New Experimental Warpin Vessels?

posted on May 27th, 2009, 3:07 pm

Okay, this may mean big for the future of FO! I have attachments of images of some of these classes that are not often mentioned.

Attachments

posted on May 27th, 2009, 3:35 pm

Something they make up

posted on May 27th, 2009, 3:41 pm

I agree that a new ship would be awesome. I'll pass on the relativity though... it's a time ship and I don't want to see any time-travel mechanic have to be added in order to make this ship work. The Diligent looks amazing who designed that?

posted on May 27th, 2009, 3:51 pm

For now, the Galax-X is in the lead? There's hope for this forum yet.

posted on May 27th, 2009, 3:56 pm

What the hell is a Galaxy X is that like the USS Venture?

posted on May 27th, 2009, 4:01 pm

wow, can't decide. they all look awesome

[mimesot]

posted on May 27th, 2009, 4:07 pm

Last edited by mimesot on May 27th, 2009, 4:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Why is everyone so reluctant about the preometheus? As far as I know it is canon, a formidable looking battleship, 414m in length, and commissioned first in 2373 which is not too far in the future of FO.



Souvereign X and Galaxy X are most ugly refits of beutiful vessels.

Time ships as the Relativity and the Premonition don't really fit into a game that cannot deal with temporal loops.

Well and the Diligent looks amazing but is a little small IMO.

The Excalibur is a proper choice in my opinion. I especially like the flat classical design. On the other hand it's similarity to the descent is too big.

posted on May 27th, 2009, 4:08 pm

Okay... I've got some small pics of some more ships.

Sovereign X
Galaxy X
Ares

Attachments

[The extension has been deactivated and can no longer be displayed.]

[The extension has been deactivated and can no longer be displayed.]

[The extension has been deactivated and can no longer be displayed.]

posted on May 27th, 2009, 4:09 pm

What the hell is a Galaxy X is that like the USS Venture?

A beautiful Galaxy refit.

posted on May 27th, 2009, 4:14 pm

Well in my eyes all of these 3-nacelle constructions look ugly, and seem unnecessary and unbalancing the ship too.

posted on May 27th, 2009, 4:17 pm

A beautiful Galaxy refit.

Ah Thank You Tyler.

That is nice... I would rather have this than the Sovereign X that just looks weird with three nacelles IMHO. I agree with mimesot the Prometheus is a logical choice considering that it is cannon, experimental and of the era. Not sure why it isnt in there already as an alternative to the descent, even if it doesn't separate into 3 parts at first...

posted on May 27th, 2009, 4:24 pm

Well in my eyes all of these 3-nacelle constructions look ugly, and seem unnecessary and unbalancing the ship too.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

Go to Memory Alpha, search Nacelle and go to the Background section. The Second paragraph explains 3 Nacelle logic. Though it is about as canon as the 2 Nacelle requirement (meaning not).

posted on May 27th, 2009, 4:31 pm

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

Go to Memory Alpha, search Nacelle and go to the Background section. The Second paragraph explains 3 Nacelle logic. Though it is about as canon as the 2 Nacelle requirement (meaning not).

Agreed

I think there are alot of one nacelle designs that are just ugly as sin, but that's just my opinion.

posted on May 27th, 2009, 5:55 pm

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

Of course you are right m8.

Go to Memory Alpha, search Nacelle and go to the Background section. The Second paragraph explains 3 Nacelle logic. Though it is about as canon as the 2 Nacelle requirement (meaning not).

I looked it up:

"The use of the word nacelle in spacecraft design descends from its use for similar housing structures in air and water craft design."

Well, not a sensible explanation, because the lack if a medium makes the entrance of that medium into the engines for cooling of burning completly obsolete. The nacelles exposition is not even used for steering. Real explanation: Nacelles exist because they look cool, and reminds of an aircraft's nozzle, which the designers considered to look familiar and modern.

"According to the Spaceflight Chronology, a three nacelle configuration gives a third more power to the warp drive, greater acceleration and faster engagement. However, in the first experiments, the third nacelle accenuated discrepancies in the warp field causing warp vibrations. This creates difficulties in steering, and would have resulted in the ship shaking itself apart at higher warp speeds. It was however noted that if the design was constructed perfectly it is possible for it to deliver what it promises."

Well making the nacells have grater power would have done it too. But the size of nacelles seems not to be in any relation to a ships max speed, or whatever. Geometry is, which is interesting. Any thinking person would come to the conclusion that any negative effects can be minimized by increasing symmetry. Four rotational symmetric mounted nacelles could be sensible, but three in an asymmetrig manner? Not really sensible at all. But one can construct it perfectly, as always ... blablabla.

Why does one write such rubbish, when he is only familiar ith design questions? A technical manual for startrek ist somehow like a percussion drill in a hairdressing salon.

posted on May 27th, 2009, 6:06 pm

Gah I hate 3 nacelle ships, they look ridiculous imo.

And just to add another thought, Gene roddenberry's Design rule #1:

Warp nacelles *must* be in pairs.


The show designers really should not break especially to make something that looks as awful as the galaxy X