RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 139,593
Posts: 5,424,306
Members: 24,810
Currently online: 523
Newest member: David Ellerman

TrekToday headlines

September Loot Crate Features Trek Surprise
By: T'Bonz on Sep 16

USS Enterprise Miniature Out For Refit
By: T'Bonz on Sep 16

Star Trek/Planet of the Apes Comic Crossover
By: T'Bonz on Sep 16

Trek 3 Shooting Next Spring?
By: T'Bonz on Sep 16

Star Trek: Alien Domain Game Announced
By: T'Bonz on Sep 15

Red Shirt Diaries Episode Three
By: T'Bonz on Sep 15

Made Out Of Mudd Photonovel
By: T'Bonz on Sep 15

Takei Has Growth Removed
By: T'Bonz on Sep 15

Retro Review: Tears of the Prophets
By: Michelle on Sep 12

New Wizkids Attack Wing Ships
By: T'Bonz on Sep 12


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 June 22 2009, 12:52 AM   #76
Kestrel
Vice Admiral
 
Kestrel's Avatar
 
Location: East Tennessee
Re: Discuss: The Voyager Fleet

I think Chris is right that you have a choice between one powerful (perhaps over-powerful) ship and three (slightly) weaker ships, but if each of the sections is roughly on par with a Defiant, then it gives you added tactical flexibility when you need it, especially as Star Trek vessels have been shown to have defenses which vary in strength along different axes and sections of the ship. Use a split-up Prommie to catch the enemy from various angles or in a crossfire as Trent suggests. This especially makes sense when dealing with an enemy like the Jem'Hadar who tend to swarm and you need to be as flexible and adaptable as possible, being in many places at once.
__________________
"If Romeo had just masturbated a couple of times a week he would have saved both those nice families a heap of trouble."
Kestrel is online now   Reply With Quote
Old June 22 2009, 03:17 AM   #77
Christopher
Writer
 
Christopher's Avatar
 
Re: Discuss: The Voyager Fleet

And what about the moment when the ship is in the process of separating or recombining -- when shield envelopes are in flux, power systems are adjusting, computers are switching control, ship mobility is limited due to the need for precise maneuvering, etc.? That's a moment of great vulnerability. In a real battle situation, the enemy wouldn't observe the kind of henshin etiquette that you see in something like Power Rangers where the evil monster just sits around twiddling its thumbs while the good guys' giant robot goes through its elaborate transformation/assembly sequence. If their commanders aren't idiots, they'll know that the moment of separation or reassembly is when they can do the most damage, and that's when they'll hit the hardest. It's just making things needlessly complicated. It's still simpler, and safer, to have a carrier ship with smaller ships aboard, or just to have three ships travel together as a matter of course.
__________________
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 online now   Reply With Quote
Old June 22 2009, 06:12 PM   #78
fleetcaptain
Fleet Captain
 
Location: Virginia Beach, VA, USA
View fleetcaptain's Twitter Profile Send a message via AIM to fleetcaptain Send a message via Yahoo to fleetcaptain
Re: Discuss: The Voyager Fleet

Hmm... Interesting. What do you think Mr. Spock? Fascinating. I would wheather have one ship instead of 3 perfectly for that reason, Captain.
If we lost one half of the ship, what would be the purpose of the other 2? No idea which half could be destoryed, would screw everything up.
fleetcaptain is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 22 2009, 07:49 PM   #79
Kirsten Beyer
Writer
 
Kirsten Beyer's Avatar
 
Location: Los Angeles
Re: Discuss: The Voyager Fleet

William Leisner wrote: View Post
Instead of having one large ship that can separate into three smaller ships, they should design small ships that are capable of joining together into one larger, more powerful unit.

Ideally, one shaped like a giant robot.
I've always liked the way Leisner thinks.
Kirsten Beyer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 23 2009, 12:53 AM   #80
Kestrel
Vice Admiral
 
Kestrel's Avatar
 
Location: East Tennessee
Re: Discuss: The Voyager Fleet

Christopher wrote: View Post
And what about the moment when the ship is in the process of separating or recombining -- when shield envelopes are in flux, power systems are adjusting, computers are switching control, ship mobility is limited due to the need for precise maneuvering, etc.? That's a moment of great vulnerability. In a real battle situation, the enemy wouldn't observe the kind of henshin etiquette that you see in something like Power Rangers where the evil monster just sits around twiddling its thumbs while the good guys' giant robot goes through its elaborate transformation/assembly sequence. If their commanders aren't idiots, they'll know that the moment of separation or reassembly is when they can do the most damage, and that's when they'll hit the hardest. It's just making things needlessly complicated. It's still simpler, and safer, to have a carrier ship with smaller ships aboard, or just to have three ships travel together as a matter of course.
Good points all... I would say maybe it happens fast enough that Starfleet Command thinks the vulnerability is low enough to be worth the tactical advantage? Though I think "Message in a Bottle" put the lie to that...Besides, if you have three ships, then you can have NINE!!11!

Hmm... guess not.
__________________
"If Romeo had just masturbated a couple of times a week he would have saved both those nice families a heap of trouble."
Kestrel is online now   Reply With Quote
Old June 23 2009, 01:34 AM   #81
hellsgate
Commodore
 
Location: Surrey (Vancouver) B.C. Canada
Re: Discuss: The Voyager Fleet

http://www.angelfire.com/ak4/startre...on/index3.html

Here's the diagrams of the Typhon-Class attached to the bottom of a Sovy. See the very bottom illustration.
hellsgate is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 23 2009, 01:36 AM   #82
LutherSloan
Fleet Captain
 
LutherSloan's Avatar
 
Location: Doing the Federation's dirty work
Re: Discuss: The Voyager Fleet

Didn't the MVAM Prometheus take on a Romulan D'deridex warbird?
__________________
Deputy Director, Section 31

Expand Medicare for All!!
LutherSloan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 23 2009, 01:52 AM   #83
hellsgate
Commodore
 
Location: Surrey (Vancouver) B.C. Canada
Re: Discuss: The Voyager Fleet

At 1:17 of this video, you'll see the Enterprise-E deploy the Typhon-Class carrier/mobile outpost from its engineering hull after dropping from warp.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9W2cnN6mFi0
hellsgate is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 23 2009, 02:43 AM   #84
JD
Admiral
 
JD's Avatar
 
Location: Arizona, USA
Re: Discuss: The Voyager Fleet

Umm, and that has what to do with what we are talking about?
__________________
They say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but it is not one half so bad as a lot of ignorance. - Terry Pratchett, Equal Rites
JD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 23 2009, 11:23 AM   #85
kv1at3485
Commodore
 
Re: Discuss: The Voyager Fleet

LutherSloan wrote: View Post
Didn't the MVAM Prometheus take on a Romulan D'deridex warbird?
Common misconception of the Prometheus' capabilities.

Ask yourself if the outcome would have been any different if it were, say, three smaller purpose built ships equipped with the same weapons, against the warbirds.

JD wrote: View Post
Umm, and that has what to do with what we are talking about?
Somebody asked about the Typhon a few pages back. Although you''d one post would have been sufficient as a reply.
kv1at3485 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 23 2009, 04:33 PM   #86
Mike Farley
Commodore
 
Mike Farley's Avatar
 
Location: Lost Vegas
Re: Discuss: The Voyager Fleet

hellsgate wrote: View Post
http://www.angelfire.com/ak4/startre...on/index3.html

Here's the diagrams of the Typhon-Class attached to the bottom of a Sovy. See the very bottom illustration.
That ship has warp engines. Why does it need to be carried around by another ship?
Mike Farley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 23 2009, 05:23 PM   #87
kv1at3485
Commodore
 
Re: Discuss: The Voyager Fleet

Don't ask too many questions. Not only was it made for Star Trek, it was made for a Star Trek game.
kv1at3485 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 25 2009, 12:36 PM   #88
Tino
Captain
 
Tino's Avatar
 
Location: Germany
Re: Discuss: The Voyager Fleet

hellsgate wrote: View Post
http://www.angelfire.com/ak4/startre...on/index3.html

Here's the diagrams of the Typhon-Class attached to the bottom of a Sovy. See the very bottom illustration.
Quite a cool design. Looks like a battle ship through and through. Makes me wish of a great cover with all NINE starships for the book after "Unworthy". :-)
Tino is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 25 2009, 02:59 PM   #89
Scout101
Admiral
 
Scout101's Avatar
 
Location: Rhode Island, USA
Re: Discuss: The Voyager Fleet

I'm with Christopher: MVAM makes no sense. Wasteful of resources, doesn't seem to be a big advantage, and WAY too many problems it raises.

If each piece of the ship is decently powerful on its own, then makes no sense to split, as when the ship is in once piece and SHARING all of its power, it's one far more powerful ship. Can say that phaser strips are hidden in between components, but would be far simpler to just put more strips on the outside of the single ship, and with the (apparently) 3 warp cores powering it, you'd have FAR more powerful phasers, shields, etc on the one super-ship.

You also waste a LOT of space in this configuration that could be used for better things. You have to have 3 bridges (at least a main bridge for each section) and then each section would probably also need a backup 'battle' bridge in case their main bridge was damaged. 3 engine rooms, 3 sickbays. Does each section get a shuttle bay, or is that all on one ship? What happens if you lose THAT portion of the ship? Same with cargo and supplies, crew quarters, transporters, etc.

What happens if the middle piece of the ship is destroyed? Can the top and bottom dock without the middle? the design, as shown, doesn't seem to line up real well from a vertical perspective (i.e. remove the middle section, and you still have to line up turbolift shafts that can go from top to bottom. As the ship is more long than tall, seems tough to do successfully).

Entire concept just makes no sense. Looks 'kewl' on screen, but a carrier-style ship with a large shuttle bay, carrying a couple of "mini-Defiants" would make as much, if not more sense. If not carried inside, perhaps a top and bottom "piggyback" configuration...

MVAM is a gimmick at best, and has FAR too many shortcomings for little to no benefit.
__________________
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 June 28 2009, 12:15 PM   #90
Tom Riley
Commodore
 
Tom Riley's Avatar
 
Location: Somewhere... out there...
View Tom Riley's Twitter Profile Send a message via AIM to Tom Riley Send a message via Yahoo to Tom Riley
Re: Discuss: The Voyager Fleet

Christopher wrote: View Post
And what about the moment when the ship is in the process of separating or recombining -- when shield envelopes are in flux, power systems are adjusting, computers are switching control, ship mobility is limited due to the need for precise maneuvering, etc.? That's a moment of great vulnerability. In a real battle situation, the enemy wouldn't observe the kind of henshin etiquette that you see in something like Power Rangers where the evil monster just sits around twiddling its thumbs while the good guys' giant robot goes through its elaborate transformation/assembly sequence. If their commanders aren't idiots, they'll know that the moment of separation or reassembly is when they can do the most damage, and that's when they'll hit the hardest. It's just making things needlessly complicated. It's still simpler, and safer, to have a carrier ship with smaller ships aboard, or just to have three ships travel together as a matter of course.
But then what about with Romulan and Klingon ships, during that period when the ship is cloaking, and the shields have dropped, but the cloak hasn't quite kicked in completely, and it is still possible to target them? I guess it all comes down to calculated risk, and whether or not the MVAM was deemed to outweigh the risks.

Scout101 wrote: View Post
If each piece of the ship is decently powerful on its own, then makes no sense to split, as when the ship is in once piece and SHARING all of its power, it's one far more powerful ship. Can say that phaser strips are hidden in between components, but would be far simpler to just put more strips on the outside of the single ship, and with the (apparently) 3 warp cores powering it, you'd have FAR more powerful phasers, shields, etc on the one super-ship.
I don't know, I don't think it would really end up working like that, for a few reasons.

First, you can only pump so much power into any given system before you overload it and it burns out(i.e. the Enterprise-D's weapon from BoBW that went through the deflector. It was putting out so much power that it would burn out the dish in the process).

Second, if you have 3 warp cores, and each warp core powers say 10 phasers each, you have a total of 3 warp cores powering 30 phasers separated into groups. Even if you connected all of them, you would still have 3 warp cores powering 30 phasers. The amount of power needed to power all 30 phasers would be the same regardless of whether or not the energy was pooled. And the total energy output of all 3 warp cores would be the same regardless of whether their energy was pooled.

Scout101 wrote: View Post
You also waste a LOT of space in this configuration that could be used for better things. You have to have 3 bridges (at least a main bridge for each section) and then each section would probably also need a backup 'battle' bridge in case their main bridge was damaged. 3 engine rooms, 3 sickbays. Does each section get a shuttle bay, or is that all on one ship? What happens if you lose THAT portion of the ship? Same with cargo and supplies, crew quarters, transporters, etc.
It seems like you are assuming that each piece is designed to run completely separate of each other for extended periods. MVAM seems to me to be no more than a glorified saucer separation. 3 pieces instead of two, and each has a warp drive instead of only one of them having it. The saucer of the Enterprise-D didn't have 3 sickbays. It had only one bridge per section as well, it didn't need each section to have it's own dedicated backup. And then what happens if the Enterprise-D loses one of it's section while separated? It doesn't seem all that different to me.
Tom Riley 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 11:01 PM.

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