^ In order to have twisting loads you have to have gravity! There is no gravity in space!
Another fan attempt at TOS deck plans
- Thread starter Shaw
- Start date
- Status
ncc-1017-e,
G-forces actually have little to do with gravity -- it has to do with forces of acceleration.
When the ship would roll or yaw there would be large twisting loads imposed on the connecting-dorsal (the neck)
CuttingEdge100
G-forces actually have little to do with gravity -- it has to do with forces of acceleration.
When the ship would roll or yaw there would be large twisting loads imposed on the connecting-dorsal (the neck)
CuttingEdge100
Ever since I saw this technology I thought future starship construction would use something similar.
http://www.isotruss.org/
http://www.isotruss.org/
Ah, I see. Thanks for replying. Given your fidelity to much of Mr. Jefferies designs I was surprised that you'd done this is all, given what his cutaway plan for the hangar shows.
Why would the lift shops preclude the presence of beefing-up features?
The neck does have those windows, and thus has inhabited spaces there, whether they be accommodation or workspaces. Any bracing already exists in such a manner that the spaces can exist, too. But granted that it would be a bit odd to give the turbolift repairmen these windows at their place of work when top officers get none in their quarters or briefing rooms...
Speaking of structural loads, the real problems at the hangar area aren't related to turboshaft or doorway placement. They rotate around the mechanism by which the engine pylons attach to the hull. If the hull inboard of the pylon stems can be a hollow cylinder, implying that the pylons are simply welded to the outer skin, then any talk about "bracing" or "beefing up" in the neck is moot - if the materials can withstand welded-on pylons, then the neck can withstand being a hollow shell.
OTOH, if the pylons do go all the way to meet at some sort of a central "keel" or other strongback, then we're rather screwed as regards the interior layout of that area.
Which, on page 36 of this thread, comes as no surprise to anybody. But it does highlight the fact that Jeffries might not have been thinking everything through from Day One yet, and might have been forced to compromise a lot after the exterior layout was approved by his bosses.
Timo Saloniemi
When I was in high school I recall that some of our carriers were rotated out of service for complex overhauls (called the Service Life Extension Program). I believe the Independence was first, followed by the Kitty Hawk and later (after I had graduated) the Constellation.Timo said:
What was significant about this work was that the engines were removed and overhauled. The way they did this was that they cut through the flight deck, hangar deck and all other decks to gain access rather than going through the ship's hull because they didn't want to compromise the structural integrity of the ship.
Assuming that the shapes used for the TOS Enterprise are not random, odds are they were picked for they structural strength. In the case of the secondary hull, the outer hull provides most of the structural rigidity.
Roddenberry stated that these ships were supposed to be old, which implies that they would need servicing and overhauling regularly in their lifetime... and cutting open the secondary hull on a regular basis would weaken the ship. But the main engineering equipment is just about dead center of the ship. So I envisioned that the bulkheads between engineering and the hangar deck are designed to be cut out and removed on a semi regular basis (the same way that the Navy gains access to carrier's engines), and that the equipment is pulled straight out the back through the hangar doors.
If we overlook the major shape change to the secondary hull for Jefferies' Phase II Enterprise (which effected the overall shapes of the TMP Enterprise), one could envision the major engine components being pulled out of the secondary hull and replaced with a wholly different engine design (based almost entirely along the upper spine of the secondary hull). If you didn't have anything in mind to fill that space, what you end up with is a massive open cavity in the center of the secondary hull like what we saw in TMP. And even though their placement on my plans is too far forward, the pair of vertical turbo shafts look very much like the ones seen exposed in that area in that film.
And yes, looking at the Kerr plans of the hangar (representing the Enterprise-A version), the back wall looks very similar. And I've seen others recently use the same layout, which re-enforces the idea that even not having been seen in TOS, it might have looked this way.
Most of these issues come from attempting to imagine the Enterprise either sitting on the ground or moving around in fast maneuvers (like New Voyages once showed).Timo said:
Without warp the Enterprise is a lumbering giant. Slow to turn, slow to accelerate... slow in most respects. Warp removes most of the inertia issues allowing it to move more quickly... even in pivoting in one spot. Cary has rightly brought up the fact that there has to be some similar system for impulse power that may or may not be independent of the warp engines themselves.
As for the way the pylons are attached and their strength... I would point out that the real strength of the secondary hull is in the geometry of the outer surface. And why would telescoping the pylons further in make any real difference here? These aren't solid structures, and if they were that would make them weaker rather than stronger.
That area of the ship I'm willing to leave as a black box, but the pylons attach at a number of strong points within the hull where those compartments meet.
But one need only ask the simple question... if a telescoping connection was needed all the way to the center meeting point of those pylons, wouldn't the same issue still exist in TMP/TWOK? We get some very nice views of the internal structure of the secondary hull in those areas and I don't see major structural components following the warp transfer conduits in the engineering room.
I don't think these are totally unrealistic expectations today, so I'm not especially worried about them in the Star Trek Future. Warp drive on the other hand... well.
_________________________
Actually, from a true cross section you wouldn't see the other side as the cross section would run down the middle of the gallery access corridor. It is included in these sketches more as a reference than a true cross section of that spot.DS9Sega said:
Then again, if you didn't see it there, you might not have asked about it... so it's being there served it's purpose.
_________________________
When designing my original turbo lift network layout I was envisioning 12 lifts to play around with traffic rules... but without knowing what is on every deck (or most decks) yet, I am not sure how many alcoves of any given branch there might be in total for the ship.CuttingEdge100 said:
I do envision a rest point/service area. I also would imagine more lifts added during high traffic periods (shift changes), and empty lifts being kept in the major loops of the network waiting for an alcove vacancy to pop up. Additionally, if a lift is moving past an activated lift stop (someone is standing and waiting), lifts with less than 3 people must stop to pick up more people unless the lift is on a priority trip (like getting the captain any where he wants
).I have a bunch of traffic rules (like all loops are one way), and there is a lift operations center designed to override those rules in some cases to govern traffic when needed.
Most important is that you don't need turbo lifts to move between any of the compartments of the ship except the bridge. Not only are they optional... I would think that for the health of the crew their use would be largely discouraged. With three ladders per ladderway, there should be enough room to handle people coming and going to duty shifts (ladderways aren't at 1 g either).
Agreed on many of the points above, although I wouldn't call the ship "lumbering" when her linear accelerations are much like those of an artillery shell. Also, a little comment on this:
Quite. But note that the angle at which those "plasma conduits" or whatnot depart the longitudal thingamabob is nowhere near the angle of the engine pylons. One might well speculate that the pylons hit some sort of a common strongback deep inside the hull, while these conduits merge into the pylons from above at some point below the outer hull surface.
This would of course only bring about the issue of the cargo bay set/matte seen in the first movie... But the engineering set as such doesn't impose limitations. Which is all good and well, because there's something of a need to reposition that set from Probert's initially intended location, to allow for the corridor layout outside.
I'd argue that giving the pylons two attaching points, one on the surface (which I agree is probably load-bearing) and one near the centerline of the secondary hull, would make them better able to resist torsional forces in just about any direction than a single-point attachment would. Assuming, of course, that the pylons themselves were rigid enough to begin with, which I have to accept since I see them holding up and I see the neck doing the same.
Timo Saloniemi
Quite. But note that the angle at which those "plasma conduits" or whatnot depart the longitudal thingamabob is nowhere near the angle of the engine pylons. One might well speculate that the pylons hit some sort of a common strongback deep inside the hull, while these conduits merge into the pylons from above at some point below the outer hull surface.
This would of course only bring about the issue of the cargo bay set/matte seen in the first movie... But the engineering set as such doesn't impose limitations. Which is all good and well, because there's something of a need to reposition that set from Probert's initially intended location, to allow for the corridor layout outside.
I'd argue that giving the pylons two attaching points, one on the surface (which I agree is probably load-bearing) and one near the centerline of the secondary hull, would make them better able to resist torsional forces in just about any direction than a single-point attachment would. Assuming, of course, that the pylons themselves were rigid enough to begin with, which I have to accept since I see them holding up and I see the neck doing the same.
Timo Saloniemi
I'm glad to see you mention this, as it's something that I've personally always felt happened - the massive open cargo/shuttlebay of TMP ended up being there after they pulled the old engine machinery for the new setup and opened up the surrounding spaces.
As for the pylons themselves, I'd tend to agree that less structural support shown is better. I would tend to think the ship would have been designed so that the hull itself (perhaps along with reinforcing ribs not unlike those seen in the roof of the TMP engineering set) would not actually need much internal 'support' to hold itself together when coupled with the notion of hull pressure compartments plus the overall artificial gravity at work.
Not without gravity!
One of the first things I did with my plans, after breaking down the deck levels, was put some serious crossmembers in that neck.
Gravity is irrelevant.
All you need for a force on the structure is mass and acceleration. gravity is one source of acceleration. The ship's thrust system is another. Any change in direction is rotational acceleration. All will act to try to tear apart the ship.
Now, there was the TNGism where it was assumed that Starfleet builds their ships from tissue paper and all the actual 'structure' comes in the form of forcefields and inertial dampners. With that, you can get away with any kind of dumb internal support beam structure. But I find that a bit on the crazy side.
To be fair, I wouldn't say that all the structural support comes from forcefields and such as depicted in TNG. I've thought it's more like the hull is a pressure bubble and all the little cabin bubbles essentially float anchored in it, forming a honeycomb-like structural support, with the fields to beef them up.
The "semi-monocoque" section of this article might be of interest to peeps in this discussion:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuselage
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuselage
I'm not fond honestly of there being windows in the neck. It strikes me as completely absurd.
CuttingEdge100
CuttingEdge100
Brilliant. Exactly the type of thing I was thinking. If it works for aircraft why not starships?
Windows in the neck do seem absurd. I wish I knew what the thinking was behind them being there in the first place. But there they are...
IIRC Jefferies agreed with you. He felt that interrupting the hull's surface with windows would be an unnecessary feature, 1) causing weaknesses in the hull integrity, 2) In deep space what would you really see out of windows? (think about it, ever looked outside at night? Your windows that are to lit up inside rooms with you inside are essentially mirrors.) and 3) building windows in the set would be expensive and take up too much room on the soundstage, given that a starfield would eat up floorspace on the stage.
So I guess Roddenberry or someone insisted on them in order to give the ship an obvious sense of scale.
Meh.
Albertese,
All good points,
Truthfully though some windows are helpful for determining some idea of scale. Plus there are some claustrophobic people who probably wouldn't mind looking out into space.
Regardless, I think the amount of windows on the secondary hull and particularly the neck are completely overkill.
CuttingEdge100
All good points,
Truthfully though some windows are helpful for determining some idea of scale. Plus there are some claustrophobic people who probably wouldn't mind looking out into space.
Regardless, I think the amount of windows on the secondary hull and particularly the neck are completely overkill.
CuttingEdge100
So I take it that you guys who wanted less windows on the dorsal are happier with the remastered Enterprise?
Remastered: 4 port holes and 6 windows
Original: 4 port holes and 14 windows
I'm working from the original, but the remastered version should give those of you wanting less windows an on screen reference.Original: 4 port holes and 14 windows
Making some small progress on my study of the model... nothing all that special.
The bridge is the cut down version (rather than the pilot version that will be in it's place when I'm done) and the bridge dome is what is on the model today (as opposed to the dome seen in the series). It is easier to work with all the parts as they are on the model now until I finalize the major elements and then attempt to work out the original details later.
The bridge is the cut down version (rather than the pilot version that will be in it's place when I'm done) and the bridge dome is what is on the model today (as opposed to the dome seen in the series). It is easier to work with all the parts as they are on the model now until I finalize the major elements and then attempt to work out the original details later.
- Status
