Redesigned DY-100

[Cary L. Brown]

^Notice Vance still hasn't responded to the very legitimate points I made?

Actually, the DY-100 lends itself nicely to a surface-launch mode, if you assume that the "pods" aren't launched at the same time (as I stipulated).

Except of course for that big conning tower which would create drag and would unbalance it during launch due to its mass. Of course you're already pretty close to my "assembled in space" argument when you start talking about taking parts off of it to get it into space.

The "Conning tower" doesn't necessarily do anything negative to the ship's launchability. It's more like a fin than anything else... it would provide minimal drag (albeit you would certainly have to compensate for it's off-center mass). Far more assymmetrical designs have made it to orbit. But it's not a bad idea to consider mounting the antenna tower in space, either.

 

[Disillusioned]

big conning towers can be compensated for easily enough. the space shuttle assembly is far from symmetrical, and gets into orbit fine. its just a matter of where your center of mass is, and applying thrust appropriately.

The Space shuttle has a huge fuel tank to help balance things out.

the problem with greebs and noodly bits is that they increase drag on the vehicle, greatly increasing the amount of energy/fuel required to lift it to orbit, and honesty probably don't have the physical strength to withstand the maximum dynamic pressure exerted upon them during launch.

Which wouldn't matter if the thing was assembled in orbit. Then the only limit is what function the bits that stick out serve.

They weren't legitimate since the whole premise that started them was factually wrong.

Actually they are legitimate points, you've just decided to not address them.

But way to start making it personal yet again.

There's nothing personal about pointing out your refusal to address points I've made on this subject. This is a discussion board, after all.

I get it, you don't like Star Trek...

Actually I do. That doesn't mean I have to like every single aspect of it, though.

I really do understand. I just wish you would admit that up front and just say "Of course I like it, it doesn't look like Star Trek".

It looks like Star Trek to me, or at least it could be. I don't dismiss things out of hand simply because they aren't exactly like the original, hence why I like different takes on the 1701 herself, but just not JJ Abrams's take for a number of reasons (not all of which have to do with the design itself).

^Notice Vance still hasn't responded to the very legitimate points I made?

The "Conning tower" doesn't necessarily do anything negative to the ship's launchability. It's more like a fin than anything else... it would provide minimal drag (albeit you would certainly have to compensate for it's off-center mass).

As thick as it is, and the speeds involved in conventional rocket launch, it would have some pretty serious drag, and some pretty serious heat build-up as well.

Far more assymmetrical designs have made it to orbit. But it's not a bad idea to consider mounting the antenna tower in space, either.

Assembling things in space would help add flexibility to any design. Which is why I don't think the OP design should be dismissed out of hand, even if I prefer other updated designs I've seen more.

 

[Cary L. Brown]

As thick as it is, and the speeds involved in conventional rocket launch, it would have some pretty serious drag, and some pretty serious heat build-up as well.

Sorry, doesn't really work that way... the fin is very thin in "front profile"... far more so than, say, the Space Shuttle's wings are. The "lateral" surface is pretty much inconsequential to this sort of atmospheric drag. Aerodynamic drag is, almost entirely, due to "projected frontal area," after all (By the way, that's the core of why I would object to launching "with pods").

As for heat build-up, that would be no more subject to that problem than any other element of the ship. No more than, say, the vertical stabilizer of the space shuttle.

Yes, it will be subject to SOME additional drag, but it's minimal... it's the mass that's really the concern here. But that would be easy to compensate for as well, simply by having the "underside boosters" be a few feet longer than the "top side" boosters, or by any of a number of other methods.

(FYI, I assume that the "conning tower" is really an antenna array, anyway, not "habitable space" per-se... and as such, it's probably quite low-density compared to the rest of the ship.)

Assembling things in space would help add flexibility to any design.

I'm not sure "flexibility" is really the point here... it's more a matter of "technological limitations" as far as I'm concerned. Maybe that's what you really mean, though... I suspect that it is, though I can't be certain.

It would always be PREFERABLE to have a single, robust, one-piece ship... except, of course, that in "real world" terms, we have to spend a lot of energy in order to move a single gram of mass into orbit. That's the sole reason that we currently do "modular design" of the sort we're familiar with in contemporary spacecraft design Give us a cheap, effective orbital-lift capability, and the designs would radically change as a result.

Which is why I don't think the OP design should be dismissed out of hand, even if I prefer other updated designs I've seen more.

Well, we all post our work here in order to get comments from other folks... and we have to accept the favorable and less favorable critiques with equanimity.

The OP's ship design looks cool, and would work nicely in most "sci-fi ship" venues. My own comments here have been that it neither fits the "Federation ship" style or the "contemporary spacecraft" style... the two forms which we have reason to believe "fit" in EARTH-BASED "treknology."

If you were totally re-envisioning Trek, and having Khan and his group leaving a far-future earth, and being found even further into the far future, this might work. This ship looks like it would fit very well in a "flying alongside the Millenium Falcon" situation. It simply doesn't fit what I expect to see from a "near future spacecraft" concept.

 

[Irishman]

Breathe with me and repeat "change is okay"

"Earth, Hitler, 1938"

(Look it up if you think I'm just Godwinning here)

Change is nothing more than change.. it's neither inherently bad nor inherently good. It's just as easy, and even easier usually, to make a change for the worse than one for the better.

In this case, the 'change' is to make Star Trek devoid of a unique style of flavor in favor of whatever generic mood fits the moment. I do not consider that a good 'change', and it's one that I feel will once again destroy Trek in the future... because it's part of what destroyed it before.

Just because other ships don't have them doesn't mean they can't have them. I don't think Gene wanted to stifle creativity by creating Star Trek.

Meaning that, to you, Star Trek is nothing more than a brand, in the name of 'creativity'. It's utterly meaningless so long as it's 'cool' for the moment.

Nope, I didn't say that. Please make sure you're arguing with what I actually say, instead of the folks you've argued with in the past.

The fact is that, in terms of Star Trek starship designs, the battle you're fighting is one that was over long ago. I'm not in that battle. I'm trying to look at it in terms of "if someone designed a new DY-100 as a reimagining to show up in the TOS Space Seed ep, could it rightfully appear as this gentleman's art does?"

And in answer to that, to my view, it's yes. My judgement has to do with a differing opinion about what is solidified in terms of Earth circa 1996 in the Trekverse. In my view, very very little is solidified because very few examples survive.

My judgement has nothing to do with being "cool" or not. Although personal artistic taste is, in large measure, an individual definition of asthetic appeal or "cool". If you're using "cool" as meaning something that looks good but has no other thought applied to it, then make sure you let us all know that, so we have some basic terms in common here.

 

[Clawhammer]

I like it a lot, to a nearly "want to model this" degree. Perhaps this is what a DY-100 in an alternative universe can become after lots of years in space. Launched as a normal DY-100 and then by all of it's owners, adapted and adapted and finally fallen into the hands of a space pirate that painted it black! Nice job!