And here I thought it was because of acceleration.Maneuverability was said to be the reason for that many engines, IIRC
And here I thought it was because of acceleration.Maneuverability was said to be the reason for that many engines, IIRC
Or the Impulse Thrusters are really only good for linear acceleration forward and not designed or optimized for manuevering.
Look carefully at which direction all the impulse exhausts on the vast majority of StarFleet vessels are and the fact that they might have to rely on RCS units for dodging instead of Impulse power at STL.
They don't even really use Gravimetric drives other than basic Anti-Grav repulsors.
They sure as hell don't seem to mix Gravimetric Drives for omni-directional STL thrust vectoring & Impulse drives for linear acceleration like what the White Star did on Babylon 5, mix two types of STL drives for superior acceleration and manueverability.
We know for sure that "The Borg" uses some form of Gravimetric Drive for omni-directional manuevering of their vessels, no known traditional impulse drives are used.
They probably don't find it worthwhile to have Impulse drives when Gravimetric Drive can do the same thing and provide omni-directional manueverability.
But how fast were the backwards & vertical movement compared to forward acceleration?Perhaps the late-24th century impulse systems only do well with forward acceleration if the writers treat those exhausts as the thrust producers for impulse. However the TOS Enterprise and even the TMP Enterprise and Reliant have demonstrated the ability to maneuver forwards, backwards and vertically at impulse (and warp) so it would've been nice to see that ability return.
But how fast were the backwards & vertical movement compared to forward acceleration?
Usually you would optimize your drive design for the 99% usage scenario.
Guess what 99% of most StarShips do, go forward.
1% of their life would be for going any other direction other than forward.
So they probably didn't give much priority to designing their STL systems to perform well in those directions.
IIRC, the producers specifically lifted a nearly identical scene from SW:ANH, when the Millennium Falcon swooped down out of Yavin's sun to knock out Vader's pursuing TIE fighters during Luke's run on the trench. Full disclosure: Despite the etymology of the sequence, It was no less compelling, visually.Like the Klingons coming in from "above" in Sacrifice of Angels, it stands out because it's so rare for Star Trek ships to move outside the 2D plane.
I'd argue their accuracy is down to the "1-digit" amount of meters for warping out.- And while it's not new for ships of this era to leap into and out of warp with a toy laser gun "pew", often in formation, the Titan narrows the space they can come out of warp to a scale of hundreds of meters between the Eleos and the Shrike.
Where do you get "Voyager sized" for the Titan? Looks more like Enterprise-C volume to me.
That said, Voyager was always particularly sparsely populated given her volume. We know the Titan has some bunks, whereas everyone on Voyager seemed to have their own room. A crew of 500 seems pretty credible for a ship of that size.
I'd call that an apparent budgetary reality of setting an entire season (presumably) on a ship and seeing the bridge every episode rather than for a fraction of one episode. For how little time we spent on the Stargazer, they could afford to splurge a bit.- Regardless, all these additional stations are ironic considering the Titan seems to have fewer bridge crew than the Stargazer. The earlier ship had NDs everywhere, including on both sides of the forward freestanding consoles. The Titan seems to have calmed things down a bit.
According to Dave Blass the Titan-A is 560m long. So yes, out of all the Enterprises so far it's closest in size to the Enterprise-C. It's also about the same size as the Stargazer NCC-82893.
Isn't this just the 2009 debate all over again? Very similar shapes don't necessarily mean they are the same size.Hum, for a Blass-ified length of 560m I'm more than happy to accept an Ambassador-esque volume and crew count (fandom in the 90s pegged an Ambassador at 700-750, IIRC). Thing is, and I know there's bound to be a spirited debate about it, but the Titan's retro saucer is a bit TOO retro for its own good - makes me think that the saucer was effectively a Constitution (II) saucer, which makes the Titan feel roughly the same length as a Constitution. Going by the side profile and counting windows gives a count of 22-24 decks, again around what a TOS/TMP Connie should be; so following that logic I concluded that its size is roughly commensurate with such a predecessor and have a TNG-ified smaller crew count. But hey, everyone's MMV.
Yeah, 560m probably is about right when comparing the Enterprise-A and Titan resized by their round docking ports.
![]()
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.