You're welcome! Let us know what you find out form the article!
Starship Cargo Volumes Compared
- Thread starter blssdwlf
- Start date
How did you learn Lightwave? Did you take a mass in it, or is there an online course?@All - thanks
@zDarby - I modeled the ships in Lightwave. These are just low-poly versions that I use to run the AreaVolume plugin.
I learned 3D Studio at work back in 1992 and in later years picked up Lightwave as a hobby. Nowadays, you can learn Blender which is open source and free and quite powerful.
Which 3D rendering software do you prefer?
I prefer Lightwave due to familiarity and it does what I want it to do. But I also use Blender and Sketchup but haven't had the time to dig into them. Since I'm a hobbyist I can't afford 3DS Max.
In-universe we can note that the other classes can haul quite a bit more cargo making them far more useful than the Constitutions during a time of expansion and peace post-TUC. The cigar shaped secondary hull on the Constitutions is the limiting factor, IMHO.
(Click to make bigger)
First and foremost, I love that you put some thought and research into something that has been bothering me for awhile. For as much as I love the Connie / Enterprise class designs I do see some issues trying to pack enough materiel into such a small ship to support a crew of 203 to 500 souls over multiple missions, let alone years. You do a very good job breaking down issues (even going so far to list mission types for various episodes), and your reasoning IMHO is sound. That said as a point of curiosity, do you incorporate the fuel into the volume for cargo, or as volume connected to engineering? Awesome work as always blssdwlf!
Thanks @Lord Other
I've given some thought to this a while ago and decided to leave it up to viewer to decide on where the fuel is and how much volume fuel take up as it was never clearly defined for the Enterprise in the movies (or even TOS).Personally, in my head canon, the matter and antimatter fuel takes up very little space and it is constantly regenerated with dilithium. Yes it's magical but it works for me
Speaking of Cargo, do you agree with EC Henry's reasoning as to why the Refit Enterprise changed from Straight Struts on the original Connie to angled ones on the refit?
That's a good question. The TOS Enterprise flight deck (shuttlebay), based on the original FX, extends underneath the nacelle struts so I assume that there is tech and materials in-universe that allows for the support of the struts without extending into the shuttlebay area (ditto for the movie Enterprise).
Personally I think the change might have more to do with the new warp drive design mentioned in TMP.
Last edited:
I've followed EC Henry's channel for a while; this is a well thought out and presented video
It's worth adding that the refit has additional structural support at the base of the pylons. This may offset the need for the pylons to intrude into the hull so much (which we certainly don't see on the interior of the Engine Room set!)
It's worth adding that the refit has additional structural support at the base of the pylons. This may offset the need for the pylons to intrude into the hull so much (which we certainly don't see on the interior of the Engine Room set!)
I'll agree that it is well presented but I find that the videos I've watched so far on his channel isn't accurate to the episodes (specifically the original FX episodes of TOS).
I do notice the additional support at the base of the TMP pylons. The support results in a thicker base. But then why narrow the strut as it comes towards the hull in the first place? And if it is suggested that a thicker base is needed then on the TOS Enterprise wouldn't the internal support extend both forward and back of the strut and thus eat into quite a bit of a TNG-style short shuttlebay? By trying to explain for the struts being angled by assuming limitations on structural materials and technology seems to me to cause other problems, IMHO.
I'm not aware of any. It seems that it should be the opposite of narrowing if it was a question of structural strength but the design seems to point to something else as the reasoning for the way it is.
Due to the blue "protection" areas described by Probert on Trekyards, and the darkened possibly "vented" areas that are both much more visible in HD, I'm suggesting the new struts are shaped this way for better removal of waste radiation, and they get thicker towards the nacelles because the plasma transfer conduits are wider as they go across these "secondary inter-coolers."
We might do well to embrace our new datapoint from DSC here. After all, it gives us both the straight and narrow pylon, and its triangular aft extension, with a gap in between.
We might now deduce that the aft extension is superfluous structurally, and only added for some other purpose, such as for housing additional systems. Basically, we might be looking at the Trek counterpart of seagoing ships' smokestacks - those esoterically shaped structures that could be simple straight pipes but are bent this way or that for pure aesthetics, for compensating for initial designer mistakes or later relocating of machinery, for better directing the flow of smoke, or for accommodating of extra gear. Or, given the structural role here, the masts - initially important for propulsion, later adapted to completely different roles but initially unimaginatively retained at the propulsive configuration.
Winglike add-ons to starships were a thing in fan/RPG material often enough, but also made an onscreen debut in ENT. If a starship like the ENT Intrepid needs pseudo-wings for things other than aerodynamic lift, perhaps adding them to the pylons is a smart idea? The Intrepid wings adjoined the engine nacelles, too - as did the triangular pylons of the Enterprise herself there.
Some sort of an "expander" makes intuitive sense. But we could also mutter "subspace", considering how Sternbach and folks liked to make subspace antennas of tapering shapes. Next to the nacelles, the antennas might not be for comms or sensing, but for manipulating the propulsive field. A bit like deciding whether a seagoing ship needs stabilizer fins or not.
Timo Saloniemi
We might now deduce that the aft extension is superfluous structurally, and only added for some other purpose, such as for housing additional systems. Basically, we might be looking at the Trek counterpart of seagoing ships' smokestacks - those esoterically shaped structures that could be simple straight pipes but are bent this way or that for pure aesthetics, for compensating for initial designer mistakes or later relocating of machinery, for better directing the flow of smoke, or for accommodating of extra gear. Or, given the structural role here, the masts - initially important for propulsion, later adapted to completely different roles but initially unimaginatively retained at the propulsive configuration.
Winglike add-ons to starships were a thing in fan/RPG material often enough, but also made an onscreen debut in ENT. If a starship like the ENT Intrepid needs pseudo-wings for things other than aerodynamic lift, perhaps adding them to the pylons is a smart idea? The Intrepid wings adjoined the engine nacelles, too - as did the triangular pylons of the Enterprise herself there.
Some sort of an "expander" makes intuitive sense. But we could also mutter "subspace", considering how Sternbach and folks liked to make subspace antennas of tapering shapes. Next to the nacelles, the antennas might not be for comms or sensing, but for manipulating the propulsive field. A bit like deciding whether a seagoing ship needs stabilizer fins or not.
Timo Saloniemi
I hope John Eaves read this as he would love the fact that you just came up with a logical reason for ships to have fins
While I loved the angles struts on the refit, their presence on the NX-01 seemed not to fit into the timeline when the 1701 does not have them. This actually could mean that a design might be introduced with strait struts, and then they are angled later to expand that designs capability, just as fins were added to the Excelsior and Constitution upgrades. I like this idea, especially since I am of the opinion that the Ambassador class, especially in Proberts concept is really more of an aggressive uprated Excelsior than a totally new design. And...the Ambassador in both versions has angled struts, whereas Excelsior's are straight.
Right. Just about any explanation other than structural support for a larger flight deck would work. Even "looks cool" makes more sense, IMHO.
As far as straight struts absent on the NX-01, I personally put that in a different universe than TOS. Like a giant multiverse, TOS is by itself with the TOS Movies more or less a part of that universe. Then ENT-TOS(Remastered)-TNG-DS9-VOY as their own universe and the TNG Movies more less of that universe. Then AbramsTrek movies in their own universe and Discovery in it's own universe. Each universe has it's own variation of the "Prime" timeline.
It's not too different from the multiverse of superheroes in the comic books
As far as straight struts absent on the NX-01, I personally put that in a different universe than TOS. Like a giant multiverse, TOS is by itself with the TOS Movies more or less a part of that universe. Then ENT-TOS(Remastered)-TNG-DS9-VOY as their own universe and the TNG Movies more less of that universe. Then AbramsTrek movies in their own universe and Discovery in it's own universe. Each universe has it's own variation of the "Prime" timeline.
It's not too different from the multiverse of superheroes in the comic books
Even the NX-01 has an accentuated straight leading edge to the pylons, marked in dark lines (and meeting the nacelle right where the NCC-1701 pylon did), and then the triangular trailing edge covered in darker grey plates somewhat reminiscent of the grillework of the NCC-1701 refit triangles.
There need not be a timeline involved there, just yer standard engineering choices. Some warships were built with prominent anti-torpedo bulges to their hulls; others had the torpedo protection installed inside. Some got stabilizing fins, others didn't need them. Some left mainmasts ashore because the ships had other tall structures for installing the crow's nests or rangefinders or radars on.
And I think diversity is fine, within a single fictional universe. After all, pretty much everything else is diverse in Star Trek anyway.
But as for cargo volume, putting some of that right next to the main powerplant might be a good idea, just in case the powerplant needs some of it (spares or perhaps fuel). If anything, pylons don't avoid cargo spaces or shuttlebays - they are attracted to those! That is, Kirk's ship (and Styles', and perhaps Sebastian's) has the pylons converge on the central bay, while Khan's has the bay split in two, one close to each straight pylon...
Timo Saloniemi
There need not be a timeline involved there, just yer standard engineering choices. Some warships were built with prominent anti-torpedo bulges to their hulls; others had the torpedo protection installed inside. Some got stabilizing fins, others didn't need them. Some left mainmasts ashore because the ships had other tall structures for installing the crow's nests or rangefinders or radars on.
And I think diversity is fine, within a single fictional universe. After all, pretty much everything else is diverse in Star Trek anyway.
But as for cargo volume, putting some of that right next to the main powerplant might be a good idea, just in case the powerplant needs some of it (spares or perhaps fuel). If anything, pylons don't avoid cargo spaces or shuttlebays - they are attracted to those! That is, Kirk's ship (and Styles', and perhaps Sebastian's) has the pylons converge on the central bay, while Khan's has the bay split in two, one close to each straight pylon...
Timo Saloniemi
Similar threads
