cptjeff
Guest
Registered: Apr 19, 2024 8:25:11 GMT
|
Post by cptjeff on Apr 18, 2006 21:59:05 GMT
it's charicteristics, and behavior exactly. It does operate like taht right now, but anoher interesting thing is that the origial stops being there when they transport it. and the new one displaces the matter around it. they dont' know how or if it is the original, but the original stops existing and the new one exists as the exact same thing. since our brains are based off of particle positon an d movement and so on, it would live (once ithe computers are powerful engough to transport it all) and behave exactly like the original.
|
|
jared
Guest
Registered: Apr 19, 2024 8:25:11 GMT
|
Post by jared on Apr 18, 2006 22:20:26 GMT
The problem there is that outside of the proton size you would have to do the same for every single proton and sub-atomic particle, then arrange them in relation to each other, then also transport every single inter-atomic particle, such as the theoretical gluons. Imagine if we didn't even suspect gluons were there; you'd have a cloud-man (until someone wafted the door). Also, you'd have to send every alien particle such as their breakfast which you couldn't be sure of the content of unless you could scan every minute detail of it. It would be as improbable as you can say these things are to be able to put the person back together at the end, especially without a teleporter pad with tractor beams to hold everything in place until the process is complete.
The Star Trek ones were originally meant to dissassemble someone, throw them across space and then put them together again. I don't know if that's still meant to be the method, but like Jira said, it's not going to happen.
A religious concern as well; what happens to the soul when you teleport? It's alright for an atheist to do it, but I doubt a Catholic would want to risk their soul by having their physical body beamed away from it.
|
|
iantalosarika
Guest
Registered: Apr 19, 2024 8:25:11 GMT
|
Post by iantalosarika on Apr 18, 2006 22:48:02 GMT
Lol, when did this turn from the design of a ship into how technology today compares with that of Star Trek?
|
|
jared
Guest
Registered: Apr 19, 2024 8:25:11 GMT
|
Post by jared on Apr 19, 2006 0:59:39 GMT
Somewhere back there. Things do tend to go off topic around here. We were waiting for your second prototype and became bored, I think that's what caused it.
|
|
iantalosarika
Guest
Registered: Apr 19, 2024 8:25:11 GMT
|
Post by iantalosarika on Apr 19, 2006 2:31:49 GMT
I was gonna draw the second prototype, but no one made any design suggestions which I had asked for.
|
|
cptjeff
Guest
Registered: Apr 19, 2024 8:25:11 GMT
|
Post by cptjeff on Apr 19, 2006 2:45:22 GMT
there were seveal i thought..
and the transporter does create ethical questions, but it would not create cloud man as you put it. Any mass puts out a localized gravity feilkd and would be able to hold everything together. also, they can simulate high energy particl mostion- it's how they've identified the one they transport so far- hypercharge it and look for one that behaves like that on the otehr end vaccum helps too....
and they're all detected on the photonic level- a point that is light and matter at the same time, the smallest. So if they can simuolate the behavior of one, they make up everything, so they can simulate it all. the only question is of memory. and I won't go through until they prove it works on big stuff- an elephant or possibly an ape would work.
But challenging ideas just because they're ideas for progress doesn't work, it only prevents them from ever becoming reality.
AS for the starship, I would make the saucer an oval nad shorten the neck, as wel as streamline the naccele assembly. one lower pylon should be enough, if you want to keep the connector is your choice. smaller is also better if you're going for the later eries feel, but earyer bigger is better. I would go with smaller just because Section 47 is set ion the future a little.
|
|
iantalosarika
Guest
Registered: Apr 19, 2024 8:25:11 GMT
|
Post by iantalosarika on Apr 19, 2006 3:02:30 GMT
Oh, oops... I seem to have forgotten about some drawings of the Prototype II that I drew up in class one day, I'll scan them up and have 'em posted soon.
|
|
iantalosarika
Guest
Registered: Apr 19, 2024 8:25:11 GMT
|
Post by iantalosarika on Apr 24, 2006 0:45:41 GMT
|
|
cptjeff
Guest
Registered: Apr 19, 2024 8:25:11 GMT
|
Post by cptjeff on Apr 27, 2006 19:07:24 GMT
I like it except for one thing: the dorsal connecter (okay, okay, I can jsut say neck) is too long. Starfleet has been making them shorter as time goes on because they're vulnerable to attack. take a look at Wrath of Khan to see why. The sovern class ship doesn't even have a dorsal... okay, neck at all. So shorten it and change the shape to something thicker would be my recomendation. I would go fro something about the same proportion as the one on the excelsior, and a similar design. I'll see if I can modify you're drawing a little to show you what I mean.
|
|
iantalosarika
Guest
Registered: Apr 19, 2024 8:25:11 GMT
|
Post by iantalosarika on Apr 28, 2006 0:54:31 GMT
If I shorten the neck, then I can't the head above the engines. I'll find a way to make this work. I'm not sure how long this will take, though.
|
|
cptjeff
Guest
Registered: Apr 19, 2024 8:25:11 GMT
|
Post by cptjeff on Apr 30, 2006 1:26:16 GMT
the head doesn't have to be above the engines.it can be below them- take a look at the Siovergn, or the constitution...
Or the defiant! there are all sorts of engine configurations out there, and most all of them work!
|
|
iantalosarika
Guest
Registered: Apr 19, 2024 8:25:11 GMT
|
Post by iantalosarika on Apr 30, 2006 2:41:48 GMT
I wanted the engines to be under the head...
|
|
iantalosarika
Guest
Registered: Apr 19, 2024 8:25:11 GMT
|
Post by iantalosarika on May 2, 2006 0:13:04 GMT
I got low detail 3-dimensional model done, as soon as I can figure out how to save it from that program in a format that Photobucket will accept, I'll have it ready for you.
|
|
jared
Guest
Registered: Apr 19, 2024 8:25:11 GMT
|
Post by jared on May 2, 2006 12:55:38 GMT
If you want to keep the whole design, why not backdate it into being TOS-TNG era and name it Interceptor class or similar, since the focus is on the speed, not the firepower? It would also fit more with Kirk's era's priority of exploration and the design with its long neck, cylindrical hull and circular saucer fits more with the design lineage of that era. Then you could make a developed design with more focus on the firepower and call that the Defender class, shorten the neck and place the nacelles on the same line as the hull and generally make the ship more DS9 era.
That way, you could have your original design still as it is and have a defender design for the current era.
|
|
kosh0darmek
Guest
Registered: Apr 19, 2024 8:25:11 GMT
|
Post by kosh0darmek on May 2, 2006 15:33:41 GMT
will this thing become a usable class in section 47?
|
|
iantalosarika
Guest
Registered: Apr 19, 2024 8:25:11 GMT
|
Post by iantalosarika on May 2, 2006 19:39:01 GMT
It's a TNG era, but it was designed to be a strike cruiser, it's meant to be fast and deadly. It was more of a warship than an explorer. I first made a copy of the ship for the Starfleet Battles board game, it's almost done, but I need to get the designer's edition to find out the BPV (Base Point Value) of it. If you look at the stats sheet for it (when it's available), it has twelve phasers and only one torpedo tube.
And I hope it will be usable in S47, because then we'd have a new ship available for cadets when they graduate. Although if it will be usable, I will want to delay it's creation until I am at a rank to command so that I can be the Commanding Officer of it.
|
|
jared
Guest
Registered: Apr 19, 2024 8:25:11 GMT
|
Post by jared on May 2, 2006 20:37:32 GMT
The ships of s47 either active or reserve are not all there is of Starfleet. You could sim knowing a member of crew of one of that class. Like you say it's of TNG Era so the Ambassadors (the ship class, not the diplomats) were still around so the saucer and hull would still fit with the lineage. However, s47 is set after Nemesis, which would make the class rather outdated, so you might like to update it somewhat. I would suggest having 4 torpedo tubes and only 8 phasers. Phasers over torpedoes is rather in keeping with Starfleet design to go with the most technological option as opposed to the actual best one and is a dangerous path for any military designers, which is why you still see ballistic artillery in use even though we have guided missiles. Also, you have to think where the weak point of the ship is. It seems strange to do, but since this is a fictional ship, it will only have a fictional weak point instead of real ones which have real weak points which are inherently there. If it is heavily armed and engined, the shields would be weaker than average during battle since they would have less energy available.
As a general note, multi-phasic shields cannot be used in combat since Federation ships need to fire through their shields. They do this by firing 180 degrees out of sync with the frequency of the shields. Since multi-phasic has three frequencies at once, it is impossible to fire and impossible to turn them off and on fast enough to make them combat effective, so they would not be an answer to the weakened shields problem.
|
|
ajohnson
Guest
Registered: Apr 19, 2024 8:25:11 GMT
|
Post by ajohnson on May 2, 2006 20:59:20 GMT
Perhaps we should focus on the other project for now?
|
|
iantalosarika
Guest
Registered: Apr 19, 2024 8:25:11 GMT
|
Post by iantalosarika on May 2, 2006 21:58:36 GMT
-scratches head- I don't know anything about how the ships work, I just got bored one day and started drawing a ship. My ship was made for Starfleet battles with the basic strategy of flying in at full speed and rip through them with phasers before they could do much damage. I would have put more torpedos, but they take a whole round to charge, while phasers are ready at the round you energize them.
Sorry, I just was posting under the R&D because I didn't know where else I could post this.
|
|
ajohnson
Guest
Registered: Apr 19, 2024 8:25:11 GMT
|
Post by ajohnson on May 2, 2006 22:39:53 GMT
No problem, I just wanted to make sure that we didn't get ahead of ourselves here, I mean the Flagship Project hasn't even been approved for an official site ship, so the chances of this being approved are not too likely at this time.
|
|
jared
Guest
Registered: Apr 19, 2024 8:25:11 GMT
|
Post by jared on May 2, 2006 23:17:24 GMT
I was interested in this project as another possible design for the flagship.
After all, if Arika wants his ship to be active or semi-active and a flagship is also needed, the it would be an obvious option for the design of it.
|
|
iantalosarika
Guest
Registered: Apr 19, 2024 8:25:11 GMT
|
Post by iantalosarika on May 3, 2006 0:33:35 GMT
Yes, but I just wanted to see what others thought of it, so I could finish it and if it didn't get made into an active ship here, I'd just bring the idea to another Star Trek Sim/RPG site.
-points to his rank- I just want to finish the idea up so that if it does become active, I have a chance at being CO of it (as I've mentioned several times before.) I've even thought of a name for the first ship of it's class, the USS Valiance. I've looked it up and there are no other official or major unofficial ships by this name (that I've noticed).
|
|
jared
Guest
Registered: Apr 19, 2024 8:25:11 GMT
|
Post by jared on May 3, 2006 15:38:22 GMT
The first ship of the class, the prototype, is always named the class name. So that would be USS Defender. First active one is named how you like. Good name though.
|
|
iantalosarika
Guest
Registered: Apr 19, 2024 8:25:11 GMT
|
Post by iantalosarika on May 3, 2006 19:11:34 GMT
The problem is that there already is a USS Defender if I remember right.
|
|
jared
Guest
Registered: Apr 19, 2024 8:25:11 GMT
|
Post by jared on May 4, 2006 15:03:38 GMT
I had a brief look and I don't think there was one, but even if there was then names are passed on. users.sisna.com/roguewing1/schematics/trek-fed-fan-mine/defender.htmlThat's a fan created design of the same name. To ensure consistency it would be polite to use Valiance as a class name instead of there being multiple fan designs of the same name. I can't remember where it said to avoid competition in names, but it's an etiquette thing either way and is not strictly binding. Your choice.
|
|