That was the point I was trying to make, but I see I could have worded it better.Well, not the absolute limit, given the size of starbases like Spacedock and Starbase 74, but likely the limit of their shipbuilding capability, seeing as even the future ships we've seen have all been smaller than the Galaxy.
Sovereign class
-
- 4 Star Admiral
- Posts: 26014
- Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 10:58 pm
- Location: Poblacht na hÉireann, Baile Átha Cliath
"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!"
Bigger more advanced ships = lots of space, but bigger target, more blindspots, less maneouvrability, more power requirement
Smaller more advanced ships = less space, but smaller target, less blindspots, more maneouvrability, less power requirement
Isn't it pretty obvious to have the smaller ones? If technology gets smaller (which it does, as it becomes more advanced), why should the casing of the technology get bigger?
Smaller more advanced ships = less space, but smaller target, less blindspots, more maneouvrability, less power requirement
Isn't it pretty obvious to have the smaller ones? If technology gets smaller (which it does, as it becomes more advanced), why should the casing of the technology get bigger?
80085
- Bryan Moore
- Captain
- Posts: 2730
- Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 4:39 am
- Location: Perpetual Summer Camp
- Contact:
Hi, I'm a few days late.
From a strictly logical standpoint, she seems such a natural progression. The whole idea of various blind spots is inherent on most Starfleet vessels, no? And truthfully, it is so well armed, that I don't see a lot of ships being able to avoid. As for its size: Yes, 2 smaller vessels might be more useful, but a small number of these as deterence explorers makes sense, if for nothing than its grandeur.
From a strictly logical standpoint, she seems such a natural progression. The whole idea of various blind spots is inherent on most Starfleet vessels, no? And truthfully, it is so well armed, that I don't see a lot of ships being able to avoid. As for its size: Yes, 2 smaller vessels might be more useful, but a small number of these as deterence explorers makes sense, if for nothing than its grandeur.
Don't you hear my call, though you're many years away, don't you hear me calling you?
Isint that what a tractor beam is for...Teaos wrote:They try to move out of your main firing arc you try to bring them in. You pretty much will get shots in at them from all angels adventually.
As far as trek ships go the Soverign in my opinion is the best. Not just because she is the newist but because she makes the most sense.
i love it..
-
- Banned
- Posts: 5594
- Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 8:53 pm
- Teaos
- 4 Star Admiral
- Posts: 15380
- Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 4:00 am
- Commendations: The Daystrom Award
- Location: Behind you!
I don't think most ships are capable of using the tractor beam effectivly in combat. Needs special circumstances to be used.
And I agree that this size may be the most practical size for ships at the moment.
And I agree that this size may be the most practical size for ships at the moment.
What does defeat mean to you?
Nothing it will never come. Death before defeat. I don’t bend or break. I end, if I meet a foe capable of it. Victory is in forcing the opponent to back down. I do not. There is no defeat.
Nothing it will never come. Death before defeat. I don’t bend or break. I end, if I meet a foe capable of it. Victory is in forcing the opponent to back down. I do not. There is no defeat.
- Graham Kennedy
- Site Admin
- Posts: 11561
- Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 2:28 pm
- Location: Banbury, UK
- Contact:
And they expected there to be so many of these coming from that direction that they needed to be able to fire on six at a time?Captain Seafort wrote:They're probably secondary arrays, for taking out BoP-sized ships while the main arrays focus on enemy capships.
It just seems excessive to me. Not a major deal, but it niggles at me.
But those difficulties aren't going to last forever; for now it makes sense to use a mix perhaps, but when the torps are easier to make and there are volume discounts on resources or whatever, we should see ships with pure quantum loads. And that's what I would like to see on the Sovereign.Captain Seafort wrote:We've only ever seen the Defiant and the Ent-E use Q-torps, and the DS9 TM suggests that they're more difficult to manufacture, so the PTs are there for general use, while the QTs are for either finishing an enemy off, or for taking on priority targets.
It also bothers me that the ship is smaller than a Galaxy. Every Enterprise had been the biggest, strongest and best of her day... until the Sovereign. I'd rather have seen it scaled up 25% or so to give twice the volume.
We've never seen any Fed ship bigger than a Galaxy - it may represent the upper limit of their shipbuilding capabilities.[/quote]
On the size thing, no matter how much better the tech is in the Sovereign, the fact remains that if you took a Galaxy sized frame and put that same tech in, you would have a more capable vessel. Bigger has always meant more room for more equipment to do more stuff.
And the upper limit of their shipbuilding capabilities? In all those cases, my argument isn't really that these things can't be justified from an in-show point of view. More that it just doesn't FEEL right to me. In my mind the Enterprise should be the biggest and best. And the upper limit of Federation shipbuilding capabilities are whatever the writers decide that they are...
Give a man a fire, and you keep him warm for a day. SET a man on fire, and you will keep him warm for the rest of his life...
-
- Fleet Admiral
- Posts: 35635
- Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 3:04 am
- Commendations: The Daystrom Award
- Location: down the shore, New Jersey, USA
- Contact:
More blind spots? I think we've seen how Sovereign has dealt with this problem.Bigger more advanced ships = lots of space, but bigger target, more blindspots, less maneouvrability, more power requirement
Smaller more advanced ships = less space, but smaller target, less blindspots, more maneouvrability, less power requirement
More power requirement? Huge amoutns of more power available, due to the increased space availabel for the core - which means more power avialable for active systems, as I had mentioned earlier.
'Trek has always embraced the idea that bigger is better when it comes to ship designs. I had here and earlier tried to give some explanantion for this, but saying "well, they're wrong" is a moot point even if you can argue it. What's been shown on-screen is what we have to go on, and what's been shown is that bigger ships are stronger ships.
We can't assume that tech development in the 'Trek universe is the same as our own, but maybe some degree of miniaturization is coinicident with advancement - which would help explain why the Sovereign is smaller than the Galaxy. But in general we continue to see that the larger the ships, the better the performance - even on first sighting of an alien design, the awe and respect shown to it seems to be proportional to its size. E.g., Borg cube; Dominion battleship; Romulan D'deridex, etc.
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
- Teaos
- 4 Star Admiral
- Posts: 15380
- Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 4:00 am
- Commendations: The Daystrom Award
- Location: Behind you!
Starfleet has more style than to just build a big ship and cram it full of as much stuff as possible. The Sovereigns design may have a very practical design we just dont hear about. Like movement or speed.
What does defeat mean to you?
Nothing it will never come. Death before defeat. I don’t bend or break. I end, if I meet a foe capable of it. Victory is in forcing the opponent to back down. I do not. There is no defeat.
Nothing it will never come. Death before defeat. I don’t bend or break. I end, if I meet a foe capable of it. Victory is in forcing the opponent to back down. I do not. There is no defeat.
-
- 4 Star Admiral
- Posts: 26014
- Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 10:58 pm
- Location: Poblacht na hÉireann, Baile Átha Cliath
While its possible that the shape may make it slightly faster than others, this does not outweigh the number of defeciencies such a design would naturally have.Starfleet has more style than to just build a big ship and cram it full of as much stuff as possible. The Sovereigns design may have a very practical design we just dont hear about. Like movement or speed.
P.S. Congrats' on the promotion!
"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!"
- Teaos
- 4 Star Admiral
- Posts: 15380
- Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 4:00 am
- Commendations: The Daystrom Award
- Location: Behind you!
Also there may a lot of people in the design department that are like Tom Paris and want a ship to look cool.
What does defeat mean to you?
Nothing it will never come. Death before defeat. I don’t bend or break. I end, if I meet a foe capable of it. Victory is in forcing the opponent to back down. I do not. There is no defeat.
Nothing it will never come. Death before defeat. I don’t bend or break. I end, if I meet a foe capable of it. Victory is in forcing the opponent to back down. I do not. There is no defeat.
-
- 4 Star Admiral
- Posts: 26014
- Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 10:58 pm
- Location: Poblacht na hÉireann, Baile Átha Cliath
I think that was mentioned in one of the episodes. So it should be cannon.Although it may be a real-world justification, we have heard a number of times that the sleeker look of the more modern ship designs does, in fact, help create a more efficient warp field.
That wouldn't surprise me in the least...Also there may a lot of people in the design department that are like Tom Paris and want a ship to look cool.
"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!"
Slightly faster? Speed is the best defence!Rochey wrote:While its possible that the shape may make it slightly faster than others, this does not outweigh the number of defeciencies such a design would naturally have.Starfleet has more style than to just build a big ship and cram it full of as much stuff as possible. The Sovereigns design may have a very practical design we just dont hear about. Like movement or speed.
Also the maneouvreability could be vastly improved with varying ships.
80085
- Teaos
- 4 Star Admiral
- Posts: 15380
- Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 4:00 am
- Commendations: The Daystrom Award
- Location: Behind you!
I think they were pointing out the fact that we dont know for sure the shape helps the speed not that speed is unimportant.
What does defeat mean to you?
Nothing it will never come. Death before defeat. I don’t bend or break. I end, if I meet a foe capable of it. Victory is in forcing the opponent to back down. I do not. There is no defeat.
Nothing it will never come. Death before defeat. I don’t bend or break. I end, if I meet a foe capable of it. Victory is in forcing the opponent to back down. I do not. There is no defeat.