RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 138,399
Posts: 5,358,945
Members: 24,626
Currently online: 602
Newest member: space2050


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 December 7 2010, 11:17 AM   #151
Tom Riley
Commodore
 
Tom Riley's Avatar
 
Location: Somewhere... out there...
View Tom Riley's Twitter Profile Send a message via AIM to Tom Riley Send a message via Yahoo to Tom Riley
Re: Design the Next Enterprise

Science Officer wrote: View Post
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.
I do most entirely disagree.

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.
Sorry for expressing my opinion though.
Tom Riley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 7 2010, 06:52 PM   #152
Vektor
Rear Admiral
 
Vektor's Avatar
 
Location: Spokane, WA, USA
Re: Design the Next Enterprise

erifah wrote: View Post
I don't care for the way the under-slung engineering hull sits so far aft on the "C" version. It straddles the fence too much between your idea of having it entirely under the saucer, and more conventional designs. Stick with your concept in the most pure form, and develop that.
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.

That said, your "B" has some hints at intriguing treasures. To me, the split warp nacelles are just BEGGING to be more cleanly bisected by the saucer, so that the upper Bussard clears the top and the lower clears the bottom.
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.

I'm also, myself, on a design kick where I like stretched-out stuff, and I think If the B's engines were pushed back, that would enhance the grace AND the sense that "the saucer & secondary hull with all the people are over HERE, and the engines & all that powerful radioactive warp energy stuff is over THERE."
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.
Vektor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 7 2010, 07:03 PM   #153
lennier1
Commodore
 
lennier1's Avatar
 
Location: Germany
Re: Design the Next Enterprise

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.
__________________
Programming today is a race between software engineers striving to build bigger and better idiot-proof programs, and the Universe trying to produce bigger and better idiots. So far, the Universe is winning.
lennier1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 7 2010, 07:27 PM   #154
Vektor
Rear Admiral
 
Vektor's Avatar
 
Location: Spokane, WA, USA
Re: Design the Next Enterprise

Science Officer wrote: View Post
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.

backstept wrote: View Post
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?
Vektor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 7 2010, 07:38 PM   #155
Vektor
Rear Admiral
 
Vektor's Avatar
 
Location: Spokane, WA, USA
Re: Design the Next Enterprise

lennier1 wrote: View Post
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.
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.
Vektor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 7 2010, 09:12 PM   #156
Science Officer
Lieutenant Commander
 
Location: United Kingdom
Re: Design the Next Enterprise

Vektor wrote: View Post

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.
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.
Science Officer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 7 2010, 09:22 PM   #157
erifah
Captain
 
erifah's Avatar
 
Re: Design the Next Enterprise

Vektor wrote: View Post
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.
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.
erifah is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 7 2010, 09:34 PM   #158
largo
Fleet Captain
 
largo's Avatar
 
Re: Design the Next Enterprise

Science Officer wrote: View Post
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.
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.
__________________
SIG 1701-A
largo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 7 2010, 11:01 PM   #159
Science Officer
Lieutenant Commander
 
Location: United Kingdom
Re: Design the Next Enterprise

largo wrote: View Post
Science Officer wrote: View Post
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.
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.
Science Officer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 8 2010, 01:15 AM   #160
Vektor
Rear Admiral
 
Vektor's Avatar
 
Location: Spokane, WA, USA
Re: Design the Next Enterprise

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.
Vektor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 8 2010, 01:33 AM   #161
lennier1
Commodore
 
lennier1's Avatar
 
Location: Germany
Re: Design the Next Enterprise

Vektor wrote: View Post
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.
That's also the line of thought that has put me at ease.

The sketch made it look like you started out by slicing one of the Chariot's nacelles in half and filled in a center section.
But in the earliest stages the Grandeur's nacelles probably also started out as a less angled version of the Sovvy nacelles and yet the end result is completely different.

The similarity probably is because the Chariot is such a memorable design and since you liked that nacelle shape as well it was spooking around in your subconscious.
__________________
Programming today is a race between software engineers striving to build bigger and better idiot-proof programs, and the Universe trying to produce bigger and better idiots. So far, the Universe is winning.
lennier1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 8 2010, 05:27 AM   #162
backstept
Rear Admiral
 
backstept's Avatar
 
Location: Syracuse
View backstept's Twitter Profile Send a message via AIM to backstept Send a message via Windows Live Messenger to backstept
Re: Design the Next Enterprise

Vektor wrote: View Post
backstept wrote: View Post
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?
good point
I see what you mean by having the engines and secondary hull separate. My thinking was to have the reverse of the galaxy separation. Instead of leaving the saucer without warp it would leave the secondary hull. Also the sec hull is mostly shuttlebay, science labs and sensors and secondary crew quarters.

of course, everything in the above paragraph is an after the fact rationalization for it :P
as I was sketching it up I was mainly thinking about making a cool design

I'm heading towards getting rid of the two necks . . . it looks cool but I'm having a tough time visualizing how it connects to the secondary hull or how it comes off of the saucer
I do want to keep the general outline of the top and front view, but I think any changes I make will affect the side view most
I also need to nail down a nacelle shape that isn't just a tube
__________________
| Hi I'm Gauis Blatar lol
| backstept.blogspot.com | about.me
backstept is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 8 2010, 07:03 AM   #163
erifah
Captain
 
erifah's Avatar
 
Re: Design the Next Enterprise

Vektor wrote: View Post
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.
That line of reasoning would certainly solve a LOT of problems. It would also fit nicely with the concept behind the impossibly-thin & long nacelle struts - some sort of advanced technology of the 23rd century MAKES them possible. That same technology makes it unnecessary to worry about an unbalanced Enterprise cartwheeling throughout the cosmos...
erifah is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 8 2010, 12:29 PM   #164
Warped9
Admiral
 
Warped9's Avatar
 
Location: Brockville, Ontario, Canada
Re: Design the Next Enterprise

^^ It's why I've long suspected that the ship's impulse drive is really a form of antigravity drive.
__________________
STAR TREK: 1964-1991, 2013-?
Warped9 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 8 2010, 02:26 PM   #165
backstept
Rear Admiral
 
backstept's Avatar
 
Location: Syracuse
View backstept's Twitter Profile Send a message via AIM to backstept Send a message via Windows Live Messenger to backstept
Re: Design the Next Enterprise

Warped9 wrote: View Post
^^ It's why I've long suspected that the ship's impulse drive is really a form of antigravity drive.
that's how I always figured it worked . . . reduce the ship's mass so the thrusters don't have to be so huge and also allow it to get to impulse speeds which are fractions of c
__________________
| Hi I'm Gauis Blatar lol
| backstept.blogspot.com | about.me
backstept 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 03:21 PM.

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