Warped: Does the Valiant, as you imagine it, have artificial gravity?
S.S. Valiant Appearance
- Thread starter aridas sofia
- Start date
I'd say yes because the DY-100 apparently did. And realistically any serious interstellar transport with engines that can give rapid accelerations, decelerations and course changes pretty much demand artificial gravity to help moderate the inertia effects.
^ I half expected to see a zoom in on the bridge, just like in "The Cage"!
Speaking of which...care to tackle what that bridge might look like?
Speaking of which...care to tackle what that bridge might look like?
I have two ideas about where the bridge could be. For me it's at the uppermost level of the main section and towards the front. So I think it's just before the hull starts to slope down to nose or it's located between the Long Range Comm Array (the rectangle just behind the upper bow light) and the coffin like thingy that houses the deep space telescope.
I haven't really given any thought to what the bridge might look like.
Note I avoided any bow windows, but I suppose that could be changed.
As for the interior I don't envision many spacious areas within the ship. I see it as somewhat similar to a submarine where a lot of the habitable areas are squeezed and snaked in among big and bulky mechanicals. The nose and nav-deflector pod are crammed with all kinds of sensing systems, the pod being an area rarely entered except for periodic inspection and maintenance. The aft support section is full of drive and ship's support systems---not hot and uncomfortable like old ship boiler rooms, but not the most welcoming areas for most people beyond operational purposes. Besides the pod no one would go up or down into the support stuts except for periodic inspection and maintenance. I don't see the bridge as a familiar circular affair.
My design isn't too far removed from what I'd have liked to see in ENT. Imagine if they had opted to have a Trek series that didn't look immediately familiar and practically interchangeable with what had just come before.
I haven't really given any thought to what the bridge might look like.
Note I avoided any bow windows, but I suppose that could be changed.
As for the interior I don't envision many spacious areas within the ship. I see it as somewhat similar to a submarine where a lot of the habitable areas are squeezed and snaked in among big and bulky mechanicals. The nose and nav-deflector pod are crammed with all kinds of sensing systems, the pod being an area rarely entered except for periodic inspection and maintenance. The aft support section is full of drive and ship's support systems---not hot and uncomfortable like old ship boiler rooms, but not the most welcoming areas for most people beyond operational purposes. Besides the pod no one would go up or down into the support stuts except for periodic inspection and maintenance. I don't see the bridge as a familiar circular affair.
My design isn't too far removed from what I'd have liked to see in ENT. Imagine if they had opted to have a Trek series that didn't look immediately familiar and practically interchangeable with what had just come before.
Last edited:
A mid 21st century landing craft, this one assigned to the U.E.S.S. Valiant. Again I tried for something that looked like it could have been designed back then and look somewhat less evolved than TOS spaceship design. Instead of wings I slapped on two bulky looking anti-grav generators, There is a sensor dome on top and a bulky looking impulse drive at the aft end.
As a starting point I wanted something that tied in design wise with the Valiant. I also had MJ's initial concept for a shuttlecraft in mind as well as period concept sketches for speculative spacecraft. I was also thinking of some of the hardware seen in sic-fi film and television of the period.
As a starting point I wanted something that tied in design wise with the Valiant. I also had MJ's initial concept for a shuttlecraft in mind as well as period concept sketches for speculative spacecraft. I was also thinking of some of the hardware seen in sic-fi film and television of the period.
Last edited:
What would you think of giving it a few VTOL lifting body details?
http://www.astronautix.com/graphics/h/hl203vw.gif
http://area51specialprojects.com/images/ecn2359.jpg
http://www.air-and-space.com/20090529 Edwards/BL2_8249 HL-10 N804NA NASA left rear l.jpg
Or even a more "DC-X" idea that takes its looks from your central rocket but functions like a tail-landing DC-X:
http://www.astronautix.com/graphics/x/x33p4.jpg
http://www.astronautix.com/graphics/h/hl203vw.gif
http://area51specialprojects.com/images/ecn2359.jpg
http://www.air-and-space.com/20090529 Edwards/BL2_8249 HL-10 N804NA NASA left rear l.jpg
Or even a more "DC-X" idea that takes its looks from your central rocket but functions like a tail-landing DC-X:
http://www.astronautix.com/graphics/x/x33p4.jpg
Actually the basis of the design does resemble something like the main body of the recent shuttle-orbiter if you remove the add-ons I put to it. It wouldn't be that hard to remodel the shape with upswept winglets rather than the bits I put on.
Last edited:
I actually worked on a shuttle based on the HL-10 at one point. It was going to seat about 12. Here's an early image after I got the main body complete. I got as far as cutting in windows before getting distracted by new shiny things.
Talk about a pain in the ass to do in Sketchup.
That is exactly the kind of thing I meant, yes. Very nice. 
That's a Kerkythea render.
Here's a cutaway. The door is going to be on the left as you face forward at the same level as the pilot. 2/3 steps up from the pilot is the main cabin. That tube was going to be an EVA airlock. aft of the main cabin would have been a fresher and storage.
[/URL]
Here's a cutaway. The door is going to be on the left as you face forward at the same level as the pilot. 2/3 steps up from the pilot is the main cabin. That tube was going to be an EVA airlock. aft of the main cabin would have been a fresher and storage.
^Yes. Kerkythea has a plugin that imports the model straight from Sketchup as it's running. The problem with Kerky is poor documentation. It takes a lot of experimentation to get good output from.
Curious, are you using the free Maxwell for Sketchup? I installed it but didn't like the lack of control on size of the output image. It seemed to basically rely on how big you sized your Sketchup window.
Curious, are you using the free Maxwell for Sketchup? I installed it but didn't like the lack of control on size of the output image. It seemed to basically rely on how big you sized your Sketchup window.
Really? I haven't experienced that problem. I'm still getting used to Maxwell as I'm learning as I go. My main concern with it presently is the smoothing issue. When I render my model unless I have a lot of facets in a curve it looks segmented. Even with a lot of segments it can still be discernible. Otherwise I haven't hit anything I've really disliked yet. Mind you I paid for the $99 upgrade to make better use of it and to get larger images.
Right now I'm trying to understand how to get a glowing flame coming out of a nozzle or engine exhaust port. I've already begun using the emitter or lighting features in the program, but I haven't figured out how to do a flame yet.
