
WARP ENGINE DESIGNATION QUERY.

	
WILL GILLIES 	  Dec 3, 3:32 am 
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: WILLGILL...@YAHOO.CO.UK (WILL GILLIES) 
Date: 3 Dec 2004 03:32:14 -0800
Local: Fri, Dec 3 2004 3:32 am
Subject: WARP ENGINE DESIGNATION QUERY.


can anyone tell me the difference between the TOS type Warp
nacelles,(PB-32,PB-45 etc), the Movie Style (LN-64 series) and the TNG
and beyond types (LF-41)?

Whats is the difference between Circumerential and Linear Warp
engines?

Thanks

Will Gillies



=======
	
Joseph Nebus 	  Dec 3, 7:10 am    
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: neb...@rpi.edu (Joseph Nebus) 
Date: 3 Dec 2004 10:10:38 -0500
Local: Fri, Dec 3 2004 7:10 am
Subject: Re: WARP ENGINE DESIGNATION QUERY.


WILLGILL...@YAHOO.CO.UK (WILL GILLIES) writes:

>can anyone tell me the difference between the TOS type Warp
>nacelles,(PB-32,PB-45 etc), the Movie Style (LN-64 series) and the TNG
>and beyond types (LF-41)?

        I had no idea they were given letter and number designations
like that.

        The real difference is the old-style original series warp drives
could go a thousand light-years in a half-day, while after a century of
further progress the 24th Century Trek warp drives could manage to go
70,000 light-years in 70 years.

-- 
                                                                Joseph Nebus

========



========	
Steve Pugh 	  Dec 3, 10:34 am     
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: Steve Pugh <s...@pugh.net> 
Date: Fri, 03 Dec 2004 18:34:57 +0000
Local: Fri, Dec 3 2004 10:34 am
Subject: Re: WARP ENGINE DESIGNATION QUERY.


Steve Hall <sha...@canada.com> wrote:

>neb...@rpi.edu (Joseph Nebus) wrote:
>>WILLGILL...@YAHOO.CO.UK (WILL GILLIES) writes:

>>>can anyone tell me the difference between the TOS type Warp
>>>nacelles,(PB-32,PB-45 etc), the Movie Style (LN-64 series) and the TNG
>>>and beyond types (LF-41)?

>>        I had no idea they were given letter and number designations
>>like that.
>I believe those of FASA designations.

Wash your mouth out.

FASA designations were the very simple FWA, FWB, FWC (Federation Warp
A, B, C, etc). There was no connection between the external appearance
of the nacelle and the designation given.

The PB and LN designations come from Ships of the Star Fleet but were
borrowed by the authors of Starship Spotter (who added some FASA stuff
and invented some stuff as well).

When Decipher made their RPG they were instructed to use Starship
Spotter as a source and extended it yet again with new designations to
fill in the gaps. (But here once again the connection between the
appearance of the nacelle and the designation was broken).

        Steve

=======


=======	
Timo S Saloniemi 	  Dec 4, 12:51 am     
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: tsalo...@cc.hut.fi (Timo S Saloniemi) 
Date: Sat, 4 Dec 2004 10:51:27 +0200 (EET)
Local: Sat, Dec 4 2004 12:51 am
Subject: Re: WARP ENGINE DESIGNATION QUERY.


In article <u7c1r0dungt6m5h8offmq0gbeqh4ftt...@4ax.com> Steve Pugh <s...@pugh.net> writes:

>Steve Hall <sha...@canada.com> wrote:
>>neb...@rpi.edu (Joseph Nebus) wrote:
>>>WILLGILL...@YAHOO.CO.UK (WILL GILLIES) writes:

>>>>can anyone tell me the difference between the TOS type Warp
>>>>nacelles,(PB-32,PB-45 etc), the Movie Style (LN-64 series) and the TNG
>>>>and beyond types (LF-41)?

>>>I had no idea they were given letter and number designations like that.
>>I believe those of FASA designations.
>Wash your mouth out.

>FASA designations were the very simple FWA, FWB, FWC (Federation Warp
>A, B, C, etc). There was no connection between the external appearance
>of the nacelle and the designation given.

...And how could there be, when all the nacelles were simple cut-and-pasted,
incorrectly scaled reproductions of either the TOS or the TMP nacelle? :)

FASA designations served the purposes of the game, creating artificial
differences in performance between ship classes. In the game, engine
type dictated the power available to a ship (as if the nacelles generated
the power), and it was sometimes necessary to make a certain two-TOS-nacelled
ship markedly weaker or stronger than another two-TOS-nacelled one.

>The PB and LN designations come from Ships of the Star Fleet but were
>borrowed by the authors of Starship Spotter (who added some FASA stuff
>and invented some stuff as well).

>When Decipher made their RPG they were instructed to use Starship
>Spotter as a source and extended it yet again with new designations to
>fill in the gaps. (But here once again the connection between the
>appearance of the nacelle and the designation was broken).

It's not completely irreconciliable yet, though. But it does look weird
that all the post-movie engines would be called LF this or that...

Timo Saloniemi

=======


=======	
Timo S Saloniemi 	  Dec 4, 12:47 am     
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: tsalo...@cc.hut.fi (Timo S Saloniemi) 
Date: Sat, 4 Dec 2004 10:47:53 +0200 (EET)
Local: Sat, Dec 4 2004 12:47 am
Subject: Re: WARP ENGINE DESIGNATION QUERY.


In article <88934cd.0412030332.14c26...@posting.google.com>

WILLGILL...@YAHOO.CO.UK (WILL GILLIES) writes:

>can anyone tell me the difference between the TOS type Warp
>nacelles,(PB-32,PB-45 etc), the Movie Style (LN-64 series) and the TNG
>and beyond types (LF-41)?

Well, I guess the PB designations were invented to differentiate between
the two pilot Enterprise engines (PB-31) and the eventual TOS variant
(PB-32) and the Franz Joseph approximation from his Star Fleet Tech Manual
(PB-47).

The external differences would be minuscule: PB-32 lacks the forward spires
of PB-31, and has a remodeled aft part, etc. (but Kirk's regular ship did
have the spires and the old aft part at some times due to use of stock
footage, so perhaps we should argue these features merely became retractable
in the PB-32). PB-47 is shaped a bit differently IIRC, doesn't have as much
taper etc.

I'm quite un-fond of the LF designation scheme of "Starship Spotter" et al.
for all post-TOS-movie engines. Surely these wildly different engines should
be assumed to originate from different manufacturers and to represent
different designation schemes?

LF-41 is the big Galaxy/Nebula/Niagara/Freedom engine, IIRC. I have the
list somewhere (=not here). There were some oddities in it, such as
claiming that two completely dissimilar-looking engines were of the same
type. Granted, the same hardware may be packed in rather different-looking
nacelles, but there are limits to that.

[In the silly Guide I'm writing, I've kept the numbering scheme from
"Starship Spotter", but changed the prefix letters to represent obvious
"design families" - e.g. engines that look even remotely like the Galaxy
ones are GN series, and the Galaxy thus has GN-41 while the Akira has
(IIRC) GN-43.]

>Whats is the difference between Circumerential and Linear Warp
>engines?

Perhaps Alex Rosenzweig or Todd Guenther or Aridas Sofia could tell?

Methinks "circumferential" means that the exciting plasma is only fed to the
circumference of each warp coil, whereas "linear" means it (also?) flows
through the whole stack of coils along the centerline. The latter is what
we see happening in the TNG engines, and they might be assumed to be of
the "newer" type... And it can't be happening in the TOS engines if they
are like the TAS engines which in "One of Our Planets Is Missing" had
a permanent- and solid-looking catwalk in the middle!

>Thanks

>Will Gillies




Timo Saloniemi

========


========	
Jack Bohn 	  Dec 4, 6:06 am     
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: Jack Bohn <jackb...@bright.net> 
Date: Sat, 04 Dec 2004 09:06:39 -0500
Local: Sat, Dec 4 2004 6:06 am
Subject: Re: WARP ENGINE DESIGNATION QUERY.


WILL GILLIES wrote:

>can anyone tell me the difference between the TOS type Warp
>nacelles,(PB-32,PB-45 etc), the Movie Style (LN-64 series) and the TNG
>and beyond types (LF-41)?
Well

, I've got Ships of the Star Fleet down to look at the fleet
structure. I'll go trawling through it again...

PB-31- First Pilot style. Actually the Potemkin's is still a
PB-31 even though the spire in front is reduced to a nub by 2290
(micrometeor erosion?)

PB-32 - Second Pilot style.

PB-47 - Franz Joseph Design.

LN-52 - from a Mike Minor painting that became a logo for the
Star Trek revival (as is the Endeavor class). Taller than it is
wide, it can easily be recognized from a side view, as it tapers
down for most of its length until near the back where it abruptly
drops off to form a short "tail."

LN-60 - Unused TMP design. This is from the Brick Price
miniature build when it was a proposed television series. (The
Constitution II class and the Tikopai class incorporate elements
of this design.) The nacelle is roughly TMP shape, but thinner
(less buildup around the coils?) and has a smooth front (was a
red effect to be projected on/generated in here?)

LN -64 - TMP design

LN-68 - Seen on the Belknap-class USS Raan. Movie style, but
the top, from the "collar" forward, slopes down.

They refer to the Ingram (a competitor to the Excelsior design)
being refitted with LN-72 warp engines to replace the transwarp
Koeller UTI K27 engines, and that the Excelsior will also be
refitted. The seem to prefer the Excelsior eventually be made to
look more like their Ingram, but movie events have overtaken the
book, and we can probably take the LN-72 to fit inside the
Excelsior's original transwarp nacelles.

Starfleet Dynamics calls the type seen on the Grissom a
"SW27/1-4K Warp Drive nacelle."

Incidently, the identical-looking FASA nacelles fall into roughly
seven different sizes, see:
http://www.bright.net/~jackbohn/sf/fasanac.htm
I suppose if one knew the portion of the nacelles devoted to warp
coils vice the Space Matter/Energy Sink, Flux Chillers and other
support equipment, and were willing to guess how such things
would scale differently with size, one could slightly deform
different areas of the nacelle to more accurately represent it.

-- 
-Jack

=======



=======	
Timo S Saloniemi 	  Dec 4, 10:49 am     
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: tsalo...@cc.hut.fi (Timo S Saloniemi) 
Date: Sat, 4 Dec 2004 20:49:45 +0200 (EET)
Local: Sat, Dec 4 2004 10:49 am
Subject: Re: WARP ENGINE DESIGNATION QUERY.


In article <ocd3r0tv6gt6dsff3f4vqb1be0qo2r8...@4ax.com> Jack Bohn <jackb...@bright.net> writes:

>LN-68 - Seen on the Belknap-class USS Raan. Movie style, but
>the top, from the "collar" forward, slopes down.

It should perhaps be noted that this is the only "fan" design among the
ones listed, unless one counts Joseph's PB-47 as "fan" work as well.
All the other engines are based on work actually funded by Desilu/Paramount...

>They refer to the Ingram (a competitor to the Excelsior design)
>being refitted with LN-72 warp engines to replace the transwarp
>Koeller UTI K27 engines, and that the Excelsior will also be
>refitted. The seem to prefer the Excelsior eventually be made to
>look more like their Ingram, but movie events have overtaken the
>book, and we can probably take the LN-72 to fit inside the
>Excelsior's original transwarp nacelles.

Timeline-wise, though, it could just as well be that the decision to
give LN-72 to Excelsior was reversed and some other type of non-transwarp
engine was installed instead. The Ingram has been portrayed with assorted
unique nacelles in various works - see for example www.shipschematics.net.

>Starfleet Dynamics calls the type seen on the Grissom a
>"SW27/1-4K Warp Drive nacelle."

Interesting! I'll be plagiarizing that soon. :)

>Incidently, the identical-looking FASA nacelles fall into roughly
>seven different sizes, see:
>http://www.bright.net/~jackbohn/sf/fasanac.htm
>I suppose if one knew the portion of the nacelles devoted to warp
>coils vice the Space Matter/Energy Sink, Flux Chillers and other
>support equipment, and were willing to guess how such things
>would scale differently with size, one could slightly deform
>different areas of the nacelle to more accurately represent it.

...Or then one could rescale the FASA vessels to fit just one or two
nacelle sizes. The ships would still make perfect sense if dimensioned
to utilize only PB-31/32/47 and whatever half-scale engine was used on
the freighter Huron in TAS "Pirates of Orion". In fact, some would
look quite a bit better if rescaled that way.

Timo Saloniemi

=============


=============	
Jack Bohn 	  Dec 4, 3:48 pm     
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: Jack Bohn <jackb...@bright.net> 
Date: Sat, 04 Dec 2004 18:48:50 -0500
Local: Sat, Dec 4 2004 3:48 pm
Subject: Re: WARP ENGINE DESIGNATION QUERY.


Timo S Saloniemi wrote:

>In article <ocd3r0tv6gt6dsff3f4vqb1be0qo2r8...@4ax.com> Jack Bohn <jackb...@bright.net> writes:

>>LN-68 - Seen on the Belknap-class  USS Raan.  Movie style, but
>>the top, from the "collar" forward, slopes down.

>It should perhaps be noted that this is the only "fan" design among the
>ones listed, unless one counts Joseph's PB-47 as "fan" work as well.
>All the other engines are based on work actually funded by Desilu/Paramount...

That reminds me that a Paramount design in the sequence is
unaccounted for. Did this Spotter's Guide or Decipher game give
a number to the modified-Movie-model nacelles of the
Constellation class?

-- 
-Jack

=========

=========	
Steve Pugh 	  Dec 5, 3:15 am     
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: Steve Pugh <s...@pugh.net> 
Date: Sun, 05 Dec 2004 11:15:55 +0000
Local: Sun, Dec 5 2004 3:15 am
Subject: Re: WARP ENGINE DESIGNATION QUERY.

On Sat, 04 Dec 2004 18:48:50 -0500, Jack Bohn <jackb...@bright.net>

wrote:

>That reminds me that a Paramount design in the sequence is
>unaccounted for. Did this Spotter's Guide or Decipher game give
>a number to the modified-Movie-model nacelles of the
>Constellation class?

Nope. Not in either Spotter or any of the Decipher books.

        Steve

=========


==========	
mdice...@seds.lpl.arizona.edu 	  Dec 6, 7:37 pm     
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: mdice...@seds.lpl.arizona.edu 
Date: 6 Dec 2004 19:37:16 -0800
Local: Mon, Dec 6 2004 7:37 pm
Subject: Re: WARP ENGINE DESIGNATION QUERY.


Except that the TOS drives couldn't do that when the ships needed to,
like in "By Any Other Name", where Kirk notes to Rojan that it would
take the Enterprise "thousands of years" to get from the Milky Way to
the Andromeda Galaxy.

And In TNG's "The Chase", the E-D can traverse 30,000-40,000 ly in in a
matter of a couple of weeks, if need be, while according to "Where No
One has Gone Before", the E-D at maximum warp can get home from M-33 in
the same time as it took the Kelvin modified E-1701 to get to
Andromeda...

And in VOY episodes like "Hope and Fear", "Year of Hell Part I", and
"Q2", we learn that it is not a matter of raw speed for Voyager to get
home in a hurry, but a navigational one as well. The ship can shave of
between 5 and 20 years just getting more accurate navigation data about
the Delta quadrent.
-Mike

=========


=========	
mdice...@seds.lpl.arizona.edu 	  Dec 6, 7:37 pm     
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: mdice...@seds.lpl.arizona.edu 
Date: 6 Dec 2004 19:37:44 -0800
Local: Mon, Dec 6 2004 7:37 pm
Subject: Re: WARP ENGINE DESIGNATION QUERY.


Except that the TOS drives couldn't do that when the ships needed to,
like in "By Any Other Name", where Kirk notes to Rojan that it would
take the Enterprise "thousands of years" to get from the Milky Way to
the Andromeda Galaxy.
And In TNG's "The Chase", the E-D can traverse 30,000-40,000 ly in in a
matter of a couple of weeks, if need be, while according to "Where No
One has Gone Before", the E-D at maximum warp can get home from M-33 in
the same time as it took the Kelvin modified E-1701 to get to
Andromeda...
And in VOY episodes like "Hope and Fear", "Year of Hell Part I", and
"Q2", we learn that it is not a matter of raw speed for Voyager to get
home in a hurry, but a navigational one as well. The ship can shave of
between 5 and 20 years just getting more accurate navigation data about
the Delta quadrent.
-Mike

=========


=========	
Timo S Saloniemi 	  Dec 9, 11:08 am     
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: tsalo...@cc.hut.fi (Timo S Saloniemi) 
Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2004 21:08:16 +0200 (EET)
Local: Thurs, Dec 9 2004 11:08 am
Subject: Re: WARP ENGINE DESIGNATION QUERY.


In article <01j4r051md3mmnd1ls1luq3d4ol4qq9...@4ax.com> Jack Bohn <jackb...@bright.net> writes:
>Timo S Saloniemi wrote:
>>In article <ocd3r0tv6gt6dsff3f4vqb1be0qo2r8...@4ax.com> Jack Bohn <jackb...@bright.net> writes:

>>>LN-68 - Seen on the Belknap-class  USS Raan.  Movie style, but
>>>the top, from the "collar" forward, slopes down.

>>It should perhaps be noted that this is the only "fan" design among the
>>ones listed, unless one counts Joseph's PB-47 as "fan" work as well.
>>All the other engines are based on work actually funded by Desilu/Paramount.
>That reminds me that a Paramount design in the sequence is
>unaccounted for. Did this Spotter's Guide or Decipher game give
>a number to the modified-Movie-model nacelles of the
>Constellation class?

I have heard LN-70, in a list supposedly collected of Dynamics and Spotter
facts, but I'm not sure of the original reference. It's not much of a
modification externally, simply a minor smoothing of the aft ends...

The engines used on USS Centaur might warrant a LN designation as well,
as they seem to be related to the era generally and to the Excelsior
engines specifically. And depending on whether you want to believe in
the nacelles or the saucers as the size-establishing feature, you might
want to give a new designation to the LN-64 lookalikes on the other
DS9 kitbashes; they may be some 50% larger than "the real thing" if you
choose saucers as the scaling reference.

Timo Saloniemi

=========


=========	
Jack Bohn 	  Dec 11, 7:44 am     
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: Jack Bohn <jackb...@bright.net> 
Date: Sat, 11 Dec 2004 10:44:52 -0500
Local: Sat, Dec 11 2004 7:44 am
Subject: Re: WARP ENGINE DESIGNATION QUERY.


Timo S Saloniemi wrote:

>The engines used on USS Centaur might warrant a LN designation as well,
>as they seem to be related to the era generally and to the Excelsior
>engines specifically. And depending on whether you want to believe in
>the nacelles or the saucers as the size-establishing feature, you might
>want to give a new designation to the LN-64 lookalikes on the other
>DS9 kitbashes; they may be some 50% larger than "the real thing" if you
>choose saucers as the scaling reference.

At the risk of opening that can of worms, I think the Centaur
engines -and the Centaur itself- should be scaled to the Miranda
parts used. Make it small enough that you're afraid Sisko might
kill it to keep his bugship mission secret. But, I also think
the Curry/Shelly class from "A Time to Stand" should be
considered to have Excelsior-style nacelles, so I'm fairly
apostate.

While I'm on the subject of My Own Personal Fleet, I might as
well address:

>>Incidently, the identical-looking FASA nacelles fall into roughly
>>seven different sizes, see:
>>http://www.bright.net/~jackbohn/sf/fasanac.htm

>...Or then one could rescale the FASA vessels to fit just one or two
>nacelle sizes. The ships would still make perfect sense if dimensioned
>to utilize only PB-31/32/47 and whatever half-scale engine was used on
>the freighter Huron in TAS "Pirates of Orion". In fact, some would
>look quite a bit better if rescaled that way.

The PBs all seem close to standard, except maybe the Cochrane
Colonial Transport and the Aakenn Freighter, and these can be
scaled up or down. (Was the Huron shown next to the known-size
Enterprise in "Pirates"? I know the drone freighters were in
"More Tribbles, More Troubles".)

The LNs are on most ships, and provide the most troubles. I was
going to go through them, size by size, but that seems more
appropriate to its own thread about My Own Personal Fleet.

I will mention the Lotus Flower Fuel Carrier that has been
brought to my attention as the class ship of the Kobayashi Maru.
Its nacelle scales out to be about 98m. Argh! An eighth size,
falling right between two others!
It's possible to ignore this, since the graphic didn't actually
appear in The Wrath of Khan, which gave the length, but in The
Next Generation, which did not give a length, nor identify it as
related to the K. M.

-- 
-Jack

========


========	
Timo S Saloniemi 	  Dec 13, 1:48 am     
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: tsalo...@cc.hut.fi (Timo S Saloniemi) 
Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2004 11:48:30 +0200 (EET)
Local: Mon, Dec 13 2004 1:48 am
Subject: Re: WARP ENGINE DESIGNATION QUERY.


In article <m7mlr093v8t2e9hut9rnhusavfru2od...@4ax.com> Jack Bohn <jackb...@bright.net> writes:
>Timo S Saloniemi wrote:

>>The engines used on USS Centaur might warrant a LN designation as well,
>>as they seem to be related to the era generally and to the Excelsior
>>engines specifically. And depending on whether you want to believe in
>>the nacelles or the saucers as the size-establishing feature, you might
>>want to give a new designation to the LN-64 lookalikes on the other

>>DS9 kitbashes; they may be some 50% larger than "the real thing" if you

>>choose saucers as the scaling reference.
>At the risk of opening that can of worms, I think the Centaur
>engines -and the Centaur itself- should be scaled to the Miranda
>parts used. Make it small enough that you're afraid Sisko might
>kill it to keep his bugship mission secret.

...And small enough to just barely be a match for Sisko's bug, but
be so badly outclassed by four such bugs that Capt. Reynold's withdrawal
would not seem like cowardice. Yeah, I'm in that camp as well.

>But, I also think the Curry/Shelly class from "A Time to Stand" should
>be considered to have Excelsior-style nacelles, so I'm fairly
>apostate.

I'm actually rather happy with that particular design, since it ties
together the Excelsior and Constitution-refit "design families" and
fleshes out the former. If these uglies aren't frontline hero-ships,
then it's quite okay for them to have older engines, too. And scaling the
ships by the engines gives us a saucer that matches the smaller interpretation
of the Centaur saucer, so there's some structural continuity there.
(Fortunately, at least one of the Curry/Shelley monstrosities lacks a bridge
altogether, so that doesn't mess up the scaling.)

>While I'm on the subject of My Own Personal Fleet, I might as
>well address:
>>...Or then one could rescale the FASA vessels to fit just one or two
>>nacelle sizes. The ships would still make perfect sense if dimensioned
>>to utilize only PB-31/32/47 and whatever half-scale engine was used on
>>the freighter Huron in TAS "Pirates of Orion". In fact, some would
>>look quite a bit better if rescaled that way.
>The PBs all seem close to standard, except maybe the Cochrane
>Colonial Transport and the Aakenn Freighter, and these can be
>scaled up or down. (Was the Huron shown next to the known-size
>Enterprise in "Pirates"? I know the drone freighters were in
>"More Tribbles, More Troubles".)

There was no clear scaling shot, alas. But window row counts would
create undue embarrassment if the ship was scaled up to match PB-31
engines. 50% scale is my favorite because it is a plausible size
for other fan/RPG designs such as the Texas CL and the New Light
Cruiser...

>The LNs are on most ships, and provide the most troubles. I was
>going to go through them, size by size, but that seems more
>appropriate to its own thread about My Own Personal Fleet.

Looking forward to that!

>I will mention the Lotus Flower Fuel Carrier that has been
>brought to my attention as the class ship of the Kobayashi Maru.
>Its nacelle scales out to be about 98m. Argh! An eighth size,
>falling right between two others!

OTOH, the overall dimensions of that vessel do not match those
given in the ST2:TWoK onscreen computer readout. Those figures
call for a much squatter vessel.

However, there's an interesting twist to this. If you take the
Lotus Flower to have a standard LN-64, then the beam and height
match the ST2 figures of Kobayashi Maru almost perfectly. And the
excess length can be dealt with in a surprising way. Looking at the
Lotus Flower, you can see a definite repeating motif to the structure
of the "spine" of the vessel. It's as if the ship was built out of
the pen-tip bow, the engine-mounting stern, and three sections of
midhull, one of these split between the bow and stern and cradling
the two sections between. With all three sections, the ship is too long
to be the Kobayashi Maru. With the two middle modules removed,
she's a near-perfect match!

If you want to be a perfectionist, you can explain away the remaining
slight differences in dimensions by saying that the Kobayashi Maru
was a *pre-refit*, single-type Lotus Flower, while the triple-type
ship we see in the graphic has had her pylon length slightly altered
in connection with the installation of the new engine type.

>It's possible to ignore this, since the graphic didn't actually
>appear in The Wrath of Khan, which gave the length, but in The
>Next Generation, which did not give a length, nor identify it as
>related to the K. M.

Yup. But with the above refinements, I rather like the connection.

Timo Saloniemi

==========


==========	
Steve Pugh 	  Dec 13, 2:29 am     
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: Steve Pugh <s...@pugh.net> 
Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2004 10:29:40 +0000
Local: Mon, Dec 13 2004 2:29 am
Subject: Re: WARP ENGINE DESIGNATION QUERY.


tsalo...@cc.hut.fi (Timo S Saloniemi) wrote:

> Jack Bohn <jackb...@bright.net> writes:
>> Timo S Saloniemi wrote:

>>>...Or then one could rescale the FASA vessels to fit just one or two
>>>nacelle sizes. The ships would still make perfect sense if dimensioned

>>>to utilize only PB-31/32/47 and whatever half-scale engine was used on

>>>the freighter Huron in TAS "Pirates of Orion". In fact, some would
>>>look quite a bit better if rescaled that way.

>>The PBs all seem close to standard, except maybe the Cochrane
>>Colonial Transport and the Aakenn Freighter, and these can be
>>scaled up or down. (Was the Huron shown next to the known-size
>>Enterprise in "Pirates"? I know the drone freighters were in
>>"More Tribbles, More Troubles".)

>There was no clear scaling shot, alas. But window row counts would
>create undue embarrassment if the ship was scaled up to match PB-31
>engines. 50% scale is my favorite because it is a plausible size
>for other fan/RPG designs such as the Texas CL and the New Light
>Cruiser...
The

Texas nacelles predates the Constitutions by at least sixty years
(they were given tactical warp in Y62 vs the Connie launch date of
Y126) so I'd be surprised if there was much connection at all between
the nacelle design/technology.

Which version of the Kearsarge NCL are you talking about? Older
artwork, such as that on Jack's site, shows the NCL with nacelles that
are shorter but of the same diameter as the Connie nacelles. Newer
artwork has retconned that and gives the NCL the same nacelles as the
Connie.

For scaled down nacelles amongst SFB ships look at the Burke FF.

        Steve

=========


=========	
Timo S Saloniemi 	  Dec 13, 4:29 am     
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: tsalo...@cc.hut.fi (Timo S Saloniemi) 
Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2004 14:29:40 +0200 (EET)
Local: Mon, Dec 13 2004 4:29 am
Subject: Re: WARP ENGINE DESIGNATION QUERY.


In article <a8rqr0d6ebn1a2q2tm4ob2f0k3u5knf...@4ax.com> Steve Pugh <s...@pugh.net> writes:
>tsalo...@cc.hut.fi (Timo S Saloniemi) wrote:

>>50% scale is my favorite because it is a plausible size
>>for other fan/RPG designs such as the Texas CL and the New Light
>>Cruiser...

>The Texas nacelles predates the Constitutions by at least sixty years
>(they were given tactical warp in Y62 vs the Connie launch date of
>Y126) so I'd be surprised if there was much connection at all between
>the nacelle design/technology.

Then again, I'd expect an engine swap in those 60 years, too. The few
pictures of the vessel would naturally describe the refitted version,
with TOS-type pennant font and all.

>Which version of the Kearsarge NCL are you talking about? Older
>artwork, such as that on Jack's site, shows the NCL with nacelles that
>are shorter but of the same diameter as the Connie nacelles. Newer
>artwork has retconned that and gives the NCL the same nacelles as the
>Connie.

Well, the former. I didn't pay that much attention to the thickness,
truth be said. And again, rather than "retcon", I suspect a refit
here. This time with an actual change in engine general dimensions,
though. (For a convoluted "How I see it", see
http://flareupload.pleh.net/uploads/245/guide.zip , the first volume;
A messy gangbang combining the suspiciously low-registered Amchitkas
from SotSF with the Kearsarges and a few other odds and ends.)

>For scaled down nacelles amongst SFB ships look at the Burke FF.

Thanks for the pointer. It's a cute little ship!

Timo Saloniemi

========


========	
Jack Bohn 	  Dec 14, 3:30 am     
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: Jack Bohn <jackb...@bright.net> 
Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2004 06:30:11 -0500
Local: Tues, Dec 14 2004 3:30 am
Subject: Re: WARP ENGINE DESIGNATION QUERY.


Timo S Saloniemi wrote:

>In article <m7mlr093v8t2e9hut9rnhusavfru2od...@4ax.com> Jack Bohn <jackb...@bright.net> writes:

>>But, I also think the Curry/Shelly class from "A Time to Stand" should
>>be considered to have Excelsior-style nacelles, so I'm fairly
>>apostate.

>I'm actually rather happy with that particular design, since it ties
>together the Excelsior and Constitution-refit "design families" and
>fleshes out the former.
>And scaling the
>ships by the engines gives us a saucer that matches the smaller interpretation
>of the Centaur saucer, so there's some structural continuity there.

I like the idea of the Shelly being Excelsior sized, but you make
a case. Add the personal incentive that I can give up my search
for a third 1/2500 Enterprise-B kit to modify into this class,
and I'm just about sold.

>>I will mention the Lotus Flower Fuel Carrier that has been
>>brought to my attention as the class ship of the Kobayashi Maru.

>OTOH, the overall dimensions of that vessel do not match those
>given in the ST2:TWoK onscreen computer readout. Those figures
>call for a much squatter vessel.

Hmm... have to run the film again, I only have the length in my
notes... Ah, FASA did disregard some of them.

That does remind me of a joke I wanted to do about the true
appearance of the Kobayashi M. I think some people will get it.

http://www.bright.net/~jackbohn/sf/km.html

>However, there's an interesting twist to this. If you take the
>Lotus Flower to have a standard LN-64, then the beam and height
>match the ST2 figures of Kobayashi Maru almost perfectly. And the
>excess length can be dealt with in a surprising way. Looking at the
>Lotus Flower, you can see a definite repeating motif to the structure
>of the "spine" of the vessel. It's as if the ship was built out of
>the pen-tip bow, the engine-mounting stern, and three sections of
>midhull, one of these split between the bow and stern and cradling
>the two sections between. With all three sections, the ship is too long
>to be the Kobayashi Maru. With the two middle modules removed,
>she's a near-perfect match!

Interesting! Would I be duplicating somebody's effort if I
manipulated the graphic to illustrate this?

-- 
-Jack

=========


=========	
Jack Bohn 	  Dec 14, 3:31 am     
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: Jack Bohn <jackb...@bright.net> 
Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2004 06:31:20 -0500
Local: Tues, Dec 14 2004 3:31 am
Subject: Re: WARP ENGINE DESIGNATION QUERY.


Steve Pugh wrote:

>Which version of the Kearsarge NCL are you talking about? Older
>artwork, such as that on Jack's site, shows the NCL with nacelles that
>are shorter but of the same diameter as the Connie nacelles. Newer
>artwork has retconned that and gives the NCL the same nacelles as the
>Connie.

Cosmetically the same, one should hasten to add. They still
produce 80% of the power of the Connie (or Sally, or Hermie, or
Feddy or Ptolmy) nacelle.

>For scaled down nacelles amongst SFB ships look at the Burke FF.

Deckplans for which published in their GURPS Module Prime Alpha
book.
Nacelles 110 m long, 12.3 m dia, and cylindrical. At first I'd
felt uncomfortable with this lack of taper, (an artifact, I'd
guess, of their using a simple Macintosh draw program for the
graphics,) then I remembered the nacelles of the Constellation,
and any ship represented by the early AMT kit.

The ship overall is some 130 m long and 94 m wide. About the
size of the Akyazi-class Perimeter Action Ship, if one prefers to
use the designation Frigate for the Surya and Coventry.

-- 
-Jack

=========


=========	
Timo S Saloniemi 	  Dec 14, 5:12 am     
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: tsalo...@cc.hut.fi (Timo S Saloniemi) 
Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2004 15:12:19 +0200 (EET)
Local: Tues, Dec 14 2004 5:12 am
Subject: Re: WARP ENGINE DESIGNATION QUERY.


In article <3dhtr0d89j0b7as9cof0qoleghg8559...@
4ax.com> Jack Bohn <jackb...@bright.net> writes:
>Timo S Saloniemi wrote:
>>In article <m7mlr093v8t2e9hut9rnhusavfru2od...@4ax.com> Jack Bohn <jackb...@bright.net> writes:

>>>But, I also think the Curry/Shelly class from "A Time to Stand" should
>>>be considered to have Excelsior-style nacelles, so I'm fairly
>>>apostate.

>>... scaling the ships by the engines gives us a saucer that matches
>>the smaller interpretation of the Centaur saucer, so there's some
>>structural continuity there.
>I like the idea of the Shelly being Excelsior sized, but you make
>a case. Add the personal incentive that I can give up my search
>for a third 1/2500 Enterprise-B kit to modify into this class,
>and I'm just about sold.

Another fun thing about these ships: they serve very nicely
as Franz Joseph -style tugs, towing a Ptolemy-compatible cylinder
mounted into the convenient niche on the Excelsior secondary hull
underside...

>>>I will mention the Lotus Flower Fuel Carrier that has been
>>>brought to my attention as the class ship of the Kobayashi Maru.
>>OTOH, the overall dimensions of that vessel do not match those
>>given in the ST2:TWoK onscreen computer readout. Those figures
>>call for a much squatter vessel.
>Hmm... have to run the film again, I only have the length in my
>notes... Ah, FASA did disregard some of them.
>That does remind me of a joke I wanted to do about the true
>appearance of the Kobayashi M. I think some people will get it.

>http://www.bright.net/~jackbohn/sf/km.html

:-D :-D :-D

>>However, there's an interesting twist to this. If you take the
>>Lotus Flower to have a standard LN-64, then the beam and height
>>match the ST2 figures of Kobayashi Maru almost perfectly. And the
>>excess length can be dealt with in a surprising way. Looking at the
>>Lotus Flower, you can see a definite repeating motif to the structure
>>of the "spine" of the vessel. It's as if the ship was built out of
>>the pen-tip bow, the engine-mounting stern, and three sections of
>>midhull, one of these split between the bow and stern and cradling
>>the two sections between. With all three sections, the ship is too long
>>to be the Kobayashi Maru. With the two middle modules removed,

>>she's a near-perfect match!

>Interesting! Would I be duplicating somebody's effort if I
>manipulated the graphic to illustrate this?

I haven't seen a truncated Lotus Flower online, no. I doodled one to
see if a monstrosity would result, but the "size one" Lotus Flower
was surprisingly agreeable, and I suspect a "size two" would as well.
A "size four" might be overdoing it a bit...

Incidentally, I just plain hate the idea that a ship from a Lotus Flower
class would be given a Japanese name... Something more systematic and
less stereotypical would be preferable. Perhaps the "civilian" or
"TOS-style" original version would have a "Japanese" naming scheme
that extends to the class ship, while the LN-engined ships have an
"oriental plants, symbols or decorative motifs" theme?

Timo Saloniemi

==========


==========	
Jack Bohn 	  Dec 20, 3:06 am     
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: Jack Bohn <jackb...@bright.net> 
Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2004 06:06:24 -0500
Local: Mon, Dec 20 2004 3:06 am
Subject: Re: WARP ENGINE DESIGNATION QUERY.


Timo S Saloniemi wrote:
>>>In article <m7mlr093v8t2e9hut9rnhusavfru2od...@4ax.com> Jack Bohn <jackb...@bright.net> writes:

>>>>I will mention the Lotus Flower Fuel Carrier that has been
>>>>brought to my attention as the class ship of the Kobayashi Maru.

>>>OTOH, the overall dimensions of that vessel do not match those
>>>given in the ST2:TWoK onscreen computer readout. Those figures
>>>call for a much squatter vessel.

>>>However, there's an interesting twist to this. If you take the
>>>Lotus Flower to have a standard LN-64, then the beam and height 
>>>match the ST2 figures of Kobayashi Maru almost perfectly. And the
>>>excess length can be dealt with in a surprising way. Looking at the
>>>Lotus Flower, you can see a definite repeating motif to the structure
>>>of the "spine" of the vessel. It's as if the ship was built out of
>>>the pen-tip bow, the engine-mounting stern, and three sections of 
>>>midhull, one of these split between the bow and stern and cradling
>>>the two sections between. With all three sections, the ship is too long
>>>to be the Kobayashi Maru. With the two middle modules removed,
>>>she's a near-perfect match!

>>Interesting! Would I be duplicating somebody's effort if I
>>manipulated the graphic to illustrate this?

>I haven't seen a truncated Lotus Flower online, no. I doodled one to
>see if a monstrosity would result, but the "size one" Lotus Flower
>was surprisingly agreeable, and I suspect a "size two" would as well.
>A "size four" might be overdoing it a bit...

For your viewing pleasure, a "one" and "two":

http://www.bright.net/~jackbohn/sf/KM1.jpg
http://www.bright.net/~jackbohn/sf/KM2.jpg

the FASA image:

http://www.bright.net/~jackbohn/sf/KM3.jpg

and, because you mentioned it:

http://www.bright.net/~jackbohn/sf/KM4.jpg

A "one" with old nacelles, for Kirk's Kobayashi Maru scenario:

http://www.bright.net/~jackbohn/sf/KMo.jpg

Of course, this is a prelude to my asking permission to quote
your explanation and these pictures on a page.

>Incidentally, I just plain hate the idea that a ship from a Lotus Flower
>class would be given a Japanese name... Something more systematic and
>less stereotypical would be preferable.

Wouldn't this be as bad as a Constitution class having ships
named Enterprise and Hood? Although the possibility of a Kongo
somewhat alleviates this. I understand what you mean, though;
that a ship with a Japanese name would be given the class Lotus
Flower. However, if many of these are civilian ships, they would
probably not follow any naming scheme at all. A sister to the
Kobayashi M might be called One-Eyed Jacks, a "two" may be
Doublejack, a "three" or "four" would be Backbone of the Night
(if I could find the !Kung word or phrase for that).

-- 
-Jack

===========


===========	
Steve Pugh 	  Dec 20, 3:20 am     
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: Steve Pugh <s...@pugh.net> 
Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2004 11:20:04 +0000
Local: Mon, Dec 20 2004 3:20 am
Subject: Re: WARP ENGINE DESIGNATION QUERY.


On Mon, 20 Dec 2004 06:06:24 -0500, Jack Bohn <jackb...@bright.net>

wrote:

>A "one" with old nacelles, for Kirk's Kobayashi Maru scenario:

>http://www.bright.net/~jackbohn/sf/KMo.jpg

By coincidence, other people have been thinking along similar lines.
See http://forum.trek-rpg.net/showthread.php?t=11208

        Steve

==========


==========	
Jack Bohn 	  Dec 21, 3:23 am     
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: Jack Bohn <jackb...@bright.net> 
Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2004 06:23:06 -0500
Local: Tues, Dec 21 2004 3:23 am
Subject: Re: WARP ENGINE DESIGNATION QUERY.


Steve Pugh wrote:

>On Mon, 20 Dec 2004 06:06:24 -0500, Jack Bohn <jackb...@bright.net>
>wrote:

>>A "one" with old nacelles, for Kirk's Kobayashi Maru scenario:

>>http://www.bright.net/~jackbohn/sf/KMo.jpg

>By coincidence, other people have been thinking along similar lines.
>See http://forum.trek-rpg.net/showthread.php?t=11208

Heh. I'm feeling a little adept at the cut and paste, and along
comes a guy who can do that.

-- 
-Jack

=========


=========	
Timo S Saloniemi 	  Dec 23, 12:34 am     
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: tsalo...@cc.hut.fi (Timo S Saloniemi) 
Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2004 10:34:45 +0200 (EET)
Local: Thurs, Dec 23 2004 12:34 am
Subject: Re: WARP ENGINE DESIGNATION QUERY.


In article <spbds0lvrjin1svllobfu9nj0o26ha1...@4ax.com> Jack Bohn <jackb...@bright.net> writes:


>For your viewing pleasure, a "one" and "two":

>http://www.bright.net/~jackbohn/sf/KM1.jpg
>http://www.bright.net/~jackbohn/sf/KM2.jpg

>the FASA image:

>http://www.bright.net/~jackbohn/sf/KM3.jpg

>and, because you mentioned it:

>http://www.bright.net/~jackbohn/sf/KM4.jpg

>A "one" with old nacelles, for Kirk's Kobayashi Maru scenario:

>http://www.bright.net/~jackbohn/sf/KMo.jpg

>Of course, this is a prelude to my asking permission to quote
>your explanation and these pictures on a page.

Feel free! It's not as if I held a patent to the explanation or
anything. I just wonder if this ever occurred to the FASA artist...
Of course, he might not have had the luxury of a screencap from ST2.

>>Incidentally, I just plain hate the idea that a ship from a Lotus Flower
>>class would be given a Japanese name... Something more systematic and
>>less stereotypical would be preferable.
>Wouldn't this be as bad as a Constitution class having ships
>named Enterprise and Hood?

Sort of, but...

I'd be happy with these ships being themed around "Famous Warships of the
Past". The biggest and brightest classes would generally go by this
naming scheme, even if the original themes that resulted in the names
Enterprise, Constitution and Hood were diverse ("sounds cool", "honors
our country's great achievement", "pays respect to a family of war heroes",
respectively). Similarly, the Galaxy class would derive from famous past
vessel names, a historic USS Galaxy perhaps having been the most famous
member of the Heavenly Bodies class of lesser vessels. That and other lesser
classes would have these more systematic naming schemes.

>Although the possibility of a Kongo somewhat alleviates this.

Interestingly, Jane's currently spells the name as Kongou, presumably
to avoid the classic confusion between the Japanese spiritual concept
and the old central African kingdom. The older translitteration used to
have a little hat atop the latter o, but it's difficult to reproduce
typographically and has usually been dropped. When Starfleet still uses
the spelling Kongo, are we then supposed to think that it really does
mean the African kingdom after all? :)

>I understand what you mean, though;
>that a ship with a Japanese name would be given the class Lotus
>Flower. However, if many of these are civilian ships, they would
>probably not follow any naming scheme at all. A sister to the
>Kobayashi M might be called One-Eyed Jacks, a "two" may be
>Doublejack, a "three" or "four" would be Backbone of the Night
>(if I could find the !Kung word or phrase for that).

I'd be quite happy with that, too. :) Unfortunately, fans tend to jump
to conclusions on matters like this. It's somewhat embarrassing to
watch the naval nickname of Pike's Number One elevated into the actual
*name* of the character, and then into an in-depth *backstory* of the
character's origins. The jump from "Kobayashi Maru" to "Lotus Flower"
is symptomatic of something similar, and I just hope it won't get
further than that!

Timo Saloniemi

=========


