Stargazer-Class

[CuttingEdge100]

You know I was thinking about this... wouldn't the Stargazer-Class in ST: Online be a great ship-tug? Maybe with Gryffon or Dervish features?

Think about it... lots of engines, you could makes some modifications to attach a ship to either the bottom or top (or both)...

 

[Boris Skrbic]

Stargazer-class sounds so non-canonizable.

 

[Deks]

Actually, the Stargazer was the name of a Constellation Class ship (the 4 nacelle 23rd century design).

And personally, I never really saw the point for 4 nacelles on those ships.
The Prometheus is understandable, but the Constellation?
Given how Warp is supposed to work, having more than 2 on a ship that can't separate is a bit... pointless.


As for making it a 'tug'... I think Ds9 showed at least 1 ship that served as a tug type.
It was a kitbash between an excelsior class and one other ship... forgot which one.

 

[Boris Skrbic]

I know what the Stargazer was, but I meant that the name should be more original, not an inside reference to TNG.

 

[The Castellan]

Actually, the Stargazer was the name of a Constellation Class ship (the 4 nacelle 23rd century design).

And personally, I never really saw the point for 4 nacelles on those ships.
The Prometheus is understandable, but the Constellation?
Given how Warp is supposed to work, having more than 2 on a ship that can't separate is a bit... pointless.


As for making it a 'tug'... I think Ds9 showed at least 1 ship that served as a tug type.
It was a kitbash between an excelsior class and one other ship... forgot which one.

Four engine pods, more speed or power. Plus as a deep space vessel, it could help extend the life of the engines be cycling/switching them about over time.

 

[Dukhat]

Four engine pods, more speed or power.

Has it ever been established that more nacelles = more speed/power? Putting more wheels on my car won't make it go any faster ;-)

Plus as a deep space vessel, it could help extend the life of the engines be cycling/switching them about over time.

Or just having redundancies if one or both nacelles die on you in deep space.

 

[The Castellan]

Four engine pods, more speed or power.

Has it ever been established that more nacelles = more speed/power? Putting more wheels on my car won't make it go any faster ;-)

Plus as a deep space vessel, it could help extend the life of the engines be cycling/switching them about over time.

Or just having redundancies if one or both nacelles die on you in deep space.

Well, wheels don't necessarily make your car go, it's the engine. My car has that sorta two engine type of make, and I my little car can leave most sports cars eating my dust.

And with the four engines, does not hurt having some 'spare wheels', and like I said, can have the two two engines go for a few months, than switch to the bottom, and so on. Could keep the engines lasting longer, and less part break down.

 

[blssdwlf]

In a way, that's how some of the fuel conserving engines work. Some 8 cylinder engines can turn off 4 of the cylinders to increase MPG while cruising. It's still the size and heft of an 8 cylinder engine though.

But, then again in "Relics", Picard called the Stargazer and "overworked, underpowered vessel". So who knows if 4 nacelles in TNG terms gains extra power or speed or is there for redundancy.

 

[sojourner]

Maybe the "under powered" statement stems from the warp core only being powerful enough to run 2 nacelles at a time.

 

[SWHouston]

Decks,

How many times have we herd...
CAPTAIN !,
The Warp Drive has failed...
The Shields won't work...
The Com is out...
and on and on...

Do you blame them for having spares ?

 

[Deks]

That's what the auxiliary systems are for.
As for critical systems failing... uhm... blame the warp ejection system on the Enterprise-D.
That thing was downright non operational.


Good thing Voyager had it running properly most of the time.

As for 4 nacelles on the Stargazer... still see no point for them as you don't need 4 nacelles to achieve faster Warp speeds.
Perhaps SF intended to run an experiment to see how 4 nacelles would work in that era, but majority of other designs have 2 nacelles.

As I said... I can see the necessity for them on a ship such as the Prometheus, but the Stargazer... what's the point?

Spares are simply stupid because you would have to install spares on other ships as well.

Even in the TNG end episode the future D had a third nacelle.
Why?
A dingy medical ship was able to achieve Warp 13 just as well and it only had 2 nacelles.

So what's the point?
The only thing I could think of would be a stronger warp field, but one would have to be able to establish it via the available engines - which other ships were seen as capable.

 

[Herkimer Jitty]

As for 4 nacelles on the Stargazer... still see no point for them as you don't need 4 nacelles to achieve faster Warp speeds.

No, but you can cruise at the limits of your engines for longer when you have a second pair, you can alternate between warp engine sets, that way you don't have to risk a burnout to sprint to a location. Nacelles 1 and 2 reaching their red line? Nacelles 3 and 4 are on standby, switch over. And so on.

Given the choice between a ship that can do warp 8 for long periods of time and a ship that can do warp 9 for a few hours, I'd take the first one.

The idea that every starship design Starfleet rolls out has to be harder, faster, stronger, or better than everything else is frankly, the most daft bit of treknology fanon there is.

 

[SWHouston]

Given the choice between a ship that can do warp 8 for long periods of time and a ship that can do warp 9 for a few hours, I'd take the first one.

I'm sure the Borg would agreee with that.

 

[Birdog]

As for 4 nacelles on the Stargazer... still see no point for them as you don't need 4 nacelles to achieve faster Warp speeds.

No, but you can cruise at the limits of your engines for longer when you have a second pair, you can alternate between warp engine sets, that way you don't have to risk a burnout to sprint to a location. Nacelles 1 and 2 reaching their red line? Nacelles 3 and 4 are on standby, switch over. And so on.

Given the choice between a ship that can do warp 8 for long periods of time and a ship that can do warp 9 for a few hours, I'd take the first one.

If you use the conjectured TOS warp scale where WF^3=speed(in multiples of c) then

WF8=512c
WF9=729c
For every one hour at WF9 you travel 5251 AU, while at WF8 3688 AU. Let's say you can sprint for 10 hours at WF9 but must cool down for two hours before resuming. You can travel 52510 AU per 12 hour period while a ship only doing WF8 can travel 44256 AU in the same time period.

I'm not even going to try and figure out the absurd TNG scale because it makes no rational sense.

The point I'm making is a sprint/rest is faster than a cruise.

The idea that every starship design Starfleet rolls out has to be harder, faster, stronger, or better than everything else is frankly, the most daft bit of treknology fanon there is.

I wholeheartedly agree.

 

[sojourner]

If you use the conjectured TOS warp scale where WF^3=speed(in multiples of c) then

WF8=512c
WF9=729c
For every one hour at WF9 you travel 5251 AU, while at WF8 3688 AU. Let's say you can sprint for 10 hours at WF9 but must cool down for two hours before resuming. You can travel 52510 AU per 12 hour period while a ship only doing WF8 can travel 44256 AU in the same time period.

What if you have to cool down for 4 hours after going warp 9 for 8 hours? Your argument has no merit because we have no canon numbers to work with on the "cool down" required.

 

[B.J.]

Given the choice between a ship that can do warp 8 for long periods of time and a ship that can do warp 9 for a few hours, I'd take the first one.

If you use the conjectured TOS warp scale where WF^3=speed(in multiples of c) then

WF8=512c
WF9=729c
For every one hour at WF9 you travel 5251 AU, while at WF8 3688 AU. Let's say you can sprint for 10 hours at WF9 but must cool down for two hours before resuming. You can travel 52510 AU per 12 hour period while a ship only doing WF8 can travel 44256 AU in the same time period.

I'm not even going to try and figure out the absurd TNG scale because it makes no rational sense.

The point I'm making is a sprint/rest is faster than a cruise.

Unfortunately, you make a huge assumption as to how much downtime the ship needs after a dash. At about 70% running time for the dash, WF8 & WF9 work out about the same distance traveled. If the ship needs more downtime than that (which is very likely IMO), then the ship cruising at WF8 would be the better choice.

 

[Birdog]

If you use the conjectured TOS warp scale where WF^3=speed(in multiples of c) then

WF8=512c
WF9=729c
For every one hour at WF9 you travel 5251 AU, while at WF8 3688 AU. Let's say you can sprint for 10 hours at WF9 but must cool down for two hours before resuming. You can travel 52510 AU per 12 hour period while a ship only doing WF8 can travel 44256 AU in the same time period.

What if you have to cool down for 4 hours after going warp 9 for 8 hours? Your argument has no merit because we have no canon numbers to work with on the "cool down" required.

I wouldn't say it has no merit, but you're right that we don't have any hard numbers to work with. It is something to think about though.

 

[SonicRanger]

If you use the conjectured TOS warp scale where WF^3=speed(in multiples of c) ...

Except that never worked. Take "That Which Survives" -- the Enterprise travels 900 ly in about a day. That's approximately 328,000c, which would be Warp Factor 68 or so.

 

[Birdog]

If you use the conjectured TOS warp scale where WF^3=speed(in multiples of c) ...

Except that never worked. Take "That Which Survives" -- the Enterprise travels 900 ly in about a day. That's approximately 328,000c, which would be Warp Factor 68 or so.

I know. No where in the entire canon is there any consistency to the speeds. I just prefer the system that actually makes sense and wasn't mandated by a crazy old man.

 

[sojourner]

If you use the conjectured TOS warp scale where WF^3=speed(in multiples of c) then

WF8=512c
WF9=729c
For every one hour at WF9 you travel 5251 AU, while at WF8 3688 AU. Let's say you can sprint for 10 hours at WF9 but must cool down for two hours before resuming. You can travel 52510 AU per 12 hour period while a ship only doing WF8 can travel 44256 AU in the same time period.

What if you have to cool down for 4 hours after going warp 9 for 8 hours? Your argument has no merit because we have no canon numbers to work with on the "cool down" required.

I wouldn't say it has no merit, but you're right that we don't have any hard numbers to work with. It is something to think about though.

In other words, it's as fast as the plot requires.