Yamaguchi
Yamaguchi
Or rather the Yamaguchi variant of the Ambassador class. There's an interesting bit on it at:
http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/artic ... ssador.htm
And DITL has some stuff on the Ambassador class as well.
So for discussion:
What's with the Upside down shuttle bay? Is it even a shuttle bay? If not what would it be? While with artificial gravity it would seem possible to have an inverted section on the ship it doesn't seem to be how things are done.
Where do you think the torp launchers would be? I'm thinking neck for both forward and rear facing.
Finally do you think the Yamaguchi should be considered an upgrade? It's got the fancier sensor dome, larger engineering section, and the Nacelles have been tweaked. If you think it's an upgrade like how the Galaxy class was upgraded what DITL stats would you give it? Bear in mind these things were known (such as in Redemption II) to be getting major refits well after Galaxies and Nebulas were around.
http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/artic ... ssador.htm
And DITL has some stuff on the Ambassador class as well.
So for discussion:
What's with the Upside down shuttle bay? Is it even a shuttle bay? If not what would it be? While with artificial gravity it would seem possible to have an inverted section on the ship it doesn't seem to be how things are done.
Where do you think the torp launchers would be? I'm thinking neck for both forward and rear facing.
Finally do you think the Yamaguchi should be considered an upgrade? It's got the fancier sensor dome, larger engineering section, and the Nacelles have been tweaked. If you think it's an upgrade like how the Galaxy class was upgraded what DITL stats would you give it? Bear in mind these things were known (such as in Redemption II) to be getting major refits well after Galaxies and Nebulas were around.
-
- Fleet Admiral
- Posts: 35635
- Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 3:04 am
- Commendations: The Daystrom Award
- Location: down the shore, New Jersey, USA
- Contact:
I thought that that "variant" of the Ambassador merely repositioned the nacelles in relation to the pylons, not changed the nacelles themselves.
Obviously the "true" reasoning involves model issues; but in-universe, the differences can be attributed to addressign stresses on the nacelle pylons; an advanced sensor pallet becoming available soon after initial production (thus the different radome;) and an alternate (or easier to get to) cargo area or shuttlebay.
Obviously the "true" reasoning involves model issues; but in-universe, the differences can be attributed to addressign stresses on the nacelle pylons; an advanced sensor pallet becoming available soon after initial production (thus the different radome;) and an alternate (or easier to get to) cargo area or shuttlebay.
I can't stand nothing dull
I got the high gloss luster
I'll massacre your ass as fast
as Bull offed Custer
I got the high gloss luster
I'll massacre your ass as fast
as Bull offed Custer
-
- Fleet Admiral
- Posts: 35635
- Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 3:04 am
- Commendations: The Daystrom Award
- Location: down the shore, New Jersey, USA
- Contact:
Technically, why do they need two? Since the common wisdom is that the class was more geared toward diplomatic/envoy missions, perhaps an extra, more luxurious bay was installed to receive guests of state; or, one more able to accomodate non-M-class environments.
I can't stand nothing dull
I got the high gloss luster
I'll massacre your ass as fast
as Bull offed Custer
I got the high gloss luster
I'll massacre your ass as fast
as Bull offed Custer
-
- Banned
- Posts: 5594
- Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 8:53 pm
Hmmm....my reasoning for differences
1) We know bridge modules are interchangeable and this may merely be a later bridge module, possibly even related the variations
2) Updated sensor systems. The E-C version would've been a few decades old by then.
3) No reason the deflector can't be pulled out and replaced.
4) Possibly a true variation, the E-C could be a first batch version while the later batches may have had more efficient design alterations.
5) same as four
6) Nacelles are modular and this may have been a newer, faster, more efficient version
7) If it is a third shuttlebay it was probably to expand shuttle capacity.
8) Probably a side effect of a third shuttlebay
9) Newer, faster, and more efficient impulse drive
1) We know bridge modules are interchangeable and this may merely be a later bridge module, possibly even related the variations
2) Updated sensor systems. The E-C version would've been a few decades old by then.
3) No reason the deflector can't be pulled out and replaced.
4) Possibly a true variation, the E-C could be a first batch version while the later batches may have had more efficient design alterations.
5) same as four
6) Nacelles are modular and this may have been a newer, faster, more efficient version
7) If it is a third shuttlebay it was probably to expand shuttle capacity.
8) Probably a side effect of a third shuttlebay
9) Newer, faster, and more efficient impulse drive
I dunno about expanding much of engineering because of an underslung shuttlebay or whatever.
I also really like Mikeys idea that there could be a pomp and circumstance shuttlebay. And I suppose I could see having a non class M as well, giving the need for 3 of the things.
Though I just occured to me something cool you could do with that setup. A number of newer trek designs (well at least the AKira for certain) feature a "through" shuttlebay. Now there isn't any way to add one of those to the Ambassador. But if you added an elevator between the two you could get something of the same capability with the dual setup on the Yamaguchi. I would think the broader upper one would be for landing. Then towards the end of the bay would be elevators to move the ships lower down, somewhere in there the shuttle/fighter gets restocked/recrewed, and then you could launch ouf of the lower bay. The odd angle produced by that shuttlebay layout could be so outgoing craft can move away from the ship at a sharp angle so as to better avoid incoming craft.
On an Ambassador that could have initially been for colonizing purposes.
I also really like Mikeys idea that there could be a pomp and circumstance shuttlebay. And I suppose I could see having a non class M as well, giving the need for 3 of the things.
Though I just occured to me something cool you could do with that setup. A number of newer trek designs (well at least the AKira for certain) feature a "through" shuttlebay. Now there isn't any way to add one of those to the Ambassador. But if you added an elevator between the two you could get something of the same capability with the dual setup on the Yamaguchi. I would think the broader upper one would be for landing. Then towards the end of the bay would be elevators to move the ships lower down, somewhere in there the shuttle/fighter gets restocked/recrewed, and then you could launch ouf of the lower bay. The odd angle produced by that shuttlebay layout could be so outgoing craft can move away from the ship at a sharp angle so as to better avoid incoming craft.
On an Ambassador that could have initially been for colonizing purposes.
- Teaos
- 4 Star Admiral
- Posts: 15368
- Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 4:00 am
- Commendations: The Daystrom Award
- Location: Behind you!
The upside dow shuttlebay is not a big issue. Maybe they thought it would help landings nd take offs for some reason.
What does defeat mean to you?
Nothing it will never come. Death before defeat. I don’t bend or break. I end, if I meet a foe capable of it. Victory is in forcing the opponent to back down. I do not. There is no defeat.
Nothing it will never come. Death before defeat. I don’t bend or break. I end, if I meet a foe capable of it. Victory is in forcing the opponent to back down. I do not. There is no defeat.