Hello,
Does anyone else on this list read Sci-Fi and Fantasy Modelling? Their
usual subjects are a bit bigger than the ones used for SGII/DSII/FTII -
however - a few months ago, as part of a series on the FX of Space:
Above & Beyond - they posted blueprints and 'specs' of the USS Saratoga:
A quick summary follows (if you want more detail - see SF&F Modelling
#43 - or e-mail me)
Gross Mass: Light 646,269 tons, Fully loaded 890,755 tons Length: 525.6m Beam:
245.1m height: 185.4m hull depth: 77.4m superstructure height: 67.7m Lidar
tower depth: 40.2m
Armanent: Kinetic Particle Weapon 1.2 GW Laser pulse cannon 2x 450 MW laser
pulse cannon 6x 300 MW laser pulse cannon 4x 50 MW laser pulse cannon 30
Phalanx II missile launchers 72 torpedo launchers
Propulsion Helium 3 fusion engine 2 chemical rocket engines
Performance Max sublight.96c (????) Max accelleration 3.8g Endurance at max
vel. 7.0 years Sublight range 5.7 light years
Power: 2 MF-3600 fusion reactors
Crew: 1,176 officers, 4,800 enlisted
Air wing:
192x SA-43 hammerhead attack jets
16x AT-72 Stingray reconnassance planes
8x B-290 Barracuda fighter/bombers
4x SWAC spaceborne warning & control vehicles
12x ISSAPC armoured personnel carriers (aka ISSCV/ISSTV)
24x SSRT suborbital short range transports
Thats quite a lot of fighters!
Love the mag, though you can imagine it's a bit pricey on this side of the
pond. Nice to see what's available in new models that haven't reached these
shores, yet.
They mentioned several ships in the articles, but had really vague photos, if
at all, on the most interesting.
Did they ever finish the series on the Victorian Spaceship? I only saw 3 of 4.
If anybody knows the editor...
The_Beast
> A quick summary follows (if you want more detail - see SF&F Modelling
Do they have a web site where this might be available?
> At 06:52 PM 7/3/00 -0700, you wrote:
http://www.geocities.com/TelevisionCity/2760/exhibit.htm
has some nice blueprints and some not so nice screen shots. I don't know if
they are the same as in the issue of SF&F Modelling that Charles is talking
about.
> Ndege Diamond wrote:
Phooey. Does the Sarasota have artifical gravity?
If not, then these otherwise quite nice blueprints suffer from that tired old
flaw, the "wet navy deck layout" syndrome.
Specifically: "down" is the direction the rocket exhaust goes.
You see how the Sarasota's decks are laid out? It's like an aircraft carrier.
On a carrier, "down" is
> Ndege Diamond wrote:
Of course the Saratoga has artificial gravity. It was on TV. All
ships on TV have artificial gravity. ;-)
(Except for some Babylon 5 ones which manage to produce 1g gravity via
rotation regardless of the the rate of rotation or the length of
the arm....)
Okay, now I'm going to get given a list of TV ships without artificial
gravity...
In message <3961D73C.1280FA0C@clark.net>
> Nyrath the nearly wise <nyrath@clark.net> wrote:
[snip]
> Phooey. Does the Sarasota have artifical gravity?
Must do - good 'ol 'lets put the arti-grav at 90 degrees to the main
thrust vector' cinematic design :-)
There's no actual artificial gravity on the deck plans - but there is a
'zero G chamber' on deck 8!
> If not, then these otherwise quite nice blueprints suffer
Of course its a 'wet navy in spaaaceee' design - look at the gun
turrets!
> Specifically: "down" is the direction the rocket exhaust
They even include a pic of a wet-navy aircraft carrier for comparison
:-)
> At least as long as the carrier isn't imitating the
Hmm... given that it has a listed max accelleration of 3.8 g, that artificial
gravity must be pretty good!
In message <3961E802.3587.2A1753A3@localhost>
> "Steve Pugh" <steve@wickedweb.co.uk> wrote:
[snip]
> Of course the Saratoga has artificial gravity. It was on TV. All
Umm... well, there was that recent TV soap series about shuttle
astronauts - does that count :-)
> You see how the Sarasota's decks are laid out? It's
Actually, I found the 'plans' confusing and contradictory, as the
cross-sections appear to have 'down' towards the tail, while the plan
views, matching what I recall of how the pilots entered their planes, are 'wet
navy'.
However, while not the unreserved fan the owner of the site obviously is, and
in spite of having my comments about the weirdness of flyboys going
groppo pitched back in my face by my favorite character ;->= , I shall
still mourn a show that had way more promise than chance given, and showed way
more of that promise than acknowledged by most critics I heard at the time, or
by many shows of the period.
I know I'll be flying not-hammerheads out of not-Saratoga's with honor!
The_Beast
-Douglas J. Evans, curmudgeon
One World, one Web, one Program - Microsoft promotional ad
Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Fuhrer - Adolf Hitler
> Ndege Diamond wrote:
B5 did it reasonably well given that it was TV (ie: scientifically it was
better than nothing....) - the EA ships didn't have anything apart from
spin habitats until the White Star with its Minbari tech. One of the TV
movies (IIRC, "In the Beginning") has a couple of nice zero-G scenes on
the bridge of Sheridan's old Hyperion class. I don't THINK the Narn ships have
AG either, at least you always see the crew strapped in.....
2001/2010 got it pretty well, with the Discovery's carousel and the
Leonov's spin habitat. Offhand I can't think of any others that don't have
"implied" AG (excepting
factual stuff like Apollo 13 of course....) ;-)
> Ground Zero Games wrote:
> 2001/2010 got it pretty well, with the Discovery's carousel and the
If someone has a copy of 2010 please check this:
I think that there is an error. As the Leonov and Discovery hook-up for
the return boost, you see the rotating section stop. Then the American
commander (forgot his name) goes over to the Leonov, and they still have
'gravity'.
> >Of course the Saratoga has artificial gravity. It was on TV. All
Yeah, though those Earth ships (and B5 itself) would need 100%
frictionless bearings to have one rotating section and a non-rotating
hub. B4 with its two sections rotating in opposite directions is more
plausable.
> 2001/2010 got it pretty well, with the Discovery's carousel and the
The old BBC show Star Cops actually had zero-g in its early episodes
(when the cops were based on a space station rather than on the moon). That
was the only other one I thought of.
In message <v03130301b587e9d0e79e@[194.176.206.220]>
> Ground Zero Games <jon@gzg.com> wrote:
[snip]
> B5 did it reasonably well given that it was TV (ie: scientifically it
Hmm.. but then the Centauri ships appear to have their decks parallel to the
main engine thrust vector ("wet navy" style) (based on 'window
light' lines and scenes with Londo looking out the window) - but IIRC
JMS claimed they did _not_ have artificial gravity... Hmmm....
Narns OTOH fasten seatbelt before leaving orbit? - but their War
Cruisers appear to have a crew of 3 :-)
White Stars have WN decks - but have ArtiGrav - can probably land as
well.
> 2001/2010 got it pretty well, with the Discovery's carousel and the
However, the Discovery appears to have a 'dimensionaly transcendent'
interior - especially in 2010 :-) (theres this long corrior set leading
of the pod pay for instance - there have been a lot of attempt to fit
the interior sets for the discovery into the hull - anyone know if
anyone succeeded?).
Hmm.. I have sudden vision of spoof Star Trek UFP starfleet design where
the command saucer spins :-)
> Offhand I can't think of any others that don't have "implied" AG
> Charles Stanley Taylor wrote:
In message <3963BECF.F729B5DD@clark.net>
> Nyrath the nearly wise <nyrath@clark.net> wrote:
[snip]
> Yes. There is a nice diagram on page 106 of
I'm going to have to find that one, Thanks.
Of course - the fitting the inteior into the exterior problem is a
frequent problem with small space craft in TV/movies - especially older
series.
I _know_ there are good examples out there - but I cant remember any
just now - arrgh! :-(
Just though of 1 - Eagle Transporter from Space: 1999.
This isn't really relative to GZG stuff - unless you decide to build up
the interior of a FT spacecraft in 6mm/15mm/25mm and use DS2/SG2 to
fight boarding actions - I seem to remember someone did this once.
> Charles Stanley Taylor wrote:
G'day,
> Of course - the fitting the inteior into the exterior problem is a
The tardis....
...someone had to say it;);)
Cheers
Beth
Oh, did you mean Dr Who's Type 41 Time Pod?
(That is the actual name of it. TARDIS is the name given to it by the doc's
grand daughter.)
BTW, it is a ship within it's own universe...That way it can be arrainged any
way the doc wants it...:-)
> Oh, did you mean Dr Who's Type 41 Time Pod?
> grand daughter.)
Acronym for
Is that the first broadcast?
I saw them in the 70's-80's on public broadcast stations here in the
states.
I loved that show!
Donald Hosford
> aebrain@dynamite.com.au wrote:
> >Oh, did you mean Dr Who's Type 41 Time Pod?
> Oh, did you mean Dr Who's Type 41 Time Pod?
Type 40, not 41. Well, the Doctor's is a Type 40. No idea who this Dr Who
person is.
;-)
> (That is the actual name of it. TARDIS is the name given to it by the
Or so she claimed. As almost every other Timelord has used the word TARDIS one
has to wonder about Susan's role in Timelord history (see
'Lungbarrow'...)
In message <396517A8.8FA1B473@clark.net>
> Nyrath the nearly wise <nyrath@clark.net> wrote:
> Charles Stanley Taylor wrote:
Oh yes, of course - Sci-Fi & Fantasy Modelling did articles on it as
well - including a model kit that includes interior detail - different
scale on upper & lower decks :-)
> I'm not even going to mention the TARDIS.
Well, I decided that as that was intentional - it didn't count :-)
In message <3965E648.17716.39B095D9@localhost>
> "Steve Pugh" <steve@pugh.net> wrote:
> > Oh, did you mean Dr Who's Type 41 Time Pod?
Interestingly enough, the Doctor _is_ refered to as "Dr. Who" by the
W.O.T.A.N. super-computer in the "War Machines" series (William Hartnell
- the computer was based in the Post Office/British Telecomm tower :-)
One of my friends (who likes this sort of trick) liked to catch people
out with "Who was the first actor to play Dr. Who" questions - guess
he was wrong (maybe) :-)
[snip]
> Steve