The game is old, so no. There is a fan made model though
https://www.artstation.com/artwork/8YbEQ
https://www.artstation.com/artwork/8YbEQ
Starship design history in light of Discovery
- Thread starter INACTIVEUSS Einstein
- Start date
It has the Excelsior like saucer, but yeah, seems a lot bigger.
Needs some cleaning up, but it's a good start.
Never liked fighters in Star trek.. They had huge shuttles with the Danube class and they were cannon fodder for the jemhadar.. One man things don't have the power supply for p hasers or anyfull sized torpedoes to do any damage to a shielded ship.
Then again, why use fighters against a ship? Nobody in their right mind would have thought that possible or in any way desirable in WWI...
If possible, always use weapons to hurt those weaker than you. And preferably from a safe sniping position, too. Fighters could attack soft targets such as colonies. Indeed, Starfleet in the 24th century seems to believe in "attack" fighters, which the Maquis then use against ground targets, and Starfleet itself considers it suicide (and therefore a good way to surprise the enemy) to send them against enemy ships in "Sacrifice of Angels" - all in keeping with today's USAF definition of an "attack" aircraft being solely for air-to-ground.
Would fighters have made an appearance in TOS if they "really" existed? We see no battle where they would have mattered, even if Kirk's ship carried a few - unless we assume they are faster than their mothership (while in Trek it's probably vice versa) or as powerful as their mothership (not in Trek) and could therefore help hunt down the Romulan cloakship somehow, or be left to help Kirk and Spock down on the planet when Scotty has to go chase wild geese.
Would they have made an appearance in DSC if they existed? Well, we saw a war. And then we saw that a certain set of heroes considered them useful force multipliers. Why didn't the masterminds of the Battle of the Binaries, then? Then again, that was the opening move of a war Starfleet wasn't expecting - its carriers might have carried combat-incapable things in peacetime. And we saw none of the later battles; especially lacking were cases where Starfleet would have gone after a soft target. Although the Klingons harassed that mine with their largish BoPs rather than their Raiders, too.
Timo Saloniemi
If possible, always use weapons to hurt those weaker than you. And preferably from a safe sniping position, too. Fighters could attack soft targets such as colonies. Indeed, Starfleet in the 24th century seems to believe in "attack" fighters, which the Maquis then use against ground targets, and Starfleet itself considers it suicide (and therefore a good way to surprise the enemy) to send them against enemy ships in "Sacrifice of Angels" - all in keeping with today's USAF definition of an "attack" aircraft being solely for air-to-ground.
Would fighters have made an appearance in TOS if they "really" existed? We see no battle where they would have mattered, even if Kirk's ship carried a few - unless we assume they are faster than their mothership (while in Trek it's probably vice versa) or as powerful as their mothership (not in Trek) and could therefore help hunt down the Romulan cloakship somehow, or be left to help Kirk and Spock down on the planet when Scotty has to go chase wild geese.
Would they have made an appearance in DSC if they existed? Well, we saw a war. And then we saw that a certain set of heroes considered them useful force multipliers. Why didn't the masterminds of the Battle of the Binaries, then? Then again, that was the opening move of a war Starfleet wasn't expecting - its carriers might have carried combat-incapable things in peacetime. And we saw none of the later battles; especially lacking were cases where Starfleet would have gone after a soft target. Although the Klingons harassed that mine with their largish BoPs rather than their Raiders, too.
Timo Saloniemi
FYI - In the graphic created for Star Trek: Beyond, the one with the information about the Franklin's captain, there was a list of Starfleet ship types. The list included carriers, indicating that in the alternate universe Starfleet operated carriers.
Although the 22nd century of the Kelvin Timeline is the same as the 22nd century of the Prime Timeline(the new timeline branched off with the Narada's arrival in 2233) , so any carrier spacecraft in Balthazar Edison's time would also have been in existence during the ENT time frame.
Star Trek Online has since taken Simon Pegg's/the new Trek Ency's approach and depicts the timelines as always being seperate. Until Beyond, their timeline chart had branching points.
I know it's not canon or binding and ultimately it doesn't matter, but it's fascinating nonetheless.
I always thought the Narmada arriving back in the 23rd and destroying the Kelvin was the split-off point for the new timestream, but they have it starting back with the Romulan War. Curious. I wonder how they figured that.
Surely if the universe can split at one point, it follows that it splits at every point, there being no difference between the points. Perhaps a split in the 2150s is particularly interesting for some reason or another, and results in two timelines of particular interest, both of which then further split in 2233?
If OTOH time only gets split when time travel is involved, we still are speaking of a great many splits - time travel isn't particularly uncommon in the Trek universe, after all, and ultimately somebody will do it at basically every timepoint. It's not as if they only have the lifetime of the universe to achieve that or anything!
Timo Saloniemi
If OTOH time only gets split when time travel is involved, we still are speaking of a great many splits - time travel isn't particularly uncommon in the Trek universe, after all, and ultimately somebody will do it at basically every timepoint. It's not as if they only have the lifetime of the universe to achieve that or anything!
Timo Saloniemi
They don’t. I don’t know why the timeline graphic was drawn that way, but any story blogs talking about the KT has it as a split, not an alternate timeline.
I love Pegg but the less attention given his theory the better. It's creative but I just don't go for it.
The timeline diverged in 2233. Before that they're the same and the Franklin as she appeared in Kelvin Timeline 2263 is what she looked like in Prime Timeline 2164. I know it's all a fictional universe but the more we overcomplicate the simple the harder it is to keep things straight.
The timeline diverged in 2233. Before that they're the same and the Franklin as she appeared in Kelvin Timeline 2263 is what she looked like in Prime Timeline 2164. I know it's all a fictional universe but the more we overcomplicate the simple the harder it is to keep things straight.
That would be fine except that both the Prime and Kelvin universes have time travel capability, which leads to situations where time travellers go back to before the alleged split, interact with people then return to their own time...somehow, since from that perspective BOTH timelines are the future.
Honestly, I think have two separate timelines/universes (and we've seen plenty of those over the years) is the less complicated solution.
I believe VOY establishes the quantum signature aspect so time travelers likely can pinpoint back to their timeline, kind of similar to the way Worf did in "Parallels."
*pushes up Star Trek nerd glasses*
*pushes up Star Trek nerd glasses*
True, but they would have to know to do that first. Most time travel escapades seen in Trek seem to be of the "flying by the seat of their pants" type with little time (or awareness) for the need of such preciseness
Worf in Parallels wasn't time-travelling. They established those were different realities.