test content
  • Games
  • Social
  • Arc News
  • Support
  • Zen
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc
Forums > Home› Feedback› Federation Discussion

Whatever happened to variable geometry pylons?

killdozer9211killdozer9211 Member Posts: 920 Arc User
edited February 2014 in Federation Discussion
Voyager had these, and it seemed like they were supposed to be the way of the future for starfleet ships. So why aren't more recent starfleet designs using this new technology?
Post edited by killdozer9211 on

Comments

  • risingstar2009risingstar2009 Member Posts: 329 Arc User
    edited February 2014
    The Variable Geometry Nacelles were phased out as new warp cores came in to production that didn't harm Subspace at High warp factors.
    Star Trek Battles: For those who want to Play Star Trek Online as it WAS MEANT TO BE!!!

    Our Battles
  • kimmymkimmym Member Posts: 1,317 Arc User
    edited February 2014
    And, as somebody with some experience in the matter...

    Moving parts break. All of them. No exceptions.

    The last thing I want giving out under stress is my wonky, too gidgitty for its own good warp pylon...
    I once again match my character. Behold the power of PINK!
    kimmym_5664.jpg
    Fleet Admiral Space Orphidian Possiblities Wizard
  • maxvitormaxvitor Member Posts: 2,213 Arc User
    edited February 2014
    kimmym wrote: »
    And, as somebody with some experience in the matter...

    Moving parts break. All of them. No exceptions.

    The last thing I want giving out under stress is my wonky, too gidgitty for its own good warp pylon...
    Maintenance would be a headache, does anyone have 5,000 gallons of 3in1 oil for these hinges?
    Even with Voyager the gimmick seemed kind of pointless, unless having the nacelles in their lowered profile somehow made the ship more aerodynamic for landing. I could see the point of it on a test bed vehicle or warp sciences research ship but not on a ship of the line and whose to say there isn't a bit of flex in those pylons on existing ships to allow for a little fine tuning, we know that they are all held together by various forcefields anyway, turn those off and our pretty ships would flop around like half inflated balloons.
    If something is not broken, don't fix it, if it is broken, don't leave it broken.
    Oh Hell NO to ARC
  • autumnturningautumnturning Member Posts: 743 Arc User
    edited February 2014
    killdozer9211 wrote: »
    So why aren't more recent starfleet designs using this new technology?

    It's gimmicky and takes more work to design (and maintain!).

    Transforming is an anime thing, not a Star Trek (ships) thing.
    THE Balanced Budget Build
    Protonic Kool-Aid Down The Drain Cruiser
    Immortal BOff Skills combo for Ground
    LcCKduA.gif
  • killdozer9211killdozer9211 Member Posts: 920 Arc User
    edited February 2014
    All more or less valid points. It just saddens me to see such a cool innovation in the trek universe abandoned after only one representation in canon. And it's just nifty. I'm a big fan of the F-14, so a variable geometry ship is really cool to me.
  • charon2charon2 Member Posts: 52 Arc User
    edited February 2014
    maxvitor wrote: »
    and whose to say there isn't a bit of flex in those pylons on existing ships to allow for a little fine tuning, we know that they are all held together by various forcefields anyway, turn those off and our pretty ships would flop around like half inflated balloons.

    very true, i never thought of that...

    except for the Excelsior class. they are mostly giant solid parts instead of a massive collection of sub assemblies, and very different from most other ships from a manufacturing and construction perspective. (also very expensive for its size to build, partially for the aforementioned manufacturing reasons, partially because it has a very large warp core for its size.)
  • starsword1989starsword1989 Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited February 2014
    killdozer9211 wrote: »
    All more or less valid points. It just saddens me to see such a cool innovation in the trek universe abandoned after only one representation in canon. And it's just nifty. I'm a big fan of the F-14, so a variable geometry ship is really cool to me.

    ^
    Exactly my sentiments
    but sadly like the F14, such a technology is deemed redundant
  • alfamegaalfamega Member Posts: 268 Arc User
    edited February 2014
    kimmym wrote: »
    Moving parts break. All of them. No exceptions.
    well, while its certainly true we do drive on wheels, not on on ski, not on sleigh...
  • lasoniolasonio Member Posts: 490 Arc User
    edited February 2014
    wouldn't breaking parts depend on friction? And with no friction from air or gravity can moving parts actually break? I always looked at it like a perfect gyroscope. I don't think those would break if built correctly.
    Even god rested. No work ethic.
  • steamwrightsteamwright Member Posts: 2,820
    edited February 2014
    Variable geometry pylons...Nothing like a few seconds of telegraphing to your enemy what your ship's next move will be.
  • whitewinged7whitewinged7 Member Posts: 86 Arc User
    edited February 2014
    steamwright wrote: »
    Variable geometry pylons...Nothing like a few seconds of telegraphing to your enemy what your ship's next move will be.

    well I think sensors pretty much do that already.

    Worf knew well ahead of time when someone was charging weapons or spinning up the warp core
  • variant37variant37 Member Posts: 867 Arc User
    edited February 2014
    autumnturning wrote: »
    Transforming is an anime thing, not a Star Trek (ships) thing.

    Tell that to the new Dyson ships.
  • sirokksirokk Member Posts: 990 Arc User
    edited February 2014
    kimmym wrote: »
    And, as somebody with some experience in the matter...

    Moving parts break. All of them. No exceptions.

    The last thing I want giving out under stress is my wonky, too gidgitty for its own good warp pylon...

    It's bad enough when I can only get the saucer-section of my Galaxy to dock back in half the time.

    One time I had to get some Red Shirts to get out and help it in... in retrospect, that was a bad idea right from the beginning. ;)
    Star Trek Battles Channel - Play Star Trek like they did in the series!Avatar: pinterest-com/pin/14003448816884219Are you sure it isn't time for a "colorful metaphor"? --Spock in 'The Voyage Home'
    SCE ADVISORY NOTICE: Improper Impulse Engine maintenance can result in REAR THRUSTER LEAKAGE. ALWAYS have your work inspected by another qualified officer.
  • starswordcstarswordc Member Posts: 10,965 Arc User
    edited February 2014
    lasonio wrote: »
    wouldn't breaking parts depend on friction? And with no friction from air or gravity can moving parts actually break? I always looked at it like a perfect gyroscope. I don't think those would break if built correctly.

    Come back after retaking basic physics. Unless handwaved with applied phlebotinum, friction is inherent to all motion of one piece of matter against another. Lubricants and ball bearings and maglev and so forth just change the type of friction you're dealing with.
    "Great War! / And I cannot take more! / Great tour! / I keep on marching on / I play the great score / There will be no encore / Great War! / The War to End All Wars"
    — Sabaton, "Great War"
    VZ9ASdg.png

    Check out https://unitedfederationofpla.net/s/
  • davidwforddavidwford Member Posts: 1,836 Arc User
    edited February 2014
    lasonio wrote: »
    wouldn't breaking parts depend on friction? And with no friction from air or gravity can moving parts actually break? I always looked at it like a perfect gyroscope. I don't think those would break if built correctly.
    starswordc wrote: »
    Come back after retaking basic physics. Unless handwaved with applied phlebotinum, friction is inherent to all motion of one piece of matter against another. Lubricants and ball bearings and maglev and so forth just change the type of friction you're dealing with.

    I think she means that the hinge point itself is where the friction is. Think of a squeaking door hinge. It is not the air that causes it to grind, but the metal on metal. Same with oil in the motor engine. It is the metal on metal, when not properly lubricated causes the most damage and wear on the parts.
  • kestrelliuskestrellius Member Posts: 462 Arc User
    edited February 2014
    Obviously you must construct additional ones, OP.

    As for the actual topic at hand: yeah, it has less to do with friction and more to do with stress. Turning at speeds beyond C would do quite a number on just about anything.
  • zathri83zathri83 Member Posts: 514 Arc User
    edited February 2014
    Mining more minerals is also advisable.
  • wakerobertswakeroberts Member Posts: 121 Arc User
    edited February 2014
    Speaking of which... the pylons on the Intrepid in game are broken. They aren't up in sector space.
  • farmallmfarmallm Member Posts: 4,630 Arc User
    edited February 2014
    I'm sure they was a huge weak link in the ship design. If I was attacking the ship. Soon as shields dropped that would be my first target to hit. Right in that hinge area. That would make the ship incapable of warp until repaired. Then it would be an easy target since it couldn't warp to escape.
    Enterprise%20C_zpsrdrf3v8d.jpg

    USS Casinghead NCC 92047 launched 2350
    Fleet Admiral Stowe - Dominion War Vet.
Sign In or Register to comment.