NCC-1000 Stts (FASA STCS)

Greetings,
I have decided to stat out ships from the Ships of the Line 2006 Calendar
for the starship tac game made by fasa.

The 1st one is the odd, suspiciously NX-ish Pre-TOS Star Flt Vessel

Name: 1000th Mile Class Cruiser
Launched: 2203
Class: III
Cont . Computer Type: L-9
Computr Mass: 230
Superstructure : 17
Mass: 21,059


Crew: 143
Passengers: 40
Shuttlecraft: 4

MPR: 2/1
Warp Drive Type: FW-6A
Number: 2
Power Provided: 6 each
Cruisi ng Spd: Warp 4
Max Spd : Warp 6
Stress Chart: P/P
Mass: 3300
Superstructure: 0.4/0.8 (Single/Tandem; Tandem in this case)
Sublight Engine Type: EID
Power Provided: 2
Mass: 95
Superstructure: 0.1

Lasers: FL-X4
Number: 105
Firing arcs: 3f, 1p, 1s
Firing Chart: SF
Max. Pwr: 2
Mass: 325 Each
Superstructure: 0.5 each

Atomic Missiles: FN- 5
Number: 1
Firing Arc: Fwd
Firing Chart: D
Power to Arm: 2
DAMage: 5
Mass: 310
Superstructure: 1.4

armor: FAE
Protection: 3
Mass: 134 per facing
Superstructure: 0.4

Commissioning Record

NCC-1000 1000th Mile
NCC-1001 Canary Islands
NCC-1008 Bering Bridge
NCC-1009 Northshire
NCC-1010 Southshire
NCC-1013 Northampton
NCC-1078 Southampon

Background:
The 1000th Mile Class was the first Warp 6 vessel to be successfully launched
by Starfleet. Unlike previous classes, it had a saucer with stardrive elements
built into it, including a rear shuttlebay at th rear.: thy were very capable
exploration vessels, and were often used to transport diplomats.

Firing Chart (Sublight):

Rng SA SB SC SD SE SF SG SH
1 1-4 1-5 1-6 1-7 1-8 1-9 1-10 1-10
2 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1-4 1-5 1-6

Armor Rules;{
Armor absorbs weapon hits before they hit internals. For every point of
damage inflicted on the ship in an armored facing, subtract 1 point of
armor permanently from that facing. Armor cannot be repaired unless
at a station, out of the game.
to

Come on maties... Can anyone share any opinions on this?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Meteo

Come on maties... Can anyone share any opinions on this?

---

Honestly, I think you just hit the 'FASA.. yeah.. we remember /something/ about that' sticking point. :) A lot of people just dont remember how the numbers work for FASA, or have a baseline comparison.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TFVanguard

Honestly, I think you just hit the 'FASA.. yeah.. we remember /something/ about that' sticking point. :) A lot of people just dont remember how the numbers work for FASA, or have a baseline comparison.

---

Or have no bloody clue. I've looked at it, but most pre-95 game systems i just cannot grok.

You may have more luck on the The FASA Star Trek Universe E-group -
http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/...iverseE-group/

Lots of people very dedicated to the FASA game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Identity Crisis

You may have more luck on the The FASA Star Trek Universe E-group -
http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/...iverseE-group/

Lots of people very dedicated to the FASA game.

---

I must agree, that's probably a better forum for feedback. I'm a FASA guy, myself, but that's me. I think it's fine, but I don't think there's much ENT era ship material to compare it to. I think the Yahoo FASA group has toyed with the armor issue (sadly I haven't been keeping up), and maybe they might be able to give you better feedback on that. Me, I always chaulked up armor to extra superstructure. I'm not even certain if they've even begun a ENT era construction manual project. Maybe you could get in on the ground floor with that! :)

Heh... Actually, I hate ENT. the ships and tech look too advanced to me (except
t he Andorian ship and the spatial torpedoes, those genuinely ar pretty good
from an accuracy standpoint), and I usually accept stuff from the Starfleet Museum
and Vintage Starshps .
I've also finished a number of Pre-TOS systems which are here on the forum,
and I still have a lot more to complete.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Meteo

Heh... Actually, I hate ENT. the ships and tech look too advanced to me (except
t he Andorian ship and the spatial torpedoes, those genuinely ar pretty good
from an accuracy standpoint), and I usually accept stuff from the Starfleet Museum
and Vintage Starshps .
I've also finished a number of Pre-TOS systems which are here on the forum,
and I still have a lot more to complete.

---

I, for one, am very glad that the nx class is not a giant potato.

Ah, at least the starfleet museum ships LOOK primitive compared to the NX and
many E NT ships, when compared to the Constituton.
Also, I'm gonna make some ENT systems, for those who want to f*** around
with ENT ships, and more non-ENT systems for the three other gamers
who don't like ENT.s

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Meteo

Ah, at least the starfleet museum ships LOOK primitive compared to the NX and
many E NT ships, when compared to the Constituton.
Also, I'm gonna make some ENT systems, for those who want to f*** around
with ENT ships, and more non-ENT systems for the three other gamers
who don't like ENT.s

---

Primitive doesn't mean "looks like ass."

Well, I'm an old FASA Trek ref, of about a decade's time, before I started running LUG.

You asked for opinions, here's mine.

I assume you are using Starship construction Manual v 2.0.

One point as to the armor. It is my gut feeling that with 9 on each facing you are giving the ship way more defense that the era would seem to support.

With your missiles taking power: 2 damage 5, you are saying it will take 2 direct hits to any facing with a nuclear weapon, before it blows the armor off, then it will just barely inflict one remaining point.

I assume you are not using the critical hits rules from stardate magazine, either.

from my experience, I'd suggest giving the armor something like 3 or 4 points, maximum. Enough to stop a light phaser, but a direct hit with a bomb will melt off the hull, and do that one point of damage.

Otherwise, you are having armor be more effective than shields, so much so that how come the future ships do not have both armor AND shields?

If it is a case of okay, we put on this armor and it only stops three points of kinetic damage worth one time, vs. a shield that will stop 4 or 5 points multiple times, recharging as we go, then I can see it, how the tech would develop.

As I recall, even a reliant/miranda class full power can cough up 20 points per facing, and perhaps not power all facings, at that.

With all around armor, you are gonna have some weird tactics, especially if you have 9 pts of defense, where a ship captain is gonna turn facing to prsent undamaged armor. I have seen too much of that in Battletech Assault 'Mechs, already.

I think armor should be there to reduce the blow a lot, but it won't be able to stop it. Thus shields were used and invented, in later eras.

another approach is the idea that since a shield deflects from an incoming arc, from any angle, any incoming fire always hits the dshield that that arc bears on.

With armor, it will be spots all over the hull, with it not being likely (in my mind) that any one shot will regularly strike the same place.

In such case, instead of making armor defend vs 9 and then be blown away, as you have, make it perhaps 1 (or 2 points if you want to be somewhat excessive) points of damage reduced from any incoming fire, on any phase.

SO that in an extended battle, you might get a few more hits, but it will stop 1 or 2 points per hit, and you thus do not need an armor facing track, just reduce 1 or 2 (whichever you choose) per phase, or per hit.

A hit on a "shield generator" result would perhaps mean all armor shredded / ablated, thus no future reduction after that until you go to a starbase.

I'll take an in depth look at your suggested stats later tonight, with my Construction Manual, and more input.

PS thanks for keeping FASA Trek Alive. In it's day it was my favorite game system, by far.

Primitive means "look less capable than the F***ing Constitution", in the case
of pre-os craft.

And LUGTrekGM, Thank you for the critisism. I will revise the armor.

and I agree on the NX looks like an Akira, more advanced than the TOS Consititution Class.

It should look less technologically advanced, exactly.

Maybe the lines not so rounded, warp nacelles more primitive, etc, not as "Sleek".

I like a lot of the work they are doing at Starship Design Bureau, I think it is called.

kind of like the Biplane, related to the P-51 Mustang, related to the F-86 super sabre, related to F-14 Tomcat, related to Stealth Fighter.

That kind of progression should be visible, as we see it in the TOS > NG > FILMS > DS9 > VOYAGER.

WTF Happened with "Enterprise?" They tossed Canon out the window, and said Pfft, the fans don't know what they want.

So, I am not being critical of it, per se, just that I wouldn't give it nine points if the maximum shield output is 10 points at full power for the FSA, with the Class III Size ship you have.

Construction Manual says (for lack of a better reference) FSA Was developed on Stardate 1/79, as an outgrowith of navigational deflectors, with something called a phase shift transformer.

Phasers were not to appear until 15 years later, with the FH-1.

Also, I like the way FASA did the Max Shield Power Chart on page 46 of the 2nd Edition Construction manual. I really like dthat book, when it came out, and it might not be the best system out there, but it served me and my groups well for many years.

It seems FSA was able to provide even 1 pt of shield defense to ships up to Class X. After that, it's covering too much area with the low tech shield generator to do much, if anything. Averaging the whole chart per size (not sure if that is a valid approach, or not, but what the hell) We get about 7 or 8 pts of protection at full power for the FSA, per ship.

Since this is theoretically good for three phases, that's about 21 points per facing per combat round, of defense, at full power.

Even with the crappy ratio of 1/1 for FSA, it's still at 10 points of output for 10 points of imput power, pretty good.

The real problem that I see is that at size X Ship, you will only get a max shieeld level of 1, and can only put in 1 point.

So for a very large ship, armor of say, 9 pt defense is 9 times more effective than the FSA shield. Though, granted it'd be tons and tons of armor.

But, along that line of thinking, say you had 1 armor point of defense per phase, instead of a hard coded 9 points with some kind of boxes of reduction till gone system.

With the single point, (if you got hit three times in a round) is good for three defense per round, for any ship, up to class X.

With the FSA development, at least for class X, it's allowing you to toss out one power point from the engines and get 1 point of defense, with no weight, other than the shield generator.

And for your class III, FSA delivers up to 10 points, for 10 power, but it can still do 1 point, for one power, same as Class X ships.

Anyway, all of this boils down to perhaps 1 or 2 points of defense for armor (2 being maximum I'd think).

With any of the lasers FASA suggests were available for the period, with max power to the weapon of 2 points, you will blow off the armor equally 2 for 2 at long range, on the average, and at medium or close range you will get in for:

1 point wirth the + 1 dam mod for med range, p. 47.
and at close get in with 2 points, with the +2 dam mod for range, from page 47.

Even the most basic accelerator cannon (I guess it's like a railgun, right?) is gonna do 8 points, which is a lot. But I've seen a block of steel hit with a lexan penetrator. Cancel christmas.

Do my gut feeling was that it should be 1 or 2 points for ablative armor.

Looking at what FASA has set up, for the period, all things being equal, I'd still do it that way, because then you got the same effect of abaltion per round, wherever it hits, with a lucky hit to "Shield Gen" meaning "The rest is going in, it';s all stripped off, or some kind of structural weakening of the armor or it's mountings, or whatever.

Since it is ablative, it will need to be replaced, which seems to me it's kind of modeled on reactive armor, just without the explosive force that reactive tank armor has. But still seems to me like it will need to be bolted on, or somehow fastened.

Anyway, this was fun to get back to those days of yesteryear. It was nice to have a chance to break out my old, hoary, but still beloved FASA from storage to participate in this thread.

I'm interested to see what you finally decide on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Meteo

Primitive means "look less capable than the F***ing Constitution", in the case
of pre-os craft.

---

"Less capable?" : P

I already altered the armor. It's 3 points tht cover all facings and block 3 points of
damage before the ship takes internal damage. And that's it . They don't grow
back after that hit.

And I tried making a Pre-TOS ship with the FASA-produced systems a couple times.
It doesn't really work too well. The systems were only for 2240s-2290s ships,
and a handful of 2230 s designs as well. Ether go with Vintage Starships stuff or
use my Pre-TOS Systems (Incomplete as of now)

And, Accelerator Cannons are wpns which put a nuke through a special energizing process before shooting them. It's a step up from launching a missile from a rack
and do nothing special to th nuke.


And Huth, I ' m talking about ships that can move at warp 4, have atomic missiles,
lasers, and have armor that will get blown off in a volley and can't get repaired
until at a starbase. Blocky piece s of crap, not ships that resembl e TMP ships with
phaser-like beam weapons and photon torpedoes with a different name.

Those are the REAL Pre-tos ships...

Sounds good. I'd like to hear about what playtesting brings out.

I playtested it against a D-4 from FAS A. It did some damage, but was destroyed.

More playtesting is needed...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Meteo

Blocky piece s of crap, not ships that resembl e TMP ships with
phaser-like beam weapons and photon torpedoes with a different name.

Those are the REAL Pre-tos ships...

---

Who wants to watch a show about blocky pieces of crap?

the TOS enterprise isn't a flying lump of shit, man. It looks good. I'm not surprised that the designers on ENT decided that the ship shouldn't look like it was done in MSpaint.

>Who wants to watch a show about blocky pieces of crap?

I do. :)

>the TOS enterprise isn't a flying lump of shit, man. It looks good. I'm not surprised >that the designers on ENT decided that the ship shouldn't look like it was done in >MSpaint

It just has to look primitive compared to the Con, and it doesn't except in a few
ways. And I didn't mean that the TOS Ent was a lump, I said that the pre-TOS
ships should look and act even more primitive than it, much more so in the 2150s.

It's the same thing as a sailing ship, compared to a World War I era ship, compared to a Modern warship.

Just because a sailing ship doen't have a range of 120+ nautical miles (or more) on some of its weapons, doesn't mean the stories feauring the crews on them can't be dramatic.

All of them are a part of history.

Pre-TOS era stories (or any era, really) are just as exciting/dramatic for me, because it is about the people, the decisions, the challenges they face.

If all they have is warp 4, it's all they have, and the Orion Arm is there for the exploring, one planetary system at a time, when they had no idea just exactly WHAT was out there.

Just as in the early original series pilot shows, the hand weapons carried are less sleek, more bulky.

The ships should appear de-evolved for the period, working back from Enterprise-D, to the original series ship, to... something less advanced.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Meteo

It just has to look primitive compared to the Con, and it doesn't except in a few
ways. And I didn't mean that the TOS Ent was a lump, I said that the pre-TOS
ships should look and act even more primitive than it, much more so in the 2150s.

---

So what would a more primitive version look like? What signifiers of primitive-ness would it have?

:mad:

Well, since the TOS Enterprise used analog counters in its display, obviously a more "primitive" starship would have a frickin' ABACUS as the ship's chronometer.

And since the TOS enterprise used big switches and buttons on its control surfaces, clearly a more primitive starship would use great big pull-levers to change course and direction.

Never mind that technology has ALREADY eclipsed TOS appearances in those areas. CONTINUITY IS GOD! *fap fap fap*

OR, just maybe, the TOS Enterprise's look is SOLELY a function of the production values and technical understanding of the 1960's.

First "do I have issues, or what?" of Two

http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/sc...s/daedalus.jpg

This is a canon pre-tos ship, seen in DS9 as a model: The Daedalus Class.

It looks flimsy, but indeed more primitive than the Constitution.

The Neck could be enlarged somewhat, made to look less fragile for Pre-TOS designs, if you think that it's ridiculously weak looking. That's a weak point that
I've noticed.

>Well, since the TOS Enterprise used analog counters in its display, obviously a >more "primitive" starship would have a frickin' ABACUS as the ship's >chronometer.

No, not necessarily.

>And since the TOS enterprise used big switches and buttons on its control >surfaces, clearly a more primitive starship would use great big pull-levers to >change course and direction.

It's not the lever's size that matters

>Never mind that technology has ALREADY eclipsed TOS appearances in those >areas. CONTINUITY IS GOD! *fap fap fap*

Life's life, Trek's trek. There's no point in connecting the two.

>OR, just maybe, the TOS Enterprise's look is SOLELY a function of the production >values and technical understanding of the 1960's.

True. Doesn't mean that every new 22nd or 23rd cen. de sign has to look
like some cgi toy becau se the budget's better.


>First "do I have issues, or what?" of Two

:)

Perhaps some posters forget the fall of the Roman Empire. How much technology was lost?

Let's suppose in the Star Trek universe, there was a Nuclear War, would technology not fall back somewhat?

Oh, pardon me, That's a Canon aspect of the Star Trek (TM) Universe, since day one.

MODERN NAVY SHIPS have levers and switches.

They also got this thing, it's a piece of steel, one side magnetized, it swings around to tell direction. how many hundreds of years old technology is that.

Oh, let's not talk about ROPE, and TWINE, eh? Still used.

Let's see. People in Star Trek wear BOOTS, what of that?

I mean, hasn't technology changed to something better in a half a millenium?

"Not point in..."

What? Are you serious?

I'd like to see what would have come before. With continuity, thank you.

Nowhere in trek history was Florida smoked. Until Enterprise. For good reasons of continuity. Sadly, they threw it out the window.

Quote:

---

OR, just maybe, the TOS Enterprise's look is SOLELY a function of the production values and technical understanding of the 1960's.

---

Yeah, looks exactly like a Saturn V to me.

And we all saw the Environmental suits that the crews wore, looked exactly like cutting edge NASA Technology.

And wow, while we are at it, since it has to look like current tech, how come Kirk and Spock don't crap into thier suit in a bag, and drink TANG (TM) All day?

Yeah the Apollo mission that got wrecked because a LOX tank exploded, right? Gee, They had to call up the Earth to solve it. What did they use? Duct tape and cardboard as a workaround to fix the CO2 scrub system.

Yeah, let me find my almanac of real-life cutting edge space technology, so that we can see it in Star Trek.

A piece of foam kills the space shuttle. Real world.

I don't really think I want to see the Post Dominion war Trek series, as some here would have it.

A piece of foam kills the whole ship, and the entire crew dies, burned alive at thousands of degrees.

We find out that Starfleet knew about it, but decided it wasn't an issue. Yeah, bring on the real world, and all of it's cutting edge technology that is so advanced, so we can make star trek real.

*shakes head in disbelief*

What happened to the sense of wonder, and enjoyment?

Ponder, what can they do with a new Star Trek to make Transporters more advanced?

What replaces Quantum Torpedoes, and Tri-cobalt? Yeah, Star Trek:4000 AD. I can see it...

Quintocobalt teleporting mines and well, while we are at it, Psionic mind control weapons, because Vulcans all along were just the fifth column inside the Federation, and since the Vulcan mind lords have returned, it's a Vomulan controlled universe. I mean, since we don't need any continuity...

Let's get some Jedi with lightsabers in there, too, while we are at it. I mean, it's all good, right?

New and improved is not always better.

Continuity should be respected, because Star Trek is not The Butterfly Effect.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LUGTrekGM

Psionic mind control weapons, because Vulcans all along were just the fifth column inside the Federation, and since the Vulcan mind lords have returned, it's a Vomulan controlled universe.

---

What, you don't think someone could do something with stories about the effects of a hyperrational regime on society? Or, to go the PKD-angle, one in which the police are inside your own head?

Well, a Vomulan controlled alternate timeline might be a really cool experience.

Not really good for a prequel, in any case.

I, as well as the majority of people posting here, realize that there are a thousand stories in the Naked Now. Sure.

But a ship 150 years pre next gen should not look like it's cousin.

And, for the record, I am a fan of Phillip K. Dick.

Not all of it, but a lot of it.

I like stories where it is hard to define what is human, what is reality, where does consciousness begin and end.

But I am not going to put Transhuman Space-style biotechnology and all the rest of the metahuman issues that come with it into my own Star Trek Campaign.

Do we really want to put some kind of hacker/decker type onto a ship's bridge?

Do we really want to argue that transporters kill people, then create them from whole cloth, all the while ignoring the idea that as soon as a person-sized body is converted to energy, they are a multi-megaton explosion waiting to happen?

We could. Some might. Not here at my house.

I tell the story, the player role dice, and make the tough decisions, and we all cooperate, to share in the heroic episodes we make together.

I really want to see how the FASA STCS Mods work out for this NX Era. my players grew up with FASA, and it's development is significant to us, as a group.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Meteo

http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/sc...s/daedalus.jpg
>OR, just maybe, the TOS Enterprise's look is SOLELY a function of the production >values and technical understanding of the 1960's.

True. Doesn't mean that every new 22nd or 23rd cen. de sign has to look
like some cgi toy becau se the budget's better.

:)

---

Actually, yeah, it does.

The only reason the TOS Enterprise looks like the TOS Enterprise does is because that's the best guess of "the future" that the guys in 1960 could come up with. Sterile, smooth, white(ish).

A TOS Enterprise today, designed from scratch, would almost certainly look different. Probably more metallic, with stick-out greeblies and such.

The NX has many more obvious seams than the 1701. More primitive.

The NX is made of more metallic-looking substances than the space-age looking 1701. More primitive.

The NX's engines are attached in a way more consistent with 20th-Century ideas of force-distribution and transfer than the 'way-out-on-fragile-pylons- engines of the 1701. More primitive.

Forty years in the real world, where Trek is filmed, has advanced the state of the art so much they couldn't make the NX-01 look much more primitive without the show being even more campy.

I'm all for more campy.

I love TOS today, watching it on G4 just as much as I did back in 1969.

Set it up like a blast from the past, Forbidden Planet style with even shorter dresses, helmets with radio antennas, heck yeah.

Halfway to Buck Rogers, I'd pay to watch it.

As long as the writing is good the damn props and graphics don't matter to me. At all.

Witness Phantom Menace > Graphics, weak story *thumbs down*.

For me, at least, Les Miserables, no graphics, lots of period props and costumes, great story > I love it.

Grapes of Wrath > No graphics, great story.

Armageddon > Lots of graphics, too loud soundtrack, flat story, > I hated it.

For me, if there is a story, yeah graphics are nice, but I can still sit and watch old Science Fiction Theater movies and enjoy them, despite crap models, no cgi, and 40 to 50 year old props.

The Matrix > Hated it.

Minority Report > Loved it.

Terminator > Loved it, but it was a really artful mix of graphics, models, and a great action story.

Star Trek V, The Final Frontier > Hated it. The story was just not there.

Wrath of Khan > Great story AND Graphics, too. But even if it had been done in say 1970, the story is there.

That's probably one of the oddest rationalizations I've ever read. I've gotten a migraine just trying to wrap my brain around the use of Les Mis and Grapes of Wrath in a discussion about SF shows.

[FredRogers]Can we say "wholly different judgement criteria?"[/FredRogers]

"It has to have a good story!" and "Buck Rogers!" Used in the same speech.

Ow. Ow. OW.

HALF-way to Buck Rogers. ;) I mean, yeah, I concede the point.

Perhaps Flash Gordon would have been more apropos. Back in the day, I'm talking 35 years ago...F.G. was pretty spiffy, staying up most of the night for the next episode.

'Forbidden Planet' doesn't have the slightest bit of camp in it. It's a better science fiction movie–and has even aged better–than '2001.'

Quote:

---

But a ship 150 years pre next gen should not look like it's cousin.

---

What, so you think the NX-class looks like the Galaxy class or something?

Akira was an Anime' show also, right?

That's what I meant. If the Akira Class as NX Cousin was from DS9, my apologies to all who might have been misled, when I loosely tossed out "next gen".

NX from Enterprise certainly did not fall anywhere in between TOS Enterprise and Cochrane's ship. Seems to me that would be the path of development.

Enterprise-D = connie class with a glandular problem :D

I mean, I can see the progression in the ship classes.

Galaxy Class is founded in Excelsior, more or less.

Then from there, the ships become more elongated, narrow profile, moving from saucer section to that kind of oblate tranguloid, with the Defiant as a notable exception.

Working backward through the history, saucer sections become that sort of globe, a la Daedalus.

So NX looks more advanced than the TOS Enterprise. I think it was a mistake. At least the NX Crew uniforms show a progression from a semi NASA / Navy coveralls.

And big levers would have been cool.

An Abacus? Eh, a bit much.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LUGTrekGM

Working backward through the history, saucer sections become that sort of globe, a la Daedalus.

---

But there was no backward "history," just a few models of a single ship, and a lot of fanon. A single ship with a spherical hull design (based on a design which would have been TOS in the first place) does not a long, proud lineage make.

And it's important to note that the only other example of a spherical hull is...
the "25 years in the future" USS Pasteur!

Hm.

In the 1960's - 1970's, we had the Apollo Command Module.
In the 1970's - 2000's, we have the Space Shuttle.
In the 2010's we're gonna have... The Crew Excursion Vehicle.

Now, what's the CEV going to look like, more advanced than the Space Shuttle, or less? One guess only, please.

http://exploration.grc.nasa.gov/Expl...w%20Launch.jpg