RE: What do your ships look like? (was: Minatures)

Date sent:  25-JUL-1996 08:42:19 

>Speaking of scratch-building ships, I've been thinking about the
"looks" of
>ship design, ie -- why a ship looks the way it does.

>I thought it might make an interesting topic for discussion.

>Of course, a lot depends on what flavor of "techno-babble" you're
using. If
>your ships don't have artificial gravity, then there will probably be
some
>sort of rotating section, like the EA ships on B5;

I've never seen the sense in this. Why not simply rotate the whole damn
ship?
No pivots to worry about then.

>If whatever you're using
>for power generation produces deadly radiation, then you'll want to
seperate
>your engines from your maned areas, and so forth. 

>In most sci-fi, there seems to be two general "schools" of design. One
is the
>"saucer & boom" approach; examples include most Star Trek ships, as
well as
>many of CMD's New Anglian ships. This style looks cool, but I'm not
sure it
>makes sense in a warship; I always thought that those long booms made
very
>vulnerable targets. Some backgrounds say the reason for this is so the
crew
>compartments can survive if the engines are destroyed, although given
the
>amount of energy that would be released, this explanation seems rather
thin
>to me. 

See your own comment about deadly radiation. Also note how the NAC ships
have radiation shielding extending on the shipward side of the engine. I
think it has a nice 'feel' to it.

Simmilarly in ST, the warp nacels are supposed to be detrimental to your
health, though several designs and some episodes disagree with this.

>The other is the "box" style; the extreme example of this is of course
the
>Borg cube ship from Star Trek. Less-extreme examples are the Nostromo
from
>Aliens, and CMD's New Swabian ships (the ones I've seen, at any rate).
This
>style assumes that since no streamlining is required (assuming
atmospheric
>capability is not desired), then the more compact the better. This
would seem
>to give greater structural integrity, as well as making high-G turns
more
>bearable for the crew by keeping your mass closer to the center. 

Or Spheres so that the surface is at an even pressure.

The Lensman ships are teardrop shaped for maximum streamlining during
inertialess travel.

And then there are saucers, cigars and cylinders etc.

>Most ship designs seem to be some mix and variety of these two
philosophies.
>Like I said, I don't think there are any right or wrong answers; I'm
just
>curious to hear what you all think. Any thoughts?

+-------------------------------------+--------------------+
| Adam Delafield, I.T. Officer	      | Bolton Institute,  |
|				      | Eagle Tower,	   |
| E-mail : ad4@Bolton.ac.uk	      | College Way,	   |
| Phone  : +44 1204 528851 (ext 3163) | Bolton, UK.	   |
| Fax	 : +44 1204 399074	      | BL3 5AE.	   |
+-------------------------------------+--------------------+