You're in command: how do you fix your ships?

Captain Picard's Hair · Fri Dec 07, 2007 4:11 am

How much credit are we giving to the advancement of materials science? Could 24th century materials with super high strength to weight ratio make it possible to construct strong hulls without prohibitive volumes or masses or material? There might be some question as to the cost of such a material, of course.

I think the writers thought it was magical to have this system that makes any material much stronger. Maybe with a strong enough SIF they thought you could build a hull out of mozzarella cheese.

They may not have thought through the weaknesses of it, but they had to make it as reliable as Teaos notes to avoid a grisly death for the crew. On the other hand, if the writers had settled on super strong materials, we'd have nothing to debate!

Post by **Mikey** » Fri Dec 07, 2007 5:09 am

This last point is absolutely correct - the SIF is a wonderful thing to have. However, I maintain that is is nuts to rely on it ALONE to maintain the integrity of the hull of a starship.

Post by **Teaos** » Fri Dec 07, 2007 6:06 am

Ok pretend your a starfleet ship designer. Do you:

A) Build ships upto only the size of the Saber because you do not have the resourses to build suffecent numbers of larger ships with sufficent strenght hulls.

B) Build big ships with reasonable strengh hulls but with a super strong super reliable SIF.

Choosing A not only limits the size og the fleet but puts you at a huge disadvantage against all enemies who do use it and are thus able to field bigger better ships.

Jordanis · Post by **Jordanis** » Fri Dec 07, 2007 11:10 am

Teaos wrote:Ok pretend your a starfleet ship designer. Do you:

A) Build ships upto only the size of the Saber because you do not have the resourses to build suffecent numbers of larger ships with sufficent strenght hulls.

B) Build big ships with reasonable strengh hulls but with a super strong super reliable SIF.

Choosing A not only limits the size og the fleet but puts you at a huge disadvantage against all enemies who do use it and are thus able to field bigger better ships.

You say that as if you know that that was the choice they were faced with. Assuming starfleet designers were rational, this would be a valid theory given the on-screen results. Given, however, bridge placement and various other things, I don't think we can assume starfleet designers are rational.

Post by **Mikey** » Fri Dec 07, 2007 3:06 pm

Teaos wrote:Ok pretend your a starfleet ship designer. Do you:

A) Build ships upto only the size of the Saber because you do not have the resourses to build suffecent numbers of larger ships with sufficent strenght hulls.

Who said that they don't? You keep making up an alleged lack of resources in order to support your points, but no such shortage has ever been indicated.

Captain Picard's Hair wrote:They may not have thought through the weaknesses of it, but they had to make it as reliable as Teaos notes to avoid a grisly death for the crew.

You echo my point exactly. As I had mentioned, the SIF SHOULD be seen to fail in some degree every time that there is a power loss. The fact that we don't is due to the effect that this would have on the SHOW, and not because of the capabilities of the system.

Thorin · Post by **Thorin** » Fri Dec 07, 2007 5:36 pm

Mikey wrote:
You echo my point exactly. As I had mentioned, the SIF SHOULD be seen to fail in some degree every time that there is a power loss. The fact that we don't is due to the effect that this would have on the SHOW, and not because of the capabilities of the system.

Irrelevant - in the show the SIF has never failed (or has never caused a death/injury), indicating it is super reliable and even power cuts can't damage it.

kostmayer · Post by **kostmayer** » Fri Dec 07, 2007 5:39 pm

I think it failed in the DS9 episode The Passenger, killing a pilot, though I had to google a bit to find it

Post by **Mikey** » Fri Dec 07, 2007 5:50 pm

No. Every time a hull is breached, or a hull section, support, or structural member breaks or buckles, that represents a failing of the material as well as of the SIF.

or has never caused a death/injury

Well, every time someone has been rendered casualty by such a breach or structural failing, blame rests on both the material failing and the SIF. I didn't recall the incident from "The Passenger," but I wouldn't presume to doubt Kostmayer's research. Discounting that incidence for the moment, if you mean to say "the SIF ALONE" hasn't caused death or injury, then I suppose it's semantically correct if a bit misleading.

Thorin · Post by **Thorin** » Fri Dec 07, 2007 7:07 pm

Mikey wrote:No. Every time a hull is breached, or a hull section, support, or structural member breaks or buckles, that represents a failing of the material as well as of the SIF.

What? The arguement is so;
1. Can the SIF be replaced be resource intensive super-strong/thick hulls
And;
2. Does the SIF need to be replaced

The answer is so;
1. We don't know
2. No - hulls have never shown to be able take the strength of an SIF, and the SIF as a whole has never been shown to fail - fail in a sense as to cause the ship to crush itself when at warp, as that is it's primary use.

If it ain't broke - don't fix it.
The SIF is reliable - whether it is an active system or not is irrelevant. It simply doesn't break, even during power cuts! Why would a stronger hull be better than an entire system that isn't broke, is completely reliable, and for all intents and purposes, works.

RK_Striker_JK_5 · Post by **RK_Striker_JK_5** » Fri Dec 07, 2007 8:28 pm

Or both? An SIF and increased hull strength? I don't think either alone could cut it for making sure the ships don't tear themselves apart from stress.

Thorin · Post by **Thorin** » Fri Dec 07, 2007 8:33 pm

RK_Striker_JK_5 wrote:Or both? An SIF and increased hull strength? I don't think either alone could cut it for making sure the ships don't tear themselves apart from stress.

Huh? But they clearly do cut it alone - the SIF does the job without the increased hull strength.

Post by **Mikey** » Sat Dec 08, 2007 2:36 am

But what is the aregument against reinforcing the hulls while keeping the SIF? Or even, as has been suggested, isolating a/o backing up the SIF's power supply?

Jordanis · Post by **Jordanis** » Sat Dec 08, 2007 4:47 am

I just realized why you might not want to reinforce the hull. Reinforcing the hull increases mass. The TNG tech manual on Impulse Engines has the driver coils effectively reducing the mass of the ship in order for the ship to accelerate under measly fusion-rocket power. Presumably, if you increase the mass without increasing the efficiency of the driver coils, you end up with a ship that accelerates more slowly. Therefore, the reduction of structural mass can be a serious factor in designing a faster starship.

Post by **Teaos** » Sat Dec 08, 2007 10:47 am

Mikey you asked for proof that it would cost to much to put more resources into a ship and starfleet in general.

In The undiscovered country the Klingons were going to colapse due to their high military budget which did not seem to much more than starfleets. The Romulans dispite wanting to see the Federation destroyed and being very war like is unable to build a fleet big enough to take them on.

The evidence is everywhere that they cant increase their military budget by much for a prolonged period of time.

Thorin · Post by **Thorin** » Sat Dec 08, 2007 1:03 pm

Mikey wrote:But what is the aregument against reinforcing the hulls while keeping the SIF? Or even, as has been suggested, isolating a/o backing up the SIF's power supply?

The arguement that it isn't required. It's a waste of resources. Whether it requires 1.1x or 100x the original material doesn't matter, it's still a waste when it isn't needed. The SIF isn't broken, it never breaks, and as such doesn't need a fix.