Search results for query: * (refine your search)

Yeah, okay, but hull number fuckery isn't relevant here, so could that be tabled please & save that eternal argument for another post? Thank you for reiterating what I have stated previously. Starships are not cars, nor are they aircraft. You need to drop all that because none of it is...

It was both, as this is/will be. I made it mainly to keep track of things when I built models, because I'd mock up little dedication plaques for the stands. It's been 20 years since I built anything, & now I want it for writing purposes, in this case as a supplementary article for my project...

Okay, well, we'll put all that way, way, WAY out on the fringe of the spectrum. Next option, please.

I agree with the latter. You can have the former without it being literally everywhere, which we know isn't the case. This is such an awful idea, I can't even begin to tell you. The administrative nightmare it would be...

....No. By that logic, we'd have NCC-325000 commissioning in 2379, not 3150. There isn't one federal yard per member. That doesn't make any sense, either. Does anyone have a less fantastical outlook here?

70,000 to 110,000 per year? No, that's not right. Yes, that's what a federal yard is. To use US terms, federal yards are Pearl Harbor, Puget Sound, Norfolk. Private is Electric Boat, Ingalls, IHI, Newport News.

I am currently endeavoring to reconstruct a long-lost datafile of shipyards & contractors that build Starfleet ships. I have about 110 or so thus far, roughly equally split between federal yards & private contractors. My question is: how many would actually be required? I'm a large-fleet...

I highly appreciate your efforts, Henoch. Thank you so much!

Oi! I'm tryna get some answers here! Don't hijack, take that to the DMs!

Hooray! This is what I was looking for! Thank you! So next part of the question is, how would that apply with other compounds as mentioned here: And while I'm here....all those fun, currently artificial elements in the 100+ range like copernicium & flerovium & such: obviously they'd be highly...

...Y'know what, I think I'll just go ask the authors or someone in metallurgy or materials science or something. I always forget how unfocused this place is with questions.

It is a PDF version, yes, but I know that it's in the print one as I wrote this piece before I lost everything I owned many years back. It's also independently verified by simple Google search. Two pages after the above, we have a mention of "hafnium 6 excelion-infused carbonitrium"; the next...

I don't think this is anything like that. It's decidely not a typo or galley-sheet item. You can see both instances on the same page clearly belong there: There is almost certainly a reasonable real-science based point behind this that I can't find or that my lack of nuclear chemIstry...

But this isn't a trademark or anything, & it would be out of line with other compounds mentioned in both that & other publications. For example, matter reactant injector nozzles are mentioned as being made from "frumium-copper-yttrium 2343"; wouldn't something like "FCY2343" or a "trade name"...

I'm furloughed from work for minimum 4-6 weeks because of renovations, so I'm lazily re-editing my work, tightening language & expounding on concepts. Anyway, I'm at a point where I'm talking about warp drive advances & I mention verterium cortenide with a number after it. Is this an isotope...

Yeah, for true I'd love PDFs. GEC is where Masao first developed his stuff, innit?

startrekmap.com has an enormous 8.5 MB file of a very large, heavily detailed PDF map availabke for download.

See, this guy gets dumb jokes.

The term "megaphasers" implies the existence of kilophasers, gigaphasers, & teraphasers....but also milliphasers, microphasers, & nanophasers.

I mean, a nacelle is just a housing shell. The innards can (& often do) look completely different. Maybe it was an impromptu source of confusion to the enemy.