star trek uss reliant

arkon

arkon

Member
Aug 22, 2011
186
1
16
texas
can no remember where i got this one(i am sure someone here will know).
i do not care much for star treck but i really like the shape of this ship, and just wanted to do something different for me.

and here it is
013-1.jpg


012-1.jpg


one thing about the model i dont like is that the pylons(?) between the engine to dome are real thin. just looks like to me that the engines would take off and leave the ship there! but oh well. overall i am very pleased with it!
 
That may be that the designer did not make them thick enough. I have a diecast model of that ship )I got it for my son, so he thinks it's his), and they are thick. The basis for the ships movement through space has to do with an energy field holding the ship together, that with inertia dampening, is how they justify it. On the original Enterprise model, they barely hold together in any medium (engines to pylons), I can't imagine that ship doing anything! I don't think ships would look anything like this, but it is fun, and the model looks great!! :)




.
 
Anything you could never want to know about "warp" drive. Warp Engines

Essentially the nacelles don't "drive" the ship, so there is no requirement for super strength supports to push several thousand tonnes of starship through the aether. All that is required under starfleet regulations is that the warp drives are kept separate from the crew - a ruling which does not apply to other races.

What happens (over simplified) is that space is warped, a bubble of real space is formed around the ship and it's overall mass is reduced (by some magic) and the thing then "falls" through space, as space is warped around the bubble from front to back. Much like a caterpillar drive I guess.

I shall now go and stand in a corner and hang my head in shame. Not being a trekky at all, I seem to have picked up rather a lot of strange notions by some mysterious form of osmosis.
 
Feels horrible doesn't it! I was referring to the different mass within the "warp bubble", that would require that the hull be held together with more than it's material strength. Good thing is that I can't remember the term they used!

I still watch Star Trek, irregularly, and laugh much. It is amazing how the "Next Generation" seems to have aged more the the original series has, IMHO (always have to add that). Though the shoe polish Klingons were are unbearable. :)
 
I always had to laugh at Worf's Page Boy haircut on TNG, until they gave him a pony tail reminiscent of a Native American brave.
 
Can't say I paid too much attention to Next Gen. It's premise struck me as somewhat ridiculous. "To boldly go where we've been several times before".. with the galaxy's most powerful starship nothing more than a glorified taxi cab.

The one thing that irritated the crap out of me with NextGen, and convinced me not to watch it was the utterly ludicrous "Suggestions?" from Pecktard. It seemed that no matter the threat, he always made time for a nice democratic discussion rather than taking command. It still makes me grind my teeth now and I didn't make it to the end of season one... yet there were how many? 5? 7? *sigh*

Ah well, at least there was the hysterically entertaining "Voyager" as compensation. That was almost as good as watching re-runs of Blackadder.

All in my never humble opinion of course. :)

---

All of which rather detracts from a fine build of the Reliant, and I apologise for that. I hadn't intended to get on my soap box regarding Trekisms, I just sort of tripped over and fell on it. Sorry.

To be fair though, I thoroughly enjoyed the "new" Trek movie, although I'm aware of way too many rabid fans who are frothing at the mouth about that one. I confess to actually being excited when I found that UHU had made a paper model of the re-envisioned 1701. I apologise in advance to all those who despise the latest movie, it's one of my favourites - that and the Wrath of Khan.

So, thanks Arkon for posting photos of your build, it does look rather nice - although personally I'd be very tempted to try and re-work the nacelles as they look to be a tad square.
 
I was thinking more of the "Morton Salt" girl! Having him bark and snarl like a dog was a bit degrading, and rather silly. Actually, according to Trek canon, I don't see how the "Klingons" could have ever invented the wheel if their society was to be believed as presented. In some ways, it is like watching "Fox News", and quite a few other what pass as sources of information.

Of course, being born in the late 1950's means that it has taken a lifetime to wipe away the warped reality I was taught, so that his given me very little time to learn what's going on, (though I realize any knowledge gained will always be subjective). I do laugh inside, sometimes out, when I meet other people who think they are not in the same situation. :)
 
When a thread generates this much interest, and generates topics relate to the models subject, it isn't off topic. Expanded topic, yes, but not off. I'm the one who makes that call.


The Reliant, to me always made the most logical shape. As I wrote earlier, the nacelle attachments are beefy on the really expensive diecast I purchased my son. It be worth reworking to obtain the same effect.

There is an earlier version, in an episode where Kelsey Grammer was the captain and the class ship had a turret with a barrel mounted on top of the bridge that connects the two nacelles. It was called the "Bozeman" and was a "Soyuz Class, but the similarities are undeniable. (not ultimately, but in the sense of the expression)

Soyuz.gif
 
Psyscape said:
Anything you could never want to know about "warp" drive. Warp Engines
Click to expand...

Also, everything you never wanted to know about *real life* warp drive concepts:

The Alcubierre Drive

In theory, this engine wouldn't need an infinite amount of energy to go faster than light. Unfortunately, the amount that it would theoretically need exceeds the estimated mass of the universe by a factor of seven. :wink:

But hey, at least we know that warp flight is possible. Just that we need a universe or two to shove into the reactor. sign1
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom