What are ships which are worse than the Galaxy-class?
- Deepcrush
- 4 Star Admiral
- Posts: 18917
- Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2007 8:15 pm
- Location: Arnold, Maryland, USA
Re: What are ships which are worse than the Galaxy-class?
Dude, that's awsome!
The Excelsior is the Yoda of the ST ships. Old but experienced and still kickass!
The Excelsior is the Yoda of the ST ships. Old but experienced and still kickass!
Jinsei wa cho no yume, shi no tsubasa no bitodesu
Re: What are ships which are worse than the Galaxy-class?
Crap. Did that joke just backfire on me?
They say that in the Army,
the women are mighty fine.
They look like Phyllis Diller,
and walk like Frankenstein.
the women are mighty fine.
They look like Phyllis Diller,
and walk like Frankenstein.
- Deepcrush
- 4 Star Admiral
- Posts: 18917
- Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2007 8:15 pm
- Location: Arnold, Maryland, USA
Re: What are ships which are worse than the Galaxy-class?
Yes... yes it did. 8)
Don't Star Wars with the Jedi Master son.
Don't Star Wars with the Jedi Master son.
Jinsei wa cho no yume, shi no tsubasa no bitodesu
Re: What are ships which are worse than the Galaxy-class?
I brought that upon myself.
They say that in the Army,
the women are mighty fine.
They look like Phyllis Diller,
and walk like Frankenstein.
the women are mighty fine.
They look like Phyllis Diller,
and walk like Frankenstein.
-
- 3 Star Admiral
- Posts: 10654
- Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 10:49 pm
- Location: Jeri Ryan's Dressing Room, Shhhhh
Re: What are ships which are worse than the Galaxy-class?
Prometheus - There is no ship in the Trek universe I loathe more. MVAM just seems like one of those things some fanboy on acid thought up. That is a fan wank.
Intrepid - The nacelles. They're just too small and the variable position thing just seems like an unnecessary complication.
I've never had a huge problem with the Defiant. Most Trek ships we've seen have the jack of all trades problem. They try to do an incredible amount in just one hull. Strip away all the other crap, the hotel, the research and science gear, all the extraneous stuff to get it down to guns, engines, and shields and I can buy that a much smaller ship can have all the firepower and protection of a much larger ship like the GC. Yeah its a touch on the small side, I might increase it's size by another 33% but its not that out there to me. I actually like that it's ugly as sin, most starfleet ships are good looking but from a combat standpoint very poorly designed.
I also like the Constellations. Ugly but can every ship be a Sovereign?
Intrepid - The nacelles. They're just too small and the variable position thing just seems like an unnecessary complication.
I've never had a huge problem with the Defiant. Most Trek ships we've seen have the jack of all trades problem. They try to do an incredible amount in just one hull. Strip away all the other crap, the hotel, the research and science gear, all the extraneous stuff to get it down to guns, engines, and shields and I can buy that a much smaller ship can have all the firepower and protection of a much larger ship like the GC. Yeah its a touch on the small side, I might increase it's size by another 33% but its not that out there to me. I actually like that it's ugly as sin, most starfleet ships are good looking but from a combat standpoint very poorly designed.
I also like the Constellations. Ugly but can every ship be a Sovereign?
-
- 4 Star Admiral
- Posts: 26014
- Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 10:58 pm
- Location: Poblacht na hÉireann, Baile Átha Cliath
Re: What are ships which are worse than the Galaxy-class?
I....I think I'm in love.Prometheus - There is no ship in the Trek universe I loathe more. MVAM just seems like one of those things some fanboy on acid thought up. That is a fan wank.
"You've all been selected for this mission because you each have a special skill. Professor Hawking, John Leslie, Phil Neville, the Wu-Tang Clan, Usher, the Sugar Puffs Monster and Daniel Day-Lewis! Welcome to Operation MindFuck!"
-
- Fleet Admiral
- Posts: 35635
- Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 3:04 am
- Commendations: The Daystrom Award
- Location: down the shore, New Jersey, USA
- Contact:
Re: What are ships which are worse than the Galaxy-class?
[nitpick]No, someone on acid would never come up with something so angular and unfriendly-looking. Trust me.[/nitpick]Tyyr wrote:Prometheus - There is no ship in the Trek universe I loathe more. MVAM just seems like one of those things some fanboy on acid thought up. That is a fan wank.
Agreed by almost everyone I've heard from on the matter.Tyyr wrote:Intrepid - The nacelles. They're just too small and the variable position thing just seems like an unnecessary complication.
That little junction where all four pylons meet seems like a terrible liability.Tyyr wrote:I also like the Constellations. Ugly but can every ship be a Sovereign?
I can't stand nothing dull
I got the high gloss luster
I'll massacre your ass as fast
as Bull offed Custer
I got the high gloss luster
I'll massacre your ass as fast
as Bull offed Custer
-
- 3 Star Admiral
- Posts: 10654
- Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 10:49 pm
- Location: Jeri Ryan's Dressing Room, Shhhhh
Re: What are ships which are worse than the Galaxy-class?
Starfleet ships are mostly full of such liabilities. The nacelle pylons, the Constitution class' interconnection between the saucer and engineering section, etc. The Constellation's isn't great but it's not a stand out to me as horrible design.The Oberth's pylons that are too thin even for a turbolift would be my picks for something like that.Mikey wrote:That little junction where all four pylons meet seems like a terrible liability.
-
- Fleet Admiral
- Posts: 35635
- Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 3:04 am
- Commendations: The Daystrom Award
- Location: down the shore, New Jersey, USA
- Contact:
Re: What are ships which are worse than the Galaxy-class?
Nacelle pylons have varied in design quality, but always seemed like a necessary evil (at least for Federation-specific warp tech.) The Connie's neck was always to long and exposed for my taste but at least seemed to be of pretty robust construction. The Oberth - it's just weird, but never intended to go into harm's way; the Constellation, AFAIK, was intended to be a warship/explorer.
I can't stand nothing dull
I got the high gloss luster
I'll massacre your ass as fast
as Bull offed Custer
I got the high gloss luster
I'll massacre your ass as fast
as Bull offed Custer
- Reliant121
- 3 Star Admiral
- Posts: 12263
- Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2007 5:00 pm
Re: What are ships which are worse than the Galaxy-class?
I thought the Constellation nacelle struts looked fairly bulky and robust,
-
- 3 Star Admiral
- Posts: 10654
- Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 10:49 pm
- Location: Jeri Ryan's Dressing Room, Shhhhh
Re: What are ships which are worse than the Galaxy-class?
The location where they connect to the hull is, it's a blocky protrusion off the back of the saucer. The upper and lower nacelle pairs are each connected to a single pylon however.
- steamrunner
- Lieutenant jg
- Posts: 273
- Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2009 5:58 am
- Location: Sheridan, Wyoming
- Contact:
Re: What are ships which are worse than the Galaxy-class?
Can I bring up a TOS-era ship even though this is a TNG board? I never did like the Saladin... Can you imagine getting assigned to a Saladin and seeing it for the first time? "Uh...where's the rest of it?"
Wow...6 pages and not one mention of my beloved Steamrunner...(that'll jinx me for sure!)
Wow...6 pages and not one mention of my beloved Steamrunner...(that'll jinx me for sure!)
"If? If my aunt had balls, she'd be my uncle..."
-
- Fleet Admiral
- Posts: 35635
- Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 3:04 am
- Commendations: The Daystrom Award
- Location: down the shore, New Jersey, USA
- Contact:
Re: What are ships which are worse than the Galaxy-class?
The Saladin isn't a canon 'Trek ship - it's a Franz Joseph ship.steamrunner wrote:Can I bring up a TOS-era ship even though this is a TNG board? I never did like the Saladin... Can you imagine getting assigned to a Saladin and seeing it for the first time? "Uh...where's the rest of it?"
Wow...6 pages and not one mention of my beloved Steamrunner...(that'll jinx me for sure!)
(and I like the Steamrunner, too.)
I can't stand nothing dull
I got the high gloss luster
I'll massacre your ass as fast
as Bull offed Custer
I got the high gloss luster
I'll massacre your ass as fast
as Bull offed Custer
- Deepcrush
- 4 Star Admiral
- Posts: 18917
- Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2007 8:15 pm
- Location: Arnold, Maryland, USA
Re: What are ships which are worse than the Galaxy-class?
steamrunner wrote:Can I bring up a TOS-era ship even though this is a TNG board? I never did like the Saladin... Can you imagine getting assigned to a Saladin and seeing it for the first time? "Uh...where's the rest of it?"
I think that's because no one here really dislikes the Steamrunner. My personal opinion is that it really serves no use in the modern fleet that can't be better filled by other ships but... again I've got nothing against the class as its own.Wow...6 pages and not one mention of my beloved Steamrunner...(that'll jinx me for sure!)
Jinsei wa cho no yume, shi no tsubasa no bitodesu
Re: What are ships which are worse than the Galaxy-class?
Didn't the Saldin become cannon when it appeared on that panel shot in the movie?
They say that in the Army,
the women are mighty fine.
They look like Phyllis Diller,
and walk like Frankenstein.
the women are mighty fine.
They look like Phyllis Diller,
and walk like Frankenstein.