The NX-01... or my version thereof

Reliant121 · Post by **Reliant121** » Tue Jan 15, 2008 3:38 pm

They probably have to decloak because the Disrupters energy output is too strong for the Cloaking device to hide

Post by **Graham Kennedy** » Tue Jan 15, 2008 5:00 pm

Surely you would be better to leave the cloak up and fire through it then. So you wouldn't be hidden whilst firing, but you wouldn't have to go through the process of lowering and raising the cloak again.

Reliant121 · Post by **Reliant121** » Tue Jan 15, 2008 5:02 pm

A true and logical point. Which is why it has no place in Star Trek

Post by **Captain Seafort** » Tue Jan 15, 2008 6:02 pm

The first cloak made sense - they could have weapons, warp drive or the cloak, but not enough power to have more than one at the same time. Since then it's gone all to hell - they have enough power to have warp drive and cloak simultaneously, but not weapons and cloak?

The alternative I've heard, that the cloak would rebound off the cloak and hit the ship also doesn't make sense - it would have the effect of acting as a double-blind, preventing sensors from working correctly. Which should happen anyway - how come incoming signalsaren't deflected around the cloak?

The whole thing is a mess.

Post by **Mikey** » Tue Jan 15, 2008 6:47 pm

Because they have to be able to use sensors for plot purposes, silly.

Obviously, plot demands warp the space-time continuum in such a way as to allow the impossible to occur... regularly. Dramatic license has been replace in 'Trek with "scientific license."

Monroe · Post by **Monroe** » Tue Jan 15, 2008 7:04 pm

Maybe the Cloak radiation (as ENT shows it is some kind of radiation) would react badly with disruptors.

mwhittington · Post by **mwhittington** » Wed Jan 16, 2008 4:44 am

I know I'm kinda late in the discussion, but I think your NX class design makes much more sense, Graham. Just one thing, though. It does have a somewhat phallic look to it(cough)dildo(cough).
It reminds me of the escape ship Dr. Evil had in The Spy who Shagged Me, like a big...
Wang! Wang, pay attention! / Sorry, sir, but there's a gigantic....
One-Eyed Monster! That's right, folks! Step right up and see the One-Eyed Monster!

Sorry, I couldn't resist. But on a serious note, the design makes a lot of sense, which is why it has no place in the Star Trek universe.

Jordanis · Post by **Jordanis** » Wed Jan 16, 2008 6:51 am

Sadly, most ships which make solid sense in terms of firing arcs, maximizing volume vs surface area, and other such, end up phallic if they don't end up spherical.

mwhittington · Post by **mwhittington** » Wed Jan 16, 2008 7:07 am

Sadly true, Jordanis. That would be the perfect ship for Kirk, though: a big, flying phallus.

Jordanis · Post by **Jordanis** » Wed Jan 16, 2008 8:56 am

Then he would be wearing this smirk all the time.

mwhittington · Post by **mwhittington** » Thu Jan 17, 2008 8:42 pm

Captain Kirk: 23rd century equivalent to Smilin' Bob of the Enzyte commercials!

Post by **Mikey** » Thu Jan 17, 2008 9:01 pm

Yeah, but Kirk don't need no stinking pills!

Post by **Graham Kennedy** » Thu Jan 17, 2008 9:18 pm

mwhittington wrote:I know I'm kinda late in the discussion, but I think your NX class design makes much more sense, Graham. Just one thing, though. It does have a somewhat phallic look to it(cough)dildo(cough).

lol, well thanks, but any phallic resemblance is purely coincidental!

One of my favourite lines was in a Culture novel where a woman sees a Culture warship for the first time. "Oh wow!" She exclaims, "it looks just like a giant dildo!"

"That's appropriate enough," her companion said quietly. "Fully armed, it can f**k solar systems."

Post by **Mikey** » Thu Jan 17, 2008 9:26 pm

I've got to start reading those now.

Post by **Captain Seafort** » Thu Jan 17, 2008 9:38 pm

Mikey wrote:I've got to start reading those now.

They're good books - I've read "Consider Phlebas" and "Use of Weapons" so far. Some of the ships' names are cracking.