View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently 23 Aug 2017 09:47



Reply to topic  [ 19 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
Fleet Evolution Timeline 
Author Message
Commander
Commander

Joined: 23 Apr 2010 14:05
Posts: 513
Location: Just north of where the aliens always seem to land.
davros_of_borg wrote:
hmm... would the modular hull concept allow building the various class/types using early Moscow class saucers... ; )

and are there smaller modular versions of the Excelsior type saucers... : )



When I started doing ships based around the modular hull concept, I made myself a table of the relative saucer beams for all the design eras in the "classic" FRS. Assuming that the Excelsior, Ingram, and Ariel saucers were at the top end of their respective ranges, I worked out downsized versions of them, too. Did a similar table for the engines as well. I don't have access to them at the moment, but I can post them tomorrow if anyone's interested.

_________________
Be careful what you pretend to be because you are what you pretend to be.--Kurt Vonnegut


18 Mar 2013 16:13
Profile
Commodore
Commodore
User avatar

Joined: 20 Dec 2008 18:39
Posts: 2377
Location: toltec sector
sounds good... : )

_________________

All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force...
We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind.
This Mind is the matrix of all matter.
Max Planck


18 Mar 2013 20:20
Profile
Ensign
Ensign
User avatar

Joined: 16 May 2015 01:01
Posts: 79
aridas wrote:
I have come to think as FJ's system as unnecessarily restrictive in some ways. Why should everything have the same big saucer? It is like saying you need to use an 18 wheeler even if you are going to the store for a carton of milk. That's the idea behind breaking the saucer down further. Take Jefferies modular idea as applied by FJ and add in his "hull pressure compartment" diagram. Thanks to Shaw I realized that could be the key to keeping the system modular but scaling it vertically among sizes as well as horizontally among types.

If you assume such a system, then a paucity of heavy cruisers doesn't lead you to build yet another ship with a big saucer. It leads you to build a light cruiser. It can even be like the kind of think we see with Grissom if we want to emphasize impulse and warp propulsion over other attributes on the SSW+s scale.

I see the Saladin / Hermes / Ptolemy classes as a sideline of Project Starship. They have those saucers so they can be spare parts. If a Constitution secondary hull limps home alone, or is found in orbit, with a saucer grounded (they cannot take off again, after all), a DD, ST, or TT can sacrifice it's saucer to get that Connie running again. There's not much reason for a DD, ST, or TT to be a full-fledged Class I ship otherwise.
Other manufacturers, after seeing those classes, just assume the big saucer on everything is what Starfleet wants, which is why we see so many knockoffs.
Now, Starfleet may have designed them that way, with that intention, that does not mean the capability was ever used. It'd be for wartime, after all. In peace time, you rarely need a CH so bad you'd want to slap another ship's saucer on it instead of waiting to bulid a replacement. Then the logistic and money parts get involved, and show how the Ptolemys are so inefficient and such a waste (Jackills' Fisher I think is the most apt replacement - Oberth saucer with the Ptolemy plate, cheap and effective), and the Ptolemys decom, and then the saucers get reused for new-build ships (Decatur / Belknap backstory, Starship Design), and
that encourages more saucer designs.


10 Mar 2017 18:36
Profile
Lieutenant
Lieutenant
User avatar

Joined: 28 Aug 2015 14:54
Posts: 157
Location: Belgium
It depends on the engineering area and other specific rooms in the saucer section. Saladin/Hermes and Ptolemy classes have their engineering room at the back saucer section which is not the case for Constitution class. To say it shorter the outer shell looks the same but inner systems are relocated differently according to the ship's overall design and purpose. Nevertheless it is easier to build the same modular master pieces and adapt them later during the final shipyard assembly.
I suppose this could help reducing production costs.


11 Mar 2017 10:57
Profile
Rear Admiral
Rear Admiral

Joined: 31 Dec 2008 20:59
Posts: 3362
I have been thinking upon this for quite some time... The secondary hull is also referred to as the engineering hull as well. What happens if there is gear in there that stabilizes the warp field better than the two engines nacelles combined can? This explains the longer duration of the Constitution Class... This extra equipment would need to take up too much room... Maybe even something as simple as the design of the secondary plus enhancements... Everything must be totally functional after all.


11 Mar 2017 12:38
Profile
Ensign
Ensign
User avatar

Joined: 16 May 2015 01:01
Posts: 79
Kelvin0514 wrote:
It depends on the engineering area and other specific rooms in the saucer section. Saladin/Hermes and Ptolemy classes have their engineering room at the back saucer section which is not the case for Constitution class. To say it shorter the outer shell looks the same but inner systems are relocated differently according to the ship's overall design and purpose. Nevertheless it is easier to build the same modular master pieces and adapt them later during the final shipyard assembly.
I suppose this could help reducing production costs.

Look at the blueprints. All the needful things are there, even though the different mission profiles mean that there should be greater difference than shown. But also, Connie does have an engineering room in the same location. It's just that it's supposed to only be Impulse Engineering, whereas on the others, it's Impulse and Warp Engineering.
A Connie with a Saladin saucer is back in the fight, even if it's not as good a cruiser as it could be, whereas a Saladin and a Connie secondary hull means a DD is still in the fight, but a cruiser is down. So Starfleet could very well have designed for this, even if we've never seen them use it. Then, as seen in Starship Design, they adapt the idea to make use of the saucers freed up by shutting down the inefficient TT design, where the saucer gets reworked.


12 Mar 2017 17:42
Profile
Ensign
Ensign
User avatar

Joined: 16 May 2015 01:01
Posts: 79
John N. Ritter wrote:
I have been thinking upon this for quite some time... The secondary hull is also referred to as the engineering hull as well. What happens if there is gear in there that stabilizes the warp field better than the two engines nacelles combined can? This explains the longer duration of the Constitution Class... This extra equipment would need to take up too much room... Maybe even something as simple as the design of the secondary plus enhancements... Everything must be totally functional after all.

I don't really like the idea, as it works against the Saladin / Hermes / Ptolemy et alia.
The fact that the main engineering control area is there, and one of the main functions of it, is enough to justify calling the secondary hull an engineering hull, IMO. OTOH, if you have some specifics to suggest, a discussion can be interesting.


12 Mar 2017 17:45
Profile
Lieutenant
Lieutenant
User avatar

Joined: 28 Aug 2015 14:54
Posts: 157
Location: Belgium
Quote:
Look at the blueprints. All the needful things are there, even though the different mission profiles mean that there should be greater difference than shown. But also, Connie does have an engineering room in the same location. It's just that it's supposed to only be Impulse Engineering, whereas on the others, it's Impulse and Warp Engineering.
A Connie with a Saladin saucer is back in the fight, even if it's not as good a cruiser as it could be, whereas a Saladin and a Connie secondary hull means a DD is still in the fight, but a cruiser is down. So Starfleet could very well have designed for this, even if we've never seen them use it. Then, as seen in Starship Design, they adapt the idea to make use of the saucers freed up by shutting down the inefficient TT design, where the saucer gets reworked.



I suppose the saucer inner assets could be modular as well during intensive refit procedures. That remembers me what happened to the old retired ships in surplus depots (Qualor II for instance) during the Dominion War. Most of these old ships were quickly rearranged by the Starfleet Corps of Engineers to form the so called "Frankenfleet".


12 Mar 2017 18:15
Profile
Ensign
Ensign
User avatar

Joined: 16 May 2015 01:01
Posts: 79
Yes, and prior to Project Starship, the various designs weren't modular enough to consider that. Then builders who weren't part of the project adopted the modularity, and we ended up with almost nothing but modular designs that look derivative.
So by the Dominion War, it's entirely possible to build whole new ships out of pieces of other ships.


12 Mar 2017 18:54
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 19 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron

Forum hosting by ProphpBB | Software by phpBB | Report Abuse | Privacy