Least favorite Star Trek Ship

[Lord Shiva]

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.

[Morbo]

i always thought the ferengi ships were pretty dumb

[The Signal]

Torres/Tom oh you mean... oh

I agree with Morbo, the Ferengi ships sucked

[Anubis69]

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...

[JamesM]

Tis an easy one this, the original Enterprise NCC-1701.

The NX series also sucks.




BTW, Anubis69, I too miss Cliff each and every day.

[mckaychick]

yeah the original enterprise ncc-1701 was very dull

[NitroX infinity]

Least favourite? Have to be starfleet vessels. Aerodynamics in space, what were they thinking?

[Anubis69]

In 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.

[Missster.Freeman]

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.

[NitroX infinity]

In 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.

Yes, 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.

[Anubis69]

Yes, 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.

Touché! Cheerfully withdrawn.

Aerodynamic or not, IMHO they do look sweet.

[rarocks24]

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?

[DarkMesa8]

Ferengi Marauders are my least favorite. Probably because I dislike the species as a whole.

[mckaychick]

I didnt like the ferengi either. Very annoying species

[gatelover12]

The original Romulan Warbird.