I think it would be interesting to see some new ship designs myself. I'm not so sure I'd be up for single nacelle designs or TOS designed ships. What I'd really like to see is the federation break away from the current design patterns that many of the ships have, as I honestly find the general design to be rather ugly, and of all the ships in the whole of Star Trek, I'd rather have a Romulan Warbird, or a klingon vessel as they are more interesting designs.
One idea I might like to see is a cylindrical or otherwise oblong structure, perhaps with fold out nacelle pylons towards the rear, much like the design of a modern rocket, or possibly with a body more like a submarine. Depending on the design, this could have several applications, like another variant on the Multi-Vector Advanced Escort, the ability to split into multiple smaller ships. Or if Cryptic wanted to do something different, side mounted torpedo tubes for broadside bombardment of a target.
When Gene created this wonderful universe he set up some rules. And one of them was all ships had to have an even number of nacelles. CBS has STO following these rules to the letter with the only exception being the questionably canon Dreadnaught. Remember that the Kelvin is the property of Paramount, not CBS. And while there have been a few kit-bashes, that had one nacelle, they we always used as battle debris (and most after Gene's death).
I'm afraid you will have to convince CBS to allow those type of ships, but I wouldn't hold my breath.
When Gene created this wonderful universe he set up some rules. And one of them was all ships had to have an even number of nacelles. CBS has STO following these rules to the letter with the only exception being the questionably canon Dreadnaught. Remember that the Kelvin is the property of Paramount, not CBS. And while there have been a few kit-bashes, that had one nacelle, they we always used as battle debris (and most after Gene's death).
I'm afraid you will have to convince CBS to allow those type of ships, but I wouldn't hold my breath.
Eh... Those rules got beaten with a dead horse earlier.
CBS has STO following these rules to the letter with the only exception being the questionably canon Dreadnaught.
Technically, the Galaxy's nacelles were considered as two nacelles in one unit. The Dreadnaught is considered to have 6 nacelles in 3 units. That's why it gets the exception.
Honestly I hope they don't add the Federation class. Not that I hate the design but it's way past any time frame when it should still be in service. If any were still in service it might be one or very limited number such as a trainer or something but as a playable ship I hope not. Sure the Constitution is in game and though I love the ship it really shouldn't be either. Like the Connie the Federation is far out of date, in the Connie's case though it's a "historic" both in the game universe and in Trek history so an exception was made for fun and game play purposes.
I really think the Excelsior is about the farthest back the ships should go as it was kinda a workhorse as far as ships go and seemed to be alot of them around. Maybe the Miranda too, maybe past it's prime but they seemed to have stuck around as well. As for single nacelled ships, I myself have never been terribly fond of them but I wouldn't be against some of the TNG era one's or newer as they at least fit the time frame...though I probably wont be flying them.
Good thing he's passed away and has no direct control over the IP anymore. Frankly, all Cryptic needs to say are the phrases "lock box" and "money" and CBS will jump right on board. CBS doesn't care about these arcane rules if it furthers the IP and/or (more importantly) their profits.
Besides their "engines in pairs" rule is ridiculous when given the explanation:
Rule #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..."
So a 3-nacelle ship is okay because we can pretend that each nacelle has 2 warp fields in it, but a one-nacelle snip is not allowed the same capability?
Actually part of the rules was that you could have multiple nacelles like 4 and 5, but you got diminishing returns above 2. Adding a third nacelle gives you 1/3rd more performance over the 2 nacelle design.
First of all Chat, your links to my "comments" has nothing to do with this topic, they were regarding Rules regarding Nacelle Line of Sight.
If you read those posts, pretty much the only rule Gene set out regarding ships in Star Trek is simply that Warp Nacelles are always in Pairs. That's it.
In single nacelled ships (Freedom, Kelvin, and Saladin) or Three-nacelled ships like the Niagra and the Galaxy Dreadnaught, it can simply be explained that those nacelles have a dual coil system. Thus they meet the Roddenberry Requirement.
Good thing he's passed away and has no direct control over the IP anymore. Frankly, all Cryptic needs to say are the phrases "lock box" and "money" and CBS will jump right on board. CBS doesn't care about these arcane rules if it furthers the IP and/or (more importantly) their profits.
Besides their "engines in pairs" rule is ridiculous when given the explanation:
So a 3-nacelle ship is okay because we can pretend that each nacelle has 2 warp fields in it, but a one-nacelle snip is not allowed the same capability?
I am simply repeating what a Dev said no more than a week ago in a podcast. They said all Federation ships have to follow Gene's rules. That is one reason a lot of player submitted ships were ruled out and also has to govern any Cryptic designed ships.
First of all Chat, your links to my "comments" has nothing to do with this topic, they were regarding Rules regarding Nacelle Line of Sight.
If you read those posts, pretty much the only rule Gene set out regarding ships in Star Trek is simply that Warp Nacelles are always in Pairs. That's it.
In single nacelled ships (Freedom, Kelvin, and Saladin) or Three-nacelled ships like the Niagra and Galasy Dreadnaught, it can simply be explained that those nacelles have a dual coil system. Thus they meet the Roddenberry Requirement.
It was in reference to the rules being a big mess.
"Lets apply this rule to this ship but not that ship."
"This ship has moving nacelles so the LoS rule doesn't apply."
"This warpcore is fueled by milk but the rules doesn't say anything about that so warp 12 it is!"
Something like that? Yes, no?
So it's Roddenberry Rule and Probert Rules.
Hmm... Is that irony? Roddenberry rule(d) the Star Trek scene and Probert rules now?
But in the end, there is no "big mess" about those very simple rules. Especially when it comes to basic Starfleet Designs like the classic Federation Cruiser design, the core of Star Trek.
Given the size of the Nacelle (Galaxy) and the size of the saucer (Ambassador), I'd say that the Freedom class is a good case for "the exception that proves the rule".
We've never seen it before or since. So it was probably experiental.
It was a background "junk" ship. There's a lot of silly, difficult to defend designs in the junk shots. It was a TV show, and they had limited time and money.
It was at Wolf 359. Most of the ships at 359 weren't exactly the best of the best. They were in many cases older vessels pulled out of mothballs and off colonial support duties to respond quickly to a threat within Federation space.
A case could be made for this "ship" having been the testbed vehicle for the development of the Galaxy-Class warp nacelle design. A salvaged Ambassador saucer attached to a single nacelle for field testing.
My guess is that a "Single Nacelle" Federation lineage should be used in a similar manner as the Klingon BOPs. All consoles are universal, and allows the ships to be used as "scouts" or "destroyers" depending on the type of Bridge Officers and consoles used on these ships.
Regardless of the reasoning for the 3 nacel Galaxy...doesn't change how hideous it is.
They can try to toss in the whole 'technically it's 6' TRIBBLE, but I do believe he said nacels, not coils or whatever.
The rest of the Galaxy X is pretty nice as far as improvements on the Galaxy itself....but it just has that abomination perched on the secondary hull that ruins it.
Not quite on topic I guess...but still. I've not seen a Federation ship design with an odd number of nacels that wouldn't look infinitely better if it truly followed the rules.
Probert´s rules plain make sense from an "engineering" point of view.
Something I always loved about his designs and why the usual type of designer on the show probably hated his guts.
About the only of the rules that we could(& obviously have to) explain away with technological advances is the "line of sight in-between nacelles" rule, Bortas and many others violate.
Single nacelles designs really do look like a one legged dog to me. And it didn´t surprise me one bit that they featured prominently in Abraham´s stupid lens-flare ´gasm.
They could be explained away with the Galaxy-X caveat of two nacelles in one housing, but they almost certainly wouldn´t be one of my favorite designs.
And that nacelle better be a fat mama similar to the standard Galaxy type, definitely not like the Kelvin type.
I created a design with that in mind. A larger Galaxy Nacelle on a futuristic Kelvin-type.
That's not that bad, but the thing is that secondary hull that houses the deflector might as well just be a 2nd nacel since it's almost a match. It would actually be pretty interesting to integrate the deflector somewhere else because of that. Just seems like it's reaching for a way to make one with 1 nacel when there's really no need to by taking one with 2 nacels and changing the 2nd nacel into something 'technically' different.
That's not that bad, but the thing is that secondary hull that houses the deflector might as well just be a 2nd nacel since it's almost a match. It would actually be pretty interesting to integrate the deflector somewhere else because of that. Just seems like it's reaching for a way to make one with 1 nacel when there's really no need to by taking one with 2 nacels and changing the 2nd nacel into something 'technically' different.
But thats a Kelvin-configuration with the Secondary Hull on the upper pylon with a single (dual core) warp nacelle on the bottom.
When Gene created this wonderful universe he set up some rules. And one of them was all ships had to have an even number of nacelles. CBS has STO following these rules to the letter with the only exception being the questionably canon Dreadnaught. Remember that the Kelvin is the property of Paramount, not CBS. And while there have been a few kit-bashes, that had one nacelle, they we always used as battle debris (and most after Gene's death).
I'm afraid you will have to convince CBS to allow those type of ships, but I wouldn't hold my breath.
Actually Bob your wrong on that. He did not set those rules till sometime just before next gen came out. He actually athorized the Starfleet Technical manual back in like 71 or 72. in that book there where two single nacelle ship designs and a 3 nacelle design called the dreadnaught. hence the reason we refer to the gal x as a dreadnaught.
The Kelvin's not an abomination. It's a dead sexy starship.
I have to agree here. Unlike other single-nacelle designs we've seen, the Kelvin worked. It had a very distinctive profile, and an attractive symmetry. Plus, it did a very good job of looking appropriate for its timeline. Its design was successful at everything it had to do, with the added bonus of being a ship that was just fun to watch.
As was pointed out before, a lot of the single-nacelle designs we're aware of were created pretty much just to fill up the starship wreckage at Wolf 359. They were kitbashes of store-bought models, and there was really only so much they could do there. One should really take those ships with a grain of salt.
Comments
One idea I might like to see is a cylindrical or otherwise oblong structure, perhaps with fold out nacelle pylons towards the rear, much like the design of a modern rocket, or possibly with a body more like a submarine. Depending on the design, this could have several applications, like another variant on the Multi-Vector Advanced Escort, the ability to split into multiple smaller ships. Or if Cryptic wanted to do something different, side mounted torpedo tubes for broadside bombardment of a target.
I'm afraid you will have to convince CBS to allow those type of ships, but I wouldn't hold my breath.
There you go. But I'll be generous and say Gene's rules only apply to Fed ships as the Klingon BoP violates the rules in spades.
Technically, the Galaxy's nacelles were considered as two nacelles in one unit. The Dreadnaught is considered to have 6 nacelles in 3 units. That's why it gets the exception.
I really think the Excelsior is about the farthest back the ships should go as it was kinda a workhorse as far as ships go and seemed to be alot of them around. Maybe the Miranda too, maybe past it's prime but they seemed to have stuck around as well. As for single nacelled ships, I myself have never been terribly fond of them but I wouldn't be against some of the TNG era one's or newer as they at least fit the time frame...though I probably wont be flying them.
Besides their "engines in pairs" rule is ridiculous when given the explanation:
So a 3-nacelle ship is okay because we can pretend that each nacelle has 2 warp fields in it, but a one-nacelle snip is not allowed the same capability?
Example.
Another one. <-This be interesting.
It's all very messy in short.
http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Nacelle
If you read those posts, pretty much the only rule Gene set out regarding ships in Star Trek is simply that Warp Nacelles are always in Pairs. That's it.
In single nacelled ships (Freedom, Kelvin, and Saladin) or Three-nacelled ships like the Niagra and the Galaxy Dreadnaught, it can simply be explained that those nacelles have a dual coil system. Thus they meet the Roddenberry Requirement.
I am simply repeating what a Dev said no more than a week ago in a podcast. They said all Federation ships have to follow Gene's rules. That is one reason a lot of player submitted ships were ruled out and also has to govern any Cryptic designed ships.
"Lets apply this rule to this ship but not that ship."
"This ship has moving nacelles so the LoS rule doesn't apply."
"This warpcore is fueled by milk but the rules doesn't say anything about that so warp 12 it is!"
Rule 2(LoS): Probert
Rule 3(Full Frontal Nacelle):Probert.
Rule 4(Bridge on top): Probert...Ish.
Something like that? Yes, no?
So it's Roddenberry Rule and Probert Rules.
Hmm... Is that irony? Roddenberry rule(d) the Star Trek scene and Probert rules now?
Also I'm tired of my avatar.
What about the Freedom-class? It was a part of the armada that fought the Borg at Wolf 359. Here's another reference for it: http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/articles/freedom.htm
Given the size of the Nacelle (Galaxy) and the size of the saucer (Ambassador), I'd say that the Freedom class is a good case for "the exception that proves the rule".
A case could be made for this "ship" having been the testbed vehicle for the development of the Galaxy-Class warp nacelle design. A salvaged Ambassador saucer attached to a single nacelle for field testing.
They can try to toss in the whole 'technically it's 6' TRIBBLE, but I do believe he said nacels, not coils or whatever.
The rest of the Galaxy X is pretty nice as far as improvements on the Galaxy itself....but it just has that abomination perched on the secondary hull that ruins it.
Not quite on topic I guess...but still. I've not seen a Federation ship design with an odd number of nacels that wouldn't look infinitely better if it truly followed the rules.
Something I always loved about his designs and why the usual type of designer on the show probably hated his guts.
About the only of the rules that we could(& obviously have to) explain away with technological advances is the "line of sight in-between nacelles" rule, Bortas and many others violate.
Single nacelles designs really do look like a one legged dog to me. And it didn´t surprise me one bit that they featured prominently in Abraham´s stupid lens-flare ´gasm.
They could be explained away with the Galaxy-X caveat of two nacelles in one housing, but they almost certainly wouldn´t be one of my favorite designs.
And that nacelle better be a fat mama similar to the standard Galaxy type, definitely not like the Kelvin type.
That's not that bad, but the thing is that secondary hull that houses the deflector might as well just be a 2nd nacel since it's almost a match. It would actually be pretty interesting to integrate the deflector somewhere else because of that. Just seems like it's reaching for a way to make one with 1 nacel when there's really no need to by taking one with 2 nacels and changing the 2nd nacel into something 'technically' different.
YES! I want to play a Star Trek video game where I am the captain of a Kelvin Class Star Ship on a mission of exploration!
But thats a Kelvin-configuration with the Secondary Hull on the upper pylon with a single (dual core) warp nacelle on the bottom.
Actually Bob your wrong on that. He did not set those rules till sometime just before next gen came out. He actually athorized the Starfleet Technical manual back in like 71 or 72. in that book there where two single nacelle ship designs and a 3 nacelle design called the dreadnaught. hence the reason we refer to the gal x as a dreadnaught.
I have to agree here. Unlike other single-nacelle designs we've seen, the Kelvin worked. It had a very distinctive profile, and an attractive symmetry. Plus, it did a very good job of looking appropriate for its timeline. Its design was successful at everything it had to do, with the added bonus of being a ship that was just fun to watch.
As was pointed out before, a lot of the single-nacelle designs we're aware of were created pretty much just to fill up the starship wreckage at Wolf 359. They were kitbashes of store-bought models, and there was really only so much they could do there. One should really take those ships with a grain of salt.
so you want a squishy ship that has lots of teeth, but no speed........
NX-999999 "Sitting Duck"