Exactly. it would make no sense.
Oberth class
- Thread starter Kaziarl
- Start date
Exactly. it would make no sense.
Personally I've always liked the lower section being a mainly uncrewed cargo module, which could be swapped out for different units. This idea has been explored several times in fanon work and would give Starfleet a very nice versatility to the main ship itself, the upper section.
But even then, there would be problems. We've seen that while most of the time cargo can be monitored via equipment, but there are times where it needs to be visually inspected. Perhaps when that happens, they stop some where and either beam over, or shuttle over to the pod section, but either seems like a hassle to me.
^I dunno, Geordi seemed to be in the cargo holds alot!
Chill out, it was a pithy one line comment. no harm done.
Chill out, it was a pithy one line comment. no harm done.
I don't really see how two narrow but rather chordy pylons would be any more "limiting" than a single thicker pylon of somewhat reduced chord.
If it's thick enough for a turbolift, then there's no "limitation" there to turbolift movement. Why have surplus thickness? It'll be thick enough for a corridor then, as well. And since there's lots of chord, things like plasma conduits or cable trunks can be laid in a row, instead of in a bundle, requiring no extra thickness.
Having two of everything would be nice for redundancy, too...
Timo Saloniemi
If it's thick enough for a turbolift, then there's no "limitation" there to turbolift movement. Why have surplus thickness? It'll be thick enough for a corridor then, as well. And since there's lots of chord, things like plasma conduits or cable trunks can be laid in a row, instead of in a bundle, requiring no extra thickness.
Having two of everything would be nice for redundancy, too...
Timo Saloniemi
I would think that if both hulls are to be routinely accessible, more than a minimum "one turbolift" width space would be needed.
There would be need for more than getting persons tubed back and forth.
Physical access in case of damage...ladders, Jeffries tubes, corridors.
In case of damage, repair equipment would need to be moved between hulls. Cargo also might need to be physically transfered.
If there are people in both hulls, medical access would need to be assured... gurneys and stretchers and such, wider physical access
than an access crawlway.
And as mentioned, all the ODN and EPS and GNDN utilities,
along with physical access to those parts.
Seems to me the Constitution class dorsal barely meets those requirements, but suffices. The Oberth class, not quite enough.
Like I said up top, why such bare minimum access (seemingly) BY DESIGN?
There would be need for more than getting persons tubed back and forth.
Physical access in case of damage...ladders, Jeffries tubes, corridors.
In case of damage, repair equipment would need to be moved between hulls. Cargo also might need to be physically transfered.
If there are people in both hulls, medical access would need to be assured... gurneys and stretchers and such, wider physical access
than an access crawlway.
And as mentioned, all the ODN and EPS and GNDN utilities,
along with physical access to those parts.
Seems to me the Constitution class dorsal barely meets those requirements, but suffices. The Oberth class, not quite enough.
Like I said up top, why such bare minimum access (seemingly) BY DESIGN?
In the TNG "Hero Worship" version, it's fairly obvious: the narrower the pylons, the easier it is to separate the saucer-lifeboat from the antimatter-laden main engine section. The warp reactor is down in the pod in "Hero Worship", so an emergency separation would involve severing the two pylons. The thinner they are, the better for this purpose.
The original TOS era version of the ship might have the reactor up in the saucer, as suggested by some fan drawings. In that case, thin pylons would facilitate module swap, I guess. Thin pylons seem like the way to go in every Starfleet design anyway, their chord enabling the cramming in of multiple conduits and connections despite the lack of thickness.
Why do anything beyond bare minimum? It's not as if stretcher patients are a major design concern in starship design anyway. Perhaps antigrav stretchers can negotiate all possible angles and become vertical if horizontal space is limited?
Timo Saloniemi
The original TOS era version of the ship might have the reactor up in the saucer, as suggested by some fan drawings. In that case, thin pylons would facilitate module swap, I guess. Thin pylons seem like the way to go in every Starfleet design anyway, their chord enabling the cramming in of multiple conduits and connections despite the lack of thickness.
Why do anything beyond bare minimum? It's not as if stretcher patients are a major design concern in starship design anyway. Perhaps antigrav stretchers can negotiate all possible angles and become vertical if horizontal space is limited?
Timo Saloniemi
Redundancy and backups. Built into all manner of structures, including spaceships. That's why buildings have elevators AND stairways AND fire escapes. Bare minimum could be one elevator and nothing else. Why anything more than that?
But hey... since we have no official blueprints, we can only speculate. And as you suggest, perhaps the pylons DO contain enough chord and space to accommodate everything to-and-from both hulls.
And in spite of everything... I do kinda LIKE the Grissom design, even if I can't explain it all.
Wow. That is a rather good looking model you built
It does make sense for the bottom piece to be an automated, interchangeable part because those pylons don't look practical enough to use as a turbolift conduit, IMHO.
That's how I tend to look at it; it's certainly possible for there to be some sort of transportation running through those pylons, but it doesn't seem the most feasible solution for a variety of reasons, and the simpler theory of a swappable lower pod just seems much better. I'm an Ockham's Razor sort of guy. 
When in doubt, go with what seems to make the best sense. The overall Oberth design seems to me to be a cheaper, highly modular unit compared to larger workhorses like the Excelsior or Miranda.
When in doubt, go with what seems to make the best sense. The overall Oberth design seems to me to be a cheaper, highly modular unit compared to larger workhorses like the Excelsior or Miranda.
A while back I did a set of schematics for the Oberth (the thread is still probably here somewhere) and as far as I can tell, it's just not practical to have a turbo lift run up the pylons. Not so much for how thick it is (which would be pretty tight even without taking hull thickness into consideration) but because of the angle of the kink under the nacelles; it's just too sharp to allow for a lift to pass through.
To be honest though, I don't see that the ship needs a turbo lift connection between the hulls at all. A stairwell and/or jefferies tube would do just fine, or even a simple re-oriented gravity field should allow for a "vertical" corridor if need be. Then of course there's the possibility of using internally hard-wired transporters if something is in a REALLY big hurry (remember it's not a very big ship at all) or needs to transfer bulky equipment and/or cargo.
For the most part though, I don't see much of a need for much traffic between the two hulls. With a relatively small crew you can basically split it into two groups and have quarters in both hulls with not much of a need for "commuting."
To be honest though, I don't see that the ship needs a turbo lift connection between the hulls at all. A stairwell and/or jefferies tube would do just fine, or even a simple re-oriented gravity field should allow for a "vertical" corridor if need be. Then of course there's the possibility of using internally hard-wired transporters if something is in a REALLY big hurry (remember it's not a very big ship at all) or needs to transfer bulky equipment and/or cargo.
For the most part though, I don't see much of a need for much traffic between the two hulls. With a relatively small crew you can basically split it into two groups and have quarters in both hulls with not much of a need for "commuting."
How many times do you have to visually inspect your cargo between setting sail and docking at the destination? Where's it gonna go?
And if you have to inspect it, they probably have cameras in the 24th century.
Even if you needed it crewed, it wouldn't be a big deal. Say you had a "Lab Module" docked: Perfect place to carry out risky, possibly deadly, research on just about anything really. Put some basic living accommodations down there, and they could operated for weeks or months on end while the upper-decks carried on the usual business.
For example in orbit of a plague world doing medical research. Planetary survey and mapping: Park you butt in orbit, detail a science team to the pod, then kick back and get some paperwork done.
Wow. That is a rather good looking model you built
It does make sense for the bottom piece to be an automated, interchangeable part because those pylons don't look practical enough to use as a turbolift conduit, IMHO.
Why thank you, sir!
I wish it was bigger, it's only 2 3/4" long.
The B-29 bomber in WWII, and the B-36 later, had two separate pressurized compartments - one forward of the bomb bay for the cockpit crew, and one aft for the rear gunners. Access between the two compartments was by a 24" diameter tube that ran the length of the bomb bay. In this tube was a wheeled troley on tracks. The crewmember who wanted to travel between sections lay on his back on the trolley and pulled himself along using a fixed rope on the "ceiling" of the tunnel.
Not comfortable by a long shot, but serviceable. This is why I figure a Jefferies tube with a ladder (or maybe a powered lift trolley?) is good enough to get down the Oberth's pylons.
Oh, BTW, my father, who flew B-29s at one point in his career, told me that if a window blew out in the aft compartment while someone was in that transfer tunnel, he was sucked thru the tunnel and slammed into the rear gunner's seat.
Not comfortable by a long shot, but serviceable. This is why I figure a Jefferies tube with a ladder (or maybe a powered lift trolley?) is good enough to get down the Oberth's pylons.
Oh, BTW, my father, who flew B-29s at one point in his career, told me that if a window blew out in the aft compartment while someone was in that transfer tunnel, he was sucked thru the tunnel and slammed into the rear gunner's seat.
A friend who worked a parking garage once let me ride the building's manlift, which I think had just a footstep, handgrip, and buttons to control the electric motor. And there was a hole in each floor. Unlike a firehouse pole, or the Bat Pole, it used a rail attached to a wall that the device would grip to go up or down.
What I can envision for travel within pylons, though, is something more like the manlift we saw on the NX class (that sort of erector-set-style open-air elevator). With gravity plating under the floor, that could be used comforably in the curved pylons of the Oberth class, while, unlike a turbolift, allowing engineers to visually inspect things on the way. And the access points could be such that it wouldn't have to pass through the kink Reverend mentioned, since it wouldn't be connected to the turbolift system.
What I can envision for travel within pylons, though, is something more like the manlift we saw on the NX class (that sort of erector-set-style open-air elevator). With gravity plating under the floor, that could be used comforably in the curved pylons of the Oberth class, while, unlike a turbolift, allowing engineers to visually inspect things on the way. And the access points could be such that it wouldn't have to pass through the kink Reverend mentioned, since it wouldn't be connected to the turbolift system.
^ This actually makes the most sense to me. While I suppose the Oberth design could lend itself to interchangeable modularity, with the lower pod being swappable, I also like the idea of the lower pod being either permanent or semi-permanent.
Making a zero-gee "transfer tube" system between to upper and lower sections of the ship would mean that transfers of personnel and equipment would be done in a free-floating environment. This could make a transfer gentle and would eliminate maintenance concerns for a turboshaft network. If someone were injured and had to be moved, zero-gee could make the move easier. Zero-gee would also mean that it would be easier to make the Jefferies tube (used for technical work) the same as the personnel tube (a kind of general-purpose corridor).
And I would think that all starships would have to provide some place on-board for zero-gee training in a controlled environment anyway. Even in the STAR TREK Universe, it would seem obvious that ship's personnel would either want to exercise in a zero-gee place, or would be required to.
Here's an idea: what is the low NCC number of the Grissom was only 638, which implies to me that it is at least possible the Oberth line of ships has been around for a while. In Franz Joseph's "Tech Manual", he brought forth the idea of a "destroyer/scout" class of Federation starship-of-the-line with a Connie nacelle and saucer. But what if Grissom represented an alternative design? I have no idea what the internal capacity of Grissom would be, but she did have a full-size bridge, or darn close to it.
Making a zero-gee "transfer tube" system between to upper and lower sections of the ship would mean that transfers of personnel and equipment would be done in a free-floating environment. This could make a transfer gentle and would eliminate maintenance concerns for a turboshaft network. If someone were injured and had to be moved, zero-gee could make the move easier. Zero-gee would also mean that it would be easier to make the Jefferies tube (used for technical work) the same as the personnel tube (a kind of general-purpose corridor).
And I would think that all starships would have to provide some place on-board for zero-gee training in a controlled environment anyway. Even in the STAR TREK Universe, it would seem obvious that ship's personnel would either want to exercise in a zero-gee place, or would be required to.
Here's an idea: what is the low NCC number of the Grissom was only 638, which implies to me that it is at least possible the Oberth line of ships has been around for a while. In Franz Joseph's "Tech Manual", he brought forth the idea of a "destroyer/scout" class of Federation starship-of-the-line with a Connie nacelle and saucer. But what if Grissom represented an alternative design? I have no idea what the internal capacity of Grissom would be, but she did have a full-size bridge, or darn close to it.
Last edited:
I like to account for the Oberth's design and the Grissom's low reg number by saying it's a mostly Vulcan design; something from the early days of the Federation when most races still built their own ships and Starfleet was still in the process of homogenising. Somrhting like the Oberth would have been an early example of a Vulcan design built to Earth specifications. I even did a dedication plaque with this in mind.
Incidentally, I managed to dig up the old schematics thread and you can see here just how tight that pylon angle is.
As for the modularity of the ventral pod; I tended to think of the structure itself to be essentially permanent (though capable of emergency separation) but have about half of the interior volume given over to swappable modules that can be inserted or removed though those long dark panels on the flanks-which I choose to pretend are big roll-up space doors, as seen here.
Incidentally, I managed to dig up the old schematics thread and you can see here just how tight that pylon angle is.
As for the modularity of the ventral pod; I tended to think of the structure itself to be essentially permanent (though capable of emergency separation) but have about half of the interior volume given over to swappable modules that can be inserted or removed though those long dark panels on the flanks-which I choose to pretend are big roll-up space doors, as seen here.
Reverend,
Did your work reach a conclusion on the possible crew capacity of an Oberth-class vessel?
I tend to think of these as even more mission-specific ships than larger ships like the Miranda and the Connie. So if there are X number of patrol-assigned Oberths in operation with a "standard" crew of (for sake of argument) 100 officers and crew, there may be other mission-specific-outfitted Oberths deployed on various tasks with one having a total of 25 people, another having 125, and another having 75.
What are your thoughts?
Did your work reach a conclusion on the possible crew capacity of an Oberth-class vessel?
I tend to think of these as even more mission-specific ships than larger ships like the Miranda and the Connie. So if there are X number of patrol-assigned Oberths in operation with a "standard" crew of (for sake of argument) 100 officers and crew, there may be other mission-specific-outfitted Oberths deployed on various tasks with one having a total of 25 people, another having 125, and another having 75.
What are your thoughts?
Similar threads
