www.ditl.org

Since Graham's facts on that ship are but supposition, they are very much open to contest.

SuperSaiyaMan12 wrote:

McAvoy wrote:Warp 7 Ship came from that abomination that I will not speak of. Never said anything about the "The Daedalus class is the new Warp 7 ship." I am still aiming for Warp 5 as the maximum Earth ships can go. The Daedalus would represent strides in propulsion to achieve Warp 5.

The problem with that is that I specified that the NX-class HAS to be used, which is canonically (in both Star Trek canon and this) the first Warp 5 ship class, McAvoy. Not only that, using Graham's stuff, the Daedalus-class is the new Warp 7 ship built to fight the Romulans.

You can't ignore this fact.

I can ignore that the Warp 7 ship is the Daedalus since that is not a fact. I can also ignore that the NX class is the only Warp 5 ship which is not a fact.. The NX class can be the first to achieve Warp 5 but not the last, which is a fact.

its not like we developed ships capable of doing 35 knots, and then suddenly all subsequent ships could do 40 We spend some time at each speed level bettering the technology at said level and making it more efficient before we then make a leap. I reckon the first warp 6 ships started appearing at around 2190/2200. Before that they could go to the high 5.-insert figure- numbers, but not actually breaching the warp 6 barrier.

Reliant121 wrote:its not like we developed ships capable of doing 35 knots, and then suddenly all subsequent ships could do 40 We spend some time at each speed level bettering the technology at said level and making it more efficient before we then make a leap. I reckon the first warp 6 ships started appearing at around 2190/2200. Before that they could go to the high 5.-insert figure- numbers, but not actually breaching the warp 6 barrier.

Actually, not really. Ships jumped in speed, but it was all according to the power plant, hull form and weight. The HMS Dreadnought for example used the turbines over reciprocating engines to go from 17-18 knots to 21 knots. The Invincible class is 25 knots, and subsequent battlecruisers kept on getting faster. Battleships retained the 21 knots because of the standard battle line practice of the day.

If you want to really compare technology from WW1 and WW2, look at the battlecruiser Lexington and the Iowa classes. Both same size, speed and very similar guns, but the iowa much more heavily armored, one extra gun and a tad bit heavier. Both 887-888 feet long, 106-108 feet in beam and both can do 33 knots.

My mistake, conceded.

McAvoy, there's slight problem with your comparison, in water there are a lot of factors, in space, it's meerly bigger engines that make something go faster, so if the Warp 5 engine was the most powerful they had, then Warp 5 would be the fastest it would go.

Not entirely. Reciprocating engines were fitted to battleships towards the end of the 19th century and beginning of the 20th century. The biggest advantage they had was that they burned less fuel at cruising speed than turbines but eventually that got fixed. But their biggest flaw was that they had a top end power cap of around 40,000 IHP whereas turbines can go as high as 300,000 SHP or as much as the propeller shafts can handle. Reciprocating engines also happen to be a maintaince nightmare, using them at high speed will cause something to break. Steaming at full speed for several hours would damage the engines enough that drydock work was required. Turbines on the other hand could do maintain full speed as long as there was fuel.

Also, marine engines also heavily depended on the boilers as well, durability, how high the temperature, and the how high the pressure was inside each boiler will directly contribute to how fast the ship can go. Fuel was another thing as coal required stokers who are men who cannot maintain several hours of shoveling coal without a break. Coal was also dirty and had low end energy per pound whereas oil fixed most of these problems. Boilers also will give the ship's range as well. That's why nuclear reactors give ship's their incredible range because after all the nuclear reactors are overly complicated boilers that provide steam to the turbines, but they also reduce the speed of a aircraft carrier by a knot or so. Coventional carriers are 31 to 32 knots, whereas the Nimitz class can only do 30 to 31 knots, only the Enteprise can do around 32 knots because of her hull shape and is lighter than a Nimiz class.

McAvoy wrote:Not entirely. Reciprocating engines were fitted to battleships towards the end of the 19th century and beginning of the 20th century. The biggest advantage they had was that they burned less fuel at cruising speed than turbines but eventually that got fixed. But their biggest flaw was that they had a top end power cap of around 40,000 IHP whereas turbines can go as high as 300,000 SHP or as much as the propeller shafts can handle. Reciprocating engines also happen to be a maintaince nightmare, using them at high speed will cause something to break. Steaming at full speed for several hours would damage the engines enough that drydock work was required. Turbines on the other hand could do maintain full speed as long as there was fuel.

Also, marine engines also heavily depended on the boilers as well, durability, how high the temperature, and the how high the pressure was inside each boiler will directly contribute to how fast the ship can go. Fuel was another thing as coal required stokers who are men who cannot maintain several hours of shoveling coal without a break. Coal was also dirty and had low end energy per pound whereas oil fixed most of these problems. Boilers also will give the ship's range as well. That's why nuclear reactors give ship's their incredible range because after all the nuclear reactors are overly complicated boilers that provide steam to the turbines, but they also reduce the speed of a aircraft carrier by a knot or so. Coventional carriers are 31 to 32 knots, whereas the Nimitz class can only do 30 to 31 knots, only the Enteprise can do around 32 knots because of her hull shape and is lighter than a Nimiz class.

OK, but in space hull configuration doesn't matter nearly enough to change anything. So it's all about the engines... I don't see the correlation between what I was saying and what you just said, I really don't.

Nickswitz wrote:

McAvoy wrote:Not entirely. Reciprocating engines were fitted to battleships towards the end of the 19th century and beginning of the 20th century. The biggest advantage they had was that they burned less fuel at cruising speed than turbines but eventually that got fixed. But their biggest flaw was that they had a top end power cap of around 40,000 IHP whereas turbines can go as high as 300,000 SHP or as much as the propeller shafts can handle. Reciprocating engines also happen to be a maintaince nightmare, using them at high speed will cause something to break. Steaming at full speed for several hours would damage the engines enough that drydock work was required. Turbines on the other hand could do maintain full speed as long as there was fuel.

Also, marine engines also heavily depended on the boilers as well, durability, how high the temperature, and the how high the pressure was inside each boiler will directly contribute to how fast the ship can go. Fuel was another thing as coal required stokers who are men who cannot maintain several hours of shoveling coal without a break. Coal was also dirty and had low end energy per pound whereas oil fixed most of these problems. Boilers also will give the ship's range as well. That's why nuclear reactors give ship's their incredible range because after all the nuclear reactors are overly complicated boilers that provide steam to the turbines, but they also reduce the speed of a aircraft carrier by a knot or so. Coventional carriers are 31 to 32 knots, whereas the Nimitz class can only do 30 to 31 knots, only the Enteprise can do around 32 knots because of her hull shape and is lighter than a Nimiz class.

OK, but in space hull configuration doesn't matter nearly enough to change anything. So it's all about the engines... I don't see the correlation between what I was saying and what you just said, I really don't.

I think he's trying to get across that power isn't the only issue but that reliability is also critical. Not that great if you can make Warp 5 for 5 minutes.

Personally I think the big deal with the Warp FIve engine wasn't that it was going to get them to Warp Five but that they where trying to jump from the Warp Two area to Warp Five without the technological progression.

Ahhhhh, now I get it, I understand, yes, reliability is key, true.

Why bother with reliable. We have the GCS as a milestone.

And what an excellent milestone she is.

BTW, the waterwater hull form right around that time was just started to be understood. The British started experimenting with basin models in the 1880's. Alot of people think those ram bows they see in WW1 are actually ram bows but in reality they're bulbous bows meant for cutting through the water more effectively. The British had probably the most efficient hull forms in the world and the US had the most efficient and powerful engines in the world. Too bad they never combined the two.

Anyway, I agree. The NX class never was able to achieve Warp 5 for long. This is probably the best thing about the Akiraprise.