Neat idea keep up the great modeling 
How is this for a concept?
- Thread starter RedSpar
- Start date
Here is a quicky rough 3d sketch of a possible layout. Not set in stone by any means. Obviously the finished version of the secondary hull would be more curved and flowing. Bottom pic is a AWACs equivalent version with a large sensor/scanner suite to control all those shuttles.
Ooo, unconventional.
I like the asymmetry of the saucer, as well. If you're not planning on keeping it, well, lose those plans.
I like the asymmetry of the saucer, as well. If you're not planning on keeping it, well, lose those plans.
Agreed. Spacedock lokked more modern by not having the top taper off into concentric towers. Having the cityscape up top gave it a sense of scale.
I like the control towers now that they are in the back, where they blend in with other details such as the impulse engines. I like the lower sensor pod.
You know Cary Brown had a third hull above the saucer, with supports leading down to the warp nacelles also attached to the typical connie secondary hull, lending a warbird look.
Having a third flatter hull up top might be something you could look into...
I like the control towers now that they are in the back, where they blend in with other details such as the impulse engines. I like the lower sensor pod.
You know Cary Brown had a third hull above the saucer, with supports leading down to the warp nacelles also attached to the typical connie secondary hull, lending a warbird look.
Having a third flatter hull up top might be something you could look into...
I always go back to aircraft and navy ships as models...lots of variation in them but there's still an underlying logic and form-follows-function to them. Yes, superfically "they all look alike", and yet, they don't.
When I designed spaceships for the RTS game Rules of Engagement in 1991 I established a set of common features for each fleet--components that were similar from from ship to ship--and then futzed with variations based on what each ship was designed to do: the result, I hope, was the ships all looked like they came from the same place but were different enough to imply different functions.
When I designed spaceships for the RTS game Rules of Engagement in 1991 I established a set of common features for each fleet--components that were similar from from ship to ship--and then futzed with variations based on what each ship was designed to do: the result, I hope, was the ships all looked like they came from the same place but were different enough to imply different functions.
YARN
Fleet Captain
I agree.
And why does this design even need to have the primary hull all carved up?
Why not build a bigger landing bay? Why not have then attach to the side of the ship?
Yeah I think I am going to scrap this design.. It was an experiment to see if I could make it work. Trek stuff is a narrow line between originality and making it look like it fits in the trek universe.
I could easily put a flight deck on the secondary hull, but somehow that just seems boring to me. I'll have to ponder some more. Thanks all for the comments.
I could easily put a flight deck on the secondary hull, but somehow that just seems boring to me. I'll have to ponder some more. Thanks all for the comments.
YARN
Fleet Captain
I think there should be a hint of form following function. Why does this ship require so many shuttles? Why not use transporters? You're imagining a situation where a starship carrying so many additional craft -- OK, what do you think they're there for? Is this a sort of trucker-trailer (taking shuttles to a starbase like a trucker takes cars to a car lot)? Is this a carrier a la BSG? Is this a specialized research vessel?
Answering these questions might inspire your design process.
P.S. - love the asymmetry and verticality of your last design.
What I was thinking, in regards to what I mentioned previously about rescue and recovery under fire, transporters take time, as well as lowering shields. Shuttles and escape pods can be allowed to pass through the shields, collected on those landing strip like area's, and taken to safety without lowering shields. I dont know if thats what the OP had in mind, but that's what his design was making me think of.
YARN
Fleet Captain
You have to lower shields to take on shuttles as well...
Incorrect, shuttles have been shown passing through shields if they are allowed to.
YARN
Fleet Captain
And the same applies for beaming with shields up.
If the ship is designed to onload and offload smaller ships "under fire" it seems curious that it does not seem like a battle-oriented design. It simply looks like a Connie saucer that's had a trench dug into it. The primary hull looks even more delicate with that deep cut. The saucer section is a living area, so it seems odd to dig a runway into it. If you are taking on more crew in an emergency, where are they housed? You're losing living space in the saucer section to create landing space. A true carrier would seem to be more natural with a larger secondary hull.
I don't think that leaving the landing zone exposed to vacuum would really work. I mean, even with the airlocks for shuttles to dock to, this means that only craft with those types of airlocks can dock. This means that if the requirement to act as a fighter carrier came up, it couldn't be done, because even with that side door, there isn't enough space to carry a squadron, or even if that door had a hanger, they could only enter one at a time.
And what about those larger shuttles, which are too big to enter into that hanger, and by the looks of it may be too tall to dock with those airlocks? This means the crew has to wear EVA suits. Even if you could erect an environmental force-field around the entire deck, it would take a lot of energy to do so, and if the power goes offline (which is why I hate the idea of using force-fields for windows, as shown in ST: FC), the results could very well be disastrous for anyone unlucky enough to be out there at the time.
What I would probably do is basically weld two shuttlebay hangers in place of that trench to create a thru-deck area, and tack on an extended landing strip to both ends. I like the idea that was introduced in BSG, making an extended landing pod, and putting doors and force-fields at both ends.
And what about those larger shuttles, which are too big to enter into that hanger, and by the looks of it may be too tall to dock with those airlocks? This means the crew has to wear EVA suits. Even if you could erect an environmental force-field around the entire deck, it would take a lot of energy to do so, and if the power goes offline (which is why I hate the idea of using force-fields for windows, as shown in ST: FC), the results could very well be disastrous for anyone unlucky enough to be out there at the time.
What I would probably do is basically weld two shuttlebay hangers in place of that trench to create a thru-deck area, and tack on an extended landing strip to both ends. I like the idea that was introduced in BSG, making an extended landing pod, and putting doors and force-fields at both ends.
Similar threads
