Starship = Submarine
Starship = Submarine
I have always been a big naval history fan, both military and merchant.
Obviously starships are compared to naval vessels, naval terms and ranks.
But the ships in trek, even TOS are shown to be large and airy.
I always though Starships would be very like submarines. Every single little space used, people hot bunking to save space.
Maybe by TNG things get a bit more spacey but TOS and ENT should be very utilitarian.
Obviously starships are compared to naval vessels, naval terms and ranks.
But the ships in trek, even TOS are shown to be large and airy.
I always though Starships would be very like submarines. Every single little space used, people hot bunking to save space.
Maybe by TNG things get a bit more spacey but TOS and ENT should be very utilitarian.
- Graham Kennedy
- Site Admin
- Posts: 11561
- Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 2:28 pm
- Location: Banbury, UK
- Contact:
Re: Starship = Submarine
I would have gone with this for Enterprise. A cramped ship, similar to a submarine. Beam weapons for point defence only, with nuclear missiles used in a similar way to torpedoes - not "shoot-bang" like photons as used in TNG, but more "Shoot... several minutes of maneuvering and trying to evade... bang"
Give a man a fire, and you keep him warm for a day. SET a man on fire, and you will keep him warm for the rest of his life...
- Captain Seafort
- 4 Star Admiral
- Posts: 15548
- Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 1:44 pm
- Location: Blighty
Re: Starship = Submarine
Or, if you want to be more Trek-like, "Shoot... several minutes of gawping and quoting Shakespeare... bang"GrahamKennedy wrote:"Shoot... several minutes of maneuvering and trying to evade... bang"
Only two things are infinite - the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the universe: Albert Einstein.
- Teaos
- 4 Star Admiral
- Posts: 15380
- Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 4:00 am
- Commendations: The Daystrom Award
- Location: Behind you!
Re: Starship = Submarine
No bang in space
What does defeat mean to you?
Nothing it will never come. Death before defeat. I don’t bend or break. I end, if I meet a foe capable of it. Victory is in forcing the opponent to back down. I do not. There is no defeat.
Nothing it will never come. Death before defeat. I don’t bend or break. I end, if I meet a foe capable of it. Victory is in forcing the opponent to back down. I do not. There is no defeat.
- Captain Seafort
- 4 Star Admiral
- Posts: 15548
- Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 1:44 pm
- Location: Blighty
Re: Starship = Submarine
Since when has that stopped photon torpedoes making a very loud bang in space?
Only two things are infinite - the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the universe: Albert Einstein.
Re: Starship = Submarine
Well what's the fucking point then.Teaos wrote:No bang in space
Oh wait, you meant sound. I see.
Bite my shiny metal ass
Re: Starship = Submarine
Even in the latter trek, if you build a ship 1km long doesn't mean you can waste space.
Wide corridors and single rooms for everyone is just a waste.
Wide corridors and single rooms for everyone is just a waste.
- Captain Seafort
- 4 Star Admiral
- Posts: 15548
- Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 1:44 pm
- Location: Blighty
Re: Starship = Submarine
Don, I think you're going to fit in very well here.
Welcome to DITL.
Only two things are infinite - the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the universe: Albert Einstein.
Re: Starship = Submarine
What you are hearing is The Sisko bareknuckle boxing Kirk with Admiral Adama as the ref.Captain Seafort wrote:Since when has that stopped photon torpedoes making a very loud bang in space?
"Don't underestimate the power of technobabble: the Federation can win anything with the sheer force of bullshit"
-
- 3 Star Admiral
- Posts: 10654
- Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 10:49 pm
- Location: Jeri Ryan's Dressing Room, Shhhhh
Re: Starship = Submarine
Wasting, yes, but in a setting where energy is so cheap, the ships are powered by multiple fusion reactors and an anti-matter reactor, the energy required to haul around the extra mass and sustain it compared to the cost in crew fatigue and readiness from living in submarine like conditions, not to mention recruitment, well it appears the Fed has decided to pay the energy. It has gone to ridiculous extreme's like the Galaxy's, but they were said to be designed for five year missions into deep space.
-
- Rear Admiral
- Posts: 6026
- Joined: Thu May 22, 2008 2:11 am
- Location: Any ol' place here on Earth or in space. You pick the century and I'll pick the spot
Re: Starship = Submarine
I'm pretty sure they were designed for almost indefinite missions into deep space.Tyyr wrote:Wasting, yes, but in a setting where energy is so cheap, the ships are powered by multiple fusion reactors and an anti-matter reactor, the energy required to haul around the extra mass and sustain it compared to the cost in crew fatigue and readiness from living in submarine like conditions, not to mention recruitment, well it appears the Fed has decided to pay the energy. It has gone to ridiculous extreme's like the Galaxy's, but they were said to be designed for five year missions into deep space.
"All this has happened before --"
"But it doesn't have to happen again. Not if we make up our minds to change. Take a different path. Right here, right now."
"But it doesn't have to happen again. Not if we make up our minds to change. Take a different path. Right here, right now."
Re: Starship = Submarine
Seems like it doesn't it.Sonic Glitch wrote:I'm pretty sure they were designed for almost indefinite missions into deep space.Tyyr wrote:Wasting, yes, but in a setting where energy is so cheap, the ships are powered by multiple fusion reactors and an anti-matter reactor, the energy required to haul around the extra mass and sustain it compared to the cost in crew fatigue and readiness from living in submarine like conditions, not to mention recruitment, well it appears the Fed has decided to pay the energy. It has gone to ridiculous extreme's like the Galaxy's, but they were said to be designed for five year missions into deep space.
Among a thousand other things, I wished Voyager made that apparent that they were running out of fuel, certain decks shut down to conserve energy. That sort of thing.
I kinda remember there was a set limit on the E-D whether it was power or equipment I can't remember, that required certain tests and experiments to be done at certain hours.
"Don't underestimate the power of technobabble: the Federation can win anything with the sheer force of bullshit"
Re: Starship = Submarine
Double post.
"Don't underestimate the power of technobabble: the Federation can win anything with the sheer force of bullshit"
-
- Rear Admiral
- Posts: 6026
- Joined: Thu May 22, 2008 2:11 am
- Location: Any ol' place here on Earth or in space. You pick the century and I'll pick the spot
Re: Starship = Submarine
Power IMcAvoy wrote:Seems like it doesn't it.Sonic Glitch wrote:I'm pretty sure they were designed for almost indefinite missions into deep space.Tyyr wrote:Wasting, yes, but in a setting where energy is so cheap, the ships are powered by multiple fusion reactors and an anti-matter reactor, the energy required to haul around the extra mass and sustain it compared to the cost in crew fatigue and readiness from living in submarine like conditions, not to mention recruitment, well it appears the Fed has decided to pay the energy. It has gone to ridiculous extreme's like the Galaxy's, but they were said to be designed for five year missions into deep space.
Among a thousand other things, I wished Voyager made that apparent that they were running out of fuel, certain decks shut down to conserve energy. That sort of thing.
I kinda remember there was a set limit on the E-D whether it was power or equipment I can't remember, that required certain tests and experiments to be done at certain hours.
"All this has happened before --"
"But it doesn't have to happen again. Not if we make up our minds to change. Take a different path. Right here, right now."
"But it doesn't have to happen again. Not if we make up our minds to change. Take a different path. Right here, right now."
-
- Lieutenant Commander
- Posts: 1184
- Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2008 3:34 am
- Location: Georgia, United States
- Contact:
Re: Starship = Submarine
Power usage for lighting, gravity, recycling air, etc should be trivial compared to warping space to travel FTL. What would make it more apparent is Voyager having to travel at WF 5 or 6 when they would normally travel WF 8, 9, or higher because the lower warp speeds are more energy efficient. Apollo 13 had to shut down life support because the amount of power they had available was equal to a coffee maker. Voyager will have far more, and the fusion reactors use the most common element in space.McAvoy wrote: Among a thousand other things, I wished Voyager made that apparent that they were running out of fuel, certain decks shut down to conserve energy. That sort of thing.
What should have been happening is Voyager having to run out of parts, making do, so at the end of every season you see more and more components replaced by local items. No replicated food, because the local empires don't produce the right food stock for Federation replicators, so there are lots of cargo containers filled with food that Voyager traded for scientific data. Or when near Malon systems, Voyager accepts a contract to process the antimatter waste, and uses the traded currency to purchase supplies at the Malon planet. Malon inspectors have to verify the waste is being properly processed (so no illegal dumping), and Voyager has no problem showing them the exact process in use (which will upset the Malon economy).
Plus choices between Federation ethics and a survival advantage. I.e. The Cloud, where a cloud had natural resources they needed, but also turned out to be a living being. Voyager went back in to heal the damage they caused, and it wound up using more energy than they gained the first time. But healing the creature was the right thing to do.
Relativity Calculator
My Nomination for "MVAM Critic Award" (But can it be broken into 3 separate pieces?)
My Nomination for "MVAM Critic Award" (But can it be broken into 3 separate pieces?)