Ambassador & Galaxy class

[Mikey]

All of that is true, it just doesn't speak to the point I was making. The substandard state of SF pre-commissioning testing - or lack thereof - isn't at question. The fact that people have said to cancel a project because of a possibly-unpredictable potential flaw while still in the planning stage is at question, and it's a ridiculous idea. By that logic, we'd never have had a carrier bigger than the Essex because there might have been a problem that nobody could have guessed.

As to if the Ambassador can be efficiently updated. Even if it can't, isn't it better to continue the current line of Ambassadors until the GCS problems can be corrected?

Not if the GCS problems were unpredictable at the time of Ambassador cancellation. If that were the case, then continuing the Ambassador in light of the unpredictable GCS problems would again require accurate fortune-telling.

[Deepcrush]

All of that is true, it just doesn't speak to the point I was making. The substandard state of SF pre-commissioning testing - or lack thereof - isn't at question. The fact that people have said to cancel a project because of a possibly-unpredictable potential flaw while still in the planning stage is at question, and it's a ridiculous idea. By that logic, we'd never have had a carrier bigger than the Essex because there might have been a problem that nobody could have guessed.

Part of the design phase is, or should have been, testing the GCS against the risks it would encounter. Since its pretty clear they didn't then cancelling production until corrections are made makes perfect sense.

Again, the issues with building something the size of the Essex were worked out during the design phase. They put in a sealed hull, which the GCS didn't have. They tested it against the stress of its own weight, again something that wasn't done with the GCS. The reactors in the Essex can survive something impacting the hull, which is only a 50/50 shot with the GCS. They didn't do proper testing with the GCS and thats the problem and thats why the class should have waited.

If your point is that they couldn't know but thats insane. They have had other ships built, smaller or larger doesn't matter, they ignored the most basic form of design. Thats to design something that will survive to complete its mission.

Not if the GCS problems were unpredictable at the time of Ambassador cancellation. If that were the case, then continuing the Ambassador in light of the unpredictable GCS problems would again require accurate fortune-telling.

Since when is stress testing a matter of fortune telling??? The Bozman survived the impact with the Ent-D, the Reliant survived having one of her nacelles blown off, the Ent-A survived a direct hit to engineering... So again, where is your fortune telling? Someone designed, tested and deployed these ships prior to the GCS so there's no reason other then pure laziness that these things weren't looked into for the GCS.

[Mikey]

So you're saying that you believe that the Ambassador-class was in full production until after the GCS were developed, built, tested, shaken-down, and commissioned? That's so stupid that it borders on mental instability. That would be the only way that your scenario could play out.

[Mikey]

*UPDATE* I have to admit an incorrect thought on my part. It was only after checking myself that I recalled that TNG: "Yesterday's Enterprise" was so close in time to the launch of the GCS. In that case, I apologize - the Ambassador-class could easily have continued through further refinement of the GCS design.

However, I still maintain that no matter what jokes we may make about Starfleet design; we cannot assume that the GCS' instability was known or predictable to the designers yet they still went ahead and commissioned it anyway. Ergo, we must assume that the issues which plagued the "Mk I" GCS were somehow unpredictable to the design/testing process in use. If you want to say that either: a) the design process was flawed, or b) you would prefer a wholly different design philosophy emphasizing robustness and serviceability over a mad rush to get the latest tech - and over luxury hotel accomodations for officers - then I have no issue with that. Those, however, are different points than the one previously at issue here.

[Deepcrush]

*UPDATE* I have to admit an incorrect thought on my part. It was only after checking myself that I recalled that TNG: "Yesterday's Enterprise" was so close in time to the launch of the GCS. In that case, I apologize - the Ambassador-class could easily have continued through further refinement of the GCS design.

Accepted.

However, I still maintain that no matter what jokes we may make about Starfleet design; we cannot assume that the GCS' instability was known or predictable to the designers yet they still went ahead and commissioned it anyway. Ergo, we must assume that the issues which plagued the "Mk I" GCS were somehow unpredictable to the design/testing process in use. If you want to say that either: a) the design process was flawed, or b) you would prefer a wholly different design philosophy emphasizing robustness and serviceability over a mad rush to get the latest tech - and over luxury hotel accomodations for officers - then I have no issue with that. Those, however, are different points than the one previously at issue here.

The problem is that its clear the ship's design and testing were faulty and my original point was that either the class should have been cancelled or gone under further review before being put into production. As well I've seen no reason to assume that the problems were unpredictable in any way. Ships that were built both before and after never suffered the same problems as GCS-I's did. There for, I can come only to the conclusion that the designers were in such a rush to turn out this SOTA that they in fact built a death trap.

[Mikey]

Yeah, I'd still have to have something concrete to accept the idea that Starfleet knowingly and willfully put a fatally-flawed starship into service.

[stitch626]

The only problem with the more testing idea is that most of the times where the E-D blew up, there were environmental effects that could have been major factors in its destruction. And its really hard to test for environment factors that you don't know exist.

[Deepcrush]

Yeah, I'd still have to have something concrete to accept the idea that Starfleet knowingly and willfully put a fatally-flawed starship into service.

Short of an out right confession you can't get anymore concrete then the on screen evidence.

The only problem with the more testing idea is that most of the times where the E-D blew up, there were environmental effects that could have been major factors in its destruction. And its really hard to test for environment factors that you don't know exist.

Even if we say that 50% of the time it was from things that are "Totally unpredictable by way of meaningless plot power!". That leaves all the times that issues came up that are fully preventable by simple matters of design. Such as sealing the internal hull with more then just weakly powered force fields to prevent a virus from bouncing around the ship. Or a computer system that isn't so overly automated that when downloading alien porn the engine explodes.

Sticking with my 50/50 statement earlier, its still pretty clear that a lot of the losses suffered could have been easily prevented.

[Mikey]

Short of an out right confession you can't get anymore concrete then the on screen evidence.

You keep missing key words. I know that Starfleet, with the GCS, put a flawed ship into service; for what there is no basis is that Starfleet did so (I repeat) knowingly and willingly, not just out of a poor SOP.

[Tyyr]

Wouldn't be the first time a horribly flawed unit was put in service on the assumption the guys behind the scenes would figure out a fix shortly. Also not hard to believe that for years they couldn't find one but didn't pull the class out of service for fear of having to admit their fuck up.

[Deepcrush]

Short of an out right confession you can't get anymore concrete then the on screen evidence.

You keep missing key words. I know that Starfleet, with the GCS, put a flawed ship into service; for what there is no basis is that Starfleet did so (I repeat) knowingly and willingly, not just out of a poor SOP.

I know what you're saying but I see no basis to believe otherwise. As I see it they put a ship into service without proper testing or design adaptation. To me that counts as "knowingly and willingly" placing a faulty design in service.

[Captain Seafort]

I think the point Mikey's making is that wilful negligence and incompetence is slightly different from outright malice, however similar the outcomes are.

[Deepcrush]

I understand, and there is no end to my belief in the incompetence of TNG Starfleet. Though as I've stated several times, there is just no other logical explanation of the matter. The GCS was fielded shortly after the Ambassador and while no ship before or since has shown the habit of blowing up... the GCS did. That means that it is a flawed design. For the start I could accept that if the flaws became visible over time, as they did on the nBSG Galactica. However, in the case of the GCS many of the design flaws are clear long before launch.

[Captain Seafort]

However, in the case of the GCS many of the design flaws are clear long before launch.

Not necessarily, if they didn't do any testing. Hence negligent and incompetent rather than malicious.

[Deepcrush]

My objection is to the ship class being in production prior to the flaws being corrected. So does it being formed from incompetence or malicious intent change that the class should have been cancelled or delayed?