And as to previous successes, critics point out that for every successful design there are dozens that were either so obviously flawed they could never get the funding, got the funding but were stillborn, or were built and launched but were greatly disappointing. They continue that though individual components need not be designed, repurposing and integrating them into a new configuration eats up whatever time and expense is saved. Opponents argue that though such vessels might be cheaper to design and build, the result is a vessel whose capabilities are considerably less than one specially designed for the role. Proponents of this design methodology can point to various successes: the Heiwa, Spicio, Rememdium and Traho classes, for example. The logic behind these attempts is that such components are proven, reliable, off-the-shelf technology that can be cheaply reused with little development cost, a quick turn around and a high rate of success. I hope y'all enjoy.Įarth and Star Fleet naval design history are filled with attempts -often failed- to take components from a successful vessel and rearrange & reconfigure them into a new vessel meant to fulfill a different role than its parent.
I have no intention of writing anything else in this line but I did want to share it with someone. However, understanding the babble is not required to understand what's going on. It gets a bit treknobabble in the middle, so be warned. Below is something I wrote for the fun of it: A description of the TOS Pioneer Class in the style of the Starfleet Museum website.
0 kommentar(er)
