That is absolutely amazing. That's just inspiring...It's like I'm actually there.
I've study all the ships from a design aspect of functionality and I've always been of the opinion that the Refit Enterprise is the most well thought out design in Trek.
That is absolutely amazing. That's just inspiring...It's like I'm actually there.
I've study all the ships from a design aspect of functionality and I've always been of the opinion that the Refit Enterprise is the most well thought out design in Trek.
Loving the shots of the closed hangar bay doors, just beautiful.
And yeah, the refit Enterprise is still my fave Federation ship design, though the Reliant comes a close second.
With these latest shuttle shots are they a variant on the shuttle used in the movie? I thought the shuttlecraft and warp sled that appeared in TMP was a Vulcan craft rather than Federation in design.
Ryutaro, you are designing this ship after a fashion. You've gone to a great amount of detail internally. I must ask you does the ship have a skeletal structure?
More specifically does this ship have a "keel" in the Secondary Hull.
Seeing the way the ship has some structural elements present within the habital areas I have ask what is your preception of the ship vs how some have described to me.
- Is the Enterprise in your opinion designed like a Space Shuttle or Space Capsule with a "("Single")Pressure Hull" just inside the Out Hull?
-Is the Enterprise similar to the Galaxy Class with a distinct Inner Pressure Hull and Outter Hull with components between the two like a Submarine is built?http://www.ncc1701.us/10.html
-Is the Enterprise (and for that matter the Galaxy too) a series of pressure hulls withing skeletal struture.
I look at what you're doing at it seems to imply that different from all these concepts of hulls that the Refit at least is a single Hull ship.
(I ask because I'd like to figure out the Defiant's internal arangement after I nail down it's specs externally.)
This model does not have the entire skeletal structure.
I do not just have to reproduce in a range that can be seen.
Since I have been working on a priority look, I'm not exactly define the structure.
Sorry not much help.
A spacecraft doesn't require a particularly strong structure to contain the atmospheric pressure inside the vessel. And the lack of air resistance in a pure spacecraft that is never intended to operate within an atmosphere means that a spacecraft's hull can be even more lightly built than that of an airplane. The lunar lander's skin was only as thick as a few sheets of tinfoil in some places. A submarine needs a separate inner pressure hull because the pressure it has to withstand is hundreds of times more intense than the pressure it has to contain. Submarine hulls also tend to consist of very simple shapes - normally a cylinder or a sphere. So the submarine anaology isn't a very useful one for discussing spacecraft.
If Trek ships were real I'd imagine they'd be built very much like any large aircraft such as an Airbus A380 or Boeing 747 is built today.
on mine, when i modeled the structural framing i worked under the assumption that it would need a LOT of rigidity. because of the way trek ships are built, there would be stresses trying to bend the entire engineering structure in half, from where the nacelle pylons meet up to where the neck joins.
some people tried to tell me it was unnessesary, because of shielding and other futuristic systems, but i kept coming back to the thought that it would be needed even under sub-warp power when such systems arent functioning (or crippled)
i really hope i can find time to get more work done on mine soon! watching your latest progress has really been pulling me back to it!!!
Submarine hulls also tend to consist of very simple shapes - normally a cylinder or a sphere. So the submarine anaology isn't a very useful one for discussing spacecraft.
One of the reasons why I was considering Sub Structure is because how modular it is.
The Ends are open up and appropriate modules are slid into place. It also makes general assembly easier and more structurally sound to resist torsional stresses than cage like latice work for the external hull consideration. This would use more whole structural members and less joints.
on mine, when i modeled the structural framing i worked under the assumption that it would need a LOT of rigidity. because of the way trek ships are built, there would be stresses trying to bend the entire engineering structure in half, from where the nacelle pylons meet up to where the neck joins.
some people tried to tell me it was unnessesary, because of shielding
You're most correct.
I'm learning to build Tanks and no one in this field would design a Tank to be structurally sound only when in full operation and that's pretty much the same as building a starship to be structurally sound only when you turn the power on.
In my field a tank can topple just by having a gust of wind pass over the mouth continuously. At 10,000 dollars a sheet times 60 sheets leaving the wind girder off can be an EPIC budget disaster.
It's but a 1/4 thk. (6.35mm) http://www.rmoj.com/Content/PhotoOfWeek/Tank%20Collapse%20500x375.jpg
You're most correct.
I'm learning to build Tanks and no one in this field would design a Tank to be structurally sound only when in full operation and that's pretty much the same as building a starship to be structurally sound only when you turn the power on.
Well, the majority of current and next-generation military aircraft are only aerodynamically sound when the power is turned on. A hovercraft is only seaworthy when the power is turned on. A car's brakes only work properly when the engine is running... why can't a hypothetical future space vehicle only be structurally sound with the power turned on? Though in the TNG tech manual, Sternbach and Okuda reckon the ship's structural integrity is enhanced and maintained by "forcefields" whatever that means. But they correctly realised that unless you could manufacture materials with the tensile strength of the strong nuclear force, nothing the size and shape of say, the starship Enterprise, would ever function, at least, not within the performance envelope depicted in the shows. Trek ships are visually spectacular but they're among the least plausible sci fi vessels ever designed in terms of structural integrity. The centre of gravity of the TOS Enterprise wouldn't even be within the ship... the challenge of even getting it to move in a straight line would be monumental, to say nothing about keeping it in one piece.
Well, the majority of current and next-generation military aircraft are only aerodynamically sound when the power is turned on. A hovercraft is only seaworthy when the power is turned on. A car's brakes only work properly when the engine is running...
Structurally sound, not functionally operational.
why can't a hypothetical future space vehicle only be structurally sound with the power turned on?
1. Space vessels must be capable of withstanding the torsional and sheering stresses of movement or change in motion.(Even normal space craft MUST be sound structurally to withstand the G forces of acceleration and deceleration as well as atmospheric entry)
2. Powered functionality isn't the same as structurally sound. Structures especially mobile structures must have enough strength to with stand certain nominal stresses of Flight. This strength must be reasonably "fail safe" (Even though that term has a different engineering application, it's somewhat proper here) which refers to an ability to maintain function by means of fundamental physical redundancy.
Since we are speaking of starships in a combat role, and quite simply based on what we've seen so far, clearly powered dependency would easily lead to a vessel's destruction.
Since we are speaking of starships in a combat role, and quite simply based on what we've seen so far, clearly powered dependency would easily lead to a vessel's destruction.
But powered dependency is exactly what the show's [TNG] technical advisers and designers came up with as the only logical way to explain how these massive vessels withstood the stresses of warp drive and combat etc. It would simply be impossible for something the size and shape of the Enterprise to do the things it is depicted as doing on the show or in the films, on mechanical structural strength alone, without assuming unreasonable or potentially impossible advances in materials science. The only way to explain it all was to invent a structural integrity field (as Sternbach and Okuda called it) that made the ship more rigid and stronger than the mechanical structure itself could feasibly be on its own.
Not that it all matters in the end, the only thing that matters in a sci fi ship is that it a) looks cool and b) has no features or abilities that can't be accepted beyond a reasonable suspension of disbelief on the part of the audience.
You know my very first though when reading your first post was "Waitaminute, EXTERIOR completed?!?" Are you planning on modeling behind the control panels as well?
Control panel of the interior is a future plan to finish, but I do not know when will be.
When the time came, I also want to make "impulse unit" and "warp unit."
Really well thought out and well done. Like the color scheme of the interior and it does seem more spacious than I thought it would be. My pre-conceived thoughts on the size must be based on the original Galileo shuttlecraft.
Nice work, and great interior so far. Just out of interest, what are those red and metallic panels supposed to be on the exterior side of the vessel? Just beneath the observation portals?
Posts
I use lights set to specular only on occasions... sometimes it's hard to get the right effect from all angles...
You no doubt have a more powerful machine than I do... I'm running on an old Q6600 with 4GB of DDR2 RAM.
Gigabyte RTX 3080 Gaming OC 12GB
1TB NVMe SSD, 2 x 1GB SATA SSD, 4TB external HDD
32 GB RAM
Windows 11 Pro
I closed the door.
Gigabyte RTX 3080 Gaming OC 12GB
1TB NVMe SSD, 2 x 1GB SATA SSD, 4TB external HDD
32 GB RAM
Windows 11 Pro
Various Work: U.S.S. Constellation - Matt Jefferies Concept Shuttle
That is absolutely amazing. That's just inspiring...It's like I'm actually there.
I've study all the ships from a design aspect of functionality and I've always been of the opinion that the Refit Enterprise is the most well thought out design in Trek.
Like. :thumb:
And yeah, the refit Enterprise is still my fave Federation ship design, though the Reliant comes a close second.
With these latest shuttle shots are they a variant on the shuttle used in the movie? I thought the shuttlecraft and warp sled that appeared in TMP was a Vulcan craft rather than Federation in design.
http://www.trekplace.com/ap2005int01.html
Ryutaro, you are designing this ship after a fashion. You've gone to a great amount of detail internally. I must ask you does the ship have a skeletal structure?
More specifically does this ship have a "keel" in the Secondary Hull.
Seeing the way the ship has some structural elements present within the habital areas I have ask what is your preception of the ship vs how some have described to me.
- Is the Enterprise in your opinion designed like a Space Shuttle or Space Capsule with a "("Single")Pressure Hull" just inside the Out Hull?
-Is the Enterprise similar to the Galaxy Class with a distinct Inner Pressure Hull and Outter Hull with components between the two like a Submarine is built?http://www.ncc1701.us/10.html
-Is the Enterprise (and for that matter the Galaxy too) a series of pressure hulls withing skeletal struture.
I look at what you're doing at it seems to imply that different from all these concepts of hulls that the Refit at least is a single Hull ship.
(I ask because I'd like to figure out the Defiant's internal arangement after I nail down it's specs externally.)
I do not just have to reproduce in a range that can be seen.
Since I have been working on a priority look, I'm not exactly define the structure.
Sorry not much help.
If Trek ships were real I'd imagine they'd be built very much like any large aircraft such as an Airbus A380 or Boeing 747 is built today.
some people tried to tell me it was unnessesary, because of shielding and other futuristic systems, but i kept coming back to the thought that it would be needed even under sub-warp power when such systems arent functioning (or crippled)
i really hope i can find time to get more work done on mine soon! watching your latest progress has really been pulling me back to it!!!
One of the reasons why I was considering Sub Structure is because how modular it is.
The Ends are open up and appropriate modules are slid into place. It also makes general assembly easier and more structurally sound to resist torsional stresses than cage like latice work for the external hull consideration. This would use more whole structural members and less joints.
You're most correct.
I'm learning to build Tanks and no one in this field would design a Tank to be structurally sound only when in full operation and that's pretty much the same as building a starship to be structurally sound only when you turn the power on.
In my field a tank can topple just by having a gust of wind pass over the mouth continuously. At 10,000 dollars a sheet times 60 sheets leaving the wind girder off can be an EPIC budget disaster.
It's but a 1/4 thk. (6.35mm)
http://www.rmoj.com/Content/PhotoOfWeek/Tank%20Collapse%20500x375.jpg
Well, the majority of current and next-generation military aircraft are only aerodynamically sound when the power is turned on. A hovercraft is only seaworthy when the power is turned on. A car's brakes only work properly when the engine is running... why can't a hypothetical future space vehicle only be structurally sound with the power turned on? Though in the TNG tech manual, Sternbach and Okuda reckon the ship's structural integrity is enhanced and maintained by "forcefields" whatever that means. But they correctly realised that unless you could manufacture materials with the tensile strength of the strong nuclear force, nothing the size and shape of say, the starship Enterprise, would ever function, at least, not within the performance envelope depicted in the shows. Trek ships are visually spectacular but they're among the least plausible sci fi vessels ever designed in terms of structural integrity. The centre of gravity of the TOS Enterprise wouldn't even be within the ship... the challenge of even getting it to move in a straight line would be monumental, to say nothing about keeping it in one piece.
Structurally sound, not functionally operational.
1. Space vessels must be capable of withstanding the torsional and sheering stresses of movement or change in motion.(Even normal space craft MUST be sound structurally to withstand the G forces of acceleration and deceleration as well as atmospheric entry)
2. Powered functionality isn't the same as structurally sound. Structures especially mobile structures must have enough strength to with stand certain nominal stresses of Flight. This strength must be reasonably "fail safe" (Even though that term has a different engineering application, it's somewhat proper here) which refers to an ability to maintain function by means of fundamental physical redundancy.
Since we are speaking of starships in a combat role, and quite simply based on what we've seen so far, clearly powered dependency would easily lead to a vessel's destruction.
But powered dependency is exactly what the show's [TNG] technical advisers and designers came up with as the only logical way to explain how these massive vessels withstood the stresses of warp drive and combat etc. It would simply be impossible for something the size and shape of the Enterprise to do the things it is depicted as doing on the show or in the films, on mechanical structural strength alone, without assuming unreasonable or potentially impossible advances in materials science. The only way to explain it all was to invent a structural integrity field (as Sternbach and Okuda called it) that made the ship more rigid and stronger than the mechanical structure itself could feasibly be on its own.
Not that it all matters in the end, the only thing that matters in a sci fi ship is that it a) looks cool and b) has no features or abilities that can't be accepted beyond a reasonable suspension of disbelief on the part of the audience.
Various Work: U.S.S. Constellation - Matt Jefferies Concept Shuttle
When the time came, I also want to make "impulse unit" and "warp unit."
This is based on the sketch of Mr. Probert.
Than the original Galileo, is quite large.