My Own Personal Fleet (spinoff from nacelle discussion)

	
Jack Bohn 	  Dec 11, 11:41 am     
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: Jack Bohn <jackb...@bright.net> 
Date: Sat, 11 Dec 2004 14:41:20 -0500
Local: Sat, Dec 11 2004 11:41 am
Subject: My Own Personal Fleet (spinoff from nacelle discussion)


We all have our own personal ideas of Starfleet beyond what is
revealed in the show. This includes incorporating ships from
other peoples' ideas of Starfleet, and smoothing over
inconsistencies between their ideas, our ideas, and ideas that
came into the show later.

The discussion of differently-sized but identical-looking
nacelles leads me to put out some of my ideas.

Briefly, TAS introduced two types of small freighters with
engines similar to the Enterprise's, but smaller. This is
acceptable; they are simple sections of a cone. DS9 kitbashed
some models for its Dominion War arc, using movie-style nacelles
in situations where they would scale to be larger or smaller than
the movie nacelles. As these have more details - vents, grilles,
reaction control thrusters, etc - this raises more debate.

This debate can also rage over "clip-pasted" ships from the FASA
Star Trek game. Some of the more popular ships -the Loknar,
Larson, and Chandley- are of a size with the Enterprise and
Reliant, but others are supposed to be smaller ships, but use the
same art for the engine.
See:
http://www.bright.net/~jackbohn/sf/fasanac.htm

The suggestion of noodling the engine design around to be proper
for its size was met with the suggestion of scaling the ships so
that the nacelles give are of the proper size, which does seem
reasonable in some cases.

Taking them in order of size:

Warpshuttles, of course, can't be scaled up, but their engines
can be simplified, to be similar to the ST5 shuttlecraft -
although they are about 4 times longer.

Cutters. These nacelles are about the size of those on the Long
Range Shuttle from ST:TMP. Swap those in?

MoKal Transport and Cle Dan Repair Tender. These nacelles are 68
meters long, and I don't think these vessels can be scaled up to
2 and 1/2 their stated size. I also don't think such support
vessels would have this new a technology this close to the Motion
Picture time covered by the games. We could cut their lengths in
half and give them the round freighter engines from TAS.

Makin Assault Ship, Genser Escort, and Kethkin Transport. These
have 82 m nacelles, and could stand having their dimensions
doubled. I don't like the triangular/wedge thingie that makes up
most of the secondary hull of the Genser; drop that and you have
a funky little ship, even scaled up (it may still retain its
title as the smallest escort, if we scale up the Remora and
Griffon, too).

The Lotus Flower (Kobayashi Maru) can't have its length changed.
Scaling only the nacelle up by 160% yields a weird image of a
warp engine almost as big (and possibly more massive) than the
ship it propels. But that may be the best solution short of
giving it a proper old-style cylindrical nacelle.

Lenthal Destroyer and Keith Scout: these ships just look too
weird to me. Scale them if you want, I prefer to scrap them.

By this time we come to the Liberty freighter, the Griffon and
Remora Escorts, the Babcock and Northampton Frigates, the
Wilkerson Destroyer, and the Continent Assault Ship, and who's
going to quibble over a mere 33% increase in size? A 133%
increase in the dimensions of the Liberty would more than double
its cargo volume. I'd prefer not to look at the Babcock, but the
Griffon and the Continent look positively proto-Voyageresque.

While I'm talking about scaling the numbers, the "Number
Constructed" of each class looks way too large to me. I'm
obviously under the influence of Todd Guenther's Ships of the
Star Fleet and its approach to the 800-ship fleet.   I'd divide
these numbers by 8 in a first pass. (This gives me a benchmark
to divide FASA's Klingon numbers by about 5 or 6, because 1) they
are more military, and 2) there are fewer other fandom ships to
supplement the fleet.)

Some classes I'd reduce to zero. I mentioned some I'm prejudiced
against for their looks. There are others of questionable
utility, like these Assault Ships. How often would the
Federation need a ship that "can beam down its contingent of 3200
marines, 16 heavy tanks, and 50 light support vehicles in 30
minutes"?

Some classes get folded into classes from other material. The
Kiev Frigate is a Knox Frigate variant with a photorp launcher
rather than the megaphasers. The Durrett is obviously a Knox
hull with a single nacelle rather than a pair, a downgrade? or an
upgraded Destroyer? The Nelson Scout is obviously a Hermes Scout
with a split neck that may or may not make any difference.

An interesting case is the Wilkerson Destroyer. Only recently
have we seen the class of which this is an offshoot, the
Starfleet Command computer game's Akula Destroyer. (A garage
model kit company makes a similar looking "Asuka" Destroyer,
perhaps out of recognition of a previous fan class named Akula.)
They both have one nacelle above and one below the saucer, but
the Asuka has them both "right side up," and the top one more
noticeably offset to the rear. The Wilkerson having the bottom
nacelle "upside down" suggests possible experimentation before
coming up with the nacelle arrangement on the Constellation
class. (There is also a model of a refit Constitution with its
nacelles "sideways" and toes in, seen in the simulated Utopia
Planitia in TNG:"Boobytrap", more experimentation?)

-- 
-Jack

Reply

	
Timo S Saloniemi 	  Dec 13, 2:21 am     show options
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: tsalo...@cc.hut.fi (Timo S Saloniemi) - Find messages by this author
Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2004 12:21:06 +0200 (EET)
Local: Mon, Dec 13 2004 2:21 am
Subject: Re: My Own Personal Fleet (spinoff from nacelle discussion)
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse

In article <96ulr0hso8thukm4hud6702h4eg5bo3...@4ax.com> Jack Bohn <jackb...@bright.net> writes:

>See:
>http://www.bright.net/~jackbohn/sf/fasanac.htm

>The suggestion of noodling the engine design around to be proper
>for its size was met with the suggestion of scaling the ships so
>that the nacelles give are of the proper size, which does seem
>reasonable in some cases.

>Taking them in order of size:

>Warpshuttles, of course, can't be scaled up, but their engines
>can be simplified, to be similar to the ST5 shuttlecraft -
>although they are about 4 times longer.

All the better to fly between stars, my dear Red Riding Hood.
I'm loathe to think that the piddly engines of the TOS era
shuttles would have significant interstellar capabilities, and
longer an somewhat clumsier engines bring realism to this.

>Cutters. These nacelles are about the size of those on the Long
>Range Shuttle from ST:TMP. Swap those in?

But then you lose the "nationalist" aspect of the Vulcan shuttle...
Since that nacelle design never appears again on Starfleet
hardware, it's tempting to think that it's a Vulcan-only thing.

>MoKal Transport and Cle Dan Repair Tender. These nacelles are 68
>meters long, and I don't think these vessels can be scaled up to
>2 and 1/2 their stated size. I also don't think such support
>vessels would have this new a technology this close to the Motion
>Picture time covered by the games. We could cut their lengths in
>half and give them the round freighter engines from TAS.

The whole FASA concept of every ship being re-engined with
LN type nacelles practically overnight was never very convincing.
But perhaps we could say that the "mug shots" of these vessels
represent their last documented appearance, and are misleading
as to the appearance of the ship described in the statistics?

>Makin Assault Ship, Genser Escort, and Kethkin Transport. These
>have 82 m nacelles, and could stand having their dimensions
>doubled. I don't like the triangular/wedge thingie that makes up
>most of the secondary hull of the Genser; drop that and you have
>a funky little ship, even scaled up (it may still retain its
>title as the smallest escort, if we scale up the Remora and
>Griffon, too).

While many of the FASA secondary hulls are abominations, it's
also rather embarrassing that all the primary hulls are Constitution
saucers. IMHO, these escorts et al. lose something of their
personality if their hulls are perfectly matched with the heavy
cruiser saucer.

With these three vessels, I'd be ready to go with engine restyling
rather than hull rescaling. Then again, I'd also like to forget about
them to begin with. It's your fleet anyway. :)

>The Lotus Flower (Kobayashi Maru) can't have its length changed.

...However, see the previous post. :)

>Lenthal Destroyer and Keith Scout: these ships just look too
>weird to me. Scale them if you want, I prefer to scrap them.

You get no argument from me here.

>By this time we come to the Liberty freighter, the Griffon and
>Remora Escorts, the Babcock and Northampton Frigates, the
>Wilkerson Destroyer, and the Continent Assault Ship, and who's
>going to quibble over a mere 33% increase in size? A 133%
>increase in the dimensions of the Liberty would more than double
>its cargo volume. I'd prefer not to look at the Babcock, but the
>Griffon and the Continent look positively proto-Voyageresque.

They do have their positive sides, now don't they? It's still
a bit hard to swallow that Starfleet in the TOS movie era
would be swarming with ships like this, then lose all of the
design lineage for decades, until the arrowhead hulls make their
triumphant return in the 2360s.

>While I'm talking about scaling the numbers, the "Number
>Constructed" of each class looks way too large to me. I'm
>obviously under the influence of Todd Guenther's Ships of the
>Star Fleet and its approach to the 800-ship fleet.  

...Or the 1,600-ship one, a reference to the USN 600-ship
project of the time. I tend to find the FASA numbers excessive,
too - although truth be said, they'd form a much more realistic
and credible defense for a Federation as large as that depicted
in TNG (let alone the galaxy-spanning one sometimes implied in TOS).

>I'd divide these numbers by 8 in a first pass. (This gives me a
>benchmark to divide FASA's Klingon numbers by about 5 or 6, because
>1) they are more military, and 2) there are fewer other fandom ships
>to supplement the fleet.)

I've been struggling to come up with a pseudo-rational way to cut
the numbers, too. Sometimes it's tempting to take just the first
digits of each "batch size" and dismiss the last one as a typo,
thus generally slashing the numbers by about 10, but keeping some
creative variety to it all. :)

Some numbers make sense, such as the huge swarms of support types.
But when the capital warships appear in similar numbers, it only
proves that the FASA fleet is not very well balanced.

>Some classes I'd reduce to zero. I mentioned some I'm prejudiced
>against for their looks.

And that, most assuredly, is the only sound rationale in determining
the viability of a starship design. I kid you not.

>There are others of questionable utility, like these Assault Ships.
>How often would the Federation need a ship that "can beam down its
>contingent of 3200 marines, 16 heavy tanks, and 50 light support
>vehicles in 30 minutes"?

Probably rather seldom. But when such a time came, it would need those
quite desperately...

Yeah, I'd dismiss these as deliberate disinformation aimed at the
regular Klingon subscribers.

>Some classes get folded into classes from other material. The
>Kiev Frigate is a Knox Frigate variant with a photorp launcher
>rather than the megaphasers. The Durrett is obviously a Knox
>hull with a single nacelle rather than a pair, a downgrade? or an
>upgraded Destroyer? The Nelson Scout is obviously a Hermes Scout
>with a split neck that may or may not make any difference.

Depending on your level of adherence to the details, these could
be considered subclasses, alternate but unbuilt development models,
poorly detailed descriptions of "real", known designs that have merely
been renamed by Starfleet, or deliberate misrepresentations to fool the
said Klingon readers. (FASA must be getting some pretty acidic letters
of complaint when TNG era dawns and the Klingons get direct, accurate
information out of their new allies...)

>An interesting case is the Wilkerson Destroyer. Only recently
>have we seen the class of which this is an offshoot, the
>Starfleet Command computer game's Akula Destroyer. (A garage
>model kit company makes a similar looking "Asuka" Destroyer,
>perhaps out of recognition of a previous fan class named Akula.)
>They both have one nacelle above and one below the saucer, but
>the Asuka has them both "right side up," and the top one more
>noticeably offset to the rear. The Wilkerson having the bottom
>nacelle "upside down" suggests possible experimentation before
>coming up with the nacelle arrangement on the Constellation
>class. (There is also a model of a refit Constitution with its
>nacelles "sideways" and toes in, seen in the simulated Utopia
>Planitia in TNG:"Boobytrap", more experimentation?)

Or pivoting nacelle mounts? :)

(TNG:"The Neutral Zone" has an even more notorious model, with the
nacelles mounted stern first. An experiment on Advanced Tactical
Retreat Cruiser?)

Interesting information on the lineage, thanks! The Wilkerson is
among the prettier FASA ships, mainly because no poorly thought
out secondary hull has been added. I'd still put her in the
category of "initial plans for a ship that was later
realized in a somewhat different way". The Akula is so much
more refined and "trekno-logical" in terms of engine and weapon
placement... But FASA got there first.

(Then again, if you give Constitution pictures, scissors and glue
to a million monkeys...)

Timo Saloniemi

Reply

	
Jack Bohn 	  Dec 14, 3:31 am     show options
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: Jack Bohn <jackb...@bright.net> - Find messages by this author
Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2004 06:31:48 -0500
Local: Tues, Dec 14 2004 3:31 am
Subject: Re: My Own Personal Fleet (spinoff from nacelle discussion)
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse

Timo S Saloniemi wrote:

>While many of the FASA secondary hulls are abominations, it's
>also rather embarrassing that all the primary hulls are Constitution
>saucers.

What fan ships do have good secondaries? And let me stop you
before you say Achernar! :)
Liberty makes some sense as a freighter. Chandley, Remora, and
Loknar are all nice, but they might be considered extensions of
the primary rather than secondaries.
Guenther's Belknap is very good. I don't like his Menahga,
although its DA seems to have carried over onto some of the
Starfleet Command ships.
As to the primary, what would you do? Create another class of
saucer, (like the Oberth, which has been the basis of alternate
designs,) or alternate shape? Hmm... give the Liberty Freighter
a sphere, something even smaller than 140 m dia...

-- 
-Jack

Reply

	
D 	  Dec 14, 4:44 am     show options
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: "D" <Z1rko...@earthlink.net> - Find messages by this author
Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2004 12:44:20 GMT
Local: Tues, Dec 14 2004 4:44 am
Subject: Re: My Own Personal Fleet (spinoff from nacelle discussion)
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse

----------

In article <cpjqei$p1...@epityr.hut.fi>, tsalo...@cc.hut.fi (Timo S

Saloniemi) wrote:

>>Some classes I'd reduce to zero. I mentioned some I'm prejudiced
>>against for their looks.

> And that, most assuredly, is the only sound rationale in determining
> the viability of a starship design. I kid you not.

Agreed. I think the first criteria for a ship in a fictional universe is
that it has to be cool. The second criteria is that it has to make sense
given the rules of that universe.

D

Reply

	
Timo S Saloniemi 	  Dec 14, 5:22 am     show options
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: tsalo...@cc.hut.fi (Timo S Saloniemi) - Find messages by this author
Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2004 15:22:22 +0200 (EET)
Local: Tues, Dec 14 2004 5:22 am
Subject: Re: My Own Personal Fleet (spinoff from nacelle discussion)
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse

In article <mpitr0ds5mbgvu89q480lfkcsj7svd4...@4ax.com> Jack Bohn <jackb...@bright.net> writes:

>Timo S Saloniemi wrote:
>>While many of the FASA secondary hulls are abominations, it's
>>also rather embarrassing that all the primary hulls are Constitution
>>saucers.
>What fan ships do have good secondaries? And let me stop you
>before you say Achernar! :)

Hmm. Good point. :) All the prettiest ones do seem to be single-hullers.

>Liberty makes some sense as a freighter. Chandley, Remora, and
>Loknar are all nice, but they might be considered extensions of
>the primary rather than secondaries.

All could use a little tweaking, and all are good candidates also
in the sense of having very undetailed original graphics. All also
represent the cream of FASA design, and probably exactly because
they have no secondary hulls. Which in practice means that they
have the maximum percentage of cut-and-pasted parts and the minimum
percentage of original art. :)

>Guenther's Belknap is very good. I don't like his Menahga,
>although its DA seems to have carried over onto some of the
>Starfleet Command ships.

Agreed on both. I've seen a cute Menahga-related idea where the
boxy keel is a stack of changeable mission modules, and I rather like
to think this is what the Menagha concept was ultimately refined into
(perhaps in the Andernach class?).

>As to the primary, what would you do? Create another class of
>saucer, (like the Oberth, which has been the basis of alternate
>designs,) or alternate shape? Hmm... give the Liberty Freighter
>a sphere, something even smaller than 140 m dia...

Variations on the "concave saucer" theme, I think. There's plenty
you can do while keeping the hull grid, aztecing and paired
phasers typical of the Connie design. At least adjusting the shape of
the rim when altering the scale is a good idea, especially since even
the original design is somewhat at odds with the supposed dimensions of
the hull.

Timo Saloniemi