Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
Flare Sci-Fi Forums
»
Star Trek
»
Starships & Technology
»
Just another small question, this time regarding the...
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message:
HTML is enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Timo: [QB] Good ideas there. However, I see the hull extensions of the Larson as filling the same function as the connecting neck of the Saladin - housing the main propulsion machinery (or the parts that aren't housed in the nacelle, anyway). And the fuel, be it the currently assumed deuterium or the previously suggested neutronium. And the need for aft phasers would be met nicely by installing a full set of six twin emitters on the saucer - the lateral banks would be able to fire aft quite nicely. As all those old TOS ships seem to only have three twin banks, Starfleet presumably was originally unable to fit more aboard a hull of that size. Or then there were berths readied for a full set of six, but only for possible wartime needs. In either case, I wouldn't see Starfleet being able or willing to install special aft phasers on an early Larson. The Loknar had 3+1 tubes and the Larson had 2? Cool. I like both designs, but I hate the idea that the Loknar would be so much larger than the Larson, and be considered a "frigate" against Larson's "destroyer". The times when RW navies have used those designations simultaneously have usually had the size relationship be exactly the opposite. The atypical saucer shape of the Loknar IMHO allows for easy rescaling of the ship to something smaller, like the various "perimeter action ships" she so much resembles. (And those TOS nacelles did come in varying sizes, since the TAS freighters had small ones of basically identical shape!) Timo Saloniemi [/QB][/QUOTE]
Instant Graemlins
Instant UBB Code™
What is UBB Code™?
Options
Disable Graemlins in this post.
*** Click here to review this topic. ***
© 1999-2024 Charles Capps
Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3