~ Cry Havoc - and let slip the dogs of war!
Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged
I WAS IN THE FUTURE, IT WAS TOO LATE TO RSVP
Member # 709
We didnt share anything with them. We let them observe that we had it, and developed diplomatic relations.
Us sharing warp drive with them would be like sharing a sandwich with someone who had a huge plate of thanksgiving dinner infront of them. They already have food and they have better food. They wouldnt need to bother with ours.
And even though i disagree with the way the Vulcans act and their control freak methods, i give them credit for not handing advanced warp drives to every race on the block. Thats the Prime Directive, and it makes sense.
-------------------- "C'mon, tightly hold your hand / Take a deep breath, give them the finger / Are you worried that your thoughts are not quite.. clear?" - Our Lady Peace, One Man Army
It does seem that some of Cochrane's ideas were an improvement over Vulcan ones, at least in the end. Starfleet ships, presumably designed by the brightest engineers from a hundred planets, are based on his dual-nacelle design.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
The ring ship makes perfect sense to me. As Sol suggested, it may be a "dead end" of starship design. We don't know what materials Vulcans use and what sort of plasma. With their technology the ring design may have the best performance, but Cochrane may have had a better idea feasible with typical Earth technology.
The only thing I don't like about the ship at all is that that the ring is apparently attached to the hull only at one point. Even if the SIF is mainly keeping the ship in one piece, there are *huge* lever forces at the slightest movement which could be reduced a lot by just adding a few small struts (like in a bike wheel). The way it is, the design is anything but logical (even if it is meant as a homage to the SS Enterprise).
MIB: I should answer the question why I hated TAI in another thread...
If the ship is in any way related to the Sternbach thing in that TMP picture, we might postulate that the technology in fact necessitates as little contact with the wheel as possible. And not only in the terms of contact surface, but in terms of number of contact points. Perhaps the inner surface has to be kept free of contacts, the longer free stretch, the better, plus there has to be free visibility forward and aft from that surface? The Sternbach design makes no mechanical sense, either, but it and the T'Pau model seem to meet these critera.
Dunno. The basic criterium is met anyway: the ship looks cool.
Now, what kind of variation could we have here? Just different hull shapes within the hoop? Two or more hoops parallel or in series? Are hull components outside the hoop forbidden? There seems to be both more and less choice here than with the nacelle-based designs.
There's a million things I haven't done, but just you wait
Member # 343
quote:Originally posted by Timo: Now, what kind of variation could we have here? Just different hull shapes within the hoop? Two or more hoops parallel or in series? Are hull components outside the hoop forbidden? There seems to be both more and less choice here than with the nacelle-based designs.
Every time I've seen the "Hoopship Enterprise" there's been a gap in the ring inidcating that it was actually two in tandem. Indeed, I believe the schematic Jim Stevenson had reflected this.
-------------------- "I never agreed with Jefferson once—we have fought on like seventy-five different fronts. But when all is said & all is done...Jefferson HAS beliefs; Burr has none."
Now on to the making of films!
Member # 621
Perhaps the ring is a different form of generating the warp field. Instead of nacelles and coils, the rings themselves act in place of the coils when they are energized by plasma and a symmetric warp field is created.
The problem comes in with maneuvering. With only two field producing elements in the ship's propulsion, the resultant warp fields are less adjustable. Assuming that subspace fields are responsible for sublight and FTL maneuvering, this tranlates into significant maneuverability limitations across the board.
Though hoop ships may be simpler systems (and thus, more desirable), the performance differance is just too great.
A supplementary reason might be that a hoop design limits design possibilities. Where you could theoretically slap two (or more, or less) nacelles on pretty much anything, a hoop ship would require a more integrated design which might not allow the options of a naccelle system.
And an airplane analogy just hit me: consider the relationship between rings and nacelles to be analogous between propeller and jet engines. Propellers/Rings are less efficient but simpler. Where as Jets/Nacelles are more efficient but more complicated. When the technology progressed to the point where Jets/Nacelles were reliable enough to be used, they became the standard.
[ November 12, 2001: Message edited by: OnToMars ]
-------------------- If God didn't want us to fly, he wouldn't have given us Bernoulli's Principle.
Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
I'm with TSN on this one. It just looks like another version of warp drive. Like the Cardassian Imbedded version. If you're looking for advantages/disadvantages, you probably won't be able to find any with the information we currently have. There is nothing inheritly better about ring designs... Vulcan ships are faster than Earth ships, that's a given. This vessel just happens to be faster and in the design of a ringed warp drive.
-------------------- Later, J _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ The Last Person to post in the late Voyager Forum. Bashing both Voyager, Enterprise, and "The Bun" in one glorious post.