Remember, Eaves was a trek designer "junior" when he started on FC, Drexler, Okuda, Sternbach, they'd all been doing this stuff for years before FC, Eaves was new to the scenes. I'd be happy to write these off as "lack of familiarity" with the franchise design rules in depth. I mean there are the basics, like nacelles, hull and saucer, but the fine details can easily get lost in transition to an unfamiliar designer
Also Saquist, the Defiant's engines do glow.
Interstingly, the Nebula has NO impulse engines at all, perhaps this is a similar situation as justified by Sternbach and Bonchune as the impulse engine vents are concealed to reduce sensor profile in combat/stealth ops?
Remember, Eaves was a trek designer "junior" when he started on FC, Drexler, Okuda, Sternbach, they'd all been doing this stuff for years before FC, Eaves was new to the scenes. I'd be happy to write these off as "lack of familiarity" with the franchise design rules in depth. I mean there are the basics, like nacelles, hull and saucer, but the fine details can easily get lost in transition to an unfamiliar designer
Also Saquist, the Defiant's engines do glow.
Interstingly, the Nebula has NO impulse engines at all, perhaps this is a similar situation as justified by Sternbach and Bonchune as the impulse engine vents are concealed to reduce sensor profile in combat/stealth ops?
Sovereign may be one of the worse designs in Trek but Defiant has it's own melange of issue.
I'm not sure where Defiant's impulse engines are between the model and the MSD. But I certainly don't view the existence of a vent as necessary since I don't consider them to be as conventional rocket engines but rather another form of field propulsion.
But consider the Saucer's already massive impulse engines and the stardrives massive nacelles.
It doesn't appear to be in accordance with a low profile energy signature such as Defiant or Intrepid.
Impulse engines may be standard issue on Federation ships, but that doesn't necessarily mean non-Federation races would use the same kind of technology. Especially the Romulans, because we know they like to use Hawking radiation from a quantum black hole for power generation rather than antimatter. All of their ships could use gravity manipulation for sub-lightspeed travel instead of impulse drives.
I've been designing a sovereign. To add to your list the superstructure is to short as is the hanger deck. The captain's yacht can't be scaled right in the movie model and you have to wonder about nacelle stowing and it hanging in front of the deflector. You've been wrestled with some of the same issues as I and you know John Eaves book. I would value you thoughts on my Sovereign, also in work in progress.
Interstingly, the Nebula has NO impulse engines at all, perhaps this is a similar situation as justified by Sternbach and Bonchune as the impulse engine vents are concealed to reduce sensor profile in combat/stealth ops?
I agree on all the points with the Sovereign design. It's a fun one, but it does miss a lot of those little details. Would be interesting to see a more rationalized take on it.
As for the Nebula, while it does lack a center impulse engine, it does have a pair of (tiny!) ones in a similar location as the Galaxy saucer engines. This image from EAS has them called out. Remember to copy/paste into your address bar. It's in the Nebula observations article if you can't get past the hotlink protection.
I agree on all the points with the Sovereign design. It's a fun one, but it does miss a lot of those little details. Would be interesting to see a more rationalized take on it.
As for the Nebula, while it does lack a center impulse engine, it does have a pair of (tiny!) ones in a similar location as the Galaxy saucer engines. This image from EAS has them called out. Remember to copy/paste into your address bar. It's in the Nebula observations article if you can't get past the hotlink protection.
According to Doug Drexler and Rick Sternbach, the Nebula class do not have any visible impulse engines. No I'm not sure what those are for TBH.
@Saquist:
I don't think the size really matters to energy profile. In fact I'd say since they're larger vents, the impulse engines would be diffusing their energy signature over a larger area then say a smaller more concentrated engine vent like a smaller ship. Bigger release area = more diffusion. And in regards to energy profiles, I'm thinking the shape has more to do with it then the overall size, the sovereign is slimmer and more streamlined, so i'd say the fact that the shape combined with the warp field flow would contribute to reducing the sensor profile.
Considering that the shape reduces exposed areas in any of the 6 views, making it harder to hit, and you add that hte original seperation gives the sovereign an arrowhead, I think that even if the ship wasn't designed for stealth ops, non-visible impulse engines and the streamline profile do lean itself to combat-assisting targetting reduction.
God I hope that all makes sense, it does in my head.
Also, the Defiant impulse engine vents are not in the same spot as the impulse reactors, but they are visible on the studio model as the two red-round vents on the 2nd extrusion past the warp engines on the ship's rear.
I've been designing a sovereign. To add to your list the superstructure is to short as is the hanger deck. The captain's yacht can't be scaled right in the movie model and you have to wonder about nacelle stowing and it hanging in front of the deflector. You've been wrestled with some of the same issues as I and you know John Eaves book. I would value you thoughts on my Sovereign, also in work in progress.
what do you mean the "superstructure" is too short?
Are you talking about the fact that the saucer isn't deep enough to support a flight deck and docking latches?
I noticed that a while ago and found the same thing on the Prometheus. That's what happens when just an pure artist goes at mechanical and structural design. The MSD shows on both Prometheus and Sovereign a sliver for the seperation plane...it implies only a DECK not a double Hull and structurally designers would never put a flight deck surface (a large open unreinforced area) next to the hull.
Galaxy does the same thing with it's outer doors, setting the vertical doors back from the inclined hull. The shuttle Bay deck supported by the surrounding superstructure on 5 of the six sides instead of just 4.
what do you mean the "superstructure" is too short?
I presume he's talking about the deck height of the bridge dome and the decks underneath it.
@Nadesico, I remember reading that. Just seems odd to have those vent-shaped things at nearly the same spot as the Galaxy's. Really, though, there is plenty of room on the back of the pod pylon on the Farragut for an impulse engine replacing the three rectangular greebles there, or down a bit farther, on the clear area above the shuttle bay (highlighted on the Bonchune in that pic).
Hard to describe but each deck is more or less ten feet tall. The sovereign would have to be a much larger ship for those decks to match the profile of the movie model. The decks above the saucer, what I'm calling the superstructure, are to short.
According to Doug Drexler and Rick Sternbach, the Nebula class do not have any visible impulse engines. No I'm not sure what those are for TBH.
@Saquist:
I don't think the size really matters to energy profile. In fact I'd say since they're larger vents, the impulse engines would be diffusing their energy signature over a larger area then say a smaller more concentrated engine vent like a smaller ship. Bigger release area = more diffusion. And in regards to energy profiles, I'm thinking the shape has more to do with it then the overall size, the sovereign is slimmer and more streamlined, so i'd say the fact that the shape combined with the warp field flow would contribute to reducing the sensor profile.
Considering that the shape reduces exposed areas in any of the 6 views, making it harder to hit, and you add that hte original seperation gives the sovereign an arrowhead, I think that even if the ship wasn't designed for stealth ops, non-visible impulse engines and the streamline profile do lean itself to combat-assisting targetting reduction.
God I hope that all makes sense, it does in my head.
Also, the Defiant impulse engine vents are not in the same spot as the impulse reactors, but they are visible on the studio model as the two red-round vents on the 2nd extrusion past the warp engines on the ship's rear.
You know before I saw the DS9 manual that's what I thought.
1- But why put the exhaust behind the reactor ?
2- what are those two massive vents on top of Deck 1 back section?
3- What about all those smaller vents lining the bottom of Defiant just fore of the reactors?
4. Then where are the photon tubes?
5. Or the Eight circular vents outboard of the Deck One Structure?
I've never been able to figure out Defiant's internal layout because it's so different from the standard design.
Hard to describe but each deck is more or less ten feet tall. The sovereign would have to be a much larger ship for those decks to match the profile of the movie model. The decks above the saucer, what I'm calling the superstructure, are to short.
I can kinda see what you're talking about
http://www.starshipdatalink.net/shuttlecraft/images/escapepod_3-1.jpg
In this picture you can sort of tell that the arrow head part of Deck 4 is a bit thicker than the 3 decks above it.
However I would say (even though fans have fallen in love with these distinctive feature) it may be an illusion. I'm honestly not sure.
What I do know is that hood causes more internal trouble that many know. How are you supposed to arrange the deck in these section. It's layered like its part of one deck but it's not. It's about 3 decks. And each level would only have sliver of level walking room before you needed stairs to the next deck in the same section. It's a complete waste of volume. (much like the Dorsal area on the Stardrive just in front of the shuttle bay.
I know exactly what you're saying but different layers with windows are clearly intended to be full decks. My sovereign is interior ready and camera shots can be made through any window. It is what I set out to do. Besides what the fun in making one exactly like everyone else s.
You know before I saw the DS9 manual that's what I thought.
1- But why put the exhaust behind the reactor ?
2- what are those two massive vents on top of Deck 1 back section?
3- What about all those smaller vents lining the bottom of Defiant just fore of the reactors?
4. Then where are the photon tubes?
5. Or the Eight circular vents outboard of the Deck One Structure?
I've never been able to figure out Defiant's internal layout because it's so different from the standard design.
There's nothing to figure out with the Defiant - it is just a very poor design, pure and simple. I don't know if it was due to time constraints but the Defiant seemed to have been even less well thought out than random ships of the week. It is quite astonishing that a hero ship would be that poorly designed. But I guess they judt didn't have the luxury of a long pre-production period to really give it the same attention as say, Voyager, or the Enterprise-D had. They were adding a new ship to a series that was already in full production. But even so, the Defiant is just sloppy.
There's nothing to figure out with the Defiant - it is just a very poor design, pure and simple. I don't know if it was due to time constraints but the Defiant seemed to have been even less well thought out than random ships of the week. It is quite astonishing that a hero ship would be that poorly designed. But I guess they judt didn't have the luxury of a long pre-production period to really give it the same attention as say, Voyager, or the Enterprise-D had. They were adding a new ship to a series that was already in full production. But even so, the Defiant is just sloppy.
Defiant is actually one of the better designs believe it or not.
The problem isn't with the model but with the tech manual and TV how which were developed away from the model.
Not knowing what the features of the model do...that's the developers of the MSD and the tech manual. The model itself is quite brilliant.
Defiant has less wasted space than any design thus far.
^It really is no a good design at all. There is no logic to the entire layout of the vessel and no thought given to how it might actually function. The fact that it had no clearly defined scale is the very worst aspect of the design and frankly, you can pretty much call the debate over right there. But, there are many other things one can use to prove that the Defiant is the worst hero ship ever in Trek.
It has no docking ports for one yet it docks deflector-first, which is probably the least-appropriate arrangement available. You don't want a delicate, sensitive, vitally important and potentially radiation-emitting piece of equipment susceptible to damage by collision or impact in a situation where both are likely. (docking and undocking would entail a lot of mechanical stress and mechanical wear) They don't have the main gangway of a naval vessel running through the radar or communications array. You don't board an airplane through a door in the radar dish. That is just unrealistic engineering on the part of the Defiant's designers.
The other main issue is the frankly silly assertion that the ship does not have visible impulse engines when a) it has two circular ports that are obviously meant to be impulse engines on the backs of the warp nacelles and b) when an impulse drive is really just an advanced rocket motor that works due to rapid expansion of gas to generate thrust. I'm not sure how you expand gasses through a solid metal bulkhead as the tech manual indicates! :rolleyes:
They could at least have said that the ship used some kind of reactionless engine, a sort of sublight version of a warp drive, say. But if that were possible in Trek tech, then why would any ship even need impulse engines at all - they could just use the warp drive at a lower power level for sublight travel and eliminate the complex, inefficient rocket engines. Engineering is all about making things as simple as possible. Therefore there has to be a reason ships need separate sublight propulsion systems because the vast majority of Trek ships are depicted as having such engines.
The ship also has what appear to be two decks worth of windows in the underside recess but even if we assume the ship is at the upper end of its likely size range (170m) there would barely be space there for one deck let alone two. Nobody ever raised the possibility that these were something other than windows. They could have been part of the cloaking system, or some sort of navigation or landing lights, but again, there is no precident for Trek ships to have that sort of design element, So again, it is something that makes absolutely no sense.
As for the lack of most of the external features we've seen on TNG era ships, yes, I agree that they would possibly be located underneath armour plating due to the ship's purpose as a warship. But there would have to be some kind of tradeoff in having, say, a transporter emitter under an armour panel, when one might assume the emitter is always located on the surface of the hull in all other starfleet ships because it wouldn't fucntion properly otherwise. They should have written in some kind of restriction to the ship's writers guide, such as perhaps reduced transporter range, or slower beaming, or reduced capacity - something to add to the engineering realism. Maybe the emitters could be retracted when not in use but again, it isn't something that was mentioned or shown, so we have to assume that nobody actually gave it a second thought.
These are just a few obvious techncial issues that should be pretty easy for anyone with even a small amount of engineering knowledge to see. You don't need to be a Trek tech expert to locically work out why this ship doesn't work as a piece of engineering compared to why, say, the Enterprise-D does.
This thread has taken a weird turn, maybe the defiant bashing could get split out and this thread go back to being about the entprise E and specifically this model of it?
No one, but he's right. You can continue this line of discussion in this thread.
[edit]: which, interestingly enough, was created to keep the silly science debate derailing the new Star Trek movie thread. Maybe we should just call it the official derail thread or something...
^It really is no a good design at all. There is no logic to the entire layout of the vessel and no thought given to how it might actually function. The fact that it had no clearly defined scale is the very worst aspect of the design and frankly, you can pretty much call the debate over right there. But, there are many other things one can use to prove that the Defiant is the worst hero ship ever in Trek.
It has no docking ports for one yet it docks deflector-first, which is probably the least-appropriate arrangement available. You don't want a delicate, sensitive, vitally important and potentially radiation-emitting piece of equipment susceptible to damage by collision or impact in a situation where both are likely. (docking and undocking would entail a lot of mechanical stress and mechanical wear) They don't have the main gangway of a naval vessel running through the radar or communications array. You don't board an airplane through a door in the radar dish. That is just unrealistic engineering on the part of the Defiant's designers.
The other main issue is the frankly silly assertion that the ship does not have visible impulse engines when a) it has two circular ports that are obviously meant to be impulse engines on the backs of the warp nacelles and b) when an impulse drive is really just an advanced rocket motor that works due to rapid expansion of gas to generate thrust. I'm not sure how you expand gasses through a solid metal bulkhead as the tech manual indicates! :rolleyes:
They could at least have said that the ship used some kind of reactionless engine, a sort of sublight version of a warp drive, say. But if that were possible in Trek tech, then why would any ship even need impulse engines at all - they could just use the warp drive at a lower power level for sublight travel and eliminate the complex, inefficient rocket engines. Engineering is all about making things as simple as possible. Therefore there has to be a reason ships need separate sublight propulsion systems because the vast majority of Trek ships are depicted as having such engines.
The ship also has what appear to be two decks worth of windows in the underside recess but even if we assume the ship is at the upper end of its likely size range (170m) there would barely be space there for one deck let alone two. Nobody ever raised the possibility that these were something other than windows. They could have been part of the cloaking system, or some sort of navigation or landing lights, but again, there is no precident for Trek ships to have that sort of design element, So again, it is something that makes absolutely no sense.
As for the lack of most of the external features we've seen on TNG era ships, yes, I agree that they would possibly be located underneath armour plating due to the ship's purpose as a warship. But there would have to be some kind of tradeoff in having, say, a transporter emitter under an armour panel, when one might assume the emitter is always located on the surface of the hull in all other starfleet ships because it wouldn't fucntion properly otherwise. They should have written in some kind of restriction to the ship's writers guide, such as perhaps reduced transporter range, or slower beaming, or reduced capacity - something to add to the engineering realism. Maybe the emitters could be retracted when not in use but again, it isn't something that was mentioned or shown, so we have to assume that nobody actually gave it a second thought.
These are just a few obvious techncial issues that should be pretty easy for anyone with even a small amount of engineering knowledge to see. You don't need to be a Trek tech expert to locically work out why this ship doesn't work as a piece of engineering compared to why, say, the Enterprise-D does.
Posts
Also Saquist, the Defiant's engines do glow.
Interstingly, the Nebula has NO impulse engines at all, perhaps this is a similar situation as justified by Sternbach and Bonchune as the impulse engine vents are concealed to reduce sensor profile in combat/stealth ops?
Current Projects:
Ambassador Class
Sovereign may be one of the worse designs in Trek but Defiant has it's own melange of issue.
I'm not sure where Defiant's impulse engines are between the model and the MSD. But I certainly don't view the existence of a vent as necessary since I don't consider them to be as conventional rocket engines but rather another form of field propulsion.
Lacking Impulse Engines
Nebula
Norway
D'derridix
Romulan scout ship
Romulan Scimitar, Dominion war ship & attack ship (also John Eaves)
Prometheus lower Section
But consider the Saucer's already massive impulse engines and the stardrives massive nacelles.
It doesn't appear to be in accordance with a low profile energy signature such as Defiant or Intrepid.
I agree on all the points with the Sovereign design. It's a fun one, but it does miss a lot of those little details. Would be interesting to see a more rationalized take on it.
As for the Nebula, while it does lack a center impulse engine, it does have a pair of (tiny!) ones in a similar location as the Galaxy saucer engines. This image from EAS has them called out. Remember to copy/paste into your address bar. It's in the Nebula observations article if you can't get past the hotlink protection.
http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/articles/nebula/nebula-impulse.jpg
http://drexfiles.wordpress.com/2009/06/23/nebula-class/
According to Doug Drexler and Rick Sternbach, the Nebula class do not have any visible impulse engines. No I'm not sure what those are for TBH.
@Saquist:
I don't think the size really matters to energy profile. In fact I'd say since they're larger vents, the impulse engines would be diffusing their energy signature over a larger area then say a smaller more concentrated engine vent like a smaller ship. Bigger release area = more diffusion. And in regards to energy profiles, I'm thinking the shape has more to do with it then the overall size, the sovereign is slimmer and more streamlined, so i'd say the fact that the shape combined with the warp field flow would contribute to reducing the sensor profile.
Considering that the shape reduces exposed areas in any of the 6 views, making it harder to hit, and you add that hte original seperation gives the sovereign an arrowhead, I think that even if the ship wasn't designed for stealth ops, non-visible impulse engines and the streamline profile do lean itself to combat-assisting targetting reduction.
God I hope that all makes sense, it does in my head.
Also, the Defiant impulse engine vents are not in the same spot as the impulse reactors, but they are visible on the studio model as the two red-round vents on the 2nd extrusion past the warp engines on the ship's rear.
Current Projects:
Ambassador Class
what do you mean the "superstructure" is too short?
Are you talking about the fact that the saucer isn't deep enough to support a flight deck and docking latches?
I noticed that a while ago and found the same thing on the Prometheus. That's what happens when just an pure artist goes at mechanical and structural design. The MSD shows on both Prometheus and Sovereign a sliver for the seperation plane...it implies only a DECK not a double Hull and structurally designers would never put a flight deck surface (a large open unreinforced area) next to the hull.
The refit Enterprise does this.
http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20100517032639/imagine/images/1/12/Final_enterprise_refit.jpg
Galaxy does the same thing with it's outer doors, setting the vertical doors back from the inclined hull. The shuttle Bay deck supported by the surrounding superstructure on 5 of the six sides instead of just 4.
I presume he's talking about the deck height of the bridge dome and the decks underneath it.
@Nadesico, I remember reading that. Just seems odd to have those vent-shaped things at nearly the same spot as the Galaxy's. Really, though, there is plenty of room on the back of the pod pylon on the Farragut for an impulse engine replacing the three rectangular greebles there, or down a bit farther, on the clear area above the shuttle bay (highlighted on the Bonchune in that pic).
You know before I saw the DS9 manual that's what I thought.
1- But why put the exhaust behind the reactor ?
2- what are those two massive vents on top of Deck 1 back section?
3- What about all those smaller vents lining the bottom of Defiant just fore of the reactors?
4. Then where are the photon tubes?
5. Or the Eight circular vents outboard of the Deck One Structure?
I've never been able to figure out Defiant's internal layout because it's so different from the standard design.
I can kinda see what you're talking about
http://www.starshipdatalink.net/shuttlecraft/images/escapepod_3-1.jpg
In this picture you can sort of tell that the arrow head part of Deck 4 is a bit thicker than the 3 decks above it.
However I would say (even though fans have fallen in love with these distinctive feature) it may be an illusion. I'm honestly not sure.
What I do know is that hood causes more internal trouble that many know. How are you supposed to arrange the deck in these section. It's layered like its part of one deck but it's not. It's about 3 decks. And each level would only have sliver of level walking room before you needed stairs to the next deck in the same section. It's a complete waste of volume. (much like the Dorsal area on the Stardrive just in front of the shuttle bay.
There's nothing to figure out with the Defiant - it is just a very poor design, pure and simple. I don't know if it was due to time constraints but the Defiant seemed to have been even less well thought out than random ships of the week. It is quite astonishing that a hero ship would be that poorly designed. But I guess they judt didn't have the luxury of a long pre-production period to really give it the same attention as say, Voyager, or the Enterprise-D had. They were adding a new ship to a series that was already in full production. But even so, the Defiant is just sloppy.
What have you done, that you have received the Enterprise of IRLM?
Defiant is actually one of the better designs believe it or not.
The problem isn't with the model but with the tech manual and TV how which were developed away from the model.
Not knowing what the features of the model do...that's the developers of the MSD and the tech manual. The model itself is quite brilliant.
Defiant has less wasted space than any design thus far.
It has no docking ports for one yet it docks deflector-first, which is probably the least-appropriate arrangement available. You don't want a delicate, sensitive, vitally important and potentially radiation-emitting piece of equipment susceptible to damage by collision or impact in a situation where both are likely. (docking and undocking would entail a lot of mechanical stress and mechanical wear) They don't have the main gangway of a naval vessel running through the radar or communications array. You don't board an airplane through a door in the radar dish. That is just unrealistic engineering on the part of the Defiant's designers.
The other main issue is the frankly silly assertion that the ship does not have visible impulse engines when a) it has two circular ports that are obviously meant to be impulse engines on the backs of the warp nacelles and b) when an impulse drive is really just an advanced rocket motor that works due to rapid expansion of gas to generate thrust. I'm not sure how you expand gasses through a solid metal bulkhead as the tech manual indicates! :rolleyes:
They could at least have said that the ship used some kind of reactionless engine, a sort of sublight version of a warp drive, say. But if that were possible in Trek tech, then why would any ship even need impulse engines at all - they could just use the warp drive at a lower power level for sublight travel and eliminate the complex, inefficient rocket engines. Engineering is all about making things as simple as possible. Therefore there has to be a reason ships need separate sublight propulsion systems because the vast majority of Trek ships are depicted as having such engines.
The ship also has what appear to be two decks worth of windows in the underside recess but even if we assume the ship is at the upper end of its likely size range (170m) there would barely be space there for one deck let alone two. Nobody ever raised the possibility that these were something other than windows. They could have been part of the cloaking system, or some sort of navigation or landing lights, but again, there is no precident for Trek ships to have that sort of design element, So again, it is something that makes absolutely no sense.
As for the lack of most of the external features we've seen on TNG era ships, yes, I agree that they would possibly be located underneath armour plating due to the ship's purpose as a warship. But there would have to be some kind of tradeoff in having, say, a transporter emitter under an armour panel, when one might assume the emitter is always located on the surface of the hull in all other starfleet ships because it wouldn't fucntion properly otherwise. They should have written in some kind of restriction to the ship's writers guide, such as perhaps reduced transporter range, or slower beaming, or reduced capacity - something to add to the engineering realism. Maybe the emitters could be retracted when not in use but again, it isn't something that was mentioned or shown, so we have to assume that nobody actually gave it a second thought.
These are just a few obvious techncial issues that should be pretty easy for anyone with even a small amount of engineering knowledge to see. You don't need to be a Trek tech expert to locically work out why this ship doesn't work as a piece of engineering compared to why, say, the Enterprise-D does.
[edit]: which, interestingly enough, was created to keep the silly science debate derailing the new Star Trek movie thread. Maybe we should just call it the official derail thread or something...
Join our fancy Discord Server!
Thnks guys I'll take it to the Accuracies thread.