Original Starship Design Thread

[thekillman]

and if you are COMPLETELY lazy, beam the fighter directly into the bay with zero momentum. as The Intruder proves that's possible.

[Alx]

and if you are COMPLETELY lazy, beam the fighter directly into the bay with zero momentum. as The Intruder proves that's possible.

true that allways bugged me alot sheppard getting beamed in and no sign of the speed he was previously traveling in, and beaming a 302 should be easy compared to beaming that naquadah skyscraper

[Dr Lee]

okay.... missed something here... what's the problem?

[thekillman]

hangar bays above the engines being a problem, despite that it's not in SG

[Alx]

okay.... missed something here... what's the problem?

there isnt a problem but more of a dispute and responce to a flawed argugument put forth by saquist.

hangar bays above the engines being a problem, despite that it's not in SG

indeed.

[Dr Lee]

Worried about missing the hanger and hitting the engines when landing? Why not just have the rear landing strip extend out so that it catches/deflects any damaged fighters?

[Alx]

that seems to be the argument yes! but there is noo need as we are in space and you can slow down alot before landing,

besides the ship has sheilds that could protect the engines during landings from the rear.
but thing is as there are dual entrances to each hangar they dont have to land from the rear. so the rear could be used when you want to launch a large amount of fighters simultaniously
or it can be launched from the rear recovered from the front. i personally wouldnt like to launch from the front in a battle situation anyway heading into incoming fire screw that!

[Semmer]

Guys guys guys!! Relax!

[Alx]

huh? relax?? the discussion didnt give me an impression of being all that "heated"

[thekillman]

agreed

[immhotep]

this is a medical ship i decided to do

ENJOY

This is not a medical ship! Sorry but its not, its the gatetrain. We used them in the fleets but nobody has done a model, this is perfect.

[Cmdr. Setsuna F. Seyei]

when it it is being soley usd for medical purposes it can be called a medical ship

[Saquist]

ok just a few things to point out

1. Most 304 commanders try to jump out before total shield failure. so there is no target as long as the shields remain

That's a sensible precaution but doesn't preclude situations where jumping is not an option.

2. if a 302 or other craft is that badly damaged another 302 can attatch a line and drag them back to the ship

Yes, another dependency that requires situational calm. These are combat vessels. Calm is a best case scenario. You're saying that a design shouldn't be tested and fortified for the worse case scenarios?

3. if absolutely necessary all the pilot has to do is line it up and shut down all power. thereby locking the controls. in space momentum will carry the 302 right into the bay.

Situational Calm. Like I said, and I believe it has merit, carriers need to be design for the worse of conditions not the best.

and if you are COMPLETELY lazy, beam the fighter directly into the bay with zero momentum. as The Intruder proves that's possible.

Well, not onlythis require that situational calm this also makes your ship flight operations dependent on power in an emergency which we all know is not a guarantee when under fire.

The first step of design is to reduce power dependency.
Force fields keep a ship from venting through hull breaches but what if the power is cut and your ship has no sealing bulkheads...the whole ship dies.

So here we have a flight deck that's sitting on top of an engine.
If the engine is the target the flight deck gets taken out and vise versa. So now you're not just at half speed but your fighters can't all return. Even worse you might not be able to launch at all.

Lets say the ship and fighters have sustained heavy casualties...
No transporters and one your fighters has a navigation casualty on approach or comes in too hot....

why would you discourage anyone from building anything? bit negative is it not? but fine you continue to make your ST crap that has no base in reality what so ever.

I don't think it's negative to discourage the mimicking of certain designs.
It's beneficial to encourage function over form. Even the Enigma Class was designed improperly. It was designed to separate and yet the saucer and the Nacelles are on the same plane. During reintegration if the operation must be aborted then there is a danger of the saucer impacting the front of the nacelles but the Galaxy was designed so that dangerous possibility doesn't exist.

That makes the Galaxy a superior design over the Enigma Class.

and IMO the 304s are meant to be MULTIFUNCTIONAL meaning that they have to be able to do everything as it is our only ship design and so it will remain for quite some time due to costs.

I concur.
But would they continue to make more of similar designs or would the designs begin to have clear class distinctions. I believe the latter but that's speculative.

it seems to have merit and to me it seem like a good idea even tho i was slightly confused by it.

really?

no he is not! his argument is flawed as the 304s have the engines stuck on the back and just as much munitions in the hangar so its just as much a target and a danger. all this focus on the hangars as the main danger issue on the 304 style ships LMAO what about the missle batterys on the front? carring nukes and all kinds of missles isnt that a bigger danger?
stupid! but hey fine you dont have to use it.

You can put a very thick and permanent bulkhead between engine spaces and flight operations. There is no reason for them to be connected internally. But if you notice my main concern isn't internal it's external...enemy targeting and flight operations which could jeopardize your mothership's mobility.

The only danger from nuclear weapons is radioactive material. They can't be detonated by damage or destruction. The biggest concern is the naquada which is FAR more reactive to sudden energy spikes. Still that doesn't stop you from carrying the weapon just like the explosive nature of rocket fuel took out the Challenger Orbiter it's still a viable tool for transportation into space.

[Saquist]

Worried about missing the hanger and hitting the engines when landing? Why not just have the rear landing strip extend out so that it catches/deflects any damaged fighters?

Very Good, Dr. Lee that appropriate response a designer would have to this issue. Your problem is:

1: Human Error/Equipment error that threatens flight operations and Mothership Mobility.

2. The design allows the enemy for a dual score against engines and bays.


Options:
~Extend a heavy landing strip well over the engine exhaust.
~Move the Engines further under the bays.

[thekillman]

we have easy portable Mark I generators. also, judging by Stargate, the transporters are one of the last to go.

so, hook up a generator to the beaming node and you can always beam.


also, i never said it would be always beaming. you could always just land the normal way.

and if a few SAM launchers and Railguns are placed at the back of the craft, the region there can be sweeped of enemy fighters and the situation would be very calm regardless.

i also never said that everything should depend on shields. our ships are rather robust, and i think shields around the engines to protect them is not crazy. seeing as they've never been hit regardless of the battle, i think it's pretty safe.


and, you say it makes a double target thus higher priority. it also allows easier defense.


plenty of systems are available. the easiest: use the front entrance the most.

shielded engines, additional fighter support. a self-powered beaming node near each hangar, should it go really wrong.

or, when a 302 is about to collide, just make the shield impermeable and it crashes on our shield.