iantalosarika
Guest
Registered: Apr 19, 2024 23:25:23 GMT
|
Post by iantalosarika on Mar 31, 2006 2:30:27 GMT
I've been designing my own class of Starship before I joined this site, I seem to have lost the drawing, but if you would like me to post it, I can look for it then scan it and post it here.
|
|
jared
Guest
Registered: Apr 19, 2024 23:25:23 GMT
|
Post by jared on Mar 31, 2006 11:36:17 GMT
That would be helpful.
|
|
iantalosarika
Guest
Registered: Apr 19, 2024 23:25:23 GMT
|
Post by iantalosarika on Apr 2, 2006 1:55:53 GMT
Bad news, I can't find the image I made. It's still in my head, so I can redraw it and scan it (if I don't lose it!)
|
|
iantalosarika
Guest
Registered: Apr 19, 2024 23:25:23 GMT
|
Post by iantalosarika on Apr 2, 2006 3:08:23 GMT
|
|
jared
Guest
Registered: Apr 19, 2024 23:25:23 GMT
|
Post by jared on Apr 3, 2006 13:31:19 GMT
The nacelle pylon shape is a bit inefficient, I'd suggest only one large pylon per nacelle. Also, is it TOS Era or more current?
|
|
iantalosarika
Guest
Registered: Apr 19, 2024 23:25:23 GMT
|
Post by iantalosarika on Apr 3, 2006 20:27:11 GMT
It is TNG/DS9 era, and it's my own little story-type thing behind the ship that it is supposed to be able to go so fast that it would rip it's own engines off if there weren't so many, plus I thought it would look cool. I'll try to make it in a 3D graphics program and set it up so you can move the camera around it to look at it.
|
|
jared
Guest
Registered: Apr 19, 2024 23:25:23 GMT
|
Post by jared on Apr 3, 2006 23:23:50 GMT
The nacelles don't provide thrust in quite the same way that say a jet engine does so there isn't any risk of them pulling themselves off from the hull. Note how spindly some of the pylons are on the TOS era ones; they can be that spindly because there's no pressure being exerted. In any case, the most durable design is that which uses the simplest design, hence why a single large pylon would be more durable than three smaller ones. Since there is no risk of twisting forces then flexibility does not have to be as great as on aircraft. That's why starships cannot go in atmosphere easily or underwater at all (I believe a shuttle has been shown on screen to go underwater at one time. This is actually impossible since their hulls are designed to withstand vacuum, not high inward pressure).
Generally I like the design; it looks like a good TOS/TNG crossover (a good thing since function should overtake form in naval designs, something the designers of the Intrepid class forgot). I would only recommend the suggested change to the nacelle pylons and also using the change to move the nacelles either up or down to conform to the Roddenberry design principle that the nacelles must be visible from the front.
|
|
cptjeff
Guest
Registered: Apr 19, 2024 23:25:23 GMT
|
Post by cptjeff on Apr 4, 2006 0:45:36 GMT
it wouldn't be imposible to go under watrer- reemember, the shuttles (and ships) have structual integrety feilds, so they could go underwater. the hulls could also be setup for both.
As for the ship, it's quite concivable that Starflet might design a specalist ship to go in atnoshere or even underwater for various purposes, for example scinece or a secret emergency defense. They would not be common, but they would probably exist.
|
|
haldir
Guest
Registered: Apr 19, 2024 23:25:23 GMT
|
Post by haldir on Apr 4, 2006 13:04:27 GMT
hmm i have a design for you guys that might knock your socks off
|
|
iantalosarika
Guest
Registered: Apr 19, 2024 23:25:23 GMT
|
Post by iantalosarika on Apr 4, 2006 19:28:18 GMT
I'll make the suggested changes and repost the design. And, I'd like to see your design, Chris.
|
|
jared
Guest
Registered: Apr 19, 2024 23:25:23 GMT
|
Post by jared on Apr 4, 2006 22:42:41 GMT
it wouldn't be imposible to go under watrer- reemember, the shuttles (and ships) have structual integrety feilds, so they could go underwater. the hulls could also be setup for both. As for the ship, it's quite concivable that Starflet might design a specalist ship to go in atnoshere or even underwater for various purposes, for example scinece or a secret emergency defense. They would not be common, but they would probably exist. It depends on how those things work. So far as I can tell and so far as physics can be reasonably stretched, they just increase the strength of the gluons between particles so the thing does not tear if damaged (as is a common problem with any damaged metal which remains under duress). They would not be able to keep the shape of the ship, otherwise torpedoes would be useless. I dare say ships would exist easily capable of atmospheric flight. Large items cannot be simply beamed into space easily and it is not always going to be desirable to do so. Same with large numbers of people. Also, those starships which do clearly exist can go in the atmosphere but probably use the shields to stop parts from overheating. Since the Star Trek shields appear to be made of some sort of matter held in suspension around the ship, the time is limited and slower speeds are needed generally to stop the thing from burning straight off. I would rather see Rin's design than Chris's.
|
|
cptjeff
Guest
Registered: Apr 19, 2024 23:25:23 GMT
|
Post by cptjeff on Apr 5, 2006 1:06:48 GMT
star trek shilds are energy based, not matter. and SIF feilds work to reinforce the ship's structure to keep it rigid for all circumstances. Imagine cross supports everywhere you cna put a cross suport and more. that's what it is. It turns the ship into somethng that has the strengh of a solid object 9highly simplifed version to the TNG tech manual description)
So it's possible that any ship could even go underwater if there was enoguh power to the SIF. The sheilds are used in atmoshere to keep the friction from hiting the hull of the ship. the effect would be similar to a phaser beam draining the sheilds slowly. The slower speeds are so you don't make a navigation error and plunge straight into the planet. same princible with sapcedock. thrusters only.
The TNG manual outlines how most of these things do work. It's beyond our current capabilitys, but I'm a techno geek, so I understand the theorys they're based on (most are based on actual theorys, or scientific theorys have sprung from them)
|
|
jared
Guest
Registered: Apr 19, 2024 23:25:23 GMT
|
Post by jared on Apr 5, 2006 12:33:00 GMT
The TNG tech manual, like any, is subservient to what is seen on screen, where the shields appear to be matter based (also the tech manuals are often actually erroneous or simply stupid. Picture the DS9 manual 'kitbashes' or the fact they give clearly wrong sizes of things). True the shields are treated as energy shields, but that can be readily explained by the fact that energy is needed to keep the matter in suspension. Also, since Voyager's science officer clearly did not know that deuterium is one of the most common substances around and should be picked up by the bussards in a cloud of hydrogen, we can suggest that, as is generally the case in real life, everyone does not know everything about the technology. Since the chief engineer never explained the shields in a long winded explaination, no actual on screen technical manual can apply. The fact that the shields can be burnt off in a linear fashion and gradually weaken whilst being constantly monitored is evidence of them being partially matter based. Add to that the fact they have a physical presence instead of something directional (the Trek shields have two planes of effect, energy fields have one) and intangible like a true energy force (e.g. magnetism) and the case for pure energy is very much weakened. The science of the Star Trek shields simply doesn't work if they're pure energy. Compare them to the obviously energy based Star Wars ones; those are always on (noone ever gives the orders 'shields up'), can be angled (the order to angle the deflectors IS given) and are invisible (Empire Strikes Back, watch the first ion bolt hit the Star Destroyer, it is initially deflected without any obvious barrier). The area of effect cannot be changed beyond angling unlike the Trek ones, which can be enlarged with the downside of weakening as they do so, suggesting again that some sort of finite matter is being used which needs to be replaced every time the shields are reset if it is damaged.
An energy based item is either on or off. In the case of Star Wars we can see the Star Destroyers have their shields knocked out in one go (if after considerable hammering at the area of the generator) whereas in Star Trek the tactic is simply to hit the shields until they burn off. Clearly there is no advantage to targetting the generator since the shields aren't always on and at full strength. Therefore the Star Trek ones can only be matter based.
The clear exception to this is the navigational shield, which is energy based since it projects a cone of effect with no visible barrier. Although Riker states at one point that lasers 'wouldn't leave a dent in our navigational shields', we can assume he doesn't actually know how they work because 1)the lasers, if powerful enough, would still knock through the shields like a phaser would and 2)they wouldn't even touch the navigational shield anyway, which Riker is suggesting is close to the hull of the ship on all sides, which it is not.
And the SIF fields are impossible as they are stated to work. The stated effect is also impossible without affecting the crew inside, which they do not. About all we can suggest is that, by strengthening the force of the gluons, it makes everything in the ship harder to damage. That would include making things harder to buckle, but ultimately the idea of a device that can work like the original idea is impossible.
|
|
cptjeff
Guest
Registered: Apr 19, 2024 23:25:23 GMT
|
Post by cptjeff on Apr 6, 2006 22:56:13 GMT
have you ever heard of suspense of disbelif? If everything in Star trek fits our current understanding of physics, explain how the matter anti matter reactors don't blow the ship apart.
the Tech manuals are the gbest thing we have to go on for how these ships work. they are considered canon. Onsreen evidence tha 'suggests' one thing does not mean that one thing is canon. unless something stated flatly contradicts the manuals, they are canon (and star wars didn't even come close either)
|
|
jared
Guest
Registered: Apr 19, 2024 23:25:23 GMT
|
Post by jared on Apr 7, 2006 11:00:07 GMT
It's still interesting to muse on the possibilities of if things were real. Nothing more than an intellectual exercise. Within the RP part I don't tend to draw on real science too much, but I don't draw on the technobabble either. And the problem Star Trek has that Star Wars does not is that it attempts to use limited scientific knowledge to explain how things work. Star Wars just leaves it at 'there is a power source which generates X much energy' and professional physicists fans then attempt to suggests possible methods of how things work. Because the Star Trek writers tend to ignore actual science, things fall apart pretty quickly unless you don't think about how science actually does work. And the tech manuals are authorised by Paramount but not actually written by them. Generally they're written by people without much scientific knowledge either so if you do feel like trying to work out how things actually work, you have to ignore them. It's rather telling of the level of actual science in things that the ion engines of Star Wars are and I believe were a theory around at the time, but warp drive and the transporters are as impossible as physicists will admit. So whilst in the RP part we can go beaming around like nobody's business and warp to and fro as much as we like, in this section we can actually discuss how things would work if they were real.
Anyway, back to the Defender Mark 2, any progress on that?
|
|
iantalosarika
Guest
Registered: Apr 19, 2024 23:25:23 GMT
|
Post by iantalosarika on Apr 7, 2006 22:43:15 GMT
I got rid of one of the extra pairs of pylons and I'm raising up the saucer section (as it was called in TNG) of the ship, and how can it be called the Mark II if the protoype is still in developement?
|
|
jared
Guest
Registered: Apr 19, 2024 23:25:23 GMT
|
Post by jared on Apr 7, 2006 23:05:19 GMT
Prototype II then.
How big is it?
|
|
cptjeff
Guest
Registered: Apr 19, 2024 23:25:23 GMT
|
Post by cptjeff on Apr 8, 2006 1:02:30 GMT
It's still interesting to muse on the possibilities of if things were real. Nothing more than an intellectual exercise. Within the RP part I don't tend to draw on real science too much, but I don't draw on the technobabble either. And the problem Star Trek has that Star Wars does not is that it attempts to use limited scientific knowledge to explain how things work. Star Wars just leaves it at 'there is a power source which generates X much energy' and professional physicists fans then attempt to suggests possible methods of how things work. Because the Star Trek writers tend to ignore actual science, things fall apart pretty quickly unless you don't think about how science actually does work. And the tech manuals are authorised by Paramount but not actually written by them. Generally they're written by people without much scientific knowledge either so if you do feel like trying to work out how things actually work, you have to ignore them. It's rather telling of the level of actual science in things that the ion engines of Star Wars are and I believe were a theory around at the time, but warp drive and the transporters are as impossible as physicists will admit. So whilst in the RP part we can go beaming around like nobody's business and warp to and fro as much as we like, in this section we can actually discuss how things would work if they were real. Anyway, back to the Defender Mark 2, any progress on that? really/ tell that to the team in austrailia that's building a transporter (photons only so far, but It's working) Warp drive is currently under development by NASA and the Air Force. Tell somebody 15 years ago that they would be carrying tiny phones that didnt' need wires and could call anyone in the world from just about anywhere in the world and they would treat you like a nutcase. Today we take our cellphones for granted. And a lot of the actual science comes from the tech manuals. people ask "how can we make this work" and do it. and this starship can be the craxy idea of somebody in starfleet that accually worked. that kind of thing happenes all the time, especally in engineering (real life and star trek)
|
|
iantalosarika
Guest
Registered: Apr 19, 2024 23:25:23 GMT
|
Post by iantalosarika on Apr 11, 2006 1:50:27 GMT
The ship is about the size of a Galaxy class ship (Enterprise-D) Before I go and redraw it, please tell me any other design suggestions that I should use.
|
|
iantalosarika
Guest
Registered: Apr 19, 2024 23:25:23 GMT
|
Post by iantalosarika on Apr 12, 2006 19:50:15 GMT
And if it is "The crazy idea that worked," then I hope that I am of proper rank to be C.O. of it, so I'm not going to do much of the design stuff like technology and stuff until I am of a higher rank and not a 4th class cadet.
|
|
Deleted
Registered: Apr 19, 2024 23:25:23 GMT
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 12, 2006 19:52:29 GMT
Well, first off, if its an Omicron character, then there wont neccesarily be a rank.
|
|
Deleted
Registered: Apr 19, 2024 23:25:23 GMT
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 12, 2006 19:53:40 GMT
Like me, for example....(my other char)
EDIT - Ok....looks like I DO have a rank....last I checked, I was a Petty Officer, or something.
|
|
iantalosarika
Guest
Registered: Apr 19, 2024 23:25:23 GMT
|
Post by iantalosarika on Apr 13, 2006 2:20:02 GMT
Wait, you're saying Omicron is a seperate RP?
|
|
Harrias Jira
Commodore
Registered: Apr 27, 2003 20:24:58 GMT
Posts: 2,347
|
Post by Harrias Jira on Apr 13, 2006 12:00:51 GMT
In reference to Pudlo's comments about Warp Drive and Transporters...
Yes, there is a working transporter, and at some point in the future it will almost certainly be possible to transport small items short distances. However, as you have admitted at the moment they cannot transport much more than one particle. And to transport one particle across a room, approximately 3 metres, it is requiring a computer roughly the size of a school gym. Obviously as we get more and more developed, this will get smaller and the distances will get further. However, until we have a far far more intricate understanding of the human body, and more specifically, the human brain, human transport will not be possible regardless of this.
As for Warp Drive, your facts are slightly mangled. What NASA are researching is a matter/antimatter drive. It WILL NOT be capable of propelling ships at faster than light travel, and it WILL NOT create a warp bubble, move a ship into subspace (which probably doesn't exist as Star Trek writers claim). All it will provide is a more efficient energy source. In theory. In practice, they are having all sorts of trouble.
|
|
jared
Guest
Registered: Apr 19, 2024 23:25:23 GMT
|
Post by jared on Apr 18, 2006 21:50:19 GMT
In reference to Pudlo's comments about Warp Drive and Transporters... Yes, there is a working transporter, and at some point in the future it will almost certainly be possible to transport small items short distances. However, as you have admitted at the moment they cannot transport much more than one particle. And to transport one particle across a room, approximately 3 metres, it is requiring a computer roughly the size of a school gym. Obviously as we get more and more developed, this will get smaller and the distances will get further. However, until we have a far far more intricate understanding of the human body, and more specifically, the human brain, human transport will not be possible regardless of this. As for Warp Drive, your facts are slightly mangled. What NASA are researching is a matter/antimatter drive. It WILL NOT be capable of propelling ships at faster than light travel, and it WILL NOT create a warp bubble, move a ship into subspace (which probably doesn't exist as Star Trek writers claim). All it will provide is a more efficient energy source. In theory. In practice, they are having all sorts of trouble. Isn't the process actually a matter of them duplicating the proton's characteristics in another one, not actually moving the original proton? Hence if you tried to teleport anything living it would die in the process, and even if the copy remained alive, it would be a copy, not the original.
|
|