ATTENTION: The Boards will be closed permanently on May 28th, 2014. Posting will be disabled on April 28th, 2014. More Info

Is the design of the Enterprise a logical layout?

titanicwreck

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 190

Report this Mar. 11 2007, 1:11 pm

Looking at the design of the Enterprise- with the saucer section, neck, star drive and nacelles- Is it a logical design for a starship designed for deep space travel? Or does it appear cumbersome and illogically layed out?

The one flaw I see is the main bridge is too vulnerable- And with a transparent dome as well- one directed shot of disrupters or phasers through the dome would kill the crew..

And being a 5 year mission- where do they store all the supplies for food, and mechanical repairs?

I never understood the need for the nacelles- what role do they play in warp travel- Why are they outside the ship?Wouldn't a design like the Nostromo from Alien be more practical?

forceflow

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 508

Report this Mar. 11 2007, 2:21 pm

I can agree with your assessment of the bridge.

The nacelles house the warp coils, which use plasma to create the warp field. They are mounted on pylons because of the radiation emitted by the nacelles.

For the 5 year mission, they were numerous cargo bays for food, for mechanical repairs, it would be logical to assume that there were facilities to make any repairs or spare part storage areas.

if_my_grandmother_had_whe
els

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 603

Report this Mar. 14 2007, 11:17 pm

I don't think that the nacelles make much sense. If you know anything about physics, you know that when the nacelles bend spacetime and accelerate forward, they would rip right off the ship, leaving the rest of good old Enterprise in the dust (and in pieces).
It's asthetically pleasing, but an unwise placment of the warp coils, which really should be inside the ship.

HisRoyalHighnessTheKing

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 34248

Report this Mar. 16 2007, 3:24 am

An exposed bridge on a huge saucer connected by a very thin neck with two nacelles sticking out.


An enemy has many weak spots to take a shot at.

Tannagra

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 15354

Report this Mar. 16 2007, 4:45 am

Quote (HisRoyalHighnessTheKing @ Mar. 16 2007, 3:24 am)
An exposed bridge on a huge saucer connected by a very thin neck with two nacelles sticking out.


An enemy has many weak spots to take a shot at.

The same can be said of the Klingon D7 Cruiser, an exposed bridge, long slender connecting neck.

Tannagra

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 15354

Report this Mar. 16 2007, 4:47 am

Quote (if_my_grandmother_had_wheels @ Mar. 14 2007, 11:17 pm)
I don't think that the nacelles make much sense. If you know anything about physics, you know that when the nacelles bend spacetime and accelerate forward, they would rip right off the ship, leaving the rest of good old Enterprise in the dust (and in pieces).
It's asthetically pleasing, but an unwise placment of the warp coils, which really should be inside the ship.

The warp coils bend space-time, but the field is around the entire vessel so the relative stress is across the entire vessel not specifically the nacelles.

Also if the nacelles were inside the vessel everyone would be dead from being bombarded with radiation, it was only later that low yield coils were invented so ships such as Defiant could be built like they were.

The bridge is, and always has been, a problem and it should be inside the vessel in the centre of the primary hull.

eddie31

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 69

Report this Mar. 16 2007, 12:53 pm

I agree with the sauce shape habitat design. If you are to cram so much living and service facilities into one long hull, it will be really long and clumsy, particularly when the Federation boasts material comfort for the crew as different from the bare-bone spartan environment of the Klingon force. For the nacelle, I agree with the assessment above.

HisRoyalHighnessTheKing

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 34248

Report this Mar. 18 2007, 4:35 am

Quote
The same can be said of the Klingon D7 Cruiser, an exposed bridge, long slender connecting neck.


Yep, another bad design.

AquamonkeyEG

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 4915

Report this Mar. 18 2007, 8:16 am

how about the command deck of naval ships being at the top of towers currently?

FerengiMerchant1

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 53

Report this Mar. 21 2007, 12:13 am

Quote (HisRoyalHighnessTheKing @ Mar. 18 2007, 4:35 am)
Quote
The same can be said of the Klingon D7 Cruiser, an exposed bridge, long slender connecting neck.


Yep, another bad design.

remember Klingon put military might before everything else

Whitestar7

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 419

Report this Mar. 23 2007, 7:38 pm

Funny, I was about to start a thread about this topic, but never mind. Okay, I'll admit that I was never attracted to the design of the original Enterprise because the saucer section represented a sci-fi stereotypical design, thus making it look clunkly and unconvincing. Plus, the neck and the warp nacelles were too thin for me to believe that it was a military starship. In fact, in Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, there is a scene where Khan aims and fires at the neck section of the Enterprise, cutting very deeply into the hull and its a head-scratcher as to why it didn't break off completely, which definitely stretch plausibility. Anyway, when Next Gen materialized, I initially like the Enterprise D because I thought it was more majestic than the original, but that quickly changed once I finished completing the model kit, the model was front heavy, that is, the saucer was so huge and heavy, that it tipped over. Then I began wondering as to why would someone design the Enterprise D starship where the secondary hull is small and the primary hull is enormous. What is the logic in that? :logical: Of course, in space it doesn't matter what kind of design you create, but it still look ridiculous in my eyes. Anyway, I thought the Enterprise E is the best looking ship for that kind of design, but personally, I prefer the Defiant because it look practical and had an impressive array of armaments. Aside from the Defiant, the people who designed all these Federation ships that contained the saucer section, with a thin neck, followed by a secondary hull equipped with two very thin warp nacelles never showed much imagination and creativity in their designs. I understand the need to keep with tradition, but their designs were always dull and uninspiring. Now, if I were to design a starship for starfleet, here is a link on how I would envision such a battleship:

Earth Alliance Warship Hyperion
http://www.b5tech.com/earthal....on.html

Earth Alliance Omega Class Destroyer
http://www.b5tech.com/earthal....ga.html

http://www.b5tech.com/earthal....ews.jpg

Warlock Class Destroyer
http://www.b5tech.com/earthal....ck.html

http://www.b5tech.com/earthal....ews.jpg

Whitestar Class Starship
http://www.b5tech.com/isa/whitestar/whitestar.html

http://www.b5tech.com/isa/whitestar/wsglory.jpg

So, that's my take on what a battleship should look like. :)

Whitestar7

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 419

Report this Mar. 23 2007, 9:48 pm

Quote (ZeroArmour @ Mar. 22 2007, 8:55 pm)
Sorry Whitestar, but I think people who talk about having "Battleships" in ST are W@nkers!

Oh please! :eyesroll: You mean to tell me that ships like the original Enterprise, A, E, and Defiant, not to mention all the Klingon vessels are not battleships?!? Like hell, they're not! It should be noted that during the TOS era, military ships made up most of the fleet when they were at war with the Klingons, but by the TNG era, the Federation became a bunch of wusses and started constructing exploration vessels and unofficially labeled them as "pseudo-military starships". Have you ever noticed how many times the Enterprise D was hit by enemy fire, only to have their shields down to at least 50 percent? The truth is, those exploration ships such as the Enterprise D were not designed for combat, they were merely cottage homes/hotels in space, which would explain why the original Enterprise was able to take a hell of a lot more punishment than the D, despite being a far smaller starship. And don't forget that the Enterprise E is obviously a military starship because it was built during the Borg/Jem Hadar tensions. And by the way, here is a direct quote from former Star Trek movie producer Harve Bennett on why he says that Star Trek is a paramilitary show:

Harve Bennett: "What I couldn't understand was Gene's concept of Star Trek. I was fresh from seeing seventy-nine episodes, and I thought I knew what Star Trek was in its original form . . . .'Star Trek,' he said, 'is not a paramilitary show.' That's not true. 'Star Trek,' in his words from the sixties, 'is Horatio Hornblower.' That's a paramilitary show to me. The analogy between the United States Navy or any navy and Star Trek is so preeminent that you can't possibly miss it. I mean, why then are we dealing with 'admirals' and 'captains,' 'commanders', 'lieutenants' and so forth? The Enterprise is simply a naval vessel at sea, in space. 'There was never', he said, 'violence and conflict in the twenty-third century.' Well how do you deal with that when you are fresh from seeing the episodes where there was a great deal of violence? There were traditional roustabout fights; there were barroom brawls; there was nerve pinching; there was exotic weaponry. There were always people doing bad things to people, very bad things to people. Suddenly I saw the seeds of what had bored me in Star Trek: The Motion Picture. It seemed as though Gene, in his statesmanlike personal growth, had now begun confusing his own idealism - which was wonderful, about a peaceful future and man's ability to grow in the years ahead - with Star Trek."

And here is the link:
http://www.treknation.com/mailbag/mailbag_270799.shtml

Lupino

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2754

Report this Mar. 25 2007, 10:54 am

Quote (FerengiMerchant1 @ Mar. 21 2007, 12:13 am)
Quote (HisRoyalHighnessTheKing @ Mar. 18 2007, 4:35 am)
Quote
The same can be said of the Klingon D7 Cruiser, an exposed bridge, long slender connecting neck.


Yep, another bad design.

remember Klingon put military might before everything else

These are the guys who still charge into combat with nothing but a poorly-designed axe; being focused on military isn't going to make up for some stupid design decisions.

Whitestar7

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 419

Report this Mar. 25 2007, 9:30 pm

Quote (ZeroArmour @ Mar. 24 2007, 8:26 pm)
Quote (Whitestar7 @ Mar. 23 2007, 9:48 pm)
[quote=ZeroArmour,Mar. 22 2007, 8:55 pm]Sorry Whitestar, but I think people who talk about having "Battleships" in ST are W@nkers!

Oh please! :eyesroll: You mean to tell me that ships like the original Enterprise, A, E, and Defiant, not to mention all the Klingon vessels are not battleships?!?


Quote (ZeroArmour @ Mar. 24 2007, 8:26 pm)

The TOS Enterprise, A, and Klingon Battlecruiser were all cruisers not "Battleships". ?


You're correct about TOS Enterprise, A and Klingon ships about being crusiers, however, that doesn't mean they're not military vessels, which they are.

Quote (ZeroArmour @ Mar. 24 2007, 8:26 pm)

Also your claims about the TOS Starfleet are backed up by what source?


By the link I provided on page one, if you take the time to read it. Here's another one:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starfleet

Quote (ZeroArmour @ Mar. 24 2007, 8:26 pm)

Finally, your statements about D's capability as a combat vessel fail to take into account improvements in weapons technology.


I never said that the Enterprise D was a combat starship, its merely an exploration vessel that happens to be equip with some weapons.

Whitestar7

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 419

Report this Mar. 28 2007, 1:45 pm

Quote (ZeroArmour @ Mar. 25 2007, 8:47 pm)
Quote (Whitestar7 @ Mar. 25 2007, 9:30 pm)
Quote (ZeroArmour @ Mar. 24 2007, 8:26 pm)
The TOS Enterprise, A, and Klingon Battlecruiser were all cruisers not "Battleships".
You're correct about TOS Enterprise, A and Klingon ships about being crusiers, however, that doesn't mean they're not military vessels, which they are.
There's a big difference between being a "military" vessel and being a "battleship", Whitestar.


Really? Please tell me. :)

Quote (ZeroArmour @ Mar. 24 2007)

Quote (Whitestar7 @ Mar. 25 2007, 9:30 pm)
Quote (ZeroArmour @ Mar. 24 2007, 8:26 pm)
Also your claims about the TOS Starfleet are backed up by what source?
By the link I provided on page one, if you take the time to read it. Here's another one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starfleet
Niether of the links you posted say anything about the breakdown of the TOS Starfleet, are you perhapse thinking of some other link?


Okay, I'll quote you the following from the link:

"Most members of Starfleet who handle day-to-day operations are enlisted persons. There are also Warrant Officers and Commissioned Officers in leadership positions. Officers typically serve as department heads and as commanders. Most officers are trained at Starfleet Academy San Francisco, California, Earth in a four-year course which trains them in skills such as warp travel and military tactics. Starfleet ranks and insignia are similar to those used by the United States Navy."

This statement proves that like it or not, Starfleet is a paramilitary organization that place a major emphasis on exploration. Now, if they are truly explorers, why bother with the ranks?

Quote (Whitestar7 @ Mar. 25 2007, 9:30 pm)
Quote (ZeroArmour @ Mar. 24 2007, 8:26 pm)
Finally, your statements about D's capability as a combat vessel fail to take into account improvements in weapons technology.
I never said that the Enterprise D was a combat starship, its merely an exploration vessel that happens to be equip with some weapons.
Perhaps I should clarify that statement. ?Your claim about the D's lack of ability as a combat vessel.
I believe the Galaxy class is an effective weapons platform, it is after all equiped with the best tech in the fleet when it is launched.[/quote]

Even though the D had weapons, doesn't mean it was well equipped with taking assaults from other ships, in fact, it performed below satisfactory results because it was built as a luxury/exploration vessel, unlike the A which was smaller and tougher. You can't have it both ways and neither can Star Trek.

Recently logged in

Users browsing this forum: alfamav

Forum Permissions

You cannot post new topics in this forum

You cannot reply to topics in this forum

You cannot delete posts in this forum