*Spoilers* U.S.S. Franklin Design?
- Thread starter Devon
- Start date
I'm new here, and have seen the 3D printed USA FRANKLIN some one had made, I wonder if it would be possible to get the file from them to possibly print out myself as id like a model of the ship :-) thanks all.
While I'm not aware of one specifically, the Fan Art forum is where you're most likely to find discussion of modeling and 3D-printed items. Or you might have a look over here - those people seem to be talking about the kind of thing of which you speak.
Probably also a topic for the Fan Art forum.
Maybe MadMan could do something with that idea?
Maybe.
DAC actually released it publicly, here.
https://www.myminifactory.com/object/uss-franklin-23351
It's a pretty sweet model.
-Ricky
Sean Hargreaves stated it was designed without a shuttlebay, just docking ports. The idea was to keep the ship as simple and old as possible as an experimental ship then just turned into a cargo hauler.
Well, the ship does have quite a bit of damage done to the front of one of it's warp engines, which can be seen after it crashes through the pool. Though I would think both engines would be damaged similarly as they would have to make holes for themselves in the bay doors. Whether that damage was caused by the doors or all the other shit the ship went through is unclear at this point. Perhaps someone with a pirated version could chime in with a screen grab from just before the ship pushed through the bay doors.
I like that bit of reasoning.
Anybody know where the docking ports are? Is it possible to have the shuttles just attached to the outside of the Franklin via the docking ports, or even just latched down to the pylons or something during warp? It wouldn't need a shuttlebay that way.
They were orange in the movie too.
I think it's the port on the top they use in one scene.
The QMX model appears to show a doorway or port in the back but it could be a weapon port.
I think Titan V would have had large strap-on boosters as well. Phoenix looked single core--but couldn't have been.
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40012.msg1565270#msg1565270
Just say they fell off of screen or something--but no silos were made for Titans with strap-ons...
http://www.astronautix.com/t/titan5.html
Well, there never was an actual Titan V, it was only proposed and abandoned. No reason to think the Trek universe's version would be the same as that never-built version, externally or internally. Probably it was a WWIII-era design, as Picard said it "used to be a nuclear missile." (Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't the real-world Titan III and IV built specifically as orbital launch vehicles rather than ICBMs?)
Anyway, there is certainly no reason to think it was a Titan II in-universe just because a Titan II was filmed. (Not that this is what you were saying.) After all, USS Ranger was filmed to stand in for USS Enterprise in TVH, a Brachypelma smithi stood in as O'Brien's pet Lycosa tarantula on TNG, and innumerable real-world locations were utilized to represent wholly different ones...
Last edited:
One wonders what USAF would have done with a missile that can take its entire upper stage (here replaced by the warp rig) that high up? Perhaps it was intended for bombarding enemy moonbases, where similar weapons were pointed in the opposite direction?
Doesn't seem that the weapon saw much WWIII action... Not only was Cochrane's rocket not fired (for obvious reasons), but nobody appears to have fired anything at him and the supposed doomsday weapons next door. Possibly it's more like an early prewar design, then, a weapon way too outdated to be used or defended against in the actual war.
Timo Saloniemi
Doesn't seem that the weapon saw much WWIII action... Not only was Cochrane's rocket not fired (for obvious reasons), but nobody appears to have fired anything at him and the supposed doomsday weapons next door. Possibly it's more like an early prewar design, then, a weapon way too outdated to be used or defended against in the actual war.
Timo Saloniemi
Due to the lightweight balloon tank construction, the entire body of the Atlas rocket could be placed in orbit.
That was Atlas SCORE.
Atlas had three nozzles, but only two engines. The outer-most engines were mounted on the bottom thrust ring which slid away, leaving a central sustainer engine.
An interesting note:
The Atlas was a unique rocket because it obtained its structural strength from pressurization. Think of a full soda can. Set it on the ground and you can probably stand on it. Empty it out, however, and it will collapse under your weight. And that’s what happened on this day.
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1326/1
Atlas was thought of as the first "wet-stage" space station:
http://www.popularmechanics.com/space/rockets/a18469/nasa-first-space-station/
Like Atlas, STS could be thought of as a "stage-and-a-half) to orbit. Some wanted to use the External Tank as wet stage modules. Perhaps SLS as well.
The Atlas II in some ways was the ultimate rocket. Powerful Russian RD-180 under the balloon tank. The Skipjack of rockets.
Only hydrogen/oxygen Centaur upper stages use balloon tank these days.
Similar threads
