www.ditl.org

m52nickerson wrote:What we see in the episode points to the YE E-D's weapons being more powerful.

Evidence?

Yes it is, as fare as both suffered from the failure of multiply safeguards and were destroyed.

The Hood was lost because it was hit in the magazine (i.e. full of things that are meant to go bang).

The E-D suffered damage to a reactor (i.e. something that is not meant to go bang).

No real ship has ever been destroyed by a reactor explosion. No competently designed and operated reactor has ever exploded. Therefore the two are in no way comparable.

We see in multiple other episodes that Klingon ships can take a good amount of damage. In a time line which the Klingon had been at war for 80 years it is ridiculous to think that those ships were weaker the the ships found in the normal time line. That again supports that idea that the Enterprises weapons were more powerful.

I didn't say "repeat your opinion". I said "prove it".

...and a smaller ship can afford to mount more armor and a denser thicker hull because it does not have those extra stresses from size. Plus we know that the Defiant had better armor then the Enterprise when it was destroyed.

That only narrows the gap between the Defiant and the GCS. It does not comes close to eliminating it.

Captain Seafort wrote: Evidence?

See my last post!

The Hood was lost because it was hit in the magazine (i.e. full of things that are meant to go bang).

Warp Core with a cooling system goes bang too, did you have a point?

The E-D suffered damage to a reactor (i.e. something that is not meant to go bang).

No real ship has ever been destroyed by a reactor explosion. No competently designed and operated reactor has ever exploded. Therefore the two are in no way comparable.

No real ship has ever had a warp core or carried anti-matter!

I didn't say "repeat your opinion". I said "prove it".

I presented evidence, now can you do the same? There is no reason to believe the in that alternate time line the ships weapons systems would be the same. So yours is not the default position.

That only narrows the gap between the Defiant and the GCS. It does not comes close to eliminating it.

Narrow gap as far as? Armor, no not really the ablative armor was a large step above what the enterprise was outfitted with.

Warp Core with a cooling system goes bang too, did you have a point?

There is a difference between ammo (shells / phasers) and engine power (warp core / nuke plants). That was the point. E-D isn't lost to weapons going up. It's constantly lost to core breach. That would be the same as every US Carrier lost to being from a power plant going boom. You can't say that either are the same.

No real ship has ever had a warp core or carried anti-matter!

There have been ships lost due to power plant damage.

I presented evidence, now can you do the same? There is no reason to believe the in that alternate time line the ships weapons systems would be the same. So yours is not the default position.

You're stating that a ship with no signs of change is in fact changed. You have to prove why. You can't tell someone else they have to prove something hasn't changed. If there is something different, you have to show it. There is not default position in a debate. There is only the status quo and the person speaking against it. You are the one against it so you are the one who has to prove your point, not the other way around.

Narrow gap as far as? Armor, no not really the ablative armor was a large step above what the enterprise was outfitted with.

How so? What was the scale of difference? Where is your reason that the E-D's armor is so inferior to that of the Defiant? Ablative armor seems to have its uses but to say that the mass of armor can't balance out is silly without evidence.

Deepcrush wrote: There is a difference between ammo (shells / phasers) and engine power (warp core / nuke plants). That was the point. E-D isn't lost to weapons going up. It's constantly lost to core breach. That would be the same as every US Carrier lost to being from a power plant going boom. You can't say that either are the same.

A warp core on a GCS and a weapons magazine on a naval vessel don't have the same function, but when damaged can cause an explosion and destroy the ship.

There have been ships lost due to power plant damage.

Ok.

You're stating that a ship with no signs of change is in fact changed. You have to prove why. You can't tell someone else they have to prove something hasn't changed. If there is something different, you have to show it. There is not default position in a debate. There is only the status quo and the person speaking against it. You are the one against it so you are the one who has to prove your point, not the other way around.

....but we do see changes, the bridge was different, the captains ready room was different, not to mention the crew.

How so? What was the scale of difference? Where is your reason that the E-D's armor is so inferior to that of the Defiant? Ablative armor seems to have its uses but to say that the mass of armor can't balance out is silly without evidence.

How about the fact that they made such a big deal about the armor in DS9. Before the ablative armor on the Defiant I don't think we even hear anything regarding the armor.

m52nickerson wrote:A warp core on a GCS and a weapons magazine on a naval vessel don't have the same function, but when damaged can cause an explosion and destroy the ship.

Exactly - that's how we know the GCS warp core is badly designed. No real life ship (even the early Soviet nuclear submarines) has ever been destroyed by a reactor explosion.

...but we do see changes, the bridge was different, the captains ready room was different, not to mention the crew.

Superficial changes, indicating that the Starfleet of the altered reality has a more military bearing and is therefore better prepared for war from an organisational and doctrinal standpoint. There is nothing to indcate that the ship itself is more powerful.

How about the fact that they made such a big deal about the armor in DS9. Before the ablative armor on the Defiant I don't think we even hear anything regarding the armor.

As I've mentioned, the Defiant's armour means that it's closer to the GCS than it would otherwise be. It's entirely possible that the crew were making a big deal about the Defiant's armour because it made the ship the best protected for its size in Starfleet.

Captain Seafort wrote: Exactly - that's how we know the GCS warp core is badly designed. No real life ship (even the early Soviet nuclear submarines) has ever been destroyed by a reactor explosion.

Federation Warp cores and Nuclear reactors are far different in how they work, you know that whole Anti-matter thing.

Superficial changes, indicating that the Starfleet of the altered reality has a more military bearing and is therefore better prepared for war from an organisational and doctrinal standpoint. There is nothing to indcate that the ship itself is more powerful.

Accept for how it destroyed a Klingon ship with only a few shots. This with what you mentioned gives a good indication that the weapons were more powerful. Even more so when you take into account 80 years of war, necessity is the mother of invention.

As I've mentioned, the Defiant's armour means that it's closer to the GCS than it would otherwise be. It's entirely possible that the crew were making a big deal about the Defiant's armour because it made the ship the best protected for its size in Starfleet.

Take a plate of armor 3 inches thick and no matter if you are covering a small area or a large area it has the same stopping power, so long as what it is trying to stop is not bigger then the armor plate itself.

m52nickerson wrote:Federation Warp cores and Nuclear reactors are far different in how they work, you know that whole Anti-matter thing.

Yes. How does this change the basic principle?

Accept for how it destroyed a Klingon ship with only a few shots.

So? Since we've never seen the regular E-D take on a B'rel/K'vort in an all-out battle this tells us absolutely nothing.

Even more so when you take into account 80 years of war, necessity is the mother of invention.

Twenty years actually, and as I've said countless times, I'm looking for evidence. Not more of your mindless waffle.

Take a plate of armor 3 inches thick and no matter if you are covering a small area or a large area it has the same stopping power

Correct. However, the point I'm making is that for a battleship 3" plate would be laughably weak. For a destroyer it would constitute extremely heavy armour.

Captain Seafort wrote: Yes. How does this change the basic principle?

Nuclear reactors are used to generate heat, which in-turn used to generate power, a warp cores the power comes from matter, and anti-matter coming in contact and converting both to energy, that energy is used directly by the ship. The use of anti-matter make the warp core infinitely more likely explosions if damaged then a nuclear reactor.

So? Since we've never seen the regular E-D take on a B'rel/K'vort in an all-out battle this tells us absolutely nothing.

...but we have seen those Klingon ships in combat and seen that they hold up better then the ones in the alternate time line.

Twenty years actually, and as I've said countless times, I'm looking for evidence. Not more of your mindless waffle.

Yes, 20, I don't know why I was thinking 80. As before the evidence is how the Klingon ship was destroyed compared to how other Klingon ships have preformed.

Correct. However, the point I'm making is that for a battleship 3" plate would be laughably weak. For a destroyer it would constitute extremely heavy armour.

Absolutely, but GCS were not designed as warships. Plus we know that the ablative armor must have been superior because it was used on other classes like the Sovereign.

m52nickerson wrote:Nuclear reactors are used to generate heat, which in-turn used to generate power, a warp cores the power comes from matter, and anti-matter coming in contact and converting both to energy, that energy is used directly by the ship.

Wrong. The gamma radiation from the core is used to produce high-energy plasma - that's what powers the ship.

The use of anti-matter make the warp core infinitely more likely explosions if damaged then a nuclear reactor.

Not necessarilly. The antimatter in the pods certainly makes the fuel supply iffier, but all that means is that you need a reliable failsafe method of dumping the pods. The core itself shouldn't be a problem, and the fact that a core breach can destroy the ship indicates that they routinely have far too much unreacted antimatter in the core.

...but we have seen those Klingon ships in combat and seen that they hold up better then the ones in the alternate time line.

Source? Details? And evidence that this is due to the YE-GCS having stronger weapons rather than "real" timeline BoPs having stronger shields?

Absolutely, but GCS were not designed as warships.

They're not designed solely as warships, but that's certainly one of their roles.

Plus we know that the ablative armor must have been superior

I'm not disputing that ablative armour is superior to previous technology, what I'm disputing is the claim that the overall protection for the Defiant's warp core is superior to that of the GCS.

because it was used on other classes like the Sovereign.

The only other ship that is canonically known to be equipped with ablative armour is the Prommie. It was never mentioned in connection with the Sov.

Captain Seafort wrote: Wrong. The gamma radiation from the core is used to produce high-energy plasma - that's what powers the ship.

I stand corrected.

Not necessarilly. The antimatter in the pods certainly makes the fuel supply iffier, but all that means is that you need a reliable failsafe method of dumping the pods. The core itself shouldn't be a problem, and the fact that a core breach can destroy the ship indicates that they routinely have far too much unreacted antimatter in the core.

I don't know about two much, but there is unreacted anti-matter in the partial streams before reaching the reaction chamber.

Source? Details? And evidence that this is due to the YE-GCS having stronger weapons rather than "real" timeline BoPs having stronger shields?

BOPs in the normal time line may have stronger shields, or the YE-GCS may have stronger weapons, no way to tell. The BOP having weaker shields when compared with their normal time line counterparts make less senses because they were in the middle of a war.

I'm not disputing that ablative armour is superior to previous technology, what I'm disputing is the claim that the overall protection for the Defiant's warp core is superior to that of the GCS.

That's the thing, the superior armor would have offered more overall protection. It is not like standard bulkheads will stand up very long after the armor is gone.

m52nickerson wrote:I don't know about two much, but there is unreacted anti-matter in the partial streams before reaching the reaction chamber.

Agreed - that's probably where the problem lies.

The BOP having weaker shields when compared with their normal time line counterparts make less senses because they were in the middle of a war.

It depends - it could well be that the main timeline BoPs were superior because they could be built in relatively slow time, to high standards, whereas the YE-timeline ones were being rushed out with corners being cut to replace losses.

That's the thing, the superior armor would have offered more overall protection. It is not like standard bulkheads will stand up very long after the armor is gone.

The armour would certainly have stood up better than the standard hull, but once you're through the hull, you'restraight into teh Defiant's engine room. On the GCS you'd have dozens of metres of superstructure to get through before you reached it, which the Duras sisters' torps, damaging though they were, clearly didn't do.

Captain Seafort wrote:The only other ship that is canonically known to be equipped with ablative armour is the Prommie. It was never mentioned in connection with the Sov.

And the USS Lakota. Given how easy it seemed to be to refit the defiant on a frontier deep space station and a 80 year old design one might even speculate that somewhere around this time ALL ships were fitted with ablative armour. One might further speculate that the most important and most expensive ships of the federation would stand higher on the refit list than an old Excelsior.....but as I said that is just speculation.

To be frank I do not really see why they make so much fuss about it since noone knows how much better it is in the end compared to "normal" armour.
I for one would not be surprised if in a few years they didn't even fit it on ships anymore because a way was found to largley negate the effect of this type of armour.

m52nickerson wrote:Take a plate of armor 3 inches thick and no matter if you are covering a small area or a large area it has the same stopping power, so long as what it is trying to stop is not bigger then the armor plate itself.

I think what he might mean is in terms of surface area vs mass.

I.e. take two ships, one 100 meters long, and the other 200 meters long. I amassuming that other than the length, the density and outside shape/dimensions are identical. Basically the second ship is twice as wide, tall, and long as the first. As a result, the larger ship has 8 times the volume, and 8 times the mass.

However, the larger ship only has 4 times the surface area, meaning that if the smaller ship can put 3 inches of armor on every surface, the larger ship can put 6 inches on, for the same mass fraction.


And personally, I'd like to see a story written about the Dominion War where the Galaxies are used as battleships, using their higher capacity shields and thicker armor to take lots of shots from smaller enemy ships, while dealing out punishment to anything enemy in range. Defiants are the little psychopaths, getting in the face of an enemy ship, unloading lots of photons, but forced to retreat due to running out of ammo or getting their shields worn down. They pull back to the Galaxies, get a fresh crate of photons beamed aboard (from the Galaxy class's massive cargo bays), and go back in the fight.

IMNSHO a War Galaxy would be the space going equivalent of a Carrier, a single powerful vessel capable of supporting other escort vessels, while still able to fight effectively by itself. Unfortunately, the other larger vessels fielded by the Dominion, the Romulans, and the Klingons would also fall into this category. The Cardassian warships would be trained to operate as a pack, acceting the loss of one or two ships, to kill the enemy. This gives them a flexibility in fleet engagements (no need to wonder which type of ship you just got reinforced with) and a resilience to casualties (if two formations lose ships, they can be combined and the training will let them fit together with little loss of efficiency). The smaller ships also allow them to cover more volume (to deal with uprisings and pirates), while being built faster than larger vessels (smaller ships could almost reach assembly line construction rates, while needing smaller/simpler shipyards).

Ok ok ok.....

So we are now comparing the Warp Core breach to today's ammunition exploding... well this apple sure is delicious but the orange has alot of pulp.

Then we keep bringing up yesterday's E-D. your right seafort there is nothing to prove that the weapons are stronger... bout there is nothing to prove that they aren't either. there is nothing to prove that it has a different warp core... but there is nothing to prove that it doesn't. any arguement backed by that ship goes out the airlock. so i think this ship should just be left out of the arguement

Not necessarilly. The antimatter in the pods certainly makes the fuel supply iffier, but all that means is that you need a reliable failsafe method of dumping the pods. The core itself shouldn't be a problem, and the fact that a core breach can destroy the ship indicates that they routinely have far too much unreacted antimatter in the core.

are we ever given an idea how much AM needs is fed into the chamber at a given time? if the core is breached then the matter already commited to the core is going to react with any and all matter its not suppoed to. the resulting explosion could reach the AM pods before they can be ejected.

Captain Seafort wrote: Exactly - that's how we know the GCS warp core is badly designed. No real life ship (even the early Soviet nuclear submarines) has ever been destroyed by a reactor explosion.

yes and 3 + 49= bar of soap

a modern fision reactor cannpt be compared to a fictitious M/AM reactor. first off, a M/AM reactor seems a bit more volitile due to the fact that one of the reactants acts somewhat negitively to everything it comes in contact with which requires containment fields, more containment fields, backups for the fields, and backups for the backups because if it failes unlike a fision reactor you sont have a uncontroled reaction inside the main reactor you have a uncontroled reaction in your face as the AM spills out into the soft squishy innards of the ship. i'm not going to argue that the GCS has a poorly designed reactor, though its never states in the show, we are going on emperical evidence only. i just don't think it should be compared to modern day reactors.

Kevsha wrote:Then we keep bringing up yesterday's E-D. your right seafort there is nothing to prove that the weapons are stronger... bout there is nothing to prove that they aren't either.

There's no evidence that the alt-E-D is any more technologically advanced or powerful than the "real" one. Therefore, under Occam's Razor we must assume that they're effectively the same ship.

there is nothing to prove that it has a different warp core... but there is nothing to prove that it doesn't.

There is actually - the alt-E-D was destroyed (or about to be destroyed) by a warp core breach brought on by a coolant leak. That was the exact same cause as the WCB that destroyed the E-D over Veridian III.

are we ever given an idea how much AM needs is fed into the chamber at a given time? if the core is breached then the matter already commited to the core is going to react with any and all matter its not suppoed to.

So? If there's only enough antimatter in the core to sustain the reaction, then obviously the energy release will be within the limits of Fed materials and forcefields. Even if the core itself is breached then there should be a containment vessel around it capable of withstanding the release. The fact that WCBs are capable of destroying the ship indicates either that the core has far too much excess reactivity or that there isn't a containment vessel. Either of which demonstrates gross engineering incompetence.

a modern fision reactor cannpt be compared to a fictitious M/AM reactor.

Of course it can - they're both power sources that, if mishandled, can produce a bloody great bang, and a mess.

if it failes unlike a fision reactor you sont have a uncontroled reaction inside the main reactor you have a uncontroled reaction in your face as the AM spills out into the soft squishy innards of the ship

If there's enough antimatter in the core to spill out into the ship, then there's too much of it. There should be so little that it's barely sustaining the reaction, and if the core malfunctions or is damaged, all they have to do is shut off the fuel supply and the reaction will die.