• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Design the Next Enterprise

I don't have any problem with relying on fantastical technology to make "unfeasible" looking starships, because if it weren't for other fantastical pieces of technology these fictitious ships wouldn't be doing much of anything at all.

If a regular ship function can bend the universe around itself to travel much faster than the speed of light, I can buy a structural integrity field to keep a slightly off balance structure intact.
 
I don't have any problem with relying on fantastical technology to make "unfeasible" looking starships, because if it weren't for other fantastical pieces of technology these fictitious ships wouldn't be doing much of anything at all.

If a regular ship function can bend the universe around itself to travel much faster than the speed of light, I can buy a structural integrity field to keep a slightly off balance structure intact.
Well, though, that's still not a really good argument. If there are two structures you can use, and one is more robust than the other, and both have the same "cost," well... it's pretty obvious.

The issue with making a funky design and relying on "magical tricks" to make it work is that... well, it's inefficient. You want a mechanical design which works without any supplemental "magic" and which only uses that magic to help provide a safety factor.

The "observed" forces on a ship can't ever be THAT huge... for the very simple reason that the stuff inside the ship cannot handle those same forces. Yes, we know that Trek ships accelerate very fast... but we also know that there is some form of "magic" energy field which (in what remains an undefined manner) somehow reduces the "effective inertial effects" on the ship and its contents.

This is another of the many issues that led me to conclude that "impulse power" is typically subspace-assisted. By reducing the "observed mass" of the ship, relative to real space/time, you can proportionally reduce the inertial effects seen inside that bubble of subspace, allowing you to accelerate at what seem, outside of the bubble, to be ludicrous rates, while inside the bubble it seems pretty much normal.

See, the ship doesn't "really" accelerate that fast... hence it requires a lot less mechanical support than you're probably assuming.

Make the design so that it could work in an underwater ocean-going vessel... with all the forces applied by the water to that hull... and, as far as I'm concerned, it should be just fine for impulse acceleration or warp transition.

The SIF really comes into play once the ship's structure starts to degrade. The first time we ever conclusively saw a circumstance when SIF would have been required was in TWOK.
 
Well, though, that's still not a really good argument. If there are two structures you can use, and one is more robust than the other, and both have the same "cost," well... it's pretty obvious.

The issue with making a funky design and relying on "magical tricks" to make it work is that... well, it's inefficient. You want a mechanical design which works without any supplemental "magic" and which only uses that magic to help provide a safety factor.

The "observed" forces on a ship can't ever be THAT huge... for the very simple reason that the stuff inside the ship cannot handle those same forces. Yes, we know that Trek ships accelerate very fast... but we also know that there is some form of "magic" energy field which (in what remains an undefined manner) somehow reduces the "effective inertial effects" on the ship and its contents.

This is another of the many issues that led me to conclude that "impulse power" is typically subspace-assisted. By reducing the "observed mass" of the ship, relative to real space/time, you can proportionally reduce the inertial effects seen inside that bubble of subspace, allowing you to accelerate at what seem, outside of the bubble, to be ludicrous rates, while inside the bubble it seems pretty much normal.

See, the ship doesn't "really" accelerate that fast... hence it requires a lot less mechanical support than you're probably assuming.

Make the design so that it could work in an underwater ocean-going vessel... with all the forces applied by the water to that hull... and, as far as I'm concerned, it should be just fine for impulse acceleration or warp transition.

The SIF really comes into play once the ship's structure starts to degrade. The first time we ever conclusively saw a circumstance when SIF would have been required was in TWOK.

Technically the SIF didn't exist in TWOK. It hadn't been invented by the production crews yet. At least not in the form we know it now.

If you read the aside on the SIF in the Next Generation Tech Manual, you see they invented it because the Enterprise D was structurally unsound. That is to say, at the ship's size, differential load would cause the structure to flex, visibly. To quote the Manual; "(We envisioned the main impulse engines firing, squashing the ship like a partially deflated blimp. This might be a valid way for a space vehicle to operate, but it would probably look pretty silly on film.) Because of this, we came up with the "structural integrity field,: which we envision as a powerful forcefield that helps hold the ship together."

If you get into the nitty gritty in the Manual, you'll find that they really did intend the SIF to be a daily system, not an emergency fall back. For ex., the D's structure is said to flex under accelerations less than Earth's gravity, and suffer un-repairable failure at just under 2 g's.

While there's a certain logic to the idea of building the beefiest structure one can, it isn't Trek logic. The best space vehicle is sphere. Sensible or not, aesthetics come first, and people invent things like the SIF, and using the hull to shape the warp field to explain why the Engineers in this time tossed sense out of the main shuttlebay.

So, if pressed about my spindly pylons, I can confidently say that they enhance field efficiency to such a degree that they more than compensate for the addition SIF energy penalty and technobabble all they way home.
 
Well, there are FUNCTIONAL reasons to do certain things. Having the engines in external nacelles is perfectly practical, for example... for the exact same reason that they don't put the jet turbines in the cabin of a jet airliner. You WANT partitioning. There are also practical benefits to modularity. And while I agree, a sphere is the best individual shape, there's a reason that we generally don't have any of our real technological marvels in that shape. Its' a TARGET, but you have to take real physical considerations into effect as well. The ship isn't just a hull, it's a mechanism. So, the idea that all Trek ships should theoretically be spheres is a dramatic oversimplification.

There are lots of other PRACTICAL reasons to have other shapes. But, there's a happy medium to be found. You're designing a ship to have specific functions and features... and then, you're trying to make it the simplest and most practical you can, within those constraints.
 
Yeah, about the pylons: I think that they are too spindly.

I'm not a fan of Matt Jefferies's idea of using technology to use less structural support. It is one of the things that I don't like about the Enterprise-J. I think that it is wise that the pylons are more supportive for their nacelles. I have no problem with big nacelles, so long as their pylons look like they could easily keep them attached to the ship (JJprise: I'm looking at you >_>).

My view is: just because you have the technology that allows you to use less support, does that mean you should? This is considering that you could make them stronger physically, and they would look just as good, if not better, than making them smaller, unless the reason for making them smaller has something to do with performance, which can't be addressed by any other means.

I'm thinking that it is dangerous to become so dependent on structural integrity fields and shields to keep the pylons (and nacelles) attached to their hull, especially considering that there is violate warp plasma flowing through them.

I think that you should make the pylons longer, if you know what I mean. I would add more transition between the hull they are attached to and the pylons themselves. This would take some stress off of the SIF system, and make the pylons harder to shoot off in one shot should the shields/armor be unable to protect them.

Sorry for my rant, but I had to say it.:lol:

By the way, I'm loving the look of your ship, and I'm glad that my idea has inspired you.

All discussion is good discussion, as far as I'm concerned. No need to apologize for expressing a point of view.

From a purely structural stand point, the ship I built makes no sense. OTOH, the saucer is being held in by two struts that are 5.6 meters thick. I've pretty much tossed reality out the window.

That said, as some STO goers pointed out, that' about the same thickness as the TMP refit's neck, so it's not like I've tossed Trek reality along with the real world.

Heck, when I started they were a shade under 3 meters. I beefed them up slightly to allow for turbo lifts.

Well, there are FUNCTIONAL reasons to do certain things. Having the engines in external nacelles is perfectly practical, for example... for the exact same reason that they don't put the jet turbines in the cabin of a jet airliner. You WANT partitioning. There are also practical benefits to modularity. And while I agree, a sphere is the best individual shape, there's a reason that we generally don't have any of our real technological marvels in that shape. Its' a TARGET, but you have to take real physical considerations into effect as well. The ship isn't just a hull, it's a mechanism. So, the idea that all Trek ships should theoretically be spheres is a dramatic oversimplification.

There are lots of other PRACTICAL reasons to have other shapes. But, there's a happy medium to be found. You're designing a ship to have specific functions and features... and then, you're trying to make it the simplest and most practical you can, within those constraints.

Of course there are functional reasons to do something. That's why I pointed to the sphere. It really is the most functional way to go. Ask the Borg.

We don't build them yet, because we can't. Sphere's aren't the best way to go on Earth's surface. Underwater they have many advantages but suffer from station keeping issues. In space... It's hard to argue spheres are impractical in space. Space prefers spheres.

But you are correct to suggest that calling out the sphere was dramatic. Possibly even an oversimplification. The Sphere is the ultimate expression of form following function. Start with the most functional design at its base. A sphere, possibly with an annular warp drive. Proceed.

In Trek, function follows form. The only hard rules are those Mr. Probert linked to, and those get broken too (NX-74205 anyone?).

My ship exists as a set of challenges. First, Can I take Adam Ihle's winning idea and do something interesting with it? Second, can I do a better presentation than my DNTE entry? Third, what level of detail can I apply to ship in a similar time frame to the contest. Finally, can I export that ship into an easy to use series of formats and give it away?

I'm working on a lot of projects and they all A) require creativity and B) mark the thin line between the life I want and the one I have. My performance in the DTNE contest was a sharp blow to the confidence in the creativity area.

I don't say the above to score points of stifle debate. I'm illustrating the function this design serves. Discussion of the potential issues it might create is good. It gives opportunity to, like the TNG team did with SIF, develop solutions. And it serves to potentially identify fatal flaws.

"Practical" is a limiting factor in a realm of limitless possibility. I simply prefer to have function follow form, and see what happens. That work flow may not work for others but it is not less valid.
 
The SIF really comes into play once the ship's structure starts to degrade. The first time we ever conclusively saw a circumstance when SIF would have been required was in TWOK.

Just curious Cary as what circumstance that was in TWOK you are referring to? As far as I can tell, TOS/TOS Movies didn't rely on SIF for structural integrity but did have some kind of inertial dampening or velocity compensating mechanism to keep the people inside from getting splattering all over the place.
 
Well, maybe they didn't need it for the phasers (depending on how you believe phasers transfer energy to their targets), but when you're getting photons lobbed at your bare hull, you better hope you have something besides inertial damping to keep your ship and crew from being accelerated in counter-productive directions (IE, blown to bits).
 
The SIF really comes into play once the ship's structure starts to degrade. The first time we ever conclusively saw a circumstance when SIF would have been required was in TWOK.
Just curious Cary as what circumstance that was in TWOK you are referring to? As far as I can tell, TOS/TOS Movies didn't rely on SIF for structural integrity but did have some kind of inertial dampening or velocity compensating mechanism to keep the people inside from getting splattering all over the place.
Well, the secondary hull is, no matter how you look at it, a major load-bearing structure. The Reliant's phaser strike ripped through the upper port hull. Remember, the engineering section isn't adjacent to the hull exterior, it's actually pretty deep inside!

So, the ship was basically torn to the core... and yet it managed to stay "intact" under load. So, SOMETHING had to be keeping it together... and I'm ASSUMING it was something along the linese of SIF.

But your mileage may vary.
 
Hey all, gonna have to put my Ent - F stuff on hold for a bit. Real life stuff getting in the way. I promise to get some stuff done when I can.
 
what a superior structure looks like is likely to be very different in a few hundred years than anything we can conceive of now. "sure, we can hypothesize some sort of magical extruded steel and tempered glass technology for buildings, but it still looks flimsy compared to a stone wall, and i don't buy it."
 
what a superior structure looks like is likely to be very different in a few hundred years than anything we can conceive of now. "sure, we can hypothesize some sort of magical extruded steel and tempered glass technology for buildings, but it still looks flimsy compared to a stone wall, and i don't buy it."


Bingo.
 
Well, the secondary hull is, no matter how you look at it, a major load-bearing structure. The Reliant's phaser strike ripped through the upper port hull. Remember, the engineering section isn't adjacent to the hull exterior, it's actually pretty deep inside!

So, the ship was basically torn to the core... and yet it managed to stay "intact" under load. So, SOMETHING had to be keeping it together... and I'm ASSUMING it was something along the linese of SIF.

But your mileage may vary.

Hi Cary -

I agree about the load-bearing structure of the secondary hull, but I'm in the YMMV camp as the low power phaser hits from the Reliant appear to be only "skin deep".

If they were penetration, there would be hull breaches in the engine room area and the the Enterprise would've been sliced through in half at the the torpedo bay. The surface hits did penetrate deep enough to cause some internal damage (like to the main energizers and one of the torpedo rooms) but further viewing shows intact structural pieces and relatively little damage on the surface of the ship, IMHO.

A more severe example of heavy damage would've been the Constellation from "The Doomsday Machine" with the twisted nacelle pylons, etc... but she still held together under Kirk's bad impulse driving :) But even in that case, there was no mention of SIF or the need to re-establish it even with that kind of damage and power loss...
 
what a superior structure looks like is likely to be very different in a few hundred years than anything we can conceive of now. "sure, we can hypothesize some sort of magical extruded steel and tempered glass technology for buildings, but it still looks flimsy compared to a stone wall, and i don't buy it."


Bingo.

That may be true, but those building probably won't be shot at, or subjected to some random spacial phenomenon.

My point is: will the nacelle pylons survive if they are subjected to weapons fire or some other type of stress, or would making the attachment point bigger make the pylons more durable, while not sacrificing in aesthetics and/or function?
 
what a superior structure looks like is likely to be very different in a few hundred years than anything we can conceive of now. "sure, we can hypothesize some sort of magical extruded steel and tempered glass technology for buildings, but it still looks flimsy compared to a stone wall, and i don't buy it."
Bingo.

That may be true, but those building probably won't be shot at, or subjected to some random spacial phenomenon.

My point is: will the nacelle pylons survive if they are subjected to weapons fire or some other type of stress, or would making the attachment point bigger make the pylons more durable, while not sacrificing in aesthetics and/or function?
yes. because those pylons were specifically designed for those situations. BECAUSE WE SAID SO. you're trying to apply 19th century engineering to make-believe.
 

That may be true, but those building probably won't be shot at, or subjected to some random spacial phenomenon.

My point is: will the nacelle pylons survive if they are subjected to weapons fire or some other type of stress, or would making the attachment point bigger make the pylons more durable, while not sacrificing in aesthetics and/or function?
yes. because those pylons were specifically designed for those situations. BECAUSE WE SAID SO. you're trying to apply 19th century engineering to make-believe.

What largo said.

There is great line the technical specification of the Macross YF-21 from the anime OVA Macross Plus. It is important to remember that the designer, Kawamori Shoji's work flow is to start with a jet fighter and then design the robot it transforms into. Function for him typically follows form.

The line is "stealth/agility trade-off decided by design team." In essence, it says the fictional "designers" of the YF-21 could have built the most stealthy variable fighter or the most agile but not both. So they chose a middle ground, trading some stealth for agility and vice versa. This line adds some after-the-fact verisimilitude to the mecha.

One can conceive that in Star Trek the ASDB faces similar problems. they must sometimes make a trade between Field geometry/efficiency and tactical survivability. 100% tactical might look very much like a ball. 80% tactical/20% efficient might look like the Defiant. 50/50 starts looking more and more (fi not exactly) like the classic Enterprise we know.
 
moar enterprise pictures!

Ask and you shall...
Azurian1.png

be teased.

As I mentioned before, I owe someone a ship model. It happens to be on topic as the ship in question is DTNE Runner up Azurian Starfyre's Frontier Class.

So, it is an Enterprise. Sorta :devil:
 

That may be true, but those building probably won't be shot at, or subjected to some random spacial phenomenon.

My point is: will the nacelle pylons survive if they are subjected to weapons fire or some other type of stress, or would making the attachment point bigger make the pylons more durable, while not sacrificing in aesthetics and/or function?
yes. because those pylons were specifically designed for those situations. BECAUSE WE SAID SO. you're trying to apply 19th century engineering to make-believe.

It doesn't matter how advanced to engineering and/or technology is that is involved: if a big enough hole starts getting drilled into a nacelle pylon, it is only a matter of time until the pylon gets sliced off, or hits the plasma transfer conduit (igniting that, and causing a big boom). By adding more surface area to the nacelle pylon, that leaves more to be shot at until critical damage occurs, which could add a few critical seconds that might allow a ship to get itself out of a situation, or at least cause more damage trying.

That may be true, but those building probably won't be shot at, or subjected to some random spacial phenomenon.

My point is: will the nacelle pylons survive if they are subjected to weapons fire or some other type of stress, or would making the attachment point bigger make the pylons more durable, while not sacrificing in aesthetics and/or function?
yes. because those pylons were specifically designed for those situations. BECAUSE WE SAID SO. you're trying to apply 19th century engineering to make-believe.

What largo said.

There is great line the technical specification of the Macross YF-21 from the anime OVA Macross Plus. It is important to remember that the designer, Kawamori Shoji's work flow is to start with a jet fighter and then design the robot it transforms into. Function for him typically follows form.

The line is "stealth/agility trade-off decided by design team." In essence, it says the fictional "designers" of the YF-21 could have built the most stealthy variable fighter or the most agile but not both. So they chose a middle ground, trading some stealth for agility and vice versa. This line adds some after-the-fact verisimilitude to the mecha.

One can conceive that in Star Trek the ASDB faces similar problems. they must sometimes make a trade between Field geometry/efficiency and tactical survivability. 100% tactical might look very much like a ball. 80% tactical/20% efficient might look like the Defiant. 50/50 starts looking more and more (fi not exactly) like the classic Enterprise we know.

Okay, but I don't see how making the surface area for the pylon-secondary hull so small could help with warp/slipstream field efficiency (is that is what you mean by Field geometry/efficiency). I'm no suggesting making the nacelle pylon thicker by it's sides (the fore/aft). I'm suggesting making it thicker by increasing the surface area of the pylons from the top/bottom, and not by a whole lot. Maybe the same amount of surface area similar to the pylon-nacelle attachment points of the Prometheus class, only applied to the attachment point for the pylon/secondary hull, and combining that with the curves you already have. You know what I'm thinking?

This is your design, so if you ultimately want to leave the nacelle pylons the way they are, then I'll respect that. I just wanted to make sure that you can visualize what I'm suggesting first.
 
I agree about the load-bearing structure of the secondary hull, but I'm in the YMMV camp as the low power phaser hits from the Reliant appear to be only "skin deep".

If they were penetration, there would be hull breaches in the engine room area and the the Enterprise would've been sliced through in half at the the torpedo bay.
I disagree. Remember, you're talking about a complex structure, not a "solid mass" in any region.

Think of, for instance, the structure of a typical office building. There are exterior walls, which have a degree of load-bearing capacity but which are not primary load-bearing elements. You have a steel infrastructure that carries the majority of the load, often a composite infrastructure consisting of steel with concrete poured over it.

You've seen what happens to such a building when there is significant damage. The walls and so forth are perforated, and sometimes the concrete is blown off of the steel infrastructure, but the building will continue to stand, until the primary load-bearing members are too compromised.

Think of the sequence in the movie True Lies, where the helicopter and the Harrier are in combat downtown. The aircraft weapons systems basically shred, front to back, the building internals (including the villains) but the building's structure is still there.

That's how I see the hits in ST-TWOK. The phaser strikes blew through the hull plating, through internal bulkheads, and compromised (but did not "destroy") internal mechanical load-bearing elements. Certainly, anyone in one of the external compartments, where the phaser strike hit, would have been incinerated. The energy of the blast as it dug deeper into the hull was decreased, until, by the time it hit the Main Engineering compartment in the core of the secondary hull, the energy had been dissipated enough that the crewmen in that area were, in most cases, able to escape with their lives.

Clearly, the ship has a tough "skeletal" structure, and probably has some self-healing systems (as well as some great repair crews). Also, the flick was done on a very tight budget, and doing the "crewmen being sucked into the vacuum" shot wasn't necessary to communicate the idea that the Enterprise was getting the... snot?... kicked out of her!
The surface hits did penetrate deep enough to cause some internal damage (like to the main energizers and one of the torpedo rooms) but further viewing shows intact structural pieces and relatively little damage on the surface of the ship, IMHO.
All we really see, in TWOK, is that they did a quick cosmetic dress-up on the ship with stuff that could easily be cleaned off.

Interestingly, in ST-III, we see damage repairs (scorched areas, patching, etc) that we didn't see in ST-II. If you look at that film, and pay attention to the hits that Enterprise took in ST-II, you can only conclude that some of those hits totally perforated the hull, from port to starboard!

Ripping away the 23rd-century equivalent of "sheetmetal hull panels" and "internal bulkheads" does is basically what we saw there. (Had the ship had shields and screens up, they'd have been safe enough, of course.) But we know where main engineering is, and we know that it's a couple of dozen yards away from the outer hull surface. A number of compartments, outside of main engineering, has do be destroyed in order for the residual energy from that blast to make it there.

As for the port torpedo room... well, there are inevitably going to be some massive load-bearing structural members in the dorsal. It's a safe bet to say that the port room was rendered uninhabitable by the hit there, which basically ripped that area open like, as the SFX team described it, a "can-opener" effect.

(It's pretty clear that they intended for there to be two launcher rooms in the neck. There are some scaling issues associated with that, of course... but in the "Spock's tube is launched" sequence you can see that the port launch tube is still destroyed... and that Spock's tube is launched from the starboard side (which, unlike the port side, was mostly undamaged).

It's a fair assumption to think that the "fire" we saw was actually in the starboard room... and that the port room was totally decimated by the Reliant's hit.
A more severe example of heavy damage would've been the Constellation from "The Doomsday Machine" with the twisted nacelle pylons, etc... but she still held together under Kirk's bad impulse driving :) But even in that case, there was no mention of SIF or the need to re-establish it even with that kind of damage and power loss...
They didn't mention it... but that doesn't mean it's not there.

Of course, we also saw the AMT-stellation vibrating and shaking and the nacelle "bobbing "in some shots... which sort of infers that the ship is barely holding together and is about to shake apart. (They even replicated some of that in the remastered version!)

Was the Constellation about to just fall apart? If not... what was holding her together? I have no problem with the idea of a SIF, or SIF-analog, being present there.

But, again, we need not treat this as the same "all-inclusive" system that they have in TNG times. Maybe, instead of being in every frame and stringer and plate, it's just there in certain key locations during the TOS-era?
 
The energy of the blast as it dug deeper into the hull was decreased, until, by the time it hit the Main Engineering compartment in the core of the secondary hull, the energy had been dissipated enough that the crewmen in that area were, in most cases, able to escape with their lives.

I think the only reason that the secondary hull was not blasted into tiny bits was that Khan's phaser strikes were fired deliberately to only cripple the energizers and fired at low power. The guys running out of that main engineering compartment with the horizontal shaft were not in any danger of depressurization but of radiation exposure, IMHO.

Interestingly, in ST-III, we see damage repairs (scorched areas, patching, etc) that we didn't see in ST-II. If you look at that film, and pay attention to the hits that Enterprise took in ST-II, you can only conclude that some of those hits totally perforated the hull, from port to starboard!

There was no indication that any hits went straight through the hull to the other side. We get a pretty good indication of the damage sustained when Kirk and Spock go to the damage control panels. In ST3 there is additional damage not present or accounted for during the entire battle in ST2. The only explanation that makes sense is that the Enterprise had another battle between ST2 and ST3.

TWOK-Battle-Damage-Comparison-output.jpg


TSFS-Battle-Damage-output.jpg


It's a fair assumption to think that the "fire" we saw was actually in the starboard room... and that the port room was totally decimated by the Reliant's hit.

That makes sense but still doesn't mean the structural integrity of the neck section was significantly impacted. The port room just would be unusable. (Not like the exploded out torpedo pod on the Reliant :) )

They didn't mention it... but that doesn't mean it's not there.

Of course, we also saw the AMT-stellation vibrating and shaking and the nacelle "bobbing "in some shots... which sort of infers that the ship is barely holding together and is about to shake apart. (They even replicated some of that in the remastered version!)

Was the Constellation about to just fall apart? If not... what was holding her together? I have no problem with the idea of a SIF, or SIF-analog, being present there.

The structure of the ship would be keeping it together. SIFs need not be present. It could be explained as a shift in construction of starships between TOS and TNG. For example, the TOS Enterprise is 4 times denser than the much more voluminous VOY Voyager. Future ships use less materials for strength and rely on SIF for the difference...

But, again, we need not treat this as the same "all-inclusive" system that they have in TNG times. Maybe, instead of being in every frame and stringer and plate, it's just there in certain key locations during the TOS-era?

It's possible, but I'm not seeing a need for it in the TOS-era.

Edit - Of course, it's only my opinion and can change if I come across new information :)
 
Last edited:
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top