I don't think you know the meaning of the word "design". Five words in a sentence do not make a design.
Designing A Trek Ship
- Thread starter All Seeing Eye
- Start date
I think unmanned, AI and/or remote controlled ships would be most efficient, given the definition provided. This eliminates the need for crew quarters, and makes tons of room for diverse advanced systems. The only thing it would need for diplomatic /medical aid missions would be a holodeck.
All Seeing Eye
Admiral
Ya know what, this is probably the best post in this thread. I never even considered having a ship completely built as an AI, I don't think allowing it to be fully AI would be wise though so semi AI would be better. There is of course problems with another race finding a way to reprogram it. The dreadnought from Voyager would be one example but Torres after re-programming it had difficulty reprogramming it a second time.
But Great post!
This is the kind of thing i'm talking about, if everyone rattled their brains and came up with some unique ideas instead of taking the mick we could bring it all together and design a great ship.
Use this AI ship idea and utilise my idea for replicating torpedoes and beam them to target we've already got an awesome ship design coming along and it ALL based on things we've seen already in Trek.
Style counts. Why else would I chose sleek GT ragtop over some ugly sedan or prefer the speedboat shuttles to boxy ones that make more efficient use of interior space? The Akira class is a chick magnet. The Borg would never get visitors aboard their flying junkyards by friendly invitation.
Unmanned? Well, stepping outside the Trekiverse and into our world, if you want to explore some strange, new world a few light-years away detected by Earth's astronomers, then an unmmanned probe that takes a few years to get there and has the robotics and software to manufacture more of its own facilities, gathering raw materials and energy from local sources near the destination, before doing much exploring sounds like fun.
Unmanned? Well, stepping outside the Trekiverse and into our world, if you want to explore some strange, new world a few light-years away detected by Earth's astronomers, then an unmmanned probe that takes a few years to get there and has the robotics and software to manufacture more of its own facilities, gathering raw materials and energy from local sources near the destination, before doing much exploring sounds like fun.
Last edited:
OK, so, by "efficient" you really mean "well rounded". For, like in my previous example using cars, an indy racer is going to be very efficient at going fast. A milspec Hummer is going to be very good at off-roading. Neither one will be very comfortable. So a good "efficient", or more correctly stated "well rounded" and/or "compromise" would be a Porsche Cayenne. Faster, comfortable, can go off road, and carry a good amount of cargo/people. It's not perfect at any of those things, but can do all of the reasonably well.
Applying that to a Star Trek ship using technology only seen on screen in either movies or TV, I would take the "All Good Things" Enterprise, refit it with U.S.S. Relativity technology, make most of the living spaces use holo deck technology and have an almost entirely holodeck crew(without the DR.'s level of self awareness).
Holey run on sentence!
If your going to keep using the word efficient incorrectly, your just going to continue to confuse and irritate people in the thread as to what you want.
ef⋅fi⋅cient
/ɪˈfɪʃ
ənt/
Show Spelled Pronunciation [i-fish-uh
nt]
Continuing to tell people you want to design an "efficient" ship while refusing to describe what you want it to be efficient at is just stupid. And no, It can't be the most efficient at everything. That just goes against the proper use of the word.
All Seeing Eye
Admiral
Can't you just design a ship without complaining?
My definition of efficient is correct and you arguing about it is getting us no where so let it drop.
I'm not here to argue over a damn word in the English dictionary.
My definition of efficient is correct and you arguing about it is getting us no where so let it drop.
I'm not here to argue over a damn word in the English dictionary.
If you're not here to argue about the definitions of certain words, why do you keep using the words "efficient" and "design" incorrectly? Just use them in a proper way (or use the proper words for what you mean) and people might understand you. Isn't that what you want?
All Seeing Eye
Admiral
Why don't you just stop complaining about irrelevant things and design a ship. The amount of energy you people have put into arguing over something so stupid and irrelevant you could have designed 50 ships already.
Why the hell are you people so damn bothered about me using the word efficient? are you having trouble sleeping at night because of this thread or what? honestly I cannot fathom you peoples motivation to continue arguing over this.
I'm writing to BBC news and linking this thread, i'm sure they'll be able to have a right good laugh at how you guys go overboard over something so trivial and they'll write a humorous article about it.
Well, considering you didn't even acknowledge that my previous post regarding "efficient" meaning "well rounded" is what you mean. Nor do you seem to be willing to clarify what you do mean by using another term, we can only continue to try and guess. Without clarification of your request, we cannot help you.
And yes, to the best of your criteria, I did design a ship in my previous post.
And BBC news may be more interested in your lack of understanding of the word "efficient". Being as you are from the UK and should have a good grasp of the "Queens English".
Your replies for the most part have consisted of "no one understands! GTFO!" without actually responding to the content of our posts.
All Seeing Eye
Admiral
^ Will you please, for the love of God, just quit complaining.
Now I am beginning to question your definition of the word "complain" as well.
If you want me to stop "complaining", why don't you for once address the issues raised in any of my responses?
This is starting to read like one of those conversations with a computer trying to pass the Turing test.
If you want me to stop "complaining", why don't you for once address the issues raised in any of my responses?
This is starting to read like one of those conversations with a computer trying to pass the Turing test.
All Seeing Eye
Admiral
How about i'm sick of listening to you complaining and trolling my thread so NO. If you want to throw shit about go to TNZ.
This conversation is now over. Stay out of my thread.
, I will let the record speak for itself over who was "complaining and trolling".In the future, if someone asks you for clarification on something, try to give it to them. You might get better responses that way.
Yes, this thread is now over.
All Seeing Eye
Admiral
Erm no, the thread is not over, your complaining within it however is. 
I did, I explained what I meant by efficient and then you started complaining about that too and crying about the definition of the word which was pointless trolling.
The fact you STILL keep coming in here posting nothing of substance after i'm telling you to stop and leave the thread if you're not going to join in with it means you're trolling and giving no regard to the board rules whatsoever.
I did, I explained what I meant by efficient and then you started complaining about that too and crying about the definition of the word which was pointless trolling.
The fact you STILL keep coming in here posting nothing of substance after i'm telling you to stop and leave the thread if you're not going to join in with it means you're trolling and giving no regard to the board rules whatsoever.
OK, so, by "efficient" you really mean "well rounded". For, like in my previous example using cars, an indy racer is going to be very efficient at going fast. A milspec Hummer is going to be very good at off-roading. Neither one will be very comfortable. So a good "efficient", or more correctly stated "well rounded" and/or "compromise" would be a Porsche Cayenne. Faster, comfortable, can go off road, and carry a good amount of cargo/people. It's not perfect at any of those things, but can do all of the reasonably well.
Applying that to a Star Trek ship using technology only seen on screen in either movies or TV, I would take the "All Good Things" Enterprise, refit it with U.S.S. Relativity technology, make most of the living spaces use holo deck technology and have an almost entirely holodeck crew(without the DR.'s level of self awareness).
Holey run on sentence!
If your going to keep using the word efficient incorrectly, your just going to continue to confuse and irritate people in the thread as to what you want.
Continuing to tell people you want to design an "efficient" ship while refusing to describe what you want it to be efficient at is just stupid. And no, It can't be the most efficient at everything. That just goes against the proper use of the word.ef⋅fi⋅cient
ənt/nt]
Yes, in any meaningful way. this thread is over.
All Seeing Eye
Admiral
Yes, over for you. Good day.
You've nailed it!
I just realized - you're saying that his arguing is, well, inefficient.
ALRIGHT EVERYONE - I think Tachy has an interesting idea here, even though he didn't put it in so many words. Henceforth, the purpose of this thread will be this:
Each post must add a reasonable feature to a single ship that we're all participating in building. If you change someone else's feature, it should be because you've added a reasonable innovation to their idea. Don't tear down someone else's addition, because even dumb-seeming additions may inspire cooler ideas.
I'll demonstrate -
O'Dib's AI/Holoship concept
Tachy's replicating and beaming photorps (or whatever -torps)
I think Tachy's idea is pretty cool. But additionally, can we add a transporter control system designed specifically for forcefully beaming things that you don't care whether you've locked properly onto or not? You know, like scattering the crap out of your enemy's main computer by grabbing matter from approximately where you think it is and beaming it dispearsed out into space.
Remember, inhibitors just keep you from getting a good lock. But what if you don't care about a good lock?
I call 'em Scramble Transporters, or just Scramblers, for short.
Similar threads
