Refit Dreadnought.... Question?

Discussion in 'Fan Art' started by KirkTrekModeler, Sep 19, 2007.

  1. Wingsley

    Wingsley Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2007
    Location:
    Wingsley
    Hey, take that third nacelle off the top, and put another shuttle hangar in the rear of the secondary hull, and you'd have a great ship... maybe they would not have had to build the NX-2000 Excelsior.
     
  2. Bernard Guignard

    Bernard Guignard Fleet Captain Fleet Captain

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2005
    Location:
    Ontario
    Well if it would have been me I would have made each side of the octaganal hull Equal and put Corner as the bow end of the ship. :D Every time I look at pocket books cover I see a shuttle bay set in the aft section between those perpendicular lines. we all have our ideas as to how this one should look like from the one elevation view :D
     
  3. Unicron

    Unicron Continuity Spackle Moderator

    Joined:
    May 8, 2003
    Location:
    The Pyxis Unity
    Yeah, it's based off the badly drawn cover art from Dreadnought!. I actually rather enjoyed the story, but I see no reason to assume the USS Star Empire was not the same ship on the FJ list. It's possible the artwork was modified to avoid any potential legal action. Carey's description of the Saladin class might be the same way.
     
  4. 137th Gebirg

    137th Gebirg Vice Admiral Premium Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2000
    Location:
    Who is John Galt?
    Heh... It's your design, first and foremost, so you can do whatever you like to it! :)

    I'm just glad I now have a good idea of what it should really look like. I'll update the design in the database with your changes. Thanks much!
     
  5. Forbin

    Forbin Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2001
    Location:
    I said out, dammit!
  6. Wingsley

    Wingsley Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2007
    Location:
    Wingsley
    It would be neat to see either a 3D/CGI rendering of this, or an actual hand-built model. Ever consider it, Forbin?
     
  7. sojourner

    sojourner Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2008
    Location:
    A Long Time Ago...
    Based on his remark you quoted and the age of this thread? No.
     
  8. Forbin

    Forbin Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2001
    Location:
    I said out, dammit!
    Yeah, no, it's really ugly (IMHO).
    But it might be fun to build one, paint the saucer red, and put "USS STOP" on it. ;)
     
  9. Wingsley

    Wingsley Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2007
    Location:
    Wingsley
    What if you devitated from the original "design" and used a rounded saucer?
     
  10. Ziz

    Ziz Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2001
    Location:
    NY
    The whole thing is too angular. It looks like it was drawn by someone who was afraid of drawing curves so they tried to justify it by not making any more circles than were absolutely necessary.
     
  11. JES

    JES Fleet Captain Fleet Captain

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2011
    Location:
    Ocoee, Florida
    Agreed. I think she looks fugly, especially with not all eight sides at least being even. She is just an example of why it is a bad idea to make the all of the bow sides of a saucer flat instead, especially if the front is flat. If not for the fact that the saucer wasn't actually a saucer, she might not look bad, but all of those flat faces ruins it for me!
     
  12. Ar-Pharazon

    Ar-Pharazon Vice Admiral Premium Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2005
    Has there been any rendering of a "refit" that had that mirrored top & bottom of the primary hull?

    That's the first thing that stands out to me.

    Everything I've ever seen is a TMP refit saucer.
     
  13. Forbin

    Forbin Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2001
    Location:
    I said out, dammit!
  14. Ar-Pharazon

    Ar-Pharazon Vice Admiral Premium Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2005
    Well, as long as somebody did it the right way. Did you name it USS Teh Awesome? ;)
     
  15. Wingsley

    Wingsley Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2007
    Location:
    Wingsley
    One issue stands out for me:

    All of these kitbashes and other artistic derivatives, that people present as dreadnought-starships, seem to sport more weapons, more nacelles, and often more bulk, but there doesn't seem to be any more tangible protection. I point this out because one of the key features of Sisko's Defiant was a coating of ablative armor (whatever that was) wrapped around a simple hull design, like a turtle in a shell. Everything about Sisko's Defiant seemed non-standard. (Quantum torpedoes, armor shell, compact size, lack of standard Federation starship amenities, somewhat unorthodox nacelle configuration) By comparison, most dreadnought artwork by fans and FJ seems to use standard Federation components. Even the hulls look like they were derived for non-dreadnought starships. This seems to be universally true of all these fan designs, even my personal favorite (the relatively unconventional Kirov by Aridas Sofia).

    Why doesn't someone take the notions of Sisko's Defiant and apply them to the pre-TOS, TOS/TAS or TMP era to see what a heavily armored prototype Federation battlewagon would look like?
     
  16. aridas sofia

    aridas sofia Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    May 3, 2002
    I think I can explain that pretty easily, at least from my own perspective. I thought of the standard starship components as adding up to mid to long range/endurance, mixed use starships. That saucer is there to house lots of people that almost always include a contingent of researchers doing on-site work. But there would be another type of ship- a warship- that would have very different priorities and have a very small crew. Its range and endurance would be short-medium. No saucer. Just raw shields, speed and weaponry, in differing proportions as the design demands.

    So, when you see the FJ dreadnought, I'm thinking "this is as good as we can get for projecting power over long distances within a mixed-use starship hull". For the Federation and Starfleet, getting all those researchers way out on the frontier to figure out what really is out there (and might eventually develop into a threat or opportunity) must be as important as having no nonsense, fail safe weaponry closer to home.
     
  17. JJohnson

    JJohnson Captain Captain

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2006
    Location:
    Jacksonville, FL
    Why a rear-facing deflector dish? Wouldn't a shuttlebay make more sense?
     
  18. sojourner

    sojourner Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2008
    Location:
    A Long Time Ago...
    ^Do you recall how many times the Ent-D used the deflector for something other than it's intended purpose? Not a bad idea to have one rear-facing.;)
     
  19. Forbin

    Forbin Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2001
    Location:
    I said out, dammit!
  20. Forbin

    Forbin Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2001
    Location:
    I said out, dammit!
    When you've got deflector shields, you can save mass and expense by NOT needing extensive armor plating.

    Ablative armor means armor that dissipates energy by allowing itself to be worn away or blown away. That of course means it has to be re-applied after every battle. That's yard time.