And where exactly are the atmospheric thrusters on the type 8?
Danube class
- Thread starter Bill Morris
- Start date
Oh, I don't want to seriously argue that. In fact, I prefer to think of the TOS shuttles as capable of something like warp 1.7 already.
It's just that I also want to consider the "drop off and warp away" deployment mode of shuttles a viable one, regardless of whether the shuttles then travel at impulse or at warp, as this seems to be what we see in a great number of episodes. It's extremely difficult to think up a good reason for such silly behavior, unless it is indeed all about some sort of a speed limit around select star systems, one that both ships and shuttles would have to obey. Better to have the shuttles stuck at those speeds than ships, then.
As for rounded shuttles to accompany Type 7, I'd like to believe in their existence just for the sake of having a "family" of designs. We get such "families" whenever there is a Trek movie that can afford to do such things, but it would make little sense to assume that "families" only exist every now and then. There should be a runaboutish counterpart to Type 7, too - just like there should be a "dustbuster" Type 3 phaser rifle etc.
Anyway, the Type 9A from TNG TM is rounded enough, even though it has the angular minimal-ramscoop nacelles similar to Type 6. I'd like to believe in the existence of a plain Type 9, with more Type 7ish nacelles - and perhaps also in Type 9B, with Voyagerish nacelles as in Type 8.
Do such things exist? The impulse engines might double in that role, perhaps running on some secondary mode. They might be nonideal for that, as we witness when Kira's "sub-impulse" craft outflies the impulse-equipped interceptors in "The Siege". But the nonideality might be a price Starfleet would want to pay for not having to install dedicated hardware.
Timo Saloniemi
It was Captain Janeway who mentioned atmospheric thrusters in preparation for landing Voyager. I guess with a shuttle the term is microfusion thrusters, which I suppose might share the cowlings with the impulse engines and their fuel tanks. Or is that function somehow contained in the nacelles?
I guess the pattern buffer and biofilter can go in the cabinet below that console in the forward part of the aft section, and the pattern buffer can look like a larger version of the computer core shown under the floor.
The cabinet below the starboard bench is just a storage locker, and the bench on the port side is a foldout restroom. Is that right?
I guess the pattern buffer and biofilter can go in the cabinet below that console in the forward part of the aft section, and the pattern buffer can look like a larger version of the computer core shown under the floor.
The cabinet below the starboard bench is just a storage locker, and the bench on the port side is a foldout restroom. Is that right?
A starship might require systems different from those of a shuttlecraft to survive a landing. Or at least she would have enough room for dedicated, optimal systems where a shuttle would need to compromise.
I sure hope the cabin does have a foldout commode, and those benches are the logical locations. It would be interesting to establish the interiors of Type 7 in a similar manner; do we need to evoke facilities aft of the center cabin, perhaps leading to an aft door? Or do we use the "things hidden under benches" approach and perhaps the front door, even though it was never seen open?
Timo Saloniemi
I sure hope the cabin does have a foldout commode, and those benches are the logical locations. It would be interesting to establish the interiors of Type 7 in a similar manner; do we need to evoke facilities aft of the center cabin, perhaps leading to an aft door? Or do we use the "things hidden under benches" approach and perhaps the front door, even though it was never seen open?
Timo Saloniemi
Okay, fuel tanks, toilet, washbasin, pattern buffer, and biofilter.
Now it is starting to look like a display of systems!
...Although I sort of thought the fuel tanks would be about ten times the size. Perhaps three per side, ejectable through the vertical side panels on the cowlings.
Also, the warp engine pylons have the "plasma conduit" insets curving along the forward edge. Perhaps this is where the feed line to the impulse engines / fuel tanks should go, too?
Timo Saloniemi
...Although I sort of thought the fuel tanks would be about ten times the size. Perhaps three per side, ejectable through the vertical side panels on the cowlings.
Also, the warp engine pylons have the "plasma conduit" insets curving along the forward edge. Perhaps this is where the feed line to the impulse engines / fuel tanks should go, too?
Timo Saloniemi
Hmmm . . .
Okay, okay. I'll just run that line straight down and call that one done before its budget runs out. Now, back to the runabout.
Shouldn't there be a navigational array of some description on that dorsal cowling?
Not a traditional dish, more like the wotsits on the Miranda & Constellation.
As for the "Skin of Evil" ship, I'm reasonably sure it's the same proto-Type-7 that showed up on a matt painting for that huge mushroom starbase.
Bernd has an article for it here.
For when you do the Danube's aft section, I found it useful when I did the plans for the Erewhon to study the bunk room in the Defiant, as that's where the set from "Timescape" ended up. That is if you plan on doing a dorsal and starboard view.
Also note, somewhere in there is a small jefferies tube (probably over the central corridor) from that episode with Sisko & Eddington.
Oh and one small point, can people stop referring to large passenger shuttles as runabouts? It bugs me.
Not a traditional dish, more like the wotsits on the Miranda & Constellation.
As for the "Skin of Evil" ship, I'm reasonably sure it's the same proto-Type-7 that showed up on a matt painting for that huge mushroom starbase.
Bernd has an article for it here.
For when you do the Danube's aft section, I found it useful when I did the plans for the Erewhon to study the bunk room in the Defiant, as that's where the set from "Timescape" ended up. That is if you plan on doing a dorsal and starboard view.
Also note, somewhere in there is a small jefferies tube (probably over the central corridor) from that episode with Sisko & Eddington.
Oh and one small point, can people stop referring to large passenger shuttles as runabouts? It bugs me.
Last edited:
Well, here's what I've got so far:
You can't show everything in a cutaway, but I wanted to show the bottom of the ship without separating the nacelle as seen in the Voyager MSD, especially since I'm showing a plasma conduit running down to the nacelle.
Maybe this upper version works better.
Maybe this upper version works better.
That's certainly possible. I always enjoy Bernd's articles.
(Bolian flavor of thumbs-up for no particular reason)Thanks, JNG. LCARS 24 has its own font drivers and formats. Retaining the shape of LCARS fonts the way TrueType does on a computer screen makes them a little muddy. I opted to prioritize legibility. And this system is designed for old computers, with 800 x 600 display.
Reverend, about dorsal (plan) views like the TNG "pooltable," those look great, but the image would have to be small or scrollable to leave room for labels. My purpose here is not to make large printouts for a wall-mounted lightbox, etc. but for use in my LCARS system for PCs. "Scrollable with labels" is not supported by the system except in the case of an image file with its own labeling. This Danube class MSD has the entire page except for the image rendered by the system in response to a 2K file of LCARS-specific commands, which the user can edit. The arrow keys control which pointer is displayed in blue, and when the display is zoomed up it shows only the image (scrollable), without the labels and other text between the brackets. So any pooltable graphics would just be image files in the LCARS 24 library. The viewer program supports zooming and scrolling.
About the Danube image, I think what I'll do is partially hide the nacelle, as I did with the Nebula class, lose the vertical plasma candy canes, change the hardware above the Jefferies tube a little, perhaps outline the two of the mission-specific modules in different colors, and maybe add a little more candy here and there.
So like this, and then add a few trinkets:
Reverend, about dorsal (plan) views like the TNG "pooltable," those look great, but the image would have to be small or scrollable to leave room for labels. My purpose here is not to make large printouts for a wall-mounted lightbox, etc. but for use in my LCARS system for PCs. "Scrollable with labels" is not supported by the system except in the case of an image file with its own labeling. This Danube class MSD has the entire page except for the image rendered by the system in response to a 2K file of LCARS-specific commands, which the user can edit. The arrow keys control which pointer is displayed in blue, and when the display is zoomed up it shows only the image (scrollable), without the labels and other text between the brackets. So any pooltable graphics would just be image files in the LCARS 24 library. The viewer program supports zooming and scrolling.
About the Danube image, I think what I'll do is partially hide the nacelle, as I did with the Nebula class, lose the vertical plasma candy canes, change the hardware above the Jefferies tube a little, perhaps outline the two of the mission-specific modules in different colors, and maybe add a little more candy here and there.
So like this, and then add a few trinkets:
Last edited:
What does the exterior show? The TOS shuttle had asymmetrically laid out square panels/grilles down there, and we could easily say those are the deflectors for that design. The Type 8 has panels, too, I think - an offset low-power deflector dish could lie beneath one of those.
I don't see any noticeable similarities - or any significant differences between the proto-7 and the ultimate 7, for that matter, apart from the side windows. The "Skin of Evil" craft is drastically rearranging the relationship between the aft impulse nozzle and central chasm (door?), and obviously doesn't attach the nacelles directly to the hull in the Type 7 fashion but more like on some sort of flimsier pylons that have broken off in the crash.
Clearly the modelers didn't even half-heartedly attempt to make the crashed shuttle look like Type 7, for whatever reason. The rationale isn't really important; the outcome still is that we must squint real hard to pretend that this is a Type 7, while there is no particular reason to do so, and a new, exciting and perfectly acceptable design to be "gained" if we refuse to squint.
On the runabout, I'd like the two antimatter tanks to lie at the aft end of the warp core assembly looking much like the DS9 Tech Manual image. There's a funny bonus gained from making them look like that... In DS9 "Battle Lines", the debris field around the crashed craft features a separated Type 6 warp nacelle, a component that has no logical reason for being there. However, immediately prior to the crash, Sisko said he jettisoned the antimatter tank. Perhaps by a fluke, it landed right next to the crash site?
Also, would it be possible to vary the design of the impulse engines or fuel tanks a bit? Say, two big balls rather than three small ones for a change (and a bit of chokolate on top, please!)? Or are these components supposed to be "iconic" representations rather than accurate portrayals?
...And the big question is, where will one place the Jeffries tube we saw in "Blaze of Glory"?
Timo Saloniemi
I've already made a few more changes to the Danube image. I'll change the style of the impulse engines and antimatter botttles. What about escape pods or lifeboats? At the fore and aft ends of the Jefferies tube? What do they look like?
Here's something to download and doodle on with MS-Paint or whatever. It's a PNG file. Can anyone make sense of this thing?
Here's something to download and doodle on with MS-Paint or whatever. It's a PNG file. Can anyone make sense of this thing?
