Ambassador & Galaxy class

The Next Generation
colmquinn
Commander
Commander
Posts: 1496
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 9:20 pm
Location: Waiting in the long grass

Re: Ambassador & Galaxy class

Post by colmquinn »

Captain Seafort wrote:
colmquinn wrote:Don't forget in Generations the Klingons had a chance to fire upon an "unshilded" E-D so surely they would've hit the weakest point. Also the Khrenim would've had a field day with Fed ships, torps that pass through shields and all.
When I say "shielded" I mean it in the broadest sense - armour and internal bulkheads as well as your traditional deflector shields.

As for the Klingons, it wasn't until the end of the battle that they even considered targeting the bridge, so I don't think tactical nouse can be considered one of their strong points. Not that one-shot-Will did much better.
Fair points. What I'm trying to say though is that we've seen how temperamental Fed power systems are so surely a disruption in the supply would result in the system ejecting? I know where I'd be firing my weapons.


(I know we might be arguing in circles here - btw I enjoy your proper spelling of words - when I type armour I get a red line. I got taught how to spell things properly, then again that's how languages evolve & makes english a great lanuage. "Oh you have a new word, I'll use that :-) )
But I can't throw, I throw like a geek!
User avatar
Graham Kennedy
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 11561
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 2:28 pm
Location: Banbury, UK
Contact:

Re: Ambassador & Galaxy class

Post by Graham Kennedy »

Captain Seafort wrote:
GrahamKennedy wrote:Precisely because Voyager's warp core isn't a jack in a box. They did an actual proper ejection of the type you are poo-pooing, powered systems and all.
The reason I'm poo-pooing it is because it doesn't work half the time.
But if the choice is a system that works half the time or a system that works all the time and kills the crew or no system at all, then the system that works half the time is the way to go.
You assume that because you want to work on the assumption that the design is incompetent. I assume that it is competent and therefore assume that when they slam the core out the bottom of the ship they do so in a manner that is safe.
As do I. The problem is the long string of occasions when they try and dump the core and can't. It's these events that demonstrate the gross incompetence of the designers.
No, it doesn't. Failure is only a proof of incompetence if success is possible. You assume that it is, but you have no real basis to do so. You just take it on faith, based on the idea that one can either rip the warp core off it's support systems at a whim or eject a whole slew of support systems of unknown size and complexity, along with whatever may or may not support those in turn.

I might as well say "those incompetent Japanese people, if it were me I would build those places so that when the coolant systems failed they automatically take the entire reactor, coolant pumps, heat exchangers, cooling towers, turbines and generators and catapult it all a thousand miles out to sea so they sink into a nice deep ocean trench." It's the sort of thing that sounds fine, IF you have absolutely no idea of the size and complexity of what you're throwing and the magnitude of how far you're trying to throw it. If you do know those things, the idea becomes utterly absurd.
Yes, and the authorisation initiates an ejection that is designed to be done in a safe manner
Safe manner? You're talking about a system that frequently prevents the ship getting rid of its power-keg warp core as it's about to explode, and you call it "safe"?
Well if leaving it there is 100% fatal when it blows, and if your system comes with a 100% probability of death to the ship because ripping the support systems off causes a multi megaton explosion, then in comparison, yes, I call what the Federation has safe.
Rather than your system of either just ripping it all apart, which likely blows the ship apart anyway (the suicide eject), or of trying to mount most of the engineering hull on an eject system.
As I've already said, the sorts of malfunctions we're talking about routinely give multi-minute countdowns, allowing plenty of time for the core to clear the ship, and as the existing systems bang the core straight out through the bottom of the hull in no time flat anyway the sort of complicated systems you posit, without any evidence whatsoever, are clearly neither exist nor are necessary.
We're talking about the eject sequence itself, not the lead up to it.
(Which, not incidentally, would also eject any crewmembers manning all those systems into space.)
Actually, I would call those deaths incidental. Would you rather lose a few dozen, maybe a couple of hundred of the crew, or over a thousand plus the ship?
False dichotomy since those aren't the options.
Give a man a fire, and you keep him warm for a day. SET a man on fire, and you will keep him warm for the rest of his life...
User avatar
McAvoy
Rear Admiral
Rear Admiral
Posts: 6225
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 1:39 am
Location: East Windsor, NJ

Re: Ambassador & Galaxy class

Post by McAvoy »

There are examples in Naval ship design of oversights on even small things and there are examples of the crew creating seriously dangerous situations where the ship could explode. Battle of Jutland three British battlecruisers blew up not because of insufficent armor but the ammunition handling for quicker firing caused a unbroken line of explosives down to the magazines.

Others like coal fires, unstable ammunition caused many ships to explode.

Also, small things like how armor plates or how the hull structure was designed can cause severe weak spots. Like how the Yamato's armor belt was bolted. There is also evidence on British battleships and battlecruisers having similar problems. US had the issue with their fast battleship South Dakota having issues with their electrical supply.

However, in each of these cases, most of them were solved later on.

While it can be that super advanced computers of Star Trek should be able to simulate any possible scenario, it can be said it could be the fault of the crew or human error.

Also we have no evidence that the Ambassador class had no issues duirng their first ten years in operation. All we have is the E-C got hammered and survived. The same can be said about Voyager in Year of Hell which is smaller ship and defeinitely took far greater damage.

Just saying.
"Don't underestimate the power of technobabble: the Federation can win anything with the sheer force of bullshit"
User avatar
Reliant121
3 Star Admiral
3 Star Admiral
Posts: 12263
Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2007 5:00 pm

Re: Ambassador & Galaxy class

Post by Reliant121 »

That's a good point. I'd never really noticed how much of a pounding Voyager took in YoH.
User avatar
Deepcrush
4 Star Admiral
4 Star Admiral
Posts: 18917
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2007 8:15 pm
Location: Arnold, Maryland, USA

Re: Ambassador & Galaxy class

Post by Deepcrush »

The problem we have with the GCS is that its the only class to show those kinds of problems. We've pointed out several (dozen) times that the rest of the ship classes never showed signs of the flaws that are so clearly present in the GCS.
Jinsei wa cho no yume, shi no tsubasa no bitodesu
Mikey
Fleet Admiral
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: Ambassador & Galaxy class

Post by Mikey »

Who's to say, though, how much of that fact is due to the other ships NOT being the feature of every weekly episode? We didn't see that many problems with the Ambassador-class... but we only saw it once.
I can't stand nothing dull
I got the high gloss luster
I'll massacre your ass as fast
as Bull offed Custer
User avatar
Deepcrush
4 Star Admiral
4 Star Admiral
Posts: 18917
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2007 8:15 pm
Location: Arnold, Maryland, USA

Re: Ambassador & Galaxy class

Post by Deepcrush »

Mikey wrote:Who's to say, though, how much of that fact is due to the other ships NOT being the feature of every weekly episode? We didn't see that many problems with the Ambassador-class... but we only saw it once.
We never saw such issues with the Ent-nil, Ent-A, Defiant, Voyager, DS-9 or Ent-0. The one time we did see the Ambassador class... she had a hole next to the warp core and one of her nacelles blown out. Yet she survived and in fact continued fighting.
Jinsei wa cho no yume, shi no tsubasa no bitodesu
User avatar
McAvoy
Rear Admiral
Rear Admiral
Posts: 6225
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 1:39 am
Location: East Windsor, NJ

Re: Ambassador & Galaxy class

Post by McAvoy »

Both E-nil and E-A both took large amounts of damage and you could say that E-D took similar damage but no warp core breach. E-nil did have an issue with radiation and whatever killed Scotty's nephew.

DS9 had it's own issues but were mostly because of being Cardassian designed being used by Starfleet.

Defiant is a different issue because she was designed like that.

NX-01 did take on similar amount of damage in proportion to her size to Voyager. Even took a direct hit to one of the nacelles whereas the E-D exploded.
"Don't underestimate the power of technobabble: the Federation can win anything with the sheer force of bullshit"
User avatar
Deepcrush
4 Star Admiral
4 Star Admiral
Posts: 18917
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2007 8:15 pm
Location: Arnold, Maryland, USA

Re: Ambassador & Galaxy class

Post by Deepcrush »

Point remains that those ships took the damage... because they were (or at least seemed to be) designed with it in mind. We didn't see the GCS take heavy damage and survive until the Dominion War/ST:VII. Twenty years after its design was completed and production began. Again, its the only class to suffer those issues.
Jinsei wa cho no yume, shi no tsubasa no bitodesu
User avatar
McAvoy
Rear Admiral
Rear Admiral
Posts: 6225
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 1:39 am
Location: East Windsor, NJ

Re: Ambassador & Galaxy class

Post by McAvoy »

True. I wouldn't count STVII because that battle should have been lopsided and the Galaxy class still had a warp core breach after moderate damage.

Well we can think about this, aside from the Yamato only the E-D had these issues. Maybe it wasn't the design but maybe the crew. Picard & Riker or possibly Geordi could have ran the ship with less safety procols in military action or other situations. Or the E-D was a lemon.
"Don't underestimate the power of technobabble: the Federation can win anything with the sheer force of bullshit"
User avatar
Deepcrush
4 Star Admiral
4 Star Admiral
Posts: 18917
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2007 8:15 pm
Location: Arnold, Maryland, USA

Re: Ambassador & Galaxy class

Post by Deepcrush »

Since the value of their systems vs the other GCS never came to question and the Yamato suffered a similar fate. Its not an Ent-D problem or a crew problem, its a class problem.
Jinsei wa cho no yume, shi no tsubasa no bitodesu
User avatar
McAvoy
Rear Admiral
Rear Admiral
Posts: 6225
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 1:39 am
Location: East Windsor, NJ

Re: Ambassador & Galaxy class

Post by McAvoy »

1. Yamato. A computer virus which is a huge computer flaw.
2. Odyssey. a ship rammed it. Forgivable.
3. E-D. Exploded so many time over 7-8 years. Pinto of starships.

My line of thought unless the Galaxy class ship has a completely different computer design over the other Fed ships, Yamato's destruction could have happened to any other ship. The Odyssey got a direct hit from a jem'Hadar ship right in the general area of the core and it seemed to be fine until a piece hit the nacelle.

Which leaves the E-D.
"Don't underestimate the power of technobabble: the Federation can win anything with the sheer force of bullshit"
User avatar
Deepcrush
4 Star Admiral
4 Star Admiral
Posts: 18917
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2007 8:15 pm
Location: Arnold, Maryland, USA

Re: Ambassador & Galaxy class

Post by Deepcrush »

Yamato, had a virus which took over their computer system. Had no manual override for the computer or warp core. No way to eject the core upon going critical. No system in place to restore the main computer.

All things that effected the Ent-D which is supposed to have the best crew of Starfleet. So no, its not a "Ent-D only" deal. All the problems above where consistent with the Ent-D's later failings.
Jinsei wa cho no yume, shi no tsubasa no bitodesu
Mikey
Fleet Admiral
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: Ambassador & Galaxy class

Post by Mikey »

Mac's right... if we assume that no other ship had the same issues based partly on the fact that we saw them less, then it stands to reason that some of the issues are E-D-specific and not particular to the class. The E-D could have easily been driven harder and put away wet a lot more than any other GCS.
I can't stand nothing dull
I got the high gloss luster
I'll massacre your ass as fast
as Bull offed Custer
User avatar
Deepcrush
4 Star Admiral
4 Star Admiral
Posts: 18917
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2007 8:15 pm
Location: Arnold, Maryland, USA

Re: Ambassador & Galaxy class

Post by Deepcrush »

Really...? You know this forum is going to shit when even the mods are just trolling the threads.
Jinsei wa cho no yume, shi no tsubasa no bitodesu
Post Reply