How would you design a starship and why? Please use tech and materials from either Star Trek or Star Wars.
This issue came up on another thread so I thought I'd create this. Since this is Who is like God arbour's idea I'll let him set up any other rules and what not.
Starship Design
-
AnonymousRedShirtEnsign
- Jedi Knight
- Posts: 380
- Joined: Thu Aug 17, 2006 10:05 pm
- Location: Six feet under the surface of some alien world
-
Ted C
- Bridge Officer
- Posts: 90
- Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2007 10:06 pm
- Contact:
-
CrippledVulture
- Bridge Officer
- Posts: 82
- Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2007 8:10 pm
- Location: Hovering over a stinking corpse somewhere.
It is my opinion that the coolest ships are often the smaller high-tech warships like the Defiant or the B5 Whitestar. The Defiant also has the warp nacelle design that's incorporated into the hull (are they still nacelles?) Other Federation ships might as well just put a neon sign on those things that say "Shoot Here: Vulnerable Spot"
-
Praeothmin
- Jedi Master
- Posts: 3920
- Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 10:24 pm
- Location: Quebec City
CrippledVulture wrote:
The ISD's propulsion is the most vulnerable system I've seen so far, IMO, because is has simply no fire cover in the back with all the maneuverabiliy of a beached whale, where a maneuverable ship could simple stay and pound those engines all day.
At least the Fed ships still have adequate fire power covering the rear.
In fact, most Fed ships have Torpedo launchers facing the aft arc.
Which are as vulnerable as any propulsion on many Science-Fiction ships.Other Federation ships might as well just put a neon sign on those things that say "Shoot Here: Vulnerable Spot"
The ISD's propulsion is the most vulnerable system I've seen so far, IMO, because is has simply no fire cover in the back with all the maneuverabiliy of a beached whale, where a maneuverable ship could simple stay and pound those engines all day.
At least the Fed ships still have adequate fire power covering the rear.
In fact, most Fed ships have Torpedo launchers facing the aft arc.
-
CrippledVulture
- Bridge Officer
- Posts: 82
- Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2007 8:10 pm
- Location: Hovering over a stinking corpse somewhere.
I imagine the Defiant was designed to take full advantage of its ablative armor, putting everything in a tight package, and covering it with the armor.
Maybe Star Destroyers are designed that way to prevent their captains from fleeing a battle, and thus exposing their weakest side to enemy fire.
Return with your shield or on it.
Maybe Star Destroyers are designed that way to prevent their captains from fleeing a battle, and thus exposing their weakest side to enemy fire.
Return with your shield or on it.
-
Mike DiCenso
- Security Officer
- Posts: 5837
- Joined: Fri Aug 18, 2006 8:49 pm
-
CrippledVulture
- Bridge Officer
- Posts: 82
- Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2007 8:10 pm
- Location: Hovering over a stinking corpse somewhere.
-
Mike DiCenso
- Security Officer
- Posts: 5837
- Joined: Fri Aug 18, 2006 8:49 pm
That's also true; both "in the 'verse" and outside it in the minds of the people working backstage in the various movie and TV productions. It looks cool, so they go with it, or it is what was established previously and the fans liked it.
In real history, you can find all sorts examples of impractical athestics; the bow rams on battleships and pre-dreadnoughts (and even many of the dreadnoughts) of the 1880's through early turn of the 20th century had the bulbous rams, though it was found to be quite impractical for ships to actually use them in battle. As a side benefit, the bow ram may have acted in an unintended fashion to give the warships a more hydrodynamic shape. But again, that was clearly not the original design purpose of the ram structure.
-Mike
In real history, you can find all sorts examples of impractical athestics; the bow rams on battleships and pre-dreadnoughts (and even many of the dreadnoughts) of the 1880's through early turn of the 20th century had the bulbous rams, though it was found to be quite impractical for ships to actually use them in battle. As a side benefit, the bow ram may have acted in an unintended fashion to give the warships a more hydrodynamic shape. But again, that was clearly not the original design purpose of the ram structure.
-Mike
-
CrippledVulture
- Bridge Officer
- Posts: 82
- Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2007 8:10 pm
- Location: Hovering over a stinking corpse somewhere.
So, to address the topic of this thread, I think we can all agree that a ship should try not to expose its weak spots, as so many do.
I've always admired the versatility of Star Trek ships. The Defiant, ostensibly a warship, has been sent on scientific missions and can perform many of the functions of other ships in Starfleet. The Galaxy-Class is an exploration vessel, but during the Dominion War, the Galaxies seemed to be among the toughest ships in a given fleet. The backbone of most of them, really. A stark contrast to the many Mirandas and Excelsiors that went down during said conflict.
It's nice to be self-sufficient when you're out in the vacuum.
I've always admired the versatility of Star Trek ships. The Defiant, ostensibly a warship, has been sent on scientific missions and can perform many of the functions of other ships in Starfleet. The Galaxy-Class is an exploration vessel, but during the Dominion War, the Galaxies seemed to be among the toughest ships in a given fleet. The backbone of most of them, really. A stark contrast to the many Mirandas and Excelsiors that went down during said conflict.
It's nice to be self-sufficient when you're out in the vacuum.