Flare Sci-fi Forums
Flare Sci-Fi Forums Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile | directory login | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Flare Sci-Fi Forums » Star Trek » Starships & Technology » DS9-- USS Odyssey Bridge, possible explaination (Page 5)

  This topic comprises 7 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7   
Author Topic: DS9-- USS Odyssey Bridge, possible explaination
Jason Abbadon
Rolls with the punches.
Member # 882

 - posted      Profile for Jason Abbadon     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Sound thinking.

It's also possible that the saucer provides much needed S.I.F. emitters that a unfinished starship would need to operate at peak combat performance.
A big (mostly empty) saucer also would make a tempting target for enemy ships and whould not cause critical damages to crew or systems that were never installed in the first place. [Wink]

...and they look goofy without the saucer.

--------------------
Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering.
-Aeschylus, Agamemnon

Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Gvsualan
Perpetual Member
Member # 968

 - posted      Profile for Gvsualan     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Why still no scans of this bridge, 4 pages later, on a topic about said bridge?
Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
AndrewR
Resident Nut-cache
Member # 44

 - posted      Profile for AndrewR     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I don't think they would have designed a ship that could operate successfully in two parts - with the 'battle' section being named as such - for it to not work as well without the saucer.

--------------------
"Bears. Beets. Battlestar Galactica." - Jim Halpert. (The Office)

I'm LIZZING! - Liz Lemon (30 Rock)

Registered: Mar 1999  |  IP: Logged
Sol System
two dollar pistol
Member # 30

 - posted      Profile for Sol System     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Well, by the same token, I don't think they would have bothered with building a single ship that could split into two if the ship didn't function better when it was integrated. If it takes a major performance drop when combined then it isn't worth trying to cram everything into a single vessel, and you'd be better off building two different classes.

As far as the TNG tech manual is concerned, the requirement for the Galaxy class was that it could seperate and function reasonably well in that mode, not that either section would be the equal of the whole. And what we've seen onscreen bears this out (even though what we've seen onscreen has been primarily an issue of aesthetics).

Registered: Mar 1999  |  IP: Logged
Lee
I'm a spy now. Spies are cool.
Member # 393

 - posted      Profile for Lee     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Those two GCS's in "Sacrifice of Angels" seemed nippy enough in close quarters. . .

Perhaps war-stock GCS's didn't even have the ability to separate: maybe that's the significance of the cobra-stripe ones we saw?

Registered: Jul 2000  |  IP: Logged
AndrewR
Resident Nut-cache
Member # 44

 - posted      Profile for AndrewR     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Sol System:
Well, by the same token, I don't think they would have bothered with building a single ship that could split into two if the ship didn't function better when it was integrated. If it takes a major performance drop when combined then it isn't worth trying to cram everything into a single vessel, and you'd be better off building two different classes.

OK then, wouldn't it be easier on resources to just build a lot of battle-sections/engineering sections from galaxy classes? And leave the space-frames of the saucers in storage?

--------------------
"Bears. Beets. Battlestar Galactica." - Jim Halpert. (The Office)

I'm LIZZING! - Liz Lemon (30 Rock)

Registered: Mar 1999  |  IP: Logged
Mark Nguyen
I'm a daddy now!
Member # 469

 - posted      Profile for Mark Nguyen     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm of the opinion that the GCS we saw in the war were all on the production line already, so it makes sense for all of them to ship out with both sections intact and together, thus keeping all the fun stuff in their hulls that I mentioned previously. You could probably build several smaller ships for the resource cost of one GCS, which is probably what they ended up doing in addition to finishing what they've got in dock. The only expections would probably those GCS in the prelimiary assembly phase, where those resources would be better put to use elsewhere.

The hull itself may have something to do with it, as we know that an intact hull is vital to optimal warp speeds - possibly even more than the mass of the ship itself. If the engines were built for optimal performance as a whole ship, you might prefer to keep it together.

And as speculated before, some of them could be outfitted for other missions, too; with some simple barracks, you could transport LOTS of troops and support in there. An quick internal expansion of the main shuttlebay would give a place for dozens of fighters. And of course, for the extra weapons and stuff too. There's place for any of these possibilities in the big fleet battles we saw, which involved needing to get to, capture, and then hold a strategic location.

Mark

--------------------
"This is my timey-wimey detector. Goes ding when there's stuff." - Doctor Who
The 404s - Improv Comedy | Mark's Starship Bridge Designs | Anime Alberta

Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged
cptmkb
I WAS IN THE FUTURE, IT WAS TOO LATE TO RSVP
Member # 709

 - posted      Profile for cptmkb     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by AndrewR:
quote:
Originally posted by Sol System:
Well, by the same token, I don't think they would have bothered with building a single ship that could split into two if the ship didn't function better when it was integrated. If it takes a major performance drop when combined then it isn't worth trying to cram everything into a single vessel, and you'd be better off building two different classes.

OK then, wouldn't it be easier on resources to just build a lot of battle-sections/engineering sections from galaxy classes? And leave the space-frames of the saucers in storage?
youve missed the point.. the stardrive section needs the saucer to maintain full potency.. however they thought it worked on paper, the saucer sep idea created little more than a lifeboat.. without the saucer reactors and phaser coverage the GCS is definitely worse off in battle separated

--------------------
"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

Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Gvsualan
Perpetual Member
Member # 968

 - posted      Profile for Gvsualan     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Nguyen:
And as speculated before, some of them could be outfitted for other missions, too; with some simple barracks, you could transport LOTS of troops and support in there. An quick internal expansion of the main shuttlebay would give a place for dozens of fighters. And of course, for the extra weapons and stuff too. There's place for any of these possibilities in the big fleet battles we saw, which involved needing to get to, capture, and then hold a strategic location.

Mark

Well, Yar mentioned in "Yesterday's Enterprise" that that version of the Enterprise was capable of transporting 6000 troops, so despite being in an alternate timeline the possibility probably exists, so I'm sure the Dominion War variants were outfitted in much the same way...or at least could have been...
Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
PsyLiam
Hungry for you
Member # 73

 - posted      Profile for PsyLiam     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I have a feeling the tech manual probably bears that out. And thinking about it, if they can get over 1000 people on with those big, spacious rooms, then surely they could get a hell of a lot more on if people bunked up.

Galaxy - saucer = headless chicken (says Mr Farraund, anyway).

--------------------
Yes, you're despicable, and... and picable... and... and you're definitely, definitely despicable. How a person can get so despicable in one lifetime is beyond me. It isn't as though I haven't met a lot of people. Goodness knows it isn't that. It isn't just that... it isn't... it's... it's despicable.

Registered: Mar 1999  |  IP: Logged
PsyLiam
Hungry for you
Member # 73

 - posted      Profile for PsyLiam     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Dat:
That and we could have seen the separated saucer as well, both in combat but acting independently of each other. You get to have additional ships to fight with.

Brilliant idea. Because the one thing you want in combat is a ship that needs 5 minutes preperation before it can go to warp.

--------------------
Yes, you're despicable, and... and picable... and... and you're definitely, definitely despicable. How a person can get so despicable in one lifetime is beyond me. It isn't as though I haven't met a lot of people. Goodness knows it isn't that. It isn't just that... it isn't... it's... it's despicable.

Registered: Mar 1999  |  IP: Logged
Mark Nguyen
I'm a daddy now!
Member # 469

 - posted      Profile for Mark Nguyen     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Never underestimate the number of people you can cram into a starship. The average aircraft carrier is a mere 300m long and 40m tall, no? One of those has 5000-6000 crew under NORMAL conditions. A GCS can swallow at least a couple of these!

Mark

--------------------
"This is my timey-wimey detector. Goes ding when there's stuff." - Doctor Who
The 404s - Improv Comedy | Mark's Starship Bridge Designs | Anime Alberta

Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged
cptmkb
I WAS IN THE FUTURE, IT WAS TOO LATE TO RSVP
Member # 709

 - posted      Profile for cptmkb     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
it makes the 1701's 430 seem more reasonable.. and Voyager's 150 seem downright sparse.. they musta had big closets..
Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mark Nguyen
I'm a daddy now!
Member # 469

 - posted      Profile for Mark Nguyen     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
NX-01 shares this density - I've always wondered, with only 87 people aboard (most in twin bunks), there wasn't any space for VIP quarters. At least with the refit, they seem to have rearranged things to fit in barracks for the MACOs (how many remains to be seen), a brig, ops room, and space for photon(ic) torpedoes.

Mark

--------------------
"This is my timey-wimey detector. Goes ding when there's stuff." - Doctor Who
The 404s - Improv Comedy | Mark's Starship Bridge Designs | Anime Alberta

Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged
Gvsualan
Perpetual Member
Member # 968

 - posted      Profile for Gvsualan     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by CaptainMike20X6:
it makes the 1701's 430 seem more reasonable.. and Voyager's 150 seem downright sparse.. they musta had big closets..

I can't imagine what Voyager does with all of its Volume. They certainly must not have it invested in crew quarters. That one episode, "Prophecy"..where they take on 300 Klingons and up their compliment comparable to that of the 1701 (450ish) and had the quarters 'doubled-up' and still had the cargo bays crammed full of Klingons.
Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
  This topic comprises 7 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.

Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


© 1999-2008 Solareclipse Network.

Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3