Craptastic, Failfabulous, Destructi-prone starships

Aaron · Post by **Aaron** » Tue Apr 29, 2008 12:14 am

Bryan Moore wrote:Where would you all suggest to place the bridge?

Either continue to have the bridge on the top of the saucer and have combat functions relocated to a CIC in the centre of the saucer or continue to combine the bridge/CIC functions and have it located in the centre of the saucer.

Bryan Moore · Post by **Bryan Moore** » Tue Apr 29, 2008 12:20 am

Cpl Kendall wrote:
Bryan Moore wrote:Where would you all suggest to place the bridge?
Either continue to have the bridge on the top of the saucer and have combat functions relocated to a CIC in the centre of the saucer or continue to combine the bridge/CIC functions and have it located in the centre of the saucer.

Makes sense to me!

kostmayer · Post by **kostmayer** » Tue Apr 29, 2008 12:40 am

I say Ten Forward. You can ram the enemy ship then board them straight from the Bridge.

Aaron · Post by **Aaron** » Tue Apr 29, 2008 12:42 am

kostmayer wrote:I say Ten Forward. You can ram the enemy ship then board them straight from the Bridge.

Like a boarding tube? Now SF needs to recruit some Space Wolves!

Duskofdead · Post by **Duskofdead** » Tue Apr 29, 2008 3:39 am

Ships like that, that you claim to be so much better built are also substatually less powerful.

You think starfleet just woke up one day and went "You know what? To hell with having robust nacelles lets make them out of glass"

No, they powered up their ships to make them faster,stronger,better and the result was they couldnt have a dinky little nacelle like the Miranda.

This was my impression as well. Between TOS and pretty much the very end of TNG, what was happening was that power overall and power generation was increasing in a raw sense. The technology sometimes lacked "finesse" because on each new design the technology was jumping before it had time to be refined. (The "generation" of ships sharing the timeline with the GCS was the Nebula and the Akira, ships which were only in their prime for seven years of canon, perhaps a decade or a decade and a half tops, between their point of production and the unveiling of even better new generations of starships.) What we saw after TNG tended to be a "refining" of existing technology-- the variable geometry nacelles of the Intrepid, for example, and the sleeker more compact (relatively) nacelles of the Sovereign.

kostmayer · Post by **kostmayer** » Tue Apr 29, 2008 7:39 am

Cpl Kendall wrote:
kostmayer wrote:I say Ten Forward. You can ram the enemy ship then board them straight from the Bridge.
Like a boarding tube? Now SF needs to recruit some Space Wolves!

Wouldn't need them if Picard was on board

Just ram straight into the enemy ship then have the mother of all bar fights.

Post by **Teaos** » Tue Apr 29, 2008 11:29 am

Good luck getting insurance to pay out on that.

Sionnach Glic · Post by **Sionnach Glic** » Tue Apr 29, 2008 4:37 pm

Where would you all suggest to place the bridge?

Deep inside the ship itself, as far away from the hull as possible to maximize protection and survivability. Also, throwing a secondary bridge onto the ship in another, equaly protected location wouldn't be a bad idea either.

Bryan Moore · Post by **Bryan Moore** » Tue Apr 29, 2008 5:42 pm

Rochey wrote:
Where would you all suggest to place the bridge?
Deep inside the ship itself, as far away from the hull as possible to maximize protection and survivability. Also, throwing a secondary bridge onto the ship in another, equaly protected location wouldn't be a bad idea either.

I'm all for that. Would you also attempt to place it far away from the warp core?

Duskofdead · Post by **Duskofdead** » Tue Apr 29, 2008 5:45 pm

Rochey wrote:
Where would you all suggest to place the bridge?
Deep inside the ship itself, as far away from the hull as possible to maximize protection and survivability. Also, throwing a secondary bridge onto the ship in another, equaly protected location wouldn't be a bad idea either.

Designing a ship so that the bridge would be as far from the exterior as possible means a cube... or a sphere....

Maybe my half-joking exaggerations about what would constitute an ideal ship design weren't too far off?

Aaron · Post by **Aaron** » Tue Apr 29, 2008 5:47 pm

Duskofdead wrote:
Designing a ship so that the bridge would be as far from the exterior as possible means a cube... or a sphere....

Maybe my half-joking exaggerations about what would constitute an ideal ship design weren't too far off?

Honestly, the Borg have two of the best designs in Trek from a usable space point of view: the sphere and cube. I know the Feds have a warp dynamics issue, though I fail to see why they can't put a nose cone on the front of a cube or rectangle.

Duskofdead · Post by **Duskofdead** » Tue Apr 29, 2008 5:49 pm

Cpl Kendall wrote:
Duskofdead wrote:
Designing a ship so that the bridge would be as far from the exterior as possible means a cube... or a sphere....

Maybe my half-joking exaggerations about what would constitute an ideal ship design weren't too far off?
Honestly, the Borg have two of the best designs in Trek from a usable space point of view: the sphere and cube. I know the Feds have a warp dynamics issue, though I fail to see why they can't put a nose cone on the front of a cube or rectangle.

I am just making the wild speculation that pure geometric shapes are "friendlier" with transwarp fields, and that angular shapes are friendlier to warp dynamics. Either that, or the Borg waste a lot of energy on travel efficiency and don't care cause they have energy to burn.

Aaron · Post by **Aaron** » Tue Apr 29, 2008 5:54 pm

Duskofdead wrote:
I am just making the wild speculation that pure geometric shapes are "friendlier" with transwarp fields, and that angular shapes are friendlier to warp dynamics. Either that, or the Borg waste a lot of energy on travel efficiency and don't care cause they have energy to burn.

*shrug* The Borg don't seem to be short of energy. I'm not sure if they qualify as a post-scarcity civilisation but they have to be close.

Duskofdead · Post by **Duskofdead** » Tue Apr 29, 2008 5:56 pm

Cpl Kendall wrote:
Duskofdead wrote:
I am just making the wild speculation that pure geometric shapes are "friendlier" with transwarp fields, and that angular shapes are friendlier to warp dynamics. Either that, or the Borg waste a lot of energy on travel efficiency and don't care cause they have energy to burn.
*shrug* The Borg don't seem to be short of energy. I'm not sure if they qualify as a post-scarcity civilisation but they have to be close.

They do seem obsessed with efficiency though. Although certainly a lot of what they do seems wasteful from our perspective. I'm just taking a wild guess that their ships almost perfectly match ideal forms for transwarp travel. Seems in keeping with their OCD nature.

Aaron · Post by **Aaron** » Tue Apr 29, 2008 6:02 pm

Duskofdead wrote:
They do seem obsessed with efficiency though. Although certainly a lot of what they do seems wasteful from our perspective.

Agreed.

I'm just taking a wild guess that their ships almost perfectly match ideal forms for transwarp travel. Seems in keeping with their OCD nature.

Before the appearance of the Queen, I would have agreed with you. Now it may well be that she likes the shapes, they make her hot or it's a link to their past.