Starfleet doesn't build Warships. Well Defiant and Promethius are and they are stripped down.waste of space on a warship
I never realised armour was that good.Cpl Kendall wrote:Actually modern day body armour deployed by both the US and Canadian Forces will stop a 7.62mm round fired by an AK-47 at point blank range.
Except it gives the ship more mass, thus making it slower and giving it a larger target profile for no advantage. You could easily get rid of half the space on board and everyone would still have their own cabins.Teaos wrote:What wasted space? If your refering to the large quarters I have no problem with them in peace time as Starfleet likes to keep its crew comfortable and happy. They aren't Russian subs were people hot bunk to save space. If you have the ability to make the ship more comfrotable with out harming its worth then you may as well.
Only in minor ways. Did they get rid of all the pointless features? Nope, they still kept them.But ships in general did seem to get upgraded.
No, you can't. What you do is you stop building the inferior ships and start replacing the old ships with new warships. Its what all militaries do when they need to phase something out.You cant just wave a wand and make that happen it takes time and resourses.
Really? Then where did they get all those ships for the Dominion war? If its designed for combat, which most Fed ships are, then it counts as a warship.Starfleet doesn't build Warships.
Yet they still had all those useless features on their ships.They have never had a need to do anything like powering up their ships up until the Dominion war when they did start to focus on military power more.
Not when its at the expense of efeciency or survivability.Starfleet is shown to have superior training and tactics to just about any other power in trek. So maybe keeping the crews which keep them at Number one happy is a rather good idea.
There is no evidence bigger means slower. Infact bigger usually means faster.Except it gives the ship more mass, thus making it slower and giving it a larger target profile for no advantage. You could easily get rid of half the space on board and everyone would still have their own cabins.
We have no idea what they did and didnt do. And maybe it was a choice. You either build more ships of the effective battle type ie Akira. Or recal existing ships strip them down and rebuild... Seems easier to build new ones.Only in minor ways. Did they get rid of all the pointless features? Nope, they still kept them.
I was under the impression that is what they did. Started build Defiants and other Combat vessels more than Novas.No, you can't. What you do is you stop building the inferior ships and start replacing the old ships with new warships. Its what all militaries do when they need to phase something out.
How does it cost Survivability? It makes it a bit bigger target thats about it. But then Trek ships never seem to have a problem hitting a Target in the latter years regardless of size.Not when its at the expense of efeciency or survivability.
Actually you are right. What I should have said is that they are less maneuverable.There is no evidence bigger means slower. Infact bigger usually means faster.
Were the new Galaxy class ships smaller? Nope. Was the Sovereign lacking in these features? Again, nope. You're right that we haven't seen the inside of all Fed ships, but their mindset dosn't apear to have changed.We have no idea what they did and didnt do. And maybe it was a choice. You either build more ships of the effective battle type ie Akira. Or recal existing ships strip them down and rebuild... Seems easier to build new ones.
I also think thats what they did.I was under the impression that is what they did. Started build Defiants and other Combat vessels more than Novas.
Guided missiles rarely miss nowadays. Does that mean we should be unconcerend about size? Yes, Trek ships do seem to have good acuracy, but we've seen torpedos (the most potent weapons they have) miss on a lot of ocasions. Having a smaller ship makes it more difficult to hit.But then Trek ships never seem to have a problem hitting a Target in the latter years regardless of size.
As I said, bigger is not better in all respects.How does it cost Survivability? It makes it a bit bigger target thats about it.
Indeed, a happy crew is an efecient crew.I'd also think it would improve efeciency having a happy crew.
I don't recall seing anyone under the rank of ensign aside from O'Brien. And his quarters seemed large enough.And did we ever see what type of quarters the lower ranks had on the Enterpirse or Voyager? The ones we see are for Officers who even in our military have comparitivly large quarters.
Making one room bigger dosen't take much. But making the whole ship bigger would take a lot. And its also a criminal waste of resources. You don't join the military to be comfy!For only a bit more basic resoures (Making a room bigger doesnt take anything but material) you can improve the comfort of a ship by a lot.
For this to work you'd need to know in advance if someone was about to attack you. If you are attacked by surprise then you may not have the time to adapt. Simply having your military designed in a smart way would prevent needless losses.Not really a big waste unless you are in a situation were you need every last bit. And the federation is almost never in that situation and when it is it does addapt to it.
Acceleration = Force/mass. Keep the force (ie power generation) the same while increasing the size, and therefore the mass of your ship and you reduce the acceleration.Teaos wrote:There is no evidence bigger means slower. Infact bigger usually means faster.Except it gives the ship more mass, thus making it slower and giving it a larger target profile for no advantage. You could easily get rid of half the space on board and everyone would still have their own cabins.
Yes they do.How does it cost Survivability? It makes it a bit bigger target thats about it. But then Trek ships never seem to have a problem hitting a Target in the latter years regardless of size.Not when its at the expense of efeciency or survivability.
We saw junior ranks quarters in "Lower Decks" - they're the same as senior officer's quarters except that they share two to a room. We also know that this problem is a 24th century one - in Kirk's day, when they could "clean [the Klingons'] chronometers" "even an Admiral didn't such quarters (as standard a Galaxy guest cabin) on a starship".And did we ever see what type of quarters the lower ranks had on the Enterpirse or Voyager? The ones we see are for Officers who even in our military have comparitivly large quarters.
There's extra crew comfort and there's five-star hotel accommodation - the 24th century Feds are the latter. The extra mass will reduce the ship's acceleration, and the extra volume will make it a bigger target, all for the unnecessary aim of making every ship a gin palace.Th fact is in space size isnt the issue it is here on a planet. For only a bit more basic resoures (Making a room bigger doesnt take anything but material) you can improve the comfort of a ship by a lot. Not really a big waste unless you are in a situation were you need every last bit. And the federation is almost never in that situation and when it is it does addapt to it.
Your thinking in terms of modern day propolsion. Impulse drive works by essentially making the whole ship a lot lighter. By reducing mass the innertial of the ship makes it go faster. Weight doesnt matter at all. Weight wouldn't effect Warp either as it is a space distortion and not a "Thrust"Acceleration = Force/mass. Keep the force (ie power generation) the same while increasing the size, and therefore the mass of your ship and you reduce the acceleration.
They really had no option but to build a few Galaxy class ships during the war. Sure the Akiras and stuff do a fine job but every fleet needs some big guns and the Galaxy has them. I know this was in a Trek mag and so not Canon but the ships that were built were bear bones ones. They didnt have anything fancy in them but just a lot of empty space. That was becuase it was easier build a stripped down design with big guns than deisgning a new class in the middle of a war.Were the new Galaxy class ships smaller? Nope. Was the Sovereign lacking in these features? Again, nope. You're right that we haven't seen the inside of all Fed ships, but their mindset dosn't apear to have changed.
Thats a good point.As I said, bigger is not better in all respects.
Also, the shields will have to cover a larger area, possibly making them weaker than they could be.
They could have more if they were properly designed.Sure the Akiras and stuff do a fine job but every fleet needs some big guns and the Galaxy has them.
If thats true then my opinion of Starfleet went up slightly.*snip* but the ships that were built were bear bones ones. They didnt have anything fancy in them but just a lot of empty space.
Why not just scrap the class during the war? The weapons mounted on the Galaxy could likely be mounted on a smaller vessel if they gutted the insides. That would be a much smarter idea as you're not wasting materials building hull space that covers nothing.That was becuase it was easier build a stripped down design with big guns than deisgning a new class in the middle of a war.
I would have less problem with the rooms if they were on dedicated civilian ships. Having such huge areas on a military vessel is plain wastefull and counter productive.The rest seems to come down to personal opinon of crew comfort and the use of resoures. I think the quarters could be a BIT smaller but I really have no porblem with them.
All governments try to avoid conflict where ever they can, Chamberlains' Britain went to great lengths to avoid war with the Nazis. Would you not agree that it would have been stupid for WWII Britain or any modern day country to make a Trek style military?I think the benifits out way the costs for an organisation that tries to avoid conflict when ever it can.
If they left out all the luxury stuff, why didn't they pack the space left with auxillary generators and torpedoes? The war-Galaxys didn't seem to be any more powerful than the E-D, with the E-D disabling a Galor with a few shots in "The Wounded" and a couple of war-Galaxys shredding a Galor in a straffing run (with multiple phaser shots in "Sacrifice of Angels".Rochey wrote:If thats true then my opinion of Starfleet went up slightly.*snip* but the ships that were built were bear bones ones. They didnt have anything fancy in them but just a lot of empty space.
Hey, I said that it wasn't much. It was the best I could come up with. Maybe there were budget cuts or something. I don't know.Rochey wrote:Firstly, as Seafort pointed out, phasers seem to be unusually inefective against the average box.ChakatBlackstar wrote:I think I might have some sort of idea why they don't use armor. Since everybody stopped using bullet based weapons(stated in that episode in DS9 where Ezri chased a serial killer) they would have to use phasers or disrupters right? And at higher settings there isn't much that a reasonable amount of armor could do to stop or even weaken the beam. It's not much but it's the best I can come up with.
Secondly, you always armour your troops. What about shrapnel? Wounds caused by this could be avoided. What about low powered shots? What about near misses? Modern day armour is unlikely to stop a bullet from an assault rifle, does this mean we should stop armouring our troops?
I agree completely.Thorin wrote:Final conclusion:
All species in Star Trek are idiots compared to today, especially with the technology they have at their disposal.
This thus transfers to any (and all) Star Trek "technical" consultants/writers (not the general story writers), are also all idiots.
Actuall, its not that bad an argument. If you take the dialogue at face value it could be a fair explaination. The only problem is that the characters don't seem to know what their own weapons can do.Chakat wrote:Hey, I said that it wasn't much. It was the best I could come up with.
A perfect description of Starfleets designs.Seafort wrote: A jack of all trades, master of none.
Indeed. They could probably fit all that equipment into a ship half the size if they got rid of all the crap.Thorin again wrote:Though in a way I do agree with you, because while it was the best, and it was powerful, you can just imagine what it would be like if it was actually aimed to be not just the best of everything, but the very, very best in speed and power, getting rid of all the needless things.
