www.ditl.org

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?

alexmann wrote:Ok. It was mainly speculation, wanking for my wankships.

Fixed for truth.

Very Funny Deep.

If it were funny we'd be laughing. As it is, its just really sad.

I would say like the excelsior but then you would get seriously annoyed. Ill leave it to someone else.

Then I laugh at you because the only way you can counter someone pointing out your failings is to poke at a fictional ship.

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 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.

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.

Tyyr wrote:

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 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.

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.

My assumption has always been this.

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.

As far as I understand it thats what Graham says. I think you may be right.

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.

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.

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 3:
Do you have dimensions on any of the turrets or napkin-sketches of them yet?

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 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.

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.

Deepcrush wrote:Also requires extending the shields wide enough to safely enclose the fighters which reduces the effectiveness of the shields.

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.

Which turrets?

All turret designs being used on your Battlestar.

Problem is that those smaller transports are far more vulnerable then the Battlestar would be.

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...

Also remember that every transport onboard means less space for supplies.

Admittedly, this seems less of an issue to me in a replicator economy.

Sincerely.

Tholian_Avenger wrote:

Also remember that every transport onboard means less space for supplies.

Admittedly, this seems less of an issue to me in a replicator economy.

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.

Has the Replicator Base Stock ever been shown? I thought it was an energy to matter conversion.

Sincerely.

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.

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:All turret designs being used on your Battlestar.

Larger turrets would likely be around 60m, I don't know the size of the smaller turrets.

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...

Which only proves the point that that its best left to the Battlestar to deploy forces on hostile worlds.