Just noticed a little mislabeled sign above. *Fixed* So to redeem some and give a clearer look here are the "newer" deck plans for the bridge module decks 1 & 2.
Edit: updated those "newer" 5 year old plans


16: AirRecirculator
17: Electrohydraulic
18: CentriFractionator
19: WasteFluidStorage
20: WasteFluidStorage overflow
21: AirTank
22: sonic shower
23: emergency shower
24: replicator
25: engineering/fusion control station
26: explosive bolt
27: batteries
28: various control equipment, switchboard, safety switches
29: converters
30: self destruct package/device; ~5 t TNT equivalent


L: Airlock changing room
30: FluidStorage
31: ElectrostaticFilter
32: MagFractionator
33: OrganicReprocessing
34: ElecCeramSolidify
35: CentriFractionator
36: Electrohydraulic
37: WasteFluidStorage
38: WasteFluidStorage overflow
39: AirRecirculator
40: AirStorage
41: AirStorage overflow
42: engineering table
43: workstation
44: SRNPS (Shipboard Relative Navigation and Positioning System)
45: LAAS (Local Area Augmentation System)
46: Batteries
47: various control equipment, switchboard, safety switches
48: self destruct package/device; ~5 t TNT equivalent

I am stunned, I like it!

Thanks!
More of those to come when I ever get around to finish them (somewhat). It just takes too much time to clean, fix, rebuild, redraw the conversions not to mention each conversion has a different conversion scale. Even with tricks I can't get the same scale or get the scales to match 100%. I'm using excessive scaling to minimize the inaccuracies from the conversions and inherent svg accuracies itself. Still the mismatching is noticeable when I zoom in at 200%. Too much off for my taste.

Back to the Captain's yacht. At the time of ST:FC only the Galaxy/Nebula, Intrepid and Sovereign had a yacht attached so the Akira and co. where out of order as far as "new" ships are concerned. It was perhaps a sign of them being "cheap", too. But from what we know now about the idea behind the Akira I doubt that. Anyway, so I figure if it's not a dedicated shuttle then it has to be a regular one. And looking at the Akira (I used the ST Armada game cover from 2000) I noticed this gab behind the bridge that reminded me of a garage. That's how I came to put the type 6 shuttle on deck 2 which does happen to fit. I would have prefered one of those more fancy E-D shuttles but they were too large. And the newer E-E shuttle didn't appear yet until Insurrection.
Then the Drex files and some new rendered images were released showing some nice coincidences:
what llooks to be bay door behind the bridge

and staggered windows (on the 3D model only) coinciding with the stairs..


There are other things I have figured out as good as all fans don't know yet.

ver good arguments and indications for the captain's shuttle. thnx, almael

You are welcome.

When I started out the ship soon appeared crappily designed in details. Many of which are probably for the sake of esthetic than practical or sensible reasons. For example the little launch windows that hardly fit any shuttle other than the smallest types.
Or the little escape pods that barely fit maybe 4-5 people (IADC Lifeboat standard) where 8-12 would have been required.
So I had to create cross-sections to figure out how to get it done more reasonable. I couldn't fix everything, though.
I did get to solve the escape pod problem. I can squeeze in 8-10 people in a zero-G lying configuration shoulder-to-shoulder and face-to-face. Nobody would design it like that but it works. I still reserves some space for on better ones if they become available(canon).





now compare it with how the official design is supposed to be with Strategic Designs's version

- i know what you mean. for the TVshows things have to fit into the storyline and/or in the dramaticflow and so excact details aren't important most of the time. it's the fandom, which correct things often and try to bring them into a correct line. but in my experience this work often will be denigrated as not authentical or canon. good to see, that you use your intellect to think through the stuff. keep it up.

Awesome work on this, and yes, reality and the "how-it-should-be" differ extremely sometimes.

Thanx.
That's why I claim it as the author's own fantasy in the TM that's not even conforming with common fandom.
Btw. I should add the following disclaimer:

The escape pod can be entered and do fit 8-10 people. Use it at your own risk.
Small note: It was not specified on how the pod should be exited!

Back to the shuttle/fighter launcher size issue.
So at first I though it was something like "Ten Forward" after all it is on deck 10, too. Since the "windows" were kind of large it started out as a lavish establishment. The same goes for engineering. Geez, all that work went down the drain when I had to convert it to a carrier. Ten Forward was specific so I couldn't reuse it for any other project. Engineering got amputated, cramped and shunned to the lower decks. Likewise I had to cramp most of the flight crew contingency spaces down there, too. The only good thing is I can use the pylons for them, since I had considered those parts too dangerous for habitability.

Of course I couldn't leave the launchers be restricted to those old, small, and militarily useless shuttles. I went back to my non-Star Trek stuff to the long line of fighter designs and raised a new adjusted design. I also took the Valkyrie fighter from Star Trek: Invasion game into consideration, also from 2000. The Valkyrie fighter was sketchy then in terms of size but it definitely didn't fit either.


I simply called it federation fighter FX. It's part of Handbook 2 along with other advanced tech design.

Back then I wasn't that experienced and inadvertently introduced some bugs into the mesh that made it unusable in the later stages. I decided to use the latest program version 6 to fix it but unbeknown to me the program converted opened files automatically into the new format. As a happy new user I opened up a lot of project files to look at them and try things. So when the program for unknown reason stopped working and crashed (it's windows fault) I lost more than 200 files of the latest version or even all from dozens of projects. For some reason version 6 and 7.6 behave the same and crash. Older versions are fine but incompatible. And no converters can open those either. I would have to start from scratch if I wanted any back. It's impossible!

So fighter version 0.5 is what's left.
To cut the description from the handbook short ...
It's a transformable wave rider design with a complicated topology. Aerodynamic top, S-wave curvature on the bottom and extendable wings. Aside from phasers It uses drum magazines for micro torpedoes, hence, has a large load with a high rate of fire. The drum is a helical design (intentionally superficially reminiscing the huge system used for the weapons pod as described in the TM). The drums are replaced as a whole reducing reload time to a few seconds in an automated reload/refuel station. Refuel time is limited by safety rather than actual pumping time.

In case you are wondering, the fighter can of course carry some full sized torps under the belly. Up to 12 if arranged right.

Anyway, here's the deck 3 floor plan. It's one of the simpler maps, hence, progress was pretty far compared to the others. I have the feeling of missing something out from the TM, though. *shrugs* Anyway, I'll spare you the finer details.
The only real changes compared to the TM are the fully visible Jeffries tubes. In the TM maps they were only point marked by the EPS conduits. Some minor room/bulkhead reshaping. Only errata is that the "main deuterium access hatch" is one deck lower or further back.

(shorten glossary)
A: Deck 03 restricted access section (whole central area)
B: modular sensing element module bay
C: Transporter emitter array support systems
D: Sensor/Comm room;
E: Sensor cooling support systems
F: main deuterium cooling support systems (partial)
G: Fire suppression system
H: Maintenance; fine-element/energetic systems; sensors; production assembly & test; etc.
i: Shipboard Energetic System Evaluation Facility (SESEF)
J: Signal (Pre) Processing
K: Sensor Control Room
L: Energy support systems; conduit stores
M: Batteries
N: Cold stores; perishable food; medicine etc.
P: Propulsion support systems; conduit stores
1: central stairhouse
2: central turbolift shaft aft
3: central turbolift shaft fore
4: turbolift shafts to the bridge
5: upper escape pod section; escapepod shaft
6: deuterium purge vents
7: High-rate discharge tanks
8: Low-rate discharge tanks
9: Warp plasma conduit
10: emergency vent for excess heat; e.g. even if cooling system is inactive/ineffective venting can maintain cooling function temporary

Back to the old cross section research stuff.
I have always been of the opinion that a shuttle should be serviceable in the hangar. Especially when going on for years aboard a ship. If you consider: Aircrafts need about 30 hours of service for 1 hour of flight; helicopters need 50-60+ hours of service
Yeah, the Feds are good but some servicing can't be avoided.
Of course this impacts on the size requirement for the hangar so I made some to determine space optimizing options.

As you can see a Danube in full size needs 3 decks while most others need two decks.
The number of fighters is pretty much low and far below the minimum required for any carrier (see Appendix).
So I had been playing with the thought of hanging up some to increase the numbers.
The idea originate from the NAVY hanging aircraft parts on the ceiling in WWII
http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/OnlineL ... g17425.jpg
and from hanging ordnance/fuel tanks in the Vietnam war
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... mbnail.jpg
The maximum possible is when using a rail system to move them around and avoid obstructing work below.
It still can cause planning/moving problems due to the circular system the inner section being smaller in circumference, hence, becomes a bottleneck. Despite everything only 15 more is possible which means only 12 for a squadron.
I did consider it but then when accounting for support personnel etc. it becomes a much bigger problem.
I simply couldn't accept squeezing in more as I already consider the ship being overloaded. I dunno where to get the extra space so I dropped the idea. Though, in war time it's possible to leave the extra personnel in some cargo bay. She got plenty of that.
I have always had the Akira as a crisis/catastrophe handling ship rather than military. That's the basic design consideration I have.