www.ditl.org

Beat ya to it, Teaos.

Anyway, stealing Teaos' trend of making threads about the main ships of every series, lets all remember the greatest ship in Starfleet, the Constitution class cruiser.

U
G
L
Y

You aint got no aliby you ugly, hey, hey, you ugly.

I didn't make this thread on purpose since I dislike this ship and am not a big fan of the series

It's an ugly ship made slightly better by the refit.

It is an unispired design that would have serious structual probelms if it were real.

You aint got no aliby you ugly, hey, hey, you ugly.

pfft. Superficial apearence is irrelevent. Ability is what matters.
And how could you not call the Galaxy or Defiant ugly?

But you're right, she is damned ugly.

It is an unispired design that would have serious structual probelms if it were real.

So would all the others.

At least my ship dosen't blow up if someone sneezes on the warp core.
So, nyah!

And how could you not call the Galaxy or Defiant ugly?

I did call the Defiant ugly and the Galaxy fat

The supporting struts on the nacells on all other ships are far better than that. They are getting fatter and more intergratted increasing over all strengh. This one looks like it would snap off at any moment.

On a design point it has a horribal firing arc compared to most trek ships.

The Connie is probably the toughest ship in Trek, especially compared with the 24th junk.

Warp nacelles: same design as the Miranda's, which can take sustained phaser fire and a torpedo before blowing up

Engineering hull: repeated pinpoint phaser hits at point-blank range and the warp core didn't blow up. Not only that, but she was warp capable and fighting a battle only a few hours later. We saw what less extensive damage did to the Galaxy-class in Generations.

Weapons: repeated direct hits to the port torpedo bay disabled it, but did not cause a magazine explosion.

Saucer: maintained integrity despite having a hole punched right through it - in "Emissary" the Melbourne's saucer blew up after comparatively superficial damage.

Most importantly it's a proper warship. No civilians, no living room bridge, no hotel-style crew quarters.

But it did have a whole blown through it. You've never seen a Galaxy take that sort of damage.

But this ship also had a lot of wasted space. Wider than needed corridors, massive walk ways in engineering (The one shown in The lost country)
It might have had smaller rooms than other ships but it was still wasteful.

Teaos wrote:But it did have a whole blown through it. You've never seen a Galaxy take that sort of damage.

No, they usually blow up first.

But this ship also had a lot of wasted space. Wider than needed corridors, massive walk ways in engineering (The one shown in The lost country)
It might have had smaller rooms than other ships but it was still wasteful.

It has wider corridors than modern ships, but no worse than any other Trek ship - it makes it easier to move around. The corridors have isolation doors at regular intervals (none of this TNG+ reliance on active systems). The ship's systems can be accesed by walking into a room, not by crawling through a million miles of Jefferies tubes. Do you think Spock would have been able to save the E-nil in "Wrath of Khan" if he'd had to crawl through those things to get to the damage?

You've never seen a Galaxy take that sort of damage.

You're right. They tend to detonate spectacularly to avoid such damage. Oh the wonders of 24th century engineering.

But this ship also had a lot of wasted space. Wider than needed corridors, massive walk ways in engineering (The one shown in The lost country)

*Cough*Hotel-sized-quaters*cough*
*Cough*Massive-corridors*cough*
*Cough* Miles-of-crawlways*cough"
*Cough*Unesacsarily-large-crew*cough*
*Cough*Living-Room-bridge*cough*

What?

It might have had smaller rooms than other ships but it was still wasteful.

No one's saying its perfect.

And whats the deal with all this, anyway? Do I go into your threads complaining about ships?

Oh, wait...

You're right. They tend to detonate spectacularly to avoid such damage. Oh the wonders of 24th century engineering.

Touche

*Cough*Hotel-sized-quaters*cough*
*Cough*Massive-corridors*cough*
*Cough* Miles-of-crawlways*cough"
*Cough*Unesacsarily-large-crew*cough*
*Cough*Living-Room-bridge*cough*

God man get a cough drop or something.

You say it makes a good warship yet it has a poor firing arc and for a ship of its size poor munoverability.[/quote]

God man get a cough drop or something.

You say it makes a good warship yet it has a poor firing arc and for a ship of its size poor munoverability.

For a ship of its time it had good maneuvarability. Thats like saying an 18th century Man Of War couldn't be a good ship because it was slow.

That seems more a product of the fact that they didn't use phaser 'strips' back then. What blind spots did it have that could be a major problem? Keeping in mind its enemies were nowhere near as maneuverable as TNG era ships.

Unfortunately, the Constitution and Constitution refit were designed without the 24th-century advance of a helm console which explodes in a fireball if someone looks at it funny.

I agree about it's toughness - if we scale the ships to the weapons of their eras, the Connie took a lot more of a licking and kept on ticking than many "modern" ships. Maybe the more advanced tech gets, the more delicate, eh?

Or Starfleet just couldn't design a way out of a wet paper bag...

Considering the weapons were a wlot weaker back then is it suprising it could take more hits than a 24th ship?

Materials, shielding, et.al., were weaker by the same amount.

I wouldn't same the same amount. Shields are more powerful due to better warp cores and the hulls would probably be a bit better but the weapons are a lot more powerful. Read the stats on the type X and X+ phasers compared to the ones on the Conny. Torpedo yeild is harder to judge since we have no clear idea on how good they are.