## 10 Flaws Star Trek - USS Enterprise NCC 1701-D

The Next Generation

### Re: 10 Flaws Star Trek - USS Enterprise NCC 1701-D

Bryan Moore wrote:Actually, I just did some quick bar-napkin math while in the kitchen making dinner. Let's just say that those 10,000 torpedoes fill 15 basketball courts worth of space using your conservative formulas. If you JUST take into account the 800,000 square meters of "mission adaptable" space mentioned in the Tech Manual, filling 15 basketball courts worth of this space with torpedoes, it is the equivalent of putting a shoe box full of bullets in your average passenger sedan (My Toyota Camry has about 100 cubic feet of space). So basically, it's hiding ammo and a pistol under your two front seats... That's pretty good space.

It's also pretty close to the volume ratio given by historical precedent. In very rough terms a GCS has about 60 times the volume of a King George V-class battleship of 1940, while a PT has about five times the volume of a 14-in projectile. Assuming we treat these as functionally equivalent as main armament ammunition, the GCS warload should be twelve times as many rounds as the KGV's, which would be 12000 rounds (or 9600 rounds if we use the official capacity of the KGVs).
Only two things are infinite - the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the universe: Albert Einstein.

Captain Seafort

Posts: 15477
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 12:44 pm
Location: Blighty

### Re: 10 Flaws Star Trek - USS Enterprise NCC 1701-D

Here's a question. In onscreen battles the ships rarely seem to fire anything like as much as they theoretically can. For instance, the GCS can fire torps at this rate :

Now I would expect that in battle, they would just do that - shoot torps off continuously like a damn machine gun. And fire all of the phasers continuously, rather than the single array one-second-blast-followed-by-twenty-seconds-of-nothing that we actually get.

Now one can speculate that the weapons overheat or something, I guess. But of course the real reason is special effects limitations.

So I'm wondering how Star Trek Online does this? There's battles and stuff in that, right? Can you just blast away with phasers? Can you fire photons in a continuous stream?
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...

Graham Kennedy

Posts: 11085
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 1:28 pm
Location: Banbury, UK

### Re: 10 Flaws Star Trek - USS Enterprise NCC 1701-D

Virtually all star trek games i remember are eveno more limiting than the TV series regarding armaments.

The only game you remember that seemed to me a little closer was Bridge Commander, i think
Ensign

Posts: 169
Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2018 7:36 am

### Re: 10 Flaws Star Trek - USS Enterprise NCC 1701-D

Graham Kennedy wrote:So I'm wondering how Star Trek Online does this? There's battles and stuff in that, right? Can you just blast away with phasers? Can you fire photons in a continuous stream?

No, but that's typical MMO combat design more than anything.
Bite my shiny metal ass

Griffin
Lieutenant Commander

Posts: 1186
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 7:52 pm
Location: Yorkshire!

### Re: 10 Flaws Star Trek - USS Enterprise NCC 1701-D

Graham Kennedy wrote:Here's a question. In onscreen battles the ships rarely seem to fire anything like as much as they theoretically can. For instance, the GCS can fire torps at this rate :

Now I would expect that in battle, they would just do that - shoot torps off continuously like a damn machine gun. And fire all of the phasers continuously, rather than the single array one-second-blast-followed-by-twenty-seconds-of-nothing that we actually get.

Now one can speculate that the weapons overheat or something, I guess. But of course the real reason is special effects limitations.

So I'm wondering how Star Trek Online does this? There's battles and stuff in that, right? Can you just blast away with phasers? Can you fire photons in a continuous stream?

I figure it as a 'clip' of armed photon torpedoes getting fired. The clip size is the number of photons that can be safely fired while full of antimatter. Photorps without antimatter can be kept in a secured cargo hold (so nobody tampers with them), photorps in a magazine are assembled and can be moved fairly quickly, but photorps with antimatter in them might need a bit more care.

Here is a link to Ent-D fighting the Husnock warship:
https://youtu.be/H_XbWq49vUM?t=68

By clip, I mean similar to current assault rifles, where you can fire off a lot of rounds (~30), but then have to reload. In Enterprise's case, you fire off several torpedoes, but then have to safely reload
Relativity Calculator
My Nomination for "MVAM Critic Award" (But can it be broken into 3 separate pieces?)
Coalition
Lieutenant Commander

Posts: 953
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2008 3:34 am
Location: Georgia, United States

### Re: 10 Flaws Star Trek - USS Enterprise NCC 1701-D

Coalition wrote:
I figure it as a 'clip' of armed photon torpedoes getting fired. The clip size is the number of photons that can be safely fired while full of antimatter. Photorps without antimatter can be kept in a secured cargo hold (so nobody tampers with them), photorps in a magazine are assembled and can be moved fairly quickly, but photorps with antimatter in them might need a bit more care.

Here is a link to Ent-D fighting the Husnock warship:
https://youtu.be/H_XbWq49vUM?t=68

By clip, I mean similar to current assault rifles, where you can fire off a lot of rounds (~30), but then have to reload. In Enterprise's case, you fire off several torpedoes, but then have to safely reload

the problem is that we rarely see the Enterprise fight at full capacity, even against enemies at his level
Ensign

Posts: 169
Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2018 7:36 am

### Re: 10 Flaws Star Trek - USS Enterprise NCC 1701-D

Alsmost every item on the list applies to almost all Star Trek ships or Enterprises (exposed bridge, exposed nacelles etc.) or is not a fault of the ship design (like terrible security). The third photon torpedo launcher is, afaik, not strictly speaking canon. (or does the TNG Technical Manual Count as such?)

Coalition wrote:
I figure it as a 'clip' of armed photon torpedoes getting fired. The clip size is the number of photons that can be safely fired while full of antimatter. Photorps without antimatter can be kept in a secured cargo hold (so nobody tampers with them), photorps in a magazine are assembled and can be moved fairly quickly, but photorps with antimatter in them might need a bit more care.

Here is a link to Ent-D fighting the Husnock warship:
https://youtu.be/H_XbWq49vUM?t=68

By clip, I mean similar to current assault rifles, where you can fire off a lot of rounds (~30), but then have to reload. In Enterprise's case, you fire off several torpedoes, but then have to safely reload

the problem is that we rarely see the Enterprise fight at full capacity, even against enemies at his level

True. Most sources state that each launcher can either fire 10 torps simultaniously or in short intervalls. Anyone ever played "Star Trek A final Unity". They had a great representation of that, you could set the number of torps you want to launch, set different spreads etc. etc.

Problem is that you cna indeed exhaust your whole torpedo complement really quickly. But the punch......sadly we hardly ever see the GCS go all out, a victim of terrible, terrible writing all to often.

Given the capability of the ship, it shouldn't matter if it has shields or not....it should blast appart Bird of Preys or Dominion Bug ships like nothing. Shame that this beautiful design was wasted on and subject to limited special effects.
I'm Commander Shepard and this is my favorite store on the Citadel.
Atekimogus
Lieutenant Commander

Posts: 1161
Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2009 11:10 pm
Location: Vienna

### Re: 10 Flaws Star Trek - USS Enterprise NCC 1701-D

Atekimogus wrote:Alsmost every item on the list applies to almost all Star Trek ships or Enterprises (exposed bridge, exposed nacelles etc.) or is not a fault of the ship design (like terrible security). The third photon torpedo launcher is, afaik, not strictly speaking canon. (or does the TNG Technical Manual Count as such?)

Never seen firing, i don't know if it is visible in a clear shot during saucer separation so i think you are right (no, the TNGTM is not canon).
True. Most sources state that each launcher can either fire 10 torps simultaniously or in short intervalls. Anyone ever played "Star Trek A final Unity". They had a great representation of that, you could set the number of torps you want to launch, set different spreads etc. etc.

Yeah...forgot that great game...

Problem is that you cna indeed exhaust your whole torpedo complement really quickly. But the punch......sadly we hardly ever see the GCS go all out, a victim of terrible, terrible writing all to often.

I expect a far greater torpedo complement during war, at least stored in cargo hold...

Given the capability of the ship, it shouldn't matter if it has shields or not....it should blast appart Bird of Preys or Dominion Bug ships like nothing. Shame that this beautiful design was wasted on and subject to limited special effects.

I can accept that a few well aimed shot from a BoP or a dominion fighter could severely damage a GCS or even destroy it if it is without shield protection...just like a submarine could in theory have destroyed a battleship (in fact they did) with a few well placed torpedoes in WWII.

From the dialogues it is often said that without the shields the Enterprise would be defenseless ...the dependence of the ships of ST from the shields seems really strong, this makes the ablative armor of the defiant in effect a remarkable invention, it seems that for the first time (at least since the NX class) a ship can survive a fight even without its shields
Ensign

Posts: 169
Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2018 7:36 am

### Re: 10 Flaws Star Trek - USS Enterprise NCC 1701-D

bladela wrote:From the dialogues it is often said that without the shields the Enterprise would be defenseless ...the dependence of the ships of ST from the shields seems really strong, this makes the ablative armor of the defiant in effect a remarkable invention, it seems that for the first time (at least since the NX class) a ship can survive a fight even without its shields

Well..the problem is....there is - sadly - never any continuity when it cames to space battles. They are purely story driven and develop just how the writers need them without any logic or consistance behind them.

Sometimes having lost shields is a huge problem. Sometimes they slug it out without. Sometimes shields are down in a couple of hits...sometimes they are not...there is no consistancy to it.

I wish when making a series like this, they not only would write a bible or Technical Manual, but also come up with a "Starfleet Battles" like set of "gaming rules" as an indicator for writers what the capabilites of ships are against each other.
I'm Commander Shepard and this is my favorite store on the Citadel.
Atekimogus
Lieutenant Commander

Posts: 1161
Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2009 11:10 pm
Location: Vienna

### Re: 10 Flaws Star Trek - USS Enterprise NCC 1701-D

Atekimogus wrote:
Well..the problem is....there is - sadly - never any continuity when it cames to space battles. They are purely story driven and develop just how the writers need them without any logic or consistance behind them.

Sometimes having lost shields is a huge problem. Sometimes they slug it out without. Sometimes shields are down in a couple of hits...sometimes they are not...there is no consistancy to it.

I wish when making a series like this, they not only would write a bible or Technical Manual, but also come up with a "Starfleet Battles" like set of "gaming rules" as an indicator for writers what the capabilites of ships are against each other.

i bet this wouldn't be their top priority :\
Ensign

Posts: 169
Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2018 7:36 am

### Re: 10 Flaws Star Trek - USS Enterprise NCC 1701-D

I'd settle for just outlining how powerful the weapons and shields are.

"A photon torpedo at maximum power is the equivalent of the largest hydrogen bomb. It could be expected to completely destroy a whole city."
"The shields of the ship could be expected to withstand approximately a dozen photon torpedoes. Once the shields fail, even a single photon torpedo hit would vapourise the entire ship."
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...

Graham Kennedy

Posts: 11085
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 1:28 pm
Location: Banbury, UK

### Re: 10 Flaws Star Trek - USS Enterprise NCC 1701-D

Or how shield percentages work. Are they being depleted or that percentage is a efficiency percentage. Like 90% is great, 80% allows bleed through and 50% and lower will allow the ship receive significant damage.
"Don't underestimate the power of technobabble: the Federation can win anything﻿ with the sheer force of bullshit"
McAvoy

Posts: 5190
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 1:39 am
Location: East Windsor, NJ

### Re: 10 Flaws Star Trek - USS Enterprise NCC 1701-D

Graham Kennedy wrote:I'd settle for just outlining how powerful the weapons and shields are.

"A photon torpedo at maximum power is the equivalent of the largest hydrogen bomb. It could be expected to completely destroy a whole city."
"The shields of the ship could be expected to withstand approximately a dozen photon torpedoes. Once the shields fail, even a single photon torpedo hit would vapourise the entire ship."

we should also expect that torpedoes and shields are upgraded almost in sync, so a 23th century torpedo shouldn't be a so big problem for a Galaxy class starship and a 24th century torpedo should take out a constitution almost at the first blow ...
Ensign

Posts: 169
Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2018 7:36 am

### Re: 10 Flaws Star Trek - USS Enterprise NCC 1701-D

bladela wrote:we should also expect that torpedoes and shields are upgraded almost in sync, so a 23th century torpedo shouldn't be a so big problem for a Galaxy class starship and a 24th century torpedo should take out a constitution almost at the first blow ...

In this case we have evidence to the contrary.

The examples we have of the effectiveness of late-24th century PTs against asteroids (planned in TNG:The Pegasus, actual in VOY:Rise) suggests a yield of approximately one megaton. This is consistent with the (superior) output of the BoBW deflector weapon (5-7 Mt/s, assuming it's channelling the same warp nine power as planning in Deja Q).

Mid-22nd century PTs (i.e. the NX-01's photonics) had a yield of at least a few dozen megatons, going by the statement that they could "put a three kilometre crater into an asteroid". God knows what the E-nil could do - 23rd century PTs could do anything from "depopulate planets" (The Armageddon Factor) to "make a mortar round look like serious firepower" (guess ).
Only two things are infinite - the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the universe: Albert Einstein.

Captain Seafort

Posts: 15477
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 12:44 pm
Location: Blighty

### Re: 10 Flaws Star Trek - USS Enterprise NCC 1701-D

Captain Seafort wrote:In this case we have evidence to the contrary.

The examples we have of the effectiveness of late-24th century PTs against asteroids (planned in TNG:The Pegasus, actual in VOY:Rise) suggests a yield of approximately one megaton. This is consistent with the (superior) output of the BoBW deflector weapon (5-7 Mt/s, assuming it's channelling the same warp nine power as planning in Deja Q).

Mid-22nd century PTs (i.e. the NX-01's photonics) had a yield of at least a few dozen megatons, going by the statement that they could "put a three kilometre crater into an asteroid". God knows what the E-nil could do - 23rd century PTs could do anything from "depopulate planets" (The Armageddon Factor) to "make a mortar round look like serious firepower" (guess ).

never said that it was so in the series ... I say it would make sense that way

there can be a thousand motivations, difficulties in containing antimatter, improvements in reaction efficiency, technobabble ...