TOS Carrier

[Klaus]

The string-of-pods approach from the FJ tug might work for cargo but it strikes me as too fragile a setup for combat conditions and maneuvers. And the last design would still be easily capable of being built with other things in place of carrier pods below it, kind of like the Nebula variants. And I'd think a hardmounted connection there would also be better for a combat ship than a removable link... changing the configuration would be possible but would require a bit of drydock time.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

^so you're technically suggesting a Ptolemy without the saucer tugging a module full of fighters?

Yes. Although Ptolemy NCC-3801 without the saucer might not be 100% accurate, since some small substitute hull is needed, but yeah. Santa Klaus seems to have such a hull between his nacelles in his most recent proposal.

The string-of-pods approach from the FJ tug might work for cargo but it strikes me as too fragile a setup for combat conditions and maneuvers. And the last design would still be easily capable of being built with other things in place of carrier pods below it, kind of like the Nebula variants. And I'd think a hardmounted connection there would also be better for a combat ship than a removable link... changing the configuration would be possible but would require a bit of drydock time.

I don't necessarily disagree with this. However, I was envisioning more of an array of pods now, instead of having them strung like a train. If I can come up with a sketch, I will, but I'm no digital artist.

 

[KNH]

The string-of-pods approach from the FJ tug might work for cargo but it strikes me as too fragile a setup for combat conditions and maneuvers. And the last design would still be easily capable of being built with other things in place of carrier pods below it, kind of like the Nebula variants. And I'd think a hardmounted connection there would also be better for a combat ship than a removable link... changing the configuration would be possible but would require a bit of drydock time.

Since you mentioned the Nebula, have you considered a Nebula configuration that carries a (sufficiently sized) fighter module up top where the Nebula would have the triangular pod? Granted, it might lopside a bit far at the rear, but...

 

[Forbin]

http://www.inpayne.com/models/ussibddaud.html

 

[CorporalCaptain]

http://www.inpayne.com/models/ussibddaud.html

Voilà! Very nice model, too. Thanks, Forbin. (Although it's not precisely a Ptolemy-class tug, because the main deflector isn't awkwardly attached to the primary hull, it still looks really nice.)

 

[Wingsley]

ty for all the suggestions...

Wingsley's comment about ditching the saucer gave me pause... as much as we all love the Connie look, in this case it might be argued that I was trying to make an aircraft carrier look too much like a battleship, as it were. So here's a different take on it:

Neat!

I was envisioning more of an "X" wing design for the pylons, but this could work.

 

[Forbin]

http://www.inpayne.com/models/ussibddaud.html

Voilà! Very nice model, too. Thanks, Forbin. (Although it's not precisely a Ptolemy-class tug, because the main deflector isn't awkwardly attached to the primary hull, it still looks really nice.)

Like this?
http://www.inpayne.com/models/ptolemy.html

I figure the later refits did away with the big stupid dish, and incorporated deflectors into the saucer rim (or whatever it is the Reliant does).

 

[Wingsley]

Let's not forget about Forbin's even more innovative Sultana.

It's a TMP-era model, but it looks like it would lend itself to the TOS era very well. The only thing I would do differently with it would be to attach cargo pods to both the topside and underside.

Back in the summer of 2008, I started a discussion thread called "Warptugs and cargo pods" over in the Trek Tech forum. Participants posted a variety of images that could be relevant here.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Back in the summer of 2008, I started a discussion thread called "Warptugs and cargo pods" over in the Trek Tech forum. Participants posted a variety of images that could be relevant here.

Thanks, Wingsley.

Reverend's Magni-class design is along the lines I was thinking of, in terms of container arrangement.

...and the Magni.

However, I was envisioning a main body that is considerably smaller.

 

[Wingsley]

If you look back over that thread, I was thinking of warptugs based on two longer nacelles, rather than four. Since then, I have been thinking of different arrangements that would allow the warptugs to hold four or six sets of cargo pods.

YMMV, of course.

The notion of warptugs in TREK would be mutli-faceted. You could have your "Astral Queen" starliners ("The Conscience of the King") and your low-warp freighters ("Friday's Child", "The Ultimate Computer", "More Tribbles, More Troubles"), but you could also have another tier of Federation starships as warptugs; faster, more powerful transports that could come in different variations and classes that would include armored transports.

Glad you like the "warptug" thread. Hope you find it useful. Interesting artwork and conjecture there.

 

[Klaus]

I like that warptug, the x-wing shape reminds me of my first real try at making a ship design, the "garbage scow" from the "down and Dirty Trek" art contest 6 years ago [wow]:

 

[Maurice]

^Actually Sark's "Carrier" does have a flat top and the command structure is right where it should be to evoke a sea going carrier - on the starboard side midship.

The blue coloring further evokes a see going ship with the darker "water line".

The problem is the design ques of a real world navel carrier conflict with the style of federation ships. Form follows function for naval carriers. Trying to apply the same functional forms -runway slabs and offset command structures to maximize those runways- don't work in trek.

To come up with a good carrier design for the federation you have to work out how it will operate first and build from there. The major issue is how will the "fighters" (drones/PF's/whatever) will be launched and recovered. Next you have to at least imagine the thing was built on some kind of budget. Otherwise you can just draw any kind of "teh Uber awesome" thing and call it done. Show restraint and imagine what the "engineers" might want to build compared to what they can afford to build.

Methinks you're missing my point somewhat. I'm using this to illustrate that you can take a few elements from something real-world to evoke that in something fantastical. You don't have to go as literally as a flat deck and an actual conning tower, but you can place sensor arrays or other equipment in places that evoke a carrier. They could throw away the flat top surface (which we don't really see much of at all in the film) and the lines of the flat side and the position of the tower would still imply a carrier even if the ship was salmon colored.

 

[sojourner]

Oh, I didn't miss your point. I am saying that most of the styling ques from a real carrier won't work in the Star Trek setting.

And pointing out that Mead's design is much closer to a real carrier than you noticed.

 

[Forbin]

Oh, that Magni is tempting... But I'm never going to feel like building EIGHT cargo pods at once!

 

[sojourner]

^Well, you only have to build one. You can just copy/paste the 7 others.... Oh wait.

 

[Forbin]

^Well, you only have to build one. You can just copy/paste the 7 others.... Oh wait.

Don'tcha wish real life was like that?

Have to wait for replicators to be invented.

 

[Maurice]

Oh, I didn't miss your point. I am saying that most of the styling ques from a real carrier won't work in the Star Trek setting.

And pointing out that Mead's design is much closer to a real carrier than you noticed.

I wasn't talking about "styling".

I'd have to be stupid not to notice the carrier type elements, since I was the one who pointed those elements out in the first place. You're fixating on the specific example and not the concept.

Anyway, Andy Probert's recent work on a Starfleet Tug, along with the robot cargo ship from TAS/Remastered "The Ultimate Computer" illustrates that you can make perfectly Starfleet looking vessels without going so literally with the elements from the TOS ship.

 

[sojourner]

^OK, I'll change the word.

I am saying most of the details from a real carrier won't work in a trek setting.

Better?

The key on Mead's carrier is you somehow turned it on it's side to see those elements, which is not necessary.

I never said you had to go literally with the elements on a TOS ship. Just that real world carrier elements don't work.

 

[Klaus]

Here's a new twist, combining the last one with the ring-nacelle configuration from my clipper ship design, and thus support for a third pod!

 

[sojourner]

Now you're just "taking the piss" as they say.