File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
ok, /gif/... let's see who knows their star trek... what class of ship is this?
>> Anonymous
THE SUPER DUPER SPACE RACER 9000
>> Anonymous
>>268098
Nub. This is clearly the 8000 model. The 9000 has a 6" spoiler and gold rims.
>> Cats777 !ZMTjkDFhqY
Fails for lack of a bottom view.
>> Delta
never seen it before, looks like the bastard child of the stargazer, miranda, and something else...
>> Anonymous
Don't you see my motherfuckin' spaceship? This is a Dodge!
>> Anonymous
>>268133

Looks nothing like. Count the number of nacelles for starters.
>> Anonymous
Looks to me kind of like the Challenger class. I believe the only time it's seen is as one of the wrecked ships at Wolf359
>> Anonymous
Anyone have .gif of an Akira class like this?
>> Anonymous
trick question.

obviously this is from the game battletoads, not star trek.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
i'll be damned if that isn't a fan-modded Challenger class. Challenger class has the same nacelle layout (one above and one below the stardrive section), but the stardrive section itself should be connected to the saucer section (see pic). it's kinda sad i know this all off the top of my head AND have thousands of trek photos on my HDD :(
>> Anonymous
>>268137
truth. the Challenger class is briefly seen as wreckage in The Best of Both Worlds Part II in the aftermath of Wolf 359.
>> Anonymous
I love you guys right now. I'm so trek-deprived after voyager and the movies ended
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
It's Star Treks Next Generation version of an Akulu Class
>> Anonymous
>>268224
that's pretty much the worst design ever

>>268277
what the fuck is Akulu Class? you mean AKIRA Class? that's part of the TNG universe canon, ass. SEE: FIRST CONTACT.

>>268222
as am i. i'm eagerly awaiting Star Trek XI, myself. we should make a Trek thread in /tv/ :D
>> Anonymous
>>268224
Type XVIII Phasers? Warp 10+?

Starbases (and Sovereign Class) have Type XII Phasers, the strongest canonical type. Warp 10 is a myth, and yes, I discount the "incident" in Voyager with the Cochrane shuttle that causes Parris and Janeway to "evolve" into lizards. Bullshit. That ship is fucking ugly to boot.
>> Anonymous
>>268224

Warp 10+? Does that mean faster than infinite velocity?!
>> Anonymous
>>268095
PS Star Trek information is totally real and extremely useful guys, you all better be writing this stuff down if you don't know it already
>> Anonymous
>>268316
unless it was designed using the Cochrane scale (which is laughable), yeah. 10+ is an impossible warp factor.
>> Anonymous
>>268316
the warp scale was changed in later centuries..
you fail for not knowing this
>> Anonymous
>>268311
as do you.. again, for not knowing the change in warp scale
>> Anonymous
>>268373

When? You mean some time between original Star Trek and TNG? The asymptotic scale (where warp 10 is infinite) is the NEW system. Are you suggesting somebody has desinged a post-Galaxy class starship model and then displayed its speed in the old format?

The failure is all yours.
>> Anonymous
Good God... Would someone please post a gif involving big tits?
>> Anonymous
>>268374
i was making light of the fact that they aparrently didn't take into account the change from the Cochrane Scale when the warp speed charts were recalibrated. believe me, i'm quite up on my Trek info :)

>>268375
i think they were referring to a lack of knowledge of the switch from Cochrane to Asymptotic scales of warp speeds
>> ssgokuu007
I am aware of the change in warp scale from Original Series to TNG, so one thing confuses me...why are Warp 13 speeds attainable in the Future in "All Good Things..."?
>> Anonymous
>>268520

Continuity error? Different scale used in that alternative future?
>> Anonymous
>>268520
because it isn't actually past Warp 10, what happens is that they simply are able to achieve greater fractions of warp 9, but instead of saying warp 9.999999, they changed the scale to allow warp 10/11/12/13/14 so people don't get confused with infinite 9s
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>268376
>> Anonymous
>>268549
as a part-vulcan myself, i find your insistence on human instincts disturbing. fascinating, nonetheless.
>> Anonymous
>>268555
For us it's less like seven years and more like seven seconds.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)