that's true - but it makes it a lot easier
Why Did Roddenberry Hate the "dreadnought" from the Starfleet Technical Manual?
- Thread starter Samuel
- Start date
I think it's a silly design TBH.
Sticking a extra warp nacelle onto a connie and calling it a "dreadnaught" is on par with a 14 year olds fanwank design.
I have seen far better concepts of TOS and TMP dreadnaught and battleship designs like the yamoto, Ulysses and proxima classes.
Sticking a extra warp nacelle onto a connie and calling it a "dreadnaught" is on par with a 14 year olds fanwank design.
I have seen far better concepts of TOS and TMP dreadnaught and battleship designs like the yamoto, Ulysses and proxima classes.
But that's not what they did. The Constitution saucer is 127.1 meters diameter, whereas the Dreadnought's saucer is 140 meters across. The secondary hull is also quite a bit larger. And the weapon suite was increased by about 50%. It's not even close to the way you described it.
Not only is the primary hull larger on a Federation class DN, it's contours are significantly different than the Constitution class ships. Ditto for the secondary hull.
Exactly - it "reflects" the Constitution's design but, is otherwise unique.
I've always liked it since I bought the original tech manual way back in ancient times (about '75-'76). I'm also quite fond of the other Feddy ships in the book, warts and all.
I've always liked it since I bought the original tech manual way back in ancient times (about '75-'76). I'm also quite fond of the other Feddy ships in the book, warts and all.
You mean like what they did to the Enterprise-D in "All Good Things?"
Yeah....dont remind me.....urgh..
Was that not a direct callback to the Franz Joseph book? I always thought it was. Certainly Greg Jein would have been aware of the Dreadnought.
Oh, I have no doubt that it was.
Same here. I never had any doubt at all that the AGT future Ent-D was an FJ Dreadnought shout-out. And it was literally the first thought that popped into my head when it swooped into view.
The "All Good Things" Enterprise had the third warp nacelle attached to the secondary hull though. Always liked the fact that if the Dreadnought ever had to undergo Primary/Secondary hull separation, the Primary is still a warp capable vessel with the equivalent firepower of a Saladin-class destroyer.
The thing is, the addition of the supergun on the underside of the saucer made it look like the ship could no longer separate, hence no need for a nacelle on the saucer.
How does that affect even a little bit whether it's a shout-out/callback to the FJ Dreadnought?
That's certainly one possibility, even a probability.
But it's also entirely possible that the "third nacelle" would have to be jettisoned on saucer separation, for reasons... like, say, to get the "third nacelle" to work with the other two, it has to be configured in such a way that it cannot operate independently without an overhaul. AFAIK, there's nothing in the FJTM that says that the saucer can have a working nacelle upon separation. Granted, it would seem reasonable, but my point is that it's not mandated by the manual.
Or they could've designed the super gun to have separation points so that the saucer can dock / undock!
If that were the case it would similarly leave the Secondary hull incapable of movement since those warp engines would be calibrated to work with the third (doesn't even have any impulse engines). I imagine it's plausible that the capacity to use two different warpfield geometries was already built into the Dreadnought. Purely my own headcanon though. I think the Dreadnought blueprints mention something about the Primary being warp capable after separation, but that's somebody else's headcanon.
I remember reading something -- probably a fan site -- about the technical specs for the Constellation class (like the Stargazer), and it said that the reason that class had four warp nacelles was so that the ship could switch off between pairs of nacelles, using two at a time while letting the other two rest, and thus be able to sustain high warp for longer. I think it was also possible to use all four at once if necessary.
That's a really cool idea.
Following that idea, perhaps the Dreadnought can operate with just the two balanced nacelles, or even operate with just the "third nacelle" by itself, in addition to all three at once. Maybe it can also operate under the other two ways of forming pairs and/or even when the other two are operating by themselves.
That raises the question: when has a two-nacelle starship operated the warp drive with only a single functioning nacelle? I'm standing by to hand in my nerd card, because I can't recall right now, but something's telling me that it's come up before....
...Sternbach and Okuda wrote that bit into their description of the Defiant Pathfinder in the DS9 Technical Manual: the Defiant project was said to have started out as a high speed vessel, using the shape that later became the Equinox, and would at some stage have involved a four-nacelle configuration with these alternately operating pairs of engines.
Whether this extended to the Stargazer in their minds is unknown. It's not part of the ST: The Magazine article Sternbach wrote on the ship and the class; there's only an offhand reference to the nacelles "essentially" creating two warp fields that work together, not "alternating", but simply "together".
Timo Saloniemi
Whether this extended to the Stargazer in their minds is unknown. It's not part of the ST: The Magazine article Sternbach wrote on the ship and the class; there's only an offhand reference to the nacelles "essentially" creating two warp fields that work together, not "alternating", but simply "together".
Timo Saloniemi
I'm tempted to say Jackill uses this description for the Constellation along with its variant, the Cheetah class fast cruiser, but I'm not sure if he added such a concept himself or got it from elsewhere.
Similar threads
