Constellation class technical manual
- Thread starter MichaelS
- Start date
Re: Update!
Just a thought - where is the Constellation class ship's deflector array going to be?
Just a thought - where is the Constellation class ship's deflector array going to be?
Re: Update!
There won't be one - at least not on all ships of the class. I intend to have one or two subclasses that have a main deflector instead of the bow hangar. I still have to find a solution for the others, as I don't know if I'll go with Rick Sternbach's explanation in the ST:Magazine article about the Constellation.
Today's update consists of a messhall food dispenser/replicator and my interpretation of the movie-era RCS thrusters (a first try at backengineering the TNG TM illustration). The latter will change a bit when I adapt it to the Constellation class.
There won't be one - at least not on all ships of the class. I intend to have one or two subclasses that have a main deflector instead of the bow hangar. I still have to find a solution for the others, as I don't know if I'll go with Rick Sternbach's explanation in the ST:Magazine article about the Constellation.
Today's update consists of a messhall food dispenser/replicator and my interpretation of the movie-era RCS thrusters (a first try at backengineering the TNG TM illustration). The latter will change a bit when I adapt it to the Constellation class.
Re: Update!
Update time!
I have something new to show you all. I spent part of the weekend figuring out what to do with the Macross structure located on the hull where the Constitution's impulse drive would be. Early on, I'd already decided that the circular bit was the warp core ejection hatch, but I had no idea what the rest of it was for. On my MSD I called it the "dorsal sensor assembly", but I've since changed my mind about that. FlyBoy (an SFM member who is doing a mesh of the Constellation) included a hatch there, which was a great idea. However, his was too small in my opinion. I measured my schematic, and it turned out that there was enough space for a normal-sized airlock.
The image shows my idea for the engineering airlock (and indeed the entire structure of what I call the engine deck - ATM, at least). The only problem I have with it is that it's located so close to the dorsal neck. There are only about 5 meters between the airlock door and the neck. However, I suppose this isn't very much different from the bottom saucer airlock on the Constitution refit in terms of spaciousness, I guess. In both cases the pilot would have to be extremely careful and accurate.
The structure is based on Macross parts, specifically some parts of the VF-1S Valkyrie model. This is why I used a very detailed version of this as my guide for a slight redesign (see this file). I also decided that those angular holes at the back are viewports (presumably for the people inside to watch the desperate travelpod pilot
).
Update time!
I have something new to show you all. I spent part of the weekend figuring out what to do with the Macross structure located on the hull where the Constitution's impulse drive would be. Early on, I'd already decided that the circular bit was the warp core ejection hatch, but I had no idea what the rest of it was for. On my MSD I called it the "dorsal sensor assembly", but I've since changed my mind about that. FlyBoy (an SFM member who is doing a mesh of the Constellation) included a hatch there, which was a great idea. However, his was too small in my opinion. I measured my schematic, and it turned out that there was enough space for a normal-sized airlock.
The image shows my idea for the engineering airlock (and indeed the entire structure of what I call the engine deck - ATM, at least). The only problem I have with it is that it's located so close to the dorsal neck. There are only about 5 meters between the airlock door and the neck. However, I suppose this isn't very much different from the bottom saucer airlock on the Constitution refit in terms of spaciousness, I guess. In both cases the pilot would have to be extremely careful and accurate.
The structure is based on Macross parts, specifically some parts of the VF-1S Valkyrie model. This is why I used a very detailed version of this as my guide for a slight redesign (see this file). I also decided that those angular holes at the back are viewports (presumably for the people inside to watch the desperate travelpod pilot
).
Re: W00t!
This thread is now no longer inactive.
Here's a new version of my auxiliary survey vehicle that's proven to be difficult to finalise so far. What do you guys think about the almost annular warp engine? I figured that it would be designed by Vulcans - or other designers influenced by Vulcan spacecraft history.
If the oval engine is not liked, I might just exchange it for a normal pair of nacelles. This would also enable me to add a second deck to the whole thing, which wouldn't be all that bad, to be honest.
This thread is now no longer inactive.
Here's a new version of my auxiliary survey vehicle that's proven to be difficult to finalise so far. What do you guys think about the almost annular warp engine? I figured that it would be designed by Vulcans - or other designers influenced by Vulcan spacecraft history.
If the oval engine is not liked, I might just exchange it for a normal pair of nacelles. This would also enable me to add a second deck to the whole thing, which wouldn't be all that bad, to be honest.
Re: W00t!
I like it! But, is it meant to land on planetary surfaces?
It might require specialized docking mechanisims in the shuttle bay as well, or at least intricately designed pads built into the annular engine housing. What happens if you turn the engine upside-down, so the support struts and the space between them is on the bottom, perhaps freeing up someplace for landing gear?
Nonetheless, a nice design, well worth resurrecting as a Vulcan ship if you decide not to proceed with it for this project. I look forward to more, as I've enjoyed what you've produced thus far.
<edit> looking at it again, if you were to upend the annular engine, I could see two landing skids/pads/etc. coming out of those protrusions at either end, near the support struts. Just a thought.
And, belated congratulations on your fiction sale.
I like it! But, is it meant to land on planetary surfaces?
It might require specialized docking mechanisims in the shuttle bay as well, or at least intricately designed pads built into the annular engine housing. What happens if you turn the engine upside-down, so the support struts and the space between them is on the bottom, perhaps freeing up someplace for landing gear?
Nonetheless, a nice design, well worth resurrecting as a Vulcan ship if you decide not to proceed with it for this project. I look forward to more, as I've enjoyed what you've produced thus far.
<edit> looking at it again, if you were to upend the annular engine, I could see two landing skids/pads/etc. coming out of those protrusions at either end, near the support struts. Just a thought.
And, belated congratulations on your fiction sale.
Re: W00t!
Yep, a coincidence. Thats what it was. I certanly didn't see the idea here and then happen to post the same thing there. Nope, not me.
Yep, a coincidence. Thats what it was. I certanly didn't see the idea here and then happen to post the same thing there. Nope, not me.
Re: W00t!
The annular warp engine is a good idea. However, you might want to make it so that the bottom curve of the hull is a tangent with the bottom part of the engine itself. That way it can both land on a planetary surface and use a shuttlebay without any special equipment. There's be nothing to interfere with landing gear.
The annular warp engine is a good idea. However, you might want to make it so that the bottom curve of the hull is a tangent with the bottom part of the engine itself. That way it can both land on a planetary surface and use a shuttlebay without any special equipment. There's be nothing to interfere with landing gear.
Re: W00t!
First, thanks to Matt for the praise. I'm blushing, see?
Second, I refined the design, taking in a few of the suggestions posted both here and over at SFM. The engine is now turned on its head - and connected with the bottom of the ship, though not as closely as JSleeper suggested. When I post a picture of the complete ship, you'll see what I mean.
Meanwhile, here's a perspective view of the ASV sans warp engine. I decided to go with two smaller nav deflectors (if indeed this is what they are, I haven't quite decided yet).
First, thanks to Matt for the praise. I'm blushing, see?
Second, I refined the design, taking in a few of the suggestions posted both here and over at SFM. The engine is now turned on its head - and connected with the bottom of the ship, though not as closely as JSleeper suggested. When I post a picture of the complete ship, you'll see what I mean.
Meanwhile, here's a perspective view of the ASV sans warp engine. I decided to go with two smaller nav deflectors (if indeed this is what they are, I haven't quite decided yet).
Re: W00t!
Nice, Very sleek. I like the dual-deflector set-up; configurable to work in tandem or seperately tasked, yes?
I can almost imagine that the two vertical rectangles between them are micro-torpedo/micro-probe launchers.
The recessed bubble-circle aft of the bridge area, is that equivalent to the "deflection crystal" on the movie-era Enterprise's impulse drive? If so, how deep does it penetrate into the hull and how does that effect available internal space? (I pictured the aft section as being a sort of sleeping-berth crawlway)
Nice, Very sleek. I like the dual-deflector set-up; configurable to work in tandem or seperately tasked, yes?
I can almost imagine that the two vertical rectangles between them are micro-torpedo/micro-probe launchers.
The recessed bubble-circle aft of the bridge area, is that equivalent to the "deflection crystal" on the movie-era Enterprise's impulse drive? If so, how deep does it penetrate into the hull and how does that effect available internal space? (I pictured the aft section as being a sort of sleeping-berth crawlway)
Constellation ASV
Ah, that I haven't yet given much thought to. thinking about it, I don't know why I put a circular window back there, it's not as if there's a lot of space for people to move about.
However, I wanted to move the bridge/control room forward, directly underneat the registration number. This would leave me with the middle section to be used for a dining area/obervation room, with the crew's bunks immediately aft.
I checked my Constellation plans, and the bow hangar door is no higher than 8 meters and a bit, so the ASV will have to be 7 meters tall at the very most. In any case, I don't think there will be space for more than four people.
I also don't think there will be microtorpedo launchers, at least not on the science version of the ship. I'm planning to do a stealth reconnaissance version of it, though, and some defense measures would be appropriate there..
Ah, that I haven't yet given much thought to. thinking about it, I don't know why I put a circular window back there, it's not as if there's a lot of space for people to move about.
However, I wanted to move the bridge/control room forward, directly underneat the registration number. This would leave me with the middle section to be used for a dining area/obervation room, with the crew's bunks immediately aft.
I checked my Constellation plans, and the bow hangar door is no higher than 8 meters and a bit, so the ASV will have to be 7 meters tall at the very most. In any case, I don't think there will be space for more than four people.
I also don't think there will be microtorpedo launchers, at least not on the science version of the ship. I'm planning to do a stealth reconnaissance version of it, though, and some defense measures would be appropriate there..
Re: Constellation ASV
^^^ Aha...yes, the presence of the window was what said "habitable volume" to me.
I agree that moving the control cabin forward will make better use of the remaining crew area. What do you see this vessel's range/duration being? That will help to determine what's required in terms of amenities.
^^^ Aha...yes, the presence of the window was what said "habitable volume" to me.
I agree that moving the control cabin forward will make better use of the remaining crew area. What do you see this vessel's range/duration being? That will help to determine what's required in terms of amenities.
Update time
Mission duration of about a month, I'd say, but I haven't actually considered that issue yet.
Meanwhile, here's something new and shiny. Many of you will know it already, but I figured that, since I was going to need a few more bridge modules, I could just as well use some that already existed (another one will be based on a module made by Thomas Models). However, I've already made sketches of at least three more (original) modules that I plan on including.
Mission duration of about a month, I'd say, but I haven't actually considered that issue yet.
Meanwhile, here's something new and shiny. Many of you will know it already, but I figured that, since I was going to need a few more bridge modules, I could just as well use some that already existed (another one will be based on a module made by Thomas Models). However, I've already made sketches of at least three more (original) modules that I plan on including.
Similar threads
