RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 141,544
Posts: 5,513,296
Members: 25,143
Currently online: 435
Newest member: JackieM

TrekToday headlines

Two New Starships Collection Ships
By: T'Bonz on Dec 26

Captain Kirk’s Boldest Missions
By: T'Bonz on Dec 25

Trek Paper Clips
By: T'Bonz on Dec 24

Sargent Passes
By: T'Bonz on Dec 23

QMx Trek Insignia Badges
By: T'Bonz on Dec 23

And The New Director Of Star Trek 3 Is…
By: T'Bonz on Dec 23

TV Alert: Pine On Tonight Show
By: T'Bonz on Dec 22

Retro Review: The Emperor’s New Cloak
By: Michelle on Dec 20

Star Trek Opera
By: T'Bonz on Dec 19

New Abrams Project
By: T'Bonz on Dec 18


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 February 16 2009, 08:40 PM   #751
USS Jack Riley
Captain
 
Location: Cubicle Hell
Re: Another fan attempt at TOS deck plans

Shaw wrote: View Post
As for the three port holes on the front of the primary hull, we never saw what they were for... they were dark in the first pilot, the center one became a navigation light in the second pilot and they were all lit like the other windows by the time of the series. I left the space behind them on deck 6 unoccupied.

Because all the windows we saw from within the ship were rectangular, I'm treating port holes as something else other than windows.
Shaw - Great work as usual. Better watchout or we will start to expect it (kind of like Dan Aykrod's line in Ghostbusters "You've never been in the private sector; they expect results.").

I know it was all stock footage, but the use of the middle light as a navigational beacon was not limited to the 2nd pilot. I remember seeing it in "Mudd's Women" and going WTF? I had thought they were just windows or something all this time, I get a copy of the epiosodes on DVD (non-remastered) and see this navigational light. Again, not faulting you for namingg every single episode in which it appeared dark, blinking or on (we'd be here through the next decade if we did that kind of thing), but just an FYI to point out that it was still a navigational deflector in at least one other episode in case you had missed it (took me 30 years to catch it and I am usually good at catching things like that).
__________________
"The beatings will continue until morale improves!"

"Question: How many Imagineers does it take to change a light bulb?
Imagineer's Answer: Does it have to have a light bulb?"
USS Jack Riley is offline  
Old February 16 2009, 09:25 PM   #752
Captain Robert April
Vice Admiral
 
Location: In selfless service to fandom, on the road to becoming a Star Trek trivia god...
Re: Another fan attempt at TOS deck plans

Recycled footage from the second pilot still means that it blinked in the second pilot. Anything shot after the big refit before regular production shows non-blinking forward lights.
Captain Robert April is offline  
Old February 16 2009, 09:27 PM   #753
Shaw
Commodore
 
Shaw's Avatar
 
Location: Twin Cities
Re: Another fan attempt at TOS deck plans

You should keep in mind that right now I'm totally in model mode as I attempt to finish my studies of the 11 foot model. From that perspective, the timeline is pretty straight forward...
  • December 1964 ("The Cage") version
  • September 1965 ("WNMHGB") version
  • 1966-1969 (Series) version
  • 1974 (1st Garber) version
  • 1984 (2nd Garber) version
  • 1991 (Miarecki) version
It is important right now to use only those version references while I'm reverse engineering this model. Specially considering that my first version of these plans is going to be the first version of the model itself. I might find out something very interesting about either the WNMHGB or Series versions, but I have to make sure that I don't accidently add that to The Cage version if it wasn't actually there on it.

So right now I'm treating the Enterprise as a non-fiction, real historical artifact which I am attempting to document to the fullest degree possible.

When done, we'll need to go back and distill the features we want for the fictional Starship Enterprise. Some details we'll obviously want to keep... others we'll obviously want to discard (like the image below).


Yeah, when used as footage in the series itself, the first three versions were all mixed together. And we'll have to figure out where to draw the line on some stuff (or we could do what TOS-R did to differentiate the versions). But right now (in my mind), the Enterprise is a model that I'm trying to document.
Shaw is offline  
Old February 16 2009, 09:53 PM   #754
CuttingEdge100
Commodore
 
CuttingEdge100's Avatar
 
Re: Another fan attempt at TOS deck plans

Shaw,

The energy produced by a nuclear fusion reaction for the impulse engines are readily quantifiable, and in Star Trek it did specifically say they were nuclear fusion reactors -- E=mc^2.

I'd say there's actually a simple solution for the problem.

- http://www.shawcomputing.net/racerx/...ernals_005.jpg
- http://www.shawcomputing.net/racerx/...ernals_020.jpg
- http://www.shawcomputing.net/racerx/...ernals_026.jpg

In the uppermost and lowermost image of the first link, and the lower image in the second, and the third image all show some "unused" space in the saucer

The first and second image show this unused space to be located at the front and sides of deck 3, 4, and some of deck 7. There's also a gap on deck 5 where the saucer height is too high to house a deck but there is empty space there.

Granted the phasers occupy some of that space, but there's no evidence to suggest they're gigantic or take up a huge amount of space, so there's considerable volume within there for some fuel-tanks to be located.

The secondary hull definetly has some potential room at the very least on the upper most and lower most deck for fuel tanks to be located and fitted.


CuttingEdge100
CuttingEdge100 is offline  
Old February 16 2009, 11:21 PM   #755
Shaw
Commodore
 
Shaw's Avatar
 
Location: Twin Cities
Re: Another fan attempt at TOS deck plans

Are we talking about TOS? I only recall fusion being brought up in relation to the engines at one point in time... when Kirk was talking about overloading the Constellation's impulse engines...
Kirk: Am I correct in assuming that a fusion explosion of 97 megatons will result if a starship impulse engine is overloaded?
Spock: No sir... 97.835 megatons.
So, considering that fusion explosions are not only created by nuclear fusion reactors, I'd say that is inconclusive.

Also, the energy of a fusion reaction isn't as straight forward as E=mc^2... what you are actually talking about is providing enough energy to overcome the repulsive electromagnetic forces to gain the even greater potential energy of the strong nuclear forces. There is a resulting loss of mass, but it is not equal to the original mass of the fuel (that type of reaction, 100% conversion, would be from a one-to-one matter/anti-matter process).

I have other threads on math and physics and would be very happy to discuss this subject in more detail in them. But for our purposes here, I tend to ignore post-TOS (though welcome others to inject whatever they want into their own derivative works) and stay about as vague on this subject as the writers guide was...
"The Enterprise has a secondary propulsion system. These are the impulse engines (same principle as rocket power), located at the rear of the "saucer section." Vessel speed, when using the impulse engine, is less than the speed of light. In case of total failure of all engine power sources, the vessel's gravitational and life support systems can be switched to battery power, with a full-load capacity of about one week."
But as an interesting sidebar, how much hydrogen do you think one would need to create an approximately 100 megaton explosion? A hint... the largest fusion based bomb ever exploded was the Tsar hydrogen bomb which yielded about 50 megatons as I recall.


If we were to theorize about what an impulse engine might be... it could be similar to an ion engine only using particles accelerated to relativistic velocities to create the impulse thrust while expelling very little actual matter in the process. The thrust would be based on the relativistic momentum of the particles rather than a more standard momentum (based on the real mass of the particles).

But in the end we don't really know... and while it is fun to play with ideas, the plans I'm working on will avoid the limitations of todays ideas on this subject. And everyone else is free to put in as much of this as they want as I'll be leaving those areas undefined and undetailed.

But you are right... there are lots of places for fuel storage if you wanted to use them that way. I would suggest this diagram when hunting for those spaces.


The grey-to-black areas on the individual decks represent space too short for standard personnel deck use... but would be just fine for equipment and storage. I plan on leaving a lot of that type of space open for others to interpret it as they want.
Shaw is offline  
Old February 16 2009, 11:56 PM   #756
DEWLine
Commodore
 
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Send a message via AIM to DEWLine Send a message via Yahoo to DEWLine
Re: Another fan attempt at TOS deck plans

Gotta have room for infrastructural details. So that works for me.
__________________
Yours,

Dwight Williams
Illustrator/Writer
DEWLine is offline  
Old February 17 2009, 01:24 PM   #757
Shaw
Commodore
 
Shaw's Avatar
 
Location: Twin Cities
Re: Another fan attempt at TOS deck plans

This isn't really much of anything. I generally like to stop and take a broader view of what I'm working on by assembling the pieces together to see how they fit... which is all I'm actually doing here.


This isn't all that different from back when I was working out the details of the 33 inch model a few years ago, sorta like this progress image from back then.

Shaw is offline  
Old February 17 2009, 02:11 PM   #758
Warped9
Admiral
 
Warped9's Avatar
 
Location: Brockville, Ontario, Canada
Re: Another fan attempt at TOS deck plans

Shaw wrote: View Post
I generally like to stop and take a broader view of what I'm working on by assembling the pieces together to see how they fit... which is all I'm actually doing here.
I well understand as I do very much the same thing. Such a review allows me to spot things I may have gotten incorrect or even have been sloppy with that I can easily correct while still in progress rather than after I've gotten everything completed.
__________________
STAR TREK: 1964-1991, 2013-?
Warped9 is offline  
Old February 17 2009, 07:07 PM   #759
CuttingEdge100
Commodore
 
CuttingEdge100's Avatar
 
Re: Another fan attempt at TOS deck plans

Shaw,
Are we talking about TOS? I only recall fusion being brought up in relation to the engines at one point in time... when Kirk was talking about overloading the Constellation's impulse engines...
The creators of TOS also talked about fusion being used for the impulse-engines and fusion used for the impulse-drives.

"The Enterprise has a secondary propulsion system. These are the impulse engines (same principle as rocket power), located at the rear of the "saucer section." Vessel speed, when using the impulse engine, is less than the speed of light. In case of total failure of all engine power sources, the vessel's gravitational and life support systems can be switched to battery power, with a full-load capacity of about one week."
It would take a hell of a lot of energy to generate an artificial gravity field, and inertial dampening and stuff. Those must be some amazing batteries...

But as an interesting sidebar, how much hydrogen do you think one would need to create an approximately 100 megaton explosion? A hint... the largest fusion based bomb ever exploded was the Tsar hydrogen bomb which yielded about 50 megatons as I recall.
Truthfully speaking you're not just providing a huge burst of power for an explosion. You are producing a continuous explosion for very long periods of time...

Keep in mind the ship is stated to weigh around 190,000 tons, though I'm not entirely sure, but it's a very large massive object. To accelerate and hold the kinds of speeds mentioned it would need some heavy duty thrust pushing it along.

Granted there is probably some kind of mass-reduction device or some kind of sublight-warp drive or a gravitational flywheel or whatever that might allow it to accelerate better, but such a device would require energy in it's own right. It would allow the impulse engines to be less powerful, however.

But you are right... there are lots of places for fuel storage if you wanted to use them that way. I would suggest this diagram when hunting for those spaces.


The grey-to-black areas on the individual decks represent space too short for standard personnel deck use... but would be just fine for equipment and storage. I plan on leaving a lot of that type of space open for others to interpret it as they want.
[/quote]

I don't know if all of these spaces would be used for fuel storage. The ship has batteries as you said, there are the phaser equipment and phaser-banks and shield generators. However there probably would still be a great deal of space.


CuttingEdge100
CuttingEdge100 is offline  
Old February 17 2009, 07:57 PM   #760
BK613
Captain
 
BK613's Avatar
 
Location: BK613
Re: Another fan attempt at TOS deck plans

CuttingEdge100 wrote: View Post
Shaw,
Are we talking about TOS? I only recall fusion being brought up in relation to the engines at one point in time... when Kirk was talking about overloading the Constellation's impulse engines...
The creators of TOS also talked about fusion being used for the impulse-engines and fusion used for the impulse-drives.
I wonder what they do with the helium? Expend it?
__________________
-------------------
"The single biggest problem with communication is the illusion that it has taken place." - George Bernard Shaw
BK613 is offline  
Old February 17 2009, 08:46 PM   #761
Shaw
Commodore
 
Shaw's Avatar
 
Location: Twin Cities
Re: Another fan attempt at TOS deck plans

CuttingEdge100 wrote: View Post
The creators of TOS also talked about fusion being used for the impulse-engines and fusion used for the impulse-drives.
And yet the smartest thing they did was avoid getting specific on the show. These were generally good writers and not great scientists or engineers. Their consultants would have told them to keep it vague, and during the series they did.

It would take a hell of a lot of energy to generate an artificial gravity field, and inertial dampening and stuff. Those must be some amazing batteries...
Based on your Victorian Era view of science?

At a certain point this becomes a pointless discussion in which neither of us cavemen of the past can see beyond our stone knives and bear skines. You're more than 200 years in the past attempting to decide what can and can't work in the future.

Do you know how artificial gravity works?

We don't have it today, so none of us seem to know. But if you want to figure out how much power is needed, consider this... gravity as seen in TOS might be nothing more than giving objects within a couple meters of the deck the potential energy they might have had at that distance above the surface of the earth.

Lets do a thought experiment... You have a 1 kg ball sitting on a desk 1 meter high onboard the Starship Enterprise. How much energy is the ship's artificial gravity expending on that ball as it sits (at rest) in that position? If the ball rolls off the desk, how much energy must the ball have as it leaves the edge for it to move towards the floor with the same acceleration as it would have in similar circumstances if this had happen on the surface of the Earth?

One could think of artificial gravity as giving variable amounts of potential energy to objects as they change their distance from the floor and converting that potential energy into kinetic energy if they are in free fall. And inertial dampening might be the same thing only in different directions and designed to cancel the odd moments of kinetic energy relative to the ship.

Here is something even more interesting than playing with the physics of the future, I've found that most people aren't up to dealing with the physics of today. If you ask them how their computer works you'd most likely get a commentary about how well they think their computer works. I doubt that hardly anyone here knows about the solid state physics used to make the processors, memory and the like in their systems... or even how a transistor works.

But then again, they don't need to understand any of that to work with computers... computers are a black box for most people, and all they care about is that they work in a consistent fashion. And that is how most everything works on the Enterprise for it's crew.

I think you should study this post. Because the content of that post is going to be my answer to any time you say "well, we know this". Frankly, we know next to nothing.

Truthfully speaking you're not just providing a huge burst of power for an explosion. You are producing a continuous explosion for very long periods of time...
Truthfully speaking I was ONLY talking about what would be needed for that explosion and nothing else.

I dismissed your assumptions and dismiss these new ones as the idol thoughts of someone trapped in the past (which just happens to look like today). You know nothing of the future so you aren't in a position to say things can or can't work (time to re-read this post again).

But lets play the physics games for one more moment... what is thrust? Isn't it conservation of momentum (or energy). You expel something in one direction and you move in the opposite direction (proportional to the relative masses and velocities). If the Enterprise is 190,000 (metric) tons (for the sake of argument), then to get the ship up to 1 meter per second, how fast would it have to expel a single hydrogen atom? Now remember that at very high velocities the mass of the hydrogen atom is going to increase due to the effects of relativity.

What if you want the ship to go faster? You could increase the velocity of the hydrogen atom or you could add a couple more into the mix.

No continuous explosion... just a few atoms pushed into space.

But as I said before, this is not the thread for that type of thing... I think another thread on theorizing what might or might not work for technologies beyond our lifetimes would be appropriate. It is an interesting exercise, but not for this thread.

Besides, if you could think a way to make it work today, then that can't be how it will be done in the future!
Shaw is offline  
Old February 17 2009, 08:56 PM   #762
Chemahkuu
Vice Admiral
 
Chemahkuu's Avatar
 
Location: United Kingdom
Send a message via Yahoo to Chemahkuu
Re: Another fan attempt at TOS deck plans

^I'm not sure how much you consider Enterprise to be canon, but the episode featuring the Constitution Class Defiant showed a unit of the artificial gravity system.

Each corridor or certain ones, had gravity units that generated an effect for a given area of the ship only, when shut down caused one deck or one section (much like the compartmental structure you've shown) to lose gravity, without effecting the ones above, below or around.

So you're idea of a system of localised units giving an "effect" of an unspecific nature in terms of our science seems to be how they do it. The units are behind shielded hatches on the floors and seem to be connected to a power grid but obviously not the mains as we've seen that go offline without loss of gravity before. So either generators or "batteries" of a sort.
__________________
"But there's no sense crying over every mistake. You just keep on trying till you run out of cake."
Chemahkuu is offline  
Old February 17 2009, 08:59 PM   #763
Warped9
Admiral
 
Warped9's Avatar
 
Location: Brockville, Ontario, Canada
Re: Another fan attempt at TOS deck plans

As I understand it gravity is a product of mass. And so the trick of any artificial gravity system (with the exception of centrifugal force which isn't actually gravity) is to create the effect of mass yet without the actual mass. If you want a 1g gravity field then you have to replicate an Earth equivalent in planetary mass yet without the planet.

We could well be talking about some manner of exotic matter here. Or possibly exotic energy. For an artificial gravity system you don't actually have to have a gravity field pulling you down at 1g--you could just as easily have a negative gravity field pushing you down at 1g.

Candidly I've come to believe that with the examples of gravity manipulation we've seen in TOS it wouldn't surprise if both the impulse drive and the tractor beam as well as deflector beams are actually forms of gravity manipulation at work. Note the impulse engines only appear to face rearward and yet we've seen the ship put into reverse on impulse--how can that be if the impulse engines are strictly a form of reaction drive? But a gravity drive or even better a negative gravity drive could push the ship in any direction. Indeed this is actually the very kind of stardrive I've adopted for my own original fast relativistic starship design.
__________________
STAR TREK: 1964-1991, 2013-?
Warped9 is offline  
Old February 17 2009, 09:06 PM   #764
Chemahkuu
Vice Admiral
 
Chemahkuu's Avatar
 
Location: United Kingdom
Send a message via Yahoo to Chemahkuu
Re: Another fan attempt at TOS deck plans

^Weren't the main sublight engines of the Excalibur in Crusade a triangular arrangement of gravity engines working together to propel the ship?
__________________
"But there's no sense crying over every mistake. You just keep on trying till you run out of cake."
Chemahkuu is offline  
Old February 17 2009, 09:36 PM   #765
Shaw
Commodore
 
Shaw's Avatar
 
Location: Twin Cities
Re: Another fan attempt at TOS deck plans

Chemahkuu,

I actually like (and very much enjoyed) Enterprise, and liked their recreation of the Defiant. But for the most part, I'm mainly exploring whether or not Jefferies' views of this during the pilots and original run of the series works out nicely or not.

I, obviously, have my own theories on lots of this stuff... but I'm trying to keep those some what separate from what I'm attempting here.




Warped9 wrote: View Post
As I understand it gravity is a product of mass.
Gravity is an accelerated reference frame. So as long as you are in a reference frame of constant acceleration, you'll experience gravity... with all the relativistic effects one would associate with that magnitude of gravity.

The foundations of Einstein's General Theory of Relativity are based on thought experiments about what really is gravity. If you were in a room in the middle of nowhere, no large bodies near by, and the room was accelerating at a constant 9.8 meters per second per second, there is no experiment you could do within that room to differentiate between the gravitational effect of a planet like the Earth or the constant acceleration of the room in empty space.

Mass happens to distort space-time near sufficiently large bodies to give those regions the characteristics of an accelerated frame of reference. And the accelerated frame of reference is really our only experience with gravity, and would be the only thing needed to be replicated for artificial gravity.

What is often overlooked is that General Relativity wasn't just a theory of gravity, it was intended to fill in the (rather large) holes left open by Special Relativity (which only works for reference frames of constant velocity... something that doesn't really happen much in the real world, hence the Special part of the name).

I love the subject of gravity, and it was the attractive force ( ) that pulled me first into physics and finally into mathematics (because physics programs do an awful job teaching the differential geometry and differential topology needed for a truly deep study of the subject... sorry for the rant about physics programs ).
Shaw 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 11:31 AM.

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