Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
Flare Sci-Fi Forums
»
Sci-Fi
»
Designs, Artwork, & Creativity
»
Misc. TOS stuff
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message:
HTML is enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by MinutiaeMan: [QB] The problem with the Coronado design (not Harry's rendering, which is excellent as usual) is that there's practically no room for anything like a warp transfer conduit that we're used to seeing and has been established as the general principles of warp drive. I suppose that the warp core itself could be under the through-deck level at the very bottom of the ship, but that strikes me as a very impractical and structurally unsound arrangement. Consider that the through-deck by nature of the concept needs to go THROUGH the secondary hull. Also, any narrowing of the internal bay ends up reducing the space available to carry small craft and to maneuver them during launch and recovery operations. Now, also consider that there needs to be physical supports to hold the pylons in place against the hull, and also needs to be some way to route the plasma conduits from the lower hull where the warp core could be and into the nacelles. (If you argue that the engineering systems are in the saucer, that only magnifies the problem rather than lessens it.) Furthermore, I question the very need for a through-deck system in any Star Trek scenario, especially one in the TOS era or beyond. There's no need for such intense simultaneous launch-and-recovery operations, save for the direst evacuation or combat encounters which are both very rare. And in those cases, I think that the Coronado's available hangar space would be very inadequate to support the volume of small craft for a situation that would require such missions. Therefore, I submit that the design of the Coronado as it is is both unoriginal (seeking to almost completely mimic the configuration of the original Enterprise), structurally unsound within the known engineering principles of Trek (and even allowing for a few of the exceptions due to TOS's ambiguity), and finally conceptually unrealistic. I've got to go to class soon, but if I have time later today I'll whip up a diagram showing the maximum allowable hangar space and comparative shuttlecraft sizes, to show just how silly this idea could be. (As a real-life example, anyone know why the naval aircraft carriers today are so huge? They need LOTS of space, first to assemble and prepare the aircraft for launch, outfitting, and recovery, and also enough space to store them when not in use. Even allowing for the increased automation of Trek's equipment, you still need enough crewmembers to maintain the systems and operate things shipboard. Not to mention enough crew to maintain the ship ITSELF!) [/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