New TOS ship design

[Jon1701]

Design looks great. Love the way its is coming together.

I wonder if the hanger exterior needs some detailing. There is a lot of dead space on there on the moment. Nothing too fancy but possibly move the starfleet stripe from the nacelles. Or maybe a couple of phaser ports? (the ship needs something to defend itself)

I think it just needs something to break up all that blank space.

 

[trekkerguy]

Hyperspace05 and trekkerguy - a little courtesy goes a long way. The rolleyes, the "oh please" and the scatological adjectives are unnecessary. Let's all start the new year like we actually respect one another and have vocabularies somewhere above the gutter.

Thanks!

Sorry if someone took the fact I don't like a certain design personaly...

IIRC they weren't even the poster's designs.

 

[Arkady]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v629/arkadyfolkner/Hawkvariant.gif

Because I got bored last night at work and started chicken scratching things.

A little different with a seperate engineering hull that has a smaller bay at the aft for the launch and recovery of workbees and workpods, etc. The impulse drive and nacelle pylons are above the engineering hull on the same plane, and the bridge decks are on the underside of the forward hangar hull.

 

[Cary L. Brown]

Hyperspace05 and trekkerguy - a little courtesy goes a long way. The rolleyes, the "oh please" and the scatological adjectives are unnecessary. Let's all start the new year like we actually respect one another and have vocabularies somewhere above the gutter.

Thanks!

Sorry if someone took the fact I don't like a certain design personaly...

IIRC they weren't even the poster's designs.

There's a huge difference between telling you that you're behaving badly and "taking it personally." Trust me, there's nothing you could say that would "hurt me" here... not here, not in TNZ.

 

[Klondike307]

Awesome! You may want to angle the pylons down a bit more, I can't tell but I don't think the engines have complete line of sight. Other than that, it's really shaping up.

Thanks, I'll be adding some more pics later.

 

[TK421]

I made a major change that will make most of you happy. I was hesitant to change the design at first but looking at it now, I really think it looks better. Thanks to Herkimer Jitty for the inspiration for the look of the lower hull! Still need to add some windows phasers and other details to the front and add more detail to the deflector. The impulse engine is on the back of the lower hull were the hull angle changes. I haven’t found another place for the nacelles yet that I’m crazy about. I guess I’ll have to update the deck plans soon.

Now that I buy completely. Awesome job.

 

[Santaman]

Here is the updated design based on Flux’s sketches. I’m liking this ship more and more. Thanks for all the input guys and keep the suggestions coming!

One suggestion left, to break the long emptiness of the hangar walls you could fit the navigation lights somewhere in the middle of them, other then that I think its a pretty nice vessel.

 

[Patrickivan]

The warp nacelles seem just a little bit too small, but it could be the perspective that's throwing me off. But I love the simplicity of the design, and the amount of detail that it has without looking too busy or superfluous.

 

[mythme]

I was pondering about the placement of the warp core, in comparison with your window placement. I thought it might be a nifty idea to place it along that slant in the rear. I dont think there has ever been a warp engine design placed along a horizontal. Maybe there is some rule against it which I am unaware of.

Anyway, it would be interesting to see a cutaway version. It would be neat to see craft in the hanger, shuttles in standby position, cargo and fabrication departments, etc.

 

[Cary L. Brown]

I was pondering about the placement of the warp core, in comparison with your window placement. I thought it might be a nifty idea to place it along that slant in the rear. I dont think there has ever been a warp engine design placed along a horizontal. Maybe there is some rule against it which I am unaware of.

Anyway, it would be interesting to see a cutaway version. It would be neat to see craft in the hanger, shuttles in standby position, cargo and fabrication departments, etc.

Well, remember, this is a TOS-era ship, so it wouldn't necessarily have a "warp core" (as we've seen it in TNG-era ships) at all. Especially if the OP is a believer in the "nacelles generate power" perspective (as MJ originally intended... the power generation coming from the propulsive system (housed in the nacelles) on the 1701 being much like the way that airliners derive their power from the main engines (mounted in their wing-underslung nacelles), as TOS/TAS tended, with a few exceptions, to treat as was the case).

 

[Albertese]

remember, this is a TOS-era ship, so it wouldn't necessarily have a "warp core" (as we've seen it in TNG-era ships) at all. Especially if the OP is a believer in the "nacelles generate power" perspective (as MJ originally intended... the power generation coming from the propulsive system (housed in the nacelles) on the 1701 being much like the way that airliners derive their power from the main engines (mounted in their wing-underslung nacelles), as TOS/TAS tended, with a few exceptions, to treat as was the case).

On this point I agree with you. Though I figure I'd beat CRA and company to the punch and point out that "That Which Survives" and a "Elaan of Troius" both could be interpreted to imply a central generator. But then, I'd say that the majority of references throughout the series are describing generator-in-nacelles design.

Like I said, I'm more or less in the non-central warp-core camp myself, but valid arguments can be made to shoehorn the dialogue into either model. Besides, just cause the Enterprise had one arrangement wouldn't preclude this ship from having a central reactor anyway. They *are* different ships after all.

 

[NiteTrek]

Here is the updated design based on Flux’s sketches. I’m liking this ship more and more. Thanks for all the input guys and keep the suggestions coming!

Looking better.....have you thought about installing a bridge module somewhere, like maybe on top of the hangar, near the hanger bay doors opposite the end with the nacelles?

 

[Vance]

Hmm... an Antares-type bridge module may work on this one, and it would have to go in the middle of the hangar hull, up top. (Forward middle, above the cargo and maintenance bay). The only trick, of course, would be designing a way to GET to it. He's currently got the design as a through-deck.

I would add the 'observation windows' and deck to the hangar hull, though, and some grill-detailing to the cargo area. Nothing too dramatic, but something to break it up.

Also, change the registry.

 

[TK421]

How about an air traffic control tower for a bridge, kind of like the one at LAX.

http://k53.pbase.com/u6/turbinedux/large/32698130.1280_LAX_tower.jpg

 

[Klondike307]

I've taken alot of your suggestions and applied them to the design. The nacelles are larger now to fit with the scale of the ship. Graphic have been updated including breaking up the dead space on the hanger hull. The bridge is still in the front of A Deck below the hanger. The flight control pods on the top of the fore and aft of the hanger have been added. I'll show a close-up of them in my next post. The only thing left to do on the exterior is to add weapons. My next task will be cross sections, both from the side and from the top of each deck.

The picture below is a little side project I'm working on. I figured the ship needed a small scout ship (larger then a shuttle) to go alone with it, sort of like the captains yacht or the Delta flyer. It's a small 2 deck scout ship. On the first deck is a small bridge, sleeping quarters, and the impulse engine. Deck 2 contains a small engine room along with various other ship systems. In the rear is the boarding ramp and small equipment rooms. The ship can be housed on the main hanger deck. The pylons can retract or fold (haven't desided yet) like a plane to maximize storage. I wanted to give it a sort of reto, feel. I was inspired by RedSpar's work on MJ original shuttle design. More pics to come.

 

[Wingsley]

Klondike307, your artwork is very impressive. Especially your scoutship, which could have been related to Mudd's outlaw "cargo" ship or Cyrano Jones' private scoutship, at least in fundamental design. I like the Phoenix-style nacelles, whose aft tips are rotated to oppose each other. In fact, maybe you might want to try a similar arrangement for the Hawk carrier.

 

[Timo]

Love the scout. It's indeed a nice stablemate for Cyrano Jones' ship from the TAS tribble sequel. Now for the interesting part: how to arrange the stern that there is room both for the impulse engine, a plausible exit door, and a possible rear landing leg...

Since so many people want to see a prominent command bridge on the carrier, how about placing it just under the lip of the forward door? The newest design has a suitable bulge there for an "inverted bridge dome"... It is also conveniently in a location between the carrier functionalities of the ship, and the ship's own functionalities.

It would remind a bit of those old Japanese carrier designs, too, with their island-less layouts where the navigation bridge was under the lip of the flight deck.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Cary L. Brown]

The main reason, I think, that people are having issues with the bridge location fall into three categories.

1) Being there, right in the flight path of landing shuttles (assuming that the fwd bay is for landings as well as takeoffs... which isn't the case on aircraft carriers today, for instance!), is a bit risky.

2) It's just not very identifiable from outside.

3) It's not where people are used to seeing it.

I think that the first one might be a legitimate complaint... and, of course, it's my OWN sole "complaint" about that location.

The second one is easy to fix. Just some more prominent features there to make it visible. Perhaps it's protruding slightly (see the big cargo plane image from a few posts back again)?

One more possible concern... the bay doors are on a rail, and need to be sealed... is there sufficient space above the "bridge" area to allow for the mechanical components required to operate (and seal, don't forget!) the door?



The third one is nonsense, of course, but is probaby the most common complaint. There's NOTHING wrong with breaking "style-only" design rules, and giving people something that they're not used to seeing.

Just FYI, if it were ME doing this design, I might put the bridge in the forward quarter-spherical element of the underbody structure (the stuff you originally had down there, I mean. That gives you plenty of separation between the bridge and the landing deck (with all its noise and activity), still gives you a "forward, semi-exposed" placement (though on the bottom, not the top, as people seem to expect!) and so forth.

Just a suggestion.

 

[BK613]

One variant of this design you could try Klondike307 would be to divide the through-deck into two landing areas. Then split the front landing area into two decks, one for shuttles, one for workbees, each area with its own doors. Then add a bunch of airlocks along the hangar base. And a few extra tractor beam emitters.

Now you have a repair ship that can warp in to assist a disabled ship (maybe carrying a collapsible drydock in the aft landing area for the duration of such a rescue mission.) This variant could also act as a tender for shuttlecraft and small scouts in locations where spacedock or starbase services weren't practicle.

----------------------
The only real complaint I have about the design as is are the oversized windows.

 

[uniderth]

I actually like this ship design. It's kind of hot!