from the Original Series right up until the latest Enterprise, what was your least favorite ship? Doesn't have to be a Federation ship, either.
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Least favorite Star Trek Ship
Collapse
X
-
Torres/Tom oh you mean... oh
I agree with Morbo, the Ferengi ships suckedEquality is not a concept. It's not something we should be striving for. It's a necessity. Equality is like gravity. We need it to stand on this earth as men and women. And the misogyny that is in every culture is not a true part of the human condition. It is life out of balance, and that imbalance is sucking something out of the soul of every man and woman who is confronted with it.
- Joss Whedon - Equality Now
Comment
-
TBH, I wasn't really fond of the NX class. And the original Klingon Bird of Prey. Although Klingon ships do look amazingly similar!
It's a lot harder to pick a worst ship, they all have their charms.
EDIT: I never thought the Ferengi ships were that bad. I was thinking along the lines of Armada II when they fly around (stealing my ruddy ships "The first rule of aquisition, 'War is good for business'" And you can't even kill them!!) and they looked pretty cool, then i looked at Memory Alpha and i see your points. They do kinda suck...Last edited by Anubis69; 25 February 2006, 05:56 AM.
The center of Khlysty surrounds me
Comment
-
You know, I can't really think of any Star Trek ships that I don't like, although, there are some unofficial Federation ships that just look plain silly.
One ship in particular is the U.S.S Freedom. It's just a single nacelle with a saucer section stuck on top It's rather unfortunate looking IMO.
edit: Apparently the Freedom class IS in the official canon. Still, it is rather an oddball of a ship.Last edited by Missster.Freeman; 25 February 2006, 04:52 PM."Captain, you almost make me believe in luck."
Comment
-
Originally posted by Anubis69In all fairness some starfleet ships (the one that jumps to mind is the Intrepid. I think the Defiant could as well but don't quote me on that) could land on planets and would need to be fairly aerodynamic.
Our current day planes have engines which only provide forward thrust. Up and down is achieved through aerodynamics. The reason why there are no 'up and down' engines (Harrier excluded) is because they simply require too much power to keep a plane up.
However, starfleet uses a matter/antimatter power source which provides so much energy that you can use thrusters to go up and down. So there is absolutely no need for aerodynamics.
Comment
-
Originally posted by NitroX infinityYes, those can land on planets but do not need aerodynamics.
Our current day planes have engines which only provide forward thrust. Up and down is achieved through aerodynamics. The reason why there are no 'up and down' engines (Harrier excluded) is because they simply require too much power to keep a plane up.
However, starfleet uses a matter/antimatter power source which provides so much energy that you can use thrusters to go up and down. So there is absolutely no need for aerodynamics.
Aerodynamic or not, IMHO they do look sweet.
The center of Khlysty surrounds me
Comment
-
They are kinda aerodynamic aren't they? But still, they look sleek and crafty. Pieces of art flying in space that give Federation ships a bigger likeability factor than any other ships (except the Borg, which cleverly use geometric shapes).
And wasn't one reason for some of the aerodynamics to limit the damages in subspace during warp?
Comment
Comment