Vance's Schematics II

[Vance]

You're right... I'll revisit them today. I was too focused on the side view, I think.

 

[Wingsley]

The only other question I would have about the impulse engines would be their location: why put them on the "top" of the aft end? Why not put them in the center of the tail, where the pressure from the thrust would disperse more evenly, and the unit could fly straight?

 

[137th Gebirg]

"Reefer Container"?

I guess MJ has been legalized by the 23rd century, or am I missing something?

 

[B.J.]

A reefer container is a *refrigerated* container. Although in this case it might refer to any kind of contained and regulated environment.

 

[Vance]

Medical Container (TMP)

 

[Vance]

Wingsley said:
The only other question I would have about the impulse engines would be their location: why put them on the "top" of the aft end? Why not put them in the center of the tail, where the pressure from the thrust would disperse more evenly, and the unit could fly straight?

For the same reason that the Enterprise doesn't. Whatever reason that may be.

 

[Vance]

Kiev Class (FASA)

 

[Vance]

Dille Class (FASA Variant)

 

[Vance]

Consolation Class Hospital Ship (Ver 1, Festus)

 

[Vance]

Hope Class Hospital Ship

 

[Bernard Guignard]

You will soon have enough for another book there Vance

 

[Kaiser]

I agree

and i will keep the original versions of your TMP Containtors becuase all your schematics are like Trek Internet collectables

 

[Sean_McCormick]

Hmm, another problem i see with those containers: in those self propelled TMP-era containers, the impulse engines prevent coupling another container behind it, which was possible in the Classic-era version.

 

[Wingsley]

Vance,

Remember the Pasteur from TNG's "All Good Things..."?

Have you ever considered a TOS- or TMP-era Daedalus-like variant medical starship?

 

[Forbin]

I like the Hope!

 

[Vance]

Sean_McCormick said:
Hmm, another problem i see with those containers: in those self propelled TMP-era containers, the impulse engines prevent coupling another container behind it, which was possible in the Classic-era version.

I hemmed on that one, actually, but the design of the impulse engine kinda precludes too much linking up anyway. I may play with it this weekend (since there's only three pods) and see about making the engine slightly more flush with the back.

 

[HRHTheKING]

I like the Cochrane and Aakan

The Sydney is nice too, but it may look better without the pylons. So the nacelles will simply be bolted onto the sides of the vessel.

 

[Forbin]

Pods that were meant to be in train didn't have impulse engines. FJ only put engines on the starliner pods.

Hey - how about strap-on engines for the trailing pod?

 

[Sean_McCormick]

Actually, i don't think that the starliner would be doing ftl-travel by specially assigned tugs, it would just be carried as any other container.
For the special application derivates i would find it especially important to have multiple containers put together into a train, for example, on an large scale medical operation one shuttlecarrier-pod for extra transport capacity, and two or three hospital-pods could be needed and those would not need four tugs assigned to the operation when the could be coupled.

 

[Wingsley]

Are you sure you want to use the term "strap on" in this line of discussion?