• 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!

New TOS ship design

Klondike307

Lieutenant Commander
Red Shirt
I'll be posting more pics and info later but let me know what you think so far. It's a transport ship like and aircraft carrier. Like I said, there is more to come.

hawk4.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v292/Klondike85/hawkandplanetcopy.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v292/Klondike85/hawkandplanet2copy.jpg
 
Well, it certainly looks like a flying hangar-bay, which is the point.

Good work.
 
Hope you incorporate a bridge somewhere. The deflector dish looks little more than a "hood ornament". You should try to mold it into the hull somehow. Will this thing have any armaments?
 
Maybe the bridge is near the center of the hull where it's behind several layers of bulkheads and deck, thus less vulnerable to attack? After all, way back in the twentieth century they invented this thing called a video camera that would let the helmsman see where he/she is going when the captain isn't using the screen for video conferences.
 
mmmmmm Twinkie...

still, i just said it looked like the goodyear blimp hangar, not that it wasn't an interesting idea - which it is.
 
Interesting idea - presumably, something like an aircraft carrier, but in space? [EDIT: Clearly, I didn't read the OP thoroughly, huh? :alienblush: )

One nit and one suggestion: I've never liked the deflector dishes hanging down on stalks - it always looks flimsy and prone to damage just from use. To my mind, the deflector needs to have some real support, because it's projecting a force field, and one would think that even then, Newton's laws should have some application - any force projected forward should have an equal and opposite force in reverse, pushing against the deflector itself. Mounted solidly on the bow of the ship, the mass of the ship backs it up, but those stalks - SNAP!!. And in this case. it seems doubly unnecessary because the ship does have structure immediately behind the deflector, so why not extend that structure forward and incorporate the deflector?

As for the bridge, why not reverse standard practice and sling it under the ship? Not the whole double dome like we see on Enterprise, but the smaller dome that contains the bridge itself would be upside down, maybe at the centerline of the forward curve of the hull (just for aesthetics).

Just as an aside, you might want to drop the engines downward, so they have clear space between them, rather than sweeping them unnecessarily upward without actually clearing the hull. That's long been a trend among Starfleet ships, that the space between the nacelles is clear (though, obviously, not a hard-and-fast rule).

It also needs some detail on the upper hull - maybe traffic control pods that have a view of the approach to the open hangar.

Just some thoughts ...
 
Last edited:
Maybe the bridge is near the center of the hull where it's behind several layers of bulkheads and deck, thus less vulnerable to attack?

You know, the 'how stupid is an exposed bridge' complaint is really one of the most rediculous and stupid complaints I've ever seen about Trek designs. Do me a favour, go outside, and visually target one of the lunar landers on the moon. Use a scope if you want. Now shoot it.

Let me know how that works out for you, because that's pretty much what we're talking about here.

To say nothing that the weapons we're discussing do damage that, once shields and deflectors are gone, will slice clean through the ship like a hot knife through buttor, or simply obliterate it in one shot. Having your bridge in the 'center of mass' (IE, the presumably easiest place to target) because of armor just seems pretty daft in retrospect.
 
A few observations/suggestions:

- The size/scale is a little confusing -- are those supposed to be windows that are very large or the size as those on the TOS Enterprise? Or is the deflector dish in scale with the Enterprise? With such an unclear scale, it is hard to tell if there is room for all the other things a starship needs: engineering, maintenance bays, machine shops, etc. Is all that supposed to be in the underbelly, or would some of that be in the big hanger? How does the hanger size compare to a TOS shuttlecraft? How about the various TAS small craft?

- On a related note, what is the mission/function of this ship? Is it supposed to be some sort of support ship for a fleet? Perhaps the Starfleet equivalent of this?

- I'm with Ptrope on the issue of "deflectors on a flimsy stalk" -- the design element was a horrible choice by FJ and should be forgotten.

- The warp nacelles don't need to be at the center of mass, so there is no reason for the pylons to slope up. In fact, the angle makes the connection to the hull seem superficial and weak. Indeed, trying have the nacelles stick straight out horizontally, which gives them a stronger connection to the hull.

- No impulse engines? Remember, unlike the nacelles, they should be at the center of mass.
 
I'll be posting more pics and info later but let me know what you think so far. It's a transport ship like and aircraft carrier. Like I said, there is more to come.

hawk4.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v292/Klondike85/hawkandplanetcopy.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v292/Klondike85/hawkandplanet2copy.jpg


I have a few "constructive criticism" comments... which, I presume, is what you're here for, right?

First off... where are the impulse engines? I don't see any. I'd be inclined to put an impulse-engine "nacelle" (not like warp nacelles, think more like a blister on the hull) on either side of the aft bay doors.

Second... I see no evidence of sensors except for the main dish. Federation (and in particular TOS) ships have domes containing sensors.

I see no evidence of crew spaces of any kind, for that matter. ALL I see is a "through-deck landing bay" with nacelles strapped on.

Do you plan to provide more details... windowed areas to imply habitable spaces, sensors, access hatches, etc? Or additional hull areas which you haven't modeled yet?

Is this supposed to be landable or space-only? It looks like it COULD be capable of planetfall.

What mission does this vessel serve? Generally speaking, a "shuttlecarrier" would only really be useful in a purely military roll (and even most TOS-era shuttlecarrier designs we've seen - fan-made, mind you - are multi-roll ships with cargo facilities, weapons, large crew quartering areas, etc.

My personal favorites are this one...
http://www.shipschematics.net/startrek/images/federation/shuttlecarrier_archangel.jpg
http://www.kitsune.addr.com/SF-Conversions/Rifts-Trek-Ships/Federation_USS_Archangel.htm

And this one...
http://www.shipschematics.net/startrek/images/federation/shuttlecarrier_ariel.jpg

(I'd just as soon "link" those as images, but TrekBBS frowns on "hotlinking" so you'll have to click 'em yourself, I'm afraid...)
 
You guys giving crits on the ship might want to remember the OP did state that there is more to come, and this is not a finished design. Just a thought.
 
What mission does this vessel serve? Generally speaking, a "shuttlecarrier" would only really be useful in a purely military roll (and even most TOS-era shuttlecarrier designs we've seen - fan-made, mind you - are multi-roll ships with cargo facilities, weapons, large crew quartering areas, etc.

My personal favorites are this one...
http://www.shipschematics.net/startrek/images/federation/shuttlecarrier_archangel.jpg
http://www.kitsune.addr.com/SF-Conversions/Rifts-Trek-Ships/Federation_USS_Archangel.htm

And this one...
http://www.shipschematics.net/startrek/images/federation/shuttlecarrier_ariel.jpg

(I'd just as soon "link" those as images, but TrekBBS frowns on "hotlinking" so you'll have to click 'em yourself, I'm afraid...)

UGH... The 'carrier' designs you linked to are IMO the worst examples of kitbashing, or adding stuff to an existing design that just breaks down the balance.

The OP at least came up with a fresh idea, which I think is worth expanding on.
 
What mission does this vessel serve? Generally speaking, a "shuttlecarrier" would only really be useful in a purely military roll (and even most TOS-era shuttlecarrier designs we've seen - fan-made, mind you - are multi-roll ships with cargo facilities, weapons, large crew quartering areas, etc.

My personal favorites are this one...
http://www.shipschematics.net/startrek/images/federation/shuttlecarrier_archangel.jpg
http://www.kitsune.addr.com/SF-Conversions/Rifts-Trek-Ships/Federation_USS_Archangel.htm

And this one...
http://www.shipschematics.net/startrek/images/federation/shuttlecarrier_ariel.jpg

(I'd just as soon "link" those as images, but TrekBBS frowns on "hotlinking" so you'll have to click 'em yourself, I'm afraid...)

UGH... The 'carrier' designs you linked to are IMO the worst examples of kitbashing, or adding stuff to an existing design that just breaks down the balance.

The OP at least came up with a fresh idea, which I think is worth expanding on.
You ought to be very careful about attacking the work of others. And FYI, those designs are in no way "kitbashed." They actually make plausible sense, and one actually uses NO pre-existing components or design elements whatsoever.

I'm sorry you, personally, don't care for them. But you just insulted a couple of people who are well-respected in Trek fandom and one of whom regularly posts (and reads) in this forum. Aridas' "Ariel" design is terrific, as far as I'm concerned, and not one feature in that was just "cut-and-pasted" from any other image or design. He made new features which resemble, but are not identical to, existing ones.

The Archangel, on the other hand, is built upon the idea that much of Starfleet at the time was being built using mass-produced framing elements and subsystems and so forth. Yet it makes excellent sense, both internally and externally.

You personally don't like them. That's cool. But I think that they're both very well-balanced, very well-thought-out, and look good to boot. And by making your comment in the way you did, you're also insulting my sense of taste, of logic and design... you're insulting ME, even though I didn't design these myself, because I said I liked them.

You're welcome not to like them, but for cryin' out loud, you might want to try controlling this internet-Tourrette's-Syndrome thing.

I gave what I consider constructive criticism to a guy making a work-in-progress. He posted here, presumably, because he WANTED constructive criticism. I'm not mistaken about that, am I, Klondike?
 
You guys giving crits on the ship might want to remember the OP did state that there is more to come, and this is not a finished design. Just a thought.

That's why we are offering constructive criticisms.

But the OP didn't explicitly say that the design was unfinished, just that there'd be more pics to come.
 
You guys giving crits on the ship might want to remember the OP did state that there is more to come, and this is not a finished design. Just a thought.

That's why we are offering constructive criticisms.

But the OP didn't explicitly say that the design was unfinished, just that there'd be more pics to come.

Good point, for some reason I took the original post to mean he had more work to be done. I do agree with a lot of the suggestions though. I think I took it to mean that more work was to be done because the ship just looks a little...unfinished.
 
I like it. It looks like the bridge could be where that bow window(?) appears to be. Seems like a decent place for it. I do agree with the deflector dish being flimsy looking and could easily be attached to the hull just behind it. I am also in agreement with those that subscribe to that nacelles have to be in (mostly) view of each other.

Other-wise, this is very TOS trek like and I really like it's utillitarian design.

Please give us some internal views soon too!
 
Well I would go easy on the guy, he's probably new to 3d modeling. Don't crush this guy's spirit when he is learning the ropes.

A little mini saucer with a bridge on top toward the rear would look cool and liven it up IMO.
 
To say nothing that the weapons we're discussing do damage that, once shields and deflectors are gone, will slice clean through the ship like a hot knife through buttor, or simply obliterate it in one shot. Having your bridge in the 'center of mass' (IE, the presumably easiest place to target) because of armor just seems pretty daft in retrospect.


That's more of a TNG-era thing. The 23rd century has some counterexamples. For instance, in Star Trek II, Enterprise takes a phaser in the very narrow neck that knocks out a torpedo room, but not other one right next to it. And Reliant does take a hit on the bridge, which kills most of the bridge crew.

As it happens, I prefer the traditional bridge location anyway, despite the potential exposure. But the argument is not as one-sided as you imply. For TOS-era ships such as this, at least.


Marian
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top