Ambassador & Galaxy class

The Next Generation

Re: Ambassador & Galaxy class

Postby Mikey » Fri Apr 15, 2011 12:05 pm

Deepcrush wrote:Should SF have waited an extra three years at the GCS design phase to correct the problem?

Deepcrush wrote:Would few more years of production of the Ambassador Class benefit SF by allowing it time to fully complete the GCS?


The answer to both these questions is "yes," if we assume that the problems were predictable through Starfleet's R&D SOP. That's a considerable "if," judging by the fact that we don't know anything about that process. You are correct in saying that there is a pretty glaring flaw somewhere; but we just don't have enough info to indicate whether that flaw is in the specific design of the GCS, or in the design SOP of Starfleet in general at the time of the GCS' build.
"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: 33073
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 2:04 am
Location: down the shore, New Jersey, USA

Re: Ambassador & Galaxy class

Postby stitch626 » Fri Apr 15, 2011 12:41 pm

The only problem that was clearly a class issue... and quite possibly goes for all starfleet ships, is their lack of computer security.

The frequent unexplainably explosive warp core, as far as we know in canon, is only an issue for the E-D.
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 Captain Seafort » Fri Apr 15, 2011 2:02 pm

stitch626 wrote:The frequent unexplainably explosive warp core, as far as we know in canon, is only an issue for the E-D.


The repeated issues with the warp core have always been down to design issues, not how it's been handled. The Yamato's loss and half the E-Ds near losses were because of over reliance on and over centralisation of the computer system, with no manual override, Cause and Effect was down to loss of pressure in the system and Generations was the lack of a backup coolant loop. Moreover, their reactions whenever the shutdown or ejection systems fail indicate that they only have one of each system. This is a serious design flaw, as there should always be multiple independent, isolated and diverse systems to get the job done.
Only two things are infinite - the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the universe: Albert Einstein.

Across the Universe - Chapter 2 now up
User avatar
Captain Seafort
3 Star Admiral
3 Star Admiral
 
Posts: 14966
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 12:44 pm
Location: Blighty

Re: Ambassador & Galaxy class

Postby Deepcrush » Fri Apr 15, 2011 3:01 pm

Mikey wrote:The answer to both these questions is "yes," if we assume that the problems were predictable through Starfleet's R&D SOP. That's a considerable "if," judging by the fact that we don't know anything about that process. You are correct in saying that there is a pretty glaring flaw somewhere; but we just don't have enough info to indicate whether that flaw is in the specific design of the GCS, or in the design SOP of Starfleet in general at the time of the GCS' build.


First point before we go further is you idea on SOP. SOP doesn't change a flawed system. Saying that someone just has a bad SOP doesn't mean they can't predict issues that will come along, just that they chose not to. Sure, SOP could be that I don't need anything that fires bullets, but if its a modern day soldier going to war... you can't say that "Well thats not predictable because their SOP might be flawed". Just doesn't work. As to if its every SF ship, I would like to see any other SF ship class that explodes from the same problems. As far as I have seen, its always been the GCS and never any of the other classes. The leaves it firmly in the "class" range and not the whole of SF.

With that settled, predictable problems in the GCS. Is it predictable that a M/AM reactor may need a manual override? Is it predictable that a starship may need a firewall for its computer? Is it predictable that a ship should have more then passive environmental sensors? Is it predictable that said starship's environmental safety shouldn't rely on force fields only?

Now, these are questions without bringing up the "E-D explodes yet again because someone bumped it" or "random galactic event episode 6848". They are questions that should be considered with every ship.
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 » Fri Apr 15, 2011 4:04 pm

All true, but you're conflating what's a predictable necessity in ship design - i.e., backup systems etc. - with the idea of the specific failings of the GCS being predictable from the design process. Having a "bad" standard operating platform doesn't mean that they can't predict more general needs, agreed - but it does mean that they don't. This definitely falls in the category of "bad things," but it is a distinct issue from the specific and practical failings witnessed in the E-D (and in one instance the Yamato.)

However, a better SOP in the design stage likely would have mitigated some of the sailings we saw in the E-D.
"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: 33073
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 2:04 am
Location: down the shore, New Jersey, USA

Re: Ambassador & Galaxy class

Postby McAvoy » Sun Apr 17, 2011 3:09 pm

Deepcrush wrote:
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.


Ok... what canon are you talking about any Galaxy class being refitted? All we have is the E-D getting a new warp core. No specifics on why, just getting a new one. Fan speculation and a half assed book saying they may have been refitted. So tell me in TNG, DS9 or VOY where was this refit you mentioned was said? We have a handful of scenes where we see dark necks on a few Galaxys and maybe one or two (if they are different ships) with extra phaser strips.

I must have missed the refitted USS Galaxy as well. Tell me what scene was she in? Oh that's right, just her name and registry. What about the Battle of Chintaka? What made her look refitted to you?

Again the USS Galaxy has been in active service longer than any other Galaxy class in the fleet. Again I ask did she lead a charmed life during the TNG years?
"Don't underestimate the power of technobabble: the Federation can win anything with the sheer force of bullshit"
User avatar
McAvoy
Captain
Captain
 
Posts: 3904
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 1:39 am
Location: East Windsor, NJ

Re: Ambassador & Galaxy class

Postby Captain Seafort » Sun Apr 17, 2011 4:07 pm

McAvoy wrote:Ok... what canon are you talking about any Galaxy class being refitted...So tell me in TNG, DS9 or VOY where was this refit you mentioned was said? We have a handful of scenes where we see dark necks on a few Galaxys and maybe one or two (if they are different ships) with extra phaser strips.


It was never mentioned, but its existence is as obvious as the refit the E-E went through between Insurrection and Nemesis. Not only do you have the extra phaser strips and the darkened hull in exactly the place you'd want to armour it to reduce the vulnerability of the separation plane, but there's also the lack of Galaxies going pop left right and centre, when the class' track record demonstrates that we should have seen at least a few go up.

I must have missed the refitted USS Galaxy as well.


She was mentioned as being part of the task force concentrating to engage the Scimitar in Nemesis and was seen at 1st Chin'toka - it's only a quick flyby, but you can see NCC-70637 on the underside of the saucer from screencaps

Again I ask did she lead a charmed life during the TNG years?


Evidently so.
Only two things are infinite - the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the universe: Albert Einstein.

Across the Universe - Chapter 2 now up
User avatar
Captain Seafort
3 Star Admiral
3 Star Admiral
 
Posts: 14966
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 12:44 pm
Location: Blighty

Re: Ambassador & Galaxy class

Postby Deepcrush » Sun Apr 17, 2011 4:55 pm

Mikey wrote:All true, but you're conflating what's a predictable necessity in ship design - i.e., backup systems etc. - with the idea of the specific failings of the GCS being predictable from the design process. Having a "bad" standard operating platform doesn't mean that they can't predict more general needs, agreed - but it does mean that they don't. This definitely falls in the category of "bad things," but it is a distinct issue from the specific and practical failings witnessed in the E-D (and in one instance the Yamato.)

However, a better SOP in the design stage likely would have mitigated some of the sailings we saw in the E-D.


Mikey, if you can't figure out on your own that being able to safely seal in atmosphere on a space ship is important. Then you shouldn't be involving yourself in talks about the designing space ships in the first place. I get you're a GCS wankboy and thats fine and all. But no matter how much you try to ignore the issues stated. The GCS is still a flawed class and should have spent more time under design.

At the end of it, most of the problems of the class are fully predictable and solvable.
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 McAvoy » Sun Apr 17, 2011 5:02 pm

I know about the Galaxy showing up in DS9 and Nemesis. Obviously all of the visual differences we have seen in the GCS in DS9 cannot be seen from the angle we saw the Galaxy.

Also, I am sure most know that a ship built 20 years ago will not be identical today due to tech updates, refits etc.

My point is that we have two out of three GCS with a flaw. Like I said the Yamato had a computer flaw which so did the E-D and unless the GCS has a completely different computer setup, that virus could have destroyed any other Fed ship. In fact it infected a D'Deridex class ship. So it comes down to the E-D herself being flawed.

But since any ship named Enterprise cannot be flawed, we just assume all GCS are flawed.
"Don't underestimate the power of technobabble: the Federation can win anything with the sheer force of bullshit"
User avatar
McAvoy
Captain
Captain
 
Posts: 3904
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 1:39 am
Location: East Windsor, NJ

Re: Ambassador & Galaxy class

Postby Captain Seafort » Sun Apr 17, 2011 5:17 pm

McAvoy wrote:Like I said the Yamato had a computer flaw which so did the E-D and unless the GCS has a completely different computer setup, that virus could have destroyed any other Fed ship.


Quite likely. Indeed, there are other examples of execrable Fed computer security. The E-D was infected by a virus after it automatically ran alien software in Masks, in much the same way as she and the Yamato did in Contagion. The E-D in Peak Performance and the Phoenix in The Wounded both demonstrated vulnerability to remote access logon, which allowed threat access to their main computer systems. Voyager was completely shut down by the Voth in Distant Origin.

But since any ship named Enterprise cannot be flawed, we just assume all GCS are flawed.


When a ship of a given class demonstrates fundamental design flaws, that means the entire class suffers from the same flaws. I don't see how you can fail to understand this.
Only two things are infinite - the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the universe: Albert Einstein.

Across the Universe - Chapter 2 now up
User avatar
Captain Seafort
3 Star Admiral
3 Star Admiral
 
Posts: 14966
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 12:44 pm
Location: Blighty

Re: Ambassador & Galaxy class

Postby stitch626 » Sun Apr 17, 2011 6:16 pm

When a ship of a given class demonstrates fundamental design flaws, that means the entire class suffers from the same flaws. I don't see how you can fail to understand this.

This would be true if we knew for a fact that the flaws causing the ED to erupt at a bump were actually design based. But, since we have only one example of a ship that is extra combustible (not including the computer security as that is a major flaw in all of trek), we cannot differentiate from a design, operational, or a construction flaw.
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 Captain Seafort » Sun Apr 17, 2011 7:02 pm

stitch626 wrote:This would be true if we knew for a fact that the flaws causing the ED to erupt at a bump were actually design based.


We do. Go back and read the rest of the thread. The reason the E-D kept blowing up was because the design ignored basic engineering principles.
Only two things are infinite - the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the universe: Albert Einstein.

Across the Universe - Chapter 2 now up
User avatar
Captain Seafort
3 Star Admiral
3 Star Admiral
 
Posts: 14966
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 12:44 pm
Location: Blighty

Re: Ambassador & Galaxy class

Postby McAvoy » Sun Apr 17, 2011 7:57 pm

Captain Seafort wrote:When a ship of a given class demonstrates fundamental design flaws, that means the entire class suffers from the same flaws. I don't see how you can fail to understand this.


Not all ships of the same class are built equally. I am going to have to dig up the info, but for example the four ships of the Iowa class, half has a different set of machinery that was shown to be less reliable. Though off of the top of my head no ships has exploded from their engines... We do have the Japanese having stability issues with their pre-WW2 designs but that was self imposed putting too much on a small displacement and overloading it.

Planes are similar too. You can get a plane that is identical to the one preceeding it and the other following it, but for some reason that one plane has a years long worth of issues. Your command makes you spend hours upon hours for a week before they fly it again and then it comes back with the same problem. Doing this for six months until we get help. You gut out the plane and put it back together. It flies and then it still doesn't work and you gut it again. Eventually someone but not sure who or why does fix it after putting it together.

The opposite works too, some are built like tanks and take alot to break.

I just thought of this, the first three GCS we saw were destroyed. It took E-D eight years and a false spotting with the Yamato though.
"Don't underestimate the power of technobabble: the Federation can win anything with the sheer force of bullshit"
User avatar
McAvoy
Captain
Captain
 
Posts: 3904
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 1:39 am
Location: East Windsor, NJ

Re: Ambassador & Galaxy class

Postby stitch626 » Sun Apr 17, 2011 8:35 pm

Captain Seafort wrote:
stitch626 wrote:This would be true if we knew for a fact that the flaws causing the ED to erupt at a bump were actually design based.


We do. Go back and read the rest of the thread. The reason the E-D kept blowing up was because the design ignored basic engineering principles.

Then what is being discussed is not the flaws of the GCS, but the flaws of every starship built by Starfleet. In which case, those flaws still don't explain why the ED blew up so much, because every ship should have.
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 McAvoy » Sun Apr 17, 2011 8:45 pm

I am confused. I thought we are talking about the flaws in the GCS? The Yamato may be a fleet wide problem though.
"Don't underestimate the power of technobabble: the Federation can win anything with the sheer force of bullshit"
User avatar
McAvoy
Captain
Captain
 
Posts: 3904
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 1:39 am
Location: East Windsor, NJ

PreviousNext

Return to TNG

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 1 guest