View Single Post
Old November 23 2012, 11:00 PM   #40
JES
Captain
 
Location: Ocoee, Florida
Re: Insignia Class Starship c. 2299

You're not the only ones to have thought of using the Starfleet symbol for the shape of a craft:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/4044567...in/photostream
http://www.flickr.com/photos/4044567...n/photostream/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/4044567...n/photostream/
Albeit that I chose to go for symmetry, but the undercut from the ventral view is supposed to sort of resemble the shorter end of the two. I've also thought about the possibility of a ship having two yachts, for a variety of design reasons. I believe that was in my idea inventory for my Enterprise-F design.
I'm only giving the links so as to not divert too much attention from Patrickivan's design.

I'm liking what I'm seeing so far. I hope you're able to keep those relatively clean lines and the overall clean look of the hull, while also adding details at the same time.

Patrickivan wrote: View Post
Oh- and apparently I should change the class name. Someone already has it. I should have looked it up first. LOL!
I'm very glad to see that you came to that conclusion. Mark Kingworth's Insignia class has been around for an apparently long time. Maybe a synonym that hasn't been used AFAIK) like Symbol would work, if you want to go in that direction.

erifah wrote: View Post
Patrickivan wrote: View Post
erifah wrote: View Post

Would they be attached in some way? Or just flying in formation?

Hmmm... with fancy "tractor beams" and "structural integrity fields" and all that sort of stuff already floating around the world of Star Trek... I don't see any reason why component parts of a spaceship can't be held together by anything more than energy.
Interesting thought- but what happens during a power failure? Though I've always envisioned trek tech to be more reliable than our shows and movies protray.

I guess if you have something held in place with magnetic forces, than you could have safety measures for power failure, not unlike safety air brakes on trucks. Springs in the air brake chambers are compressed by air pressure on rigs while driving- any catastrophic air loss instantly releases those springs, and engages the brakes- thereby making runnaway trucks a thing of the past.

So in this case, a similar feature can be in place where the power source holds a mechanical locking mechanism away from those floaty bits held in place, and if the power goes, the mechanical locks automatically engage, thereby keeping said floaty bits from, er, floating away...
Or, in the event of a power failure, the magnetic properties cause the little parts that are floating out there in formation, to automatically snap back into their housings. Or something.
I'm really liking this talk about auxiliary safety features, after all, if there is no simple way to prevent a ship from falling apart if it uses force-fields or tractor-beams, then from a tactical stand-point, there is no use in building a ship that is dependent on these technologies. But if there is a way for a ship to use these technologies but still stay in once piece, even if completely disabled, then it really doesn't seem like a bad idea.
JES is online now   Reply With Quote