Thoughts on the USS Shenzhou (Trailer Edition)
- Thread starter Mark_Nguyen
- Start date
Basic ship design is good. I wish the nacelles were a little more Federation like though. Bridge on the underside of the saucer is a great idea, afterall when orbiting a planet you'll be able to see it now.
Bridge and exterior detailing is a little too mean looking for my liking, but it's okay. Hoping the discovery is a little more TOS leaning, without looking too retro.
Bridge and exterior detailing is a little too mean looking for my liking, but it's okay. Hoping the discovery is a little more TOS leaning, without looking too retro.
No reason you have to orbit with the belly to the planet. Most of the time they did it side-on.
(That's not to say I have a problem with the underside bridge or window. I don't.)
Very true. Star trek is often too beholden to "up and down" I'd love to see ships meeting all angles and orientationsNo up or down in space.
Because its a tv show where a vast number of viewers would not understand. Just as many fo not grasp losing power does not mean you start suffocating at once.
To say nothing of the fact that the most efficient shape in space would be a bunch of spheres tied together with more spheres... NSEA Bubbleprise
Shapes do not matter in space.
The sphere is the most efficient shape, only if by efficient you mean contains the most volume for a given amount of material.
But for a spaceship there are other considerations around launching, construction, resistance to stresses, engines, fuel, suitability for external attachments, useful volume, suitable protection, cable routing, landing capability, atmosphere/gravity restrictions, etc.
This is 100% accurate. Just for fun, though, here's a link to a discussion about spheres in space, their pros and cons, etc.
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1j9ybm/on_earth_aerodynamics_dictate_shape_of_vehicle/
No up or down in space.
Humans require a sense of orientation. That was a mistake made in early space stations like Skylab, and Mir. Drove some Astronauts borderline insane. Which is why ISS was mostly built with a clear orientation. You do not store stuff on the "floor", the lights come from the "ceiling", the equipment is on the "walls". The European Columbus module as an example:
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbus_(ISS)#/media/File:Interior_Columbus_module.jpg
Also note the stickers Overhead, Deck, Forward, and (not seen) Aft.
Especially a Sphere.^^
That's not a problem if you encounter a Borg ship though.
You can still get it at odd angles. Same with the sphere as they are built with a clear top and bottom^^
That's not a problem if you encounter a Borg ship though.
Looks like a cybernetic orange....
Looked cool on screen. But it has a clear top and bottem. It looks like curved sections, in place of a a deathstar like sphere. Which makes sense as it can be built in sections and combined.
....FWIW, there's definitely an up and a down in orbit. Tidal forces dictate the shape and orientation of ISS and other objects not trivially small that want to spend long periods of time doing orbital work. And of course there's a big difference between the side that has the planet and the side that does not.
Perhaps starships mostly orbit portside to planet because they want to be prepared for everything? Some tidally advantageous nose-down setup would limit one's tactical options when Klingons downwarp a few lightseconds away; pointing key sensors in one direction would block the view in another, due to those silly saucer hulls that divide the universe sharply in two.
Timo Saloniemi
Perhaps starships mostly orbit portside to planet because they want to be prepared for everything? Some tidally advantageous nose-down setup would limit one's tactical options when Klingons downwarp a few lightseconds away; pointing key sensors in one direction would block the view in another, due to those silly saucer hulls that divide the universe sharply in two.
Timo Saloniemi
