Star Trek Nimitz class carrier

Dark Primus · Post by **Dark Primus** » 2003-06-06 07:12am

Made by areakt from Hidden Frontier

http://www.hiddenfrontier.com/ROB/nimitz.jpg
http://www.hiddenfrontier.com/ROB/nimitz2.jpg

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2003-06-06 07:19am

That's a ridiculosly stupid-looking design.

Warspite · Post by **Warspite** » 2003-06-06 07:58am

Wow! 2 Galaxies shagging!

Crown · Post by **Crown** » 2003-06-06 09:46am

Warspite wrote:Wow! 2 Galaxies shagging!

Yeah baby, yeah!

Although points for imagination.

Peregrin Toker · Post by **Peregrin Toker** » 2003-06-06 10:33am

A two-headed Galaxy-Class?? WTF?

Shroom Man 777 · Post by **Shroom Man 777** » 2003-06-06 11:20am

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.

Shroom Man 777 · Post by **Shroom Man 777** » 2003-06-06 11:21am

BTW, the Nimitz class that dude posted looked funky, siamiese Galaxies! Cool! LOL

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2003-06-06 02:29pm

Whisky Tango Foxtrot?

At least they could have oriented both of the saucers the same way.

Lord Pounder · Post by **Lord Pounder** » 2003-06-06 03:58pm

It looks wrong and stupid.

Kelly Antilles · Post by **Kelly Antilles** » 2003-06-06 04:06pm

My question is: Why? The only thing that is good for is recolonization.

ZShade · Post by **ZShade** » 2003-06-06 04:15pm

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.

Lord Pounder · Post by **Lord Pounder** » 2003-06-06 04:25pm

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.

Einhander Sn0m4n · Post by **Einhander Sn0m4n** » 2003-06-06 05:08pm

Darth Pounder wrote: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.

Or avoid psychopathic redhead Warsies in a Space Camaro equipped with mini Turbolasers...

Post by **RogueIce** » 2003-06-06 05:27pm

Einhander Sn0m4n wrote:Or avoid psychopathic redhead Warsies in a Space Camaro equipped with mini Turbolasers...

That goes for more than just this thing...like, say, every living being?

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2003-06-06 09:48pm

talk about stupid kitbashes..

Frank Hipper · Post by **Frank Hipper** » 2003-06-06 10:16pm

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....

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-06-06 11:43pm

So stupid.

Structural strength? Why would we need that? Activate the power draining technobabble generator and give me full marginal hull integrity!

Einhander Sn0m4n · Post by **Einhander Sn0m4n** » 2003-06-06 11:57pm

If I saw one of those flying around, I'd rip a few Turbolaser-bolt holes through its hull on principle...

SPOOFE · Post by **SPOOFE** » 2003-06-07 04:56am

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?

Frank Hipper · Post by **Frank Hipper** » 2003-06-07 07:13am

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.

Kenny_10_Bellys · Post by **Kenny_10_Bellys** » 2003-06-07 07:16am

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.

Post by **Dalton** » 2003-06-07 11:52am

It's not THAT ugly.

Agent Fisher · Post by **Agent Fisher** » 2003-06-07 12:14pm

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.

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-06-07 12:22pm

It's hideous. It's design also makes no sense as a carrier. Carrier's are designed around space for their aircraft. Period.

Agent Fisher · Post by **Agent Fisher** » 2003-06-07 12:26pm

maybe the inside of the second saucer is just one big hangar