Got an F in starship design...

[Avon]

saquist - any ship, no matter the size or shape will move as fast as the plot needs it to.

 

[Irishman]

I really like it. It reminds me of what the Intrepid half-saucer starship from "Enterprise" might look like 2 centuries further on.

 

[Saquist]

Thanks for the comments everyone!



@Saquist -
But now you've gone into some deep jungle native dialect that I'm completely unfamiliar with. I don't see how the deflector being mounted where it is would interfere with the warp field or create instability any more than it being mounted at the front of the secondary hull. I know I've seen other designs with this configuration, is there something that needs to be added or subtracted to make this work?

I've noticed that warp fields display similar characteristics as magnetic fields. They are shaped by the hull of the vessel.
http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/treknology/warpfield.gif

According to commander Chakotay Hull Geometry is part of the discipline of starship construction as he notes the different configuration of the USS Dauntless.

According to Seven of Nine, the Borg Cube encounters extreme temporal stress and transwarp speeds.

Quite accurately Kim identifies a velocity differential as the cause of failure between the nacelles and the fuselage. This implies the leading edge of the Type nine shuttle is more dynamic to incoming stresses than the blunted engine nacelles.
-----
There are few ships in Trek whose hull integrity out sustains the engines capacity. The War Bird for example can travel at warp nine with out breaking up but it's engines subcumbs to catastrophic damage.

Federation ships are faster however and consistently begin to break up before the ships engines are forced to disengage. Voyager experienced this effect quickly in Threshold before the engines were over taxed. The Galaxy Class Enterprise nearly ripped itself apart during an uncontrolled acceleration to just warp 9.4. Geordi says the saucer separation could puncture the warp field. And in Voyager when the Kazon penetrated Voyager's saucer with a shuttle craft it directly prevented the ship from creating a stable warp field. It's also significant to point out that the Intrepid is fitted with field enhancers along the ships front hull. Defiant also has problems with high warp unless an appreciable amount of power is directed to it's structural integrity fields. (meaning the ship is encountering considerable stress) It seems the Federation saucer design is the most efficient design for high warp. This makes sense because magnetic fields are are always weaker when the field is shaped around a sharp edge.

What would the functional and tactical problems be with the secondary hull?

It is my assumption that your secondary hull will house a reactor of some sort. The thiness of this section will make disabling those reactors easier as opposed to being buried in a wider or thicker secondary hull. Some Federation ships already have this weakness like the Constitution refit as we can see when the Reliant fired on the back of the Enterprise. Excelsior's Power Transfer Conduit also runs shallowly next to the hull on the way to the nacelles which poses a significant tactical weakness. 24th century ships abandon these weakness within the Engineering hull.

I hope this doesn't come off as overly sensitive, because I'm not offended at all, if I didn't want any criticism I wouldn't have posted this here, I'm just genuinely curious.

Not at all, Lord Sarvain.
I was just giving my observations.

It's worthy of note however that placing the deflector on the leading edge of the saucer may serve the purpose of slipstream and quantum slip stream designs. It's my belief that this new form of propulsion melds shields and warp fields into one providing a profoundly defined barrier from incoming temporal stresses allowing the field to lie directly on the hull. It's the only way I can explain ships like the USS Dauntless hull shape and the Enterprise J design. Basically it's a new form of hull geometry. (doesn't explain the long wingspan of the Enterprise J though)

These aren't rules but it's one of the examples of a rare consistency in Star Trek. And Design should always follow function instead of merely form. (at least from a drafters point of view.)

I thought the deflector nose would be the biggest problem with the design. (interrupts natural flow of the field lines so it's either unstable at high warp or a warp 8.8 - warp 9.5)

But that skinny secondary hull has functional and tactical problems. Other than that it does look good especially as a concept.

Maybe we should put a model into a warp tunnel for testing?

Sorry Saquist, but I find comments like this in regards to what is essentially just art to be silly.

Some take their art seriously. I'm one of them.

 

[sojourner]

Um, yea, I think you need a break. Star Trek is fiction and the physics portrayed there-in more so. To tell someone that their ship design has "warp dynamic" flaws is silly. (and not canon except in the most oblique ways you've rationalized)

 

[Saquist]

Um, yea, I think you need a break. Star Trek is fiction and the physics portrayed there-in more so. To tell someone that their ship design has "warp dynamic" flaws is silly. (and not canon except in the most oblique ways you've rationalized)

Fiction is foolishness. But even Fantasy has rules.
He doesn't have to follow them or agree with my opinion on canon. I don't think anyone is taking the critique quite as seriously as you seem to be. Wouldn't that be a whole other type of silliness?

You think more of my opinion that I do.

 

[sojourner]

^Some times it's hard to tell when someone is being serious or not just based on the written word. And you have to admit there are "Trek geeks" out there who would argue the warp dynamics of a fictional ship as if it were real.

 

[largo]

BUT WHAT ABOUT THE CHOMPERS?

 

[The Axeman]

I'm with Sojourner and Largo, never forget that it's all complete BS made up by people in order to tell stories. For an excellent explanation of the differences between science fiction, science fantasy and movie making, go look up Red Letter Media's superb review of the 2009 Trek movie. His epic reviews of the Star Wars and TNG films are already famous, and despite his bizarre 'serial killer' presentation style he is a movie maker and seriously knows his sci-fi.

To cut a long story short we try to make stylish and interesting stuff, and afterwards people can make up stuff to explain it if they like. As long as the story is moving forwards and it looks nice on screen the writers wont give a toss. Writers use shuttlecraft as a way to isolate a character and put them in danger, they dont care where the oil would go. Lord Sarvain has made something which is undoubtedly interesting and has style in spades (although the nacelles are a bit chubby), so he'd be a fool to reverse the process and do the rationalising first.

 

[Saquist]

^Some times it's hard to tell when someone is being serious or not just based on the written word. And you have to admit there are "Trek geeks" out there who would argue the warp dynamics of a fictional ship as if it were real.

I'm with Sojourner and Largo, never forget that it's all complete BS made up by people in order to tell stories. For an excellent explanation of the differences between science fiction, science fantasy and movie making, go look up Red Letter Media's superb review of the 2009 Trek movie. His epic reviews of the Star Wars and TNG films are already famous, and despite his bizarre 'serial killer' presentation style he is a movie maker and seriously knows his sci-fi.

To cut a long story short we try to make stylish and interesting stuff, and afterwards people can make up stuff to explain it if they like. As long as the story is moving forwards and it looks nice on screen the writers wont give a toss. Writers use shuttlecraft as a way to isolate a character and put them in danger, they dont care where the oil would go. Lord Sarvain has made something which is undoubtedly interesting and has style in spades (although the nacelles are a bit chubby), so he'd be a fool to reverse the process and do the rationalising first.

That's the method of fanaticism gentleman. It's why we have space ship contest, fan fictions and entire boards endlessly discussing tech, relationship and all sorts of versus debates.

 

[sojourner]

^Yep, but until someone can get accredited for taking a class in "Warp Dynamics as applied to ship design", your original comments are pretty silly.

 

[Kaiser]

im eagerly waiting more pics of this design

also i hate to sound Rude but can we stop the drama / harsh discussions in this thread before the artist gets scared and quits working on it? i only go to the fan art section to look at and comment on art not harsh, rude, drama filled Discussions and if this post gets me in a bit O trouble no hard feelings i felt this need to be said. Also i'll be back in the fan art section hopefully Monday morning -5 GMT and yes i know my last art is Lame.

Thanks for reading ^ and Live long and Prosper

 

[sojourner]

If you think this is drama/harsh, I fear for your safety on the internet!

 

[The Axeman]

We like to keep at least one foot in some form of reality. We harshed the buzz because we are compelled to.

 

[aridas sofia]

Thanks for sharing this beautiful work. It is a neat design that combines great naval touches with considerable tips to Probert's D and TMP designs. The modeling ain't bad, either. I'm looking forward to seeing you finish this.

Can you show us bow and aft views when you have a chance?

 

[Saquist]

The man in the Spock/House costume says Star Trek Physics is silly.
(with a straight face no doubt)

 

[erifah]

I think I'm just going to insert an eyeroll HERE >*< and move on.

 

[sojourner]

The man in the Spock/House costume says Star Trek Physics is silly.
(with a straight face no doubt)

Attacking avatars???

 

[Saquist]

Attacking avatars???

Attack? You think that simple observation was an assault?
I thought it was a joke. Then I deduce "silly" was supposed to be an opening salvo or something? Your intentions were hostile?

What brought this hostility?
How did my comments offend you?
I offer you my apologies for attacking you it was not my intentions.

@ Lord Sarvain
My apologies, sir. Somehow my opinions and initial comment have hjacked your thread. That was not my intention at all. I really do look forward to seeing more of your work soon.

 

[sojourner]

Ah, a joke, no worries then. Like I said earlier it can be hard to tell the intent of a message just from text. I suggest in the future using some of the smileys in order to portray the mindset behind the message.

 

[The Axeman]

Yeah, sarcasm doesn't come through in plain text, as I've found to my cost. You need some sort of suffix to show it was meant in jest or you end up making enemies.