www.ditl.org

Fair point.

There was the Billy Ruffian in IAESL, but I think that was it.

Of course, we can never be sure how many were in the hours of ship battles in DS9.

Hmmm......let's build something really complex, with more parts than we really need. Naa....why worry about the fact that the more fancy and complex, the more stuff there is to fail, or just break?

A conversation overheard between two Starfleet ship designers

Really complex? A few hinges?

I'd hate to see you try to work a door.

Teaos wrote:Really complex? A few hinges?

I'd hate to see you try to work a door.

It becomes more complex when you add servomotors, and need to make the warp plasma conduits shift along with the rest of the nacelles... safely!

Still its hardly "really complex"

And considering the alternative is a reworking of a design that seems pretty solid... not really worth it.

Actually, it's hugely complex. It's not "just" the variable geometry; it's the actuation system and plasma feeds, as CPH said, plus altering the foci and configuration of warp fields; adding actuation software, changing shield configurations, changing SIF configurations, etc., etc. Plus, you're talking about different material stresses and load-bearing properties around the pivot points, so a completel alteration in the metallurgical design becomes necessary. Do you have any idea ho many different moments and forces can effect a single simple journal bearing?

There's also the fact that it's moving something that explodes at the drop of a hat (the nacelles). You need to put some damn good safety systems on that thing.

That, at least, they appear to have got right. In "Timeless" Voyager's port nacelle hit a spur of rock hard enough to rip the busard collector and most of the casing off. The ship didn't blow up. Can you imagine the effect of an impact like that on a Batch 1 GCS?

Another boom in the history books.

Fair point. A GCS would have gone up like a box of fireworks.

Only to make such an explosion that it would make a tear in the space/time continuam, throwing it back in time again, only to crash aagain. A viscious cycle indeed.

You still have the weight the benifit of removing the swing arm against the cost of reworking the design and shipyards.