Monarch Class WIP

[Hellsgate]

Bottom / Forward orthographic views? I like this one. MadeInJapan1988: May I please have your permission to feature the "Monarch" in (future) fan fiction ideas at "S.T.: New Worlds"?

[madeinjapan1988]

Originally Posted by Major Diarrhia

It's a great looking design, it really fits right into the post TNG era of ships. I really like the steeper angle of the saucer, since I've never been a fan of the skylight style of windows that the flatter hull produces, except at the edges, which are what we always saw in TNG. It also makes the ship look more robust and heavy. The double stack of the saucer is interesting and it looks like the saucer's shuttle bay will be notably large. The deflector has a nice rake and the lines of the engineering section are strong and attractive. The aft shuttlebay doors are steep but pleasing.

If this is really the successor to the Galaxy Class, then you should consider giving it a well thought out saucer separation ability. The Sovereign was made with this ability in mind but it was never executed properly because, I think, it was never made final. As such, the ship looks like it should have saucer separation but doesn't look like it could pull off in a way that makes sense. Also, if you could figure out how to incorporate a secondary hull flair, like the Enterprise-C and Galaxy Class, and make it look good, I would be impressed. I would also like to see the sensors go around the entire edge of the saucer and mid-line of the engineering section, such as on the Galaxy Class.

I think the nacelles and pylons don't fit the idea of it being a slip stream ship since even with a strong enough ability to make calculations, instabilities could still happen to the quantum slipstream conduit, causing damage to the ship, or even throwing the ship out of control. Problems like that are bound to happen since it's a very new technology to Starfleet. Better to make the ship more structurally robust just in case by moving the nacelles right up to the hull. You should also consider a new style of deflector, unless you already have, since it's the deflector that allows quantum slipstream travel and not the nacelles. I greatly dislike the phaser arrangement, it appears completely haphazard and weak, while the arrays themselves appear too thin. It also looks like it has about five more decks, they should be counted from the very bottom of the ship, not the bottom most line of windows.

Blackbird17: A Nimitz is 340 m long and 78 m wide, not 900 m long.

Alright, I need to disect this to respond properly.

First off, thank you for the detailed analysis. You took it apart and noted some important features that I agree make the ship unique. First, the warp nacelles. Yes I know they are large, yes I know they are somewhat far back, the intention beeing balance. The ship has a very wide saucer, and as such, very dense saucer. By creating the large warp nacelles, the ship has the aft mass necessary to do just what you suggested, balance the ship. Also, the large nacelles give the aft thrusters the torque on the ship's center of mass to turn the ship. As for the pylons, I feel they are where they need to be, though I will work the alternations and see how they feel.

For the saucer separation. It is well thought out. The saucer itself has a secondary axial warp core itself, and as time goes on (once college exams end and I can pick back up work) I will include the saucer separation view in which warp nacelles drop from under the saucer section to provide the saucer with warp capability.

As for the phaser array, I can agree they are to thin, but the arrangement was considered very deeply. My thoughts were I wanted to provide the ship with the maximum forward line of sight that it can possibly have without having them cut through the center of the name plate area. By having it a set on both dual layer saucers at the critical point in which the the curves are maximum (approx, lower on but but for purely aesthetic reasons) It gives the ship a maximum line of fire across the saucer hull, as for the aft saucer banks, they are placed at wide points to provide the ship the ship with a line of sight in between it's nacelles as well as around them. For the engineering phaser banks, they are placed at apposing ends of the under curvature of the engineering section to provide both ventral line of sight as well as forward and aft line of sights on the lower portions of the ship. I will note that some of the banks are too close to windows and such, but that can be fixed.

As for the deck number, in my design of the Monarch I considered very heartily the fact that on a ship, realistically, not every deck is the same size. It is foolish in star trek (in my opinion) to think of decks as the same size, sandwiched one on-top of another to form a ship. in my design I intentionally made specific decks on the engineering section (and one on the saucer for reasons which will be revealed in my technical briefing I am preparing) to be larger than the standard 4m assumption. These decks serve as cargo areas and other purposes that couldn't be handled by a simple hallway, crawl space space deck sandwich.

I hope this clears up some of your problems. Feel free to send me more critique which I will gladly consider and offer a rebuttal to should I have one.

Originally Posted by Hellsgate

Bottom / Forward orthographic views? I like this one. MadeInJapan1988: May I please have your permission to feature the "Monarch" in (future) fan fiction ideas at "S.T.: New Worlds"?

Of course, I actually have the 12 ships that the federation built already lined up. If you would like, send me a message and I will transfer you the names and registries (the full thing will be out to everyone soon when I give the detailed report) Please just give me some credit!

ALSO- MORE VIEWS ARE COMING. Exams have just bogged me down and will for about 3 more weeks. Once I am through that I will be able to pick back up the pace. Both the top and front views have been started. I have considered a bottom view yet. I don't know if they ever really serve the purpose I want them to serve. As for an aft view. That will come in time as well. Right now I just want to get done what I can get done.

[Major Diarrhia]

Originally Posted by madeinjapan1988

Alright, I need to disect this to respond properly.

First off, thank you for the detailed analysis. You took it apart and noted some important features that I agree make the ship unique. First, the warp nacelles. Yes I know they are large, yes I know they are somewhat far back, the intention beeing balance. The ship has a very wide saucer, and as such, very dense saucer. By creating the large warp nacelles, the ship has the aft mass necessary to do just what you suggested, balance the ship. Also, the large nacelles give the aft thrusters the torque on the ship's center of mass to turn the ship. As for the pylons, I feel they are where they need to be, though I will work the alternations and see how they feel.

For the saucer separation. It is well thought out. The saucer itself has a secondary axial warp core itself, and as time goes on (once college exams end and I can pick back up work) I will include the saucer separation view in which warp nacelles drop from under the saucer section to provide the saucer with warp capability.

As for the phaser array, I can agree they are to thin, but the arrangement was considered very deeply. My thoughts were I wanted to provide the ship with the maximum forward line of sight that it can possibly have without having them cut through the center of the name plate area. By having it a set on both dual layer saucers at the critical point in which the the curves are maximum (approx, lower on but but for purely aesthetic reasons) It gives the ship a maximum line of fire across the saucer hull, as for the aft saucer banks, they are placed at wide points to provide the ship the ship with a line of sight in between it's nacelles as well as around them. For the engineering phaser banks, they are placed at apposing ends of the under curvature of the engineering section to provide both ventral line of sight as well as forward and aft line of sights on the lower portions of the ship. I will note that some of the banks are too close to windows and such, but that can be fixed.

As for the deck number, in my design of the Monarch I considered very heartily the fact that on a ship, realistically, not every deck is the same size. It is foolish in star trek (in my opinion) to think of decks as the same size, sandwiched one on-top of another to form a ship. in my design I intentionally made specific decks on the engineering section (and one on the saucer for reasons which will be revealed in my technical briefing I am preparing) to be larger than the standard 4m assumption. These decks serve as cargo areas and other purposes that couldn't be handled by a simple hallway, crawl space space deck sandwich.

I hope this clears up some of your problems. Feel free to send me more critique which I will gladly consider and offer a rebuttal to should I have one.

Thanks you for your response.

I was a little unclear in a couple of points. I was specifically referring to the Sovereign having a badly thought out saucer separation method. I'm glad to read you did give it full consideration. Personally, I'm not a fan of mechanical parts on starships, issues of wear and unTrekness. I even find the Intrepid and Delta Flier's moving nacelles to be out of character for the show. I think it would be worthwhile to have the secondary impulse engines exposed and running with the main impulse engines, for additional power and to show off the fact that saucer separation is a capability. Are you going to have the outer edge of the saucer break off like a giant U shaped ship?

Actually, I like the nacelles greatly in their size and design, they look good and do balance the ship. I'm only concerned with their placement from a in-show technical perspective, considering the placement of the nacelles on the "Dauntless NX-01-A", in how it has the nacelles against the hull. I once made a kitbash of the nacelles of the Sovereign widways and put them on very short pylons that stick out perpendicular to the vertical, it actually looked good.

I like the saucer having a slipstream drive, does that mean it will also have a sizable deflector of its own?

I actually like the two ventral arrays. Creating a break for the name really does strike me as having mixed priorities, with function following form. This is art, so I understand choosing form first but I'm a fan of an in-universe perspective for such things. My concern is more of firepower, I can't help thinking that a broken array limits the amount of firepower that can be brought to bare. We actually see Voyager fire from both main top arrays at once to a single target and it leaves me thinking, what if that same ship were to starboard, or port, too high for the lower array, but too low for the opposite top array? So, all I'm left seeing is a handicap. It took me a long time, I don't know why, but I figured out why the Galaxy Class has its phaser arrays the way it does, it's because it can saucer separate. With the saucer arrays it can fire in almost every single direction, but with the saucer gone, all those little arrays suddenly become necessary for the battle section.

If you place the saucer strips well enough, the only blind spot will be the nacelles and that's easily fixed by putting a few arrays on the trailing underside of the pylons. If you don't have the nacelles on pylons, then you don't need them. Even the belly won't be a blind spot because the ventral arrays of the saucer will be so far out to the sides that the blind spot will be only about 30 meters, less if the ship is as wide as I think. But you may not want a ship smaller than 30 meters sneaking into there when you have your shields in a hull hugging configuration and when the saucer is gone you may need that belly array, or two as you have it. Okay, I'm rambling.

I tried what I was thinking with an unbroken array. My first reaction is that it doesn't look as good but then it quickly grew on me just because of a rightness.
http://img236.imageshack.us/img236/803/saucerod2.jpg

All of this is really just personal preference. Also, I would love to see other views of the ship, as well as the separated version you will do.

[madeinjapan1988]

Originally Posted by Major Diarrhia

Thanks you for your response.

I was a little unclear in a couple of points. I was specifically referring to the Sovereign having a badly thought out saucer separation method. I'm glad to read you did give it full consideration. Personally, I'm not a fan of mechanical parts on starships, issues of wear and unTrekness. I even find the Intrepid and Delta Flier's moving nacelles to be out of character for the show. I think it would be worthwhile to have the secondary impulse engines exposed and running with the main impulse engines, for additional power and to show off the fact that saucer separation is a capability. Are you going to have the outer edge of the saucer break off like a giant U shaped ship?

Actually, I like the nacelles greatly in their size and design, they look good and do balance the ship. I'm only concerned with their placement from a in-show technical perspective, considering the placement of the nacelles on the "Dauntless NX-01-A", in how it has the nacelles against the hull. I once made a kitbash of the nacelles of the Sovereign widways and put them on very short pylons that stick out perpendicular to the vertical, it actually looked good.

I like the saucer having a slipstream drive, does that mean it will also have a sizable deflector of its own?

I actually like the two ventral arrays. Creating a break for the name really does strike me as having mixed priorities, with function following form. This is art, so I understand choosing form first but I'm a fan of an in-universe perspective for such things. My concern is more of firepower, I can't help thinking that a broken array limits the amount of firepower that can be brought to bare. We actually see Voyager fire from both main top arrays at once to a single target and it leaves me thinking, what if that same ship were to starboard, or port, too high for the lower array, but too low for the opposite top array? So, all I'm left seeing is a handicap. It took me a long time, I don't know why, but I figured out why the Galaxy Class has its phaser arrays the way it does, it's because it can saucer separate. With the saucer arrays it can fire in almost every single direction, but with the saucer gone, all those little arrays suddenly become necessary for the battle section.

If you place the saucer strips well enough, the only blind spot will be the nacelles and that's easily fixed by putting a few arrays on the trailing underside of the pylons. If you don't have the nacelles on pylons, then you don't need them. Even the belly won't be a blind spot because the ventral arrays of the saucer will be so far out to the sides that the blind spot will be only about 30 meters, less if the ship is as wide as I think. But you may not want a ship smaller than 30 meters sneaking into there when you have your shields in a hull hugging configuration and when the saucer is gone you may need that belly array, or two as you have it. Okay, I'm rambling.

I tried what I was thinking with an unbroken array. My first reaction is that it doesn't look as good but then it quickly grew on me just because of a rightness.
http://img236.imageshack.us/img236/803/saucerod2.jpg

All of this is really just personal preference. Also, I would love to see other views of the ship, as well as the separated version you will do.

What you have to consider with mechanical parts in the future is the fact that materials engineering will have advanced significantly by that time. What we call wear and tell would probably be a version of horrendous failure in their book a a mechanical part operating a peak performance would probably outlast the people serving aboard the ship. As such, the drop down nacelles allow the saucer to stow her nacelles and stream-line the hull while creating a stable configuration (essentially similar to the Miranda and the Nebula) when they are deployed.

As of note, I guess I miss-worded something but the saucer section does not have slipstream drive. In the Simulation for which this ship is being designed, me and my creative writing team decided that having a ship with the ability to travel instantaneously (for all practical purposes) anywhere, would be a bit too, god-like. As such, we decided that the slipstream drive (which fuel consumption was never addressed in the show so our explanation is plausible) uses huge amounts of energy to form the narrow warp-field (thought maintaining it causes the power to level off to a about average-warp consumption). As such, a ship will use up to 25% of its matter/anti-matter reserves initiating and engaging in a slipstream journey from the Milky Way to Andromeda (the physics behind this would be similar to why accelerating to a very high velocity very fast requires a large amount of energy as the vehicle overcomes large forces acting on it but maintaining that velocity is much easier a task - which, though a crude translation and not nearly an in-depth analysis of quantum/sub-space physics, provides a general and plausible explanation for why the ships do not use slipstream all the time)

As for the phaser array, the break that you and I are talking about are two different breaks I think. According to the fix you made, you believe in linking the two lower saucer-portion arrays rather than having them separate. I might lengthen the forward one but I believe a total wrap around phaser is a bit too galaxy then I am going for, though lengthening both and creating a wider phaser angle is much more logical and I will agree with you on that.

As for the nacelle placement, there closeness to the hull or has nothing to do with the tension they will be put under. First of all, warp nacelles create a warp field and maintain said field in order to encompass the ship while traveling at high velocities. Similarly, slipstream uses a focused warp field ahead of the ship to bend the space time continuum in order to circumnavigate traditional newtonian physics as well as sub-space physics by riding inbetween the "waves" of space time it creates. As such, it too requires a strong warp field to protect the ship from the forces it would encounter in the act of benign space time. As such, the nacelles placement is purely to provide a wide enough dispersion of the warp field (when traveling at traditional warp) to encompass every portion of the ship. In slipstream, the warp field again protects and encompasses the ship, meaning forces on the nacelles would be negated and their placement non-important. In your consideration of the Dauntless' configuration, it is important to remember that it was, in fact, an alien starship and its configuration, though strikingly similar to Starfleet's, was never proven to be derived from an actual Starfleet design. Voyager, who had the wider nacelle configuration than the dauntless (though, granted, not by much) was able to enter slipstream drive without extreme pressures added to the hull.

Hope this explains the considerations I have put into this ship as well as show the engineering thoughts I have put into it.

A fully technical file outlining the ships systems and such should be up sometime in early may along with the other views. (sorry this is the end of Semester so updates are slow)

Thank you for your interest.

-Josh

P.S.: Here is a link the the bridge layout. Enjoy:
Monarch Class Bridge Layout by ~madeinjapan1988 on deviantART

[PokemonFleet]

I bet someone would saw your website and info and contact you that they want to turn Star Trek: Andromeda RPG into a fanfic series and later on they(or you) will pitch the idea to CBS Paramount TV. What do you think?

[blackbird17]

Originally Posted by PokemonFleet

I bet someone would saw your website and info and contact you that they want to turn Star Trek: Andromeda RPG into a fanfic series and later on they(or you) will pitch the idea to CBS Paramount TV. What do you think?

Oh Brother!!!!

[blackbird17]

Originally Posted by madeinjapan1988

What you have to consider with mechanical parts in the future is the fact that materials engineering will have advanced significantly by that time. What we call wear and tell would probably be a version of horrendous failure in their book a a mechanical part operating a peak performance would probably outlast the people serving aboard the ship. As such, the drop down nacelles allow the saucer to stow her nacelles and stream-line the hull while creating a stable configuration (essentially similar to the Miranda and the Nebula) when they are deployed.

As of note, I guess I miss-worded something but the saucer section does not have slipstream drive. In the Simulation for which this ship is being designed, me and my creative writing team decided that having a ship with the ability to travel instantaneously (for all practical purposes) anywhere, would be a bit too, god-like. As such, we decided that the slipstream drive (which fuel consumption was never addressed in the show so our explanation is plausible) uses huge amounts of energy to form the narrow warp-field (thought maintaining it causes the power to level off to a about average-warp consumption). As such, a ship will use up to 25% of its matter/anti-matter reserves initiating and engaging in a slipstream journey from the Milky Way to Andromeda (the physics behind this would be similar to why accelerating to a very high velocity very fast requires a large amount of energy as the vehicle overcomes large forces acting on it but maintaining that velocity is much easier a task - which, though a crude translation and not nearly an in-depth analysis of quantum/sub-space physics, provides a general and plausible explanation for why the ships do not use slipstream all the time)

As for the phaser array, the break that you and I are talking about are two different breaks I think. According to the fix you made, you believe in linking the two lower saucer-portion arrays rather than having them separate. I might lengthen the forward one but I believe a total wrap around phaser is a bit too galaxy then I am going for, though lengthening both and creating a wider phaser angle is much more logical and I will agree with you on that.

As for the nacelle placement, there closeness to the hull or has nothing to do with the tension they will be put under. First of all, warp nacelles create a warp field and maintain said field in order to encompass the ship while traveling at high velocities. Similarly, slipstream uses a focused warp field ahead of the ship to bend the space time continuum in order to circumnavigate traditional newtonian physics as well as sub-space physics by riding inbetween the "waves" of space time it creates. As such, it too requires a strong warp field to protect the ship from the forces it would encounter in the act of benign space time. As such, the nacelles placement is purely to provide a wide enough dispersion of the warp field (when traveling at traditional warp) to encompass every portion of the ship. In slipstream, the warp field again protects and encompasses the ship, meaning forces on the nacelles would be negated and their placement non-important. In your consideration of the Dauntless' configuration, it is important to remember that it was, in fact, an alien starship and its configuration, though strikingly similar to Starfleet's, was never proven to be derived from an actual Starfleet design. Voyager, who had the wider nacelle configuration than the dauntless (though, granted, not by much) was able to enter slipstream drive without extreme pressures added to the hull.

Hope this explains the considerations I have put into this ship as well as show the engineering thoughts I have put into it.

A fully technical file outlining the ships systems and such should be up sometime in early may along with the other views. (sorry this is the end of Semester so updates are slow)

Thank you for your interest.

-Josh

P.S.: Here is a link the the bridge layout. Enjoy:
Monarch Class Bridge Layout by ~madeinjapan1988 on deviantART

Makes sense to me! Keep up the good work on the Monarch.

[Major Diarrhia]

Just so you know, I lose control when it comes to Star Trek, it's nothing personal, I just love Trek tech talk.

Originally Posted by madeinjapan1988

snip

Nacelles? Actually I find that worse than impulse engines. Don't mind me. I don't buy the mechanical perfection of the future argument, if it moves it will wear and need maintenance.

snap

Based on what I remember, I don't think a quantum slipstream drive would allow you to get to Andromeda in anything less than 25 years. I've forgotten the fastest observed speed of the QS drive but what I remember is this, it has burst speeds far higher than its cruise speeds but probably can't handle those burst speeds long enough to go further than it can at lower speeds considering that it was stated to take a month to travel from the Federation to Voyager's position.

Instead of making the QS drive far faster than seen, it would have been reasonable to make the Trill artificial wormhole research successful. That would allow the ship to get to Andromeda without being able to go everywhere instantly with the simple explanation that the wormhole exit point can be controlled with only so much accuracy, perhaps an error rate of +/- ~10,000 ly radius sphere? In the same vain, design the ship to use cryogenics for the intergalactic leg of the trip. That would make for a great tone for the story, since if the ship has a five year mission, and if it takes them 25 years to get to Andromeda, then it will be over 55 years before they return to the Federation.

Final option, which I believe is the best writing, if QS is what you've chosen and you made it capable of intergalactic travel, then just go with it. Stargate had the Asgard who could travel between galaxies in just a couple minutes and zip around anywhere inside galaxies in five seconds. Humans can travel between galaxies in about two weeks with their normal power sources and can get anywhere in a galaxy in under a day. It just makes things different, it doesn't break the stories, it's just part of it.

cleave

It's concentration of firepower rather than firing angle. Coverage wise, your setup is fine, phaser arrays can fire perpendicularity to their vertical axis so you actually have quite some overlap, not that that is in the least bad. Overlap is good for combat redundancy.

Decapitation!

I base what I say on the hull stress Voyager experienced all over its hull during QS transit and that despite a hull form extremely similar to Starfleet ships the Dauntless didn't use pylons. It brings up the question, why not extend the nacelles outward when most races do so, especially since the ship has distinct nacelles? I'm left with that hull stress Voyager experienced being the answer. Pylons are an inherent structural weak point because of how thin and extended they are, materials and the structural integrity field is normally more than enough to compensate for that weakness but it doesn't seem to protect the ship in the QS conduit, so why would it be different for the pylons.

But you have a look that works already, I understand not wanting to change it.

Defenestration!

I look forward to that, I guess it could be called a tech manual. Take all the time you need, I'll still be looking forward to it.

I think that's a great bridge layout, it takes the better elements of bridges we've seen in the series. I like that tactical has three spots and that they're all looking forward. I like science and engineering have their own sections with at least one seat each facing forward.

From back to front; I wish the science and engineer sections were forward enough that the captain can talk to the section heads without turning his head more than 90 degrees in either direction. The captain would also be able to see what they're doing. It would be nice if tactical could be forward to but I think it's good that tactical is always eyes forward and doesn't have to take his eyes off the controls when the captain talks. For that same reason, having science and engineering where they are is fine as long as the captain restrains himself from having to look at who he speaks to.

I think tactical doesn't have enough interface real estate, it looks good but it also looks limited with that cutout style. It would be cool if the center console had arms coming off it to either side and angled slightly inward for the head of tactical to have extra interface space. On the other side of each arm could be interface angled to the other two guys so they at least have one arm for extra space. On the other hand it might be a broken back waiting to happen.

I would leave the seat left of the captain's seat unlabeled. It might as well be called the chief surgeon's seat since Kirk would have had Bones there. Having the counselor on the bridge was just a thing Picard did, it shouldn't be considered standard, anymore than having the chief science officer being the first officer is normal normal. It's probably better called a courtesy seat, since it's probably meant for diplomats and other muckety mucks and poobahs.

Last, I wouldn't put the XO's office on the bridge. It's his job to deal with the crew so the captain doesn't have to. If it's on the bridge, then everyone has to go through the bridge to reach him and that messes with the captain's domain. If you were to make the bridge deck a full deck and have the offices behind the bridge, that would be different, in fact I think that's how it's done in real life.

Lastly, there is a lot of room that could be used for more consoles, although I don't know if that is actually desirable. So, in that regard I think the bridge is fine.

[madeinjapan1988]

Originally Posted by Major Diarrhia

Just so you know, I lose control when it comes to Star Trek, it's nothing personal, I just love Trek tech talk.

Nacelles? Actually I find that worse than impulse engines. Don't mind me. I don't buy the mechanical perfection of the future argument, if it moves it will wear and need maintenance.

Based on what I remember, I don't think a quantum slipstream drive would allow you to get to Andromeda in anything less than 25 years. I've forgotten the fastest observed speed of the QS drive but what I remember is this, it has burst speeds far higher than its cruise speeds but probably can't handle those burst speeds long enough to go further than it can at lower speeds considering that it was stated to take a month to travel from the Federation to Voyager's position.

Instead of making the QS drive far faster than seen, it would have been reasonable to make the Trill artificial wormhole research successful. That would allow the ship to get to Andromeda without being able to go everywhere instantly with the simple explanation that the wormhole exit point can be controlled with only so much accuracy, perhaps an error rate of +/- ~10,000 ly radius sphere? In the same vain, design the ship to use cryogenics for the intergalactic leg of the trip. That would make for a great tone for the story, since if the ship has a five year mission, and if it takes them 25 years to get to Andromeda, then it will be over 55 years before they return to the Federation.

Final option, which I believe is the best writing, if QS is what you've chosen and you made it capable of intergalactic travel, then just go with it. Stargate had the Asgard who could travel between galaxies in just a couple minutes and zip around anywhere inside galaxies in five seconds. Humans can travel between galaxies in about two weeks with their normal power sources and can get anywhere in a galaxy in under a day. It just makes things different, it doesn't break the stories, it's just part of it.

It's concentration of firepower rather than firing angle. Coverage wise, your setup is fine, phaser arrays can fire perpendicularity to their vertical axis so you actually have quite some overlap, not that that is in the least bad. Overlap is good for combat redundancy.

I base what I say on the hull stress Voyager experienced all over its hull during QS transit and that despite a hull form extremely similar to Starfleet ships the Dauntless didn't use pylons. It brings up the question, why not extend the nacelles outward when most races do so, especially since the ship has distinct nacelles? I'm left with that hull stress Voyager experienced being the answer. Pylons are an inherent structural weak point because of how thin and extended they are, materials and the structural integrity field is normally more than enough to compensate for that weakness but it doesn't seem to protect the ship in the QS conduit, so why would it be different for the pylons.

But you have a look that works already, I understand not wanting to change it.

I look forward to that, I guess it could be called a tech manual. Take all the time you need, I'll still be looking forward to it.

I think that's a great bridge layout, it takes the better elements of bridges we've seen in the series. I like that tactical has three spots and that they're all looking forward. I like science and engineering have their own sections with at least one seat each facing forward.

From back to front; I wish the science and engineer sections were forward enough that the captain can talk to the section heads without turning his head more than 90 degrees in either direction. The captain would also be able to see what they're doing. It would be nice if tactical could be forward to but I think it's good that tactical is always eyes forward and doesn't have to take his eyes off the controls when the captain talks. For that same reason, having science and engineering where they are is fine as long as the captain restrains himself from having to look at who he speaks to.

I think tactical doesn't have enough interface real estate, it looks good but it also looks limited with that cutout style. It would be cool if the center console had arms coming off it to either side and angled slightly inward for the head of tactical to have extra interface space. On the other side of each arm could be interface angled to the other two guys so they at least have one arm for extra space. On the other hand it might be a broken back waiting to happen.

I would leave the seat left of the captain's seat unlabeled. It might as well be called the chief surgeon's seat since Kirk would have had Bones there. Having the counselor on the bridge was just a thing Picard did, it shouldn't be considered standard, anymore than having the chief science officer being the first officer is normal normal. It's probably better called a courtesy seat, since it's probably meant for diplomats and other muckety mucks and poobahs.

Last, I wouldn't put the XO's office on the bridge. It's his job to deal with the crew so the captain doesn't have to. If it's on the bridge, then everyone has to go through the bridge to reach him and that messes with the captain's domain. If you were to make the bridge deck a full deck and have the offices behind the bridge, that would be different, in fact I think that's how it's done in real life.

Lastly, there is a lot of room that could be used for more consoles, although I don't know if that is actually desirable. So, in that regard I think the bridge is fine.

I would like to see where you are getting your quantum slipstream information from because I do not recall anything concerning burst speeds and such. My information comes from Memory Alpha which states voyager travelled 10,000 light-years in minutes. Assuming five-ten minutes for the travel time, that extrapolates into 2 days for the travel. Also, the physics behind my assumptions concerning the intense energy required to create a stable quantum slipstream field are not outside the realm of plausibility. The pure fact is that there is NOT enough information on the slipstream drive to create a set of canon rules for it. As such, invention and creativity lead me and the Andromeda writing team to this conclusion. Mind you, it is not outside the realm of possibility.

As for the hull stresses that Voyager was under, that was due to their initial, very primitive design and after the discovery of the benamite crystals, the more advanced quantum slipstream drive they built did not have half the limitations of the original and provided a stable method of transportation had voyager been able to keep up with the quantum calculations. (which will be handled on the monarch by her advanced computer core that is completely bio-neural based).

Mind you, there is a lot of discrepancy when it comes to slipstream, 15 lightyears in five minutes or 10,000 in 10 min is a big difference. Pure and simple, and for the sake of the sim, I am going with the later number as it was the last real show of slipstream we saw. (not to mention starfleet engineers would probably have the potential to find a way to maintain such velocities, however again providing a reason to the extraneous fuel/material costs of such a sustained high speed/long distance journey)

As for the position of the XO's office, it is important to remember that the reason this was done is because this ship is, from the ground up, designed to serve not only as an explorer but as a fleet command ship during combat (hence the multiple tactical positions) As such, the Admiral and captain's (or in absence of an admiral, captain and co's) ready rooms are both located on the bridge, as the Captain will oversee ship duties and the Admiral will oversee fleet duties. As such, both men need to have quick access to the bridge, I have and continue to consider doing a drop down "foyer" behind the bridge from where the offices, head and conference room as well as extra trubo-lifts will be accessible.

As for the nacelle argument, I don't agree with that as much as you don't agree with wear and tear. Hull stress is inherently a contradiction to warp fields as warp fields are designed to encompass and protect the ship from the stressed outside the field. That fact has been something that has bothered me about trek tech since day 1 but I will deal with it.

As for material stress, I see your problem with it and there will be wear and tear, my point is that the material will be advanced to a point that the wear and tear will take so long that the joint and its components will out live the ship's occupants, that has nothing to do with fantasy, it is a trend we are seeing in today's science and a fact that would be foolish to think would not continue in the future.

As for the longevity of your answers/replies, I quite enjoy them. The chance to discuss some of the more technical aspects of the ship (to which I have devoted a large portion of the design to (trust me, no component of the monarch serves a completely aesthetic purpose and every portion has its duty in the design) is a great opportunity and enjoyable as well.

-Josh

[madeinjapan1988]

One more thing. Since I haven't updated or finished anything, i figured I would attach what I have completed for the front view. Hope you all enjoy it, criticisms begin!

-Josh