ajohnson
Guest
Registered: Nov 21, 2024 10:46:26 GMT
|
Post by ajohnson on Nov 20, 2005 22:53:45 GMT
All ideas on things like:
- Size (Height, Width, Length) - Positioning of rooms/areas - Decks (Number of decks, layout etc.)
All ideas welcome!
|
|
ajohnson
Guest
Registered: Nov 21, 2024 10:46:26 GMT
|
Post by ajohnson on Nov 20, 2005 23:17:14 GMT
So far, I think we've pretty much agreed that it should be bigger than any ship in the S47 fleet and probably bigger than any canon ships.
|
|
Jamey Gaz
Commander 1C
Species: Joined Trill
Registered: Feb 17, 2005 8:15:35 GMT
Posts: 598
|
Post by Jamey Gaz on Nov 21, 2005 7:52:24 GMT
My only concern is the ships weapons and defense
I don't see the point in having such a large exploration ship that can not defend it self.
This new ship should have all the phasers, torpedoes, multi layered shielding, fighter squadrons, extended mission shuttles, specialty shuttles that it can possibly have. (even some type of system similar to either a clocking device ... or a ship holographic projection system)
There simply isn't any reason that his ship ... with as large as we are talking about here ... couldn't 300% defined and fight as well. After all, the Romulan warbird was much larger than the Galaxy class ship ... and was VERY powerful.
... please ...
|
|
Elron
Fleet Admiral
[Retired]
?There are no facts, only interpretations? (Nietzsche)
Registered: May 31, 2003 12:23:57 GMT
Posts: 3,080
|
Post by Elron on Nov 21, 2005 14:41:45 GMT
However, the warbird wasn't terribly fast and had several other drawbacks too. It was not what you'd call a "family-oriented" vessel, or a science vessel. It was basically a huge tactical command cruiser. I rather think the Romulan ethos at that time was different to the Starfleet ethos at this time (the D'Deridex was designed to test Starfleet from what I recall). I'm not sure about the fighter squadrons, but some small tactical ships are certainly a good idea (large Marine versions of runabouts perhaps).
Anyway, I think that discussion belongs under technology. What I wanted to suggest here was, since this is going to be a big ship, why don't we do something new and have a two-storey Sickbay. We'd need good safety railings of course
|
|
trekkie3
Guest
Registered: Nov 21, 2024 10:46:26 GMT
|
Post by trekkie3 on Nov 21, 2005 15:32:40 GMT
I think all the family based faculties should be in the main part e.g. school, nusery, family quarters
|
|
Elron
Fleet Admiral
[Retired]
?There are no facts, only interpretations? (Nietzsche)
Registered: May 31, 2003 12:23:57 GMT
Posts: 3,080
|
Post by Elron on Nov 21, 2005 15:48:16 GMT
That sounds good to me
|
|
ajohnson
Guest
Registered: Nov 21, 2024 10:46:26 GMT
|
Post by ajohnson on Nov 21, 2005 16:49:40 GMT
I think we're all agreed that, like the Galaxy Class, this ship should be a powerful ship, even though it's geared towards exploration.
|
|
jared
Guest
Registered: Nov 21, 2024 10:46:26 GMT
|
Post by jared on Nov 22, 2005 0:21:55 GMT
Actually, the two story sickbay has merit, but I would dispute it being like Engineering, which has to be that shape. To maximise floorspace for the sickbay, it should simply be connected via stairs and a lift. It needs to look like a ward, not an engine room.
|
|
Elron
Fleet Admiral
[Retired]
?There are no facts, only interpretations? (Nietzsche)
Registered: May 31, 2003 12:23:57 GMT
Posts: 3,080
|
Post by Elron on Nov 22, 2005 17:42:29 GMT
I agree with that too. I just think some way of seeing from one level to the other would give it more character if it were ever televised. I wasn't meaning it to be too much like Engineering though.
|
|
Deleted
Registered: Nov 21, 2024 10:46:26 GMT
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 22, 2005 19:09:06 GMT
I had this idea PMed to me by TJ Edwards:
Any chance the nacelles could be built more into the ship, so that they would not be visible from the outside? Or, if they are visible, could they be so close to the body of the ship that they would look more like a pair of fins?
Such a ship, which would look more like the "flying saucer" type, would probably have the capability of landing on a planet's surface, though it'd probably have to land in a large and relatively open space, and could do its planetary approach and landing in VTOL form.
|
|
ajohnson
Guest
Registered: Nov 21, 2024 10:46:26 GMT
|
Post by ajohnson on Nov 22, 2005 22:29:37 GMT
Personally, I'd prefer to keep an "Old School" look to the ship.
|
|
cptjeff
Guest
Registered: Nov 21, 2024 10:46:26 GMT
|
Post by cptjeff on Nov 23, 2005 2:55:52 GMT
While something New is in order in my opinion, I don't think we should do a big defiant kind of thing. I want to keep the saucer/engineering seprate, and the naccleles buildt out of that- I like the idea of a double hull, like the romulans have, but there would still be a saucer seprate, and the nacceles would not be built in like that. I really don't think that would look too good, and I wouldn't want to serve abaord that vessel- what if you had to eject the naccelles? or one was hit (happens all the time) the resulting explosion would destroy a good deal of the ship with it.
Nah, the ships are built like that for a reason. keep it that way.
|
|
Deleted
Registered: Nov 21, 2024 10:46:26 GMT
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 24, 2005 10:08:16 GMT
I think we should stay original in the sense of having a saucer section and a drive section, personally I think that looks better. It should be bigger than ever before though, something that clearly states that Starfleet is sticking around.
|
|
jared
Guest
Registered: Nov 21, 2024 10:46:26 GMT
|
Post by jared on Nov 24, 2005 20:34:49 GMT
No daft Voyager flappy nacelles though.
|
|
Deleted
Registered: Nov 21, 2024 10:46:26 GMT
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 24, 2005 20:47:32 GMT
They werent daft. The were geometric to help prevent ripping subspace apart when the ship went to warp!
(Did I just defend something from Voyager?.....Shoot me now! lol)
|
|
Matthew Reynolds
Rear Admiral
"It's good to have an end to a journey towards; but it is the journey that matters in the end."
Registered: Apr 28, 2005 20:58:32 GMT
Posts: 2,759
|
Post by Matthew Reynolds on Nov 24, 2005 20:58:13 GMT
They werent daft. The were geometric to help prevent ripping subspace apart when the ship went to warp! (Did I just defend something from Voyager?.....Shoot me now! lol) Why would we shoot you Commander, I think Voyager was great, wait now to think about it can someone shoot me to, but please not in the face, lol
|
|
jared
Guest
Registered: Nov 21, 2024 10:46:26 GMT
|
Post by jared on Nov 24, 2005 20:58:28 GMT
I'm afraid that's just B&B bull. That's the reason they gave, but really they wanted moving parts on a starship and had to think of a damned good reason for it fairly quickly. Why not just keep them at the banked angle? Why doesn't every ship have them now? I just take them to be a psychological thing to make the ship look sleeker and impress non-Federation peoples. I mean think how difficult it actually is to move them given their position; they're not there for a scientific reason. (Right, that's given me time to load, pick which eye you want it in )
|
|
ajohnson
Guest
Registered: Nov 21, 2024 10:46:26 GMT
|
Post by ajohnson on Nov 24, 2005 21:30:31 GMT
Needless to say, the makers of Star Trek embellish it a bit to make it look better, which, personally I can live with. It's the whole thing of there being no sound in space, but the space battles wouldn't be nearly as fun if they were silent.
That's enough of that though.
BACK ON TOPIC!!!!
|
|
jared
Guest
Registered: Nov 21, 2024 10:46:26 GMT
|
Post by jared on Nov 24, 2005 21:32:15 GMT
It was a serious point to begin with. No daft flappy nacelles. It's a starship, not a bird.
|
|
ajohnson
Guest
Registered: Nov 21, 2024 10:46:26 GMT
|
Post by ajohnson on Nov 24, 2005 23:30:19 GMT
Ok then. There will be no flappy nacelles.
|
|
jared
Guest
Registered: Nov 21, 2024 10:46:26 GMT
|
Post by jared on Nov 24, 2005 23:36:43 GMT
So far the pretty much definite ideas are: Two level sickbay Big Old school design (probably rules out Akira style designs as well) No flappy nacelles.
|
|
methos
Guest
Registered: Nov 21, 2024 10:46:26 GMT
|
Post by methos on Dec 3, 2005 12:45:16 GMT
how about have between 50 and 100 decks? Which would make it between 200 and 400 meters tall
|
|
jared
Guest
Registered: Nov 21, 2024 10:46:26 GMT
|
Post by jared on Dec 6, 2005 23:51:11 GMT
Can someone just come up with a rough description and then someone else could try drawing it and we could work from there?
|
|
cptjeff
Guest
Registered: Nov 21, 2024 10:46:26 GMT
|
Post by cptjeff on Dec 7, 2005 3:29:47 GMT
Accually, I have an idea for a design... It's built using K'nex, a buiding set type thing. I'll post a pic soon..
|
|
jared
Guest
Registered: Nov 21, 2024 10:46:26 GMT
|
Post by jared on Dec 7, 2005 13:53:08 GMT
Good idea. If you do the usual 6 side views with one isometric then it would be very helpful. USS K'Nex maybe (A Vulcan ship).
|
|