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

People keep saying wil there be Starship Enterp-D

war209

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 14

Report this May. 24 2010, 8:19 pm

First it is beyond todays technology and understanding of physics.

A nice big Starship Enterpice-D looks nice but it is beyond todays technology and understanding of physics.


Besically are space program we are ants learning how to get up their and stay their for x number of weeks or months.Now and than we may hop in a raft to go to moon to put up a flag and get back ASAP and may be in 20 or 30 years hop in raft to go to mars and do the same thing.


Todays populsion will not allow more than 9 people to go up.And toddays populsion will not even make small starship the size of your house.

Well unfortunately going to the moon or mars is a status has we do not have the technology to live their ,do work their or mind.Going to the moon and mars is not easy .

It takes 10 or 15 years to build a rocket and 20 to 25 years to plan a moon trip that is ho hard it is !!!


Not in next century will it be possible it will be many many many centuries and even than it may have to be built in space and a Starship of 50 or 90 people may be limit!!

Venicius

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1449

Report this May. 24 2010, 10:10 pm

only an idiot(most people on this board) would consider the enterprise d a viable starship even if we had the technology. it wastes waaaaaaaaaay too much space on crew quarters, control panels are explosive, and it's a hackers paradise. It's also far to big to be a good exploration vessel smaller ships with lower crew compliments would be far mor efficient, and it's no better as a warship. It sucks.

Whitestar7

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 419

Report this May. 24 2010, 10:18 pm

Quote (Venicius @ May 23 2010, 11:10 pm)
only an idiot(most people on this board) would consider the enterprise d a viable starship even if we had the technology. it wastes waaaaaaaaaay too much space on crew quarters, control panels are explosive, and it's a hackers paradise. It's also far to big to be a good exploration vessel smaller ships with lower crew compliments would be far mor efficient, and it's no better as a warship. It sucks.

Agreed, well said! The Enterprise D is a piss-poor design for it to be an efficient starship. Smaller starships will be the norm. Plus, the windows on the D (or any starship) would be deadly due to the radiation from space. More likely there will be viewscreens in every crew quarters instead. And since there is no need for aerodynamics in space, you can pretty much design any type of starship you want, unless of course, you're designing one that is capable of planetary landings. :cool:

war209

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 14

Report this May. 24 2010, 10:42 pm

That starship was ment to live and work there.May be years of living on that starship.It was not a war-ship.

If you look at big ocean liners they are very very big .It is only up to the  laws of physics in space if they can build big  starship like big ocean liners .

Has for warship you want a small starship may be 10 or 15 people that can maneuver.A big starship like that is not good for war.

Battlestar Galactica is more real .You have a mother ship than small fighters that take of and do the fighting that is very maneuverable.

Whitestar7

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 419

Report this May. 31 2010, 12:20 am

Now, the Galactica is one cool spaceship. In regards to the Enterprise, I was never comfortable with the designs of the Enterprises, particularly the A. Despite the fact that it is the most beautiful Enterprise of all time, its neck section and warp pylon struts are too thin and if they were ever hit by enemy fire, they would snap off like twigs. In TWoK, it was a miracle that the Reliant's weapon firing didn't chop off the saucer section when it sliced into the A's neck section. Personally, I think a more utilitarian design would be a more realistic Enterprise design, as well as making it aesthetically pleasing.

Whitestar7

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 419

Report this Jun. 01 2010, 10:01 pm

Quote (4_o_20 @ May 31 2010, 10:32 pm)
Whilst every starship we know from sci-fi is probably a bit too heavy for the real-world (especially that 19km long monstrosity that Darth Vader rides around in), I think Battlestar Galactica is probably the most realistic in terms of politics and peoples attitude to traveling through space for years on end. This, and there would probably be medical side-effects as well.


Well, in space it doesn't really matter if the spaceships are heavy because they are in zero g. But what does worry me is when Starfleet engineers start designing starships with thin and frail parts where crew members go about their daily routines, its a tragedy waiting to happen.

Quote (4_o_20 @ May 31 2010, 10:32 pm)
Did anyone ever feel lonely or lost when Voyager was on telle, stuck 70,000 light years from home? I certainly didn't... however the movie "Moon" made me feel like 1,000,000 km away was the edge of the universe...


I agree. I didn't feel sorry for the Voyager crew when they got lost because the characters were dull and boring. Plus, I hated when they were constantly whining about being lost and wishing to be back home. They should have taken advantage of this by seeing it as an adventure and a unique experience, considering that they were the first ones exploring the Delta Quadrant. They were trained for this and they acted so unprofessional. That show had so much promised but it was wasted on lost opportunities. What's worse, I wasted seven years of my life for that piece of crap show and unfortunately, I will never be able to get them back. However, I kind of made up for it when Enterprise premiered because after the first few episodes I stopped watching, it was also crap.

Viceroy_Taybren

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 13

Report this Jun. 04 2010, 12:35 am

The Enterprise-D was designed the way it was for several reasons,

A) It is designed to go on very long deployments to the deepest reaches of space. To do this it requires lots of storage space for essentials. The maximum deployment time for a Galaxy class Starship, operating at a standard operational level is approximatly 16-17 YEARS. While it is true that the Galaxy isn't all that capable of delicate maneuvers, it is meant for what it is meant for. Its capable as a long range explorer. And let's be honest, the warp core of a Galaxy class starship operate on average at 98% efficiency. And with the methods of refueling that Starfleet ships use it is quite simply not that difficult to resupply when in deep space.

B) The Galaxy is designed as it is, based on principles learned from other races (such as the Romulans) Romulan ships have tended to be on the larger side since they developed the ability to build them. This being because larger ships are able to bury their critical parts deeper within the hull, which prevents battle damage from reaching them as quickly.

C) The Galaxy class is the cutting edge of DEPLOYED technology during the time of the Enterprise-D, however as we see in modern times, as soon as something is put into use, it is already rendered obsolete by what is coming into production (ie Sovereign, Akira, Norway, etc).

D) You must also consider this, this vessel was designed the way people thought starships would be in the 80s. Roddenberry had assumed all these technological innovations, and to a point he was right, science would have made leaps and bounds in that time. And Starfleet's older ships like the Excelsior and Constitution classes were designed for a galaxy where ships had to be able to be built faster and put into operation sooner because they were constantly at the brink of war.

E) One thing no one considers is simple economics, the Federation can produce essentially any of its needs for essentially nothing with replicators and other such technologies. Why worry about the efficiency of the design when its not like it really costs you anything.


Im not saying the Galaxy class was my favorite design by far, the Defiant and Akira win that title. But this is my view on it, and if you don't like my opinion it doesn't really bother me. So please don't bother picking apart my argument because in all likelihood I won't be back to look at this thread.

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