Topic: Federation Hopper design I'm stealing from Rick Sternbach
Daniel Butler
I'm a Singapore where is my boat
Member # 1689
posted
I'm not saying you should kill them because you won't be negotiating with them soon. What I meant was there's a difference between problems that can be solved by diplomacy (i.e. 99% of them) and problems that can't *be* solved until one of you wins a real war, like happened with the Dominion. I mentioned the Borg because they were even talking about what was acceptable to do them as if there *was* another solution - as if they could negotiate with what was essentially a cancer instead of just destroying it.
Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
posted
People are fundamentally non-violent. They look for the solution that doesn't require force first. This is a good thing, because it keeps us from collectively becoming bloodthirsty barbarians.
I don't have a problem with seeing that reality portrayed in Trek as a slow-to-anger kind of policy. That's pretty normal.
As Rev pointed out, we differ in opinion as to the role and purpose of Starfleet and I won't bring that disagreement in here to derail his thread. I'd only add that as far as policy is concerned, the Trek world is unrealistically biased toward one end of the spectrum - which makes no sense since they seem to be under constant and unceasing attack and threat of attack by hundreds of small and large entities.
I understand why they do that of course: to show Starfleet, and especially humans, as 'the better man' every time; winning hearts and minds or just plain forcing their agenda down the throats of dirty little independent species as they encounter them.
Anyway, I like Rev's approach to designing this craft. I think he's right in the way he's doing it. Only in the movies do you really try to land in the middle of a firefight - that's a surefire way to lose the aircraft and everyone it's carrying. This ship should be biased towards transportation, and I mean physical transportation of personnel and cargo - not transporter beams.
It doesn't make any logical sense to create a personnel carrier that then uses transporters to send its contents somewhere else. It'd be like rigging a modern-day APC with a trebuchet to lob its soldiers the last half mile.
Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
-------------------- When you're in the Sol system, come visit the Starfleet Museum
Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged
Daniel Butler
I'm a Singapore where is my boat
Member # 1689
posted
"People are fundamentally non-violent. They look for the solution that doesn't require force first. This is a good thing, because it keeps us from collectively becoming bloodthirsty barbarians. "
What the fuck have you been smoking? People are non-violent because there are police, courts, and jails. Look at countries where they don't have those, or good ones at least, and - the people are collectively bloodthirsty barbarians.
Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
posted
Dan, there's a big difference between what an average person will do and what a bunch of average people will do.
Masao, yes, I am don't worry. The lack of updates is because I'm working out the rough internal layout and how that effects the exterior before I start making the outside all detailed and pretty. I'll try and throw together something presentable soon,
quote:Originally posted by Daniel Butler:What the fuck have you been smoking? People are non-violent because there are police, courts, and jails. Look at countries where they don't have those, or good ones at least, and - the people are collectively bloodthirsty barbarians.
Hehe, I understand why you would think so, but it's actually far from true. The fact that the Earth is not constantly swimming in blood is proof enough of that. Lack of police, courts and jails don't turn people into barbarians. Humans (in this example) self-organize automatically and the vast majority of us don't go looking to start trouble.
In those regions where violence is rife, there's usually several contributing factors; it's not simply the fact that it's a bunch of human beings in one place.
In this respect it makes sense in Star Trek.
Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
Daniel Butler
I'm a Singapore where is my boat
Member # 1689
posted
I dunno. It's possible I'm too cynical sometimes. I just don't see a lot of evidence that people really *want* to be good and peaceful. Mostly not exactly *violent* I guess, though...Mostly, they seem to want to party a lot instead of doing anything productive.
Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Shik: How about a giant mass driver cannon that rains down asteroidy & cometary death from above? That's make the LZ super-secure, yeh?
Nonsense: with transporters you should be able to beam away just half the atoms in a given area causing massive a hard radiation detonation.
Or, you could drop neutronium pinballs on them frrom orbit.
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
Daniel Butler
I'm a Singapore where is my boat
Member # 1689
posted
Or do the transporter scramble protocol Picard used to destroy the Tox Uthat on every soldier in transporter range. Or, to save power, just beam them into space - dispersal pattern if desired, but not really necessary.
Edit: Or, y'know, install windows.
[ June 25, 2008, 08:34 PM: Message edited by: Daniel Butler ]
Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
posted
Or just beaming out key components (like on Enterprise). Really, a treaty stipluation is pretty silly once you consider all the hostiles that would not sign such a limiting treaty. There's no countermeasure if the shields (or transporter scramblers) are down.
You should be able to beam out all the atmosphere on an enemy ship and take it for yourself.
Nice deck plan (as always) but this design just does nothing for me.
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
