Original Starship Design Thread

[Cmdr. Setsuna F. Seyei]

not to mention we have seen beaming under combat situations

the episode where the orion gets destroyed they beam out the entir crew while under fire. so situational calm has nothing to do with it. all it take is one person to target and activate the beaming node.


and if you really want to get anal retentive about it McKay created a device that when activated activates and targets the beaming node remotely so just integrate one of these devices into each 302 for emergencies. and have it programmed to auto activate upon ejection.

[Saquist]

[QUOTE=thekillman;11051449]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.[QUOTE]

I'm not sure that you understand that this is an emergency scenario.
What I spoke of was a situation where in seconds an operational fighter becomes inoperable and collides with the engine exhaust nozzle. I'm 100% sure than such a situation would not allow for time to retrieve and link a Mark I generator and initiate beaming.

P.S I didn't know they could beam spacecraft.

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.

Enemies fighters may still engage in suicide runs.
Capital ships will still fire at range.

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.

NASA thought the space shuttle was pretty safe from the falling debris that caused Columbia's unprecedented destruction during reentry. Pretty sure is not something which lives should be risked upon. At least I for one need more than pretty sure but instead....absolutely sure or as safe as can be expected.

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

I fail to see how.
Defense is irrelevant unless it's absolute like armor or shields.
Weapons can be taken out. Tactics and Logistics say to never to put all your eggs in one basket. Smaller ships with close clustered primary systems have few redundancies and are prone to quick failure under duress.

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

I do not understand the context of 'plenty of systems available.'

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

Now we're back to powered dependency which is not the ultimate goal in fail-safe creation.

not to mention we have seen beaming under combat situations

the episode where the orion gets destroyed they beam out the entir crew while under fire. so situational calm has nothing to do with it. all it take is one person to target and activate the beaming node.

There are three levels of operation:
Primary: Normal operation
Redundancy: Back up
Fail-safe: 3. Guaranteed not to fail:

Situational Calm defines the normal operations: Alert Status Green.
As you know there are many situations under General Quarters which could compromise your faith in the technology and even the people that you are using. With out going into many precarious situations it should suffice to say dependency on power is not a proper fail safe. Think of fail safe as in emergency. If the ship is underpowered or you can't get power then the presence of physical shield over the engine nozzle would secure the engine integrity even without power. It's always present and doesn't require auto systems.

and if you really want to get anal retentive about it McKay created a device that when activated activates and targets the beaming node remotely so just integrate one of these devices into each 302 for emergencies. and have it programmed to auto activate upon ejection.

Over the past couple of weeks I've observed the...tendency to design powered dependencies on ships. I believe the situation before was the structural integrity of an entire ship linked with a thin ban. The reasoning of the designer was..."We have fields for that'

That's called powered dependencies. It means it could easily incur catastrophic structural collapse when the power is no longer available. The same is true here. With a safe-guard sometimes powered dependency is absolutely unavoidable..like weapon systems. But if it's not necessary it shouldn't be the last line of defense for your design.

[Alx]

id just like to add that i made the ship with several large trinium slabs blast protection shells to protect the port and stareboard hangars aswell as the belly and back of the ship so incase of sheild faliure she can take somewhat of a beating before strutura collapse giving the ship those extra minutes/seconds needed to escape into hyperspace.

also i very much doubt an enemy fighter would make it through the flak the 52 dorsal and 44 (these nrs will likly increase as i greeble.) ventral railguns provide each of these railguns have 2 guns in them so thats pretty heavy flak.

and saquist.
i am not changing my design if you cant deal with that then make your own.

[thekillman]

i very much agree.

there is only so much nitpicking you can do. in this case, with such a system more than enough safety measures are built in already. it's already crazy if fighters can GET close enough for a kill.

[Saquist]

and saquist.
i am not changing my design if you cant deal with that then make your own.

ALX don't have change your design for me. You're the creator and you don't need my approval for anything. It's fictional, you can do whatever you want and justify it however you want.


That was simply a no nonsense evaluation.
You ask us constantly what we think, I gave it to you and I prefer to be honest than to be a "yes man". I wasn't trying to diss your design. It looks very nice.

[Saquist]

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.

Your design concept relies on power dependency.
Ship design goes beyond that. It's the lowest common denominator of design.

When I found out that Enigma had the separation problems in the design, rather than become indignant of what the designer told me...(Incidentally) -Andrew Probert- I decided not to change the design but I wanted to technically correct...

As a result I modified the procedures for the Enigma. Reintegration must occur at a ship yard as a supervised event to ensure proper mating.

Spoiler:

So you see I always give as much thought to my designs as others.

[Cmdr. Setsuna F. Seyei]

i totally agree with you killman

[RJB]

Update on my Ancient Drone Fighter.

[Saquist]

Update on my Ancient Drone Fighter.<Snip of img requote>

Very unique, very original. I haven't seen anything like it. The detailing is exquisite.
Incidentally these are just the sort of engine covers I was referring to.

[thekillman]

awesome

[immhotep]

Oh that is cool!

[Cmdr. Setsuna F. Seyei]

ok heres my final version of a puddlejumper.

i've been workin on a puddlejumper computer tower for 3 years and working in 2d kind has its limits. now with this 3d design i might be able to get it done.

ps. if anybody wants one i need the money to build it so just pm me and ill see what i can do.

[Saquist]

ok heres my final version of a puddlejumper.

i've been workin on a puddlejumper computer tower for 3 years and working in 2d kind has its limits. now with this 3d design i might be able to get it done.

ps. if anybody wants one i need the money to build it so just pm me and ill see what i can do.

Wants a puddle jumper?

[Pharaoh Hamenthotep]

Maybe... I crashed the last one I had

[Saquist]

Are you and Immo related?