Page 12 of 21

Re: Galaxy Class Capability

Posted: Wed Feb 04, 2009 1:51 pm
by Sionnach Glic
Of course S&E facilities are important. On whips that are designed to undertake such missions.
If a ship's function is to guard a system or base from attacking enemy ships, it has no need for large and wasteful laboratory equipment.

As such, labs make perfect sense for an explorer ship. For a ship designed to be in the midst of battle, not so much.

Going back a bit:
[quote"Atek"]No no putting the high explosive stuff close to the surface so that it might explode "away" from the ship is a sensible approach similar to the munition storage on mbt's [/quote]

Your idea has merit, but there's also a problem. The AM pods contain enough power to blast the ship apart even if they were located outside the hull. Thus any breach of them will result in the destruction or crippling of the entire ship. Therefore, it'd be far safer to have them located inside the ship, perhaps with a chute or tube that can fire them out of the ship if they start to overload.
If the AM storage was the reason for the destruction I do not know but looking at the picture I tend to dismiss this, the damaged area does not seem to reach that far. On the other hand you can never exclude this possibility as secondary effect.
Although the hull itself only suffered minor damage, the blast itself probably extended quite a bit back into the ship, as there would have been little to stop the explosive effects once the armoured hull is gone.
As I stated the AM storage pods are probably designed to explode AWAY from the ship but having a massive hull breach the armoured deck protecting the ship from an AM explosion was probably damaged which lead to the explosion reaching inner decks.....etc.... .
That's the likely cause, I agree.
It is very unfortunatly but not a design fault.
Given that the pods were still able to destroy the ship in that placement, there's no point in placing them there where they can be hit even easier. Ergo, design flaw.
Compared to Defiant, Intrepid and yes Sovereign I think the Galaxy is the most well thought out design which suffers more heavy than any other ship from "bad" writing. They obviously though they need to show the audience how badass the villain of the week is by threaten to or blow up the strongest fed ship. Having done this repeadatly it is small wonder that this ship class suffers a rather bad reputation which is truly sad since it is not only the most capable ships but also one of the most beautiful ever designed for trek
While that works for an out-of-universe explaination, it doesn't explain it in-universe.
Obviously, the GCS was meant to be a great ship that could do anything and was incredibly powerful. Unfortunately, the fact that they put it in so many dangerous situations that can only be explained in-universe by mass stupidity on behalf of the designers leads us to the conclusion that the ship is incredibly flawed. While not intentional, that's what the writers have nonetheless done to the ship.

Re: Galaxy Class Capability

Posted: Wed Feb 04, 2009 2:00 pm
by m52nickerson
Rochey wrote:While that works for an out-of-universe explaination, it doesn't explain it in-universe.
Obviously, the GCS was meant to be a great ship that could do anything and was incredibly powerful. Unfortunately, the fact that they put it in so many dangerous situations that can only be explained in-universe by mass stupidity on behalf of the designers leads us to the conclusion that the ship is incredibly flawed. While not intentional, that's what the writers have nonetheless done to the ship.
Of all the missions for all the Galaxy class starship what % of missions were known dangerous before hand?

Re: Galaxy Class Capability

Posted: Wed Feb 04, 2009 2:03 pm
by Sionnach Glic
I was talking about the writers with their constant use of the Exploding Warp Core of Doom.

Re: Galaxy Class Capability

Posted: Wed Feb 04, 2009 2:05 pm
by m52nickerson
m52nickerson wrote:
Rochey wrote:While that works for an out-of-universe explaination, it doesn't explain it in-universe.
Obviously, the GCS was meant to be a great ship that could do anything and was incredibly powerful. Unfortunately, the fact that they put it in so many dangerous situations that can only be explained in-universe by mass stupidity on behalf of the designers leads us to the conclusion that the ship is incredibly flawed. While not intentional, that's what the writers have nonetheless done to the ship.
Of all the missions for all the Galaxy class starship what % of missions were known dangerous before hand?
Given that the pods were still able to destroy the ship in that placement, there's no point in placing them there where they can be hit even easier. Ergo, design flaw.
You can also consider how the tanks were used. There are set very near the place were the AM is injected into the warp core. If you moved the pods you will now have a much longer injection line, and the need to maintain containment on that line.

Re: Galaxy Class Capability

Posted: Wed Feb 04, 2009 2:07 pm
by m52nickerson
Rochey wrote:I was talking about the writers with their constant use of the Exploding Warp Core of Doom.
....and I was talking about in-universe. You are focusing on just a few ships in the class and just a few missions and making it sound like all the Galaxy classes were constantly put into dangerous situations when there is nothing to back that up.

Re: Galaxy Class Capability

Posted: Wed Feb 04, 2009 3:25 pm
by Mikey
m52nickerson wrote:Of all the missions for all the Galaxy class starship what % of missions were known dangerous before hand?
I know that this isn't what you're saying, but that statement easily leads to the following obvious fallacy:
"Since there is only a possibility, not probability, of danger, we shouldn't design the ship to handle such danger."

As to functionality - almost every 'Trek ship we've seen has been functional. It would have been better to say that most 'Trek ships aren't designed purely around functionality - that their form doesn't follow function only. While I've been on the other side of the argument that ships should be built as well as possible, not just "well enough," I for one really wouldn't want to see a 'Trek universe full of Defiants. I like the idea of an aesthetic sense going into the design of the ships, even if there are IU Trek-nobabble reasons for doing things as they are.

Re: Galaxy Class Capability

Posted: Wed Feb 04, 2009 4:26 pm
by Aaron
m52nickerson wrote:
Keywords in your post "purpose built science vessel".
Seeing as your objecting to people wanting purpose built warships I fail to see your point.

Re: Galaxy Class Capability

Posted: Wed Feb 04, 2009 5:10 pm
by Kevsha
Okay, to clarify what i said.

All af the ships in Star Trek follow a geleral design theme. when i said they don't seem functional that was really an out of universe observation. for example the tos constitution.... there is alit of weight on that ship supported by not alot of matirial. the curvature of the saucer section was not an efficient use of space. but that is what has separated Star Trek ships from every other ship in every other sci-fi show. .but the nature of the design of ships does not seem terribly effecteve (obviously it is in the show) but if ships like the defiant and sabre classes can be built with the nacells intigral to the primary hull can be built it seems as if it would be a good idea. the soveriegn overcomes these previous pitfalls very well.

Again the galaxy is my favorate class of ship. the writers putting the E-D in peril every episode does not dissuade me from likeing it. In the dominion wars we never see one of these ships destroyed. the Galaxy is a very impessive design and i think had she been fitted for war been an exellent battleship. but it was not riffed for war, it was an exploritory ship... we see the Galaxy is more than capable of taking on multiple ships and has a high surfivability. in the DS9 episode where they assault the chintoka system one of the cardassian orbitals scores a hit on the unshielded belly of a Galaxy and seems to tear a hole in it near the antimatter containment pods, the ship does not go up like a ford pinto.

the galaxy class seems a great design for what it was. an explorer with firepower.

but there really is not point because in arguing this much because there is no way to prove anything. i think it makes sense that the antimatter pods be where there are for ease of ejection, and ease of moving it to the warp core. the galaxy is imo a more sound design than the contitution maint because its bulk means less natural stress points on the hull (the very thin neck, the very thin nacelle pylons, the torpedo "pod" fully exposed)

lets look at the E-E:

Image
the m/am pods are as close as possible to the bottom of the warp core. and on the later refit sovies din't they pit a photon launcher down there... that would make it a somewhat prime target area in a fire fight. and then the would hope that enemy eapons fire would cook off any secondary explosions form the photons and detonate them next to the m/am storage pods... not that they would have to since you can practicaly cripple the ship by firing a hand phaser into the deflector dish :confused:

even naval warships of today, a lucky hit to the magazines by a shell/missle/bomb/ and you can kiss that ship goodnight

i've read through everything and i haven't really seen a good arguement as to why the galaxy class is a bad design asside from poor writing. what we chose to ignore on the shows at times flawed plot line and what we pay attention to is a matter of opinion. the galaxy class was the pride of starfleet. the E-D being of the initial run may have suffered somewhat in working the bugs but i still think its one of the more effective designes fielded by starfleet

Re: Galaxy Class Capability

Posted: Wed Feb 04, 2009 6:06 pm
by Deepcrush
The problem you're having is your are trying to use the OOU reason to define an IU answer. You can't do that.

Re: Galaxy Class Capability

Posted: Wed Feb 04, 2009 6:09 pm
by Mikey
Right. As much as the GCS shouldn't have had the problems it did, or that the number and type of problems were unrealistic and due to a foolish OOU error, IU they did happen.

Re: Galaxy Class Capability

Posted: Wed Feb 04, 2009 6:12 pm
by Deepcrush
Most of the problems that happened came from the Warp Core or Necelles. We can, from that figure that it was a faulty design that was later fixed on newer classes and maybe even on the DW refitted GCS.

Re: Galaxy Class Capability

Posted: Wed Feb 04, 2009 7:13 pm
by Atekimogus
Rochey wrote:Your idea has merit, but there's also a problem. The AM pods contain enough power to blast the ship apart even if they were located outside the hull. Thus any breach of them will result in the destruction or crippling of the entire ship. Therefore, it'd be far safer to have them located inside the ship, perhaps with a chute or tube that can fire them out of the ship if they start to overload.
Well, the magazine of a mbt is enough to destroy the tank. Since the explosion follows the least resistance the blast doors on top of the magazine are designed to provide that and therefore they would explode away from the tank. (Given that the access door inside the turret is not damaged).

The AM pods may contain enough power to blast the ship but if you place them near the outside you may contain this effect by providing the smallest resitence to the explosion in the direction away from the ship or in star trek termini I bet the have all kinds of force fields reinforcing the deck directly above those pods. If one malfunctions most energy would be directed into space. Sure, the ship is crippled but not destroyed and it is far more easily containing this situation than if the pods would be surrounded by a lot of ship and not just one outer layer of hull.
Given that the pods were still able to destroy the ship in that placement, there's no point in placing them there where they can be hit even easier. Ergo, design flaw.
Following your logic every ship every sunk has some inhernt design flaw. What about the titanic, the hood, the bismarck? You cannot build a ship which is prove against anything. You barley manage almost anything and even then a lucky hit in the magazine or the rudder or a few centimeters to much damage from an iceberg........ce la vie.

Or to use my MBT example. Having blast doors on top of the turret is great if the magazine goes up. If the magazine door inside the turret is open at that point or damaged the blast door is useless. That does not mean the design is flawed and if you go up because of one unlucky hit than that is just bad luck. (Are the borg cubes a flawed design because one ship in the whole universe managed to destroy one with a lucky computer virus?)
While that works for an out-of-universe explaination, it doesn't explain it in-universe.
Yes I admit that is true, I was talking more from an oou standpoint. I look at they stuff they developed for the galaxy, the creative potential flown into that design and compare it to the two cent cgi ships they do nowadays and I stand by my statement that this class is the most well thought out design of star trek.

Re: Galaxy Class Capability

Posted: Wed Feb 04, 2009 7:23 pm
by Atekimogus
Cpl Kendall wrote:
m52nickerson wrote:
For some on these forums that is all that they measure a ship by. Science labs, diplomatic facilities, ect are just wasteful when you could have put more guns on it.
That is quite false and I suspect you know that. There have been more than a few statements made on this forum that people have no problem with a purpose built science vessel.

This stems mainly I guess from the quite false feeling that space is not big and you can travel from one end of the federation to the other in 5 minutes maximum.

But in truth during normal operations you are alone. One little ship with the next one at least a few hours if not days away from you. Therefore the starfleet approach successful since the Constitutions makes a great deal of sense to me.

I am absolutely positve no fan of "purpose built" vessels in starfleet. What happens to the purpose built defiants after the war? You cannot refit them into science or diplomacy vessels because they are to small. You may use them for escort dutys for a while but the truth is at the time of the next major emergency where the federation is in use of a purpose built warship they are probably out of date.

Now compare to the galaxy class. Just deactivating a few labs, rerouting a bit of technobabble from there to here and with a bit of shacking up the crew Captain Jelico turned the Enterprise D from a science/diplomacy vessel into a warship driving off a whole cardassian fleet, now that is flexibility. (Did I mention that they didn't even visit a space dock? Now I really know why we see no galaxy bite the dust during the DW :twisted: )

No my friend, in space with this huge distances imho flexibility is top!

Re: Galaxy Class Capability

Posted: Wed Feb 04, 2009 7:27 pm
by Aaron
Atekimogus wrote:
This stems mainly I guess from the quite false feeling that space is not big and you can travel from one end of the federation to the other in 5 minutes maximum.

But in truth during normal operations you are alone. One little ship with the next one at least a few hours if not days away from you. Therefore the starfleet approach successful since the Constitutions makes a great deal of sense to me.

I am absolutely positve no fan of "purpose built" vessels in starfleet. What happens to the purpose built defiants after the war? You cannot refit them into science or diplomacy vessels because they are to small. You may use them for escort dutys for a while but the truth is at the time of the next major emergency where the federation is in use of a purpose built warship they are probably out of date.

Now compare to the galaxy class. Just deactivating a few labs, rerouting a bit of technobabble from there to here and with a bit of shacking up the crew Captain Jelico turned the Enterprise D from a science/diplomacy vessel into a warship driving off a whole cardassian fleet, now that is flexibility. (Did I mention that they didn't even visit a space dock? Now I really know why we see no galaxy bite the dust during the DW :twisted: )

No my friend, in space with this huge distances imho flexibility is top!
You just keep the Defiant class ships stationed near hot spots, major planets and starbases. We know that the Federation has enemies other than the Dominion, there will always be a need for warships.

Re: Galaxy Class Capability

Posted: Wed Feb 04, 2009 7:28 pm
by Captain Seafort
Atekimogus wrote:The AM pods may contain enough power to blast the ship but if you place them near the outside you may contain this effect by providing the smallest resitence to the explosion in the direction away from the ship or in star trek termini I bet the have all kinds of force fields reinforcing the deck directly above those pods. If one malfunctions most energy would be directed into space. Sure, the ship is crippled but not destroyed and it is far more easily containing this situation than if the pods would be surrounded by a lot of ship and not just one outer layer of hull.
Poor analogy. Even if a tank's entire ammunition supply went up, it's nowhere near powerful enough to vapourise the entire vehicle. The GCS fuel supply is. The only way to save the ship if the pod containment fields fail is to get the antimatter well away from the ship, and the systems designed to do so are far too dependant on computer control.
Following your logic every ship every sunk has some inhernt design flaw. What about the titanic, the hood, the bismarck? You cannot build a ship which is prove against anything. You barley manage almost anything and even then a lucky hit in the magazine or the rudder or a few centimeters to much damage from an iceberg........ce la vie.
Titanic, fair enough - she was a passenger ship, not a warship, and her loss was more due to the weather conditions and inexperienced lookouts than design.
Hood was simply unlucky that a shell struck a small patch of upeer belt armour that allowed it a clear path to the magazine.
Bismarck's loss was due to bad design - her rudders were horrendously vulnerable to damage.
Are the borg cubes a flawed design because one ship in the whole universe managed to destroy one with a lucky computer virus?
Borg cubes aren't a poor design, but their computer security is absolutely horrendous, as is often the case in Trek.