Dominion war - galaxies without saucer section

[bladela]

Could it work better if the "federation hack" of the slipstream remains inherently "unsafe" ?

In this case a secondary standard warp drive would be useful as a backup and this explains the presence of the nacelles, which, from what little we know about the slipstream, are not essential

it could also also require to a redefinition of the warp scale (i seriously doubt they always could co at "maximum speed"), with values above 10 in slipstream, and this would nicely bind it with All good things

[DarkMoineau]

The thing that irritates me is that most advanced drive tech we've seen is simply a slight variation of existing hardware. A few engine tweaks, a "transwarp coil" in place of a warp coil, and you're good to go. The technology driving the basic design of the ships isn't one that Trek seems all that interested in.

(Which is one of the things I strove hard to avoid in the Coalition universe, just because it bugs me so damn much.)

Hell, in the novelverse the Federation has cracked slipstream design enough to build functional full-on starships that have gone to the other side of the galaxy and back. What do they look like?



A somewhat more sleek version of every Trek ship ever.

To be honest, look at aircraft with turboprop or jet engines or more sophisticated thrusters... they are sleekers versions of a basic design....

[Coalition]

One issue the Federation could run into is overall structural technology. For example when using the Borg Transwarp technology there was a lot of structural stress on the ship, and Janeway had to eventually shut it down before Voyager broke.

So one thing I expect in the meantime is Federation research focusing on stronger structural systems. A side effect of this is that the technology can be used to make structural components a smaller mass fraction of the mounting ship, allowing more freedom of interior design, power conduit routing, turbolift access, aso. (It would also be applied to warships, making them stronger on a ton for ton basis)

So the Federation ships might look the same on the outside (where the hull is designed for warp travel efficiency), but on the inside they are becoming much better.

As an example, imagine a Federation ship where the radial structural members in the saucer are mounted every ten degrees, to ensure sufficient strength at the extremities. A better form of structural technology is developed, and the ship's redesign allows for structural members every 12 degrees. That changes it from needing 36 structural 'bars' coming from the center, to only needing 30. The mass freed up from those 6 members can be put to other uses, and rooms that needed to be put at the perimeter of the saucer due to width requirements can now be placed only 5/6 of the way from the center of the saucer to the edge (so if a room had to be 150 meters away from the center, now it can be placed 125 meters away).

Another example of structural members going through a room would be Ent-D's 10-Forward, where you could see structural members going through parts of the room near the edge. (And in "Starship Mine", Picard had to climb onto one to avoid getting killed by the energy sweep)

By radial structural members, I mean imagine where the center of the saucer is where several dozen structural beams are radiation away from. See 0:21 in Star Trek Beyond ending to see a good example of radial structural members:
https://youtu.be/AH6XBXPUai4?t=20s
(You'll have to hit pause quickly, or rewind to get it right)

[Graham Kennedy]

To be honest, look at aircraft with turboprop or jet engines or more sophisticated thrusters... they are sleekers versions of a basic design....

Well, yes and no.

In engine technology, prop engines look fundamentally different to jet engines, yes? And that's the kind of thing I'd like to see for slipstream or transwarp - a fundamentally different shape to the standard nacelle. Actually if it were me, Vulcans never would have had ring nacelles and then I'd use that concept for a transwarp or slipstream design.

[DarkMoineau]

I was more thinking about an airliner looking mostly the same despite having turboprop or jet engines. ^^

On the other side, SR-71 is a lost faster than any jet ever made and still look like a streamlined jet. It seems to be the inspiration of the streamlined transwars ships.

[Graham Kennedy]

But an SR-71 looks much the same as other jets because it IS much the same as other jets. There's nothing fundamentally different about an SR-71, it's virtually identical technology to a 747, just implemented to maximise speed.

But transwarp and slipstream seem intended to be different technologies altogether. A transwarp ship isn't just a warp ship designed to go really fast, it's something completely new. Or that's my impression, anyway.

The comparison I generally use is water ship propulsion. You can have sails and you can have propellors. Both push a ship through the water, but they do it in fundamentally different ways. And as a result the ships look fundamentally different from one another. IMO, transwarp ships should look as different to warp ships as propellor ships look to sailing ships.

[Mikey]

There's different, and then there's different. While piston engines and jet engines are fundamentally different, airplanes still look like airplanes - a fuselage with airfoils on either side and a stabilizer/rudder assembly on the back. Likewise, while sail-driven ships and prop-drive ships use vastly different technology, we can still recognize the basic shape of a hull from one to the other. I agree that a greater degree of difference should be evident for the heralding of new drive technology, but I think it's unrealistic to expect the basic form of starships to change too much from the nacelles/hull/saucer aesthetic.

[DarkMoineau]

There's different, and then there's different. While piston engines and jet engines are fundamentally different, airplanes still look like airplanes - a fuselage with airfoils on either side and a stabilizer/rudder assembly on the back. Likewise, while sail-driven ships and prop-drive ships use vastly different technology, we can still recognize the basic shape of a hull from one to the other. I agree that a greater degree of difference should be evident for the heralding of new drive technology, but I think it's unrealistic to expect the basic form of starships to change too much from the nacelles/hull/saucer aesthetic.

You made it better than me

[Graham Kennedy]

There's different, and then there's different. While piston engines and jet engines are fundamentally different, airplanes still look like airplanes - a fuselage with airfoils on either side and a stabilizer/rudder assembly on the back. Likewise, while sail-driven ships and prop-drive ships use vastly different technology, we can still recognize the basic shape of a hull from one to the other. I agree that a greater degree of difference should be evident for the heralding of new drive technology, but I think it's unrealistic to expect the basic form of starships to change too much from the nacelles/hull/saucer aesthetic.

And again - the basic hull shape of old and modern ships is similar because the technology is similar. A ship is a ship, hydrodynamics apply. And if we want to say that transwarp and slipstream are both just faster versions of warp drive, then fair enough.

But my impression of transwarp and slipstream has always been that they are supposed to be a fundamentally different technology. To my thinking, comparing the hull of a warp ship to the hull of a transwarp ship isn't like comparing the hull of an old-time sailing ship to the hull of a modern destroyer. It's more like comparing the hull of an old-time sailing ship to the fuselage of an aircraft.

[McAvoy]

Airplane is going to look the same regardless of the engine used. Piston prop planes and turbo prop planes will look very similar to each other unless you know what to look for or familiar with models of planes.

When it comes to boats, here's the thing, if the boat does the same thing such as a destroyer or a cruiser or even an aircraft carrier will obviously look the same.

However there are different hulls though. Submarines looked like boats WW2 and earlier and then became missile like later on. Basically to maximize speed underwater when they could be underwater most of the time.

Then you got speed boats that look like a boat but once they get up to a certain speed they lift their bow and basically speed away on the water on basically a step.

In other words, water seems to be more apt in describing fictional Trek drives.

[bladela]

There's different, and then there's different. While piston engines and jet engines are fundamentally different, airplanes still look like airplanes - a fuselage with airfoils on either side and a stabilizer/rudder assembly on the back. Likewise, while sail-driven ships and prop-drive ships use vastly different technology, we can still recognize the basic shape of a hull from one to the other. I agree that a greater degree of difference should be evident for the heralding of new drive technology, but I think it's unrealistic to expect the basic form of starships to change too much from the nacelles/hull/saucer aesthetic.

And again - the basic hull shape of old and modern ships is similar because the technology is similar. A ship is a ship, hydrodynamics apply. And if we want to say that transwarp and slipstream are both just faster versions of warp drive, then fair enough.

But my impression of transwarp and slipstream has always been that they are supposed to be a fundamentally different technology. To my thinking, comparing the hull of a warp ship to the hull of a transwarp ship isn't like comparing the hull of an old-time sailing ship to the hull of a modern destroyer. It's more like comparing the hull of an old-time sailing ship to the fuselage of an aircraft.

We have no indication of what idea is correct.

Starfleet started working with transwarp technology (with outstanding success ) already with the excelsior almost a century ago...but in star trek III that ship did not seem so different from the Enterprise , this suggests that, at least for Starfleet, the warp's design principles remained valid. It is also true that the project failed ... and maybe partly because the wrong ship shape...but in a whole century no one notices the error?

In any case it's not for sure that the transition to a new technology leads immediately to a change of the rest of the machine.

An F14 is certainly very different from the first airplane , but for example an M262 is not so different from a BF109, yet one is a jet, the other use a propeller.

[Captain Seafort]

However there are different hulls though. Submarines looked like boats WW2 and earlier and then became missile like later on. Basically to maximize speed underwater when they could be underwater most of the time.

However, once that shift had been made, they didn't change much - the external differences between a Type XXI U-boat and USS Nautilus, or between the Upholder and Trafalgar classes, are minimal.

[bladela]

However, once that shift had been made, they didn't change much - the external differences between a Type XXI U-boat and USS Nautilus, or between the Upholder and Trafalgar classes, are minimal.

it is simply the law of diminishing returns.

The Type XXI was already close to the maximum efficiency...

[McAvoy]

Maybe you can make a case for a submarine that can a plane or visa versa.

You don't necessarily have to change the shape of the Galaxy saucer. The thing is huge to begin with. Plenty of space to make the ship a mobile weapons platform.

Build one from scratch with the idea of a having more phasers, more torpedo tubes, hell maybe a second warp core for additional energy. Perhaps small one barrel pulse phaser turrets (like Movie era type).

My guess the biggest limitation would be energy supply to power these weapons. That the time and material to make these single purpose saucers.

[bladela]

Maybe you can make a case for a submarine that can a plane or visa versa.

You don't necessarily have to change the shape of the Galaxy saucer. The thing is huge to begin with. Plenty of space to make the ship a mobile weapons platform.

Build one from scratch with the idea of a having more phasers, more torpedo tubes, hell maybe a second warp core for additional energy. Perhaps small one barrel pulse phaser turrets (like Movie era type).

My guess the biggest limitation would be energy supply to power these weapons. That the time and material to make these single purpose saucers.

exactly my thought.

A pair of defiant-style warp cores, some additional deuterium and antimatter containers, and it's ready

If the phasers cost too much energy, you can always install additional torpedo tubes.

The other great lack that I feel in the trek weaponry (in the original timeline) is short-range point defense systems, to intercept torpedoes and missiles (like the Stargate SG1 rail guns).