RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 138,176
Posts: 5,345,058
Members: 24,603
Currently online: 576
Newest member: Counselor X

TrekToday headlines

Klingon Beer Arrives In The US
By: T'Bonz on Jul 22

Star Trek: Prelude To Axanar
By: T'Bonz on Jul 22

Abrams Announces Star Wars: Force For Change Sweepstakes
By: T'Bonz on Jul 22

New Funko Trek Figure
By: T'Bonz on Jul 21

Saldana As A Role Model
By: T'Bonz on Jul 21

San Diego Comic-Con Trek Fan Guide
By: T'Bonz on Jul 21

Cumberbatch As Turing
By: T'Bonz on Jul 21

Retro Review: In the Pale Moonlight
By: Michelle on Jul 19

Trek Beach Towel
By: T'Bonz on Jul 18

Two New Starships Collection Releases
By: T'Bonz on Jul 17


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 May 18 2009, 02:53 AM   #196
Richard_2001
Cadet
 
Location: Washington State
Re: Another take on the Original Enterprise...

Mr. Brown,

Those pics are of the last restoration and the dish and the mount are not orginal, so the orientation is probably off.

I agree that the lowest rib is not ment to be short but the same as the others, thus has been broken at some point.

I would say that the main depression was slotted and the ribs are glued in like a dado joint, being a carpenter that is how I would do it anyway and that section of the ship is made of wood turned on a lathe so that method would work very easy.

Glad I could help you are most welcome.

Richard
Richard_2001 is offline  
Old May 19 2009, 03:00 AM   #197
Cary L. Brown
Rear Admiral
 
Location: Austin, Texas
Re: Another take on the Original Enterprise...

Okay, I've got the "sensor grillwork" done. Here, again, are the images provided (thanks again)...




And here is the version on my model.



Of course, the 11' model doesn't have detail on the other side, but I'm treating that as an oversight and having this detail mirrored there.

I think I'll do the aft p/s running lights next, and MAYBE do the station markings tonight (provided I'm not gonna miss much sleep over it!)
Cary L. Brown is offline  
Old May 19 2009, 03:19 AM   #198
Psion
Commodore
 
Psion's Avatar
 
Location: Lat: 40.1630936 Lon: -75.1183777
View Psion's Twitter Profile
Re: Another take on the Original Enterprise...

I love how you can get close enough to almost rub your hand on the hull and still see no sign of polygons with this software. I've worked with a half-dozen modeling packages over the years, but they've all been polygon-based and I'd inevitably build something that looked great at first until you put the camera real close and suddenly see straight lines and shallow angles where you're supposed to see a curve. I don't want to give up my software yet, but your pictures do amaze me.
__________________
Twinkies are back. I knew they couldn't stay away from me for long.
Psion is offline  
Old May 19 2009, 03:52 AM   #199
Cary L. Brown
Rear Admiral
 
Location: Austin, Texas
Re: Another take on the Original Enterprise...

Psion wrote: View Post
I love how you can get close enough to almost rub your hand on the hull and still see no sign of polygons with this software. I've worked with a half-dozen modeling packages over the years, but they've all been polygon-based and I'd inevitably build something that looked great at first until you put the camera real close and suddenly see straight lines and shallow angles where you're supposed to see a curve. I don't want to give up my software yet, but your pictures do amaze me.
Well, to be fair, it does RENDER polygonally (after all, that's the basis of OpenGL, which this package uses as its rendering core, as well as Direct3D and every other 3D rendering language out there). The interesting thing is that for my models, my rendering is actually faster with a "higher quality" setting, because with the lower-quality rendering settings (in-software), it takes longer to translate (something it has to do in real-time). I usually leave my "quality" setting for shaded rendering at about 7 (out of 10) which gives me... well, what you see here.

Internally, everything is handled mathematically, however. So a curved surface is defined by the math behind the shape, not by a series of vertices and triangle and so forth.

At a "quality" setting of 10, the geometry is basically rendered into OpenGL at "one triangle per screen pixel," while at 7, I'm pretty close to one vertex per pixel.

Now, there's a drawback to this, so don't get too excited. The size, and the processing time, for parametrically-defined solid model like this is tremendously larger than a similar-sized polygonal, or even NURBS, based model. Which means that if you want to do rendering, you start here, then export into a polygonal mode sufficient for your needs and use that to render.

I'm running the max memory available on a 32-bit system, yet my Vega, when all together, completely consumes the full available memory. In order to continue with that, I need a 64-bit OS and a lot more memory. Of course, once that's done, I can bring it out and into a rendering package, very easily. (OBJ format works beautifully, whereas the "CAD-flavored" translations I've tried to use... STEP, IGES, etc... result in some ugly imports, particularly in Maya.)

When doing that sort of export, you basically have to determine the resolution of your export, by determining minimum allowable chord lengths and angles. Since the edge of the primary hull is a major curve feature, I found that to get a good OBJ file, I used a minimal allowable chord of 0.05m, and a mimimum allowable angle between triangles of 0.2 degrees. The model you see, earlier in this thread, was done at that "export quality" level and the end result looked pretty nice, I think.

My point? CAD is great... because it gives you mathematically-precise shapes. But it's a system-killler, compared to the more commonly-used surface-based "rendering" modeling programs.
Cary L. Brown is offline  
Old May 19 2009, 04:22 AM   #200
CuttingEdge100
Commodore
 
CuttingEdge100's Avatar
 
Re: Another take on the Original Enterprise...

Cary L. Brown,

I'm noticing the secondary hull has a series of annular rings around various sections. Could this imply a modular construction. A series of sections all pre-fabricated then slapped together like the way they join an aircraft fuselage during construction?

The saucer, from what David Shaw mentioned on his thread showed the pressure-hull diagram for the saucer and it looked like it could be constructed in a variety of pre-fabricated segments then slapped together too.

That would make construction incredibly efficient and fast, and could be quite useful for large refits.


CuttingEdge100
CuttingEdge100 is offline  
Old May 19 2009, 05:03 AM   #201
Cary L. Brown
Rear Admiral
 
Location: Austin, Texas
Re: Another take on the Original Enterprise...

CuttingEdge100 wrote: View Post
Cary L. Brown,

I'm noticing the secondary hull has a series of annular rings around various sections. Could this imply a modular construction. A series of sections all pre-fabricated then slapped together like the way they join an aircraft fuselage during construction?

The saucer, from what David Shaw mentioned on his thread showed the pressure-hull diagram for the saucer and it looked like it could be constructed in a variety of pre-fabricated segments then slapped together too.

That would make construction incredibly efficient and fast, and could be quite useful for large refits.


CuttingEdge100
Well, that's an interesting suggestion. I don't see a problem with doing exterior hull shapes that way, though I'd be disinclined to have the actual "core structure" assembled in the same way, considering just how much stress the secondary hull really has to carry during extreme manuevers.

David's take, which I like, is that the primary hull is subdivided into "pressure compartments." I'm not sure if he's talking about building separate sections in different locations and strapping them all together, though. I get the impression he's thinking more in terms of how contemporary shipbuilding is done... where if you "hull" a portion of the ship, the other portions retain their environmental (and structural) integrity. If you build it as I think you're suggesting, I think you'd be compromising the overall strength of the structure.

A better model might be to look at a large ocean-going vessel. There are individual compartments, with watertight doors, throughout the ship. But there are also ... I can't recall the correct term here, so I hope someone else will chime in... but certain walls which are VERY heavy, reinforced, typically double-walled and double-hatched. The idea is that if one section of the ship is damaged, and even floods entirely, the remainder of the ship can still function.

I know that David is working from the "Pressure compartments" diagram. I don't believe that he's assuming that each pressure compartment was built in a different location and then "bolted together." And I'm certainly not presuming that, in any case, though I do like the idea of certain "watertight" sections of the ship being effectively independent from others.

(David, want to chime in on this? I don't want to misstate your position.)

As I see it, each of those regions can be sealed off and has its own local life-support system, which can't be lost if adjacent pressure compartment is compromised. (Again, this is one of my gripes with the nuEnterprise... particularly in the engineering section, but generally throughout the ship as we've seen it so far. There's no sign of "compartmentalization," whereas the TOS ship had clear indications of that (the trapezoidal "section doorways" you'd see in certain places, I always assumed were locations for section-isolation hatches).

I do like the idea of the hull being assembled in subelements, then those being assembled into the complete structure later. That's very much a parallel to how real vessels... particularly aircraft... are manufactured.

For instance, look at a large jetliner. While the midbody (including the primary wing spars) is not constructured in that sort of fashion, the remainder of the (lower-load-bearing) fuselage segments are built in exactly the manner you describe. For example, see this:



So I have no problem with that sort of construction technique being used. I'm a lot less sanguine about it being used for primary load-bearing elements, and I'm certainly not in favor if it being a "bolt-together-like-tinkertoys" approach, unless that's in a region that has no real load-bearing capability whatsoever.

There are several regions on the ship which meet that definition quite well, by the way. The actual hangar-deck portion of the ship carries no load other than that created by its own mass. Similarly, the uppermost and lowermost portions of the primary hull should be easily swapped out (and is, in fact, the reason I've adopted for the "concentric rings" on the underside primary hull). And since the deflector sees similarly low loading (except for pure-compressive loads which would be transferred, in my approach, directly into the secondary hull "keel" structure) it could be swapped out very easily as well.

What does this mean re: your suggestion? Basically... that the secondary hull "keel" and "strongback" elements cannot be compromised, and once the secondary hull "shell" elements were assembled, it would be a massive undertaking to strip them out (effectively requiring them to be ripped out wholesale). Just like you can't simply pop out a segment of a 747 once integrated.

That's my take...
Cary L. Brown is offline  
Old May 19 2009, 07:31 AM   #202
Shaw
Commodore
 
Shaw's Avatar
 
Location: Twin Cities
Re: Another take on the Original Enterprise...

Cary L. Brown wrote: View Post
(David, want to chime in on this? I don't want to misstate your position.)
The assembly by parts follows the same idea that you illustrated with the 747 assembly and I used this similar set of images of the construction of the Bush...


But once assembled and integrated into the ship's structure there are key elements that can not be taken apart without significantly compromising the integrity of the ship itself. This is the same type of thing that happens with our carriers when being overhauled... to remove the engines it is better to cut through a number of decks, the hangar and the flight deck than to compromise the hull itself by cutting through it.

In that way, while I see some of the areas of the primary hull as replaceable (the outer most ring and upper and lower elements), with the secondary hull I see only a few removable elements within and all of them having to be extracted via the flight deck doors (by cutting through the back wall of the flight deck) so as not to compromise the structure of the outer hull.

The main reason for having the compartment boundaries associated with the assembly of the hull sections in my case is so that internal operations can get started during assembly. This isn't an issue for naval ships (as seen above) because they don't have to worry about maintaining an internal atmosphere during construction.

______________


As a side note, I'd point out to everyone the water and fuel storage areas beside and below the lowest deck of the carrier images above. That area is analogous to what Cary described here:
"The combination of the "strongback" and the "keel" is what gives the secondary hull it's mechanical strength. The "strongback" will essentially be subdivided into a series of very small compartments... which makes it perfect for fluid or bulk-particulate material storage (containers being strung between the structural members, not actually being made up OF the structural members)."
This is the type of well thought out engineering that makes this a great project to follow.
Shaw is offline  
Old May 19 2009, 11:16 AM   #203
Icy_Penguigo
Captain
 
Icy_Penguigo's Avatar
 
Location: Tacoma, WA, USA
Re: Another take on the Original Enterprise...

Cary: I haven't spoken up so far in this thread....but I have been following it religiously. I just wanted to say, this has been one of the single most fascinating Star Trek art projects I've ever had the pleasure to witness. You, and many others in this thread, have had extremely interesting and thoughtful insights, and I sincerely hope you can find the time and will to carry it to completion. The Enterprise has never been so real! Hats off to you, sir. Thank you for sharing this amazing work with us so far.
__________________
The Star Fleet Universe:

http://www.starfleetgames.com/federation/
Icy_Penguigo is offline  
Old May 19 2009, 03:53 PM   #204
Psion
Commodore
 
Psion's Avatar
 
Location: Lat: 40.1630936 Lon: -75.1183777
View Psion's Twitter Profile
Re: Another take on the Original Enterprise...

Shaw, I love those images of the Bush. Do you have any more you could share with us or post a link to your source?


Hmmm ... it almost sounds like I'm asking for porn.
__________________
Twinkies are back. I knew they couldn't stay away from me for long.
Psion is offline  
Old May 19 2009, 06:03 PM   #205
Shaw
Commodore
 
Shaw's Avatar
 
Location: Twin Cities
Re: Another take on the Original Enterprise...

Psion wrote: View Post
Shaw, I love those images of the Bush. Do you have any more you could share with us or post a link to your source?
My collection came from a number of sources, but the majority of images (and majority of the best images) came from this article:
Building the Bush
In Chapter 6 there is a diagram of the pieces that were prefabricated and assembled.

I don't know if carriers are the best comparative vehicles to starships, but I know I have a sentimental attachment to them (this was less than a mile from my high school)... specially to the Kitty Hawk and Constellation.
Shaw is offline  
Old May 19 2009, 06:38 PM   #206
Cary L. Brown
Rear Admiral
 
Location: Austin, Texas
Re: Another take on the Original Enterprise...

Shaw wrote: View Post
I don't know if carriers are the best comparative vehicles to starships, but I know I have a sentimental attachment to them (this was less than a mile from my high school)... specially to the Kitty Hawk and Constellation.
Well, the parallels are (at least to my mind) far closer than the differences.

The reason that you build things this way, instead of "building it all at once," is just a simple matter of scale. It's damned difficult to build an unsupported frame all at once. Construction in "slices" or "chunks" allows you to get all the details right in one area, with a much more narrow focus, than you might have otherwise.

The challenge is in ensuring that the various segments are, in fact, able to be integrated... which means that the various points where they'll be joined must be held to pretty close tolerances. The size of the "chunks" ultimately comes down to "how much ability to flex, during integration, do you need?

The same basic requirement drives the use of this in shipbuilding and in aerospace, by the way - that is, the desirability of being able to break a massive assembly down into manageable, bite-sized pieces.

Granted, I'm sure that in the future, there will be new technologies which are either improvements upon, or entirely new concepts we've yet to really envision, for manufacturing. But regardless of the tools being used, the idea of breaking a big thing down into more manageable smaller things is, I think, always going to be advantageous.

A starship is a very big thing.
Cary L. Brown is offline  
Old May 19 2009, 06:42 PM   #207
Praetor
Vice Admiral
 
Praetor's Avatar
 
Location: The fine line between continuity and fanwank.
Re: Another take on the Original Enterprise...

Thanks for those links, Shaw! What awesome high school lunch periods you must've had.

I just learned that there's a group here in North Carolina that wants to get the Kitty Hawk after she's decommissioned to add to the U.S.S. North Carolina museum in Wilmington. In would cost mucho dinero to move it and dredge it out a berth and all (and it won't happen til after 2015) but it would be awesome.

Regarding the modular dilemma - why not build the ship in modules in smaller hangars on Earth, assemble those sub-assemblies into the basic hull components, then assemble the whole thing in orbit? Shouldn't that take care of integration issues?
__________________
"If you can't take a little bloody nose, maybe you ought to go back home and crawl under your bed. It's not safe out here. It's wondrous, with treasures to satiate desires both subtle and gross; but it's not for the timid." - Q
Praetor is offline  
Old May 19 2009, 06:56 PM   #208
Cary L. Brown
Rear Admiral
 
Location: Austin, Texas
Re: Another take on the Original Enterprise...

Praetor wrote: View Post
Thanks for those links, Shaw! What awesome high school lunch periods you must've had.

I just learned that there's a group here in North Carolina that wants to get the Kitty Hawk after she's decommissioned to add to the U.S.S. North Carolina museum in Wilmington. In would cost mucho dinero to move it and dredge it out a berth and all (and it won't happen til after 2015) but it would be awesome.

Regarding the modular dilemma - why not build the ship in modules in smaller hangars on Earth, assemble those sub-assemblies into the basic hull components, then assemble the whole thing in orbit? Shouldn't that take care of integration issues?
That is, of course, essentially what was described by the TOS production staff (a fair number of whom were prior-military-service types, and I'm sure that at least a few were very familiar with naval construction techniques)... ie, that the Enterprise was built as components on Earth and then assembled in orbit.

The general assumption has always broken it down by "saucer, cigar, nacelles" as being the components which were built on Earth, but there's no practical reason it couldn't be as we're discussing.
Cary L. Brown is offline  
Old May 19 2009, 07:35 PM   #209
Psion
Commodore
 
Psion's Avatar
 
Location: Lat: 40.1630936 Lon: -75.1183777
View Psion's Twitter Profile
Re: Another take on the Original Enterprise...

Shaw wrote: View Post
Psion wrote: View Post
Shaw, I love those images of the Bush. Do you have any more you could share with us or post a link to your source?
My collection came from a number of sources, but the majority of images (and majority of the best images) came from this article:
Building the Bush
In Chapter 6 there is a diagram of the pieces that were prefabricated and assembled.

I don't know if carriers are the best comparative vehicles to starships, but I know I have a sentimental attachment to them (this was less than a mile from my high school)... specially to the Kitty Hawk and Constellation.
Thank you, Shaw. This sort of material is not only fascinating on a personal level, but helpful for a side-project I'm working on involving a wet-navy ship.

And I'd also argue that carriers are a fine comparison for starships like the Enterprise. The original series never seemed very distant from them. The hero ship was named after one of the most famous carriers of World War II and the first nuclear-powered aircraft carrier. Her sister-ships bore carrier names, and the size was often compared to a carrier. So, fictionally -- not from a real world engineering standpoint, but metaphorically or from a story-telling perspective -- the Enterprise should be built like a carrier.

Cary L. Brown wrote: View Post
That is, of course, essentially what was described by the TOS production staff (a fair number of whom were prior-military-service types, and I'm sure that at least a few were very familiar with naval construction techniques)... ie, that the Enterprise was built as components on Earth and then assembled in orbit.

The general assumption has always broken it down by "saucer, cigar, nacelles" as being the components which were built on Earth, but there's no practical reason it couldn't be as we're discussing.
I'd take it further. You know that grid everyone since Franz Joseph calls the "deflector grid" on the primary hull? I think those are the construction seams. The saucer was assembled from pie slices and the secondary hull went together as cylindrical slices.
__________________
Twinkies are back. I knew they couldn't stay away from me for long.
Psion is offline  
Old May 19 2009, 09:28 PM   #210
sojourner
Vice Admiral
 
sojourner's Avatar
 
Location: I'm at WKRP
Re: Another take on the Original Enterprise...

Well, not even modern ships have construction marks left over that are that noticable. Here are some picks from the time I spent working on final outfitting of the Navigator of the Seas cruise ship. The first 4 pics are of the Mariner of the Seas being assembled just in front of the Navigator. If they wanted to they could have pumped these out at the rate of one per year. As it is Royal Caribbean only paid for 5 of this class. I served as a Systems Manager aboard Navigator for 2 years after completion. The last pic is the server room under construction. My desk is on the left, hehe. Probably the closest I will come to serving aboard a federation ship.
(click on images for full size)






Sorry if this has hijacked the thread too much, but I have been dying for an excuse to post these.
__________________
Baby, you and me were never meant to be, just maybe think of me once in a while...

Last edited by sojourner; May 19 2009 at 09:33 PM. Reason: replaced full images with thumbs
sojourner 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 12:20 PM.

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