feet? 3 feet? Could we use the decks of a cruise ship or naval vessel as a comparative baseline? And how thick our those? I'm asking this even when going with a 8 ft. ceiling average, or more precisely average minimum. And what average outer hull thickness? 1 or 2 feet? Here are dimensions for a vessel with an average ceiling of 8 ft. along with decks of 2 ft. and an outer hull average of 2 ft. Length Overall = 1174.93179 ft. Width Overall = 645.55397 ft. Height Overall = 337.02349 ft. Also pertinent to these dimensions is the size of the opening for the shuttlecraft hangar bay. It measures a maximum of 67.78449 ft. wide x 31.41859 ft. high. But because of it's irregular shaped opening in more practical terms the size is 45.73475 ft. wide x 28.16628 ft. high. That allows entry for a vehicle about 40 x 25 ft. That is distinctly larger than a TOS Class F shuttlecraft which is no more than half that in width and height.
In terms of deck thickness, I suspect that in most cases, one foot would be ample. In terms of serviceability, you want as much in the walls as possible to eliminate strain from crouching and crawling, as well as to allow one set of utilities to service both sides of said wall. The modular design of Trek sets actually lends itself to this, with distinct panels that could be removed and replaced to access the mechanicals. The main things we've seen on ceilings have been lighting and occasionally sensor panels, the former we can make wafer-thin NOW, and even TOS tricorders are small enough to fit in a decent-sized shoebox.
^^ Food for thought. Thanks. I'm still rounding out the joint where the pylon meets the secondary hull. The good news is I'm near the end and might even get it finished sometime today. This is time consuming because I have to build the rounded corner or seam bit by bit because I don't have a handy plugin tool that could do it nice and quickly. As for the historical background of this restart idea. The original continuity had two basic ideas established depending on which way you lean. From TOS' standpoint warp drive is "relatively" new in the sense of the Pike/Kirk era ships are a lot faster than those a few decades to a century past and Earth's protracted war with the Romulans was waged with much less advanced ships despite Cochrane having discovered the space warp sometime around mid 21st century. For decades this was the accepted view and the one I still subscribe to. The other version is the one inferred in ENT with ships that really aren't that primitive by TOS (and later) standards. Suffice to say I don't care for this view for a number of reasons. Now that said none of that matters for a reboot where you're reshaping the groundwork. While not staying in the 23rd century lets take a suggestion and tighten the period setting a bit. So instead of being set in the 29th century we can set the stage for the 26th. This still puts us a good distance in the future. The development of warp drive in the 23rd century is a boon to star travel, but like many new developments it has limitations. Even having FTL the stars are still really far away and so we have a period where relativistic tech is still used in tandem with early warp drive for extended voyages. Expansion happens in waves as with each new expansion there follows something of a pause or slow down to more fully exploit what we've discovered. We've seen this in our own time. Technological progress raced during the Industrial Age and to the mid 20th century and since it seems to be largely a period of refinement and new applications for existent technology. Much of our "high tech" toys and capabilities of today are essentially refinements of the discoveries of the early to mid 20th century. What is the internet of today but extended development and application of television, radio and telephone technology? New materials and new methods of manufacturing are a bonus, but while something like a car today is much more fuel efficient, generally safer, better built and better performing we don't really drive any faster than we did fifty or so years ago. I would say the biggest difference between today and the mid 20th century is speed and ease of communication. I would say it has (presently) had the greatest effect on how we live our day-to-day lives just as the development of the car (and other methods of transportation) affected mobility generations earlier. Today we communicate much faster, but we don't travel any faster. (I must note we have also seen, and continue to see, great advancements in the medical field, yet those benefits are more long term and less immediate and obvious for most people.) That said there are ideas on the board, but it remains to be seen when we'll see them happen. Like automobiles aircraft have been improved, but generally we don't fly any faster than we did fifty years ago. Manned space travel has basically stalled since the early 1970s. Since then it's been about feathering our existent nest rather than pushing for new ones. It isn't that space exploration has stopped, but that it has become more limited in approach. We continue to explore the solar system with unmanned probes and the universe with remote observational techniques. We've learned a lot and are learning more, but the impetus to go "out there" ourselves isn't very strong presently. Maybe if we got a big scare by a really close near miss by an asteroid (or something) we'd change our minds real fast, but for now this is the way things are. For now I don't see governments really getting behind furthering manned space travel. We might see it from private and business interests. How all of this will play out I have no idea, but it does suggest a possible pattern for future societies: advancement and expansion followed by a slow down period. This can work to our benefit because it gives us a loophole in depicting a far future society. We can hand wave away not showing a humanity radically different than our present selves. We can also sidestep a lot of explanation by not talking about the details of societal/historical changes over the next century or two. And we can sidestep showing genuinely bizarre changes that we can barely imagine presently (just as TOS and TNG missed on things they couldn't foresee). We would basically sidestep any potential singularity idea that may or may not happen for real. But the advantage of SF is we can encounter really different ideas and explore them even if our humanity and our Federation doesn't use them themselves. (For example imagine a society that uploads itself into computers or artificial bodies when faced with a dying home star (or some other rationale) rather than fleeing the system in spaceships.) So after fast relativistic travel and early warp drive we basically settle into developing what we've found as well as furthering relations and interactions with the few advanced races we encounter. Space exploration and expansion continues, but at a greatly reduced pace. And it stays this way until shortly before we hit the Rihannsu (Romulans). It will be a brutal and protracted affair (about twenty years) that also drives technological advancement and re-energizes the impetus for deep space exploration: what the hell else is out there waiting for us? The Klingons. If they exist what and who are they beyond rumour? We might not even learn their name until later. Are they a dead and extinct race? Are they something rumoured we just haven't met face-to-face yet? Are they a dormant menace we would be best avoid and tiptoe around? Are they already aware of us and just waiting to see what we do before they act? I'm not that averse to making the Klingons more alien than what we're familiar with. I think to get the most out of them they should be treated somewhat like what was done with the Borg and the Jem'hadar--the Klingons should be this really badass scary. Trek isn't the only one who has had badass aliens. There's a lot of other SF in film, television and literature to draw upon and adapt. Now with that to ponder over I still have to finalize the thickness of my decks and outer hull.
Dimensions don't tell the whole story. Here is a comparison of a 947ft. TOS Enterprise and a 1068ft. W9 Enterprise. My ship is only 120 feet longer, but significantly larger in every other respect. you can see by these elevations alone that there is a lot more interior space available. The saucer alone has about as much space as the whole of the TOS Enterprise. The secondary hull is almost like having a whole extra ship added into the mix. The hangar area is also noticeably larger. So while m design is only 121 feet longer it has perhaps twice the interior volume of the MJ design. This is based on my design having an average outer hull thickness of 1 ft. and an average deck thickness of 2 ft. and an average ceiling height of 8 ft. TOS Enterprise L.O.A. = 947 ft. W.O.A. = 417 ft. H.O.A. = 238 ft. W9 Enterprise L.O.A. = 1068 ft. W.O.A. = 586 ft. H.O.A. = 306 ft. The primary hull is 586 ft. In diameter and about one-and-a-half times the height (I haven't measured the height specifically yet) of the TOS E saucer. Also because of the shape it allows for a lot more interior space. I haven't worked out the general deck arrangement yet, but the saucer rim is just a bit more than the equivalent of two decks. The saucer rim is about 25 ft. thick. The top of the curvature under the saucer measured to the top surface (or edge) of the saucer rim is 20 ft. That's two decks of 8 ft. each with a deck of 2 ft. and a top and bottom hull thickness of 1 ft. Now since those two decks are primarily crew quarters along with Sickbay and the Computer Core at the heart of the saucer I could make those two decks 9 ft. on average. That would bump the ship's overall length about 160 ft. or so and result in a substantial increase in interior volume. The saucer is easily at least twelve decks thick. For a 1068 ft. ship I was thinking of a deadweight tonnage of easily 300,000 metric tons and maybe up towards 5-600,000 metric tons. Ship: Length Overall = 1068.12061 ft. (325.56316 m.) Width Overall = 586.86769 ft. (178.87727 m.) Height Overall = 306.38522 ft. (93.38621 m.) Primary Hull: Diameter Overall = 586.86769 ft. (178.87727 m.) Height Overall = 126.40902 ft. (38.52946 m.) Dorsal: Length Overall = 311.19185 ft. (94.84822 m.) Width Overall = 53.97663 ft. (16.45207 m.) Height Overall = 98.01733 ft. (29.87568 m.) Secondary Hull: Length Overall = 446.928 ft. (136.22365 m.) Width Overall = 156.8398 ft. (47.80477 m.) Height Overall = 142.95301 ft. (45.57207 m.) Nacelles: Length Overall = 474.26008 ft. (144.55447 m.) Width Overall = 92.83075 ft. (28.29481 m.) Height Overall = 63.02299 ft. (19.2094 m.)
I've already been pondering some things. Similar to the TMP refit I could have one or two Main Rec Decks on the rim of the saucer that are split level (so you can access from the lower or upper decks). Actually one could be more the conventional crew lounge while the other could be an arboretum. Of course there could also some smaller lounge/messes scattered throughout the ship as well. One distinction is now I can make sure my double-deck split level rec deck will actually fit into the saucer rim. That is one thing I'm going to try to keep consistent, that the interiors I might design can actually fit where they're supposed to. The Bridge will obviously fit because there is ample space in that area. There can be a secondary engine room in the saucer near the impulse drive and a Main Engineering in the secondary hull. There should also be ample space to fit the hangar flight deck and shuttlecraft maintenance bay in the alloted area. The dorsal has about four times as much space as the one on the TOS E. One thing I haven't decided on is whether to go with the warp core and power feed as seen in TMP and TNG and the rest or go with TOS' layout which didn't have that. The TMP/TNG design eats up a lot of space. That said I have extra space and Main Engineering is situated right under the dorsal and in line with the angled support pylons. I can see myself using the basic descriptive layout for the TOS E given in TMoST as a guideline. I have created a cross-section of the ship, but I haven't yet begun to work out the deck layout. I think I'll finish the model before I start that. With every detail added it looks more and more realized.
As it stands all the major components are in place so it's now a matter of detailing bits here and there. Some of the detailing is meant to be subtle and noticeable mostly when light falls on it at certain angles. I want to add the ship's name in one more place. I'm looking at about a dozen elements of detailing still to be added, but nothing that will drastically alter the overall appearance. Certainly no gridlines of any sort. And then it's on to colouring.
Some added detail, most of it rather subtle. I'm nearing the point of starting windows. The fat or distorted looking H shapes under the navigational deflector and under the fantail are the fore and aft hoton torpedo launch ports. Presently they are closed, but the shapes suggest two tubes facing forward and two facing aftward. Part of the design is that armament is not immediately apparent unless you know what you're looking at. We're presenting a non threatening posture and weaponry becomes apparent only when utilized. The original TOS 11 ft. miniature had a lot of painted detail on it as well as some etched or scribed detail I've chosen to add a bit of texture to similar details. The four lighted panels on top of the TOS saucer are now four slightly recessed panels on this design. The triangle shapes on the saucer underside now have something of a grille pattern to them for visual texture. The slightly recessed upper and lower saucer rings are the omnidirectional phasers, and they can be programmed to fire at more than one target at a time. I've tweaked the scale just a bit, but the difference in overall dimensions will be very small and likely less than a foot (larger) in overall length.
Overall, I still love the design. I have a few reservations about the deflector dish. It resembles an intake manifold or rear facing exhaust. It doesn't seem to match its purpose. It kinda ruins the rest of the forward momentum for me.
I think it looks better close-up, but I've also got a lighting effect idea for it so we'll see how that turns out.
GOD DAMMIT Warped9 you are stealing all the concepts I've had in my head for my own reboot, especially your Klingon ideas, but now the omni directional phaser banks. I was thinking about it for my own Enterprise concept the other day, in terms of surface detail. The difference between my own ideas and yours is that my goal is to keep a similar proportion and shape to the TOS Enterprise, but completely play around with everything else. In my reboot world, Starfleet is made up of two divisions, the UESPA, which is the science division, which the Enterprise belongs to, and the UESN, which is the military. In her role as a large and fast science vessel, she has no bridge on the top of the saucer, rather both the top and bottom have powerful scanning arrays that are tied into the bridge which is located a the heart of the saucer section. Im attempting to do what you are doing, in keeping the smooth surface of the vessel. The difference between our designs though, I think will be in the detailing. I want to harken mine back to more NASA feeling technology, but keeping the Jefferies' concept of a smooth surface. No grid lines, but I was thinking of a way to get some surface detail back, and I thought of pop up omni directional phaser banks that travel around grooves in the saucer section. So when i saw your post tonight I was just like you're kidding me (in a joking manner of course). Im hoping to do a lot of sort of pop up panels for the bow reversing thrusters and other pieces of equipment that will be needed. Anyway, not to highjack your thread, but I thought it was funny we are approaching things in similar lines.
Ideas are rarely (if ever) born in a vacuum. Especially if you follow science fiction in film, television and literature as well as follow speculative science ideas. TOS had very little in it that was truly novel in terms of individual ideas, but what made TOS seem fresh and creative was how the various ideas were put together and presented. A lot of TOS' ideas go way back to the SF pulps of the 1920s and onward, but they weren't presented in quite the same way TOS did. Now we've had TOS and a lot of other SF on television and film as well as the newest ideas born in SF literature and all of it cross pollinates to give birth to new adaptations and interpretations. I could propose an idea for a series for an original space adventure that bears little resemblance to Star Trek and yet could still have many of the same or similar ideas only presented in a different way. Or you can reinterpret all the familiar elements of Trek into an updated Star Trek that can look fresh and new yet still have familiar sensibilities. The second approach is what I'm trying to do here. You read, watch and listen to all sorts of teleision, film, literature and what speculative science says and even what fans talk about. Certain ideas stick in your head and you envision how they could be used in your own way. As a result different people can arrive at similar solutions.
The first windows. Initially I tried the more standardize rectangular windows oriented horizontally, but on this design they didn't look right. So I stretched them a tad and oriented them vertically and they integrate better. The three forward windows are a bit larger and denote the location of the Flying Bridge or Commannd (or VIP) Lounge. I didn't like the look of windows put on the aft end of the teardrop shaped superstructure although from there it would be quite a view of the impulse section between the warp nacelles (I zoomed in and put my POV there to get an idea of what it might look like looking outward from a viewport at that vantage point). The standard windows in the posted image are 2.5 ft. wide and 3.75 ft. tall. The sill or bottom edge of the window starts 2.5 ft. from the deck and it's an 8 ft. ceiling (on that deck). The Bridge is located at the centre of that deck (under that dome visible outside) but with a higher ceiling. I'm conjecturing the Bridge to be about 20-25 ft. in diameter. There will be about half a deck's worth of mechanicals between the Bridge's ceiling and the outer hull. The Main or Command Briefing Room is also on this deck as is the Captain's Office (should the CO actually choose to use it). I can't say all the windows will be oriented the same way. I'll be experimenting as I proceed and going with what looks best. While I'm working on windows I'm already giving thoughts to what the Bridge might eventually look like. With an advanced A.I. system you really don't need a conventional Communications Officer. Hell, you wouldn't really wouldn't need Helm and Navigation officers if you really wanted to go that route. The same goes with a Weapons/Defense officer or an Engineering Officer on the Bridge. But being Star Trek there is a limit to how advanved I'm considering going. Some stations could be usually unmanned except under alert conditions. I like to think of the ship's A.I. as something of an M5 type system...that actually works...in a sane and cooperative manner. (-: I envision two entrances to the bridge: one is the turbolift and one is an access to/from the rest of Deck 1. This was a TNG idea that I think works. The CO's office (or Ready Room) should be near the Bridge as should the Main Briefing Room. Note that if the CO opted not to regularly use the Command Office then it could be allocated (and fitted) as a senior officers' work area. In terms of general aesthetic I envision something like "The Cage" or TMP Bridge, but with a bit more colour, although not quite the TOS route. Something in between. The forward viewscreen would be massive and practically floor-to-ceiling as if the Bridge were on a balcony looking out into space. The Captain would be centrally positioned (and a bit elevated) to swivel and see every station. I still have a fondness for TOS' split level Bridge design.
A little more progress. I'm exercising a measure of restraint when it comes to the numbers of windows. Still a few more details to go. Funny how it looks like a model kit when rendered. Of course, I haven't assigned materials and truly correct colours yet as well as lighting. That and rendered right in a space scene should look quite different.
Ironically, I see this as fitting Masao's evolution... Valley Forge seems to come after Connie, which is actually a bit more angular. I can see Valley Forge coming right before this...
Here we cn see the beginnings of laying out the decks. On the left of the image you can see hash marks that were my guide in laying out the decks for window placement.Each hash mark is the centre of the floor structure between levels. From this (when I get around to it) I can create a basic deck layout including some of the major areas such as the Brisge, Engineering, Computer Core and shuttlecraft hangar facilities. Presently I'm trying to think of any more details to add before proceeding further.