Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
Flare Sci-Fi Forums
»
Star Trek
»
Starships & Technology
»
Old nacelles
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message:
HTML is enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by David Templar: [QB] I believe the properties of a nacelle influences the warp field it generates which interacts with the subspace geometry of a vessel. So if Excelsior and Miranda's nacelles are designed for them, why change them, when it could necessitate an extensive change to the hull? You keep saying that newer nacelles are better, but I really don't think it matters. Starfleet designs ships with long service lives, so they have to keep the middle-aged effectiveness of ships well in mind. And there's really no reason why internal improvements can't suffice. After all, if Chief O'Brian believes that an old Excelsior like the Lakota can be "tinkered" to a point where she could possibily overtake a Defiant at warp, it's good enough for me. We really don't know how "slow" the Excelsiors and Mirandas were to begin with anyways, the gap could be much smaller than we thought. And why is a starship or different from a car, a WWII battleship, or a computer? They all share a certain sense of logic in design and use. We know enough about starships to know that they are worked and maintained like machines today. Warp nacelles are like propellers on a ship today, which are also "outboard", all they do is to take the power provided and make it move the ship. There's only so much you can change. I love the nacelles on the Excelsiors, and I think it'd be absolutely horrid if someone swap them for a TNG-era nacelle. It's worst than trying to fix something not broken, it's trying to fix something that works wonderfully. [/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