RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 138,397
Posts: 5,358,502
Members: 24,627
Currently online: 493
Newest member: space2050

TrekToday headlines

Star Trek: Prelude to Axanar Online Debut
By: T'Bonz on Jul 31

Warp 5.0: Trek Toward Sci-Fi’s Golden Anniversary
By: T'Bonz on Jul 31

Takei To Host Pittsburgh Symphony PNC Pops’ Sci-Fi Spectacular
By: T'Bonz on Jul 31

Kurtzman In Mummy Talks
By: T'Bonz on Jul 31

The Gene Roddenberry Project Kickstarter
By: T'Bonz on Jul 30

Moore: No Deep Space Nine Regrets
By: T'Bonz on Jul 30

Pegg Star Wars Rumor
By: T'Bonz on Jul 30

Borg Cube Fridge
By: T'Bonz on Jul 29

Free Enterprise Kickstarter
By: T'Bonz on Jul 29

Siddig To Join Game Of Thrones
By: T'Bonz on Jul 29


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 19 2009, 10:51 PM   #211
Cary L. Brown
Rear Admiral
 
Location: Austin, Texas
Re: Another take on the Original Enterprise...

sojourner wrote: View Post
Sorry if this has hijacked the thread too much, but I have been dying for an excuse to post these.
FYI, I don't consider this "hijacking" at all, since it's really on-topic... the thread being focused on demonstrating the most "real" version of Enterprise I can come up with (only using "magic generators" when there are glaring holes in our knowledge of real science).

The "how would the ship be constructed" idea is, really, fairly central to the thread topic.

In my case, I assume that the main "keel" structure (secondary hull "core," dorsal, pylons, and aftmost "wedge" of the primary hull) will be constructed independently, as one structure. From there, modular construction of the sort we're talking about would take over.

For the primary hull, we'd see a central core, and (as mentioned above) a series of "pie wedges." I'm not sure that the lines on the hull are necessarily "weld lines," though I don't object to that idea, either (it really depends on whether or not you treat the primary hull surface as painted or unpainted, I think... since I'm sure that the welds would be so fine as to visually imperceptible unless you were right on top of them if you were relying on "weld bump/groove" detection!)

I envision the primary hull "wedges" being a series of flat structural sections forming radial ribs. The "flats" would be most easily built on a large planar surface in a gravity well, of course (preferably at the San Francisco Naval Yards). And, given an appropriate "cradle," I can see the wedges assembled on the ground as well. This "common structural elements" theme is part of what I actually really liked about F.J's design strategy... one production facility able to support, without reconfiguration, components for a variety of spaceframes.

Now, for the secondary hull... I do envision a series of flat "rings" constructed (and partially internally populated) which are then strung over the keel and joined to both.

The dorsal deck structure would be considered part of the keel, so that would be in the primary construction stage, however.

As for nacelles... well, that's sort of tricky. It's nice to consider the idea of "hot-swappable" nacelles, but I'm not convinced that's the best idea, given the attachment method. If we DO use that general concept, the pylon "beam structure" definitely needs to extend all the way through the nacelle body, through a "receiver" in the nacelle structure at that location. In other words... it's not just "unbolt and remove". Rather, you have to do significant disassembly to the nacelle in the attachment region. (I tend to lean towards the big red rectangle on the nacelle underside as being a "cut on the dotted line" indicator for this purpose. )
Cary L. Brown is offline  
Old May 19 2009, 11:32 PM   #212
sojourner
Vice Admiral
 
sojourner's Avatar
 
Location: I'm at WKRP
Re: Another take on the Original Enterprise...

Yea, I tried to do a "plating mounted to structure" on the Capella model I am building. Unfortunately it doesn't show up at all unless really close in and thats with 1/2' thick plates with a 1" gap between them! In fact, I will probably go back and redo the "deflector grid" as a raised half circle crossection and ditch the plates.

__________________
Baby, you and me were never meant to be, just maybe think of me once in a while...
sojourner is offline  
Old May 20 2009, 12:54 AM   #213
Cary L. Brown
Rear Admiral
 
Location: Austin, Texas
Re: Another take on the Original Enterprise...

sojourner wrote: View Post
Yea, I tried to do a "plating mounted to structure" on the Capella model I am building. Unfortunately it doesn't show up at all unless really close in and thats with 1/2' thick plates with a 1" gap between them! In fact, I will probably go back and redo the "deflector grid" as a raised half circle crossection and ditch the plates.
Very interesting...

The ultimate question is... "what are those lines." I do like the idea that F.J. came up with, but not in the way it's often been portrayed.

The thing to think about when you see that sort of line is "wave guides." I see these features as channels, part of the hull, whose purpose is to help the energy of the "skin field."

Let me explain for anyone not familiar with what I'm talking about. The Enterprise, in TOS, and most explicitly described in TMP, had two defense systems... a "second skin" forcefield, and a distant-from-the-hull, gravity-based "deflector." Deflectors and shields were not really the same thing. When you see the TNG-era "ovoid"... that's equivalent to what I'm calling the deflector screen.

How does this work?

Well, you have this deflector screen (remember, we often hear about raising "screens and shields") which basically serves to dissipate and, yes, deflect, incoming weaponry. Instead of an intense beam of energy hitting one spot on the hull, you get a refracted beam which may miss entirely, or may spread some portion of its energy across a wide region of hull rather than a single spot (almost certainly with some portion missing entirely in any case). For projectile weapons, a torpedo would effectively be pushed off-course as it hit the screen, which would usually be sufficient to cause it to miss.

Anything which is not deflected by this system, and which impinges on the hull, doesn't hit the physical hull, however... instead, it hits the shield... aka the "forcefield"... essentially the energy-based second-skin. It inflicts damage on that, rather than on the physical hull. Only if it completely overpowers that system and penetrates it does the hull see an impact... in which case, of course, the hull is pretty tough as well, and has self-sealing properties for small punctures. I assume a pocketed/compartmentalized layer of two fluids, separated by a barrier, which when penetrated (and allowed to come into contact) forms a fast-curing (and able to cure in vacuum) expanding foam. Think "Great Stuff" plumbers foam, but taken to an extreme, basically.

(Side note.. the "foam to seal hull leaks" concept isn't original to me. The first time I ever saw this done was on Blake's Seven... one of the best shows ever, and one deserving of a good revisitation, though I suspect the recent attempt to revisit it will end up like most "reboots" go... it'll miss the good stuff and keep the stuff we could afford to lose, in other words.)

Anyway... back to the "gridwork."

I see that gridwork as being a series of waveguide "channels" in the hull, which serve to help that "skin field" flow more effectively over the hull, evening out areas which (without that grid) might see insufficient coverage. Basically, the "shield grid" (not "deflector grid") doesn't actually generate the shield, it ensures that the shield doesn't have weak spots.

Because of this approach, well... I figure that the size of the channels would scale with the size of the vessel (it makes sense... if you assume several centralized generators have to "flow" the shield across wide areas. The bigger the "rivers" you have for that flow, the faster the "water" of the shields flows through them.

In my (oft-referenced) Vega, I used pretty huge channels... 0.25m diameter circular cuts into the hull surface. For a smaller ship, I'd use smaller grooves. Since this thread isn't about the Vega class, I won't post the full-size image, but here's a thumbnail, which you can click (a couple of times... damned ImageShack... ) to see the full-size image. I think this works quite nicely, personally...


Now, re: the Enterprise... I don't plan on implementing anything like that. I could never see the gridlines on my set. They were basically light pencil lines, and I think it's pretty evident that they were never intended to be seen on-screen. Rather, I think that they were "construction lines" for helping to lay down lettering and so forth... placing details which COULD be seen on-screen. (Anyone who's done old-style manual drafting knows what I'm talking about when I discuss "construction lines"... but for those who don't, they're basically features which are drawn, only to be erased later, which help you line things up properly in a manner other than "just eyeballing it.")
Cary L. Brown is offline  
Old May 20 2009, 01:10 AM   #214
USS Mariner
Rear Admiral
 
USS Mariner's Avatar
 
Location: Homestate of Matt Jefferies
View USS Mariner's Twitter Profile Send a message via AIM to USS Mariner Send a message via Windows Live Messenger to USS Mariner
Re: Another take on the Original Enterprise...

FYI, you can easily link the images directly to the thumbnail, with no middleman screen in between.
__________________
Ignorance is forgivable,
Arrogance is reprehensible,
Narcissism is intolerable.

Subspace Commns Network ~ Visit Marinina!
USS Mariner is offline  
Old May 20 2009, 01:50 AM   #215
CTM
Lieutenant Commander
 
CTM's Avatar
 
Location: The exact center of my universe
Re: Another take on the Original Enterprise...

What about a Whipple Shield? I see it as likely a fairly standard practice. The pressure hull is offset some distance inside the visible hull (doesn't have to be much) allowing high-speed particles to impact the shield and expend most of their energy against the outside, and spreading out the energy over a larger area inside the shield. If something gets through the deflectors, shields, screens, and all the other semi-fictional defensive systems, the last barrier before reaching the vital pressure hull would be the Whipple Shield.

A good photo of a Whipple Shield is here: http://hitf.jsc.nasa.gov/hitfpub/shi...pleshield.html
You can see the impact test on the right panel, and the vaporized residue that did not penetrate the inner hull on the left. Separation is only a few inches.
CTM is offline  
Old May 20 2009, 02:44 AM   #216
Firebird
Lieutenant
 
Firebird's Avatar
 
Location: Omaha, to the west of the Starfleet Shipyards
Re: Another take on the Original Enterprise...

Cary, I've gotta echo some of the sentiments expressed thus far. You are doing FANTASTIC work on this project! It's great to see a more "realistic" technical approach to building the Enterprise. I can't wait to see how your, and Shaw's interpretations of the Big-E turn out.
__________________
I will put this as succinctly as possible - get me the hell out of here!
Firebird is offline  
Old May 20 2009, 03:11 AM   #217
Cary L. Brown
Rear Admiral
 
Location: Austin, Texas
Re: Another take on the Original Enterprise...

CTM wrote: View Post
What about a Whipple Shield? I see it as likely a fairly standard practice. The pressure hull is offset some distance inside the visible hull (doesn't have to be much) allowing high-speed particles to impact the shield and expend most of their energy against the outside, and spreading out the energy over a larger area inside the shield. If something gets through the deflectors, shields, screens, and all the other semi-fictional defensive systems, the last barrier before reaching the vital pressure hull would be the Whipple Shield.

A good photo of a Whipple Shield is here: http://hitf.jsc.nasa.gov/hitfpub/shi...pleshield.html
You can see the impact test on the right panel, and the vaporized residue that did not penetrate the inner hull on the left. Separation is only a few inches.
I've never heard the term "whipple" before, but the concept of laminated armor (dissipating energy at layer boundaries) is certainly a well-known, and very effective, concept. Where does the term "whipple" come from, if you don't mind my asking?

There are really two forms of armor... the "impenetrable, super-hard, super-tough, super-dense" type, and the "dissipation of energy" type. Interestingly, the first is generally less effective than the second... because there's no such thing as "impenetrable."

Probably the most effective tank-killer weapons are generally what are called "Sabot" rounds. They fire as though they were a normal shell,then discard the "sabot" (an outer shell), transferring virtually all of the energy into a single, hypervelocity carbide needle. When it impacts an old-fashioned armor plate, it simply liquefies that plate. The term "hot knife through butter" really applies very well.

I remember seeing a sabot round test once... with a live (animal) test subject inside the target vehicle. Inspecting the vehicle after the impact, you found a smallish hole at the impact point... a slightly larger "exit wound"... and literally NOTHING remaining inside the hulk. There was no evidence that the animal had ever been in there... totally vaporized and "sucked out" the "exit wound" on the vehicle.

How do you defeat something like that? Well, two methods are typically used... ideally, in combination. First... laminar armor, where the outer layer accepts the majority of the energy-transfer, and the inner layer protects from the outer layer. But this isn't sufficient most of the time. So, they use something called "reactive armor." What this is... is actually a layer of explosive strapped to the exterior of the tank, over the armor. Sounds crazy, on the surface, huh? Except... the explosive charge "defocuses" the energy of the projectile, and can prevent it from penetrating the vehicle. It's remarkably effective.

Your suggestion... what you're calling "whipple" armor... is, I think, a required element of ANY starship hull construction. Even if you're not concerned about going into combat, space is so filled with hazards that it would be almost insane NOT to use that sort of construction.

I believe, by the way, that Sternbach and Okuda had something similar in mind (not sure, since it's so technibabblish, if their solution would actually WORK, but I know that's part of what they were steering for) when they described the multi-layer hull construction of the 1701-D in the TNG Tech Manual.

In my case... my hull thickness is a nice, uniform 0.357 meters (actually, it's a bit above that, but I think three places is sufficient for this conversation!) That's approximately 26". Since my structure is really more based upon internal structure than any "monocoque" form of construction (as modern airliners tend to be, carrying most of their strength in the skin and associated "stringers"), realize that most of this is for exactly that sort of purpose... the "skin" of the ship is there to protect the stuff inside, not to provide the shape or the strength of the ship. I could easily have gone with a much thinner skin, as a result, except that yeah, I was thinking along the same lines you are.
Cary L. Brown is offline  
Old May 20 2009, 03:48 AM   #218
FalTorPan
Vice Admiral
 
FalTorPan's Avatar
 
Location: Out there... thataway.
Re: Another take on the Original Enterprise...

Cary L. Brown wrote: View Post
In my case... my hull thickness is a nice, uniform 0.357 meters (actually, it's a bit above that, but I think three places is sufficient for this conversation!) That's approximately 26".
This has been a fascinating thread, but I'm in number-crunching mode, and I couldn't help but notice that 0.357 meters is about 14.1 inches. 26 inches works out to about 0.66 meters.
__________________
Watch ASTRONUTS! Visit Trekplace! Check out my personal website!
FalTorPan is offline  
Old May 20 2009, 03:54 AM   #219
CTM
Lieutenant Commander
 
CTM's Avatar
 
Location: The exact center of my universe
Re: Another take on the Original Enterprise...

Cary L. Brown wrote: View Post
CTM wrote: View Post
What about a Whipple Shield? I see it as likely a fairly standard practice. The pressure hull is offset some distance inside the visible hull (doesn't have to be much) allowing high-speed particles to impact the shield and expend most of their energy against the outside, and spreading out the energy over a larger area inside the shield. If something gets through the deflectors, shields, screens, and all the other semi-fictional defensive systems, the last barrier before reaching the vital pressure hull would be the Whipple Shield.

A good photo of a Whipple Shield is here: http://hitf.jsc.nasa.gov/hitfpub/shi...pleshield.html
You can see the impact test on the right panel, and the vaporized residue that did not penetrate the inner hull on the left. Separation is only a few inches.
I've never heard the term "whipple" before, but the concept of laminated armor (dissipating energy at layer boundaries) is certainly a well-known, and very effective, concept. Where does the term "whipple" come from, if you don't mind my asking?
...
Fred Lawrence Whipple. His "Meteor Bumper" or more formally "Whipple Shield" is explained here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whipple_shield Be sure to follow the off-wiki links to NASA's demos of the Whipple Shield pen-tests.
CTM is offline  
Old May 20 2009, 03:58 AM   #220
Psion
Commodore
 
Psion's Avatar
 
Location: Lat: 40.1630936 Lon: -75.1183777
View Psion's Twitter Profile
Re: Another take on the Original Enterprise...

sojourner wrote: View Post
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.
Absolutely no offense is intended, Sojourner, but those pictures are a bit muddy and have a subject very evenly lit. A lot of detail gets washed out in those conditions. If you check out the Bush construction photos provided in Shaw's link, you can see the seams very clearly even on the painted hull. Of course, your point isn't lost. At a distance, you can't make out the seams, and that's my point about the original Starship Enterprise: no one saw the penciled-in seams (although somehow FJ did and exaggerated them for his drawings). So it was an extremely fine seam left as each pie section was joined to its neighbors. "Gamma-welded" doncha know?

I'm not sure I buy Cary's theory about waveguides, but it does provide an explanation for the change in texture of the vessel by the time The Motion Picture roles around. We go from practically invisible grid markings to deep insets. Sulu remarks after the first whiplash bolt from V'Ger hits and dissolves, "The new screens held!" Maybe there's something to these new details being part of the defensive system upgrades. We see a similar change in texture on the Klingon ships, too. Maybe the screens were uneven, new technology when NCC-1701 was built and waveguides improved their reliability.

And here's some background on Mr. Whipple. No, not the Charmin guy!

EDIT: Ah ... I see CTM has beaten me to the last point.
__________________
Twinkies are back. I knew they couldn't stay away from me for long.

Last edited by Psion; May 20 2009 at 04:00 AM. Reason: A certain junior grade lieutenant has fast fingers.
Psion is offline  
Old May 20 2009, 04:33 AM   #221
Cary L. Brown
Rear Admiral
 
Location: Austin, Texas
Re: Another take on the Original Enterprise...

FalTorPan wrote: View Post
Cary L. Brown wrote: View Post
In my case... my hull thickness is a nice, uniform 0.357 meters (actually, it's a bit above that, but I think three places is sufficient for this conversation!) That's approximately 26".
This has been a fascinating thread, but I'm in number-crunching mode, and I couldn't help but notice that 0.357 meters is about 14.1 inches. 26 inches works out to about 0.66 meters.
Whoops, sorry... that's what I get for doing math in my head while simultaneously watching TV... you're right. (DOH!). Actually, the inner walls are that thick (remember, in TOS they had guys standing between them pulling the doors by hand). I just got my "converted numbers" confused for a moment.
Cary L. Brown is offline  
Old May 20 2009, 04:44 AM   #222
Cary L. Brown
Rear Admiral
 
Location: Austin, Texas
Re: Another take on the Original Enterprise...

Psion wrote: View Post
I'm not sure I buy Cary's theory about waveguides, but it does provide an explanation for the change in texture of the vessel by the time The Motion Picture roles around. We go from practically invisible grid markings to deep insets. Sulu remarks after the first whiplash bolt from V'Ger hits and dissolves, "The new screens held!" Maybe there's something to these new details being part of the defensive system upgrades. We see a similar change in texture on the Klingon ships, too. Maybe the screens were uneven, new technology when NCC-1701 was built and waveguides improved their reliability.
Well, when I see the new armor on the Klingon ships, what I think I see is very much in the "physical armor" arena we're talking about here, less than the "energy-skin" approach used by Starfleet. That is... I think that the Klingons improved their defenses by keeping the standard "deflectors and screens" approach, but integrating a series of laminated, "reactive armor" panels over pretty much the entire ship.

This would mean that the Klingon ships are much tougher initially, in a conflict... but their physical armor will get degraded (and can't be restored except in a dockyard) while a Federation ship, though less well-defended initially, can continuously "rebuild" their defenses.

So, if a Klingon captain can go in almost "Kamikazi" style... unleashing everything, ignoring damage to his own ship... he can destroy a Federation ship of comparable capabilities. But if he fails to destroy his enemy in that first salvo, the balance of power shifts away from him... and keeps shifting as the battle goes on. The trick for a Federation captain is to mitigate damage... draw the battle out... and let the Klingon exhaust his resources a little at a time.

Seems consistent with the characterization of the various races and their philosophies, as well as the design style used.

Remember... fighting V'Ger, the Klingons DID survive multiple hits. The Enterprise only survived one, and might have been destroyed (or "digitized") more easily than the Klingons were, had a second hit occurred. Kirk survived that more by virtue of non-military tactics than as a matter of combat capability.
Cary L. Brown is offline  
Old May 20 2009, 05:01 AM   #223
Richard_2001
Cadet
 
Location: Washington State
Re: Another take on the Original Enterprise...

Cary L. Brown wrote: View Post
Okay, I've got the "sensor grillwork" done. (thanks again)...




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!)
Mr. Brown,

That looks Spot on to me! You are most welcome and I am glad I could help you out there. I must say that this is the most exciting take on the Enterprise with Shaw's a very very close second. You both are on the same wavelength :-)

Richard
Richard_2001 is offline  
Old May 21 2009, 02:58 AM   #224
yotsuya
Lieutenant Junior Grade
 
Re: Another take on the Original Enterprise...

I'd like to chime in on the construction and assembly method.

First, my point of view is based on the nature of the TOS to TMP conversion. As there is much confusion about the TOS enterprise, but very little concerning the TMP Enterprise (mostly thanks to the TMP Plans and Cutaway poster), a lot of my point of view is a back reconstruction of the TOS Enterprise based on the TMP Enterprise. I also consider the explaination of how warp drive works as explained in TNG, but not previous to that.

To begin, when you look at the ship's structure and cut out every thing that is not needed, what you come down to is a backbone in the Secondary hull (not the whole structure itself) that links all the parts together. So when the Enterprise was refitted, part of this structure had to be modified to change the way the warp pylons attach. But the hull is just a shell that mounts to this structure. Consider a 747. The actual structure that joins the wings is not part of the fuselage structure, but a special design that merges all the parts together.

In the CG images so far listed on this thread, the hard structure would be the links between the pylons and the dorsal section. This is the backbone/keel of the ship. Everything attaches to this and between TOS and TMP the basic structure didn't change. The lines of the dorsal are nearly identical (they are between the Franz Joseph plans and the TMP Enterprise).

In TMP we see down the lengh of the main engineering deck along the intermix conduit (or whatever name you want to give it). We also see the inside of the hull in this section and it is comprised of heavy arches that are in concentric rings going back along the upper part of the hull. This is what the "keel" looks like. This structure would go from the front of the dorsal to the warp nacelle pylons.

So nothing below, fore or aft of this structure is necessary. I don't know how many decks down it would go to endure the stresses it would be put under, but it wouldn't go down very far as the TMP Enterprise had a large cargo bay down there. It could not extend past the deck imeadiately above the hanger deck level. This explains how the Engineering hull could be expanded without too much difficulty. It is just superstructure, not integral structure.

The Saucer is designed to seperate from the Dorsal near where the two connect. This joining point can clearly be seen in the TMP Cutaway and plans. Neither version is designed to seperate in anything but an emergency as it is a major operation to rejoin them.

The structure of the Saucer itself is seen in ST:III when she explodes. Radial and concentric beams form the basic framework that everything attaches to. This would include a major structural compoent going aft from the center where that dorsal joins to, but allows for turbo lifts, gangways, jeffries tubes, and other mechanical connections. This structure would not have changed much from TOS to TMP. to change the shape of the saucer, the outermost sections would have been replaced with a new structure, but the core would have remained unchanged.

If you look at the construction and refitting of ships and planes and if you go back far enough with ships, the structure become more evident. Modern warships are welded together into a single piece of metal. Planes and older ships are built in components that are joined together with fasteners. For the Enterprise to have been refitted as it was, the structural design must be using some sort of fasteners. In particular I am thinking about what I have learned about RMS Titanic, USS Constitution (aka Old Ironsides), Shuttle Columbia, and Shuttle Challenger. all share the exact same construction techniques. Inner and outer hulls, structural compoents, everything attached with some sort of fastener, etc. All use a rib structure for their hulls and the hull gets is strength from the joining of rib and skin.

The USS Constitution in particular, has been refitted many times. It's keel and lower ribs are original, but the upper ribs have been replaced, probably more than once. The ribs are composits of multple pieces of wood held together with fasteners (in this case, wooden dowels that were dried but swell with moisture to hold them in place). The skin (both inner and outer) has been replaced completely at least 7 times.

Titanic was built in a similar way. All metal hulled ships were until welding became the norm. The design was the same as the old wooden hulls. A keel with ribs and skin, all rivited together.

The Shuttle follows the same design. It has larger ribs that any normal plane does. The hull is comprised of ribs, stringers, and skin to form the structure. It has to take more stress than a plane and has a number of for/aft beams. The keel would be the structure under the cargo bay back to the engines. This is the major stress bearing structure and has the largest ribs and two large for/aft beams. As with most planes, it is bolted together, not welded.

Getting back to the Enterprise, is is by far a more complex shape. But it still boils down to what is structural and what is superstructure. The upper and lower portions of the saucer are superstructure. The secondary hull is superstructure. It comes down the the main core of the saucer, the dorsal, the Secondary Hull spine, the pylons and the Nacelles. That is the hard structure that holds the ship together. The rest can be changed and modified as needed for refits. This explains how the Enterpise could receive such a major looking refit and still be the same ship. By mass it is at least 25% the same ship.

As to the hull structure. As with the Shuttle, I believe there would be an inner and outer hull. The inner hull would be part of whatever pressure vessel the ship was designed with. The outer hull would be the protective skin and contain the deflector grid or any other defense mechanisms to keep the hull intact and protect the pressure hull underneath. During the refit, the entire outer hull was replaced and the pressure hulls redeigned. Much of what was in the heart of the saucer may have been left in place and just gutted and remodeled while the secondary hull was pretty much replaced with a larger structure. There might also be a major structural component that parallels the warp core to protect it.

Well, I think that's most of the points I wanted to make. For me the Enterprise is very modular and easy to replace just about any component outside the backbone/keel. The hulls are not the major structural component, that is the framework deep inside the ship that you usually can't see.
yotsuya is offline  
Old May 21 2009, 07:39 PM   #225
CuttingEdge100
Commodore
 
CuttingEdge100's Avatar
 
Re: Another take on the Original Enterprise...

I don't see why the Klingon ships wouldn't use an energy skin kind of approach too.

If you look at the design they have deflector gridding (well they're wedge shaped but still) which appears to be the same principle as used on the Constitution-Class and other Federation vessels
CuttingEdge100 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 04:45 AM.

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