What about it? Not sure I understand what you're asking.What about tankage for matter, anti-matter and such?
What about it? Not sure I understand what you're asking.What about tankage for matter, anti-matter and such?
Well, honestly, part of what I found confusing about the question was that, in this thread (and even on this page) I've already addressed that, at least partially.I think he's asking where you plan on putting it. My guess is you're going with the (admittedly muddy) producer's intent that this was all self-contained in the nacelles.
I do plan to do that, and have quite a bit of it worked out already.Which brings up another point of interest, are you planning n detailing the interior of the nacelles? I'd love to see your take on that hardware.
You're correct about what I'm going with (I've said as much, again, on this very page already). I'm not sure why this would be "muddy," though. My personal take is that it's nonsensical to have this sort of hardware inside of the habitable spaces of the ship. Also, Jefferies (as an aerospace guy) was very familiar with where power comes from on aircraft, and was using that model... a model I'm 100% in agreement with.
Oh I'm with you completely. I was was merely giving some room for those guys who insist on clinging to a few odd references such as (but not limited to) "Elaan of Troyius" that seem to put that hardware in the midst of the secondary hull. My personal et arrangement puts all the big reactor stuff in the nacelles with a smaller third reactor near the Engine Room. This too satisfies all the on-screen references. But I think it was Matt's original intent to keep all that business upstairs, my third reactor is to satisfy certain aspects of what is probably from writers not quite getting the concept.
But, it's not a "general cargo door."My only complaint so far is your use of the yellow hatch as a general cargo door. Personally, I always though it was linked to the ship's power systems, especially given how Jefferies used the circle markings on the plans for Phase II ship.
Well, the trick is that any hatch can represent any feature... shape isn't an indicator of function, only of whatever's behind it.He placed an analogous circular hatch directly underneath where he places the engineering room, and placed two smaller circular hatches on the underside of the nacelles. Given that he always considered the nacelles as actual engines, I can only assume that the use of the hatches implies a connection to the ship's power systems, if not directly to the engines themselves. Given their absence on the original, it may have been an afterthought, but I like the idea.
...
Maybe the writer's inclusion of a third reactor was the reason that Jefferies indicated three hatches on the refit's plans? I doubt that it was the original idea for the hatch to be linked to the ship's power systems, but in retrospect, it doesn't make much sense for a general cargo hatch to have such a specific shape.
Well, to be fair, there's not MUCH empty space in the dorsal...In truth I think it's rather bizarre to have so much open space in the neck (other than the lifts) considering it would need to be a beefy structure (torsional loads), even more than the warp-nacelles (and they don't have all that much stuff in them)
Regardless that was how the design was drawn up and I believe Mr. Brown is simply trying to be as true to the original design as possible.
CuttingEdge100
Post 947
The dorsal is pretty full of tube runs... unavoidable, unfortunately. There's only one path through the dorsal... but there are four Jeffries tubes (two forward, two aft) plus a ladderway, so there are additional ways to travel between the primary and secondary hulls.
One other thing you'll notice here is that the tubes going to the lowermost region (well, they're not entirely complete, mind you!)... they extend all the way to the hull. I'm going to put (hidden) hatches in those regions... the idea being that when the ship was under construction, interior access was provided by a direct connection from here. While they're not used at this point, some dockyards still have that sort of connection so the tubes remain. Anyway, that's my thought process.
I thought about that. However, it's not really consistent with the car/tube designs we've had throughout Trek-nology.Would it help any to have the tubes... run as the crow-flies, along the structural spine of the dorsal, except for the car stops?The dorsal is pretty full of tube runs... unavoidable, unfortunately. There's only one path through the dorsal... but there are four Jeffries tubes (two forward, two aft) plus a ladderway, so there are additional ways to travel between the primary and secondary hulls.
Well, I hadn't planned on this... but when I created that last section of tube, it just seemed totally obvious. By the way, there's still the option for doing this at the bridge lift tube as well... but it seems to me that you don't want to have 100% or so of the traffic in and out of the ship going, essentially, through the most high-security location on the ship. So while there might be a connection from the bridge to "dock control," the main passage used by dockyard crews would likely be the pair at the bottom, and they'd seldom go near the bridge.Great idea! I always thought of including a feature like that at Deck 1 - some sort of starbase docking collar at the top so people could get on and off the ship with a turbo-lift. Sure beats cumbersome gangways if you're just doing errands back and forth, and it ties into the ship's existing infrastructure and how we regularly see crew moving about. I never thought about the bottom, which seems like a great idea. And I like your construction/dockyard reasoning!One other thing you'll notice here is that the tubes going to the lowermost region (well, they're not entirely complete, mind you!)... they extend all the way to the hull. I'm going to put (hidden) hatches in those regions... the idea being that when the ship was under construction, interior access was provided by a direct connection from here. While they're not used at this point, some dockyards still have that sort of connection so the tubes remain. Anyway, that's my thought process.
I thought about that. However, it's not really consistent with the car/tube designs we've had throughout Trek-nology.Would it help any to have the tubes... run as the crow-flies, along the structural spine of the dorsal, except for the car stops?The dorsal is pretty full of tube runs... unavoidable, unfortunately. There's only one path through the dorsal... but there are four Jeffries tubes (two forward, two aft) plus a ladderway, so there are additional ways to travel between the primary and secondary hulls.
Had I done that, I'd have had to "tip" the car at the top of the dorsal, and then "untip" it when it's back at the bottom, plus at each level. Now, that might be more practical than the stair-stepping we've got, but as far as I'm concerned it's really a toss-up.
But... if you take that approach... what secures the cars in the tube? The car is not constrained... it could "rattle around" wildly.I thought about that. However, it's not really consistent with the car/tube designs we've had throughout Trek-nology.Would it help any to have the tubes... run as the crow-flies, along the structural spine of the dorsal, except for the car stops?
Had I done that, I'd have had to "tip" the car at the top of the dorsal, and then "untip" it when it's back at the bottom, plus at each level. Now, that might be more practical than the stair-stepping we've got, but as far as I'm concerned it's really a toss-up.
Actually, you don't have to tip the car, just make the diagonal tube large enough to keep the car level. Then just have the car cheat forward a bit at each deck for passenger entry/egress.
![]()
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.