FarShot's WIPs - The fire in which we burn...

[FarShot]

...There is a reason why the Refit is the most honored designs in Trek.

I don't get it.  Thin pylons and necks, an undercut in the bottom of the saucer, a massive arboretum that cuts from one side of the secondary hull to the other, and very large windows in that section to boot...  Don't all those things just mentioned pretty much violate structural common sense?

[Vortex]

The idea with the pylons was to keep the engines away from the rest of the ship where the crew was, as they put out a lot of radiation. By the time the Miranda and Oberth came along, they must have got a lot more efficient.

Also, remember that Trek ships are made of some sort of futuristic material that's a lot stronger than anything we currently now. I think the worst case for how flimsy a ship looks is TOS Connie. It's a nice looking ship, but flimsy. The early Galaxy model had a similar problem with it's pylons, they were rather thin and seemingly invisible in the distance. I suspect this was partly sue to design and partly due to being keyed out in blue/green screen.

[Saquist]

I don't get it.  Thin pylons and necks, an undercut in the bottom of the saucer, a massive arboretum that cuts from one side of the secondary hull to the other, and very large windows in that section to boot...  Don't all those things just mentioned pretty much violate structural common sense?

Generally Trek doesn't make alot of sense but it's been getting worse.

-The only real problem is the Pylons.  I question whether it's possible to stiffen them from twisting with the ships motions because the coils are the most massive part of any ship.  It's like putting a bowling ball at the end of an umbrella.

-The Neck can be stiffen at the base and nape from twisting between the mass of the Star Drive and Saucer.  This ship isn't that big thus not out of the realm of possibility that material and welds can make this structure rigid and durable.

 The Bay Windows aren't a problem.  It's one deck and most of the Stardrive is empty space.  Tactically I wouldn't have done it.  The Undercut in the saucer isn't a structural issue just superfluous. (there is a question whether it does go to one side to the other side)

(Structurally I give it a fail for the Pylons)

------
Sovereign
That being said.  Sovereign puts it's engines at the end of similarly spindly pylons and they are the length or the original Enterprise.  It's covered in windows.  Instead of cut outs into useable space it the Triangular hood on the top is litterally a wast of metal unless the deck slopes with the saucer we're talking narrow corridors heading out to...nowhere because they cut through decks.   Sovereign is covered with windows.  But at least it got rid of the neck. 
(I Give it a Fail)

Galaxy
It's the biggest improve while keeping the familar form of the Earlier ship.   But the ship is SO Big..I've been working out of the tech manual to see if a superstructure can be created sound.  The Core of the Saucer Section would be an elliptical ovoid like the concrete core of a building.  The surrounding sections would attach to it.  The Neck doesn't look to be a problem nor the nacelles to a serious degree (not as IMPRACTICAL). But I can tell you to make the Galaxy happen their would be a lot less internal habitual space in the stardrive than depicted.  The neck and pylons would be mostly structural crossmembers as well as a good portion of the from the secondary hull to stiffen the neck at the narrow base from snapping when the saucer leans in the opposite direction.
The biggest problem is the ridiculously excessive use of windows.
(Structurally I Give it a Pass)

Odyessy
From what I've seen...a ship as large as the Galaxy that literally takes the entire back half of the ship and divides it in two....(sigh)  with all that mass shearing against the attachment on the stardrive. It's one the reasons Akira Class is an awful design.  Booms are just stupid in space.  That's something you do on the water where the mass can be supported.  In space there is no support but your own structure. All of these structures would be fine if they were siting in orbit but they're not. They are manuvering and changing direction place incredible loads and small and apparently week members.
(Fail)

It Think the best Designs are the Luna and Miranda class, Constellation.
Strangely the average Klingon ship is better designed structurally.

------

[007bashir]

Before Jimmy is coming around the corner, can you have that discussion somewhere else, please?

[FarShot]

Off-topic is fine if the thread creator participates willingly in it.

I disagree that windows are structural suicide.  Between every window could be a hard structural member, like on aircraft.  The crime in my opinion is large internal cavities, like the shuttlebay/cargo bay of the refit.  Another thing to consider is that the pylons are attached to the sides of those large cavities.  Imagine having a giant hand pull sideways on a pylon.  I don't think the pylon would just pull off, I'd think you'd peel off the side of the shuttlebay with it.  At least with the Sovvy, the pylons are mounted below the shuttlebay.  They could have solid metal connecting the pylons together and through the entire length of the stardrive for all we know.

The JJPrise gets props from me for having large a-frame like structures in the shuttlebay.  Makes the pylons look heavily rooted instead of just slapped on the side.

The Galaxy has a large issue for me with the massive saucer and the cobra head.  Each little clamp in the cobra head would experience massive shear every time the ship turned.

The thing with the Odyssey's neck is that its not divided by two, its multiplied by two.  Each neck is nearly twice as large as the Galaxy's neck, while the saucer is at most 1.5x larger.  You've got 4x the structure for 1.5x the saucer, which is quite the bargain.  On top of that, there are no windows on the back of the neck, which makes me think that its structural spine-stuff.

[Darkthunder]

Moderator mode engaged:
Saquist, i'd encourage you to make a new thread discussing the structural deficiencies of various Star Trek ships. I think FarShot would appreciate if the discussion returns to the topic at hand.

[FarShot]

I can moderate my own thread thank you.   I want this discussion here, it helps me with my own designs.

[Vortex]

You seem to be forgetting about the Enertial Dampers. As well as stopping the crew from becoming jam on the wall, they also create the structural integrity field, if I recall correctly, thereby helping to hold the ship together.

The problem you have when getting too analytical about this is that you then have to question other things such as how can they travel at impulse speeds anyway? How do they stop the time dilation? Because they're still in normal space/time, this is a problem, unlike in warp.

Trek is very good at founding its tech on real science, but in order for the show to work, it does have to take some liberties.

[admiral horton]

When u say that large shuttlebays and open spaces that it what the structural integrity field is there to replace that support
structure, and that hold the ship together at high speeds.

[FarShot]

...and if that's the case, then the neck structure of any ship doesn't really matter.  This is why I love/hate Star Trek.  Sometimes they go for scientific accuracy.  Other times, they fly completely in the face of reality.  Transporters, inertial dampeners, structural integrity fields, swiss army deflectors...  "Some liberties" doesn't quite cover it.

In the end, we could always say "Odyssey has two necks because it looks different", and depending on your aesthetic persuasions, "because it looks cool".

[mckinneyc]

Now that is one sexy deflector

[WileyCoyote]

I've seen the mesh already. It is as good as it looks. Nice work!

[Saquist]

I don't wish to derail your thread guys.  Farshot just let me know I'm not sure who's in charge.

Shuttle bay Issues:
In certain structures you can transfer loads into a cage like on a Geodesic Domes without a great deal of internal support.  We do this with oil tanks.  It's called a "tension ring Dome".  Our domes are incredibly strong and can support walkways and full platforms with nothing holding it up but the aluminum cage of the dome.  In this design the weight of the additional structure is taken through all the triangular supports and transferred to the tank walls to the ground.

If the Constitutions Engineering hull is sliced up into sections like a loaf of bread (shuttlebay, Cargobay, Reactor and Deflector) Then the Ring Ends (the cross section) each section would be the "ground" and a latice work could transfer the load from the pylons and the nacelles into the those rings and keep the structure rigid.

So what you described is possible as a structural failure but it would take half the Engineering hull with it.  (That means the Engineering Hull Section has take catastrophic damage.)

---
The Abramsprise does make heavy use of Super Large Cross Members but it's not a proper place to put a Shuttle bay.  It makes take off and landings far more adventurous (dangerous) because a pilot isn't safe simply in the middle of the bay but must also be concerned with his altitude because the structural members proceed all the way to the deck.  Frankly...I'm not sure what was the reasoning behind this.

[FarShot]

[Vortex]

Other times, they fly completely in the face of reality.  Transporters, inertial dampeners, structural integrity fields, swiss army deflectors...  "Some liberties" doesn't quite cover it.

I'll give you the dampers and integrity fields, but transporters are a real world thing, though granted they can only change atoms at the minute.

However, as far as I'm aware, Trek never delved into how the dampers or integrity fields worked, they're explanatory in name only. Doesn't mean it couldn't be done some day. And let's not forget about the artificial gravity. :p

Anyway;

Nice work an an ugly design, some elements are starting to appeal. Nice detailing on the impulse engines.

[moed]

Am I the only one here that doesn't think this design is ugly?

Very nice work BTW.

[007bashir]

neather do I. looks good so far. Cookie

[Vortex]

Am I the only one here that doesn't think this design is ugly?

Very nice work BTW.

Seeing it modeled properly rather than a ST:O model, I'm liking it better. Still don't like the pylons or nacelles, they break the rest of the form.

[FarShot]

A huge shout out (and a plate of cookies ) to Flarespire for providing a modder with all the reference materials he could ask for!  Thanks buddy!

[Shadowknight1]

Just remember, the Odyssey herself doesn't have any auxiliary ships on its backside.