How about NO shuttlebays? Have a large cargo bay and a huge pad, and just beam auxiliary ships in and out.
I don't think so--horrible memory I like the first iteration, but the coils have to be wider. Sauvers are better for ditching I would think: http://www.astronautix.com/fam/lenicles.htm At hypersonic re-entry speeds it would undergo lower heating and require less shielding. At the same time it was more maneuverable at subsonic speeds than a winged design, and could land at sea or on land without undercarriage. The symmetrical shape meant it would integrate easily into conventional booster designs, without creating excessive drag or asymmetric loads during ascent to orbit. A Saturn V class+ HLLV could have been a saucer--highly notional
I don't know if I like that idea; I was even thinking about not having transporters on the ship at all... if I remember right, the only reason Star Trek had them, is because it was going to be too expensive to show the shuttle landing, right? Maybe they would be OK if you could only beam from one platform to another. Meaning that a shuttle could deposit a pad, then let people beam down? -Ricky
The initial thought was the transporter replaced any need to show the main ship landing. But as we've seen since TOS not having a transporter doesn't have to slow down your story. A number of good SF shows did just fine without a transporter and relied solely on shuttles. Particularly today when it's all done by cgi anyway.
What happens if the transporter breaks down, though? One function of shuttles is as a backup if the transporters can't be used. But if you can't launch the shuttles without a transporter, then you're redundantly out of luck. The problem is that fiction writers want things to be as fancy and futuristic as possible, but good engineering is about keeping things simple and reliable. There's little sense, for instance, in using a powered force field in place of a simple wall or door, because a wall or door won't cease to exist if the power fails. And I've seen one or two depictions of cities where the streetlights levitated -- which would waste a ton of power compared to just sticking them on poles, and would cause them to be ruined if something interrupted their power and they all fell down and smashed on the pavement. So something like a transporter should be saved for functions that can't be filled some other way, not just used as a flashier, more future-y alternative for something that can be done perfectly well by more conventional means. Space: 1999 made great use of its lovely Eagles. Although once Fred Freiberger took over the writing in season 2, virtually every alien culture they encountered used teleportation.
Hi Ricky! I hope that familly and kids are going well. About the ship, two things comes to my mind when seeeing the last concept you showed us: Dedalus Class (take off the ring) Vengeance (obvious reason) I still think the saucer needs to be there, not a ring. It´s an element always present in ST. Of course it don´t have to be so simple as in TOS, and surelly nothing like we see in TNG. Anyway, I know it´s a hard mission to imagine something different but at the same time so similar. I tryied to draw something, but I don´t got myself satisfied with anything... About the other parts of the ship, they looks good.
the problem with transporters is that they put you precisely one Scotty unit away from not actually needing spaceships at all. and what fun is that?
Food for thought: http://sploid.gizmodo.com/holy-crap-nasas-interplanetary-spaceship-concept-is-fr-1589001939
Not necessarily. Let's say you have interstellar transporters like the subspace transporter from TNG's "Bloodlines" or the "transwarp beaming" from the movies. That's fine if you want to beam from, say, Vulcan to Earth or Andoria to Betazed. But would it be a good idea to use it to beam to some uncharted, distant planet? What if its conditions, or its natives, are hostile? Then you're stuck there with no way out, no ship to protect you or rescue you. So ships would still be useful for exploring strange new worlds.
Not very useful if you want to, say, study a gas giant planet or a binary pulsar. And just because you can do something doesn't automatically mean you should. Sure, you could beam a landing party directly to an alien planet, but that doesn't mean it wouldn't still be a good idea to have a ship or base of some kind at close range in the event of transporter interference. How many times have we seen episodes where they had to use shuttles because the transporter was damaged or blocked? Even on Stargate, they often used FTL ships as an alternative to gate travel, for a variety of different reasons. The technologies complement each other, rather than one completely supplanting the other.
This is gorgeous, but the orientation of the cockpit makes this another jetliner in space. As Christopher points out, by ignoring acceleration forces, this sort of invalidates it as a serious contender for a realistic configuration. But ... my God, those are beautiful pictures. I'd love to see hi-res versions. This would make an awesome look for a fresh start with the franchise.
That's not really what I meant. It wasn't so much a matter of realism as one of creativity, familiar Earthbound design assumptions vs. more novel alternatives for a ship with artificial onboard gravity. As I said, a warp drive could work quite well as a sublight gravity drive, and the people within the warp field would feel no acceleration of any kind. They'd be in free fall inside the ship, so orientation wouldn't matter. When they did undergo conventional thrust, I assume it would be like the space shuttle, where the thrust would push them back into their seats -- which is actually what you want when dealing with high g-forces, because then the force is spread out over the body.
Mark Rademaker has always been a great ship modeler. He also designed the Aventine. A quick google search of the IXS Enterprise turned up this flicker collection in hires.
Ricky, we are talking about ST reimagined, so, take a look: http://roadwarriorz44.deviantart.com/art/Pre-Enterprise-Patrol-Ship-425009532
Hey, they're doing great. My boy is almost 2 now... he's into everything. He can count to 12, and say most of his ABCs already. He can also recognize the Enterprise, and the TARDIS any time it shows up on TV. Not sure we have to have a saucer, though... I think this is a good way to evoke that shape, but have the function be completely different. Beautiful ship, I'm planning to have similar types of detailing on mine. I really like the paint / finish on it... it'll be a nice departure from Aztec panels for me. I am re-thinking my Nacelles, though. I might go with something similar to the shapes of this ship. Cool, but too conventional still, I think. I really like the impulse engines at the back.
The funny thing is that this article is wrong. That is not NASA's new spaceship. That is a design built by Mark Rademaker at the request of Mr. White, who works for NASA.