Page 1 of 2
Star Trek Nimitz class carrier
Posted: 2003-06-06 07:12am
by Dark Primus
Posted: 2003-06-06 07:19am
by HemlockGrey
That's a ridiculosly stupid-looking design.
Posted: 2003-06-06 07:58am
by Warspite
Wow! 2 Galaxies shagging!
Posted: 2003-06-06 09:46am
by Crown
Warspite wrote:Wow! 2 Galaxies shagging!
Yeah baby, yeah!
Although points for imagination.
Posted: 2003-06-06 10:33am
by Peregrin Toker
A two-headed Galaxy-Class?? WTF?
Posted: 2003-06-06 11:20am
by Shroom Man 777
Maybe you could make a ST ship which is oblong shaped when viewed above.
2 pairs of wings.
1 pair in the forward half another pair on the rear half.
Each wing has them blue necklace thruster whatever things.
I'm not good in ST terminology.
Phaser banks and torp banks all over the place, twice the size of a Galaxy, several fold stronger and deadlier, filled with smaller craft, heavier armor, heavy shielding, etc.
That'd be my version of a super ST ship.
Maybe even a cloaking device.
Posted: 2003-06-06 11:21am
by Shroom Man 777
BTW, the Nimitz class that dude posted looked funky, siamiese Galaxies! Cool! LOL
Posted: 2003-06-06 02:29pm
by Howedar
Whisky Tango Foxtrot?
At least they could have oriented both of the saucers the same way.
Posted: 2003-06-06 03:58pm
by Lord Pounder
It looks wrong and stupid.
Posted: 2003-06-06 04:06pm
by Kelly Antilles
My question is: Why? The only thing that is good for is recolonization.
Posted: 2003-06-06 04:15pm
by ZShade
Well, the topic name calls it a carrier, and the rear saucer appears to have four large shuttlebays. I imagine the rear saucer is outfitted to carry large numbers of shuttles or Fed fighters. Can't tell if the bottom of the rear saucer has any additional shuttlebays, though.
Posted: 2003-06-06 04:25pm
by Lord Pounder
With the awful saucers it's makes too easy a target. It'd need either a shit load of escorts or very very strong shields.
Posted: 2003-06-06 05:08pm
by Einhander Sn0m4n
Posted: 2003-06-06 05:27pm
by RogueIce
That goes for more than just this thing...like, say, every living being?
Posted: 2003-06-06 09:48pm
by kojikun
talk about stupid kitbashes..
Posted: 2003-06-06 10:16pm
by Frank Hipper
Howedar wrote:Whisky Tango Foxtrot?
At least they could have oriented both of the saucers the same way.
Yup! Talk about a push-me-pull-you....
Posted: 2003-06-06 11:43pm
by Sea Skimmer
So stupid.
Structural strength? Why would we need that? Activate the power draining technobabble generator and give me full marginal hull integrity!
Posted: 2003-06-06 11:57pm
by Einhander Sn0m4n
If I saw one of those flying around, I'd rip a few Turbolaser-bolt holes through its hull on principle...
Posted: 2003-06-07 04:56am
by SPOOFE
Idiocy. Sheer idiocy, that design. You want a carrier? Build a box. Star Trek ships have FAR too much wasted volume due to bizarre designs... and the Defiant, along with numerous other examples from other alien races, proved quite conclusively that the Federation doesn't NEED the whole "saucer-body-pylon-warp nacelle" scheme.
So why they hell do they persist?
Posted: 2003-06-07 07:13am
by Frank Hipper
SPOOFE wrote:Idiocy. Sheer idiocy, that design. You want a carrier? Build a box. Star Trek ships have FAR too much wasted volume due to bizarre designs... and the Defiant, along with numerous other examples from other alien races, proved quite conclusively that the Federation doesn't NEED the whole "saucer-body-pylon-warp nacelle" scheme.
So why they hell do they persist?
Gene Roddenberry's guidelines for starships, as related
here.
1)Warp nacelles MUST be in pairs. (The "All Good Things" Enterprise is explained not
to violate these because it has two warp field coils in each nacelle, thus creating three
pairs. The Franz Joseph Designs single-nacelle ships are not official canon... )
2)Warp nacelles must have at least 50% line-of-sight on each other across the hull.
3)Both warp nacelles must be fully visible from the front.
4)The bridge must be located at the top center of the primary hull.
Posted: 2003-06-07 07:16am
by Kenny_10_Bellys
I used to see tons of cut & paste horrors being posted on Trek graphics forums all the time by talentless fuckwits, but I've rarely seen someone waste fine modelling talent on one. Why man, why? I weep for decent trekkies everywhere.
Posted: 2003-06-07 11:52am
by Dalton
It's not THAT ugly.
Posted: 2003-06-07 12:14pm
by Agent Fisher
i agree with dalton this ship is designed to be a mother ship probally escorted by two akira class or similar ships it is designed to warp in dump its shitload of shuttles and fighters and retreat. it is not designed for frontal combat. and i doubt that the person who designed it was not plan to have it get in a fight with a star wars ship.
Posted: 2003-06-07 12:22pm
by Vympel
It's hideous. It's design also makes no sense as a carrier. Carrier's are designed around space for their aircraft. Period.
Posted: 2003-06-07 12:26pm
by Agent Fisher
maybe the inside of the second saucer is just one big hangar