If they have ANY respect for the canon, then seeing as ships of that era utilized canadian bacon torpedoes and classic crust, the Kelvin should be equipped with canadian bacon torpedoes and classic crust.
Starcraft Productions Blueprints of the Saladin/Hermes
- Thread starter Wingsley
- Start date
If they have ANY respect for the canon, then seeing as ships of that era utilized canadian bacon torpedoes and classic crust, the Kelvin should be equipped with canadian bacon torpedoes and classic crust.
Some time ago, I had a go at a rough layout for the location of shuttle bays in the saucer for my one-nacelle design. Mainly to see if there was enough room and to see how many shuttles it could accommodate. This was working on the principle of a 289 m Enterprise and a 6.7 m shuttle (and taking measurements from the model, which probably isn't very accurate):
There should be enough room to get a shuttle in one standard 3 m deck, but I guess that each bay would take up as much of the deck below as possible too.
This is one of the more sensible takes on this idea that I've seen. Much better than putting the hangar over the impulse engine IMHO (all due respects to Warped9).
Though I probably would keep the hangars out of the saucer and put a smaller flight deck in the little secondary hull, accessible by doors along its top surface. And I'd eliminate most of the windows on the pylon attaching saucer to nacelle, or at least get them away from those flush vents -- lotsa windows on the DD pylon were not one of FJ's better ideas.
I don't much like the idea of two separate shuttlebays, myself. It uses up too much space in a design that has too little space to begin with.
What about putting one near the bow? That would avoid the impulse engines, and possibly suggest some continuity with the TNG-era Centaur, depending on how one interprets that ship's kitbashed greeblies.
Marian
What about putting one near the bow? That would avoid the impulse engines, and possibly suggest some continuity with the TNG-era Centaur, depending on how one interprets that ship's kitbashed greeblies.
Marian
^ I'm stealing that sig line.
Alright, here's a silly question.
Let's take the Saladin/Hermes-type Class I starship. Let's assume that t looks more like what Starscape/Snowscape has proposed, in-saucer hangar and all. (I would put a second nacelle atop the Scorpion's mini-secondary hull, just for balance because the nacelles are supposedly where the bulk of the ship's fuel is stored, but that's just me)
Given this, would the Scorpion's saucer still be able to house approximately 200 crew, even with at least eight shuttles aboard? What if there were fewer shuttles hangared in the saucer, say, only 2 to 4? Would that minimize the amount of space taken by a hangar-and-maintenance bay? This may sound crazy, but I always wondered what those four square lights were along the outer rim on the topside of the Enterprise's saucer. Ive seen it suggested they were airlocks. What if they are close-in beacons for either cargo bays or shuttle landing spots?
Let's take the Saladin/Hermes-type Class I starship. Let's assume that t looks more like what Starscape/Snowscape has proposed, in-saucer hangar and all. (I would put a second nacelle atop the Scorpion's mini-secondary hull, just for balance because the nacelles are supposedly where the bulk of the ship's fuel is stored, but that's just me)
Given this, would the Scorpion's saucer still be able to house approximately 200 crew, even with at least eight shuttles aboard? What if there were fewer shuttles hangared in the saucer, say, only 2 to 4? Would that minimize the amount of space taken by a hangar-and-maintenance bay? This may sound crazy, but I always wondered what those four square lights were along the outer rim on the topside of the Enterprise's saucer. Ive seen it suggested they were airlocks. What if they are close-in beacons for either cargo bays or shuttle landing spots?
Yes, but you have to abandon the FJ-type layout where everyone has their own room and/or at most two to a room, and everyone has their own toilet.
Give senior officers private rooms, junior officers and CPO's two to a room, and put everyone else in four person rooms (two double bunks per). You want to cut down on the plumbing requirements (saves room all those pipes use) by only giving the senior officers thier own toilets. Junior officer and CPO quarters would also have one toilet per cabin. For the enlisted folks, you set up comunal heads, say four toilets per each pair of four-person quarters. Shower facilities divied up the same way.
I think this saves quite a bit of space and makes it easy to get your 200 crew, eight shuttles, and everything else you need into the space available.
I don’t believe that mass bunking would be necessary nor does the basic FJ layout need to be abandoned.
If you were to start with the FJ plan, it has 430 beds in the primary hull, 20 on deck 4, 38 on deck 5, 260 on deck 6 and 112 on deck 7. Even if you lost a third of the beds on the two largest decks to the shuttle bays and hangars ((260+112) / 3 = 124) you would still have over 300 beds in the primary hull with the FJ approach.
Something else to keep in mind is that even if you allow for a wider two-bed bedroom, the FJ room layouts are about 20-25% larger (by floor area) than the rooms implied by the actual TOS stage sets.
If you were to start with the FJ plan, it has 430 beds in the primary hull, 20 on deck 4, 38 on deck 5, 260 on deck 6 and 112 on deck 7. Even if you lost a third of the beds on the two largest decks to the shuttle bays and hangars ((260+112) / 3 = 124) you would still have over 300 beds in the primary hull with the FJ approach.
Something else to keep in mind is that even if you allow for a wider two-bed bedroom, the FJ room layouts are about 20-25% larger (by floor area) than the rooms implied by the actual TOS stage sets.
Some time ago, I had a go at a rough layout for the location of shuttle bays in the saucer for my one-nacelle design. Mainly to see if there was enough room and to see how many shuttles it could accommodate. This was working on the principle of a 289 m Enterprise and a 6.7 m shuttle (and taking measurements from the model, which probably isn't very accurate):
There should be enough room to get a shuttle in one standard 3 m deck, but I guess that each bay would take up as much of the deck below as possible too.
This is one of the more sensible takes on this idea that I've seen. Much better than putting the hangar over the impulse engine IMHO (all due respects to Warped9).
Thanks. Although, I have to admit to being guilty of adding a hanger above the impulse engines on the different design.
I will admit that decision didn't sit well with me when I later made a partial cross-section of that same design.Yeah, can't argue with that, good idea.
I suppose we could dispense with symmetry and just have one shuttlebay on one side of the ship.
Putting a shuttlebay in the bow is an interesting idea, though I'd prefer to keep the flight path of launching/landing shuttles clear of obstacles. With the shuttlepads positioned as they are shuttles can approach from both fore and aft with little obstruction.Where were most of the crew quartered in the TOS Enterprise? What we saw of the refit would suggest that the engineering hull was devoted solely to the engines, the shuttle-hanger and storage, whilst the ~ 400 crewmembers were quartered in the saucer. Is this true for the original design, too?
Looking at it (very) simplistically and assuming the majority of the Constitution saucer is devoted to quarters and rec facilities. A crew of 200 for the Saladin-type, would free up ~ half capacity of the saucer for other facilities.
These too kind of tie together:
I originally envisioned the Scorpion as a surveyor (since I don't particularly care for the term 'destroyer' for starfleet ships and the Hermes seems too big for a scout). I see the upper pod being devoted to deflector/sensor control and overseeing shuttle operations (as the pod over-looks the shuttlepads, perhaps I'm getting carried away with an aircraft carrier analogy, here). The large-ish (~6) compliment of shuttlecraft would be deployed to help the mother-ship to survey a solar (or planetary) system.
(I did have an unpalatable thought that a destroyer version of this ship could be commissioned with perhaps a small complement of fighters.
)As it stands I don't think the pod is large enough to contain a shuttle hanger and I quite like the idea of not housing the same old set of facilities within a secondary hull.
I never have come to a decision over the eternal debate over whether the nacelles are self-contained or not. So, I'm not entirely sure of where I'd fit the engineering sections, but I don't think the upper pod would be a good spot for the engineering sections, it's too far displaced from the main workings of the ship (warp nacelle, etc).
Okay...
This brings up another question for me, somewhat OT.
Let's assume that the Scorpion is a Federation surveyor/frigate-type starship. Let's assume that Scorpion's saucer has shuttelcraft hangar facilities along the aft reaches of its outer rim, to either side of the impulse engines. This suggests to me that a Federation starship saucer can be used to house either limited bays for cargo or a small complement of Class F shuttlecraft. So this brings me back around to ideas I brought up in another thread: could a Constitution-class saucer have room for a tiny, NX-style hangar bay along the outer rim for maybe one or two Class F shuttles, without hurting the internal saucer capacity for housing personnel and other starship essentials?
This brings up another question for me, somewhat OT.
Let's assume that the Scorpion is a Federation surveyor/frigate-type starship. Let's assume that Scorpion's saucer has shuttelcraft hangar facilities along the aft reaches of its outer rim, to either side of the impulse engines. This suggests to me that a Federation starship saucer can be used to house either limited bays for cargo or a small complement of Class F shuttlecraft. So this brings me back around to ideas I brought up in another thread: could a Constitution-class saucer have room for a tiny, NX-style hangar bay along the outer rim for maybe one or two Class F shuttles, without hurting the internal saucer capacity for housing personnel and other starship essentials?
Here's an image of what I'm talking about, which I just lamely cobbled together in Photoshop:
This concept takes the above notion of the Scorpion and marries it to a two-nacelle design. If the bulk of the ship's fuel were stored in the nacelles, this design would likely make the location of the impulse engines more balanced. As anyone who follows my posts knows, I favor two-nacelle designs.
This version of the Hermes does not have a shuttlecraft hangar like the Connie; instead, there are two tiny mini-bays that open like bomb-bays on the aft outer rim of the saucer. The embarked craft drop out of the ways, NX-style (or JASON OF STAR COMMAND-Dragos style, if you prefer), so I placed the "warp drive engineering pod" and navi-deflector dish (based on Vance's Tokyo) above the saucer for clearance.
This concept takes the above notion of the Scorpion and marries it to a two-nacelle design. If the bulk of the ship's fuel were stored in the nacelles, this design would likely make the location of the impulse engines more balanced. As anyone who follows my posts knows, I favor two-nacelle designs.
This version of the Hermes does not have a shuttlecraft hangar like the Connie; instead, there are two tiny mini-bays that open like bomb-bays on the aft outer rim of the saucer. The embarked craft drop out of the ways, NX-style (or JASON OF STAR COMMAND-Dragos style, if you prefer), so I placed the "warp drive engineering pod" and navi-deflector dish (based on Vance's Tokyo) above the saucer for clearance.
I suppose it depends on what kind of additional support/maintenance facilities each bay has. The minimal amount of space would be taken up if they were just holding bays and any maintenance is carried out in the main hangar.
I don't really care for the drop-bay idea. Having the shuttle rest on the (closed) bay doors or having a mechanism to suspend the shuttle above the doors seems to add an extra layer of complexity to the docking and launching shuttles that isn't present if the bay doors are located on the top or side of the saucer.
I remember playing around with adding a 2nd nacelle to a Hermes-type design before, but I didn't think much of it. However, your 2-nacelled Hermes design looks good.
Starscape/Snowscape,
There's a little bit of crossover here between a few threads I've either started or participated in, notably one of them being my recent "My latest Starship drawings" thread, as well as the over-year-and-a-half-old "How would you re-imagine the NX-01 Enterprise?" thread. Hopefully the links herein will help clear things up.
The Starcraft Productions blueprints of the Saladin/Hermes served a flashpoint for several ideas I've been kicking around that have come together around the concept of what Franz Joseph was trying to do in the 1975 Tech Manual by giving the Constitution-class starships a smaller, simpler, single-hulled stablemate in the form of the Saladin/Hermes.
I initially was impressed by FJ's "destroyer/scout" concept and the Starcraft blueprints derived from it. But I see some fundamental problems with the basic design have emerged. One major problem would be fitting the hangar deck in the lower saucer. Another is that if the ship has only one nacelle and that's where the bulk of the fuel is stored, then how does the ship keep from tumbling in space when the impulse engine fires? The design is not balanced without a second nacelle and some line of association between them and the impulse engines.
The two-nacelled Hermes depicted above is actually derived from Vance's Tokyo, with Vance's TOS Hermes mixed in. I actually like the idea of the NX-style hangar, and I have ever since I first saw it on ENT. It reminded me of the saucer access bays that were wide open during TMP1's drydock scenes. I agree that a saucer-based hangar would only provide minimal support for embarked craft, but where there's a will there's a way. The pod embedded in the upper pylon behind the main dish houses the ship's entire warp drive engineering section, plus possibly a photon torpedo bank. That overall configuration of that engine room would resemble (somewhat) the warp drive engine room on the TOS Enterprise. If I had the skills, I would make the pylons a little longer to give the dish better clearance, and I would make the angle and length of both pylons the same so there would be symmetry between them.
I wish I could spend more time with Photoshop so I could do better with the Herman concept. I really like that idea, even more than my revised Hermes. I see this design evolving directly from the Daedalus Project during the Earth-Romulan Conflict, the result of a Coalition design team of Terrans, Tellarites and Andorians combining their techniques to create a mass-producible "destroyer" companion to the NX-class. After the Federation was formed, former Coalition partners could have revived the design and made it into a Federation starship platform that evolved over the generations. I was inspired by Adam Turner/Icy_Penguigo's Starship Texas (Vance's drawing of it here). As I stated elsewhere, the Vulcan ship shown in TAS "Yesteryear", coupled with Adam's Texas, got me to thinking about new approaches to the idea of a single-hull starship with two nacelles. (Icy also posted an interesting possible NX-01 alternative design) So I couldn't resist throwing all these items into a blender and hitting "hi speed". The Herman is what I came up with. And Icy/Adam's Star Tiger thread from way-back-when has added even more inspiration. The distorted "saucer" section of the Star Tiger (and his much earlier Stingray cruiser variant) gives me ideas for the Herman's nose.
I wanted Herman's design to be a one-hull affair like the Texas (and your efforts on the Apex, which could be a third possiblity) but a couple of common themes have emerged in all of these designs:
1: Most of these concepts have a single hull design, or at least the design is simpler and of substantially less mass than heavier "cruiser" style starships-of-the-line.
2: If a given design is based around a single-hull concept, that hull can be segmented to segregate crew habitat from the warp drive section of the ship (the Texas and Herman are good examples of this)
3: each design is a fully capable starship, complete with two nacelles, engineering section, main dish, hangar/hangarette(s), etc., and all of these components should be based on the same family of components used for Kirk's TOS Enterprise. (Constitution-derived and -sized nacelles, deflector dish, sensor domes, etc.)
4: Each design has interesting lines, and can be viewed as a "hero ship". As such, I wanted each design to have its own "design sense". The ship ought to look good, as if it would catch your eye much as the Enterprise does during a flyby. (Unlike the Texas, I wanted Herman's nacelles to be distinctly away from the main hull, as with the various Enterprises. At the same time, I wanted to avoid the nacelles that would obstruct views of the ship)
5: I wanted each design to have between one-third and two-thirds the crew size of whatever version of the Enterprise they would fly next to in their respective eras.
6: One other thing I'm trying to achieve is a closer family resemblance (in some oddly vague sense) with the Connie. I try to keep a recognizable saucer/saucerette up front, with the signature curves and glowing sensor domes and bridge deck, and I like to keep the navi-deflector dish in behind one of the dishes somehow in case there's some kind of interaction between the dish and one of the domes.
7: And when it comes to balancing the nacelles, I want to see a design that will allow the impulse engines to fire without all that heavy fuel stored in the nacelles causing the ship to tumble in space. Ergo, no single-nacelle designs.
Whew. Whole lotta BS to go through, but it's producing some interesting designs so far, eh? Well, your take on the Apex and some other designs (maybe some from the old "How would you re-imagine the NX-01 Enterprise?" thread) might be useful possibilities as well.
There's a little bit of crossover here between a few threads I've either started or participated in, notably one of them being my recent "My latest Starship drawings" thread, as well as the over-year-and-a-half-old "How would you re-imagine the NX-01 Enterprise?" thread. Hopefully the links herein will help clear things up.
The Starcraft Productions blueprints of the Saladin/Hermes served a flashpoint for several ideas I've been kicking around that have come together around the concept of what Franz Joseph was trying to do in the 1975 Tech Manual by giving the Constitution-class starships a smaller, simpler, single-hulled stablemate in the form of the Saladin/Hermes.
I initially was impressed by FJ's "destroyer/scout" concept and the Starcraft blueprints derived from it. But I see some fundamental problems with the basic design have emerged. One major problem would be fitting the hangar deck in the lower saucer. Another is that if the ship has only one nacelle and that's where the bulk of the fuel is stored, then how does the ship keep from tumbling in space when the impulse engine fires? The design is not balanced without a second nacelle and some line of association between them and the impulse engines.
The two-nacelled Hermes depicted above is actually derived from Vance's Tokyo, with Vance's TOS Hermes mixed in. I actually like the idea of the NX-style hangar, and I have ever since I first saw it on ENT. It reminded me of the saucer access bays that were wide open during TMP1's drydock scenes. I agree that a saucer-based hangar would only provide minimal support for embarked craft, but where there's a will there's a way. The pod embedded in the upper pylon behind the main dish houses the ship's entire warp drive engineering section, plus possibly a photon torpedo bank. That overall configuration of that engine room would resemble (somewhat) the warp drive engine room on the TOS Enterprise. If I had the skills, I would make the pylons a little longer to give the dish better clearance, and I would make the angle and length of both pylons the same so there would be symmetry between them.
I wish I could spend more time with Photoshop so I could do better with the Herman concept. I really like that idea, even more than my revised Hermes. I see this design evolving directly from the Daedalus Project during the Earth-Romulan Conflict, the result of a Coalition design team of Terrans, Tellarites and Andorians combining their techniques to create a mass-producible "destroyer" companion to the NX-class. After the Federation was formed, former Coalition partners could have revived the design and made it into a Federation starship platform that evolved over the generations. I was inspired by Adam Turner/Icy_Penguigo's Starship Texas (Vance's drawing of it here). As I stated elsewhere, the Vulcan ship shown in TAS "Yesteryear", coupled with Adam's Texas, got me to thinking about new approaches to the idea of a single-hull starship with two nacelles. (Icy also posted an interesting possible NX-01 alternative design) So I couldn't resist throwing all these items into a blender and hitting "hi speed". The Herman is what I came up with. And Icy/Adam's Star Tiger thread from way-back-when has added even more inspiration. The distorted "saucer" section of the Star Tiger (and his much earlier Stingray cruiser variant) gives me ideas for the Herman's nose.
I wanted Herman's design to be a one-hull affair like the Texas (and your efforts on the Apex, which could be a third possiblity) but a couple of common themes have emerged in all of these designs:
1: Most of these concepts have a single hull design, or at least the design is simpler and of substantially less mass than heavier "cruiser" style starships-of-the-line.
2: If a given design is based around a single-hull concept, that hull can be segmented to segregate crew habitat from the warp drive section of the ship (the Texas and Herman are good examples of this)
3: each design is a fully capable starship, complete with two nacelles, engineering section, main dish, hangar/hangarette(s), etc., and all of these components should be based on the same family of components used for Kirk's TOS Enterprise. (Constitution-derived and -sized nacelles, deflector dish, sensor domes, etc.)
4: Each design has interesting lines, and can be viewed as a "hero ship". As such, I wanted each design to have its own "design sense". The ship ought to look good, as if it would catch your eye much as the Enterprise does during a flyby. (Unlike the Texas, I wanted Herman's nacelles to be distinctly away from the main hull, as with the various Enterprises. At the same time, I wanted to avoid the nacelles that would obstruct views of the ship)
5: I wanted each design to have between one-third and two-thirds the crew size of whatever version of the Enterprise they would fly next to in their respective eras.
6: One other thing I'm trying to achieve is a closer family resemblance (in some oddly vague sense) with the Connie. I try to keep a recognizable saucer/saucerette up front, with the signature curves and glowing sensor domes and bridge deck, and I like to keep the navi-deflector dish in behind one of the dishes somehow in case there's some kind of interaction between the dish and one of the domes.
7: And when it comes to balancing the nacelles, I want to see a design that will allow the impulse engines to fire without all that heavy fuel stored in the nacelles causing the ship to tumble in space. Ergo, no single-nacelle designs.
Whew. Whole lotta BS to go through, but it's producing some interesting designs so far, eh? Well, your take on the Apex and some other designs (maybe some from the old "How would you re-imagine the NX-01 Enterprise?" thread) might be useful possibilities as well.
That's quite an ambitious project you've got there, Wingsley. Interesting ideas, though.
Perhaps the ship's inertia dampers play a role in preventing this. After all it is an inertial effect that would cause the ship to rotate about it's centre-of-mass.
On a related note: there must be some system to minimise the effects of the movement of mass about the ship. Even someone taking a turbolift to the bridge would shift the centre-of-mass, if only slightly, and produce a shift in the ship's direction.
I had a tinker with Vance's schematics and came up with this:
I added a pod on the lower nacelle pylon for balance, I thought it could be a shuttle hanger.
So, you imagine the Herman having a TOS-like appearance? From your other thread I had the impression it would have a more primitive (maybe Ent-era) look to it.
It's odd to think of Hydrogen being described as a "heavy fuel". Then again the quantities a starship require for extended operation is going to be quite 'mass'-ive. I can't help thinking that there isn't enough room to store the amount of fuel they'd need.
Perhaps the ship's inertia dampers play a role in preventing this. After all it is an inertial effect that would cause the ship to rotate about it's centre-of-mass.
On a related note: there must be some system to minimise the effects of the movement of mass about the ship. Even someone taking a turbolift to the bridge would shift the centre-of-mass, if only slightly, and produce a shift in the ship's direction.
I had a tinker with Vance's schematics and came up with this:
I added a pod on the lower nacelle pylon for balance, I thought it could be a shuttle hanger.
So, you imagine the Herman having a TOS-like appearance? From your other thread I had the impression it would have a more primitive (maybe Ent-era) look to it.
It's odd to think of Hydrogen being described as a "heavy fuel".
Then again the quantities a starship require for extended operation is going to be quite 'mass'-ive. I can't help thinking that there isn't enough room to store the amount of fuel they'd need.
In Shaw's long-running thread, "Another fan attempt at TOS deck plans", mentioned a ways back, it was suggested that the location of the Constitution-class impulse engines would have to have a relation to the most massive item(s) on the ship: the storage of compressed fuel (presumably deuterium and antimatter) if you look at the level of the nacelles in relation to the impulse drive, the nacelles would be a natural location for fuel storage.
I also agree with you that it is odd to think of hydrogen as "heavy", but I recall from the TNG Writer's Technical Manual that Sternbach & Okuda mentioned that the Enterprise-D typically carried at least 3 years worth of fuel; this comprised the bulk of her 5 million ton mass. While TOS-era starships probably didn't carry anywhere near that amount, I would not be surprised if a "loaded" starship's total mass were at least a million tons, most of it located in the nacelles. This would also fit nicely with Kirk's mention to Scott that the Enterprise might have to "crack out of there with the main section" in "The Apple".
I like your re-drawing of the two-nacelled Hermes. The idea of it having a second pod is interesting. I think if I wanted to follow your earlier reasoning with the shuttlecraft hangar, though, I'd probably shift the "launch/landing" mechanism so the craft would land on top of the saucer. This would suggest (to me, anyways) that the deflector pod would have to go below the saucer rather than above. Your idea of a second pod is a neat idea, though.
As for the Herman's appearance: I see this craft's overall shape and basic concept as a bridge between the ENT and TOS eras. It could be that Herman was an outgrowth of the Daedalus Project either immediately before or during the Earth-Romulan Conflict in the late 2150's, the design was revived and rejuvinated by the newborn United Federation of Planets a decade or so later, and it evolved into a full-blown TOS era starship class with a vaguely TOS-like appearance.
As far as ambitions go, mine are naturally limited by the limitations of my computer drawing/image editing skills. I'm a video editor, so I occasionally use Photoshop. I'm not a mechanical drawing person, so I won't be doing anything truly ambitious like your 3D masterpieces or Shaw's deck plans.
I also agree with you that it is odd to think of hydrogen as "heavy", but I recall from the TNG Writer's Technical Manual that Sternbach & Okuda mentioned that the Enterprise-D typically carried at least 3 years worth of fuel; this comprised the bulk of her 5 million ton mass. While TOS-era starships probably didn't carry anywhere near that amount, I would not be surprised if a "loaded" starship's total mass were at least a million tons, most of it located in the nacelles. This would also fit nicely with Kirk's mention to Scott that the Enterprise might have to "crack out of there with the main section" in "The Apple".
I like your re-drawing of the two-nacelled Hermes. The idea of it having a second pod is interesting. I think if I wanted to follow your earlier reasoning with the shuttlecraft hangar, though, I'd probably shift the "launch/landing" mechanism so the craft would land on top of the saucer. This would suggest (to me, anyways) that the deflector pod would have to go below the saucer rather than above. Your idea of a second pod is a neat idea, though.
As for the Herman's appearance: I see this craft's overall shape and basic concept as a bridge between the ENT and TOS eras. It could be that Herman was an outgrowth of the Daedalus Project either immediately before or during the Earth-Romulan Conflict in the late 2150's, the design was revived and rejuvinated by the newborn United Federation of Planets a decade or so later, and it evolved into a full-blown TOS era starship class with a vaguely TOS-like appearance.
As far as ambitions go, mine are naturally limited by the limitations of my computer drawing/image editing skills. I'm a video editor, so I occasionally use Photoshop. I'm not a mechanical drawing person, so I won't be doing anything truly ambitious like your 3D masterpieces or Shaw's deck plans.
I have to wonder, though, how much mass would Deuterium REALLY take? Remember, it's one of the lightest things in the universe (only pure Hydrogen is lighter), and even compressed it's not exactly all that massive. You have to compress it 8x just to get it to oxygen, and roughly 10x just to get it to the same mass of air. And since the reaction supposedly only takes a few fluid ounces of M/AM per hour...
Heck, I think the equipment to keep the anti-matter reserves isolated would mass more than the M/AM reserves themselves!
Heck, I think the equipment to keep the anti-matter reserves isolated would mass more than the M/AM reserves themselves!
Maybe so. I was only going by what Sternbach & Okuda said in the TNG Writer's Technical Manual (or maybe it was the TNG mass-market Tech Manual). In any case, I would imagine the equipment you mention, plus the coils and other machinery in the nacelles, would comprise the greatest mass in the ship.
Interesting points.
Interesting points.
I don't think deuterium is involved in the fueling of these TOS ships. I think the difference between the "190,000 metric tons" specification and the "million gross tons of vessel" described in "Mudd's Women" is the use of superdense, degenerate matter as fuel.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degenerate_matter
The kind of fantastic power and deep space self-sufficiency seen in TOS would seem to indicate a need for tremendous amounts of fuel. Better this than depending upon "Bussard Scoops" to ram hydrogen down the ship's gullet.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degenerate_matter
The kind of fantastic power and deep space self-sufficiency seen in TOS would seem to indicate a need for tremendous amounts of fuel. Better this than depending upon "Bussard Scoops" to ram hydrogen down the ship's gullet.
How does this square with Scotty's repeated mentioned of matter-antimatter reactor(s) as part of the ship's systems?
