Page 1 of 3

10 Flaws Star Trek - USS Enterprise NCC 1701-D

PostPosted: Fri Jan 11, 2019 8:28 pm
by bladela


I don't agree with all of them, but some are actually true...

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

PostPosted: Fri Jan 11, 2019 9:20 pm
by Captain Seafort
He's got a point with most of them. The only ones I'd query would be the assessment of the saucer's landing ability (I'd blame Troi's driving, not the ship) and the modulating shields (the Klingons would have seen the change as soon as it happened).

He did, however, miss the worst problem with the design - the warp core. If you so much as look sideways at the damn thing the ship blows up.

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

PostPosted: Fri Jan 11, 2019 10:14 pm
by bladela
Captain Seafort wrote:He's got a point with most of them. The only ones I'd query would be the assessment of the saucer's landing ability (I'd blame Troi's driving, not the ship) and the modulating shields (the Klingons would have seen the change as soon as it happened).

He did, however, miss the worst problem with the design - the warp core. If you so much as look sideways at the damn thing the ship blows up.


about the saucer's landing...it could easily be explained as a complication not requested by the mission specifications, moreover, did not seem to be an indispensable requisite.

About the shield modulation we can hypothesize a modulation change fast enough not to be replicable by the Klingons ... I don't know ... every second?
I challenge them to be able to keep up ...

The vulnerability of the core is a change that came out from the second season I think ... I think with the USS Yamato they were amazed that the core actually had exploded ...

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

PostPosted: Fri Jan 11, 2019 10:27 pm
by Graham Kennedy
What exactly is supposed to be wrong with the saucer landing?

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

PostPosted: Sat Jan 12, 2019 11:28 am
by bladela
Graham Kennedy wrote:What exactly is supposed to be wrong with the saucer landing?


to me it was a really good landing...if you think there was Troi at the helm in a damaged saucer section :D

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

PostPosted: Sat Jan 12, 2019 1:45 pm
by Graham Kennedy
bladela wrote:
Graham Kennedy wrote:What exactly is supposed to be wrong with the saucer landing?


to me it was a really good landing...if you think there was Troi at the helm in a damaged saucer section :D

It was a good landing period.

The TNG Tech Manual has this to say : "Starfleet has recorded a total of three data sets from previous starship hull landings, and these were extremely helpful in the design of the computer routines. Conventional wisdom believes, however, that the Galaxy class hull is still outside the survivable performance envelope and would be unable to successfully perform a deorbit and entry into a Class M compatible atmosphere."

In other words, the designers didn't even think it was possible to land a GCS saucer. Deanna did it anyway. And that's on a saucer which was suffering heavy battle damage. Seems like an impressive accomplishment to me.

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

PostPosted: Sat Jan 12, 2019 3:57 pm
by bladela
or the designers were very cautious in their estimates, which is also reasonable

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

PostPosted: Sat Jan 12, 2019 5:46 pm
by Graham Kennedy
bladela wrote:or the designers were very cautious in their estimates, which is also reasonable

Certainly a possibility. But even if so, landing a saucer of that size is still an unprecedented feat which Deanna pulled off pretty much flawlessly, first time. When she's not even a helmsman in the first place. It's a pretty impressive accomplishment which saved almost a thousand lives, so I really don't get why there would be criticism of her for it.

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

PostPosted: Sun Jan 13, 2019 10:47 pm
by McAvoy
Also I think considering that the saucer probably had damage not only from the explosion from the secondary hull but damage from the fight with Duras it was a good landing.

I think Troi said in the movie that Helms not responding but I woukd have to check. Not like that saucer had physical moving planes to control the landing either.

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

PostPosted: Sun Jan 13, 2019 11:11 pm
by Bryan Moore
I think one of the biggest E-D flaws (along with all starships) is Graham's argument that there are far too few photon torpedoes on the ship. I don't think the ship needs to have 400,000 or whatever Graham's absurdly large (yet still conservative) number that the E-D could carry just devoting something like 3 decks to storage, but to think that you can't put 5,000 or 10,000 torpedoes in that behemoth is a stretch. "Exploration" ship or not, there are enough battle situations the E-D has come across that sacrificing space for say 10,000 torpedoes would be the space equivalent of putting a small ammo can in the trunk of your GMC Suburban SUV.

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

PostPosted: Sun Jan 13, 2019 11:39 pm
by Graham Kennedy
Couldn't agree more. 10,000 tops on a galaxy class would be a very reasonable loadout.

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

PostPosted: Mon Jan 14, 2019 12:20 am
by Bryan Moore
Graham Kennedy wrote:Couldn't agree more. 10,000 tops on a galaxy class would be a very reasonable loadout.


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.

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

PostPosted: Mon Jan 14, 2019 1:25 am
by McAvoy
I think you could argue that E-D had a peacetime load out. Basically carrying that many torpedos during peacetime was acceptable since maybe a single battle with some foe may use up at most 20.

Whereas Dominion War Era GCS carried more since they would be in battle constantly and wouldn't be able to restock for awhile.

That and I do think the GCS was very new during the TNG Era and by the time the Dominion War happened they ironed out the details. After all the class was designed during a peaceful Era.

Yeah I know there are references to wars happening in the 2350's. Especially with the Cardassians but I always felt like that the was the equivalent of being in the Middle East. Something that didn't really push development.

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

PostPosted: Mon Jan 14, 2019 4:06 am
by Bryan Moore
McAvoy wrote: I always felt like that the was the equivalent of being in the Middle East. Something that didn't really push development.


So Starfleet stole the Cardassian's dilithium under the guise of the Spoonheads producing metagenic weapons and more extreme Cardassians responded by beheading red shirts and bulldozing other civilizations monuments? I LIKE it!

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

PostPosted: Mon Jan 14, 2019 8:05 am
by bladela
McAvoy wrote:I think you could argue that E-D had a peacetime load out. Basically carrying that many torpedos during peacetime was acceptable since maybe a single battle with some foe may use up at most 20.

Whereas Dominion War Era GCS carried more since they would be in battle constantly and wouldn't be able to restock for awhile.

The doubt may possibly also be on the production cost of torpedoes, and on the availability of antimatter, each shot fired eventually removes warp fuel .

That and I do think the GCS was very new during the TNG Era and by the time the Dominion War happened they ironed out the details. After all the class was designed during a peaceful Era.

Yeah I know there are references to wars happening in the 2350's. Especially with the Cardassians but I always felt like that the was the equivalent of being in the Middle East. Something that didn't really push development.


My idea is that the second batch of galaxies has undergone a certain revision of the armaments and shields, after all if 35% of the ship is free, they would not have affected the scientific capabilities to do so, especially if built during the war (where only the diplomatic and scientific part was left incomplete).