RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 138,383
Posts: 5,357,586
Members: 24,626
Currently online: 532
Newest member: suryaprabu02

TrekToday headlines

The Gene Roddenberry Project Kickstarter
By: T'Bonz on Jul 30

Moore: No Deep Space Nine Regrets
By: T'Bonz on Jul 30

Pegg Star Wars Rumor
By: T'Bonz on Jul 30

Borg Cube Fridge
By: T'Bonz on Jul 29

Free Enterprise Kickstarter
By: T'Bonz on Jul 29

Siddig To Join Game Of Thrones
By: T'Bonz on Jul 29

Sci-Fried To Release New Album
By: T'Bonz on Jul 28

Star Trek/Planet of the Apes Crossover
By: T'Bonz on Jul 28

Star Trek into Darkness Soundtrack
By: T'Bonz on Jul 28

Horse 1, Shatner 0
By: T'Bonz on Jul 28


Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.


Go Back   The Trek BBS > Misc. Star Trek > Trek Tech

Trek Tech Pass me the quantum flux regulator, will you?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old August 16 2008, 04:48 PM   #31
Forbin
Admiral
 
Forbin's Avatar
 
Location: I said out, dammit!
Re: How About Replacing the Galaxy saucer with dedicated weapons platf

Timo wrote: View Post
... and no doubt Galaxies can swap saucers in emergencies (even though no two halves might be perfectly compatible unless they had already spent months together getting properly acquainted).


That's something that was also in the back of my mind. Just because two ships are of the same class and built the same, doesn't necessarily mean their parts are 100% interchangeable. It's possible every GC's saucer/neck join may require a bit of fine tuning and personalized fitting, and one ship's saucer may not fit perfectly on another's neck without considerable fiddling.
Forbin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 16 2008, 09:48 PM   #32
Deks
Rear Admiral
 
Re: How About Replacing the Galaxy saucer with dedicated weapons platf

Forbin wrote: View Post
Timo wrote: View Post
... and no doubt Galaxies can swap saucers in emergencies (even though no two halves might be perfectly compatible unless they had already spent months together getting properly acquainted).


That's something that was also in the back of my mind. Just because two ships are of the same class and built the same, doesn't necessarily mean their parts are 100% interchangeable. It's possible every GC's saucer/neck join may require a bit of fine tuning and personalized fitting, and one ship's saucer may not fit perfectly on another's neck without considerable fiddling.
No evidence to support such a claim.
While I will acknowledge that there might be some interior changes from ship to ship regardless of class, I think SF builds all of their vessel classes from one set of blueprints.
So essentially speaking, the design itself will be identical when it comes to class.
The only changes you might possibly expect are some interior changes and fine-tuning of power generators (and whatnot).
Depending really.
__________________
We are who we choose to be but also have predefined aspects of our personalities we are born with, and make art that defines us.
Deks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 17 2008, 01:06 AM   #33
Cary L. Brown
Rear Admiral
 
Location: Austin, Texas
Re: How About Replacing the Galaxy saucer with dedicated weapons platf

Deks wrote: View Post
Forbin wrote: View Post
Timo wrote: View Post
... and no doubt Galaxies can swap saucers in emergencies (even though no two halves might be perfectly compatible unless they had already spent months together getting properly acquainted).


That's something that was also in the back of my mind. Just because two ships are of the same class and built the same, doesn't necessarily mean their parts are 100% interchangeable. It's possible every GC's saucer/neck join may require a bit of fine tuning and personalized fitting, and one ship's saucer may not fit perfectly on another's neck without considerable fiddling.
No evidence to support such a claim.
While I will acknowledge that there might be some interior changes from ship to ship regardless of class, I think SF builds all of their vessel classes from one set of blueprints.
So essentially speaking, the design itself will be identical when it comes to class.
The only changes you might possibly expect are some interior changes and fine-tuning of power generators (and whatnot).
Depending really.
True, but it's pretty much common sense... in that this is something that every single real-world application you can find shows exactly this as being the case.

One of the teams where I'm working is doing a design revision for the next-generation version of the C-130 transport. They're working on just one small subsystem, mind you. The thing is, they need to put their devices into every ship in the fleet, and so far no two C-130 airframes have been close enough to allow a "single solution." Basically, the mechanism (which I wont' go into here) is going to require a CUSTOMIZED INSTALLATION for each and every aircraft. Most parts can be common... but it's not just a matter of shipping a "box set" of parts to the field and have them be installed... nope. A set of measurements need to be taken first, then the custom installation hardware is fabricated off of those measurements. THEN the hardware can be installed... not before.

Weird? Nah... it's totally commonplace. And the more complicated the hardware you're dealing with... in terms of part-count, assembly steps and processes, or simply tolerance stack-ups... the more common this is.

A Galaxy-class is a VERY complicated piece of hardware.
Cary L. Brown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 17 2008, 02:25 AM   #34
Major Chord
Choir Boy Extraordinaire
 
Major Chord's Avatar
 
Location: Major Chord
Re: How About Replacing the Galaxy saucer with dedicated weapons platf

Wouldn't slaping on a weapons platform that the ship was not designed to work with in the first place cause some problems? Not only from the standpoint of the stardrive and original saucer being designed to work best together, but also from a power supply standpoint.

I'm not sure this makes much sense, but couldn't the ship's power system develope some sort of "battery memory"? Like, the ship has worked with the same saucer eating up the same amount of power for x amount of years, enough time that the power system has adapted and is "comfortable" with supplying that said amount of power all the time. Adding a weapons platform that eats up loads more power would probably stress the current power system, and be massively inefficient. If it was a new-build Galaxy that was built with interaction with this platform in mind, that problem might not be present.

So, if these platforms were indeed to be built, maybe they would be designed with the "second wave" of Galaxys in mind, while still retaining the ability to be used with older Galaxys, but much more inefficiently, and with some possible problems.
__________________
One of Jeremiah Peabody's Polyunsaturated Quick-Dissolving Fast-Acting Pleasant-Tasting Green and Purple Pills
Major Chord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 17 2008, 04:35 AM   #35
Rivas_Jakarta
Lieutenant Junior Grade
 
Re: How About Replacing the Galaxy saucer with dedicated weapons platf

IIRC, didn't the novel "Rogue Saucer" mention something about the recovery of saucers? It was an interesting novel.
Rivas_Jakarta is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 17 2008, 08:36 AM   #36
Deks
Rear Admiral
 
Re: How About Replacing the Galaxy saucer with dedicated weapons platf

True, but it's pretty much common sense... in that this is something that every single real-world application you can find shows exactly this as being the case.

One of the teams where I'm working is doing a design revision for the next-generation version of the C-130 transport. They're working on just one small subsystem, mind you. The thing is, they need to put their devices into every ship in the fleet, and so far no two C-130 airframes have been close enough to allow a "single solution." Basically, the mechanism (which I wont' go into here) is going to require a CUSTOMIZED INSTALLATION for each and every aircraft. Most parts can be common... but it's not just a matter of shipping a "box set" of parts to the field and have them be installed... nope. A set of measurements need to be taken first, then the custom installation hardware is fabricated off of those measurements. THEN the hardware can be installed... not before.

Weird? Nah... it's totally commonplace. And the more complicated the hardware you're dealing with... in terms of part-count, assembly steps and processes, or simply tolerance stack-ups... the more common this is.

A Galaxy-class is a VERY complicated piece of hardware.
Correction.
The Galaxy class WAS a complicated piece of hardware (at the time it was constructed).
The Enterprise-D was put into service in 2365 and the Nebula class star-ship (whose saucer section is supposed to be as large as the GC's) is apparently according to some sources a predecessor to the Galaxy class.
I wouldn't call the Galaxy class THAT complicated piece of hardware.
From our perspective yes ... but from SF's, hardly.

By the time of Nemesis it's already been 15 years since the Galaxy class was put in service (21 years if we count in real time until today).
The most complicated piece of hardware from the late 24th century perspective would in fact be the Prometheus class.

Besides, this is the 24th century we're talking about, not to mention a fictional highly advanced space-faring organization that traded technology, info and other commodities between 150 different races in the Federation.
Virtually any piece of hardware for a single class of ship (lets say the galaxy class) will be interchangeable (for numerous vessels this also extends for any piece of hardware in ANY class of ships throughout the Federation) ... but will probably require some minor fine-tuning to incorporate into the other galaxy ships (or other class of ships) due to differences in power-ratio from ship to ship.

Plus we also have examples of Voyager trading with other races and numerous technologies were stated to be incompatible with foreign systems as they were designed to work on Federation ships alone (suggesting that most, if not all hardware is interchangeable regardless of class but probably requires some fine-tuning to incorporate which isn't that problematic to do).
__________________
We are who we choose to be but also have predefined aspects of our personalities we are born with, and make art that defines us.

Last edited by Deks; August 17 2008 at 08:41 AM.
Deks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 17 2008, 09:12 AM   #37
jolau
Captain
 
Location: San Francisco, CA
Re: How About Replacing the Galaxy saucer with dedicated weapons platf

Timo wrote: View Post
By no means impossible. In "AGT", the future timeline makes no references to the past that would contradict the events of ST:GEN, and we can assume that the past timelines of "AGT" are not relevant to the discussion. Things could indeed proceed in a sequence that involves both ST:GEN and the future part of "AGT".
Also, I doubt the Federation would allow the people of Veridian 4 to one day develop the ability to travel to and from Veridian 3 and 4 and eventually find the abandoned Enterprise-D saucer and all its technological marvels.
__________________
"Your gone and I'm lost inside this tangled web in which I'm lain entwined
Oh Why?"

-Sarah Mclachlan
jolau is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 17 2008, 11:52 AM   #38
Colonel Midnight
Vice Admiral
 
Colonel Midnight's Avatar
 
Location: Colonel Midnight
Re: How About Replacing the Galaxy saucer with dedicated weapons platf

Cary L. Brown wrote: View Post
Deks wrote: View Post
Forbin wrote: View Post



That's something that was also in the back of my mind. Just because two ships are of the same class and built the same, doesn't necessarily mean their parts are 100% interchangeable. It's possible every GC's saucer/neck join may require a bit of fine tuning and personalized fitting, and one ship's saucer may not fit perfectly on another's neck without considerable fiddling.
No evidence to support such a claim.
While I will acknowledge that there might be some interior changes from ship to ship regardless of class, I think SF builds all of their vessel classes from one set of blueprints.
So essentially speaking, the design itself will be identical when it comes to class.
The only changes you might possibly expect are some interior changes and fine-tuning of power generators (and whatnot).
Depending really.
True, but it's pretty much common sense... in that this is something that every single real-world application you can find shows exactly this as being the case.

One of the teams where I'm working is doing a design revision for the next-generation version of the C-130 transport. They're working on just one small subsystem, mind you. The thing is, they need to put their devices into every ship in the fleet, and so far no two C-130 airframes have been close enough to allow a "single solution." Basically, the mechanism (which I wont' go into here) is going to require a CUSTOMIZED INSTALLATION for each and every aircraft. Most parts can be common... but it's not just a matter of shipping a "box set" of parts to the field and have them be installed... nope. A set of measurements need to be taken first, then the custom installation hardware is fabricated off of those measurements. THEN the hardware can be installed... not before.

Weird? Nah... it's totally commonplace. And the more complicated the hardware you're dealing with... in terms of part-count, assembly steps and processes, or simply tolerance stack-ups... the more common this is.

A Galaxy-class is a VERY complicated piece of hardware.
Exactly -- seeing as how Trek has never addressed the idea of Configuration Management (CM)... I doubt it truly exists in that universe. In order to make 'Interchangeable Saucers' possible, you would need such an exact, rigid, CM plan that would be impossible to manage no matter how many "giga-quads" of computing power (or memory, whatever it is) you have available.

Cheers,
-CM-
__________________
FOReWARneD is Forearmed.

0 registered and 0 anonymous users are browsing this forum.
Colonel Midnight is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 17 2008, 12:26 PM   #39
Sean_McCormick
Captain
 
Re: How About Replacing the Galaxy saucer with dedicated weapons platf

Cary L. Brown wrote: View Post
Deks wrote: View Post
Forbin wrote: View Post



That's something that was also in the back of my mind. Just because two ships are of the same class and built the same, doesn't necessarily mean their parts are 100% interchangeable. It's possible every GC's saucer/neck join may require a bit of fine tuning and personalized fitting, and one ship's saucer may not fit perfectly on another's neck without considerable fiddling.
No evidence to support such a claim.
While I will acknowledge that there might be some interior changes from ship to ship regardless of class, I think SF builds all of their vessel classes from one set of blueprints.
So essentially speaking, the design itself will be identical when it comes to class.
The only changes you might possibly expect are some interior changes and fine-tuning of power generators (and whatnot).
Depending really.
True, but it's pretty much common sense... in that this is something that every single real-world application you can find shows exactly this as being the case.

One of the teams where I'm working is doing a design revision for the next-generation version of the C-130 transport. They're working on just one small subsystem, mind you. The thing is, they need to put their devices into every ship in the fleet, and so far no two C-130 airframes have been close enough to allow a "single solution." Basically, the mechanism (which I wont' go into here) is going to require a CUSTOMIZED INSTALLATION for each and every aircraft. Most parts can be common... but it's not just a matter of shipping a "box set" of parts to the field and have them be installed... nope. A set of measurements need to be taken first, then the custom installation hardware is fabricated off of those measurements. THEN the hardware can be installed... not before.

Weird? Nah... it's totally commonplace. And the more complicated the hardware you're dealing with... in terms of part-count, assembly steps and processes, or simply tolerance stack-ups... the more common this is.

A Galaxy-class is a VERY complicated piece of hardware.
AFAI understand it, starfleets starships are still build in a very similar way as they are build today and not replicated in large sections. so with an piece as large and as complicated as the docking sleeve on the galaxy, there are sleight differences from ship to ship, such as the cocking clamps x and y a few microns nearer together an ship a as on ship b , a weidling seam a tad thicker on the one ship, etc. But the force of the docked vessel maneuvering must be distributed evenely on all docking clamps, so to make any saucer/Stardrive combination able to stand the stress of maneuvering, the system must be calibrated to make sure, that every docking clamp gets the exact same amount of force. Alone that point of mechanical interaction between the two parts seriously hampers the swapping of saucers. And i don't think, that the SIF can completely compensate thze uneven force distribution in a uncalibrated system. It may allow for reduced maneuverability (say max warp 2) though.
Sean_McCormick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 17 2008, 03:46 PM   #40
Forbin
Admiral
 
Forbin's Avatar
 
Location: I said out, dammit!
Re: How About Replacing the Galaxy saucer with dedicated weapons platf

Deks wrote: View Post
Forbin wrote: View Post
Timo wrote: View Post
... and no doubt Galaxies can swap saucers in emergencies (even though no two halves might be perfectly compatible unless they had already spent months together getting properly acquainted).


That's something that was also in the back of my mind. Just because two ships are of the same class and built the same, doesn't necessarily mean their parts are 100% interchangeable. It's possible every GC's saucer/neck join may require a bit of fine tuning and personalized fitting, and one ship's saucer may not fit perfectly on another's neck without considerable fiddling.
No evidence to support such a claim.
While I will acknowledge that there might be some interior changes from ship to ship regardless of class, I think SF builds all of their vessel classes from one set of blueprints.
So essentially speaking, the design itself will be identical when it comes to class.
The only changes you might possibly expect are some interior changes and fine-tuning of power generators (and whatnot).
Depending really.
No eveidence to support such a claim right back atcha, charlie.

What's the width of the GC neck pad where it mates to the saucer?
What are the construction tolerances over that dimension?
Is the Enterprises pad dimension's idential in every way to the Yamato's? Is the Yamato's identical to the Odyssey's? If the dimensions call for a tolerance of +/- 1cm over the full width, the Yamato's pad may be 2cm wider than the Galaxy's, and not fit in the narrower saucer cove.
Are the docking clamp configurations identical across the fleet, or did later builds use an updated configuration, based on experience with earlier builds? Odyssey's 38-clamp configuration wouldn't mate with Galaxy's 32-clamp.
Are all the power conduit mating points the same across the fleet?
Turbolift shafts?
Have the ships' engineers tinkered? Made their own improvements?
Was a ship damaged, and had to have their mating pads repaired at a starbase or alien yard where they had to kludge a fix?

Etc, etc.
Forbin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 17 2008, 03:59 PM   #41
Tigger
Fleet Captain
 
Tigger's Avatar
 
Location: Seattle, WA
Re: How About Replacing the Galaxy saucer with dedicated weapons platf

I agree with those who believe there is probably some "tolereance drift" both within a starship and across a starship's class. Since we know starships are not built as perfect copies by replicators, there is likely some variances in the tolerances of each ship owing to a whole constellation (excuse the pun) of factors. And heck, what is not to say there is not some "tolerance drift" in a replicator?

Yes, it's 300 years in the future and manufacturing techniques will no doubt improve steadily over that time, but these machines are being built partially on the ground (in a gravity well) and partially in space (in a microgravity well). Such variations could very well impart their own variations on the structures.

Now, chances are the tolerances for a structure as large as the mated surface areas of the GCS saucer and neck are tight enough to allow interchangeability of "stock" saucers (ones that were built to the same specification and as such likely have pretty tight tolerances). Anything within a couple millimeters (which strikes me as reasonable for mid-24th century tolerances) would likely be fine.

I imagine the docking clamp system itself forces the two pieces into the proper alignment as they get closer (since I doubt the ship's motion and position control system is accurate to the nanometer level), so provided the tolerances are close enough, things like EPS taps and turbolifts should all mate correctly.
__________________
Chris "Tigger" Wallace
Tigger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 17 2008, 04:42 PM   #42
Cary L. Brown
Rear Admiral
 
Location: Austin, Texas
Re: How About Replacing the Galaxy saucer with dedicated weapons platf

Tigger wrote: View Post
I agree with those who believe there is probably some "tolereance drift" both within a starship and across a starship's class. Since we know starships are not built as perfect copies by replicators, there is likely some variances in the tolerances of each ship owing to a whole constellation (excuse the pun) of factors. And heck, what is not to say there is not some "tolerance drift" in a replicator?

Yes, it's 300 years in the future and manufacturing techniques will no doubt improve steadily over that time, but these machines are being built partially on the ground (in a gravity well) and partially in space (in a microgravity well). Such variations could very well impart their own variations on the structures.

Now, chances are the tolerances for a structure as large as the mated surface areas of the GCS saucer and neck are tight enough to allow interchangeability of "stock" saucers (ones that were built to the same specification and as such likely have pretty tight tolerances). Anything within a couple millimeters (which strikes me as reasonable for mid-24th century tolerances) would likely be fine.

I imagine the docking clamp system itself forces the two pieces into the proper alignment as they get closer (since I doubt the ship's motion and position control system is accurate to the nanometer level), so provided the tolerances are close enough, things like EPS taps and turbolifts should all mate correctly.
Well, the only way you could be sure of something like that would be to design in a "flexible" interface... so that the elements in the mating section would be adjustable on-the-fly. Thing is, that makes for an even MORE complicated assembly, doesn't it.

Is it theoretically possible for a "docking system" to be designed which would be loose enough, or "adjustable" enough, to permit every saucer and every secondary hull in the fleet to connect? Oh, I'm sure it would be.

But the problem then is that you don't have an OPTIMIZED solution for ANY combination... the interface would be weaker (probably by a significant margin!) than it might otherwise be. Yes, you could have the turbolift junctions designed to allow a transfer without having to individually tweak the shafts to line up within, say, .005"... and allowing as much as 0.5" offset between shaft centerlines instead. But to do that, you'd have to have every car slow down and "crawl" through the interface as a result.

There are COSTS to every design decision you make. SO... you have to decide, will you build in the capability to mate every saucer to every secondary hull... or will you optimize the performance of a specific combination of components to perform the best that they can, TOGETHER?

(Those are directly OPPOSING perspectives. I know someone is going to say, now... "but it's the FUTURE so that doesn't count anymore." Bullshit... that argument only holds if you believe that this "future" will be set in the Land of the Lollypop King, with marshmallow skies and Koolaid Rivers...)

So... YOU are in charge of starship production, and you have to make that choice... which do you choose?
Cary L. Brown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 17 2008, 06:23 PM   #43
Plecostomus
Commodore
 
Location: Official forum sex god
Send a message via Windows Live Messenger to Plecostomus
Re: How About Replacing the Galaxy saucer with dedicated weapons platf

Tolerances of a couple milimeters? Ha. I hold .005" on bent sheetmetal parts WITHOUT coining it. I can hold .001 if I coin it. Machined/milled tolerances can be held out to six places without much effort and that's using an old 1943 vintage lathe.

Even shipbuilding scale work has tolerances closer than "a couple of millimeters."

I suspect we're looking at tolerances of over a hundred decimal places or more by the time the Galaxy Classes are built.
Plecostomus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 17 2008, 06:33 PM   #44
Plecostomus
Commodore
 
Location: Official forum sex god
Send a message via Windows Live Messenger to Plecostomus
Re: How About Replacing the Galaxy saucer with dedicated weapons platf

Another thing to consider is technology is changing so rapidly now it's hard to even consider what may come next. A company here in New York is making wee motors small enough to drive optics for cellphone cameras. I mean, that's tiny. It's not a motor in a traditional sense with a rotating coil and all that, it operates on a different principle.

When I started manufacturing stuff in 1989 I remember it being possible to get a tolerance of .010 repeatable over many cycles. As the machines improved from 1989 to 1999 and further out to 2008/9 I can hold .005 now without much effort on a 140 ton bending press. The new ones that they have coming down the pipe will be able to hold .002 over a thousand cycles without flinching.

*shrug*

Who knows? We could be looking at some kind of adaptive construction materials and technology that changes the shape and thus the location of the structures on the fly, in fact you would need something like that because the now exposed skin of the saucer and the now exposed skin of the neck will heat and cool and expand and contract different amounts as both ships are in different enviroments after separation... The saucer could be called upon to exit a solar-system at high-speed while the stardrive is duking it out in the atmosphere of a Class-M planet with a Leggs panty-hose container attached to a shampoo bottle.

What I'm getting at is we honestly don't know what the Enterprise-D is really capable of because we cannot conceive of the incredible technologies required to build her.
Plecostomus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 17 2008, 07:58 PM   #45
Cary L. Brown
Rear Admiral
 
Location: Austin, Texas
Re: How About Replacing the Galaxy saucer with dedicated weapons platf

Plecostomus wrote: View Post
Tolerances of a couple milimeters? Ha. I hold .005" on bent sheetmetal parts WITHOUT coining it. I can hold .001 if I coin it. Machined/milled tolerances can be held out to six places without much effort and that's using an old 1943 vintage lathe.

Even shipbuilding scale work has tolerances closer than "a couple of millimeters."

I suspect we're looking at tolerances of over a hundred decimal places or more by the time the Galaxy Classes are built.
Nope.

You're talking about "across a single component." But that's not what we're talking about at all. Think "stack-ups."

One part can hold .001" AT A SPECIFIC FEATURE. You do sheetmetal work... how accurately can you hold the true position of holes on opposite ends of a formed sheetmetal part, relative to each other, if the part is, say, six feet in length?

Now... attach that to another part, also with inherent tolerances... and to another, and to another. Build up a structure made up of THOUSANDS OF PARTS, each of which has a tolerance of its own.

That's called "tolerance stack-up." The more parts you have, the larger the stack-up. So, to make it SIMPLE...

Assume that you have a string of 100 parts, each of which has a tolerance of .001" from mounting feature on one end to mounting feature on the other end. That gives you a tolerance stackup of 100 x .001" or 1/10" across the entire assembly.

THEN, you get into coefficients of thermal expansion... every material grows or shrinks differently than every other material, based upon changes in temperature. So the "tolerances" you have CHANGE... and change from part to part, no less.

Furthermore, you deal with both elastic and plastic deformation of all materials. Just for example, since you brought it up, the hull plating on a naval vessel when first assembled may be of one shape, but after several years in service will have changed shape, sometimes significantly enough to be seen with the naked eye.

So you can hold to .001" on a coined sheetmetal bend... good for you. (I usually expect something on the order of .0003" for a coined feature in an aerospace environment). That does NOT in any way refute the point.

How many MILLIONS of components of various types and materials do you think would make up the "interface" region of a Galaxy-class vessel? That's a MASSIVE "stack-up" isn't it?
Cary L. Brown is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Tags
galaxy-class, technobabble

Thread Tools

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 On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:49 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.