FA+
Shop
522
Views
Views
6
Favorites
Favorites
Category
All / All
Species Unspecified / Any
Size 1280 x 958
File Size 462 kB
Report this content
More from J-Raz
Listed in Folders
A bit more from my Sojourner idea (see original thing here). Allow me to explain my thinking here.
I perceive a design flaw with TNG and onwards-era starships in Star Trek. Specifically, the engineering hull. Take the Enterprise D, for example. The ship has offices and crew quarters built around an antimatter/matter reactor, and Generations shows us that CHILDREN live in this section or at least spend significant amounts of time there. I remind you that this is the BATTLE SECTION, designed to separate from the ship in times of battle while the civilians stay in the saucer section for safety.
Now, there are a few design elements to these ships. There are two antimatter/matter reactors to power the fold drives, one in each engine nacelle (which is actually made of a dozen or so wormhole generators linked in a sequence each), with a large pod containing the fuel for the engines mounted separate from the ship: this is heavily armored and shielded, and in the event of a truly catastrophic malfunction (which would involve roughly four or five separate backups going offline simultaneously) the whole damned thing can be jettisoned. Having the reactors at the front of the nacelles allow for a similar trick if one of the engines has a critical malfunction, and you can run one of these ships with only one of these FTL engines anyway. Then, the longer spar-like sections are the sublight engines and such. And now I'm rambling, and I make no sense. So, why don't we get onto the actual doodles, and you can ask me questions later.
Each of these is made from basically four parts: habitation module, engine section, antimatter pod, and FTL engines, with connecting spars between them. Anyway, enough blabbering!
Side note: these components are on an even keel with each other: the nacelles aren't raised above the main hull with the antimatter pod down below.
1. Saucer in front, engine pods behind, nacelles swept back and to the side, antimatter pod hangs way back. Most graceful, and the dangerous parts are held furthest away from the habitation section. Also heavily looks like an NX or Akira.
2. Less graceful, more utilitarian. Straighter support bars. Looks a bit like the original Enterprise.
3. Directly attaches the nacelles to the engine sections with the pod hanging back. More compact but possibly not as safe.
4. Same as 3, with straight support bars.
5. Same as 1, but with longer dart-like center section.
6. Nacelles directly integrated into habitation section. Not as safe, not gonna use.
7. Engine pods on the outside, nacelles on the inside. Straighter line between antimatter pod and nacelles, but also harder to eject nacelles in an emergency. Might work for a warship with less powerful engines.
8. Same as number 1, but the connector supports are straight and the antimatter pod is next to the main hull. Looks a lot like a refit Enterprise, but not as safe because of the proximity to the main hull.
9. Same as 7, but straighter connector between the pod and nacelles. The antimatter pod is actually partially built into the habitation hull. Really dangerous.
10. Nacelles on outside, engine pods on inside. Really compact, might work as a battleship.
11. I think I accidentally redrew number 9… oh wait! I see the difference. Same as 9 but the antimatter pod is disconnected from the main hull.
12. Nacelles on hull, actual antimatter/matter engines at the back of the nacelles instead of the front. Kind of fun, a bit more compact than the others.
13. Same as 12, with a larger inner section like 5.
14. Same as 10, but even more compact.
15. Same as 12, but reversed so it's a "puller" rather than a "pusher." Looks kinda nifty (even though it doesn't matter which way the engine pods go since they're not really propelling the ship), but it does mount the antimatter pod at the front, so it's not as safe.
16. Same as 12, but with a more arrow-like body. Not much else to say.
And this took WAY too long to type up. Any questions, just ask.
I perceive a design flaw with TNG and onwards-era starships in Star Trek. Specifically, the engineering hull. Take the Enterprise D, for example. The ship has offices and crew quarters built around an antimatter/matter reactor, and Generations shows us that CHILDREN live in this section or at least spend significant amounts of time there. I remind you that this is the BATTLE SECTION, designed to separate from the ship in times of battle while the civilians stay in the saucer section for safety.
Now, there are a few design elements to these ships. There are two antimatter/matter reactors to power the fold drives, one in each engine nacelle (which is actually made of a dozen or so wormhole generators linked in a sequence each), with a large pod containing the fuel for the engines mounted separate from the ship: this is heavily armored and shielded, and in the event of a truly catastrophic malfunction (which would involve roughly four or five separate backups going offline simultaneously) the whole damned thing can be jettisoned. Having the reactors at the front of the nacelles allow for a similar trick if one of the engines has a critical malfunction, and you can run one of these ships with only one of these FTL engines anyway. Then, the longer spar-like sections are the sublight engines and such. And now I'm rambling, and I make no sense. So, why don't we get onto the actual doodles, and you can ask me questions later.
Each of these is made from basically four parts: habitation module, engine section, antimatter pod, and FTL engines, with connecting spars between them. Anyway, enough blabbering!
Side note: these components are on an even keel with each other: the nacelles aren't raised above the main hull with the antimatter pod down below.
1. Saucer in front, engine pods behind, nacelles swept back and to the side, antimatter pod hangs way back. Most graceful, and the dangerous parts are held furthest away from the habitation section. Also heavily looks like an NX or Akira.
2. Less graceful, more utilitarian. Straighter support bars. Looks a bit like the original Enterprise.
3. Directly attaches the nacelles to the engine sections with the pod hanging back. More compact but possibly not as safe.
4. Same as 3, with straight support bars.
5. Same as 1, but with longer dart-like center section.
6. Nacelles directly integrated into habitation section. Not as safe, not gonna use.
7. Engine pods on the outside, nacelles on the inside. Straighter line between antimatter pod and nacelles, but also harder to eject nacelles in an emergency. Might work for a warship with less powerful engines.
8. Same as number 1, but the connector supports are straight and the antimatter pod is next to the main hull. Looks a lot like a refit Enterprise, but not as safe because of the proximity to the main hull.
9. Same as 7, but straighter connector between the pod and nacelles. The antimatter pod is actually partially built into the habitation hull. Really dangerous.
10. Nacelles on outside, engine pods on inside. Really compact, might work as a battleship.
11. I think I accidentally redrew number 9… oh wait! I see the difference. Same as 9 but the antimatter pod is disconnected from the main hull.
12. Nacelles on hull, actual antimatter/matter engines at the back of the nacelles instead of the front. Kind of fun, a bit more compact than the others.
13. Same as 12, with a larger inner section like 5.
14. Same as 10, but even more compact.
15. Same as 12, but reversed so it's a "puller" rather than a "pusher." Looks kinda nifty (even though it doesn't matter which way the engine pods go since they're not really propelling the ship), but it does mount the antimatter pod at the front, so it's not as safe.
16. Same as 12, but with a more arrow-like body. Not much else to say.
And this took WAY too long to type up. Any questions, just ask.
Category All / All
Species Unspecified / Any
Size 1280 x 958px
File Size 462 kB
Listed in Folders
there were too many flaws with the newer star treks compared to the original. The enterprise design has been changed too many times to even say this was the perfect design. id rather see the power come with the enging from behind and a batch of escape pods hanging from them in case, with the quarters and entertainment areas spaced out in the area leading to the drives. Making BATTLESTATIONS a bit easier on the crew and their families and should the need arise the escape pods arent too far away ^^ not that artistic to show what i mean
looks a bit like a combination of 12 and 2 :3
looks a bit like a combination of 12 and 2 :3
Oh, there are no families on this class of ships. Hell, the whole family thing made the least sense of the Enterprise D. "Gee, we're going into battle against the Borg with all of these civilian families with children aboard. I don't see a problem with that!" In the case of these designs, they'd probably have dedicated transport tubes to move people back and forth from the fuel pods and nacelles to the engineering sections, and you're right, the nacelles and fuel pod would need their own dedicated escape craft. I think that of all the hero ships, the refit Enterprise makes the most sense to me, looking the best of them all and also being fairly utilitarian, while having enough logical details that you could believe the ship was real. Jeffries' original design I believe ALSO had the nacelles as the actual engines, not just the warp nacelles, but I'm not sure. The antimatter engines on these ships are only used to power the fold engines: the rest of the ship is powered by more prosaic and safer fusion reactors.
As a side note, the bridge on all of these ships is buried inside the hull, at least two decks down, and pretty close to the middle. It's a lot safer that way.
As a side note, the bridge on all of these ships is buried inside the hull, at least two decks down, and pretty close to the middle. It's a lot safer that way.
They also present a nice big target towards anyone coming at you from the front. Or side. Ot top. Or bottom. Or back. The advantage of a saucer or arrowhead shape is that they only have two big "target" sides, top and bottom, while the sides and front and back are a lot smaller and harder to hit.
Don't know if you're still taking comments on this, but I do see a couple things (from an engineer's viewpoint) that you might take into consideration. I note that these designs are all on one plane much like the Defiant or Steamrunner classes on DS9. This is all well and good when you rely on energy fields to hold a ship together, but you didn't mention those. On another note, such a design would bring a return to the old naval tactic of broadsides, as the flat "top" and "bottom" have the most area available to mount weapons emplacements.
Regarding your concerns about the placement of the antimatter pod, there is about as much energy in an ounce of antimatter as is released in two NASA shuttle missions. By the time that is scaled up to the 25000kg of antimatter stored in the Enterprise tanks (not to mention the antimatter warheads on the photon torpedoes) the blast radiation could melt the hull from several dozen kilometers, shields not withstanding.
I would like to hear what ideas you had for maneuvering. A few of these designs look like they might be capable of flight in the upper atmosphere as well.
Given the time since this was posted I'm sure you've moved on to other things, but It was nice to find another Jefferies fan out there.
Regarding your concerns about the placement of the antimatter pod, there is about as much energy in an ounce of antimatter as is released in two NASA shuttle missions. By the time that is scaled up to the 25000kg of antimatter stored in the Enterprise tanks (not to mention the antimatter warheads on the photon torpedoes) the blast radiation could melt the hull from several dozen kilometers, shields not withstanding.
I would like to hear what ideas you had for maneuvering. A few of these designs look like they might be capable of flight in the upper atmosphere as well.
Given the time since this was posted I'm sure you've moved on to other things, but It was nice to find another Jefferies fan out there.
Oh no worries, I'm always open to comments and back-and-forth! :)
And yes, these are all mounted in a flat plane. The design of the Enterprise… never really made sense to me. The off-balance design would just make maneuvering and even THRUSTING a difficult trick, and frankly I have no idea how they do it (aside from technobabble whosiwhatsit thrusters). Having a balanced body makes more sense. Part of the reason that Sojourner is designed in the X plane is because part of me thinks it was designed to enter atmosphere, or at least the upper atmosphere, and for that you need streamlining. Warships in this setting are very compact and boxy, more long than wide or tall. Sojourner is an exploration vessel.
These are also older ideas. My current idea for the Sojourner's shape is more like an arrowhead with an engine arrangement similar to that of number 5 or 8 up top. That overall shape seems more pleasing and graceful looking. I'll have to sketch it out at some point to show what it kind of looks like. Maneuvering for the ship is done through a combination of ducted thrusters and smaller thrusters scattered around the hull, plus the addition of some mass- and gravity-alteration technology that allows for a few more tricks (as a side note, that technology allows for even massive dreadnoughts to land safely on a planet in the event of an emergency, though there's not much chance for getting them back up again afterwards)…
Sorry, it's been a while since I thought about this stuff, and it's been a long day for me, so I think I'll cut this off here for now if you don't mind. Though I do know the captain's name: Jason Savage. I think that sounds like a good space captain's name, don't you?
And yes, these are all mounted in a flat plane. The design of the Enterprise… never really made sense to me. The off-balance design would just make maneuvering and even THRUSTING a difficult trick, and frankly I have no idea how they do it (aside from technobabble whosiwhatsit thrusters). Having a balanced body makes more sense. Part of the reason that Sojourner is designed in the X plane is because part of me thinks it was designed to enter atmosphere, or at least the upper atmosphere, and for that you need streamlining. Warships in this setting are very compact and boxy, more long than wide or tall. Sojourner is an exploration vessel.
These are also older ideas. My current idea for the Sojourner's shape is more like an arrowhead with an engine arrangement similar to that of number 5 or 8 up top. That overall shape seems more pleasing and graceful looking. I'll have to sketch it out at some point to show what it kind of looks like. Maneuvering for the ship is done through a combination of ducted thrusters and smaller thrusters scattered around the hull, plus the addition of some mass- and gravity-alteration technology that allows for a few more tricks (as a side note, that technology allows for even massive dreadnoughts to land safely on a planet in the event of an emergency, though there's not much chance for getting them back up again afterwards)…
Sorry, it's been a while since I thought about this stuff, and it's been a long day for me, so I think I'll cut this off here for now if you don't mind. Though I do know the captain's name: Jason Savage. I think that sounds like a good space captain's name, don't you?
Yeah, the Idea on Star Trek was that the engines were pushing the bubble of space the ship was in rather than the ship itself. It still makes more sense for the ship to be symmetrical top/bottom and port/starboard to keep the inertia balanced, but the audience wasn't as informed back then.
Savage does sound like a good name for a spacecraft commander. I saw your note on rank insignia, and was happy to see that you remembered the warrant officers. Some of the most valuable personnel in any military and so often overlooked.
Hope you get some R&R.
Savage does sound like a good name for a spacecraft commander. I saw your note on rank insignia, and was happy to see that you remembered the warrant officers. Some of the most valuable personnel in any military and so often overlooked.
Hope you get some R&R.
Yup, I remember the fun stuff about Warp Drive.
And I couldn't forget the NCOs. The actual existence of NCOs was one of the best parts of the movies, showing that, yes, our heroes couldn't do everything by themselves and there were a lot of people making sure that this ship was running. As opposed to the TNG-era and onward, where the only warrant officer we ever see is Miles O'Brien and we have poor Harry Kim who was stuck as an Ensign for at least seven years. But yeah, someone like Miles O'Brien shows how valuable NCOs are in a military organization: the Commander can flaunt and shout all he wants, but O'Brien's the one who keeps their home running.
As a side note, I've written a lot of notes about uniforms (and boy howdy are there a lot of variants), and on a working ship like the Sojourner, only a handful of officers would actually wear the "officer's jacket:" most crewpersons would be wearing the standard-issue utilitarian worksuits. Even the captain (but the worksuit has more pockets anyway).
And I couldn't forget the NCOs. The actual existence of NCOs was one of the best parts of the movies, showing that, yes, our heroes couldn't do everything by themselves and there were a lot of people making sure that this ship was running. As opposed to the TNG-era and onward, where the only warrant officer we ever see is Miles O'Brien and we have poor Harry Kim who was stuck as an Ensign for at least seven years. But yeah, someone like Miles O'Brien shows how valuable NCOs are in a military organization: the Commander can flaunt and shout all he wants, but O'Brien's the one who keeps their home running.
As a side note, I've written a lot of notes about uniforms (and boy howdy are there a lot of variants), and on a working ship like the Sojourner, only a handful of officers would actually wear the "officer's jacket:" most crewpersons would be wearing the standard-issue utilitarian worksuits. Even the captain (but the worksuit has more pockets anyway).
Comments