Ambassador class schematic

[Praetor]

Great work! Regarding the shuttlebay/strut issue, I prefer the change, but I think it would be alright to still show where the nacelle struts stop at the base of the shuttlebay.

 

[Bill Morris]

Thanks. Well, the Ent-D has them like this:

So I suppose it's okay borrow that concept:

 

[Angelus]

I never really cared for that huge open space at the top of the saucer on the Ent-D.....course I never really liked the Ent-D that much to begin with,

 

[Unicron]

It's the secret captain's spa.

 

[Bill Morris]

Well, there are four items I left out of that image of the D, all near the top,, even though Gilso, Adge, and Joe Ralat show them in their versions. Anyway, does the C look okay now?

 

[Bill Morris]

I think this one is done now. Thanks for the helpful comments. Sunnyside's link with photos of the filming model turned out to be especially helpful.

 

[sunnyside]

Actually since you put the rear launcher in the tail instead of where it is on the Excelsior that means your model can be easily used for the Yamaguchi since I figure they'd have to put the photon torpedo launcher in the rear otherwise they wouldn't have clearance to get the torps clear.

 

[Bill Morris]

Hm. For the Yamaguchi's extra shuttlebay, one would think they would be using that space. Maybe I should put it down there like the Excelsior's, just making sure it's low enough to clear the Yamaguchi's added hull section, just in case. I was really just worried about putting such an inviting target so close to the warp core.

The forward one clears the sensor dome, but maybe I should move it down a couple of decks, anyway.

I suppose I should e-mail some of those guys and get their input, as well.

 

[sunnyside]

Does that extra "shuttle bay" on the Yama have to be a shuttle bay? I think having an upside down deck on a fed ship is unprecidented. I figured it would work well as a disguised housing for the torp launcher. Just open the "shuttle bay" doors and fire. Or maybe they used the shuttle bay frame because starfleet already had the plans and facilities for them ,and maybe some premade, so they could be added to the hull as an easy way to exand the hull despite not being used as a shuttlebay.

 

[Bill Morris]

This should really be the final version. One might argue that the rear torp launcher goes in the fantail near the warp core, but I still think that's asking for a warp-core breach if someone only targets your weapons.

 

[LiChiu]

Very nice.

 

[Timo]

Yup! :thumbsup:

One might argue that the rear torp launcher goes in the fantail near the warp core, but I still think that's asking for a warp-core breach if someone only targets your weapons.

Well, a hit on the torp launchers is going to hit your antimatter supplies one way or another. So perhaps Starfleet favors the all-or-nothing "citadel" school of armoring here, placing the launchers as close to the warp core as possible so that they can be jointly protected with the maximum degree of shielding and armor? That's how the old battleships did it, placing ammo magazines, gun decks and boilers in a tight cluster that could then be armored and buried between "expendable" soft structures.

Certainly the Constitution refit seems to follow this school of thought. And the best protected place on a Starfleet ship might be close to the center of the ship, somewhere around the neck. Not only in terms of having the entirety of a "hull" or "section" on two sides of the location, but also in being at the very center of the shield bubble.

Timo Saloniemi