posted
*shakes head* That is not a statement I recall from any trek series- it would also be illogical to make the Defiant with a similar warp core to a Galaxy Class... It wouldn't be a flying warship, it'd be a flying bomb.
Please lay out why you feel the design rules are invalid.... I would hate to think they put nacelles out on pylons just to make them easier to shoot at.
Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
posted
He's not saying the rules are invalid. He's saying they've been invalidated, or contradicted, many times.
The one that quickly comes to my mind is the Freedom class. Here are comments from Ex-Astris-Scientia.org
quote:Annotations 1) The "Frying-pan" class by Greg Jein is the only strictly canon ship with a single warp nacelle known by now. The Firebrand was among the ships in the Wolf 359 graveyard, and is depicted in the Star Trek Fact Files.
2) It has been argued that the ship wouldn't violate Roddenberry design rule #2 (nacelles must be in pairs) because the Galaxy-class nacelle has warp coils in pairs. But since the coils are vertically staggered inside the nacelle, they would act more like a single coil than if one were beside the other. Thus, if the warp engines are co-dependent across the ship's symmetry axis, it is a very inefficient arrangement.
Here are the rules:
quote: Rule #1 Warp nacelles *must* be in pairs. Rule #2 Warp nacelles must have at least 50% line-of-sight on each other across the hull. Rule #3 Both warp nacelles must be fully visible from the front. Rule #4 The bridge must be located at the top center of the primary hull.
Specifically points 1 and 2. My impression is that Roddenberry created the nonsense that warp nacelles must be in pairs in order to discredit Franz Joseph Design's work on the one-nacelled scout and destroyer concept from the Tech Manual. Roddenberry then flip-flopped with the Freedom so he had to come up with some explaination. Stating that the single nacelle was really a dual nacelle in disgusie sounds like he pulled it out of his butt.
The Challenger class would be another one that violates this principle.
Heck, nearly every Cardassian ship violates the concept. There is no clear space between the Cardassian nacelles.
Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
posted
Sure they have been contradicted- what in Trek has not been? *L* And it may have come from his butt, but I think any explaination that comes directly from Roddenberry carries weight.
Those are good rules I think- even I have not followed them all... nacelles tend to always be viewable from the front, because the bussard collector tends to be on the front of the nacelle, and they must be in a location to gather hydrogen- but one could easily relocate just that function elsewhere on a design, and then the nacelles need not be seen from the front. And the bridge is more a style rule than an actual "Rule" (one that will prevent the vessel from functioning well).
There is a gap between the Cardassian nacelles, it's small, but then again, Cardassians could have invented a means of warp drive, or warping space that is completely foreign to the Federation- perhaps their system requires the nacelle parts to be very close, and when they are farther apart they become less efficient.
The Romulans certainly found a different means of powering their vessels- and perhaps their means of warping space differs as well- it seems every Romulan ship design has them very far apart.
Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
"Roddenberry then flip-flopped with the Freedom so he had to come up with some explaination. Stating that the single nacelle was really a dual nacelle in disgusie sounds like he pulled it out of his butt."
I'm pretty sure that's something that's been invented by random people trying to reconcile the design with the rules. Not Roddenberry. I doubt that he cared about the TBoBW designs, since they weren't actually visible in any meaningful way.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
I think the design�s ok, not that unique, memorizing, eloquent, and sleek. It�s kind of clunky.
I would have made a few changes:
1. Incorporate the catamaran a little more to look less catamaran-like. For example I would have curved the inner parts towards the bridge section, so it�ll look like three bumps from a foreword view. This would not just make it look less like the Akira it would be more accessible for the crew.
2. I would then add shuttlebays on the ends of each catamaran. They would be more reasonable for shuttling cargos and to hold average size shuttles. The rear shuttlebay seems really large, and since this is a long range exploration vehicle should house large long range exploration vehicles like runabouts, venture class, delta flyer size ships for long range exploration. The ship would then serve as a central hub for the different long range teams. Also because the rear bay would hold larger ships, it would explain the long runway.
3. I think the silhouette is ugly, so to correct this, I�d first fix the pod or just remove it. Other than being cumbersome for the crew it seems to just stick out and not flow with the rest of the ship. To fix it, I would just push it a little further back, and make the sails more curved. Maybe an arch backwards, and lower the height so it would look more sleek. It might look better if there were three supports rather than two, mainly because we�ve always seen two.
If the pod is removed then the ship as a whole would look more sleek.
4. The nacelles are very Akira like, so make it thinner and sharper near the end, and have the bussard collector more angled and less circular. I would have its height reduced so I could see the change in shape of the engineering hull. Not only will it look different from the nacelles from the Akira class, the silhouette would look less like an ink blob and the saucer, engineering section, and nacelles would seem more definable.
By the way, I agree. Based on the runner-ups this design is by far the best design out of the mix.
Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
posted
Roddenberry also said that with alien ships "anything goes" (referring to the season one plague ship- he really liked that one), so it's more a case of how Roddenberry wanted Fed ships to look and not any technological limitation with Warp.
Besides, ships from TNG and beyond would reflect radicaly diffrent designs and technologies from TOS/TMP/pre-TNG as new member worlds added their cultues and ship designs to the mix.
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
Speaking of ships reflecting different designs and tech from different cultures; I'd actually like to see something based off the Dauntless style. It would seem reasonable that the federation would try to adapt that design and develop slip stream tech, but that design should be some additional ship to the fleet, not the Titan.
Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
posted
Ug. I'd rather get away from the aquatic look- it fuckiog SPACE- aquadynamics are not required.
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
yeah, it'll be aquadynamics but it's reasonable that starfleet would experiment w/ different techs brought back by voyager. Plus it seems like they're going in that direction. Look at the Wells class.
I still stand by my changes for the titan design.
Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
Printer-friendly view of this topic
