RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 137,915
Posts: 5,331,281
Members: 24,560
Currently online: 467
Newest member: jakesmit44543

TrekToday headlines

Retro Review: Inquisition
By: Michelle on Jul 12

Cubify Star Trek 3DMe Mini Figurines
By: T'Bonz on Jul 11

Latest Official Starships Collection Ships
By: T'Bonz on Jul 10

Seven of Nine Bobble Head
By: T'Bonz on Jul 9

Pegg The Prankster
By: T'Bonz on Jul 9

More Trek Stars Join Unbelievable!!!!!
By: T'Bonz on Jul 8

Star Trek #35 Preview
By: T'Bonz on Jul 8

New ThinkGeek Trek Apparel
By: T'Bonz on Jul 7

Star Trek Movie Prop Auction
By: T'Bonz on Jul 7

Drexler: NX Engineering Room Construction
By: T'Bonz on Jul 7


Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.


Go Back   The Trek BBS > Misc. Star Trek > Trek Literature

Trek Literature "...Good words. That's where ideas begin."

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old October 5 2009, 05:25 PM   #166
Mr. Laser Beam
Fleet Admiral
 
Mr. Laser Beam's Avatar
 
Location: The visitor's bullpen
View Mr. Laser Beam's Twitter Profile
Re: Discuss: The Voyager Fleet

Is the USS Galen named after Richard Galen, Picard's former archaeology prof?
__________________
In labor news: Longshoremen walked off the piers today. Rescue operations are continuing.
Mr. Laser Beam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 5 2009, 06:06 PM   #167
EmperorKalan
Commander
 
Re: Discuss: The Voyager Fleet

Mr. Laser Beam wrote: View Post
Is the USS Galen named after Richard Galen, Picard's former archaeology prof?
More likely the Greek physician/philosopher
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galen
__________________
This is the Free Trader Beowulf, calling anyone...
Mayday, Mayday...
we are under attack...
main drive is gone...
turret number one not responding...
Mayday...
losing cabin pressure fast...
calling anyone...
please help...
EmperorKalan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 5 2009, 06:27 PM   #168
Christopher
Writer
 
Christopher's Avatar
 
Re: Discuss: The Voyager Fleet

Since it's a medical ship, it's undoubtedly named after the Greek physician rather than an archaeologist.
__________________
Christopher L. Bennett Homepage -- Site update 4/8/14 including annotations for Rise of the Federation: Tower of Babel

Written Worlds -- My blog
Christopher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 7 2009, 09:02 AM   #169
Arpy
Rear Admiral
 
Re: Discuss: The Voyager Fleet

As a Greek, I'm flattered to get a full third of the fleet named after people/characters from our past, but would it have killed them to throw in a single alien name? ...The T'Pau, the Gorkon, the Marvin?

Last edited by Arpy; October 7 2009 at 09:22 AM.
Arpy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 7 2009, 11:57 AM   #170
Deks
Rear Admiral
 
Re: Discuss: The Voyager Fleet

Regarding the Prometheus ...

For one thing, we have 0 proof to claim that when separated, the 3 sections are any weaker compared to when the ship is connected.

If the ship has 3 warp cores that pump out equal amount of power, the ship won't be outputting 3x more compared to when separated.
The shields/weapons/systems have a set maximized power output.
Each warp core is likely more than enough to supplement those needs and you have 1 powerful ship that splits into 3 equally powerful (but smaller) vessels.

Furthermore, the 3 warp cores could be there to provide the Prometheus with a maximum warp velocity that outpaces anything in the fleet and hold the SIF at those speeds.

I do not think the MVAM failed in any capacity.
It was able to aid the Prometheus to disable a Nebula class ship at warp speeds.
The Nebula was caught off guard since the other 2 Prometheus pieces just went to the aft sides of the Nebula and fried it.

It's even further supplemented that the Prometheus actually thrives in battle when separated compared to connected when the Romulans attacked and a Warbird was destroyed.

For combat purposes, the Prometheus will perform much better when separated, and when connected, it can fill out other duties.
Also in separation mode, it attacks targets from numerous directions instead of just one.
I think it's main strong points lie in the fact that it doesn't have high crew requirements, and is able to achieve better results in combat (also I don't think the ship is in any danger when separating since the ship sections would still be under one shield, and then other parts of the grid would kick in to automatically protect them).

It's also packed with a wealth of upgraded hardware and automation.
Far fewer people are needed to run the ship or the separated parts.

Also, I heard countless times how the people were dissatisfied with the prospect the Galaxy class saucer was incapable of Warp flight ... making it essentially stranded in deep space in case the battle section gets destroyed.

In this particular situation though, the Prometheus has warp nacelles on each of the section, making it more than capable to go to warp and reach a place where it can hail for support if such a dreaded scenario happens, whereas Galaxy class saucer is essentially stranded.
__________________
We are who we choose to be but also have predefined aspects of our personalities we are born with, and make art that defines us.
Deks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 7 2009, 12:31 PM   #171
Scout101
Admiral
 
Scout101's Avatar
 
Location: Rhode Island, USA
Re: Discuss: The Voyager Fleet

Deks wrote: View Post
Regarding the Prometheus ...

For one thing, we have 0 proof to claim that when separated, the 3 sections are any weaker compared to when the ship is connected.

If the ship has 3 warp cores that pump out equal amount of power, the ship won't be outputting 3x more compared to when separated.
That's probably false. Just think about it. 3 times the power production, means more power to go around. Shields should be able to withstand a LOT more, as you can keep full power to them longer. Phaser power would be fairly unlimited, as you can send the full power of a warp core into each burst, and still have a pair available for shields, SIF, manuevering, etc. Can't see how there WOULDN'T be more power available as one big ship.


The shields/weapons/systems have a set maximized power output.
Phasers MIGHT have that max power, but do you have anything that shows that max power = less than 1 full warp core? Even if that IS true, you just double up on the phaser strips (and associated power management systems), and you can make the ship look like a phaser porcupine! And since they are always rerouting power to shields, they'd have more to spare before they had to do that.

Why is the Defiant such a little super-ship (aside from plot holes and it being a Hero ship)? Too big a warp core, far more power than the size/class should need.


Each warp core is likely more than enough to supplement those needs and you have 1 powerful ship that splits into 3 equally powerful (but smaller) vessels.
The "equally" part isn't right, because if you break it into 3 parts, they're no longer equal to the original.

Furthermore, the 3 warp cores could be there to provide the Prometheus with a maximum warp velocity that outpaces anything in the fleet and hold the SIF at those speeds.
Don't believe warp power, especially redundancy, has ever been tied to max velocity. More to do with warp geometry, shape of the ship, SIF, etc. Max power may sustain the warp speed longer, but shouldn't have a lot to do with going much faster.

I do not think the MVAM failed in any capacity.
It was able to aid the Prometheus to disable a Nebula class ship at warp speeds.
The Nebula was caught off guard since the other 2 Prometheus pieces just went to the aft sides of the Nebula and fried it.

It's even further supplemented that the Prometheus actually thrives in battle when separated compared to connected when the Romulans attacked and a Warbird was destroyed.
The Nebula likely considered it a "friendly" and was pulling its punches. And the example with the Romulans is what has been talked about. This is a gimmick that will/should work once, and then it's pointless. If the Romulans know that ships with that profile can break into 3, will they be shocked next time? Not so much. And how would the firepower have changed if the Romulans were facing 3 Defiants instead? Same result, really, just no surprise.

For combat purposes, the Prometheus will perform much better when separated, and when connected, it can fill out other duties.
Again, depends on making a shaky claim at the beginning that the 3 pieces are stronger than the 1 big piece, and hoping the enemy doesn't know about the MVAM.

Also in separation mode, it attacks targets from numerous directions instead of just one.
3 Defiants would accomplish the same thing.


I think it's main strong points lie in the fact that it doesn't have high crew requirements, and is able to achieve better results in combat
Can't speak to what the crew requirements would be, as we've never seen it really staffed. Would think you'd need to go heavier than normal on command, tactical, and pilots, though, as when you split up, you'd want able people on all 3 parts.

(also I don't think the ship is in any danger when separating since the ship sections would still be under one shield, and then other parts of the grid would kick in to automatically protect them).
Once they split and seperate, they'd be safe, but there has to be more danger when they are starting it. The shields of the overall ship are geared for the big ship, when you start to seperate, that shield has to expand, which makes it bigger but weaker. None of the parts are going to dodge a shot right then, either, they'd have to maintain the course for a few seconds, making them sitting ducks.

It's also packed with a wealth of upgraded hardware and automation.
Far fewer people are needed to run the ship or the separated parts.
Can't see how that's all true. More automated, yes, but that was more a function of the plot than the ship. We've seen all KINDS of ships that require big crews piloted by single people, or small groups. Scotty had the original Enterprise up and running with a crew of 5 or so, and that normally requires more than that many people down in phaser control to just fire the phasers. Ent-D and VOY have also been flown solo, or just about empty.

You also introduce a FAR bigger problem here: if each portion runs the risk of being stranded, you have to triple-up on the essentials. 3 bridges, (plus Aux control for each section in case of damage to the bridge), 3 sickbays, 3 engineerings, as well as 3 sets of crew able to run each ship individually. You can say that each of the 3 shifts takes a section, but if you lose the ability to recombine, you've now only got enough crew for a single shift, and you're screwed.

Also, I heard countless times how the people were dissatisfied with the prospect the Galaxy class saucer was incapable of Warp flight ... making it essentially stranded in deep space in case the battle section gets destroyed.
True, that wasn't well thought out. Then again, it would only be used as a lifeboat, so maybe it's better than nothing, or you use the drive section to buy enough time to run/hide. The INTENT was likely to leave it behind before you start the dangerous mission, but most of the time, you don't know it's dangerous until too late.

In this particular situation though, the Prometheus has warp nacelles on each of the section, making it more than capable to go to warp and reach a place where it can hail for support if such a dreaded scenario happens, whereas Galaxy class saucer is essentially stranded.
True, if you're willing to leave a section as the lifeboat. The saucer section looked to be the least powerful, with a tiny nacelle, but you'd also be leaving behind the main bridge, probably main sickbay, etc. as well as reducing the benefit of your MVAM. Probably worth it if shit happens, but a consideration.

Also, as mentioned, what happens if the top section runs and hides, but the middle section is destroyed in battle? Assuming you aren't next door to a starbase, you're screwed. top and bottom don't line up to connect, and if the bridge crew headed below to man a battle section, they likely stopped at the middle section, being closest. That being the case, it would probably be designed to be the most powerful of the group as well.

You've now got two tiny ships that can't reconnect, AND you're very likely missing a good chunk of your command crew. Not a plesant scenario. Even if the middle section was only damaged instead of destroyed, could be easy to cause enough damage to prevent reconnection, which opens up plenty of problems.


Just seems like the ship would be better off as one super-powerful ship, if that's the result of all the warp cores. MVAM means they have to waste space and personnel tripling up redundant systems, and the space for 6 bridges could have been used for other systems.
__________________
Perhaps, if I am very lucky, the feeble efforts of my lifetime will someday be noticed and maybe, in some small way, they will be acknowledged as the greatest works of genius ever created by man. ~Jack Handey
STO: @JScout33
Scout101 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 7 2009, 02:00 PM   #172
Deks
Rear Admiral
 
Re: Discuss: The Voyager Fleet

Scout101 wrote: View Post
That's probably false. Just think about it. 3 times the power production, means more power to go around. Shields should be able to withstand a LOT more, as you can keep full power to them longer. Phaser power would be fairly unlimited, as you can send the full power of a warp core into each burst, and still have a pair available for shields, SIF, manuevering, etc. Can't see how there WOULDN'T be more power available as one big ship.
Then why exactly star-ships don't come equipped with 2 or 4 warp cores as a standard since it would be better?

Regarding the shields ... only that argument could hold in terms of a prolonged conflict, but then again, the ship in separated mode would have identical shield capabilities while the only difference would be in terms of not being able to pump the extra power into them.
And being a pinnacle of Federation technology, the shields would likely be Sovereign type, if not better.

Phasers MIGHT have that max power, but do you have anything that shows that max power = less than 1 full warp core? Even if that IS true, you just double up on the phaser strips (and associated power management systems), and you can make the ship look like a phaser porcupine! And since they are always rerouting power to shields, they'd have more to spare before they had to do that.

Why is the Defiant such a little super-ship (aside from plot holes and it being a Hero ship)? Too big a warp core, far more power than the size/class should need.
You wouldn't be able to pump more power out of the phasers separated or connected.
The differential in this case is that you get more strips capable of firing equal output and delivering more damage in less time.
As for the Defiant ... ok, so it has a large warp core and more power than it can actually use effectively ... that could also translate into an engineering failure because you have all that power at your disposal and you can't use it properly.

The "equally" part isn't right, because if you break it into 3 parts, they're no longer equal to the original.
'Equal' in terms of firepower, not necessarily everything else.
Shields could suffer a little due to this, but hardly enough to put them in a critical jeopardy since the hardware in each section is already state of the art.

Don't believe warp power, especially redundancy, has ever been tied to max velocity. More to do with warp geometry, shape of the ship, SIF, etc. Max power may sustain the warp speed longer, but shouldn't have a lot to do with going much faster.
Valid arguments, but you also need something to power all those systems ... and on numerous occasions we witnessed ships consuming more power the higher warp velocities they hit.

The Nebula likely considered it a "friendly" and was pulling its punches. And the example with the Romulans is what has been talked about. This is a gimmick that will/should work once, and then it's pointless. If the Romulans know that ships with that profile can break into 3, will they be shocked next time? Not so much. And how would the firepower have changed if the Romulans were facing 3 Defiants instead? Same result, really, just no surprise.
If you re-watch the episode, you will see the Nebula was firing at the Prometheus the moment it was in firing range (this was before the Prometheus activated it's MVAM) and therefore was NOT considering it friendly.
Also, SF likely briefed the pursuing ship of the Prometheus capabilities so they can be better prepared ... which of course failed.

The Romulans who stole the ship already knew about it's capabilities, as did the Warbirds it came in contact with.
The Romulans knew quite well what to expect, and they still failed.

Again, depends on making a shaky claim at the beginning that the 3 pieces are stronger than the 1 big piece, and hoping the enemy doesn't know about the MVAM.
If the enemy knows about the MVAM, that doesn't necessarily put the Prometheus at a disadvantage (and the Prommie defeated both the Nebula class and a Warbird in MVAM).

3 Defiants would accomplish the same thing.
That's speculation of course since the ships in question lack phaser strips coverage and by that time period, phaser strips were likely on the same if not higher power output.
That, and the Defiants were not made for deep space tactical assignments, whereas the Prometheus was.

Can't speak to what the crew requirements would be, as we've never seen it really staffed. Would think you'd need to go heavier than normal on command, tactical, and pilots, though, as when you split up, you'd want able people on all 3 parts.
No ... as demonstrated, the MVAM coordinates with the main section in combat via the computer.
Only 10 people in the entire SF were originally trained to operate the ship.
I would hypothesize the ship would likely need a bit more, but I suspect it would be able to handle fine with 10 people in each section, equating to 30 people on the entire ship, and other sections wouldn't have to be commanded by high ranking officers.

Once they split and seperate, they'd be safe, but there has to be more danger when they are starting it. The shields of the overall ship are geared for the big ship, when you start to seperate, that shield has to expand, which makes it bigger but weaker. None of the parts are going to dodge a shot right then, either, they'd have to maintain the course for a few seconds, making them sitting ducks.
And I suppose that a different way of protecting the sections while in separation mode is out of the question?
For example, instead of expanding the shields you could also just retain skin type shields on each section and activate the shield grid in other sections the moment each part disengages from the other.

Can't see how that's all true. More automated, yes, but that was more a function of the plot than the ship. We've seen all KINDS of ships that require big crews piloted by single people, or small groups. Scotty had the original Enterprise up and running with a crew of 5 or so, and that normally requires more than that many people down in phaser control to just fire the phasers. Ent-D and VOY have also been flown solo, or just about empty.
You are forgetting that ships are capable of repairing/maintaining themselves. Of course this was introduced in TNG with the Galaxy class, and then later dropped for plot reasons.
In any event, the ship is highly automated which likely equates to ability to repair/maintain itself.
Obviously, some repairs will needed to be made by the crew, but it will hardly need as many people to do the job.

You also introduce a FAR bigger problem here: if each portion runs the risk of being stranded, you have to triple-up on the essentials. 3 bridges, (plus Aux control for each section in case of damage to the bridge), 3 sickbays, 3 engineerings, as well as 3 sets of crew able to run each ship individually. You can say that each of the 3 shifts takes a section, but if you lose the ability to recombine, you've now only got enough crew for a single shift, and you're screwed.
Given the level of automation and even with 10 people in each section, you can divide that to 2 or 3 shifts (unless the ship is continuously threatened ... in that particular case, no one will be getting too much sleep anyway).

True, that wasn't well thought out. Then again, it would only be used as a lifeboat, so maybe it's better than nothing, or you use the drive section to buy enough time to run/hide. The INTENT was likely to leave it behind before you start the dangerous mission, but most of the time, you don't know it's dangerous until too late.
Which is likely why SF introduced warp capability in all Prometheus sections, to avoid being stranded.
At least like this you have some kind of option of going back.

True, if you're willing to leave a section as the lifeboat. The saucer section looked to be the least powerful, with a tiny nacelle, but you'd also be leaving behind the main bridge, probably main sickbay, etc. as well as reducing the benefit of your MVAM. Probably worth it if shit happens, but a consideration.
And who is to say the remaining sections of the ship don't have the extra facilities such as the sickbay, another battle-bridge, etc. ?
There are holo-emmitters throughout the entire Prometheus, so one would think that it could also have as many EMH's as needed for each section.

Also, as mentioned, what happens if the top section runs and hides, but the middle section is destroyed in battle? Assuming you aren't next door to a starbase, you're screwed. top and bottom don't line up to connect, and if the bridge crew headed below to man a battle section, they likely stopped at the middle section, being closest. That being the case, it would probably be designed to be the most powerful of the group as well.
Since the vessel is designed for deep space tactical assignments, it's likely they'd make it just fine even if one of the sections is destroyed.
And I think that SF would think a bit better than to arm one of the sections more heavily compared to the others.
It's just as likely the phaser coverage and torpedo capabilities are very close to being the same (the Galaxy also has a concealed phaser strip and a torpedo tube for the saucer section when fully connected ... isn't is a same waste for that ship as well?)

You've now got two tiny ships that can't reconnect, AND you're very likely missing a good chunk of your command crew. Not a plesant scenario. Even if the middle section was only damaged instead of destroyed, could be easy to cause enough damage to prevent reconnection, which opens up plenty of problems.
Yawn ... same can be said for any other ship that can separate ... only they won't have the ability to go to Warp speed or tow the section that was damaged under a warp field to the repair facility.
As for the command crew ... adapt.

Just seems like the ship would be better off as one super-powerful ship, if that's the result of all the warp cores. MVAM means they have to waste space and personnel tripling up redundant systems, and the space for 6 bridges could have been used for other systems.
Oh I agree that there are numerous good arguments against the MVAM being there ... but at the same time, it can serve as a good element of surprise in some cases (but that's hardly the only reason behind the MVAM being usable)
Especially if SF only wants to send 1 ship to do the job instead of 3 and much more manpower.
In this instance, the Prometheus could do better, and besides, I would surmise that the Prometheus only engages it's MVAM mode when outnumbered in battle.

If the ship is designed for deep space tactical assignments, giving it the ability to separate into mobile weapon platforms can increase it's survivability since it would allow one or 2 sections to serve as a decoy while the third one pummels the enemy from a point that is vulnerable.
Or all 3 sections fire from 3 different directions at a singular target.
Or 3 ships vs 3 ships.
In some cases, it can level the playing field.
__________________
We are who we choose to be but also have predefined aspects of our personalities we are born with, and make art that defines us.
Deks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 7 2009, 05:32 PM   #173
CaptainDonovin
Fleet Captain
 
CaptainDonovin's Avatar
 
Location: Minnesota
Re: Discuss: The Voyager Fleet

EmperorKalan wrote: View Post
Adding new information from Unworthy (spoilers for plot points, but not for ship specs: You've been warned). Recalling SicOne's list:

SicOne wrote: View Post
And to answer a previous poster, according to "Full Circle", pages 510-511, the DQ fleet will consist...

(1) USS Voyager
Intrepid-class modified with slipstream drive.

(2) and (3) Vesta-class ships USS Esquiline and USS Quirinal

(4), (5), and (6) unknown-class science ships USS Hawking, USS Planck, and USS Curie, one each to tag along with 1, 2, and 3 above. I had thought there was a mention of a USS Hawking in a TNG episode, but a cursory glance at Memory Alpha shows no listing.

(7) unknown-class specialty ship USS Galen (staffed by advanced holograms and serves as primary medical resource)
The Galen is a prototype ship designed by The Doctor and Louis Zimmerman (and presumably a team of regular Starfleet ship architects). It is described as "a cross between a Nova- and Miranda-class science vessel." The main section has six decks, has a wide triangular shape, and the nacelles are "mounted on short pylons extending directly from the drive section."

Decks 5 and 6 are mostly devoted to two emergency wards that are typically powered down when not in use.

Crew complement is 30, supplemented by medical, security, engineering (and command?) holographic personnel.

Galen's bridge consists of the captain's center seat, a single-place conn station in front of it, and tactical, ops, and science stations arranged to the captain's rear. (Which is much like the Pasteur's bridge seen in AGT, but the Pasteur had five stations to the captain's rear rather than the Galen's three. See the bridge illustration gallery at http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org)


(8) unknown-class specialty ship USS Achilles (carries vital backup components for the fleet's technology along with industrial replicators)

(9) unknown-class specialty ship USS Demeter (houses a vast airponics bay to provide supplemental food, as well as storage facilities for biological resources the fleet finds along its way)
If there was information on the class of Achilles and Demeter, I must have missed it. So, class still unknown.

And finally...
There was a U.S.S. Achilles from some game years back that was the lead ship of it's class. I know it wasn't mentioned in any episodes but since the books aren't canon anyway it worked for me.
__________________
Long live DS9!
CaptainDonovin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 7 2009, 07:27 PM   #174
Scout101
Admiral
 
Scout101's Avatar
 
Location: Rhode Island, USA
Re: Discuss: The Voyager Fleet

Dominion War, I beleive. It's also a selectable ship class in Legacy, I think (either that, or one of the mods that was built to try and fix that POS game, can't recall).

either way, kinda neat ship, sort of a flattened Voyager...
__________________
Perhaps, if I am very lucky, the feeble efforts of my lifetime will someday be noticed and maybe, in some small way, they will be acknowledged as the greatest works of genius ever created by man. ~Jack Handey
STO: @JScout33
Scout101 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 7 2009, 08:05 PM   #175
nx1701g
Admiral
 
nx1701g's Avatar
 
Location: Aboard the Executor...
Re: Discuss: The Voyager Fleet

^ I recall reading that that was intentional. The original plans were for the Achilles to be an Intrepid Class starship, but S&S only had rights to use ships commonly featured on Star Trek: Deep Space Nine and couldn't get permission to use the Intrepid.
__________________
Not Dead Yet.
nx1701g is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 7 2009, 08:38 PM   #176
Scout101
Admiral
 
Scout101's Avatar
 
Location: Rhode Island, USA
Re: Discuss: The Voyager Fleet

Eh, it looked cool enough on its own
__________________
Perhaps, if I am very lucky, the feeble efforts of my lifetime will someday be noticed and maybe, in some small way, they will be acknowledged as the greatest works of genius ever created by man. ~Jack Handey
STO: @JScout33
Scout101 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 8 2009, 12:27 PM   #177
Icemizer
Fleet Captain
 
Icemizer's Avatar
 
Re: Discuss: The Voyager Fleet

It will be really awesome when all the ships form together to make a giant robot!!!
Icemizer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 8 2009, 04:28 PM   #178
CaptainDonovin
Fleet Captain
 
CaptainDonovin's Avatar
 
Location: Minnesota
Re: Discuss: The Voyager Fleet

^ That will be the next big Paramount movie, Star Trek: Transformers.
__________________
Long live DS9!
CaptainDonovin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 8 2009, 05:12 PM   #179
brcarthey
Lieutenant Commander
 
Location: Richmond, VA...for now
Send a message via AIM to brcarthey Send a message via Windows Live Messenger to brcarthey
Re: Discuss: The Voyager Fleet

CaptainDonovin wrote: View Post
^ That will be the next big Paramount movie, Star Trek: Transformers.
i think you mean star trek: voltron
__________________
'Those who would sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither' - Benjamin Franklin.
'Fascism will come to America in the name of anti-fascism.' - Huey Long
brcarthey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 8 2009, 06:35 PM   #180
Christopher
Writer
 
Christopher's Avatar
 
Re: Discuss: The Voyager Fleet

^Except that Transformers is a Paramount franchise and the scripts are by Kurtzman & Orci, so that's the obvious pairing. And yes, the Transformers do have robots that combine out of smaller robots.
__________________
Christopher L. Bennett Homepage -- Site update 4/8/14 including annotations for Rise of the Federation: Tower of Babel

Written Worlds -- My blog
Christopher is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Tags
prometheus

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:31 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.