Ok, I just thought I would make a new thread for these two ships.
Well, I have thought about all that has been presented here and I don't know what to say about the Freedom except that the single nacelle is possible. It just has to have a double cell nacelle to create a stable warp field. Hence maybe why the nacelle is bigger than that of a Galaxy or Nebula. I have no suggestions for placure of a warp core. Maybe it could be a tug or an A to B ship (if you know what I mean)
Niagra is butt ugly, but it must serve its purpose some how, what ever that may be. I think it's crap about the rarity of these ships...could they mean just in the core worlds? Maybe it is a Starbase ship( that is what I call a starship that is assigned or created soley for defending outposts and starbase and proctering cargo ships and keeping them in line.) This could be the reason for it's rarity. If this is the case then the Princton could have been assigned to Starbase 1 or undergoing repairs like in "10011001"<? you know what episode I mean>
RS
[ February 21, 2002, 10:41: Message edited by: Charles Capps ]
Posted by Charles Capps (Member # 9) on :
This topic was broken. It is no longer.
Posted by Dat (Member # 302) on :
Now that Charles has fixed the thread...RS, there is nothing to suggest the Freedom nacelles are larger than those from a Galaxy or Nebula. In fact, most everyone that I've encountered say they are the same size as Galaxy nacelles at best...or worst. But all who have commented on the Freedom nacelle have said it's the same size or smaller (a la New Orleans size). Certainly not bigger. You're the first to say that.
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
Were the Freedom nacelle to be of the same size as the New Orleans one (save for the stretch piece used in the New Orleanses), then the neck part of the ship could be of regular Constitution/Constellation size, and the entire ship would be very similar in size and shape to those old Saladin destroyers.
Wouldn't it be in the interests of all of us to have the Freedom be as small an insignificant a ship as possible?
The problem with that approach would be the bridge structure of the saucer, which cannot be exactly as depicted if the ship is that small. But we don't know how accurate the drawing is - and it seems likely that the Fact Files mixed equal parts of Niagara and Freedom into that saucer, so the deck spacing on the saucer could be incorrectly Niagara-style in the Freedom picture. (We do need a good photo of the Freedom!)
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
Weird, me and Fabrux were just discussing this the other day. We kicked around the idea that the Freedom was a transport, considered its similarity to the TOS Hermes-class (which was designated as a Scout; however, I didn't see that such a configuration would work in a TNG-sized Federation), then came to the conclusion it was a tug and that odd adjunct to the nacelle might be a heavy-duty tractor emitter.
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
Torpedo tubes on a tug? OTOH, if she's a destroyer, perhaps she's built as an attrition warship. Since she's not supposed to survive the battle anyway, why waste the credits on two nacelles?
I wonder how real that little thingamajig below the nacelle is. Supposedly Masaki Taniko saw the real thing (or how else could he know it was a Constellation part that was used for the neck?), but he hasn't edited the FF image in any way - because it's perfect already, or because he didn't have the time or the interest or the exact details? The FF image neck doesn't quite look like a Constellation vertical pylon.
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
Something has to explain the 'one nacellers'. Maybe these ships are unstable at continual warp, and can only partake in several 'jumps'!?!
That's one idea anyone else?
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
Or then it's just like modern warships having one or two screws. One is cheaper but less combat-resilient, and cannot serve as a means to augment maneuverability. Two is more expensive and not necessarily faster, but you can then lose one and still come home, and you can use differential thrust for steering. Three or four gives even more redundancy and perhaps allows you to channel your power more efficiently, with less stress per screw.
Except that I suspect the starships are finicky little pieces of technology, and losing one nacelle out of two creates such a horrid imbalance that the ship can no longer warp. Two-prop aircraft are less practical than two-screw ships on this, and if you have two widely separated jets on an aircraft... Take that to ^3 with warp nacelles.
Given the wide variety of warp-capable ship designs we have seen, I suspect that any whole number of nacelles between one and infinite is possible. Or perhaps one can also have fractional nacelles (like the Nebula study version had two plus two-halves).
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Iteresting point about turning w/ two screws. Perhaps a one-nacelle ship can't turn while in warp? Maybe it's designed to be a quickly-and-cheaply-built ship that just makes straight-line runs from place to place. That would make sense if it's a transport.
Posted by Rogue Starship (Member # 756) on :
Ok, I miswrote. I had heard that the size comparison was different than that of the Galaxy. Perhaps it was the neck and suucer?
Like I said, it is probably an A to B ship.
I love the screw theory. It makes sense.
RS
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
That it certainly does... *edits signature*
Posted by Rogue Starship (Member # 756) on :
![[Wink]](wink.gif)