Discussion in 'Trek Literature' started by Sxottlan, Jun 18, 2009.
Exactly, the NX class was fine, should still be in use now
I think the hull geometry of the Luna-class is slipstream capable. I wonder if they have plans to retrofit them with SS drives in the future?
The Saber is over 100 years old
I though it was only like about 10 seeing as THAT'S ABOUT WHEN IT WAS BUILT.
Seriously why the rush to get rid of ships that are still kind of young?
Well, that's a complete non sequitur. You wouldn't replace, say, a modern Gulfstream V corporate jet with a 747 Dreamlifter, because they fill completely different, coexisting niches; but you would definitely replace a 1937-vintage Grumman Goose with a modern small commuter plane, because the modern plane fills the same niche with better technology.
Again, how hard is it to understand the concept of using the right tool for the right job? If your crummy 30-year-old screwdriver breaks, you don't replace it with an industrial jackhammer. You replace it with a new screwdriver made of modern materials. Starships are not universally interchangeable. Different classes serve different purposes. Replacing an old ship with a new ship designed for the same purpose makes sense. Replacing a ship designed for one purpose with a contemporary ship designed for a completely different purpose is just nonsensical.
Ah yes, I can see why you would make that mistake, I didn't mean to imply that the Saber is a Century old, I reckon it's about 20 or so years old, I meant ships like the Miranda, Excelsior or Constitution (although that hasn't featured since TUC) classes, we only ever see those due to budgetary reasons by the production crew and it seems that Starfleet is constantly updating ship designs and replacing old ship designs as new advancements comes along.
Of course you replace your old hammer, makes perfect sense and in this new and improved Trek Universe where the Borg have destroyed countless worlds and wiped out Billions of people, as someone said up thread, I'd rather have a massive factory in space show up in orbit and help out than, say, a small ship that if to be honest, doesn't look all that brilliant.
It's not hard to understand one bit, I just don't take it as seriously as you.
I'm pretty sure it's only around 10 years old.
but not with a giant mallet like your proposing.
This is the Planck (not the Demeter, as that one is my current project.)
The torpedo pods are actually sensory equipment. (The Planck, Curie and Hawking are equipped as science ships with minimal or little armament.)
It has 2 aft en 2 forward torpedo/probe launchers and 4 phaser strips.
I'm planning to continue my work on Voyager around August.
In that new SOTL calendar, what is the ship on the left in the second picture?
Right, right, 9 ships in the fleet, I get confused.
BTW, were the choice of names Beyer's decision? I thought it was odd how many proper names were used considering how often non-names have been used to name ships like Enterprise, Voyager, and Defiant.
To be fair, those are the 'hero' ships of various series, and made more sense to go with more open, generic names rather than proper names, so they don't have to spend 7 years explaining the name all the time, or having to write dialog to make it clear they aren't talking about a character...
Also those ones go back to centuries of naval tradition, so Enterprise, Defiant, Intrepid, etc weren't a stretch...
As I am looking at the new SOTL calendar, two questions pop up. Do we need another picture of TOS Enterprise in dry dock and we do need another picture of the TOS Enterprise in Earth's atmosphere near Christopher's jet?
Aside from a couple interesting pictures, like the one we're discussing, that calendar DID seem a bit dry in the 'new/interesting material' department...
I thought that it was trivially easy to retrofit existing Federation starships with slipstream, and that it was just benamite shortages which limited the transformation. If Voyager was able to almost implement it alone in the Delta Quadrant, I don't see why older vessels back in the Federation couldn't be similarly retrofitted, especially since warp and slipstream drives seem to require similar geometries.
The way we've dealt with it in the books, some starship classes are more easily adapted to slipstream than others. Basically you need something reasonably narrow, since the wider a slipstream conduit is, the exponentially harder it is to maintain. Something like Voyager, which is a pretty slender and cylindrical-ish design to start with, is easily adaptable to slipstream, but something like a Galaxy or Nebula-class ship wouldn't have a prayer.
Thank you kindly!
*tips the virtual Stetson of the Trekker who doubles as a Due South fan!*
Small spoiler alert:
In Children of the Storm's last chapter the Quirinal is on it's landing struts. While the shape of the Vesta would allow it to land, the long/lean pylons might put heavy strain on the structural integrity.
Quirinal and Esqueline will get a B type pylon. (swept forward.) This will also be a good feature to keep the 2 ships apart from the Aventine. (besides color differences.)
I'm not sure when I can make these changes, it might take a while.
Does that mean that Aventine can't land?
Unless one of the Authors proofs me wrong, I would say: it's difficult.
Thought it was supposed to be similar is size to the E-E? Wouldn't have expected it to land in the first place, as IMO that's something that was already silly in something the size of Voyager, much less any larger ships.
Why can't all of the Vesta-class ships land? It doesn't make sense unless the Vesta is more like a basic ship design but each ship of the class is built differently with various test bed technologies or some such.
Separate names with a comma.