new starships

Hey-Howdy-Hey!!!  It has been a long time since there has been some new Starship variations posted here so today here are the latest concepts in the works.  These were early ideas for the Perpetual ST on line game, I drew up these roughs as an application for the job and they haven’t seen the light of day since.  I came across these old files yesterday and letter “B” struck my interest and am on the way to develop her further.  This was one that started the open saucer idea, but in this case, it keeps the ship aesthetically in tact while a completely independent ship makes for the saucer separation sequence!!!  Keep your eyes open for further developments on this one!!!  Needs a good name to!!!!!! love to hear your thoughts on what to call her!

A n B

80 Responses to “new starships”

  1. April 15, 2010 at 7:52 am

    Since I haven’t had breakfast yet, I’ll propose this vessel be named the USS Hansen Gregory, who claimed to have invented the ring-shaped doughnut aboard a ship in 1847 when he was 16.

  2. 2 johneaves
    April 15, 2010 at 7:56 am

    Haaaaaa thats an awesome story!!!

  3. 3 deg
    April 15, 2010 at 8:17 am

    * Worf voice *

    Good ship. Nice hole.

    peace | deg

  4. 5 cireskul
    April 15, 2010 at 8:28 am

    Cool. More please.

  5. 7 Lee
    April 15, 2010 at 8:48 am

    I like this. Sort of. Seems slightly more plasuible than the Prometheus-class at any rate! But I’m not sure about this ring-saucer thing – nothing personal John since you’ve done several designs in that vein! – I guess I’d just be a bit more inclined to accept it if even one seen-onscreen-and-therefore-canon design had had a ring-saucer. . .

  6. 10 evil_genius_180
    April 15, 2010 at 9:07 am

    At leas it doesn’t have 4 warp nacelles like the Prometheus. 😉 Seriously, that’s cool so far. I like the “doughnut” look you’ve been doing. Even though you’ve done a bunch of them, you’re the only one doing them, so it’s still a new concept. Besides, it looks to me like the ship has a complete saucer in normal operation mode but the inside drops out when it goes into combat mode. That’s a really sweet and unique idea, IMO. Also, it looks like the nacelles cant upwards when the saucer separates, which is an interesting idea.

    Like the others, I’m looking forward to seeing more. USS Heracles is my suggestion for the name.

  7. 11 Yorick
    April 15, 2010 at 9:22 am

    Love it! How about ‘Gemini Class’ or ‘Cerberus Class’? 🙂

  8. 12 Richard Knapp
    April 15, 2010 at 9:28 am

    Hi John:
    Both designs are beautiful – you truly are the Grand Master of starship designs. Been really missing your starship concept art, very glad to hear there’s more on the way.

    As for a name for “B”, I’ve always thought that “Southern Cross” would make a cool name for a starship.

    Thanks for posting and I hope all is well.

    Best regards,

  9. April 15, 2010 at 10:38 am

    I have the perfect name for a small attack ship like the one you drew. The U.S.S. Derringer. A Derringer is a small pistol that can be easily concealed in a pocket or coat sleeve.

  10. April 15, 2010 at 11:02 am

    I like “A” very much. It’s what the Centaur from “A Time to Stand” could have looked like, hadn’t it been a simple kitbash.

  11. 15 Murtaza
    April 15, 2010 at 11:07 am

    Good Evening Mr Eaves.

    Great starship concept you have got going.

    As for class name for Concept ‘B’ Perhaps Uss Halo .. Halo of course being a ring as well as halo being a forefront of newest design representation for next gen of vehicles.

    I’m sure you can come up with something more brilliant. 🙂

  12. April 15, 2010 at 11:19 am

    Cool sketch. More pin up shots! ha.

    As fars as names go classic ship names are always good…Kitty Hawk, Hornet, Exeter, Arizona…

    Of course you could always name the ship after one of the models you’ve done shoots with.

    • 17 johneaves
      April 15, 2010 at 1:04 pm

      Perhaps the USS Miller. or the USS Cargo King

      • April 16, 2010 at 8:38 am

        I’m not sure I’m worthy enough to have a starship named after me.

        A little research did turn up 2 ships named Miller…a Fletcher class destroyer in 1942 (USS MIller DD-535) and later a Knox class frigate in 1973 (USS Miller FF1091).

  13. 19 Sarvek
    April 15, 2010 at 12:28 pm

    I would recommend the name Declaration, after one of the ringship designs done by one of the fans.

    M. Jaeger

  14. 21 cubicspace
    April 15, 2010 at 12:56 pm

    how about.

    you had to draw for an application for the job?


    nice design.like the smaller ships mini wings to balance the lower pylons.

    i guess they werent “perpetual”.;) he said “cryptically”.:)

  15. 25 DeanneM
    April 15, 2010 at 1:33 pm

    to be honest, the ring design isn’t my favorite, but I really, really like the “B” idea of separating like that. One rough and it’s been buried? So glad you took it out and dusted it off today. 😀

    Name? How ’bout Grand Canyon…in AZ and is a big hole. Besides I like the sound of it as a ship. 🙂

  16. 27 G McAvoy
    April 15, 2010 at 1:44 pm

    Looks like a companion vessel to the Sovereign class. Like the Miranda to the Constitution and the Nebula to the Galaxy class.

    How about: USS Simpson? USS Duncan? (get it?… nah)

  17. 29 CaptainRickover
    April 15, 2010 at 2:07 pm

    I really like the design. It’s far better than anything the makers behind the present ST-Online Game have created.

    But this ship is really unique and fits perfectly in the timeframe of a late 24th or early 25th century starship. If anyone would ask me, this ship should have a name that means speed and power (because that’s what she’s looking like – in my eyes). USS Hornet of the Wasp-class. Or USS Speedwell (I don’t know where I heard this name before, I’m not even sure it exists in English… But it has a nice sound. At least for a German. Ha!)

    I really like it. A fine addition to all the other 24th century ships from a lost game.

  18. 31 Triton
    April 15, 2010 at 2:27 pm

    Cool! Moar please!

  19. 33 MajorD
    April 15, 2010 at 2:31 pm

    I’m not a fan of it splitting into a two fully functional starships, just build two ships. But, as a single ship it’s really good with and without the gap filled.

    • 34 johneaves
      April 15, 2010 at 9:59 pm

      I always felt the same with the saucer separation details in general… To me it (at least visually) made the main fuselage look fragile and Vulnerable!!! Drawing out ideas is the way I figure out anything that tickles my thoghts… this sketches were just my way of putting those ideas into pictures on how to solve the issue of separating without destroying the aesthetics

      • 35 MajorD
        April 16, 2010 at 12:48 pm

        That’s really interesting. Because, in this case it lead to worthwhile results, and I think most people wouldn’t bother testing an idea they think is bad.

        More than the separation functions, what usually gets complaints are the thin necks, thinner engine pylons, and top mounted bridge. But, in that case I’m a fan of the idea that hull shape directly effects warp performance. I’ve nothing for the bridge though, it’s always been a mystery to me, unless it’s a luxury choice specifically for the sunroof.

  20. 36 Kory
    April 15, 2010 at 3:15 pm

    I ‘bashed’ a ship similar to ‘A’ a few years back, from a stock Ent-E kit from Ertl, nothing that elaborate, but the same configuration of the nacelles:

  21. April 15, 2010 at 5:45 pm

    I say call her the hydra. since the suacer can be comepletly independant it ould be a mission specific module. so the ship could easly change rolls as needed. hence refrenceing the many headed serpant of myth or Orochi (the japanese equivalant)

  22. 40 CarlG
    April 15, 2010 at 9:43 pm

    I love the “A” shp on the left, especially the unusual angle you drew it at.

    It is a cute behind, after all, why not show it off? 😀

  23. April 16, 2010 at 1:04 am

    This is one very cool looking ship. As for a name how about the USS Pillars of Hercules.
    Look forward to seeing more.

  24. 43 Adam
    April 16, 2010 at 1:40 am

    Yeah it’s been a while since a new ship appeared but the wait makes it even more rewarding ! I like the “A” a bit more but that’s maybe because the doughnut looks too similar to the Sovereign and nothing can beat that ship in my opinion :p Looking forward to seeing more anyway !

  25. 44 CFHollister
    April 16, 2010 at 2:34 am

    I love coming up with names to ships.
    How about Stevenson?

    The name is mundane at first glance, but is intended here to be named after Robert Louis Stevenson, author of Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde, the classic tail of split personality. It plays off the idea of the unique way this design separates, and also that the ship may have something of it’s own split personality: as both a peaceful scientific and exploration ship on one hand, and as an aggressive warship on the other.

  26. 45 Leon "Melak"
    April 16, 2010 at 3:55 am

    Is it christmas again already? 😀

    I really like the “A”, especially with those little winglets on top and the agressive, Akira-esque downward nacelles.

    Definitively a concept worth exploring some time!

  27. 46 Leon "Melak"
    April 16, 2010 at 4:05 am

    Oh, and about it looking fragile…that has never stopped anyone before from putting the bridge right on top of the ship 😀

    Also, on the positive side, if the miss the bridge, there’s a good chance they hit the hole and miss the ship entirely (if the ship has skin tight shields like the E) 😀

  28. 47 William
    April 16, 2010 at 7:46 am

    I think they’re both fantastic.

    The aggressiveness of A is undeniable. It has the feel of a destroyer or light cruiser to me, something that is mean on it’s own but really nasty in groups.

    B struck me as a science ship. With the detachable part containing labs, sensors, and increased shielding/reinforcements so it can get really close to dangerous phenomenon without risking the entire ship.

  29. 48 Bender23
    April 16, 2010 at 8:39 am

    That is one cool looking ship. Would love to see more of her.

    She is reminiscent of something that would swoop in to take care of business when one’s freedoms are threatened. Hence, I suggest USS Liberty – NCC-1776.

  30. 50 johneaves
    April 16, 2010 at 8:43 am

    Nice breake down on the functionality of these two..

  31. 51 Dave D.
    April 16, 2010 at 9:23 am

    The A ship reminds me of the USS Baker from the old FASA starship miniatures game from the 80s. For the B how about the name USS Saturn?

  32. April 16, 2010 at 12:06 pm

    Love the nacelle design 🙂 The smaller ship actually reminds me of the shuttle model for the Borg exhibit at the Trek Experience show 😀 Well done, awesome art as always!


  33. April 16, 2010 at 1:06 pm

    I don’t know how much sense the ring saucers make (seems like it’d be a long turbolift journey from one side of the saucer to the other – but maybe they’d use transporters instead?). Either way, I like both designs. B’s method of separation is innovative and interesting and the aft view of A is just plain cool. I’d love to see more of either design.

    • 54 Terry
      April 16, 2010 at 7:36 pm

      I would think while the lower saucer is connected the turbo lifts would be able to travel through it like a standard saucer, if it is a combat situation than you would not be traveling around the ship you would be a your battle-stations.


      • April 18, 2010 at 12:06 pm

        Well, unless you need to perform damage control duties, in which case you’d want to be able to get around the ship as fast as possible.

        I’ve always liked the name “Volition”, btw. 🙂

  34. 56 suricata
    April 16, 2010 at 2:06 pm

    The ‘A’ design looks awesome from the rear, but the top view doesn’t feel right to me flow wise, maybe the pylons go a little bit to far out?

    I’m really digging the ‘B’ design. I’ve always liked the open saucer concept John, it adds a breath of fresh air so the ship designs, afterall, there are only so many ways you can put a saucer, hull and 2 nacelles together! I really love the seperation idea, its quite ingenius. Love the deflector on the saucer as well 🙂

    Names wise, I’d look at possably following established naming conventions with space objects, for example ‘Pulsar’, ‘Quasar’ or ‘Messier’ class (prefer the last one myself), or failing that, you could look at established traditional Naval names, perhaps the ‘Monitor’ class, in homage to the USS Monitor, which was the first of that particular ship type.

  35. 57 Barrie Suddery
    April 16, 2010 at 2:34 pm

    Love your work, John. As for a name, how about U.S.S. Revelator?

  36. April 16, 2010 at 3:36 pm

    I look at the B, and I’m seeing that separated saucer section acting as a sort of transport to rapidly deploy personnel down to the surface of the planet. This brings forth images of storming of the beaches in the Battle of Normandy. So Normandy Class maybe? With some individual ships being named like, Omaha, Pointe du Hoc, Utah, Sword, Gold, and Juna, and other code names for the landing points in the initial landings of Operation Overlord.

  37. April 16, 2010 at 4:24 pm

    Beautiful ship designs Mr Eaves. Sadly I don’t really have any name suggestions. Perhaps Hawk class for b?

  38. 60 Terry
    April 16, 2010 at 7:52 pm

    I like A with the downward nacelles.


    • 61 Terry
      April 17, 2010 at 5:15 am

      It could be a Shran class frigate the USS Repulse, Shran cause the Andorians don’t get enough ships named after them and the are one of the founding species of the Federation, and Repulse because I think the British have great names for ships.


  39. April 17, 2010 at 4:21 am

    Been working on my own ‘Donut’ style ship, I really love the hollow saucer idea! Not quite as clean as your concepts though John! 🙂


  40. April 17, 2010 at 11:05 am

    Wow, that ship is sex on nacelles.

  41. April 18, 2010 at 3:47 am

    How’bout U.S.S. TROOPER?
    Cool design, man!
    Add two concealed nacelles to sides of the saucer and it would have warp capability on both sections (see U.S.S. Arrpgant on my site)


  42. 66 Moonbat
    April 18, 2010 at 6:15 pm

    I’m liking this design more & more every time I look at it. I’m guessing it’s meant for close-quarter combat with that saucer sep mode.

    That being said I would suggest the name USS Fallujah. It’s a fitting battle-oriented name. Plus I lost some good friends there. So, I’ll got with “Fallujah”

  43. April 19, 2010 at 2:07 pm

    Nice design as always. I’m especially intrigued because your saucer separation scheme is very similar to something I considered for my USS Grandeur model a long time back, though it works better for your design than it would have for mine.

  44. April 19, 2010 at 8:44 pm


    The ‘Robert Vancel’ – class ship.

    Always wanted a ship named after me. 😀

  45. 69 Scott D
    April 19, 2010 at 9:42 pm

    I really like this design, John. You should keep it on file for “never knows” in the future.

    Too bad Cryptic didn’t go with your designs for STO, but their recent add-ons have gotten more pleasing.

  46. April 21, 2010 at 1:05 am

    I wasn’t really sold on the donut ships, one or two looked alright, but the point of it was lost on me. BUT! Seeing that idea sketched out, it works. It looks almost like amini-defiant popping out the bottom (or, a larger Defiant as that sh.p was tiny).

    Plus the seperated main body doesn’t look as ugly as the D did… that ship looked like a beheaded swan once the saucer popped off.

    The smaller attack ship… I like the Centaur shape of it. I always wondered what that ship would look like it it wasn’t an Excelsior kit bash.

  47. 71 Matt Boardman
    April 21, 2010 at 9:57 pm

    Oooo….I really like both of these designs and I’m very intrigued by the drop ship style of the “B” design. I would love to see more! This would be a lot of fun to model and animate!

  48. 72 DMP
    April 23, 2010 at 1:31 pm

    This design is quite interesting.

    I note some similarities with the “U.S.S. Premonition” of Star Trek: Armada PC Game from 10 years ago.

    Did you have any say on the ship designs on that game?

  49. June 8, 2010 at 12:50 am

    I don’t know, I think having the nacelles below the primary hull balances it out better. Maybe it’s just because it doesn’t have a secondary hull. It also differentiates it from the NX-01 configuration more.

  50. 74 David
    October 31, 2010 at 9:53 pm

    I just came across this from a link on the STO Forums…

    My first thought…


    Just because to me, both sections look like the perfect shape of a skipping stone one would use on a pond.

    I’d make the Nacelle’s move/rotate when the vessel’s split, to compensate for the varible Warp geometery shape.

    Also, it would be cool to not only see the pylons move up & down, but also the nacelle’s themselves rotate slightly to achieve the look of both the A & B designs.

  51. November 30, 2010 at 12:38 am

    I love the design of the ship, now all you need is to give her a classification name, like Galaxy Class or intrepid Class, these examples. __________________ Class Attack Ship.

  52. November 30, 2010 at 12:41 am

    I love the design of the ship, now all you need is to give her a classification name, like Galaxy Class or intrepid Class, these are just some examples of what asking for. __________________ Class Attack Ship.

  53. November 30, 2010 at 1:09 am

    How about the Armaggedon Class Attack Cruiser???????

  54. 78 therichieboyRichard Bull
    July 30, 2012 at 8:24 am

    Hi all,
    I decided to make a version of “A” in Sketchup as I liked it so much. I improvised the front and changed a couple of things. I only used Sketchup as my CG skills are pretty poor. These pics are enhanced in Photoshop- hope you like ’em!

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

April 2010

%d bloggers like this: