Ringship 1701
- Thread starter Psion
- Start date
Granted, but assuming the ring is - as would make sense for, you know, it basically being the nacelle - not inhabited, there's little continuity to keep outside of the decals (which carried over) and windows (which would make no sense). I agree it looks a bit too blank, but... really, what'd be there to add for visual continuity?
edit: forgot my quote.
i have vague recollections of someone posting a similar design a few years back....perhaps a 1701-J?
Anyone know what i'm talking about?
Anyone know what i'm talking about?
Why not just use a teardrop with the ring in the middle and a nav-deflector in the nose?
YARN
Fleet Captain
I think you're off to a great start. I think that the elusive gracefulness might be found in playing with the ring shape...
If anybody's intrested, MJ played around with this idea. I know you mentioned that Psion, but were you familiar with this specific example (from trekcore)...
http://www.trekcore.com/specials/albums/sketches/STTOS_Sketch_EnterpriseConcept15.jpg
The eliptical "ring" might solve your proportion problems?
http://www.trekcore.com/specials/albums/sketches/STTOS_Sketch_EnterpriseConcept15.jpg
The eliptical "ring" might solve your proportion problems?
Just go with what you got, it does very much have an unique feel to it, kinda a "what would have been." universe ship.
Hmmm ... I don't think I ever said I was having proportion problems. YARN and I are arguing over how graceful this ship can actually be, but the whole point of my volume studies is to mess around with sizes and shapes and placement before finding something I like and settling on it. I don't usually share that process with others unless someone else is leading the design. In this case, I thought it was an original idea and folks around here might find it fun to throw in ideas.
Cary L. Brown came up with suggestions for using the Golden Ratio, Sojourner and Forbin showed some prior art that shot down the originality of my idea (but also gave me some fun ideas to play with), and others have made good suggestions that I've worked in here and there while I mess with the general shapes like a kid playing with clay. So proportion "problems" haven't even had a chance to exist yet, because this is just a bit of brainstorming and little more, so far.
BUT! Don't think this is a long-winded rebuke, TIN_MAN, because your link illustrates (in addition to showing that Jefferies himself worked on my "original" idea
) that there is a basic flaw to my design. You see, I love that classic shot of the original Enterprise from slightly below and a little to the ship's starboard side that I've tried to emulate in my pictures above. With its perspective-distorted primary hull looming over the secondary hull, and the lights and windows blazing pink against a blue-gray hull ... it's intimidating and intimate and an icon for exploration all at the same time.Look at the profile of the original ship and you'll see mostly linear shapes suggesting a craft that streaks forward. They nacelle pylons and "neck" are mostly negated by the hulls and nacelles and the whole thing is brilliantly balanced and beautiful.
When I took away the nacelles, I lost a lot of that balance. It still looks kind of cool from that imposing angle I'm so fond of, but, in profile, the pylon (neck, dorsal, whatever) starts to dominate the shape. This makes the whole thing look like a space-shippy rhombus. I tried to solve that problem by making the secondary hull longer, but that introduces new problems, like making the single pylon/keel too aggressively sloped.
When i looked at Matt Jefferies' approach (the link didn't work for me, but I found the picture by going to TrekCore's section for Matt's sketches, then to page seven and clicked on the first picture in the upper left of the page), it was immediately clear that Jefferies also had this problem and eliminated it by putting the saucer on a boom that stretched straight back instead of angled back and down.
I like the ring-ship idea. I don't want to change to an ellipse or rounded box shape because part of my vision included coils that would, when animated, spin around the inside of the ring, barreling along like freight trains carrying charged plasma coils and giving a mechanical analogue to the spinning/flashing lights in the nacelle domes of the original.
It's becoming apparent to me that I have to abandon the central keel concept if this ship will ever look graceful. I'll keep everyone posted.
Let’s not get hung up on semantics here, I didn't mean for anyone to take the word "proportion" too literally, it's just the first word that came to mind that summed up all the issues being discussed earlier, specifically the following statement...
Though whether the saucer is bigger than the ring or vice versa, is a matter of basic proportions is it not? And as for the Golden Ratio, it’s also called the Golden Proportion or Devine Proportion, by the way.
Though whether the saucer is bigger than the ring or vice versa, is a matter of basic proportions is it not? And as for the Golden Ratio, it’s also called the Golden Proportion or Devine Proportion, by the way.
Like I said, I wasn't rebuking you, TIN-MAN, but "solving proportion problems" -- emphasis on the word "problems", not "proportion" -- rubbed me the wrong way a little and I wanted you to understand why this particular thread exists. I want an idea of what elements people like and don't like and compare their reactions to my own. The folks on TrekBBS are an invaluable resource with considerable expertise about the ships of Star Trek; it'd be foolish not to consider their input.
An interesting ship can be made from the scraps here. It won't have the same grace as the original, but I'd like to explore its potential.
An interesting ship can be made from the scraps here. It won't have the same grace as the original, but I'd like to explore its potential.
Perhaps "Issues" would have been more appropriate then? Does it really matter what adjective I use? It seems to me you're focusing on the least important parts of my post. Sorry if my choice of words “rubbed you the wrong way” but don’t let your sensitivity cloud your judgment.
I'm very well aware of why your thread exists, and curious as to why you would assume otherwise? I don't think I said anything to imply that I "didn't get it"? So stop explaining it to me, you’re not helping matters by being condescending!
But I think you're missing the point of my post, so let me do a little explaining of my own, I was simply offering my two quatloos worth on a possible avenue which you might have overlooked that could result in a possibly more graceful design down the road.
Since as you say, "the whole point of my volume studies is to mess around with sizes and shapes and placement before finding something I like and settling on it", then I seem to have understood you correctly.
Just trying to be helpful, that’s all. Good luck with your project.
I'm very well aware of why your thread exists, and curious as to why you would assume otherwise? I don't think I said anything to imply that I "didn't get it"? So stop explaining it to me, you’re not helping matters by being condescending!
But I think you're missing the point of my post, so let me do a little explaining of my own, I was simply offering my two quatloos worth on a possible avenue which you might have overlooked that could result in a possibly more graceful design down the road.
Since as you say, "the whole point of my volume studies is to mess around with sizes and shapes and placement before finding something I like and settling on it", then I seem to have understood you correctly.
Just trying to be helpful, that’s all. Good luck with your project.
I see what you're thinking... but I'm afraid you're a little bit "tied to preconception" there.Less talk. More pictures. Something like this:
If I were doing it, I would not try to create "TOS/TMP" style pylons at all.
I REALLY like the "keel" and I would not eliminate it. However, you can have the "keel" go to a "rail" that runs straight aft, to the ring(s). I mention this only if the rings are too far aft to intersect properly with the "neck" portion of your ship. I mean, the "keel" need not all be linear. The keel is only the main structure element. In my 1701, my "keel" consists of elments in the dorsal, in the secondary hull, and also the nacelle pylons, after all.
Again, I'd probably have two rings, rather than a single one... much as MJ did on his. But I'm not sure if that's my OWN "preconception" or if it's for some subconsciously-driven "function" idea bouncing around in my skull.
I get the point you were raising about seeming "imbalanced," and I don't object to a pair of upwards "pylons" as well... my issue with what you've done there is that it seems like you're trying too hard to replicate the 1701 we know. There are a lot of other approaches you could take to get some sort of "upright" that would serve that same purpose, but would not seem (and I'm not trying to be obnoxious here) as "derivative" as that strikes me as being.
One possible approach... have a "rib" going back along the back of your secondary hull, maybe 1/3 of the way from the "neck to secondary hull attachment"... and then have either one vertical or two angled ones go from there.
If you go with two, I'd have them at exactly 120 degrees from vertical. Symmetry is generally best from a mechanical standpoint and I think it would work better from an aesthetic standpoint as well, in this case. So all three "pylons" (including the neck extension going down) would be 120 degrees apart from each other, radiating from the center of the ring circle. You might put the impulse engine at the back of this rib, rather than on the disk proper... or you might split the impulse engine structure to "straddle" these features.
The one vertical, or two angled, upright supports would leave the secondary hull "back rib" and would have to angle to hit the ring structure. In this way, it would be reminiscent of the TMP structure, but for a real, sound, practical reason.
I've been thinking about doing a quick-and-dirty version on my own, just to show you what I mean, but I don't want to steal your thunder here. Just giving what "helpful advice" I can... which you may feel free to reject!
Last edited:
YARN
Fleet Captain
Less talk. More pictures. Something like this:
No, I think the neck extending through the bottom of the hull is more graceful. It has an elegance to it and a unity that this shape lacks.
I had some video capture software I wanted to try out, so I put together a video response to some of the recent posts. This also saved us all from having to wade through another one of my walls of text.
After I finished recording, I learned that I ran a little long for YouTube to handle, so there are some skips in the presentation where I made rough edits. And the video software I used took over an hour to transcode the file into something YouTube understood.
So while that was cooking, I realized I needed to make more changes to the model that appears in the video. Here's that result:
YARN, what if I brought the keel out the bottom again and ran the spine off it like the one above?
After I finished recording, I learned that I ran a little long for YouTube to handle, so there are some skips in the presentation where I made rough edits. And the video software I used took over an hour to transcode the file into something YouTube understood.
So while that was cooking, I realized I needed to make more changes to the model that appears in the video. Here's that result:
YARN, what if I brought the keel out the bottom again and ran the spine off it like the one above?
YARN
Fleet Captain
YARN, what if I brought the keel out the bottom again and ran the spine off it like the one above?
Can't say without a look. Even a rough presentation would give an idea...
Interesting variations though.
