Enterprise Evolution from TOS to TMP

Discussion in 'Trek Tech' started by yotsuya, Jul 23, 2019.

  1. yotsuya

    yotsuya Fleet Captain Fleet Captain

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2008
    I have the pieces so if it is something relatively easy, sure. I am a ways from being done with the TMP version (I have the basic shapes for the Richard Taylor early variant and the main deflector for the final film variant. I haven't done any of the surface details or the other changes for the final film variant (the top and bottom saucer superstructures). I'm estimating a month before I'll have a chance (some busy times at work and home in the next few weeks).
     
  2. KamenRiderBlade

    KamenRiderBlade Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2012
    I don't need any details, just for you to modify your existing wire frames into a new variant and show me the orthographic views with the simple modifications that I'm asking for.
     
  3. yotsuya

    yotsuya Fleet Captain Fleet Captain

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2008
    What did you have in mind?
     
  4. KamenRiderBlade

    KamenRiderBlade Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2012
    For my variant using the TMP refit WireFrame model as a base reference to clone off of:

    >> From the Front/Fore Orthographic Perspective:
    - Extend the gap between the Nacelles by moving the Nacelles outward such that the outter edge of the Nacelles align with outter edges of the saucer and raise the elevation of the Nacelles such that the top of the Nacelles are aligned with the top of the bridge dome. Then adjust the pylons to the correct angle and extend as needed to match.
    - Can you triple the width of the Neck area and expand the Torpedo Room/Launcher units as needed to match.
    - Adjust the Saucer profile so that it's closer to TNG era Galaxy Class profile from the front
    - Make it a thicker meatier saucer that has a gradual slope on top and a nice slope on the bottom that meets a flat plane at the outter edge.

    >> From the Top/Dorsal Orthographic Perspective:
    - Slice the StarDrive section at the part of the hull that appears to be parallel and not narrowing aftward.
    - Move the Aft chunk rearwards to have the lip of the Shuttle Bay Landing pad be slightly behind the Warp Nacelles like the Intrepid Class / USS Voyager.
    - Copy & Paste the Parallel Band of StarDrive section to fill in any missing gaps between the Fore and Aft chunks
    - This way there can be a nice long StarDrive and smooth at any inconsistencies as needed
    - Invert the Warp Nacelle Pylons such that the base is wider while the attach point at the nacelle is thinner
    - Make it look like Swept Back wings of a modern aircraft.

    >> From the Side/Port/StarBoard Orthographic Perspective:
    - Adjust the angle on the aft of the neck structure such that it extends all the way to the top of the Shuttle Bay unit slightly behind the top of the curtain doors where the texture transition happens between the StarDrive section and the Shuttle Bay section.
    This is intentionally done to make the neck look like the Fast Back slooping lines of a Sports Car
    - Invert the cut out at the bottom aft of the StarDrive section so that the bottom becomes a gradual slope instead of a sudden drop and blend the bottom of the StarDrive section as appropriate to make it fit
     
  5. yotsuya

    yotsuya Fleet Captain Fleet Captain

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2008
    Wow... that is pretty extensive. I thought you might be asking for something simpler like put the TMP nacelles on the Phase II or something like that. What you want is pretty much an entirely new drawing and I'm afraid I don't have time for such extensive design changes. My own project is focused on drawings of the main line of Starships from the NX through Excelsior. I have 6 more ships to draw and some of them have multiple variations. And then if I really want to complete it, I need to fill in the gap.
     
    Spaceship Jo likes this.
  6. KamenRiderBlade

    KamenRiderBlade Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2012
    No Problem, I perfectly understand.
     
  7. yotsuya

    yotsuya Fleet Captain Fleet Captain

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2008
    Sometimes I randomly do a search to see if new images come up. Sometimes I'm pleasantly surprised to see my own. Today I found the full photo (though not a really great resolution) of the Refit model from the bottom. Not quite sure how it was mounted (the Starboard mounting point IS in shadow so maybe there), but it shows the full bottom of the ship, including the bottom mount cover (the one part of the model that is sadly broken, though likely easy to repair or recreate). This photo is very valuable because it confirms some of my drawing choices made from other photos.

    [​IMG]

    You have to be careful with photos. Perspective is a messy thing. To turn this into an orthographic view requires a lot of tinkering. this is great for showing the bottom of the nacelles and saucer and secondary hull, but they are in different planes. And different parts of each part are in different planes. The secondary hull is closest and appears much larger. The saucer is the next closest. The bottom of the nacelles are near the plane of the top of the saucer (not the side we are seeing) while the top of the nacelles are even further from the camera. It creates a mess when you try to align things. The side view is really much more useful, but even that has its flaws. But had hadn't seen this full photo anywhere before. I think this is the model from TMP. It seems to have a sheen about it so it should be before the dull coat at ILM for TWOK.

    In any case, it confirms my placement and sizing of all the details on the bottom of the nacelles. It also further confirms something I have found elsewhere, that the model is not perfectly symmetrical. There are slight variations on each side. I won't be drawing those. Rather I will try for the average (of whichever side has the best documentation).
     
    saddestmoon and publiusr like this.
  8. Mres_was_framed!

    Mres_was_framed! Commander Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2018
    I see some differences in the hatches on the the underside of the saucer and maybe the fins on the nacelles. Are there any other differences that I am missing. In an interview for Trekyards, Probert said that in his mind the nacelles relied on each other to create the warp field. While the overall ship design from the series as a whole does not support this (and I think 1-nacelled ships can be interesting), I'm curious if there is any further detailing that could be interpreted to support Probert's claim on the model.
     
  9. yotsuya

    yotsuya Fleet Captain Fleet Captain

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2008
    Differences compared to what? There are a few things I had not noticed before, but otherwise it looks like all the rest of the photos.

    And no, I see nothing in the design to mandate twin nacelles. Like the TOS version, the inside and outside of the nacelles are slightly different, but that does not mandate twin nacelles. And Probert had nothing to do with designing the nacelles. That was all Richard Taylor (with Matt Jefferies Phase II nacelles as a starting point). For a single nacelled ship, you would probably need to pick the inboard or outboard black grille to copy to the other side. I was looking at that when I had the rough nacelle design (with the aft outboard fin on both sides). But as we move to Excelsior and later classes, there ceases to be any real difference between the inboard and outboard side of the nacelles.
     
  10. Psion

    Psion Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2001
    Location:
    Lat: 40.1630936 Lon: -75.1183777
    I seem to recall reading decades ago that the ship has multiple mount points so that they could have every possible filming angle covered. Besides the bottom and side of the secondary hull, the impulse assembly has another mount point under the impulse deflection crystal, and I think I recall reading they could mount through the shuttle-bay. Take none of this too seriously, but I'll see if I can find sources later tonight.
     
  11. Mytran

    Mytran Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2009
    Location:
    North Wales
    I think the shuttlebay mounting point was a Ent-D thing but I've definitely read about those others before
     
    Psion likes this.
  12. yotsuya

    yotsuya Fleet Captain Fleet Captain

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2008
    We know for sure there are 3 (bottom and Starboard were the only ones I've seen used for filming, but there was a port one as well used during construction). According to Paul Olsen, there were two others, one behind the deflector and one through the hanger. We do know the deflector came off as well as the hanger, but what was underneath is a mystery. The closest we get is this picture of the frame before the hull went on (in fact I think this is during the frame assembly).

    [​IMG]

    And this photo I think reveals that there was a mounting point behind the deflector.

    [​IMG]

    That dark round circle set in the frame looks like the closeups of the starboard side mount.
     
    BajaTym, Psion and Galileo7 like this.
  13. Mres_was_framed!

    Mres_was_framed! Commander Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2018
    I meant differences of one side compared to the other side, as in the actual details of not being symmetrical that you mentioned.

    The nacelle grill thoughts you share are interesting, as even though there are designs with odd numbers of nacelles, I don't think any were shown as (having been) operaional ships until TNG.
     
  14. Mytran

    Mytran Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2009
    Location:
    North Wales
    Excellent photos, thanks!
     
  15. yotsuya

    yotsuya Fleet Captain Fleet Captain

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2008
    They are hard to see unless you find the right photos. I noticed that the taper at the front of the base of the pylons are different lengths. There is a slightly different port arrangement between the sides. The starboard side has a few more ports (on the removable panel that covers the mounting point). The hatches on the bottom of the saucer are uneven. Two pull down and then the port side airlock doors are removable to reveal the airlock. The only other things I've noticed are some small variations from side to side.

    Except for one kitbash that has not be identified as screen used, the only uses of a single (or third) warp nacelle are the Klingon Bird of Prey, The alternate future 1701-D from All Good Things, and the Kelvin from the 2009 movie. The kitbash looked like this (the drawing is a bit clearer than the photos of the model - the model has no registry or name) http://www.geocities.ws/cpt_kyle_amasov/Medusawn.jpg. Single Nacelles or triple Nacelles originate with Franz Joseph's Technical Manual. We have seen the drawings on screen of his scout/destroyer design and a couple of his names and registries were used in TMP (including one Dreadnaught). But in general Star Trek has confined the Federation design (and most others as well) to twin or quad nacelles.

    The Klingon Bird of Prey is an oddball in this conversation because it has no obvious nacelles. It has the large impulse engine, two wings with weapons at the ends, but no nacelles or pylons like the other ships. The Oberth class is also odd because the warp engines have the saucer between them. Both of those designs violate what Mr. Probert has shared as Roddenberry's rules of Starship design. Actually, the Defiant is similarly odd.

    The three rules that concern warp nacelles (the fourth is that the bridge is on top... Shenzhou broke that one) are that the nacelles must be in pairs, the nacelles must have at least 50% line of sight, and must be fully visible from the front. Well, that last one is blown out by the 1701 Refit and the Excelsior. And Voyager breaks that same one when at warp and the 50% line of sight when not at warp (and I'm not sure that it quite achieves 50% when they move up to the warp position). The even numbers was not broken for a long time, save for the displays of FJ's single nacelle configuration. As far as I know the alternate future 1701-D is the only one we have seen. The Oberth class breaks the 50% line of sight rule, as the the Phoenix. There is no line of sight at all. The Klingon Bird of Prey has no obvious warp drive so it all must be internal. The merchant ship built for Star Trek III also has no obvious warp drive. The TOS Tholian ship seem to either be a single or triple depending on how you break apart the design. So the rules have been frequently broken and I see no reason to follow any of them. And there is nothing about the canon nacelle designs that preclude variants that are single or triple. As we see in the Constellation Class which has a near identical nacelle to the Constitution and Reliant classes. But also, the Federation design seems to indicate that the twin or quad configurations are more suited. It could be like the number of rotors on a helicopter. With two rotors, it has no need of a tail rotor. So there may be some system in single or triple nacelle ships that corrects for the difference and allows them to work. But some other designs don't have the split nacelle warp drive system. The Vulcan system we see is completely different. They were using the ring system. So confining all ships to Roddenberry's rules is impossible because too many canon designs don't follow it exactly. I would say that Roddenberry's 3 rules for the nacelles would be what the early engineers found to work best and what most ships follow, but breaking them is fine by the 23rd century because the technology has advanced enough to stretch beyond those confines.
     
    Spaceship Jo and Henoch like this.
  16. Psion

    Psion Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2001
    Location:
    Lat: 40.1630936 Lon: -75.1183777
    Yikes! I think you're right -- I could well be conflating details from the D!
     
  17. publiusr

    publiusr Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    Location:
    publiusr
    We need a slit scan strip of CCDs to do good orthos of models.
    Hey Bezos!
     
  18. yotsuya

    yotsuya Fleet Captain Fleet Captain

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2008
    According to Paul Olsen, the refit does have a shuttlebay mounting point. I have never seen any indication that it was ever used, but the frame appears to support it and the hanger doors are removable.
     
  19. Mres_was_framed!

    Mres_was_framed! Commander Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2018
    This is exactly what I was wanting to know. Thank you.

    They were hard to see onscreen without much of the analysis that has been done by Star Trek: The Magazine and Ex Astris Scientia, but there were the Freedom and Niagara classes from Wolf 359 that had one and three nacelles, respectively.

    I agree with pretty much everything you said about 1/3 nacelled ships and how they might work.
     
  20. yotsuya

    yotsuya Fleet Captain Fleet Captain

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2008
    The way FJ did the Federation Class Dreadnought, I've always seen the 3rd nacelle as providing an enhanced warp field for the larger ship and warp capability for the saucer when it separates.