Ship design

posted on October 19th, 2010, 9:55 pm

ok ppl ive been wondering what the players of FO think of the trek ship designs

i ask this because most of the ships in trek look super streamlined why?????
in space there is no resistance from air or anything ,space is a vacum

i will say the ships look awesome but to me alot of the designs are impracticle

the borg seem to have the right idea  big cubes = best amount of space =more weapons and better defences and also more crew

oh just thought maybe streamlining might help with detection by sensors

anyway post your opinions

posted on October 19th, 2010, 10:04 pm

Rule of Cool.

Just remember realism is a slippery slope - if we want to start talking about Borg Cubes being realistic, then one also needs to discuss how the heck they can move such a large mass so quickly and nimbly, among many, many other technological fall-throughs.

posted on October 19th, 2010, 10:04 pm

Ships are streamlined becuse it looks good, which is important to humans and many races who like to show off their skill. Many are also designed to function in an atmosphere, where there is resistence. Plus no resistence means lack of streamline doesn't give any advantage in a vacum, so streamlined ships are not impracticle.

The Borg don't have the right or wrong idea, because more weapons/crew doesn't make a ship better. Borg ships are powerful because the weapons do a lot of damage and the hull is powerful with a strong Structural Integrity field, with the addition of adapting to weapons not because the ship is big (which just makes is easier to hit).

posted on October 19th, 2010, 10:29 pm

Plus for the Borg, atmospheric flight is irrelevent because resistance is futile 

But that aside, I agree with Dom - it's the Rule of Cool...plus, we have no idea what the underlying physics surrounding warp drive and the creation of a warp field are - it could be that a streamlined shape makes it easier to create one.

posted on October 19th, 2010, 10:32 pm

Plus, if there was no resistance, Star Trek ships shouldn't be able to move the way they do. Seen those ridiculous turns? Makes space Look Like an Ocean.  . And lastly, and most importantly, if resistance in space didn't exist for Star Trek, everybody would be Borg. 

[Facist]

posted on October 19th, 2010, 10:51 pm

Last edited by Facist on October 19th, 2010, 10:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.

ok i get that streamlining ships is not that impracticle  ^-^

But races that spend all their time building super cool looking streamlined ships would probably end up lacking in certain departments(thats probably why so many different designs)aiso it doesnt seem cost effective

i say the borg have the right idea because of these reasons few ship designs ,more time to research/assimilate new weapons ,defences and power sources

the feds arent too bad most designs are based off older ships so alot of time and resources saved

there is no resistance in space hence we wouldnt be designing ion drives for future ships

the probe thats going (or gone) past pluto is traveling at like 30000kph(ill try to find the article):sweatdrop: and its got to that speed from just using the gravity for the planets its been past and the fact that there is no resistance

posted on October 20th, 2010, 6:17 am

The Feds ships look like they look because it all started with Matt Jefferies design for the original Enterprise.  From this point forward (almost) all Fed ships had saucers and nacelles.

What happened though is they became more sexy and streamlined when TNG came out probably due to their ability to employ a bigger production team, use computer generated graphics, etc, and not to forget the marketing team who probably took one look at the original Enterprise and said something like "It has to be changed, let's stick some go-faster stripes on there, and make it more sleek".

Its nothing to do with realism, its to do with design which goes back to the original.

If you want to talk about realism in Star Trek then it opens up a huge can of worms.

posted on October 21st, 2010, 1:30 pm

As far as the real world reason, loki is probably right on.

From an in universe point though, I think most races have figured out that two warp nacelles is the optimum number for creating and controlling warp fields. The overall hull designs may also be influenced by warp mechanics as they would want to minimize the stresses on the hull and distribute them effectivly, although the structural integrity fields take care of most of it.

From a psychological perspective though, people like things to have a front and a back, especially when dealing with things which move. Left and right symmetry we're all right with, but we don't really like front to back symmetry. Then there are other factors, the cultural component, tactical considerations, overall purpose; designs often reflect certain these things. For example, almost all Romulan ships have a bird like appearence which reflects the seal of their species. Klingon ships are optimized for combat being either heavy set and consolidated or light and open. Federation ships are flatter to minimize targetable surfaces when viewed headon.

It will be interesting to see what our starships look like.

posted on October 22nd, 2010, 6:15 am

As far as the real world reason, loki is probably right on.

I'm right about something?!?!?!?  Wow, today really is my Birthday.  Both things only happen once a year. 

posted on October 22nd, 2010, 9:10 am

happy "being-right-day" for you then

posted on October 22nd, 2010, 11:46 am

In honor of Loki, happy birthday - see, we even managed to stay offtopic for it

posted on October 23rd, 2010, 12:33 am

ok ppl ive been wondering what the players of FO think of the trek ship designs

i ask this because most of the ships in trek look super streamlined why?????
in space there is no resistance from air or anything ,space is a vacum

i will say the ships look awesome but to me alot of the designs are impracticle

the borg seem to have the right idea  big cubes = best amount of space =more weapons and better defences and also more crew

oh just thought maybe streamlining might help with detection by sensors

anyway post your opinions

There is no resistance in space.  Well, something like a dust-cloud might give you some resistance, but who's going to care about such a small amount?  Designing a ship to travel in space and inside an atmosphere has been done before.  The space shuttle for instance.  So there is some practicality to the designs, however, there are also serious flaws.

The cube would be somewhat of an optimal design, but there's a limit to how big it can be built.  A cube-shaped vessel could fly through an atmosphere, but not very easily.  Bigger vessels can easily have more powerful engines.  Look at the difference in power between the Saturn-5 and the solid rocket boosters and the space shuttle.  Plus, the bigger vessels can hold more fuel than the smaller ones, and yes, more weapons.  The sphere is the optimal shape for a vessel.

The streamline shape probably makes a smaller sensor echo, which is used to detect vessels, but in general, is impractical unless you intend on flying it into an atmosphere.  A cube or sphere-shaped vessel is the optimal shape unless you intend to land the vessel.

Rule of Cool.

Just remember realism is a slippery slope - if we want to start talking about Borg Cubes being realistic, then one also needs to discuss how the heck they can move such a large mass so quickly and nimbly, among many, many other technological fall-throughs.

I wouldn't count the Borg as "realistic".  For one thing, a temperature of over 100 degrees Fahrenheit is way too hot for computer systems.  At about 75 with a good coolant system, the components will run at 120 to 150 degrees Fahrenheit.  Add about 20 degrees and you'll start having overheating issues.

The Borg have a very high dependence on network technology.  Each cube has thousands of drones which the vessels local network has to keep up with with almost 0 lag.  That would require extremely powerful networking technology.  Plus, 0 lag among vessels that are up to hundreds of light-years apart for millions of vessels would be impossible.  You could probably maintain billions and trillions of network "nodes", but the technology involved would have to be extremely powerful.  Plus, you cannot get 0 lag.  Well, a mesh topology seems to be what the Borg run, but such a complex topology would be impossible to maintain.  Especially one without wires!

Plus for the Borg, atmospheric flight is irrelevent because resistance is futile 

But that aside, I agree with Dom - it's the Rule of Cool...plus, we have no idea what the underlying physics surrounding warp drive and the creation of a warp field are - it could be that a streamlined shape makes it easier to create one.

Borg vessels could fly into an atmosphere safely.  It would just be very difficult for them to do so.  Plus there's evidence to suggest that the Borg can take an entire colony off of the surface of the planet from orbit.

I don't think the shape would make it any easier or harder to create a stable warp field.  It may just create more blind spots for those phasers.

ok i get that streamlining ships is not that impracticle  ^-^

But races that spend all their time building super cool looking streamlined ships would probably end up lacking in certain departments(thats probably why so many different designs)aiso it doesnt seem cost effective

i say the borg have the right idea because of these reasons few ship designs ,more time to research/assimilate new weapons ,defences and power sources

the feds arent too bad most designs are based off older ships so alot of time and resources saved

there is no resistance in space hence we wouldnt be designing ion drives for future ships

the probe thats going (or gone) past pluto is traveling at like 30000kph(ill try to find the article):sweatdrop: and its got to that speed from just using the gravity for the planets its been past and the fact that there is no resistance

The vessel designs, if done strictly for space travel, are impractical.  Having no resistance means that you can build a vessel to suit any purpose without the limits of aerodynamics.  However, the shape does distinguish the vessel from other vessel types.

Having no resistance, a vessel would never be able to make a turn like it does in star trek.  If you've tried the Orbiter Space Flight Simulator and regularly use it, you know it takes an enormous amount of fuel just to reverse the direction of your orbit around a planet.  If you are using your engines constantly, then when you make your turn (or try), you'll end up getting too far away from the battlefield to be worth going back.

The Feds ships look like they look because it all started with Matt Jefferies design for the original Enterprise.  From this point forward (almost) all Fed ships had saucers and nacelles.

What happened though is they became more streamlined when TNG came out probably due to their ability to employ a bigger production team, use computer generated graphics, etc, and not to forget the marketing team who probably took one look at the original Enterprise and said something like "It has to be changed, let's stick some go-faster stripes on there, and make it more sleek".

Its nothing to do with realism, its to do with design which goes back to the original.

If you want to talk about realism in Star Trek then it opens up a huge can of worms.

Definitely correct.

As far as the real world reason, loki is probably right on.

From an in universe point though, I think most races have figured out that two warp nacelles is the optimum number for creating and controlling warp fields. The overall hull designs may also be influenced by warp mechanics as they would want to minimize the stresses on the hull and distribute them effectivly, although the structural integrity fields take care of most of it.

From a psychological perspective though, people like things to have a front and a back, especially when dealing with things which move. Left and right symmetry we're all right with, but we don't really like front to back symmetry. Then there are other factors, the cultural component, tactical considerations, overall purpose; designs often reflect certain these things. For example, almost all Romulan ships have a bird like appearence which reflects the seal of their species. Klingon ships are optimized for combat being either heavy set and consolidated or light and open. Federation ships are flatter to minimize targetable surfaces when viewed headon.

It will be interesting to see what our starships look like.

Two warp nacelles would allow you to manipulate the warp field with better control than one.  However, I doubt that the streamline shape would have any effect as making a turn at warp speeds the way those vessels do would cause the vessel to break apart.  A structural integrity field would be useless.

A vessel design should optimize what the vessel is intended to do.  Besides, with designs like the federation, you could easily shoot-off your own warp nacelle with your phasers.  For the Federation, what if the target is directly above you?  You just made a nice targeting area.  A tap on the RCS thruster control should be enough to cause an unguided torpedo to miss.  Full impulse would definitely be enough to make a guided torpedo to miss.  Something about not being able to use aerodynamics to make tight turns.

Plus, if there was no resistance, Star Trek ships shouldn't be able to move the way they do. Seen those ridiculous turns? Makes space Look Like an Ocean.  . And lastly, and most importantly, if resistance in space didn't exist for Star Trek, everybody would be Borg. 

Maybe star trek should have tried actually flying in a space flight simulator before making the series.  Or at the very least, tried to make it look like there was no resistance.  But definitely, those vessels wouldn't move like that.  You'd use up all of your fuel trying.

posted on October 23rd, 2010, 1:54 am

A vessel design should optimize what the vessel is intended to do.  Besides, with designs like the federation, you could easily shoot-off your own warp nacelle with your phasers.  For the Federation, what if the target is directly above you?  You just made a nice targeting area.

Not exactly easily, those things are as durable as any other part of the ship. Damage maybe, but that's what the computer targeting is there to prevent.

If the enemy's above them, they simply fire up. Space may be an ocean in Trek, but the weapons are full 3D.