Power densities

[Captain Seafort]

Good point. This also brings various shield configurations into play. The per-unit-area power of a large bubble shield would, obviously, be far less than a conformal shield, which would affect the relevence of the ratios Coalition's calculated.

[Lt. Staplic]

exactly, so while it looks like the scout is 3 to 4 times as strong, really it's probably weaker once you consider all of this.

[Mikey]

That's an interesting system of counting, Mikey.

Well, I had said "a couple of things," and I didn't want to go back and change it.

[Captain Seafort]

exactly, so while it looks like the scout is 3 to 4 times as strong, really it's probably weaker once you consider all of this.

Ton for ton, I doubt it. There's too much evidence in support of the decreasing size-firepower ratio as size increases, both from historical analysis and the example of the Dominion battleship. I simply disagree with the assertion that the bug is hundreds of times stronger, relatively, than the battlecruiser.

[Lt. Staplic]

no, I'm talking overall

ton for ton the bug looks much stronger for the above reasons.

[Captain Seafort]

Overall I don't think anyone's suggesting that bug's stronger - the battlecruiser would outgun it by at least an order of magnitude.

[Coalition]

I uploaded the xls spreadsheet (made via OpenOffice) here. Please PM me the changes you recommend, so this thread doesn't get cluttered.


For comparisons between larger and smaller ships, I go with the following:

Assuming two identical hull shapes, the larger will have:
1) more volume to surface area, meaning the shields and armor are stronger (a ship 8 times the mass will have 4 times the surface area, making shields and armor 2* thicker)
2) better communications - instead of having to use subspace or other communications links to coordinate weapons fire, it just runs more fiberoptic cabling
3) Sensor support - a battle situation will likely have lots of sensor and communications interference, meaning datalinks and other external communications will have difficulty, so a fighter/gunboat/frigate squadron will have difficulty, while the larger hull has reliable internal communications
4) better repair capability - instead of having several thousand repair kits of hammer and duct tape, it has small machine shops
5) Sensor capacity - instead of having to mount multiple copies of the same sensor, it can mount a larger/better sensor system, and that sensor can feed to all of its weaponry, improving their performance
6) Power distribution - a larger ship can shift power internally to where it is needed, while fighters can only rely upon their own power supply (chances are, this is what was used in the Chintoka weapons platform battle, normal weapons platforms have individual power sources, while the broadcast power allowed far higher performance to where it was needed)


The smaller will have:
1) more surface area to volume, making heat dissipation easier for both the internal reactor (higher power production per ton), and surface heat dissipation (meaning it can produce more power per ton safer than the larger)
2) redundancy - if one of the ships is lost, it doesn't critically affect the whole formation
3) Ease of manufacture - identical parts can be mass-produced in factories, and sent to the assembly sites, rather than nearly-custom parts needed for the larger hull
4) Faster construction - the smaller ships can be produced faster
5) Multiple locations - multiple yards can be built for the same cost as 1 larger yard, meaning you can have more ships built at the same time
6) Multiple locations pt 2 - smaller ships can be deployed to multiple locations, allowing all locations to be protected in case of enemy attack


Mikey, your counting of X Attack ships per BC sounds interesting, and looks like a fun argument. I argue that due to ST ranges, it is possible for multiple ships to be in range at the same time, thus effectively adding their offensive TW ratings together. We would need to develop additional limitations/benefits so that larger ships are more effective at punching through large ship enemy shields (modified Lanchester's N-Square law). Like several people pushing someone, vs one person punching them. Similarly, a larger ship would be better able to withstand smaller ship fire, due to its shields being 'thicker', and the smaller ships unable to focus their fire on the same point effectively.

[Mikey]

Yes, two shots of 1 tW = 2 tW. However, unless EVERY shot was coordinated to impact at the EXACT same time at the EXACT same (to the molecular level) location, those two shots wouldn't have the same impact against a shield as a single 2 tW shot would.

[shran]

Heat dissipation is still a difficult concept in my mind, knowing that space is a near-vacuum, meaning that heat would mostly dissipate via radiation, or get redistributed in the ship itself. Thus, a large ' inner' surface area would be nice except for the problem of dissipating too much heat on the inside, thus cooking your crew and equipment.

So I don;t know how you'd want to get rid of the heat, except perhaps using a coolant system which is then vented into space or something else.

PLease warn me if i am subject to the Janeway syndrome, or when I start seeing genetically engineered whales.

[Mikey]

I'd guess that some sort of vented expendable coolant, as you suggest, would have to accompany simple radiation.

And Shran - I think your head is too squarely attached to descend into Blackstar-ism.

[Coalition]

Mikey - so the data is merely incomplete, rather than incorrect? No worries then. Of course, the ability for one ship to hit the exact section of shield, while both ships (or even just one) are maneuvering at around a thousand Gs is a bit interesting.

Shran - you are right. In space, dissipating heat is a major problem for manned nuclear powered vessels. To give an idea of the differences between radiation, convection, and conduction, try this experiment. Boil some Ramen soup. While it is boiling, put your hand near the side of the pot to feel the warmth. That is radiation. Move your hand over the pot to experience convection. Now touch the pot briefly to experience conduction.

As you can see, in space, there is only radiation to get rid of heat (for long-term periods). Dumping heat 'internally doesn't work, as the heat is still there. It eventually has to be gotten rid of to outside the ship. The impusle exhaust might be possible, but this also limits Romulan power production (no trail of superheated gas behind a cloaked Romulan ship to follow).

If you want more information, check out Winchell Chung's Atomic Rockets page. Very hard science, but very fun to read too.


Mikey - your idea of dumping heated material off the ship does exist, it is called open-cycle cooling. It is obviously not a long-term cooling option, but if you need to get rid of heat in a hurry, it does work. The sneaky way to approach long-term usage in space would be to take on an ice chunk (comet or asteroid), and let that absorb some of the heat, then jettison it when you are done. You will wind up leaving a trail of warm comets behind you, but water is very good for absorbing heat. The other option would be a multi-kilometer superconducting cord into the atmosphere of a gas giant at the edge of a star system. Orbit the planet, and let the several billion tons of atmosphere soak up the heat.

[Mikey]

I haven't done any actual modelling; I'm just going off of a common-sense thought process, although I could be taking wild liberties in contemplating shield mechanics. I'm thinking they act something like a solid wall - two 20mm cannon rounds impacting at different loci will not have the same effect on a stine wall, for example, as a single 40mm round.

And I was merely agreeing with the need for venting a conducting material in order to purge heat; the idea was Shran's.