Ambassador & Galaxy class

The Next Generation

Re: Ambassador & Galaxy class

Postby Mikey » Tue Apr 12, 2011 3:04 pm

Hmm... agreeing with someone else's post is now "trolling," is it? Or, do you mean that any post which doesn't agree with you is "trolling?"
"We've been over this. We don't shoot first and ask questions later."
"Of course! We never ask questions."
User avatar
Mikey
Fleet Admiral
Fleet Admiral
 
Posts: 33118
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 2:04 am
Location: down the shore, New Jersey, USA

Re: Ambassador & Galaxy class

Postby Deepcrush » Tue Apr 12, 2011 3:24 pm

The points of the topic have been repeated so many times... and yet you guys still just flat out ignore them in favor of continuing to impress the point as to why the forum is burning out. Whats the point of even involving yourselves if you don't do anything but drag out threads?

The details of this topic have been covered, period. So why is it the same non-sense is being repeatedly posted?
Jinsei wa cho no yume, shi no tsubasa no bitodesu
User avatar
Deepcrush
4 Star Admiral
4 Star Admiral
 
Posts: 18917
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2007 7:15 pm
Location: Arnold, Maryland, USA

Re: Ambassador & Galaxy class

Postby Mikey » Tue Apr 12, 2011 3:35 pm

Deepcrush wrote:The points of the topic have been repeated so many times... and yet you guys still just flat out ignore them in favor of continuing to impress the point as to why the forum is burning out. Whats the point of even involving yourselves if you don't do anything but drag out threads?

The details of this topic have been covered, period. So why is it the same non-sense is being repeatedly posted?


You make a very valid point here, Deep. I admit to, and apologize for, rehashing a point if I've done so. I would unfortunately have to remind you at this juncture that what you've just mentioned applies equally to all parties involved...
"We've been over this. We don't shoot first and ask questions later."
"Of course! We never ask questions."
User avatar
Mikey
Fleet Admiral
Fleet Admiral
 
Posts: 33118
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 2:04 am
Location: down the shore, New Jersey, USA

Re: Ambassador & Galaxy class

Postby Deepcrush » Tue Apr 12, 2011 3:40 pm

Of course it does, when one side continues to ignore the responses of the other or attempts to derail and asks for the same information again. Its not surprising that the responding side would indeed repeat the requested information. Its one thing when its someone new coming into the thread, but quite another when the people speaking have been around long enough to have learned better.
Jinsei wa cho no yume, shi no tsubasa no bitodesu
User avatar
Deepcrush
4 Star Admiral
4 Star Admiral
 
Posts: 18917
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2007 7:15 pm
Location: Arnold, Maryland, USA

Re: Ambassador & Galaxy class

Postby Mikey » Tue Apr 12, 2011 3:47 pm

OK, so I've agreed to what you've said, and you continue to make a case for "but it doesn't apply to me." Well done. Nobody ever asked you to repeat any information - the only thing that did that was your obstinate refusal to believe that anyone could have the temerity to disagree with you. Well, things are tough all over, and people disagreeing with you =/= "trolling" or even not listening. Sorry, but them's the breaks.

The funniest part of this whole business is that in general, I agree with you. The GCS seemed to have far to many issues with fragility a/o instability for my taste. Whether that could or should have been stopped in design, or would have had to lead to a recall/grounding after the flaws were discovered in service, is academic. The only sticking point is that I was willing to accept the idea that there could possibly other factors magnifying the appearance of the GCS' laundry list of problems.
"We've been over this. We don't shoot first and ask questions later."
"Of course! We never ask questions."
User avatar
Mikey
Fleet Admiral
Fleet Admiral
 
Posts: 33118
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 2:04 am
Location: down the shore, New Jersey, USA

Re: Ambassador & Galaxy class

Postby Tholian_Avenger » Tue Apr 12, 2011 11:48 pm

GrahamKennedy wrote:Every piece of technology and equipment I mention above is directly from canon as being an element of Federation warp cores. No person alive today has a clue what most of them are, how they work, how big how are, etc. Since it's made up science and technology, there's not one person on the face of this Earth who is qualified to say a damn thing about it with any level of confidence.

The idea that all of this not only can but MUST be designed to automatically pop out the bottom of the ship like some demented jack-in-a-box anytime there's a problem is stupid

Fail safe separation of antimatter from the starship's matter is not a stupid goal. If fail safe ejection of all antimatter is not possible, perhaps starships should follow the Oberth pattern. I favor dead-man switched ejection capsules as a last resort when the powered shutdown-eject won't work, and I think Captain Seafort's idea is only for last resorts also.

Power supply and data link connectors can use couplings which mechanically separate at a specified tension. The piping for the reactants and products will have to use dead-man switched double valves to cap the material flows. It's possible that when the Trilithium and Tellerium valves have their gates sprung shut, an inert chemical is released to flood the surroundings (where appropriate) or a one-off minitransporter could "clean" the surroundings. Some of these may make use of isolated back up power systems to provide magnetic fields (or a shield) in addition to physical barriers. Armored silos might be a good idea for ejection capsules (and are probably already used in conjunction with blast/pressure doors) and will hopefully be sucked clean by the vacuum of space. Once clear of the silo, an ejection capsule could use any number of means, even mere solid rocket boosters to distance the ship.


EDIT:
What does "SOTA" mean?
Daleks do not allow others to live, we decide when they die!
User avatar
Tholian_Avenger
Lieutenant jg
Lieutenant jg
 
Posts: 335
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2008 4:51 am
Location: Here, just past there.

Re: Ambassador & Galaxy class

Postby Deepcrush » Wed Apr 13, 2011 12:33 am

"State Of The Art"
Jinsei wa cho no yume, shi no tsubasa no bitodesu
User avatar
Deepcrush
4 Star Admiral
4 Star Admiral
 
Posts: 18917
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2007 7:15 pm
Location: Arnold, Maryland, USA

Re: Ambassador & Galaxy class

Postby Graham Kennedy » Wed Apr 13, 2011 9:03 am

Tholian_Avenger wrote:
GrahamKennedy wrote:Every piece of technology and equipment I mention above is directly from canon as being an element of Federation warp cores. No person alive today has a clue what most of them are, how they work, how big how are, etc. Since it's made up science and technology, there's not one person on the face of this Earth who is qualified to say a damn thing about it with any level of confidence.

The idea that all of this not only can but MUST be designed to automatically pop out the bottom of the ship like some demented jack-in-a-box anytime there's a problem is stupid

Fail safe separation of antimatter from the starship's matter is not a stupid goal. If fail safe ejection of all antimatter is not possible, perhaps starships should follow the Oberth pattern. I favor dead-man switched ejection capsules as a last resort when the powered shutdown-eject won't work, and I think Captain Seafort's idea is only for last resorts also.

It's not a stupid goal, but it's stupid to assume that it must automatically be possible to achieve it simply because people who know next to nothing about the systems involved say so. Last resort fail safe ejectors are a lovely idea, IF they can work. There is no reason to suppose that they can, and some reason to suppose that having them would be a suicide switch. A safety system that destroys the ship is not sane, even if it's only used in the absolute most dire emergency when the ship will blow up anyway.

I don't know what you mean by "the Oberth pattern".

Power supply and data link connectors can use couplings which mechanically separate at a specified tension. The piping for the reactants and products will have to use dead-man switched double valves to cap the material flows. It's possible that when the Trilithium and Tellerium valves have their gates sprung shut, an inert chemical is released to flood the surroundings (where appropriate) or a one-off minitransporter could "clean" the surroundings. Some of these may make use of isolated back up power systems to provide magnetic fields (or a shield) in addition to physical barriers. Armored silos might be a good idea for ejection capsules (and are probably already used in conjunction with blast/pressure doors) and will hopefully be sucked clean by the vacuum of space. Once clear of the silo, an ejection capsule could use any number of means, even mere solid rocket boosters to distance the ship.

Sorry, but you just aren't in a position to make those judgments. When it comes to trilithium and tellerium and such, you don't know if flooding the area with inert gases does any good. You don't know if it's possible to use dead-man switched double valves. You don't know if it's even possible to transport the stuff, nor if magnetic fields or force fields have any effect on them. Nobody can know, because half of that stuff is just made up and has whatever properties the writers decide to give it.
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
Graham Kennedy
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8202
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 1:28 pm
Location: Banbury, UK

Re: Ambassador & Galaxy class

Postby stitch626 » Wed Apr 13, 2011 5:20 pm

I think what he means by the Oberth pattern is the way the Oberth has a pod which could presumably hold all of the explosive stuff and be quickly jettisoned without risk to the crew.
No trees were killed in transmission of this message. However, some electrons were mildly inconvenienced.
User avatar
stitch626
2 Star Admiral
2 Star Admiral
 
Posts: 9521
Joined: Sat Mar 01, 2008 10:57 pm
Location: Romulus

Re: Ambassador & Galaxy class

Postby Mikey » Wed Apr 13, 2011 5:42 pm

stitch626 wrote:I think what he means by the Oberth pattern is the way the Oberth has a pod which could presumably hold all of the explosive stuff and be quickly jettisoned without risk to the crew.


I don't recall that episode. :?
"We've been over this. We don't shoot first and ask questions later."
"Of course! We never ask questions."
User avatar
Mikey
Fleet Admiral
Fleet Admiral
 
Posts: 33118
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 2:04 am
Location: down the shore, New Jersey, USA

Re: Ambassador & Galaxy class

Postby stitch626 » Wed Apr 13, 2011 5:56 pm

Thats why I said could, not can. It a presumption made form the design of the Oberth as such that it is impossible for people to quickly move from top section to bottom pod (in ideal situations at that).
No trees were killed in transmission of this message. However, some electrons were mildly inconvenienced.
User avatar
stitch626
2 Star Admiral
2 Star Admiral
 
Posts: 9521
Joined: Sat Mar 01, 2008 10:57 pm
Location: Romulus

Re: Ambassador & Galaxy class

Postby Tholian_Avenger » Wed Apr 13, 2011 9:49 pm

GrahamKennedy wrote:You don't know if it's possible to use dead-man switched double valves.

Physically, I can't recon why it would be impossible on any mass flow system.

GrahamKennedy wrote:I don't know what you mean by "the Oberth pattern".

stitch626 wrote:the Oberth pattern is the way the Oberth has a pod which could presumably hold all of the explosive stuff and be quickly jettisoned without risk to the crew.

I haven't seen an Oberth do so, but to couple this idea with Saucer Seperation seems an ideal way to guillotine the head so it can run away if the guts can't be vomited out.

Generations portrayed a successful saucer separation as the saucer was not destroyed by the warp core breach of the warp drive segment of the starship.
Daleks do not allow others to live, we decide when they die!
User avatar
Tholian_Avenger
Lieutenant jg
Lieutenant jg
 
Posts: 335
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2008 4:51 am
Location: Here, just past there.

Re: Ambassador & Galaxy class

Postby Graham Kennedy » Thu Apr 14, 2011 9:05 am

stitch626 wrote:I think what he means by the Oberth pattern is the way the Oberth has a pod which could presumably hold all of the explosive stuff and be quickly jettisoned without risk to the crew.

That's fan speculation. And we've seen an Oberth killed with one hit from a Bird of Prey, so such a system doesn't do a whole lot of good even if they have it.

And in any case, the Enterprise D effectively does have similar capability with the saucer separation.
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
Graham Kennedy
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8202
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 1:28 pm
Location: Banbury, UK

Re: Ambassador & Galaxy class

Postby McAvoy » Thu Apr 14, 2011 8:35 pm

Deepcrush wrote: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.


Well that is true. Yamato and the E-D both have computers with no firewalls.

However, I am more inclined to think there has to be something wrong with the E-D or the crew itself than a class-wide series of problems. I mean in every case where the E-D exploded we have other situations where other classes of ships did fine. Hell even the prototype itself took direct hits at the Battle of Chintaka where the core should be. Most have merely said they may have fixed the problems by then. What if they didn't and it was the E-D only that had the issue. No way to be sure in either case.

All we have is no Galaxy's being destroyed left and right. The prototype lived well until Nemesis. Did the USS Galaxy live a charmed life? She was built the same time as the Yamato and the E-D.
"Don't underestimate the power of technobabble: the Federation can win anything with the sheer force of bullshit"
User avatar
McAvoy
Captain
Captain
 
Posts: 3944
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 1:39 am
Location: East Windsor, NJ

Re: Ambassador & Galaxy class

Postby Deepcrush » Fri Apr 15, 2011 8:34 am

McAvoy wrote:Well that is true. Yamato and the E-D both have computers with no firewalls.


Then its clear to be a class issue and not just related to the E-D.

McAvoy wrote:However, I am more inclined to think there has to be something wrong with the E-D or the crew itself than a class-wide series of problems. I mean in every case where the E-D exploded we have other situations where other classes of ships did fine. Hell even the prototype itself took direct hits at the Battle of Chintaka where the core should be. Most have merely said they may have fixed the problems by then. What if they didn't and it was the E-D only that had the issue. No way to be sure in either case.


A, what you're inclined to think isn't of any value if what you're thinking about has zero to do with the show.
B, At Chintaka 1, we saw a refitted GCS take a hit. This is not the same as a 20 year old protoype mk-I.
C, "What if it was just the E-D", again this would require ignoring the majority of trek history to even pretend this theory is worth the space its typed in.

McAvoy wrote:All we have is no Galaxy's being destroyed left and right. The prototype lived well until Nemesis. Did the USS Galaxy live a charmed life? She was built the same time as the Yamato and the E-D.


Again wrong... What prototype did we see in Nemesis? Where was the USS Galaxy non-refitted mk-I GCS prototype in ST Nemesis, because I must have missed it. You keep coming back with the "What if TNG never happened and we make up our own history of it" which doesn't work for this point of debate. Ignoring canon is fine when you're making up your own fluff or cross-over. However, ignoring canon does not work when the question being posed is about the canon time line.

Nine years after the Mk-I's were fielded, a refit was shown that seemed to correct at least the power/fuel/warp core issues. This means that the flaws in the design were correctable. If we guess the time between the loss of the E-D and the arrival of the USS Venture being at two years. The question then becomes "Should SF have waited an extra three years at the GCS design phase to correct the problem?".

Its a very clear yes by any means. By view of both DITL and of TNG-YE, the Ambassador is a fairly good ship. Small crew, pretty well armed and armored and very durable. Would few more years of production of the Ambassador Class benefit SF by allowing it time to fully complete the GCS? Considering the easily lower cost in material and crew for the ship, the answer is again a very clear yes.
Jinsei wa cho no yume, shi no tsubasa no bitodesu
User avatar
Deepcrush
4 Star Admiral
4 Star Admiral
 
Posts: 18917
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2007 7:15 pm
Location: Arnold, Maryland, USA

PreviousNext

Return to TNG

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests