RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 137,916
Posts: 5,331,394
Members: 24,557
Currently online: 571
Newest member: PlayerUp

TrekToday headlines

Retro Review: Inquisition
By: Michelle on Jul 12

Cubify Star Trek 3DMe Mini Figurines
By: T'Bonz on Jul 11

Latest Official Starships Collection Ships
By: T'Bonz on Jul 10

Seven of Nine Bobble Head
By: T'Bonz on Jul 9

Pegg The Prankster
By: T'Bonz on Jul 9

More Trek Stars Join Unbelievable!!!!!
By: T'Bonz on Jul 8

Star Trek #35 Preview
By: T'Bonz on Jul 8

New ThinkGeek Trek Apparel
By: T'Bonz on Jul 7

Star Trek Movie Prop Auction
By: T'Bonz on Jul 7

Drexler: NX Engineering Room Construction
By: T'Bonz on Jul 7


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 April 30 2011, 06:25 AM   #106
Crazy Eddie
Rear Admiral
 
Crazy Eddie's Avatar
 
Location: I'm in your ___, ___ing your ___
Re: Constellation class

Saquist wrote: View Post
Like I showed it seems in the 24th century the ships aren't designed for the kind of minimal maintenance you're describing.
I never said they were. I said that cruising speed is a velocity sustainable without requiring MORE than routine maintenance and upkeep for the engine systems. Meaning an output well within spec for all components involved that doesn't push any performance or safety limits.

Once more if the Enterprise D needed Starbase repairs just for traveling at high warp for days
High warp, meaning velocities considerably higher than cruising velocity.

Everything designed has a tolerance built in by the engineers. You're making the error that these designers and engineers PLAN for the design to be compromised and continue to work at optimal levels.
No, I'm saying that the standard tolerances for all engine components is what defines "sustainable cruising velocity" and that higher velocities that push or slightly exceed tolerances will invariably require checking and maintenance of the engines for damage. The system should not have difficulty reaching its specified norms after repairs have been completed, it's the upper bound of its performance envelope that will see some reduction.

If we ask an engineer "how much pressure can the core take" He will give the tolerance that were built into and may even tell you how far above those limits you can go.
Okay.

So he tells you "upper range of tolerance for this one is three hundred and one point five atmospheres." Then the ship gets hit by the caretaker effect, takes some damage. Ship limps away to make some repairs. In the intervening time the engineering department has built FROM SCRATCH several shuttlecraft, two runabout-class vessels, tested several prototype propulsion technologies and even built an experimental new warp core to test a brand new drive system.

Seven years later this engineer tells you again "upper range of tolerance is three hundred and one point five atmospheres," and you look at the operating record and see the reactor never once exceeded 200 and nearly exploded at 260.

Conclusion? The engineer is lying to you. Only he knows why, but considering how precise his line is he's probably been ORDERED to for some reason.

There is no way could possibly know with micro fractures that one of them wasn't potentially a breach waiting to happen in every situation of micro fractures unless you knew exactly how it was going to fracture every single time. Like tempered glass designed not to shatter.
If this was ANY OTHER SHIP BUT VOYAGER, you would have a point. These are, on the other hand, the same people who have repeatedly demonstrated almost borg-like industriousness in rebuilding the destroyed parts of their ship (even before recruiting an actual borg), and to assume that the only thing they never got around to fixing was the warp core strains believability, especially since the quotation of their "maximum sustainable cruising speed" appears AFTER they enter the delta-quadrant but no mention is ever made of engine damage or microfractures.

And you'd think somebody WOULD mention it, considering at their "sustainable cruising speed" they could have reached Earth in a little under eight years.

Except that Voyager routinely flies around at speeds around warp eight or nine, where pressures wouldn't be that much lower than warp 9.9.
Galaxy Class speeds, sure.
But Intrepid is more than 3x faster. According to the chart that is WAY more than merely three times the power.
Indeed, which leads us to wonder how a ship that is supposedly three times faster than a Galaxy class would suddenly be exactly AS fast as a galaxy class because of "damage to the engine."

They could rig their warp core to run a quantum slipstream drive but they couldn't reinforce it to operate at its NORMAL OPERATING TOLERANCES? That's like saying you can modify a lawnmower engine to run a gocart (which you ALSO built from scratch) but you can't build an actual lawnmower.

I'm just not buying that.

Voyager routinely runs at warp 6. It was said so many times in the series it's almost all that the ship seemed capable of doing. I would look at the episode Kes left because the Core was operating above 120%
Never stated an actual speed, but specifies it as some kind of Traveler-like warp speed.

Of course, in "Threshhold" the computer tells them "Warning: Nearing maximum velocity. Structural collapse is immanent." No mention of the warp core there either, and no indication that this velocity is in ANY WAY sustainable.

Face it, dude. Starfleet fooled you. Fortunately, they also fooled the Tal Shiar and the Obsidian Order, which is probably the point.
__________________
The Complete Illustrated Guide to Starfleet - Online Now!
Crazy Eddie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 30 2011, 06:37 AM   #107
Crazy Eddie
Rear Admiral
 
Crazy Eddie's Avatar
 
Location: I'm in your ___, ___ing your ___
Re: Constellation class

blssdwlf wrote: View Post
The Soyuz numbers sound a bit low, IMHO. Looking at the Soyuz TMA, I'm getting an average density of ~250 kg/m3 (all three modules). The orbital module is about 164 kg/m3, re-entry module is 388 kg/m3 and service module 232 kg/m3.

The Apollo CSM comes in at about 437 kg/m3 (CM = 355 kg/m3 + SM = 463 kg/m3).

Mercury Capsule is at 446 kg/m3.

A few more numbers:
M-1 Abrams Tank is about 1,826 kg/m3.
Battleship Iowa, 216 kg/m3.
USS Nimitz, 276 kg/m3.

USS Voyager at 700,000 tons is 1,118 kg/m3.
TOS Enterprise at 947' with Scotty's "nearly a million gross tons" is 4,166 kg/m3.
TOS Enterprise with 190,000 ton TMOST is 879 kg/m3.
TOS Enterprise with 190,000 ton but at 540' in earlier concept is 4,838 kg/m3.

*Mass figures are from wikipedia, volumes from building vehicles in Lightwave.
I used sketchup models for the TMA and the Shuttle, which might explain the difference. I think some of the surface details probably add up differently in lightwave but I'm not totally sure how.

Either way, 200 to 300 sounds about right for the Soyuz, but the numbers for the Nimitz and Iowa seem WAY too low. Not impossible, mind you, but the heavy armor on the Iowa's hull, deck and turrets would, it seems to me, add up to a much higher density.
__________________
The Complete Illustrated Guide to Starfleet - Online Now!
Crazy Eddie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 30 2011, 09:09 AM   #108
Saquist
Commodore
 
Location: Starbase Houston
Re: Constellation class

newtype_alpha wrote: View Post
I never said they were. I said that cruising speed is a velocity sustainable without requiring MORE than routine maintenance and upkeep for the engine systems. Meaning an output well within spec for all components involved that doesn't push any performance or safety limits.
So far we've not even seen a contradiction in that understanding either.

High warp, meaning velocities considerably higher than cruising velocity.
That's subjective. High warp is high warp. Faster than warp 9.2 is high warp, it's not decided by "higher than cruising velocities" If Voyagers top cruising speed is 9.975 then obviously it's both high warp and a top cursing speed.

No, I'm saying that the standard tolerances for all engine components is what defines "sustainable cruising velocity" and that higher velocities that push or slightly exceed tolerances will invariably require checking and maintenance of the engines for damage. The system should not have difficulty reaching its specified norms after repairs have been completed, it's the upper bound of its performance envelope that will see some reduction.
That makes no sense, that assuming the pressure vessel is in the very same state as when it was first constructed and we know that it is not.

Okay.

So he tells you "upper range of tolerance for this one is three hundred and one point five atmospheres." Then the ship gets hit by the caretaker effect, takes some damage. Ship limps away to make some repairs. In the intervening time the engineering department has built FROM SCRATCH several shuttlecraft, two runabout-class vessels, tested several prototype propulsion technologies and even built an experimental new warp core to test a brand new drive system.
I assume you are assuming this information means they were capable of creating and repairing the core back to spec? May I remind you that drive system failed because of an overload variance in the quantum matrix. The Dauntless had no such problem. Nothing tells us they could properly overhaul the warp core back to "factory" conditions.

If this was ANY OTHER SHIP BUT VOYAGER, you would have a point. These are, on the other hand, the same people who have repeatedly demonstrated almost borg-like industriousness in rebuilding the destroyed parts of their ship (even before recruiting an actual borg), and to assume that the only thing they never got around to fixing was the warp core strains believability, especially since the quotation of their "maximum sustainable cruising speed" appears AFTER they enter the delta-quadrant but no mention is ever made of engine damage or microfractures.
I think the only other episode it's top speed was mentioned in was Relativity.

And you'd think somebody WOULD mention it, considering at their "sustainable cruising speed" they could have reached Earth in a little under eight years.
I'm just saying...if the crew couldn't fix the core to spec then it's not so far fetched since they couldn't manufacture absolutely everything on Voyager.

Indeed, which leads us to wonder how a ship that is supposedly three times faster than a Galaxy class would suddenly be exactly AS fast as a galaxy class because of "damage to the engine."
I don't understand your objection.
They could rig their warp core to run a quantum slipstream drive but they couldn't reinforce it to operate at its NORMAL OPERATING TOLERANCES? That's like saying you can modify a lawnmower engine to run a gocart (which you ALSO built from scratch) but you can't build an actual lawnmower.
Hold on was it a whole new core Like you put in bold above or was it a retro fit of the current core?


Of course, in "Threshhold" the computer tells them "Warning: Nearing maximum velocity. Structural collapse is immanent." No mention of the warp core there either, and no indication that this velocity is in ANY WAY sustainable.
You're right and it was definitely a disappointment but we've seen many times how "variances in the warp core" can cause instability in the warp field. Remember that episode with Barkclay and the contaminated engine systems? The Enterprise was accelerating out of control. The ship was shaking and lurching the injectors were locked....They had five minutes to get it back under control and the ship hadn't even reached it's top speed like was done in TOS. But they explained it well, they said something about the plasma flow or matter flow being uneven and this was effecting the warp field. Same thing with Voyager and the Intrepid could be a precision machine requiring alignment for these epic speeds. I think the room is there for an interpretation. Imagine if you were a writer and you were trying to fix this continuity booboo. Do you really think it's that hard to explain?
Saquist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 1 2011, 09:02 AM   #109
Crazy Eddie
Rear Admiral
 
Crazy Eddie's Avatar
 
Location: I'm in your ___, ___ing your ___
Re: Constellation class

Saquist wrote: View Post
High warp, meaning velocities considerably higher than cruising velocity.
That's subjective.
Not in this context. You were talking about the Enterprise-D needing maintenance after running at "high warp." Enterprise-D does not have a high-warp cruising velocity, which is supposed to be a key difference between it and Voyager.

The problem here is that Voyager clearly can't do it either, despite the fact that it is repeatedly said that it CAN.

That makes no sense, that assuming the pressure vessel is in the very same state as when it was first constructed and we know that it is not.
Doesn't matter. If the engine is operable and if the engineering department is able to perform normal maintenance on it than its normal performance envelope is accessible.

The drop in performance is only sensible if NORMAL maintenance is no longer an option and the engineers have to make due with sub-standard maintenance or ad hoc solutions for lack of a better option. Voyager does not appear to have this problem either.

I assume you are assuming this information means they were capable of creating and repairing the core back to spec? May I remind you that drive system failed because of an overload variance in the quantum matrix.
Which is meaningless technobabble and doesn't seem to have anything to do with the reactor's pressure tolerances.

More to the point: they were able to modify the warp core to operate significantly ABOVE spec and maintain a quantum slipstream for a short period of time. Getting it to operate at NORMAL spec is well within their capabilities. Assuming, of course, that the problem IS with the warp core and there's zero evidence of that anyway.

The Dauntless had no such problem. Nothing tells us they could properly overhaul the warp core back to "factory" conditions.
Except for the fact that they're able to overhaul it AT ALL, which says complicated engineering work is well within their capabilities. There's also the fact that they're capable of building new warp cores from scratch, AND the fact that they are evidently capable of reinstalling their original warp core after it has been ejected from the ship (which they have done on several occasions).

They can do all of this, but they can't make the warp core operate within NORMAL parameters? That is epic engineering fail.

I'm just saying...if the crew couldn't fix the core to spec then it's not so far fetched since they couldn't manufacture absolutely everything on Voyager.
They can manufacture warp cores. They can even overhaul their existing engine to operate in a completely different mode. That's like taking the engines out of an F-22 Raptor, converting them into rocket engines, testing them, then taking them out again and converting them back into jets. If you can do all of that, then you have NO EXCUSE not to be able to maintain those engines at something close to their original specs.

I mean, unless you're some sort of impulsive engineering hobbyist who likes to talk your idiot captain into testing your pie-in-the-sky engineering experiments as a way of distracting her from your complete inability to properly maintain the engines under NORMAL circumstances...

Hold on was it a whole new core Like you put in bold above or was it a retro fit of the current core?
There isn't a whole lot of difference. If you're capable of performing that level of engineering on a piece of equipment--modifying it to operate in a completely different way--then you're capable of repairing it to operate in its original configuration.

It's as simple as that. Within certain details there are sometimes limits to what you can get a machine to do, but if you have the capacity to modify a machine, then BY DEFINITION, you have the capacity to restore the machine. Unless, as I suggested above, maybe you DON'T really have the capacity to modify the machine despite your continued attempts, which may explain the failures of both the Transwarp and slipstream drive experiments.

You're right and it was definitely a disappointment but we've seen many times how "variances in the warp core" can cause instability in the warp field.
And if "variances in the warp core" had been mentioned in Threshhold OR Timeless, you would have a point.
__________________
The Complete Illustrated Guide to Starfleet - Online Now!
Crazy Eddie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 1 2011, 09:03 AM   #110
Crazy Eddie
Rear Admiral
 
Crazy Eddie's Avatar
 
Location: I'm in your ___, ___ing your ___
Re: Constellation class

Saquist wrote: View Post
High warp, meaning velocities considerably higher than cruising velocity.
That's subjective.
Not in this context. You were talking about the Enterprise-D needing maintenance after running at "high warp." Enterprise-D does not have a high-warp cruising velocity, which is supposed to be a key difference between it and Voyager.

The problem here is that Voyager clearly can't do it either, despite the fact that it is repeatedly said that it CAN.

That makes no sense, that assuming the pressure vessel is in the very same state as when it was first constructed and we know that it is not.
Doesn't matter. If the engine is operable and if the engineering department is able to perform normal maintenance on it than its normal performance envelope is accessible.

The drop in performance is only sensible if NORMAL maintenance is no longer an option and the engineers have to make due with sub-standard maintenance or ad hoc solutions for lack of a better option. Voyager does not appear to have this problem either.

I assume you are assuming this information means they were capable of creating and repairing the core back to spec? May I remind you that drive system failed because of an overload variance in the quantum matrix.
Which is meaningless technobabble and doesn't seem to have anything to do with the reactor's pressure tolerances.

More to the point: they were able to modify the warp core to operate significantly ABOVE spec and maintain a quantum slipstream for a short period of time. Getting it to operate at NORMAL spec is well within their capabilities. Assuming, of course, that the problem IS with the warp core and there's zero evidence of that anyway.

The Dauntless had no such problem. Nothing tells us they could properly overhaul the warp core back to "factory" conditions.
Except for the fact that they're able to overhaul it AT ALL, which says complicated engineering work is well within their capabilities. There's also the fact that they're capable of building new warp cores from scratch, AND the fact that they are evidently capable of reinstalling their original warp core after it has been ejected from the ship (which they have done on several occasions).

They can do all of this, but they can't make the warp core operate within NORMAL parameters? That is epic engineering fail.

I'm just saying...if the crew couldn't fix the core to spec then it's not so far fetched since they couldn't manufacture absolutely everything on Voyager.
They can manufacture warp cores. They can even overhaul their existing engine to operate in a completely different mode. That's like taking the engines out of an F-22 Raptor, converting them into rocket engines, testing them, then taking them out again and converting them back into jets. If you can do all of that, then you have NO EXCUSE not to be able to maintain those engines at something close to their original specs.

I mean, unless you're some sort of impulsive engineering hobbyist who likes to talk your idiot captain into testing your pie-in-the-sky engineering experiments as a way of distracting her from your complete inability to properly maintain the engines under NORMAL circumstances...

Hold on was it a whole new core Like you put in bold above or was it a retro fit of the current core?
There isn't a whole lot of difference. If you're capable of performing that level of engineering on a piece of equipment--modifying it to operate in a completely different way--then you're capable of repairing it to operate in its original configuration.

It's as simple as that. Within certain details there are sometimes limits to what you can get a machine to do, but if you have the capacity to modify a machine, then BY DEFINITION, you have the capacity to restore the machine. Unless, as I suggested above, maybe you DON'T really have the capacity to modify the machine despite your continued attempts, which may explain the failures of both the Transwarp and slipstream drive experiments.

You're right and it was definitely a disappointment but we've seen many times how "variances in the warp core" can cause instability in the warp field.
And if "variances in the warp core" had been mentioned in Threshhold OR Timeless, you would have a point.
__________________
The Complete Illustrated Guide to Starfleet - Online Now!
Crazy Eddie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 1 2011, 05:27 PM   #111
Saquist
Commodore
 
Location: Starbase Houston
Re: Constellation class

newtype_alpha wrote: View Post
Not in this context. You were talking about the Enterprise-D needing maintenance after running at "high warp." Enterprise-D does not have a high-warp cruising velocity, which is supposed to be a key difference between it and Voyager.
Case in point.
Captain's log, Stardate 46735.2.
Our frequent use of high warp over
the last few days has overextended
the propulsion systems. We are
finishing minor repairs before
returning to Federation territory.

So apparently the Enterprise did have a high warp cruising velocity.

Doesn't matter. If the engine is operable and if the engineering department is able to perform normal maintenance on it than its normal performance envelope is accessible.
Negative that nominal performance may be augmented with technology such as forcefields or containment fields.

The drop in performance is only sensible if NORMAL maintenance is no longer an option and the engineers have to make due with sub-standard maintenance or ad hoc solutions for lack of a better option. Voyager does not appear to have this problem either.
It's not the same as saying "it does have this problem".
I don't see the point in indulging in the conjecture at this point in the discussion. In this case the lackings of performance are attributed to lack of Federation yard overhauls and regular maintenance beyond crawling crew members.

Which is meaningless technobabble and doesn't seem to have anything to do with the reactor's pressure tolerances.

More to the point: they were able to modify the warp core to operate significantly ABOVE spec and maintain a quantum slipstream for a short period of time. Getting it to operate at NORMAL spec is well within their capabilities. Assuming, of course, that the problem IS with the warp core and there's zero evidence of that anyway.
Many things are related that don't appear to be. It's just fiction and thus the use of technobable. I don't know that they modified the core above spec, (they never said that) These would merely be different specs. What we do know is that the Dauntless didn't have these problems of riding the variances.

Except for the fact that they're able to overhaul it AT ALL, which says complicated engineering work is well within their capabilities. There's also the fact that they're capable of building new warp cores from scratch, AND the fact that they are evidently capable of reinstalling their original warp core after it has been ejected from the ship (which they have done on several occasions).

They can do all of this, but they can't make the warp core operate within NORMAL parameters? That is epic engineering fail.
Complicated engineering: Yes, but to the precession necessary for factory conditions. I say no because only their small projects have worked and usually by the augmenting with some new type of crystal. They were cutting corners.
Saquist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 2 2011, 11:45 PM   #112
Crazy Eddie
Rear Admiral
 
Crazy Eddie's Avatar
 
Location: I'm in your ___, ___ing your ___
Re: Constellation class

Saquist wrote: View Post
newtype_alpha wrote: View Post
Not in this context. You were talking about the Enterprise-D needing maintenance after running at "high warp." Enterprise-D does not have a high-warp cruising velocity, which is supposed to be a key difference between it and Voyager.
Case in point.
Captain's log, Stardate 46735.2.
Our frequent use of high warp over
the last few days has overextended
the propulsion systems. We are
finishing minor repairs before
returning to Federation territory.

So apparently the Enterprise did have a high warp cruising velocity.
No it didn't, as demonstrated above. Their cruising velocity is a warp factor they could sustain for several days without having to stop and make repairs.

Doesn't matter. If the engine is operable and if the engineering department is able to perform normal maintenance on it than its normal performance envelope is accessible.
Negative that nominal performance may be augmented with technology such as forcefields or containment fields.
Which changes what, exactly? If anything it should make the total repair of the warp core that much easier since all you have to do is find a way to augment the containment fields for the main reactor.

Except for the fact that they're able to overhaul it AT ALL, which says complicated engineering work is well within their capabilities. There's also the fact that they're capable of building new warp cores from scratch, AND the fact that they are evidently capable of reinstalling their original warp core after it has been ejected from the ship (which they have done on several occasions).

They can do all of this, but they can't make the warp core operate within NORMAL parameters? That is epic engineering fail.
Complicated engineering: Yes, but to the precession necessary for factory conditions. I say no because only their small projects have worked and usually by the augmenting with some new type of crystal. They were cutting corners.
They were essentially designing NEW engine systems and even new vessels from scratch; these are examples of factory-quality work. Let alone the fact that they also managed to modify a shuttlecraft to travel at warp 10; another factory quality job.

If it were possible to make Voyager move at 9.975, they would have done it. All evidence indicates that it ISN'T possible, so the only explanation for the quotation is deliberate deception by Starfleet to the point of "Listen up, people: OFFICIALLY, the ship's maximum sustainable cruising velocity is warp 9.975. That's what you tell them if anyone asks. Warp 9.975."
__________________
The Complete Illustrated Guide to Starfleet - Online Now!
Crazy Eddie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 3 2011, 06:56 AM   #113
Saquist
Commodore
 
Location: Starbase Houston
Re: Constellation class

newtype_alpha wrote: View Post

No it didn't, as demonstrated above. Their cruising velocity is a warp factor they could sustain for several days without having to stop and make repairs.
But that's your definition of cruising velocity.
When voyager used it "top sustainable cruise velocity"
And this fits what the Enterprise did. It sustained high warp for long period of times and according to the tech manual the dash speed is a 12 hour limit and that's the only difference between them.


Which changes what, exactly? If anything it should make the total repair of the warp core that much easier since all you have to do is find a way to augment the containment fields for the main reactor.
That's not a repair though, that's a patch and those fields do have nominal limits which is why there is a pressure vessel in the first place.

They were essentially designing NEW engine systems and even new vessels from scratch; these are examples of factory-quality work. Let alone the fact that they also managed to modify a shuttlecraft to travel at warp 10; another factory quality job.
I don't know if it was factory quality, the show never said that. I'd have to accept your interpretation and I don't agree with it necessarily and what that would imply. We know Voyager has replicators and apparently they can replicate some parts to a degree but I'm pretty sure they don't have industrial replicators which means they can produce parts or a certain size and grade but it also means there is a limit and it seems shuttles warp cores are about as good as it gets and it's likely they don't have the expertise or the complete know how to do the job right or Voyager would be traveling at top speed and the modified/new core you mentioned likely would have worked much better.

If it were possible to make Voyager move at 9.975, they would have done it. All evidence indicates that it ISN'T possible, so the only explanation for the quotation is deliberate deception by Starfleet to the point of "Listen up, people: OFFICIALLY, the ship's maximum sustainable cruising velocity is warp 9.975. That's what you tell them if anyone asks. Warp 9.975."
I just can't make the leap to that sort of conclusion, alpha.
Saquist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 3 2011, 07:46 AM   #114
Crazy Eddie
Rear Admiral
 
Crazy Eddie's Avatar
 
Location: I'm in your ___, ___ing your ___
Re: Constellation class

Saquist wrote: View Post
newtype_alpha wrote: View Post

No it didn't, as demonstrated above. Their cruising velocity is a warp factor they could sustain for several days without having to stop and make repairs.
But that's your definition of cruising velocity.
When voyager used it "top sustainable cruise velocity"
And this fits what the Enterprise did.
It does NOT fit what the Enterprise did, because the Enterprise demonstrated an explicit inability to sustain those velocities for any amount of time.

In the real world, either speaking of automotive engineering or aircraft, "Cruising velocity" is the velocity at which the craft can travel at maximum efficiency with the least power loss per amount of strain on the engine. It's not a cruising velocity by ANY definition if traveling at that speed tears your engines apart.

It sustained high warp for long period of times
No, it PERFORMED high warp multiple times. That's several short dashes at warp eight and nine between distant planets while racing Klingon/Cardassian ships all over the sector.

Which changes what, exactly? If anything it should make the total repair of the warp core that much easier since all you have to do is find a way to augment the containment fields for the main reactor.
That's not a repair though, that's a patch and those fields do have nominal limits which is why there is a pressure vessel in the first place.
Then you're back to square one. If they can build a new warp core from scratch there's nothing to prevent them from refurbishing the old one (which they did in "Timeless").

OTOH, there's still no canon evidence that there was anything wrong with the warp core in the first place, so it doesn't really matter.

I don't know if it was factory quality, the show never said that.
It would have to be in order to function properly. Which it did.

If it were possible to make Voyager move at 9.975, they would have done it. All evidence indicates that it ISN'T possible, so the only explanation for the quotation is deliberate deception by Starfleet to the point of "Listen up, people: OFFICIALLY, the ship's maximum sustainable cruising velocity is warp 9.975. That's what you tell them if anyone asks. Warp 9.975."
I just can't make the leap to that sort of conclusion, alpha.
Oh, but you can leap to the conclusion that some other un-mentioned yet strangely uncorrectable fault occurred somewhere in the engines that Torres, despite seven years to work on and find solutions to the problem, never got around to solving?
__________________
The Complete Illustrated Guide to Starfleet - Online Now!
Crazy Eddie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 3 2011, 12:59 PM   #115
Saquist
Commodore
 
Location: Starbase Houston
Re: Constellation class

newtype_alpha wrote: View Post
It does NOT fit what the Enterprise did, because the Enterprise demonstrated an explicit inability to sustain those velocities for any amount of time.
He said Days...

In the real world, either speaking of automotive engineering or aircraft, "Cruising velocity" is the velocity at which the craft can travel at maximum efficiency with the least power loss per amount of strain on the engine. It's not a cruising velocity by ANY definition if traveling at that speed tears your engines apart.
I understand you point.


No, it PERFORMED high warp multiple times. That's several short dashes at warp eight and nine between distant planets while racing Klingon/Cardassian ships all over the sector.
Short dashes between DISTANT Planets?
Just to be clear, Stars in the Milky Way (particularly our portion of it) are not very close together. Stargroups are normally binary but you wouldn't need high warp to get across the neighbor when the Distances are under a lightyear. Traveling across the Sector takes more than 12 hours at 9.3 and typically the Enterprise was moving at a flat rate of warp nine. So it fits the definition of "top sustainable cruise velocity.


Then you're back to square one. If they can build a new warp core from scratch there's nothing to prevent them from refurbishing the old one (which they did in "Timeless").
Yes, we are back to square one. That's why I said it essentially had Galaxy Class Speed not Intrepid Class Speed. Something (it seems) they just can't repair back to spec.

OTOH, there's still no canon evidence that there was anything wrong with the warp core in the first place, so it doesn't really matter.
Actually they never said they fixed the micro fractures, They just averted the breach. There was only a vague warning to sealing the fracture but that never happened, they simply stabilized the pressure then they got whisked away.

It would have to be in order to function properly. Which it did.
Have to?
I don't know about that. We've established that a force field could at least patch the problem.

[/quote]Oh, but you can leap to the conclusion that some other un-mentioned yet strangely uncorrectable fault occurred somewhere in the engines that Torres, despite seven years to work on and find solutions to the problem, never got around to solving?[/QUOTE]

No, I allow for some other un-mentioned yet strangely uncorrectable fault. It's the vaguries of the details we've been given. I'm just not concluding we were lied to because logically there are other alternatives.

Your arguement has certain logical characteristics BUT the show wasn't always logical with it's stories and I hesitate to apply that uniformly to this level of minutiae as far as "make warp cores and shuttles therefore all warp cores and shuttles are repairable to factory spec."
Saquist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 3 2011, 01:27 PM   #116
blssdwlf
Commodore
 
Re: Constellation class

In "Threshold" when Voyager got to Warp 9.9 the computer warns them of "structural failure" forcing them to slow down. It is apparent that the warp engines are not the problem but Voyager's structural integrity.

So the stated "top cruising speed" in the series appears to not have been adjusted for damage or structural limitations. It is very likely that this "top cruising speed" was attainable before the series started and conditions have changed to prevent Voyager from ever reaching that speed safely even though the engines could do it.
blssdwlf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 3 2011, 02:28 PM   #117
Timo
Admiral
 
Re: Constellation class

It's fairly consistent in Trek that starships that suffer malfunction/sabotage of propulsion may attain very high speeds, without the powerplant or the propulsion system being an obstacle. It's the inability of the ship's structures to take the stress (warp field? acceleration? whatever). That's what kept the shuttle from attaining warp ten in the episode, too.

Quite possibly the curious nature of warp power consumption, the sawtooth pattern dreamed up for the TNG TM, allows for basically infinite speed if you just have a powerplant rated for warp nine and then a mere 100-200% power margin built into that. And if you can replace the powerplant with an alien contraption, as apparently was done in "By Any Other Name", you can go intergalactic.

The dialogue in "Threshold" is a bit ambiguous on how fast the Voyager was going. Her quarry was doing warp 9.9 when the computer got antsy, and 9.97 when it went apeshit; it's quite possible that the ship was able to match that, just like Chakotay ordered. And the acceleration curve was steep, so perhaps the computer didn't say that there'd be structural collapse at warp 9.9, or even after 45 seconds of warp 9.97. Instead, the computer may have predicted that if the acceleration continued, the ship would fail in 45 seconds, at warp 9.9987.

"Threshold" is our only piece of evidence that warp 9.975 may have been unattainable by our heroes, now isn't it?

Timo Saloniemi
Timo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 3 2011, 07:53 PM   #118
Crazy Eddie
Rear Admiral
 
Crazy Eddie's Avatar
 
Location: I'm in your ___, ___ing your ___
Re: Constellation class

Saquist wrote: View Post
newtype_alpha wrote: View Post
It does NOT fit what the Enterprise did, because the Enterprise demonstrated an explicit inability to sustain those velocities for any amount of time.
He said Days...
He did not say they had been at warp the entire time. Earlier in the episode Picard asks Data how fast they can get him to Ruah Four. Data tells him "Four days at warp six," and they do so. Later, they head for Indri Eight at warp seven, a journey lasting slightly less time but lasting a day at least. Either of these, arguably, would fall into Enterprise's normal cruising velocity used for relatively long voyages.

"High warp" is when Enterprise heads for Loren Three at "maximum warp," and later when they head to the Vilmorn System at warp nine. Neither trip involves a cutscene in between and are implied as taking considerably less than a day, possibly only a few hours.

Short dashes between DISTANT Planets?
Just to be clear, Stars in the Milky Way (particularly our portion of it) are not very close together. Stargroups are normally binary but you wouldn't need high warp to get across the neighbor when the Distances are under a lightyear. Traveling across the Sector takes more than 12 hours at 9.3 and typically the Enterprise was moving at a flat rate of warp nine. So it fits the definition of "top sustainable cruise velocity.
12 to 24 hours before your engines begin to break down... that's not "sustainable" by any stretch of the imagination, especially for starships that can sometimes travel for WEEKS at warp speeds to reach their final destinations.

Voyager's SUSTAINABLE velocity would be one in which they would not need to stop at regular intervals due to engine strain or overheating; routine maintenance, perhaps, but nothing more. Essentially, this is the warp speed analog of the F-22's "supercruise" ability: since you don't need afterburners to reach supersonic velocities, you can cruise along at Mach 1.3 for several hours while most aircraft would run dry in minutes.

Again, the issue isn't Voyager suddenly not being able to sustain that speed for as long as it should. The issue is not being able to reach that speed AT ALL, much less sustain it. And no one is going to make the claim that warp nine is Enterprise-D's maximum SUSTAINABLE anything since it is clearly stated in Encounter at Farpoint: "Maximum, you're entitled to know, means we'll be pushing our engines well beyond safety limits!"

It would have to be in order to function properly. Which it did.
Have to?
I don't know about that. We've established that a force field could at least patch the problem.
But you can't make a warp core using just a forcefield, let alone a warp core capable of driving a shuttlecraft to warp ten or powering a craft like the Delta Flyer. These, again, are factory-quality jobs that demonstrate the possession of engineering equipment and capabilities. There is, at this point, no excuse for them not to be able to conduct similar engineering work on a larger scale, especially considering the core's specs and schematics should ALREADY BE in the main computer.

No, I allow for some other un-mentioned yet strangely uncorrectable fault. It's the vaguries of the details we've been given. I'm just not concluding we were lied to because logically there are other alternatives.
I conclude we were lied to because THAT has been known to happen in the real world. "Engineering department out to lunch, be back in seven years," not so much, ESPECIALLY in situations where the lives of the ship and crew are depending on them. The U.S. Navy still orders all of its submarine captains to refer to the Virginia's top speed as "over fifty knots" without giving the exact number; forty years from now they'll probably declassify documents showing that they never got them faster than 45.
__________________
The Complete Illustrated Guide to Starfleet - Online Now!
Crazy Eddie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 4 2011, 06:43 AM   #119
Saquist
Commodore
 
Location: Starbase Houston
Re: Constellation class

newtype_alpha wrote: View Post
He did not say they had been at warp the entire time.
I'm just quoting the episode, alpha, he said "days at high warp"

"High warp" is when Enterprise heads for Loren Three at "maximum warp," and later when they head to the Vilmorn System at warp nine. Neither trip involves a cutscene in between and are implied as taking considerably less than a day, possibly only a few hours.
Maybe I don't know but I do know he says afterward "days" of high warp.

12 to 24 hours before your engines begin to break down... that's not "sustainable" by any stretch of the imagination, especially for starships that can sometimes travel for WEEKS at warp speeds to reach their final destinations.
That's a matter of interpretation:
Sustainable: longer than brief burst of speed minutes or seconds
Sustainable: Longer than 5-6 hours
Sustainable: Indefinite

The Truth is the word is open ended.

Again, the issue isn't Voyager suddenly not being able to sustain that speed for as long as it should. The issue is not being able to reach that speed AT ALL, much less sustain it. And no one is going to make the claim that warp nine is Enterprise-D's maximum SUSTAINABLE anything since it is clearly stated in Encounter at Farpoint: "Maximum, you're entitled to know, means we'll be pushing our engines well beyond safety limits!"
We still don't know why and that is a statement of fact after damage to the core. Voyager experienced an unstable warp field as a result of reaching warp 9.9. Logically it doesn't mean the Intrepids can't make that speed.

I conclude we were lied to because THAT has been known to happen in the real world.
I'm okay with that but I need something more substantial in the evidence department to conclude deception.

"Engineering department out to lunch, be back in seven years," not so much, ESPECIALLY in situations where the lives of the ship and crew are depending on them. The U.S. Navy still orders all of its submarine captains to refer to the Virginia's top speed as "over fifty knots" without giving the exact number; forty years from now they'll probably declassify documents showing that they never got them faster than 45.
Just like the Alpha.
Saquist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 4 2011, 07:46 AM   #120
Crazy Eddie
Rear Admiral
 
Crazy Eddie's Avatar
 
Location: I'm in your ___, ___ing your ___
Re: Constellation class

Saquist wrote: View Post
newtype_alpha wrote: View Post
He did not say they had been at warp the entire time.
I'm just quoting the episode, alpha, he said "days at high warp"
No he said "frequent use of high warp over the last few days." Nowhere does he say they maintained high warp factors for any amount of time, let alone days.

That's a matter of interpretation:
Sustainable: longer than brief burst of speed minutes or seconds
Sustainable: Longer than 5-6 hours
Sustainable: Indefinite

The Truth is the word is open ended.
Indeed. Which is why Starfleet fudged the word "sustainable" for propaganda value. Everyone in Starfleet probably knows the subtext of that quotation, that the speed is only "sustainable" for about thirty seconds before the ship COMPLETELY EXPLODES from the strain. But outsiders--the Tal Shiar, for example--would have no way of knowing that.

Which may help to explain why Admiral Ross took the Bellerophon to Romulus in "Inter Arma." Clearly there's some diplomatic significance in sending your envoy on what your enemy believes is the fastest starship in the galaxy.

Voyager experienced an unstable warp field as a result of reaching warp 9.9.
That's supposition on your part. The only statement of FACT in that case comes from Tuvok:
"He's exceeding our Maximum velocity. Switching to long range sensors," seconds before Tom reports "Warp 9.95."

Later in the same episode:
KIM: They're approaching warp nine point nine.
CHAKOTAY: Increase speed to match.
COMPUTER: Warning. Nearing maximum warp velocity. Structural collapse is imminent.

And warp 9.97, they are 45 seconds from structural collapse; Chakotay has them reduced to warp 9.5.

So canonically, both Tuvok and Voyager's computer state that MAXIMUM WARP is about 9.9. In the case of neither the shuttle nor Voyager is the warp core named as a reason why they can't maintain or exceed this velocity.

The most logical conclusion is that "maximum sustainable cruising velocity," a term which was never used before or since, is just techno propaganda cited at cocktail parties and airshows that nobody in Starfleet is stupid enough to take seriously (F-117 pilots used to say that the Nighthawk was so stealthy you were better off looking for the dark silent hole in the sky. Then one got shot down by a SAM over Kosovo... they don't say that anymore).

I conclude we were lied to because THAT has been known to happen in the real world.
I'm okay with that but I need something more substantial in the evidence department to conclude deception.
See above.

Also, in Starfleet's case it's hardly without precedent, especially where the Romulans are concerned. Kirk once lied to his entire crew just to give the Federation plausible deniability during the Enterprise Incident, Admiral Pressman lied to Starfleet to cover up the Phase Cloak device. Ben Sisko TOTALLY lied about not using the Defiant's cloaking device in the Alpha Quadrant, and he out-and-out lied to Vreenak to try and bring the Romulans into the Dominion War (he wasn't as pissed about lying to him as he was about Garrack ASSASSINATING him to make the lie plausible).

I find that whenever Starfleet starts doing things that seem sneaky or duplicitous, it usually has something to do with the Romulans. The presence of the Bellerephon in "Inter Arma" suggests to me that the Intrepid class was probably developed from the outset with Romulans in mind (not unlike, say, the F-22 Raptor, which was originally designed to counteract advanced Soviet fighters).

"Engineering department out to lunch, be back in seven years," not so much, ESPECIALLY in situations where the lives of the ship and crew are depending on them. The U.S. Navy still orders all of its submarine captains to refer to the Virginia's top speed as "over fifty knots" without giving the exact number; forty years from now they'll probably declassify documents showing that they never got them faster than 45.
Just like the Alpha.
Heh... yeah, I was just thinking that too.
__________________
The Complete Illustrated Guide to Starfleet - Online Now!

Last edited by Crazy Eddie; May 4 2011 at 07:57 AM.
Crazy Eddie is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Tags
constellation 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 02:43 PM.

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