Re: [Proposed] Century-class Specifications
Posted: Sat Feb 02, 2013 1:01 am
Again, I am not opposed to have a science vessel that is able to protect itself. I never said that science officers had to be "peace loving hippies", even though I have apparently been accused of it. My point is this: even in the future, stuff has to go somewhere. Conservation of mass must be obeyed. If we were to make a ship more heavily geared towards science, it would need things like advanced science labs, hydroponics bays and arboretums, extra computer cores for simulations, larger and more enhanced sensor capabilities. Those things have to go somewhere. You could sacrifice crew, but then who would run these labs? You could lose some shuttlecraft, but those might be useful for getting close to dangerous phenomena or conducting other science missions. You could take out some of the crew amenities and make the ship a little more spartan in design. You could also reduce the armaments. Fewer torpedo magazines and phaser arrays would open up some volume. Or, you could have a bigger ship. My point is, to have more of something, you have to have less of something else, or a bigger body to put it in. Yes, minor adjustments could be made to the ship's size, but you still have to make a concession somewhere for it to be feasibly scaled to the existing models, which is what this ship was meant for.
If we want to have a long range explorer with tons of science equipment and still be well armed, I have no problem with that. Just keep in mind that it needs to be a bigger ship. Even then, you bring in additional problems, like needing a larger crew to run said ship, and the crew quarters to house them. Other mechanical equipment will need to be increased as well, like more space for turbolifts or life support systems. There will likely need to be more transporters for emergency purposes. Larger ships would need larger hulls, which will need larger supports. Yes, there will be more space, but some of that additional space would have to be taken up by things other than what you want to add. Nothing is as simple as just adding it in. There are a lot of engineering factors to consider when designing anything, especially something like a starship. A counter argument is that I'm thinking too realistically for something that is clearly science fiction. But that's what separates us from other fleets. Having our ships grounded in reality makes it seem more real. Sure, we could put hyperdrives and planet busting cannons on all the ships and call it a day. Then no one would be able to mess with the Federation. But that's not realistic. Star Trek is science fiction, not a space opera.
If we want to have a long range explorer with tons of science equipment and still be well armed, I have no problem with that. Just keep in mind that it needs to be a bigger ship. Even then, you bring in additional problems, like needing a larger crew to run said ship, and the crew quarters to house them. Other mechanical equipment will need to be increased as well, like more space for turbolifts or life support systems. There will likely need to be more transporters for emergency purposes. Larger ships would need larger hulls, which will need larger supports. Yes, there will be more space, but some of that additional space would have to be taken up by things other than what you want to add. Nothing is as simple as just adding it in. There are a lot of engineering factors to consider when designing anything, especially something like a starship. A counter argument is that I'm thinking too realistically for something that is clearly science fiction. But that's what separates us from other fleets. Having our ships grounded in reality makes it seem more real. Sure, we could put hyperdrives and planet busting cannons on all the ships and call it a day. Then no one would be able to mess with the Federation. But that's not realistic. Star Trek is science fiction, not a space opera.