Federation Battlestar
-
- Fleet Admiral
- Posts: 35635
- Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 3:04 am
- Commendations: The Daystrom Award
- Location: down the shore, New Jersey, USA
- Contact:
Re: Federation Battlestar
Hmm. Well, that's different from stating them to be absolutely.
In that case, though, wouldn't deduction lead to the opposite conclusion? Tyyr could probably say better, but we can deduce that the Sov cores are more powerful than prior ones - wouldn't that higher "top end" usually coincide with an actual drop in efficiency as a percentage?
In that case, though, wouldn't deduction lead to the opposite conclusion? Tyyr could probably say better, but we can deduce that the Sov cores are more powerful than prior ones - wouldn't that higher "top end" usually coincide with an actual drop in efficiency as a percentage?
I can't stand nothing dull
I got the high gloss luster
I'll massacre your ass as fast
as Bull offed Custer
I got the high gloss luster
I'll massacre your ass as fast
as Bull offed Custer
- Deepcrush
- 4 Star Admiral
- Posts: 18917
- Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2007 8:15 pm
- Location: Arnold, Maryland, USA
Re: Federation Battlestar
Fixed for truth.alexmann wrote:Ok. It was mainly speculation, wanking for my wankships.
Jinsei wa cho no yume, shi no tsubasa no bitodesu
-
- Lieutenant Commander
- Posts: 912
- Joined: Fri May 27, 2011 6:52 pm
- Location: I'm in your mind!
Re: Federation Battlestar
Very Funny Deep.
- Deepcrush
- 4 Star Admiral
- Posts: 18917
- Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2007 8:15 pm
- Location: Arnold, Maryland, USA
Re: Federation Battlestar
If it were funny we'd be laughing. As it is, its just really sad.
Jinsei wa cho no yume, shi no tsubasa no bitodesu
-
- Lieutenant Commander
- Posts: 912
- Joined: Fri May 27, 2011 6:52 pm
- Location: I'm in your mind!
Re: Federation Battlestar
I would say like the excelsior but then you would get seriously annoyed. Ill leave it to someone else.
- Deepcrush
- 4 Star Admiral
- Posts: 18917
- Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2007 8:15 pm
- Location: Arnold, Maryland, USA
Re: Federation Battlestar
Then I laugh at you because the only way you can counter someone pointing out your failings is to poke at a fictional ship.
Jinsei wa cho no yume, shi no tsubasa no bitodesu
-
- 3 Star Admiral
- Posts: 10654
- Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 10:49 pm
- Location: Jeri Ryan's Dressing Room, Shhhhh
Re: Federation Battlestar
In most systems making things larger "tends" to be more efficient but that's not set in stone. Machines also tend to have a sweet spot efficiency wise and when you have to move the power output around like you do on a warp drive that's rarely going to be at the top end.In that case, though, wouldn't deduction lead to the opposite conclusion? Tyyr could probably say better, but we can deduce that the Sov cores are more powerful than prior ones - wouldn't that higher "top end" usually coincide with an actual drop in efficiency as a percentage?
I'd say this is a case of we don't really know. You could be reaching higher speeds through efficiency gains freeing up more power to be put into making things go or by just building a bigger core to pump out more juice. We have no way of knowing. Hell, the big coolant towers on either side of the Sov's core might be there because they're pushing the core hard enough that conventional cooling means aren't sufficient.
- BigJKU316
- Captain
- Posts: 1949
- Joined: Wed Nov 04, 2009 4:19 am
- Commendations: The Daystrom Award, Cochrane Medal of Excellence
Re: Federation Battlestar
My assumption has always been this.Tyyr wrote:In most systems making things larger "tends" to be more efficient but that's not set in stone. Machines also tend to have a sweet spot efficiency wise and when you have to move the power output around like you do on a warp drive that's rarely going to be at the top end.In that case, though, wouldn't deduction lead to the opposite conclusion? Tyyr could probably say better, but we can deduce that the Sov cores are more powerful than prior ones - wouldn't that higher "top end" usually coincide with an actual drop in efficiency as a percentage?
I'd say this is a case of we don't really know. You could be reaching higher speeds through efficiency gains freeing up more power to be put into making things go or by just building a bigger core to pump out more juice. We have no way of knowing. Hell, the big coolant towers on either side of the Sov's core might be there because they're pushing the core hard enough that conventional cooling means aren't sufficient.
The more magnetic constrictors you have to focus the AM stream the more efficient the reaction should be. That means the longer a core is the better it should be. I presume there is an exact location you want to have the reaction take place to maximize the useful energy you can extract from it so the more control you have the better. I also assume that within limits you can increase power by just throwing more reactants into the equation and taking a loss of efficiency in the process.
For example at a cruising rate you may get 98% efficiency from the core. But if you jump up to battle standards you might operate at like 50% efficiency but get more power just from dumping in more reactants.
-
- Lieutenant Commander
- Posts: 912
- Joined: Fri May 27, 2011 6:52 pm
- Location: I'm in your mind!
Re: Federation Battlestar
As far as I understand it thats what Graham says. I think you may be right.
- Tholian_Avenger
- Lieutenant jg
- Posts: 356
- Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2008 5:51 am
- Location: Here, just past there.
Re: Federation Battlestar
Topic 1:
In 2154, without any physical connections, the NX-2 Columbia extended and used its warp field to maintain the identical and unpowered NX-1 Enterprise in Warp 5 flight for almost 2 minutes as seen in ENT: Divergence.
In the post-Nemesis Federation, can several of your 720 cubic meter Vipers merge flightpaths with your 1.18 billion cubic meter Battlestar, so to be brought to a velocity greater than Warp 5? If so, your Battlestar could arrive at nonwarp battle with some predeployed Vipers ready to warp burst a short distance to a target.
Topic 2:
The Phaser Arrays seem to have a curved surface, is the Phaser Beam emitted radially at any point along the Array?
Topic 3:
Do you have dimensions on any of the turrets or napkin-sketches of them yet?
Topic 4:
Are you still intending to land your Battlestar to offload your Marine Armored Division? If so, when your Battlestar lands, it is vulnerable to planetary bombardment. There are advesaries in Star Trek willing to wait stealthily and sacrifice much in the process to eliminate a target such as your Battlestar. Instead, consider several 1 million cubic meter embarked troopships for the landings.
The Intrepid's Aeroshuttle, the Galaxy's Yacht, the Soverieng's Yacht, the Scout, and the Runabouts are evidence of sizable embarked spacecraft.
The Holo Ship is able to take an entire village from ground to orbit.
The MVAM Top Prometheus is approximately the same size as the Holoship.
In 2154, without any physical connections, the NX-2 Columbia extended and used its warp field to maintain the identical and unpowered NX-1 Enterprise in Warp 5 flight for almost 2 minutes as seen in ENT: Divergence.
In the post-Nemesis Federation, can several of your 720 cubic meter Vipers merge flightpaths with your 1.18 billion cubic meter Battlestar, so to be brought to a velocity greater than Warp 5? If so, your Battlestar could arrive at nonwarp battle with some predeployed Vipers ready to warp burst a short distance to a target.
Topic 2:
The Phaser Arrays seem to have a curved surface, is the Phaser Beam emitted radially at any point along the Array?
Topic 3:
Do you have dimensions on any of the turrets or napkin-sketches of them yet?
Topic 4:
Are you still intending to land your Battlestar to offload your Marine Armored Division? If so, when your Battlestar lands, it is vulnerable to planetary bombardment. There are advesaries in Star Trek willing to wait stealthily and sacrifice much in the process to eliminate a target such as your Battlestar. Instead, consider several 1 million cubic meter embarked troopships for the landings.
The Intrepid's Aeroshuttle, the Galaxy's Yacht, the Soverieng's Yacht, the Scout, and the Runabouts are evidence of sizable embarked spacecraft.
The Holo Ship is able to take an entire village from ground to orbit.
The MVAM Top Prometheus is approximately the same size as the Holoship.
6 Star Admiral of the Loyal Water Buffaloes and Honorable Turtles
- Deepcrush
- 4 Star Admiral
- Posts: 18917
- Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2007 8:15 pm
- Location: Arnold, Maryland, USA
Re: Federation Battlestar
Also requires extending the shields wide enough to safely enclose the fighters which reduces the effectiveness of the shields. While its not a bad idea, its not really needed for the fighters as the launch tubes are great enough in number to handle traffic quickly plus the pods can extend for mass formation launch landing if absolutely needed.Tholian_Avenger wrote:Topic 1:
In 2154, without any physical connections, the NX-2 Columbia extended and used its warp field to maintain the identical and unpowered NX-1 Enterprise in Warp 5 flight for almost 2 minutes as seen in ENT: Divergence.
In the post-Nemesis Federation, can several of your 720 cubic meter Vipers merge flightpaths with your 1.18 billion cubic meter Battlestar, so to be brought to a velocity greater than Warp 5? If so, your Battlestar could arrive at nonwarp battle with some predeployed Vipers ready to warp burst a short distance to a target.
Which turrets? The smaller combo turrets or the larger cannon turrets? The larger would likely be about 60m as they just need the space to fit the larger guns, however they don't exist in canon the way we plan on them so its up in the air.Tholian_Avenger wrote:Topic 3:
Do you have dimensions on any of the turrets or napkin-sketches of them yet?
Problem is that those smaller transports are far more vulnerable then the Battlestar would be. Also remember that every transport onboard means less space for supplies. Even if someone waits for the Battlestars to land, you're still going to have to defeat their escorts + fighters and then defeat the Battlestars defenses to do anything. All of this within the ten minute window required for a ground landing.Tholian_Avenger wrote:Topic 4:
Are you still intending to land your Battlestar to offload your Marine Armored Division? If so, when your Battlestar lands, it is vulnerable to planetary bombardment. There are advesaries in Star Trek willing to wait stealthily and sacrifice much in the process to eliminate a target such as your Battlestar. Instead, consider several 1 million cubic meter embarked troopships for the landings.
Jinsei wa cho no yume, shi no tsubasa no bitodesu
- Tholian_Avenger
- Lieutenant jg
- Posts: 356
- Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2008 5:51 am
- Location: Here, just past there.
Re: Federation Battlestar
Your Battlestar has a hull hugging shield and then a quilt of projected shields, IIRC. Thus, have the predeployed Vipers reside betwixt the two shields. Graham's first draft shows a good resting place would be between the nacelles.Deepcrush wrote:Also requires extending the shields wide enough to safely enclose the fighters which reduces the effectiveness of the shields.
All turret designs being used on your Battlestar.Which turrets?
Deep, my friend, exactly which Federation vessel would be more rugged than your Battlestar? Perhaps if Nomad himself turret mounted Planet Killers on the Whale Probe...Problem is that those smaller transports are far more vulnerable then the Battlestar would be.
Admittedly, this seems less of an issue to me in a replicator economy.Also remember that every transport onboard means less space for supplies.
Sincerely.
Last edited by Tholian_Avenger on Sat Jun 04, 2011 1:06 am, edited 1 time in total.
6 Star Admiral of the Loyal Water Buffaloes and Honorable Turtles
- Captain Seafort
- 4 Star Admiral
- Posts: 15548
- Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 1:44 pm
- Location: Blighty
Re: Federation Battlestar
Don't forget that replicators don't eliminate the requirement for storage space - they simply reduce the need for specific types of space. Not only do you still have to store the base stock the replicators rearrange, but you still need to carry all the physical items that can't be replicated.Tholian_Avenger wrote:Admittedly, this seems less of an issue to me in a replicator economy.Also remember that every transport onboard means less space for supplies.
Only two things are infinite - the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the universe: Albert Einstein.
- Tholian_Avenger
- Lieutenant jg
- Posts: 356
- Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2008 5:51 am
- Location: Here, just past there.
Re: Federation Battlestar
Has the Replicator Base Stock ever been shown? I thought it was an energy to matter conversion.
Sincerely.
Sincerely.
6 Star Admiral of the Loyal Water Buffaloes and Honorable Turtles
- Deepcrush
- 4 Star Admiral
- Posts: 18917
- Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2007 8:15 pm
- Location: Arnold, Maryland, USA
Re: Federation Battlestar
That would mean timing warp jumps, start and finish, while having fighters trying not to impact outer shields or inner shields or hull. Which isn't needed when you can launch the fighters safely from their launch tubes. Its adding risk, which in battle is already bad enough, and you haven't gained anything for the effort.Tholian_Avenger wrote:Your Battlestar has a hull hugging shield and then a quilt of projected shields, IIRC. Thus, have the predeployed Vipers reside betwixt the two shields. Graham's first draft shows a good resting place would be between the nacelles.
Larger turrets would likely be around 60m, I don't know the size of the smaller turrets.Tholian_Avenger wrote:All turret designs being used on your Battlestar.
Which only proves the point that that its best left to the Battlestar to deploy forces on hostile worlds.Tholian_Avenger wrote:Deep, my friend, exactly which Federation vessel would be more rugged than your Battlestar? Perhaps if Nomad himself turret mounted Planet Killers on the Whale Probe...
Jinsei wa cho no yume, shi no tsubasa no bitodesu