Safari Class

[sojourner]

Why not landing struts like Voyager?

1. I hate those muppet looking struts.
2. Not a fan of Voyager to begin with.
3. This ship is about 75-100 years older than Voyager.

It would seem to me that landing skids would make it so that the ship would have to have an incredibly flat landing surface.

Think of it more as scuff protection for the nacelles. The entire length is not required to touch, and I am assuming flexibility in them. Also, not done yet.

 

[Finn]

I had first viewed the picture on my iPhone. But now that I'm on the laptop, I just noticed the person in the picture. That makes the ship a bit big for a crew of 30-40, especially since I'd expect a bunch of science teams who couldn't be bothered to do engineering work. It looks about as big as an Intrepid Class starship now. And it looks big enough to have a small shuttlebay.

 

[sojourner]

I had first viewed the picture on my iPhone. But now that I'm on the laptop, I just noticed the person in the picture. That makes the ship a bit big for a crew of 30-40, especially since I'd expect a bunch of science teams who couldn't be bothered to do engineering work. It looks about as big as an Intrepid Class starship now. And it looks big enough to have a small shuttlebay.

Nope, the picture is deceiving. The figure is at the aft end of the nacelle, far from the camera.

 

[thesovereignman]

Why not landing struts like Voyager?

1. I hate those muppet looking struts.
2. Not a fan of Voyager to begin with.
3. This ship is about 75-100 years older than Voyager.

It would seem to me that landing skids would make it so that the ship would have to have an incredibly flat landing surface.

Think of it more as scuff protection for the nacelles. The entire length is not required to touch, and I am assuming flexibility in them. Also, not done yet.

That seems like it would mae sense. But if they are flexible, then I'd think that they would be a little further away from the nacelle. Just friendly CC from here It's looking like a great little ship

 

[USS Mariner]

Why not landing struts like Voyager?

1. I hate those muppet looking struts.
2. Not a fan of Voyager to begin with.
3. This ship is about 75-100 years older than Voyager.

It would seem to me that landing skids would make it so that the ship would have to have an incredibly flat landing surface.

Think of it more as scuff protection for the nacelles. The entire length is not required to touch, and I am assuming flexibility in them. Also, not done yet.

I'd actually recommend using something closer to the "muppet struts", as what you have now doesn't transfer any of the weight of the ship directly to the ground.

 

[sojourner]

^Really? huh, coulda sworn I attached the nacelles to the ship with some big honkin' pylons. There will be a a single piece of gear from the front of the ship.

 

[USS Mariner]

^Really? huh, coulda sworn I attached the nacelles to the ship with some big honkin' pylons. There will be a a single piece of gear from the front of the ship.

Yeah, your pylons are pretty big, but there's no direct path from the landing struts to the center of mass of the ship. That's why Rick Sternbach placed the landing gear where he did (albeit, incredibly tiny landing gear.)

 

[sojourner]

^so, thousands of aircraft today can use tricycle landing gear, but a spacecraft with the benefit of 300+ years of structure and material engineering advances can't?

 

[thesovereignman]

^so, thousands of aircraft today can use tricycle landing gear, but a spacecraft with the benefit of 300+ years of structure and material engineering advances can't?

he does have a point

 

[RichMerk]

I think it looks fantastic so far. I like all the changes you've made. I like the nonstandard elements. Different, yet unambiguously Star Trek.

Regarding the bridge, I'm wondering how it would look if there was some external evidence that it was there... like a sensor dome in the appropriate spot or even just hull paneling scribing out a circular area.

 

[USS Triumphant]

Regarding the bridge, I'm wondering how it would look if there was some external evidence that it was there... like a sensor dome in the appropriate spot or even just hull paneling scribing out a circular area.

Or, a set of concentric red circles.

I understand why you want this and can sympathize, but I can also see that not having an indicator might be good tactically.

 

[RichMerk]

It's simply that Trek ships have an identifiable bridge at the top. It's iconic. Without it, something seems missing.

 

[sojourner]

In this case, I just haven't gotten to detailing the area.

 

[USS Triumphant]

It's simply that Trek ships have an identifiable bridge at the top. It's iconic. Without it, something seems missing.

Well, I mean, like I said - I get why you want it.

But really, making the main bridge easily distinguishable from the outside, and somewhere on the surface, has never made sense, when you could just as easily use cameras and sensors and bury the bridge in the deepest, best armored part of the ship. Maybe an auxiliary bridge somewhere where visual navigation could be done in the utmost dire of emergencies - but not the main bridge.

But I think it's one of those things we turn a blind eye to for the purposes of the heroic story.

 

[AnyStar]

It's simply that Trek ships have an identifiable bridge at the top. It's iconic. Without it, something seems missing.

Well, I mean, like I said - I get why you want it.

But really, making the main bridge easily distinguishable from the outside, and somewhere on the surface, has never made sense, when you could just as easily use cameras and sensors and bury the bridge in the deepest, best armored part of the ship. Maybe an auxiliary bridge somewhere where visual navigation could be done in the utmost dire of emergencies - but not the main bridge.

But I think it's one of those things we turn a blind eye to for the purposes of the heroic story.

i've always felt the same way about trying to protect the bridge.

buuuuut, you're right: it just isnt a Fed ship without it up there on top!