Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 711
06-03-2011, 09:36 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth-Thanatos View Post
Actually, the problem with the design is that destroying one of the two necks might make the ship destroy itself without external help.

I'm not sure which of the two would happen, but I can envision two possible outcomes:

-The impulse powered Engineering section rams, using the remaining neck as a hinge, into the more static saucer with the obvious results, or
-The saucer forces the secondary neck beyond what both the SIF generators and intertial dampeners can compensate, and break it, making an "informal" saucer separation. Though "uncontroled" might be a better word.

If the crew on the saucer are fast enough, they might move out of the way of the other section. But we are talking that the ship is under battle, so they might be distracted by, the enemy?, and not be able to react on time.

In both cases, the eventual enemies might get a good laugh seeing the ship blow itself up.

With one-neck ships, this is possible, but much more less likely. The explosion of the neck (the only one) would force both sections into separate bearings, while the second neck would keep both sections together long enough to almost ascertain the catastrophic outcome.
Yes and no. You're assuming science applies to Trek, which is the same problem with applying the laws of physics to the structural integrity of the necks. Warp is FTL travel and impulse speed gradually approaches the speed of light AND, using cannon sources, they travel through time by slingshotting around the Sun. Pretty much no part of how these ships move should be physically possible.

This is Trek. If something is interesting or cool, we don't need no science or logic. If I wanted ships that made sense, I'd go with the Honorverse style of submarines...IN SPAAAAAAAACE!
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 712
06-03-2011, 10:07 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by boglejam View Post
C.) You realize this is a video game, and fun trumps realism.
And it doesn't even come to that. Star Trek trumps realism.

Once the shields are down, anything goes. There are far easier ways to kill a starship. Damage the hull enough and invariably (allowing for the whims of Trek wrtiers) a power fluctuation develops to force a warp core ejection, or kill inertial dampeners to turn the crew into paste. Or -- newsflash -- breach that big honking saucer with all its itty bitty, conveniently lit viewports.

The last thing any captain would be doing when his opponent's shields are down, is to dck around with targetting a support strut. Photon torpedos, full salvo.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 713
06-03-2011, 11:08 AM
Don't forget, guys. They've mentioned that the Clay Model and the drawing are only rough concepts that they'll be changing as needed for the game so what we see might not necessarily be what we get. Granted, it will probably have the same general profile but we might see those 'wings' blended into a full neck or even the secondary and primary hulls mated in a similar way to the Sovereign with those 'wings' serving as something completely different. We'll have to wait and see what they reveal in the design journal.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 714
06-04-2011, 09:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Farmer42 View Post
Yes and no. You're assuming science applies to Trek, which is the same problem with applying the laws of physics to the structural integrity of the necks. Warp is FTL travel and impulse speed gradually approaches the speed of light AND, using cannon sources, they travel through time by slingshotting around the Sun. Pretty much no part of how these ships move should be physically possible.

This is Trek. If something is interesting or cool, we don't need no science or logic. If I wanted ships that made sense, I'd go with the Honorverse style of submarines...IN SPAAAAAAAACE!
Actually, he's assuming that real world physics DON'T work in Trek.

Newton, while not entirely right, was accurate enough in his work that we still use the math in his laws of motion today for serious business. His First Law of motion states that objects at rest tend to stay at rest and objects in motion tend to stay in motion, unless acted on by an outside force.

So, in Darth-Thanatos's first scenario, the Saucer section is not "static" it is moving and so is the engineering section. They have zero relative motion. Loss of one neck means the two section keep moving along together with the same relative motion.

One could argue that he is saying that the ship is accelerating when one neck is lost and that the acceleration is what causes the engineering hull to catch up with the saucer, but his next example actually shows he wasn't thinking that. Still, I'll address it. As Boglejam pointed out, nacelle supports are super frail given the mass they are carrying. If the different moments of acceleration between the pylons and the main hull were an issue, starships would be flinging their warp nacelles off left and right.

It is likely that the Saucer's Impulse engines would make good any stresses on the remaining "neck." Starships regularly operate with all of their impulse engines running. (As an aside this is because the original six foot NCC-1701-D has different wiring than the newer 4 foot model used in Seasons 3+ of TNG. The 6 foot usually had the "impulse engines" on the saucer off and the 4 foot had them on. The Technobabble folks behind the scenes addressed this difference in case it ever came up on the show. It didn't. But most shots of NCC-1701-D have all three impulse clusters running, so it is effectively canon).

The second scenario is also bogus. The Next Generation Technical Manual states exactly what the acceleration limits for the hull material are. As it happens, I have a copy handy! NCC-1701-D begins to deform at accelerations of 7.4 meters per second. For reference, gravity applies 9.8m/s at sea level on Earth. In Essence the Enterprise D would sag in Earth's gravity.

Thus the tech manual shows the materials of the hull are not up to the task of preventing the the neck from "hinging." (Sorry Boglejam.) But it still isn't a win. As I said the logic in this scenario is bogus. That's because the SIF system is designed to increase the resistance of the hull to load by as much as 125,000%. This means the SIF can sustain loads of 925m/s without hull bending and 2437.5m/s before the damage caused by the stress would be unrepairable. That's 94 and 248.7 Earth gravities respectively. The engineering hull and the saucer experience that level of jerk everyone is going to be chunky salsa, and a thicker neck wouldn't prevent it.

Lastly, let's examine the yield of a typical Photorp. Fully loaded, and assuming perfect efficiency, the 3 kg of warhead mass would explode with the equivalent force of 64.4 million tons of TNT. As Sarah Conner noted, anyone not wearing number two million sunblock is going to have a very bad day.

From a tactical POV targeting the necks doesn't provide a material advantage. Given the variables involved (SIF & IDF capacity, crew disposition. Functional weapon systems) it is simpler to vaporize the ship than to try to pin point that "weak spot." In theory, one might try targeting one of the necks while the ship's shields were still up, but without catastrophic damage to the SIF and IDF systems it wouldn't do one any good. The ship is actually better off with 2 necks.

So from a real world or Trek world stand point the ship makes sense.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 715
06-05-2011, 02:26 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Farmer42 View Post
Yes and no. You're assuming science applies to Trek, which is the same problem with applying the laws of physics to the structural integrity of the necks. Warp is FTL travel and impulse speed gradually approaches the speed of light AND, using cannon sources, they travel through time by slingshotting around the Sun. Pretty much no part of how these ships move should be physically possible.

This is Trek. If something is interesting or cool, we don't need no science or logic. If I wanted ships that made sense, I'd go with the Honorverse style of submarines...IN SPAAAAAAAACE!
Actually it's the other way around.

The Trek guys made up two technobabble buzzwords to explain why such huge ships don't break at the weakest parts of the design when any kind of force is applied to it. And those are Structural Integrity and Inertial Dampening.

The first one, which is "exclusive" of Star Trek AFAIK, holds the ship together, and the other, that is shared with other universes like Star Wars, allows the ship to move and specially make sudden turns without killing the crew inside. Think of the size of a Sovie, and try to use the normal physics formulae to it. You will find that unless you apply very slight increases of acceleration, the inertia would force a differential between the ship and the people inside, enough for them to crash against the walls and die. As ships need to turn "in a cool/dramatic way" on screen, they made up the concepts and left things at that.

But even the Star Trek designers knew that those devices have limits. If you bring the ship beyond those limits, physics laws apply with a vengeance. And that is what may happen in the middle of a battle, when people unleash huge amounts of destructive force against each others' ships.

There is a third technobabble buzzword that applies to both ST and SW, and it's "artificial gravity". The only show I remember "doing it right" is Babylon 5, where the Terran ships didn't have artificial gravity generators, so the parts of the ship that needed gravity turned to give centrifugal gravity. The rest of the ship was a zero-gee environment. The other races, though, did have artificial gravity on their ships.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 716
06-06-2011, 09:09 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth-Thanatos View Post
But even the Star Trek designers knew that those devices have limits. If you bring the ship beyond those limits, physics laws apply with a vengeance. And that is what may happen in the middle of a battle, when people unleash huge amounts of destructive force against each others' ships.
You are ignoring the fact that the limits assigned to those things are so high that exceeding them would be catastrophic for any configuration.

The fact is, there's prenty of room in canon to cover any technical objection, and plenty of wiggle room for extra handwavium to be applied to cover a valid object, in the unlikely case that one shows up.

There's nothing wrong with disliking--nay, hating--the ship on it's aesthetics but it's pointless to to try to come up with a pseudo-scientific objection. Especially when the pseudo-science in question is in direct opposition to your assertions.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 717
06-06-2011, 04:32 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by trekbaby9000 View Post
Ungrateful for what? Did someone do something for us that I missed? If anything this contest was a publicity stunt to try to get more people to come to the STO website and get more people to try out the game. Like everyone else, its all about making money.
I see nothing wrong with the winner's design. I think it's neat looking.

Maybe you should change your name to 'whining baby' because that's what you sound like.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 718
06-06-2011, 06:34 PM
Hmmm, lets see when the revised design hits the spaceways, then all 'whining' can commences there.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 719
06-07-2011, 07:27 AM
I'm not sure I dislike the design because of the design or the whole sham of "vote for the next Enterprise". If they had just unveiled a new design sans voting, I might have not disliked it. But it's tainted due to the sham, to me.

It'd be like saying "you can order anything off the menu", so I do so, but then they give me a hamburger. I like hamburgers just fine but it's not what I ordered! It could be the best burger in the world but it's not what I ordered!

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrueWarper
Hmmm, lets see when the revised design hits the spaceways, then all 'whining' can commences there.
We're internet posters, we can whine about it pre and post.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 720
06-15-2011, 05:43 PM
I would personally would have not done with the Obreth necks, however, I would not mind seeing a hangar or two in that space, plus, I would have placed the bridge since the days of Matt Jeffries, love you man, but the bridge is too exposed, sure it symbolizes the idea of the bridges of ships today, being high above everything else with a clear view ahead, but they have navigational sensors and looking out a window is impractical when in space. I pesonally think the bridge should be several decks into the saucer and not on near the circumfrence, then again we would never have had those shots of Picard looking out the window of his ready room. I would also like to see a layout of this bridge, also a floorplan I wouldn't mind looking over. Deck by deck.

One of the things that I do think are needy to change on the model is the impulse engines. Every Enterprise except TMP original to A had the same impulse engines and shouldn't really be repeated. That is just my personal opinion. However I do believe that you (Cryptic, CBS) would agree because you guys specifically said you wanted something new, a new design, you can't do that in my proffessional observation if you carryover the impulse engines of the sovereign to the whatever class, Abrogo, Latin for to reppeal, annul, take away (the neck), Aetas Class, Latin for an age, a stage, a period of life, time, or era, Inchoatis class, Latin for unfinished, only begun.

Permoveo [per-mow-veh-o] Class (which I think is the best) Latin for: to excite, agitate, stir up, and move.

Permoveo has a ring to it like Excelsior, Sovereign, Ambassador; other classes with the honour of having an Enterprise in their rank. Plus the definition of the name of the class would relate to it being developed. Exciting some people for breaking with tradition while agitating others for the same reason. It stirs up the discussion on whether two necks are better than one. And moving discussion back and forth, and back and forth again as sides for and against it argue why it should or should not be a class to have the honour of having the esteamed name of the U.S.S. Enterprise amongst its ranks.

There might a small handfull of people who argue that Permoveo shouldn't be a class name for an Enterprise as the names of the classes who have had that esteamed name amongst their ranks have had names with political and symbolic meaning.

The Constitution class, a documment signalling a growth of a new government.

Excelsior: higher, excellence, and wood shavings [dictionary.com] (probably connecting to the old wooden ships that boldly went out and explored)

Ambassador: A diplomatic official of the highest rank sent from one state to another as its resident representative (or flagship in this case)

Galaxy: A vast collection of stars, waiting to be explored, to be discovered

Sovereign: Having supreme rank, power, or authority

and know Permoveo: Exciting new adventures, agitating some governments as it can't violate the Prime Directive or fulfillling the Omega Directive, stirring up the melting pot of political backwater as it represents what the Federation stands for, and moving from one place to another, exploring, and going to where no man has gone before
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:27 AM.