Page 7 of 21

Re: Galaxy Class Capability

Posted: Sat Jan 24, 2009 4:44 pm
by Sionnach Glic
I agree all I am saying is we cannot be 100%. Just a side-question, is the self destruct sequence brought to an end by blowing up the warp core or the ships torpedoes...I am not sure and think I heard of both variants?
No idea. Going by the E-Nill's death, it seems to be an entirely different method.
When I am writing that the galaxy is the most underestimated class in star trek I do mean exactly things like that. Okey the story needed this ship to be destroyed. A warp core breach seems reasonable but then you have to explain why the various safty features never worked. Why wasn't the core dumped? Why not an emergency saucer seperation, didn't seem like a good idea? DS9 once prevented a reactor breach via directing the overload energy into the stations shields...the same is not possible for a much more modern starship with emphasis on flexibility? Three reasons to prevent/minimze the damage out of the top of my head but no, the story needed the whole ship to be destroyed.
That's exactly our problem. While having such features fail is fine from an out-of-universe perspective, from an in-universe perspective it means that the ship's systems are of terrible quality and prone to catastrophic failures that could result in the ship's destruction. It's actualy one of the most cited complaints about the GCS class that its systems fail constantly.
And that is why I rather go with a combination of system failures and think that this soundly designed ship class is underestimated and treated very poorly by the writers :) .
Therein lies our problem. The constant system failures are one of the reasons the GCS is so poorly thought of. While fine from an out-of-universe point of view, in-universe it just makes the ship a terrible design.

Regarding the destruction of the Odyssey:
Seafort's picture of the damage the odyssey took would seem to confirm it was a warp core failure that blew the ship apart. Note the damage to the starboard nacelle. In Cause and Effect the E-D suffered a core breach due to far less damage to the same nacelle than the Odyssey seems to have taken. In addition, it took several seconds in C&E for the E-D to finaly detonate, which also fits what happened to the Odyssey.

Re: Galaxy Class Capability

Posted: Sat Jan 24, 2009 4:57 pm
by Atekimogus
I don't see how you can call them "almost identical"
Excuse me, of course they look different but generelly speaking they are more or less the same and at least to me look extremley similar. Sure it is a new set for a new ship but basically it is just another redecoration of the same warp core.
Details of the specific design. All nuclear fission reactors are based on the same general technology, but there are vast differences in detail - some are disasters waiting to happen (Chernobyl for example), others are extremely difficult to blow up even if you tried to.
That is true but would you not think that after the first near fatality they would rework the whole core? Since it is relativly easily dumped I see no reason why - if such safety failures occure - the federation would not make it a top priority to fix their flagships. Maybe I am completely wrong on this one but I can not remember that it was ever specifically mentioned that this class has a problem with the warp core or that it was poorly designed.


The fact that the former frequently failed is one of the big marks against the GCS warp core, and the latter probably takes too long to be an effective means of escape.
True, but not exclusivly as I said earlier since I am sure that the defiant for example also at least once had this problem. I am not sure about Voyager though but I wouldn't be to afraid to bet that there are also a few scenes were the ship is about to explode because of the warp core with the saftey features inoperable. That is one of the reoccurring scenarios constantly recycled by star trek (since it is a neat way to threaten the whole ship with total destruction without doing the special effects of a battle) and I wouldn't pin it on only one class. Do not forget, out of 3 losses only one, possible two are due to a warp core breaches. Considering an almost 20 year servicetime that is not so bad actually.
DS9 has shields that can hold off entire fleets. The E-D does not.
Which means DS9 must have an enourmously stronger reactor compared to the E-D. Considering energy to shield strength efficiency I would go with the federation design but I admit that this scenario is purley speculative.
The problem is that the very fact that those system failures occur shows that the ship is very poorly designed.
Ah well that is the crux of the matter isn't it? Whereas I think that no ship in the federation fleet would have survived such an suicide run you think otherwise and blame design failures of the galaxy class. It shall probably remain a matter of opinion. :wink:
What logical gaps? I think the film made it pretty obvious, even if it wasn't explicitly stated, that the Scimitar was a Romulan design.
Maybe for you. I am probably not very good in such things but if you show me the scimitar and ask me were does it belong to my first guess would be new/not seen Dominion ship followed by klingon and then romulan design. It really does more look like random alien ship #435 a ka probably built by remans. I am really sorry but nothing on that ship screams romulan to me, maybe you can give me a pointer or two.

Re: Galaxy Class Capability

Posted: Sat Jan 24, 2009 5:58 pm
by Captain Seafort
Atekimogus wrote:Excuse me, of course they look different but generelly speaking they are more or less the same and at least to me look extremley similar. Sure it is a new set for a new ship but basically it is just another redecoration of the same warp core.
They look completely different, ergo they are different designs.
That is true but would you not think that after the first near fatality they would rework the whole core?
I would. You would. The Federation, on the other hand, did not. They lost the Yamato (and over a thousand people) to AM containment failure in "Contaigon", and almost lost the E-D to the same thing more than three years later in "Distaster". This demonstrates that they haven't fixed their unreliable ejection system.

They also came close to losing the E-D in "Hollow Pursuits" (due to jammed injectors), "Cause and Effect" (due to loss of core pressure, although they didn't find out about it as the collision never "really" happened), "Yesterday's Enterprise" (a coolant leak, although again it never really happened), "Timescape" (feedback from a power transfer) and "All Good Things..." (subspace somethingorother), and finally did lose her in "Generations" (damaged magnetic interlocks and a coolant leak). On none of these occassions was the concept of the core being ejected automatically even mentioned. The entire culture surrounding Fed reactor design is dangerously flawed.
I can not remember that it was ever specifically mentioned that this class has a problem with the warp core or that it was poorly designed.
It wasn't mentioned on screen. It is, however, demonstrated by the number of near-misses they've had, and the nature of them.
True, but not exclusivly as I said earlier since I am sure that the defiant for example also at least once had this problem.
Then please provide an episode reference, and details of the incident.
I am not sure about Voyager though but I wouldn't be to afraid to bet that there are also a few scenes were the ship is about to explode because of the warp core with the saftey features inoperable.
The only example I can think of is the ship being vulnerable to the same loss of core pressure that destroyed the E-D in "Cause and Effect" ("Caretaker"). However, the pressure never dropped to dangerously low levels, so we never saw whether emergency shutdown/ejection systems would have kicked in. I'd call it a maybe.
That is one of the reoccurring scenarios constantly recycled by star trek (since it is a neat way to threaten the whole ship with total destruction without doing the special effects of a battle) and I wouldn't pin it on only one class.
The fact that it's a recurring plot is the evidence for the design being dangerous - remember that under suspension of disbelief we treat the episodes as if they're documentary footage.
Do not forget, out of 3 losses only one, possible two are due to a warp core breaches. Considering an almost 20 year servicetime that is not so bad actually.
More like 2, almost certainly three, were caused by catastrophic malfunctions of the power train. I'd compare it to WW1-era battlecruisers - out of 21 built, and a service life of about 40 years, three were lost, and two almost lost to cordite flashes - five incidents, compared to the GCS's nine (seven if you discount the ones that were never found out about) in less than a decade. The result is that the entire concept is considered a failure, and at the time all ships were immidiately ordered into dock for major structural changes to prevent repeat occurances. The fact that the GCS kept suffering breaches indicates that the Feds were somewhat more blase about their problems.
Ah well that is the crux of the matter isn't it? Whereas I think that no ship in the federation fleet would have survived such an suicide run you think otherwise and blame design failures of the galaxy class.
I do so because I'm aware of the RL equivalent. In 1940, during the German invasion of Norway, the German heavy cruiser Admiral Hipper was rammed by the British destroyer HMS Glowworm. Glowworm was far closer in size to the Hipper than the bug was to the Odyssey (about a tenth, compared to 1/150th). Despite this, although Hipper was badly damaged, she was never in danger of sinking.
Maybe for you. I am probably not very good in such things but if you show me the scimitar and ask me were does it belong to my first guess would be new/not seen Dominion ship followed by klingon and then romulan design. It really does more look like random alien ship #435 a ka probably built by remans. I am really sorry but nothing on that ship screams romulan to me, maybe you can give me a pointer or two.
The design's certainly a mess, but the plot was "slave assassinates Senate and takes over the Empire". From there, the assumption that he took over the fleet, including the most powerful of the bunch, seems pretty logical. What does not seem logical is assuming that a bunch of slaves could build an uber-ship behind their masters' backs.

Re: Galaxy Class Capability

Posted: Sat Jan 24, 2009 8:46 pm
by Tsukiyumi
Regarding the Scimitar, there is a line during Shinzon and Picard's romantic dinner in the Senate chamber where Shinzon says something like "Everything I've done has been for their freedom (the Remans) From building the Scimitar at a secret base..." He certainly implies that they (Shinzon and co) built it, and used it to help gain the support of the fleet commanders.

Of course, like we've discussed, that seems highly unlikely. :?

Regarding the Odyssey, from that diagram, it looks like the bug's impact might have damaged the anti-matter storage pods, so that's another alternative for what blew up the ship.

Re: Galaxy Class Capability

Posted: Sat Jan 24, 2009 8:50 pm
by Captain Seafort
Tsukiyumi wrote:Regarding the Scimitar, there is a line during Shinzon and Picard's romantic dinner in the Senate chamber where Shinzon says something like "Everything I've done has been for their freedom (the Remans) From building the Scimitar at a secret base..." He certainly implies that they (Shinzon and co) built it, and used it to help gain the support of the fleet commanders.

Of course, like we've discussed, that seems highly unlikely. :?
Well, Shinzon isn't exactly a paragon of honesty, so I don't see a problem with dismissing the statement as him lying through his teeth.
Regarding the Odyssey, from that diagram, it looks like the bug's impact might have damaged the anti-matter storage pods, so that's another alternative for what blew up the ship.
AM storage or warp core, it doesn't really matter - I personally tend to treat the entire drive train from fuel supply to nacelles as a single entity at any rate.

Re: Galaxy Class Capability

Posted: Sat Jan 24, 2009 8:57 pm
by Tsukiyumi
Captain Seafort wrote:AM storage or warp core, it doesn't really matter - I personally tend to treat the entire drive train from fuel supply to nacelles as a single entity at any rate.
True. Difference is, the AM storage doesn't have a known ejection capability, so it might not be the warp core's fault. :shock:

That would be a first, though.

Re: Galaxy Class Capability

Posted: Sat Jan 24, 2009 9:03 pm
by Captain Seafort
Tsukiyumi wrote:True. Difference is, the AM storage doesn't have a known ejection capability, so it might not be the warp core's fault. :shock:

That would be a first, though.
Not quite - it was AM containment failure rather than a core breach that did for the Yamato, and almost did for the Enterprise at least once. There was a "venting" capability mentioned in "Contagion", but as with pretty much everything else it relied on direct computer control - the computer cancelled the venting and pop went the starship.

Re: Galaxy Class Capability

Posted: Sat Jan 24, 2009 9:09 pm
by Tsukiyumi
Captain Seafort wrote:
Tsukiyumi wrote:True. Difference is, the AM storage doesn't have a known ejection capability, so it might not be the warp core's fault. :shock:

That would be a first, though.
Not quite - it was AM containment failure rather than a core breach that did for the Yamato, and almost did for the Enterprise at least once. There was a "venting" capability mentioned in "Contagion", but as with pretty much everything else it relied on direct computer control - the computer cancelled the venting and pop went the starship.
Really, the problem isn't with the warp core or AM pods themselves, rather with the method of ejection/venting. As we've discussed before, of course.

Starfleet computers seriously must run Windows.

Re: Galaxy Class Capability

Posted: Sat Jan 24, 2009 9:15 pm
by Captain Seafort
Tsukiyumi wrote:Really, the problem isn't with the warp core or AM pods themselves, rather with the method of ejection/venting. As we've discussed before, of course.
There are problems with the core itself, such as excess reactivity (i.e. there's enough antimatter in there at any one time to cause a big bang if something breaks) but I agree, the main problem is that all their safety systems rely on active intervention rather than failsafes.

Re: Galaxy Class Capability

Posted: Sat Jan 24, 2009 9:25 pm
by Atekimogus
Damn, my computer crashed before I could reply..well therefore I will be short: :P
Then please provide an episode reference, and details of the incident.
Took my a while since it has been a few years since the last rerun of DS9 in my country. The first I could find was "The Visitor". The warp core of the defiant goes critical due to an "energy flux". Sisko is able to reroute the excess energy into a...futuristic pipe.....and has the classical "few seconds to warp core breach" scene.
Now this is not the episode I had in mind, I am pretty sure there was also one with Dax rushing to the aid of the poor critical thing, I will continue to look.

remember that under suspension of disbelief we treat the episodes as if they're documentary footage.
Yes, I admit I am not sure what exactly counts as canon, semi-canon etc do not hesitate therefore to point it out if I should make a canon-mistake.
I do so because I'm aware of the RL equivalent. In 1940, during the German invasion of Norway, the German heavy cruiser Admiral Hipper was rammed by the British destroyer HMS Glowworm. Glowworm was far closer in size to the Hipper than the bug was to the Odyssey (about a tenth, compared to 1/150th). Despite this, although Hipper was badly damaged, she was never in danger of sinking.
I am not sure this is a good example. Yes the Glowworm was closer in size to the Hipper than the Galaxy/Attack ship but the mayor difference is speed.
The Glowworm had a topspeed of 36kt which amounts to about 19metres/second.
Now let us assume the attack ship travelled at really low impulse speed. I do not know if there is an established value for Impulse but it most be somewhere between zero and lightspeed. The value on ditl for full impulse is afaik 25% lightspeed that is very roughly 75000metres per second. To be on the safe side let us assume the ship traveled at 5% impulse which seems really slow than we get a value of 3747metres/second. (I hope thats correct...where are the vulcans when you need one :twisted: )
So we have 19metres/second compared to 3,747metres/second. The difference in kinetic energy on impact should be obvious. You say the galaxy is a weak design because she did not survived this, I think she is hell of a though ship because she did not went nova immediatly :D .

Re: Galaxy Class Capability

Posted: Sat Jan 24, 2009 9:33 pm
by Tsukiyumi
Actually, on screen, the bug looked to be traveling at about 60 mph when it hit. :lol:

Re: Galaxy Class Capability

Posted: Sat Jan 24, 2009 9:49 pm
by Captain Seafort
Atekimogus wrote:Took my a while since it has been a few years since the last rerun of DS9 in my country. The first I could find was "The Visitor". The warp core of the defiant goes critical due to an "energy flux". Sisko is able to reroute the excess energy into a...futuristic pipe.....and has the classical "few seconds to warp core breach" scene.
Good point; conceded on the "never" then. I still, however, maintain that the GCS was far more prone to problems than other ships, and of course the fact that other ships have had similar problems does not alleviate the problems with the GCS design - it simply means they're more common.
Yes, I admit I am not sure what exactly counts as canon, semi-canon etc do not hesitate therefore to point it out if I should make a canon-mistake.
It's not a canon/non-canon issue, but an analytical one. If we want to analyse the capabilities and weakness of the GCS (as the current example) we have to treat it as if it were a real ship, rather than as a vehicle for storytelling. Otherwise we're simply arguing about the qualities of the writers.
Now let us assume the attack ship travelled at really low impulse speed. I do not know if there is an established value for Impulse but it most be somewhere between zero and lightspeed. The value on ditl for full impulse is afaik 25% lightspeed that is very roughly 75000metres per second. To be on the safe side let us assume the ship traveled at 5% impulse which seems really slow than we get a value of 3747metres/second.
There's a better method than that: measure the actual speed of the Jem'Hadar ship, which can be done as it enters the frame during the impact scene. This has been done here, and the answer comes to about 600 m/s. The mass of the Jem'Hadar ship is guestimated there to be about 10,000 tons which, assuming the ship accelerated to 1km/s by the time of impact, gives the ship a kinetic energy of just over a kiloton. My own estimates, based on the volumetrics here, and a 6.5 million ton GCS or 700,000 ton Intrepid would give the bug a mass of a bit over four times that, or an impact KE of about 5 kT. Either way, it isn't good for a ship armed with high kT/low MT torpedoes.

Re: Galaxy Class Capability

Posted: Sat Jan 24, 2009 10:32 pm
by Atekimogus
Captain Seafort wrote: It's not a canon/non-canon issue, but an analytical one. If we want to analyse the capabilities and weakness of the GCS (as the current example) we have to treat it as if it were a real ship, rather than as a vehicle for storytelling. Otherwise we're simply arguing about the qualities of the writers.
I was more generally speaking and not only ontopic :wink: .
Captain Seafort wrote:There's a better method than that: measure the actual speed of the Jem'Hadar ship, which can be done as it enters the frame during the impact scene. This has been done here, and the answer comes to about 600 m/s. The mass of the Jem'Hadar ship is guestimated there to be about 10,000 tons which, assuming the ship accelerated to 1km/s by the time of impact, gives the ship a kinetic energy of just over a kiloton. My own estimates, based on the volumetrics here, and a 6.5 million ton GCS or 700,000 ton Intrepid would give the bug a mass of a bit over four times that, or an impact KE of about 5 kT. Either way, it isn't good for a ship armed with high kT/low MT torpedoes.
I have to say those are interesting links thank you. Also the one about the klingon ship very interesting. Seems to be a vorcha class which is afaik the contemporary to the galaxy class. Well it seems they did not fare much better against a suicide run.

Re: Galaxy Class Capability

Posted: Sat Jan 24, 2009 10:38 pm
by Captain Seafort
Atekimogus wrote:I was more generally speaking and not only ontopic :wink:.
As was I; simply replace "GCS" with whatever the current topic of debate is.
Captain Seafort wrote:I have to say those are interesting links thank you. Also the one about the klingon ship very interesting. Seems to be a vorcha class which is afaik the contemporary to the galaxy class. Well it seems they did not fare much better against a suicide run.
The second one should be treated with caution. The volumetic page seems to be accurate, by and large, but the site it's attached to is run by a gentleman somewhat lacking in the area between his ears.

Re: Galaxy Class Capability

Posted: Sat Jan 24, 2009 10:58 pm
by Atekimogus
Well looking once more at the numbers I must say that it is an interesting read but it just does not feel right.

600metres per second? That is 0,8 % Impulse speed if we accept the 25% speed of light for full impulse. The same can be said for the example with the klingon vorcha. Highly unlikely that those ships are moving that slow in a combat situation.
I mean sure those numbers are most certainly roughly correct to what we see onscreen but if you want to make space battles visually interesting you arrive sooner or later at a point where you must let go of realism otherwise you only see 2 small dots shooting even smaller dots at each other with enormous speeds.

I mean where should we draw the line when what we see and what we hear does not match? If for example the captain orders half impulse ahead out of space dock and what we see onscreen is a ship moving roughly with 200km/h? Maybe we should treat such scenes just for what they are, eyecandy and not references for what exactly happened?

The most sensible thing would probably be to avoid such outside shots altogether and only tell the audience what just happened but that would also be kind of boring...... .