RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 139,756
Posts: 5,433,592
Members: 24,838
Currently online: 553
Newest member: MaineLen

TrekToday headlines

The Art of John Alvin Book Review
By: T'Bonz on Sep 23

Episode Four of The Red Shirt Diaries
By: T'Bonz on Sep 22

Star Trek: The Compendium Review
By: T'Bonz on Sep 22

Orci Drops Rangers Project
By: T'Bonz on Sep 22

Retro Review: Image in the Sand
By: Michelle on Sep 20

Star Trek: Shadows Of Tyranny Casting Call
By: T'Bonz on Sep 19

USS Vengeance And More Starship Collection Ships
By: T'Bonz on Sep 19

Trek 3 To Being Shooting Next Year
By: T'Bonz on Sep 19

Trek Messenger Bag
By: T'Bonz on Sep 18

Star Trek Live In Concert In Australia
By: T'Bonz on Sep 18


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 > Star Trek TV Series > Voyager

Voyager There's coffee in this forum!

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old January 26 2009, 11:51 PM   #46
swaaye
Lieutenant Commander
 
swaaye's Avatar
 
Re: Intrepid class VS a galaxy class, which was more powerful and adva

Well, the way I've always seen it is that the older classes get new tech retrofitted. Intrepid was a showcase for various new techs. Undoutedly most if not all of those techs get fitted to the older ships once they are tried and tested.

One thing I'm not entirely convinced of is that a smaller ship has any advantage over a larger one. They still fire the same weapons. Phasers should never miss as they are energy weapons being targeted with 24th century computers. I doubt a contemporary computer would have any trouble at all targeting a moving ship, let alone a future targeting computer that is actually a refined model itself built upon literally hundreds of years of past experience with older models.

I'm surprised a ship can evade even a torpedo. Those miniscule torps should be incredibly more maneuverable than a crewed vessel of any size. I'm also amazed that they can't trivially shoot down torpedoes with phasers, considering how sophisticated and fast the targeting systems should be. Although we have seen them shoot them down occasionally.
swaaye is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 27 2009, 02:03 AM   #47
kent
Lieutenant Commander
 
Re: Intrepid class VS a galaxy class, which was more powerful and adva

[quote=kv1at3485;2544286]
kent wrote: View Post
Granted we don't know much about the crew compliment, but with all the extra components needed to operate as a battleship and in seperated flight mode, it's fairly obvious if you use common sense that the crew compliment would probably not be as high as an Intrepid class, which is indeed the same deck height. And as for supporting the hardware, well honestly much of it is automated so it doesn't need a large crew to operate. When we were first introduced to the Prometheus class, it was able to operate with a crew UNDER TEN. This is also why the Intrepid class doesn't have a larger crew compliment even though it's similar in size in terms of it's internal volume and space to a Constitution.
Some notes. Number of decks!=size. Length!=size. A Prometheus is about 20% larger than an Intrepid. An Intrepid is about 2.5 to 3 times larger than a Constitution, depending on whether one is referring to the original or the refit. That there has been increased automation over the years from TOS to VOY is pretty obvious.

On the other hand, it probably doesn't do well to trumpet that we saw Prometheus flown by a handful. Any ship can be flown by a handful. The question is if that is enough when things start happening... like battle damage. Only a handful in Starfleet may have been trained to use Prometheus, but I wager that the ship's intended crew is a whole lot larger. Not to say that they couldn't build a ship that self-repaired in a big way all by itself without needing biological crew at their tech level, but let's face it: that's not the Star Trek way, for better or worse.

As a tid bit, if Prometheus was to have the same crew density as Defiant, that'd turn into a crew of like 500.




I agree that the Prometheus class is a bit bigger overall than the intrepid, but it does still have the same amount of decks, and in that sense it's the same size. I was just pointing out that the ship would need multiple redundant systems, and to have three seperate dueterium and antimatter tanking and distribution systems would take up an enourmous amount of internal space for each warp core, not to mention the ship would need THREE computer cores, with a functioning back up for each one, so 6 total. the 42 deck high Galaxy class had at best 3, with room for a fourth.

Each section also has individual torpedo launching systems (I would assume anyway) with enough torpedo's for an extended battle. Each section would need its own shield generators and backups in case of damage. Each section would also presumably have their own impulse drive system, which means more fusion reactors and reserve fusion reactors for power consumtion of the ship. The ship also has recessed nacelles in the saucer section which are meters long, and that also takes up an enourmous amount of room if you consider the mechanisms needed to extend and retract let alone the actual nacelles. Mind you the saucer section is where most of the crew quarters normally are. Also, there has to be at least 3 deflector dishes, one for each section. A ship can't warp without it, and if it's a tactical vessel the deflector systems are likely advanced and sensitive, making the machinery behind it bulkier as well. Even if the machinery is not as bulky, it still takes up a good amount of room.

All I was saying, is that if the ship is somewhat bulkier but still has the same decks as an Intrepid, then it's crew if it were a normal downrated ship would probably be around 150-200. But, since it has all the humungously bulky redundant hardware, tankage, and extra nacelles, the crew compliment by default would be reduced to a number in the low low 100's, around 100 or so i would imagine, and possibly even less due to automation. Even with the extra room, and lack of any scientific applications, most of the internal room is comprised of extra systems so the ship can operate in seperated flight mode.

I will say though, since the Dominion war is over and the Prometheus class didn't see much action, Starfleet would be smart to take out any extra weapons uneeded, or any combat system not needed, and install scientific facilities as well as more all purpose facilities. The design of ship is EXTREMELY strong, and would be able to study phenomenon most other starships wouldn't be able to. That and it's top cruising speed is warp 9.99i believe, making it a good recon vessel. And the fact that it is able to seperate means the ship is able to perform multiple different types of missions at one time, an invaluable ability. It could seperate, and one section could go study a quasar or something, another could border patrol, and the third could do a recon mission.

Last edited by kent; January 27 2009 at 02:07 AM. Reason: forgot to add something.
kent is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 27 2009, 02:12 AM   #48
Deks
Rear Admiral
 
Re: Intrepid class VS a galaxy class, which was more powerful and adva

When talking about SF weapons, here's how they should operate:
Phasers would NEVER miss their target given the fact they apparently travel at the speed of light (at the very least), have a maximum effective range of 300 000 km (which implies the speed of light) and are targeted using highly advanced computer systems.
In general, opposing vessels apparently travel at sub-light velocities as far as 'impulse' is concerned, and wouldn't be able to dodge these weapons unless they used warp strafing (and even then, a computer would be able to make necessary calculations in order to hit it's target).

Torpedoes are apparently FTL weapons and should be able to reach their target instantly if fired while not traveling at Warp velocities (even under warp this should be instant because the distances aren't visually large).

Writers and SFX department went for the 'cool' factor on more than one occasion and dumb down many aspects for the show because of the drama.

I agree on the premise that older ships get retrofitted with new technologies, but at the same time, many aspects would remain identical between the larger and smaller ships.
__________________
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 January 27 2009, 03:05 AM   #49
kv1at3485
Commodore
 
Re: Intrepid class VS a galaxy class, which was more powerful and adva

kent wrote: View Post
snip
You'll note I was not challenging the whole "systems*3" thing. I have long since known the Prometheus is not one big supership, it's a curious amalgamation of three smaller, weaker ships.

One section has serious warp performance issues (there seems to be a reason large nacelles are still in favour). The redundency people like to go on about completely disappear at the critical moment when the ship is doing its job in MVAM. The whole scheme isn't even necessary to bring more weapons to battle in a single "package".

As a single unit Prometheus is worse than a purpose built single vessel. In MVAM, or even in some bastardized "peaceful" conversion, it does the job no better than three ships. All in all, an inefficient, overengineered "solution" looking for a problem.

I really can't see Prometheus as a 'strong' design. If there was anything uniquely good about it when we saw it, obviously that would not stay true for long negating any advantageous the ship may have vis a vis everything else. But there is one bad thing unique to it that would be best to stay that way.
kv1at3485 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 27 2009, 01:03 PM   #50
Deks
Rear Admiral
 
Re: Intrepid class VS a galaxy class, which was more powerful and adva

Yet at the same time, a Prometheus is mostly a singular vessel.
If the technology to build it was available earlier and it was stuck in the DQ like Voyager, there is a good possibility it would have gone through much less trouble.
Not to mention that going into MVAM during a Kazon assault, or any other for that matter, would have likely increased the ships chances of survival.
Having 3 ships that come from 1 could prove to be a decisive factor as you can attack from multiple directions.

Numerous non-Federation races have various blind-spots that the Feds usually/easily cover with strips on their ships.

It's made solely for deep-space tactical missions.
Perfect for Starfleet Intelligence, Section 31 or SF officers in general who have to conduct such missions far away from home-base.
__________________
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 January 27 2009, 01:18 PM   #51
Timo
Admiral
 
Re: Intrepid class VS a galaxy class, which was more powerful and adva

Phasers would NEVER miss their target
Well, that is how they do work in TNG era ship-to-ship combat. Unless the opponent is cloaked, the hit rate is always 100%.

Unless we're talking about the "Gatling phasers" of the Defiant, that is. And since those seem to be fixed forward, with just some vertical traverse, I think they can be excused. They're similar to Klingon BoP wingtip cannon in operating mode anyway: spray and pray. Aiming would be superfluous...

(Oh, I do remember ONE time when a Starfleet phaser did miss its target. In "Jem'Hadar", the runabout that tries to stop the Jem'Hadar ship from ramming the Odysseus manages to squeeze off a shot that goes past the target. But that's a unique incident in Star Trek as far as I know.)

Phasers aren't always lightspeed or FTL, of course. At close ranges, they seem to move relatively slowly, at speeds that we can easily perceive. At longer ranges, they are faster. It's almost as if the thing that was constant was time-to-target! Which is literally true, as a phaser beam is always rendered on screen by drawing a line that spans the screen in, what, three frames of film, because that's what looks good. This regardless of what distance is portrayed on that screen...

Since time-to-target is constant, though, the claim about 100% hit rate being inevitable still basically holds true. And is indeed observed regardless of distance.

Torpedoes are apparently FTL weapons
Well, apparently not, since we can see them! True, they have been seen to fly at warp, but only in battles where the launching ship is at warp. This sounds like a plausible technological limitation.

Timo Saloniemi
Timo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 27 2009, 02:52 PM   #52
nx1701g
Admiral
 
nx1701g's Avatar
 
Location: Aboard the Executor...
Re: Intrepid class VS a galaxy class, which was more powerful and adva

^ The tech manuals claim that they are fired at warp velocities.
__________________
Not Dead Yet.
nx1701g is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 27 2009, 03:08 PM   #53
Timo
Admiral
 
Re: Intrepid class VS a galaxy class, which was more powerful and adva

The TNG manual says that they can put 0.75 warp factors to the velocity of the launching vessel at best - so a torp launched at sublight would stay sublight, and a torp launched at warp 3 wouldn't reach warp 4.

What we actually see is less acceleration than that. And it would be rather silly to fire a torpedo at 0.75 times lightspeed when it can reach the target just as fine at 300 mph. The extra speed would give no extra lethality. (At least if we assume that the ability to accelerate to such insane speeds is thanks to the negation of inertia, which then cancels the hitting power of the accelerated object, too.)

Granted that roughly torpedo-sized objects have been witnessed traversing great distances at what must be rather high warp, even if they were fired from a sublight starship or a space station. But there might be special rules that apply to these things; the weapons used in the actual battles don't fly at warp speeds unless fired at warp, and don't accelerate much by themselves no matter what the flight regime.

Timo Saloniemi
Timo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 27 2009, 09:06 PM   #54
kent
Lieutenant Commander
 
Re: Intrepid class VS a galaxy class, which was more powerful and adva

kv1at3485 wrote: View Post
kent wrote: View Post
snip
You'll note I was not challenging the whole "systems*3" thing. I have long since known the Prometheus is not one big supership, it's a curious amalgamation of three smaller, weaker ships.

One section has serious warp performance issues (there seems to be a reason large nacelles are still in favour). The redundency people like to go on about completely disappear at the critical moment when the ship is doing its job in MVAM. The whole scheme isn't even necessary to bring more weapons to battle in a single "package".

As a single unit Prometheus is worse than a purpose built single vessel. In MVAM, or even in some bastardized "peaceful" conversion, it does the job no better than three ships. All in all, an inefficient, overengineered "solution" looking for a problem.

I really can't see Prometheus as a 'strong' design. If there was anything uniquely good about it when we saw it, obviously that would not stay true for long negating any advantageous the ship may have vis a vis everything else. But there is one bad thing unique to it that would be best to stay that way.



I think the Prometheus is a very strong design, it took down a d'deridex warbird with EASE....lol. It is what it was designed for. And i can't see the reasoning that larger warp nacelles are preferred by starfleet considering the Intrepid class' warp nacelles are relatively small and yet have a standard cruising velocity of warp 9.975, almost 5500 times the speed of light.

And having one ship be able to split into multiple independent warp capable ships is of course better than having three ships. One, you don't expend as many resources building a butt load of ships. Two, you have a ship able to be much more efficient and handle multiple missions at one time. Three, if there is a catastrophic event then you can separate the ship and still be able to function and have a warp drive to escape. Four, with all the redundant systems, you have a huge surviveability rate in a tough situation, like being stranded in the delta quadrant.

Last edited by kent; January 27 2009 at 09:09 PM. Reason: adding an idea
kent is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 27 2009, 09:13 PM   #55
kent
Lieutenant Commander
 
Re: Intrepid class VS a galaxy class, which was more powerful and adva

Timo wrote: View Post
Phasers would NEVER miss their target
Well, that is how they do work in TNG era ship-to-ship combat. Unless the opponent is cloaked, the hit rate is always 100%.

Unless we're talking about the "Gatling phasers" of the Defiant, that is. And since those seem to be fixed forward, with just some vertical traverse, I think they can be excused. They're similar to Klingon BoP wingtip cannon in operating mode anyway: spray and pray. Aiming would be superfluous...

(Oh, I do remember ONE time when a Starfleet phaser did miss its target. In "Jem'Hadar", the runabout that tries to stop the Jem'Hadar ship from ramming the Odysseus manages to squeeze off a shot that goes past the target. But that's a unique incident in Star Trek as far as I know.)

Phasers aren't always lightspeed or FTL, of course. At close ranges, they seem to move relatively slowly, at speeds that we can easily perceive. At longer ranges, they are faster. It's almost as if the thing that was constant was time-to-target! Which is literally true, as a phaser beam is always rendered on screen by drawing a line that spans the screen in, what, three frames of film, because that's what looks good. This regardless of what distance is portrayed on that screen...

Since time-to-target is constant, though, the claim about 100% hit rate being inevitable still basically holds true. And is indeed observed regardless of distance.

Torpedoes are apparently FTL weapons
Well, apparently not, since we can see them! True, they have been seen to fly at warp, but only in battles where the launching ship is at warp. This sounds like a plausible technological limitation.

Timo Saloniemi



You're pretty much right about that. And torpedo's aren't FTL weapons, I agree. They can be launched FROM ftl speeds, and the warp sustainer engine can maintain the starship's warp field for a limited amount of time. The only problem with that is it uses up the warhead payload for fuel. But whatever.

I propose, even though there is on screen evidence, that Starfleet emposes automatic countermeasures as soon as red alert is sounded that somehow confuses the sensors on a limited basis of an enemy ship. I know there is no onscreen evidence, but considering ships in the real world do this, it makes sense that ships in trek do that as well. It makes the most sense when you see things like beam weapons with computerized targeting scanners missing a ship only a handful of kilometers away. Either the computer is broken, the tactical officer is manually targeting BADLY, or they are purposefully missing. Neither makes any sense in a tactical situation. The only thing I can think of is countermeasures built into red alert hence not really anything being mentioned about it.
kent is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 27 2009, 10:15 PM   #56
kv1at3485
Commodore
 
Re: Intrepid class VS a galaxy class, which was more powerful and adva

kent wrote: View Post
I think the Prometheus is a very strong design, it took down a d'deridex warbird with EASE....lol. It is what it was designed for.
That just demonstrated the efficacy of the ship's weapons, which can be applied to other ships. Again, Prometheus is an overcomplicated substitute for a squadron.

And i can't see the reasoning that larger warp nacelles are preferred by starfleet considering the Intrepid class' warp nacelles are relatively small and yet have a standard cruising velocity of warp 9.975, almost 5500 times the speed of light.
I don't know about you, but when you have two sections on the Prometheus with huge nacelles and one section with very puny nacelles I can't begin to image how that one section can even be considered a viable running mate with the rest.

Each of an Intrepid's nacelles are like 3% of the ship's volume. If you go to EAS and try to roughly guestimate the nacelle's relative size on the top section of a Prometheus, I think it comes out to a much much smaller percentage. Considering how they thought they needed the much larger nacelles for the other sections, I'd venture a hazardously smaller percentage.

And the only time I remember Voyager going at 9.975 was during Threshold and could only be counted as impressive if by "standard cruising velocity" you meant "warp drive had to shut down after five minutes at speed."

And having one ship be able to split into multiple independent warp capable ships is of course better than having three ships. One, you don't expend as many resources building a butt load of ships.
Bogus. Building a Prometheus essentially requires one to build three Constitution-sized ships. That's the concept behind MVAM, and that's the only way you can even begin to claim "multi-mission" capability.

Two, you have a ship able to be much more efficient...
No. In single-vessel mode it's less efficient. You have a bunch of internal mass (extra hull, hull connection surfaces, recessed warp nacelles) that you don't need.

...and handle multiple missions at one time.
In which case you're doing no better than if you sent out a squadron of ships in the first place.

Three, if there is a catastrophic event then you can separate the ship and still be able to function and have a warp drive to escape. Four, with all the redundant systems, you have a huge surviveability rate in a tough situation, like being stranded in the delta quadrant.
Again, no better than a squadron.

And I love how people are using an outlier situation ("getting stuck in the Delta Quadrant") as justification. The Promtheues concept is inefficient as to not merit pursuing on a large scale, if at all. It'd be insane to start doing just that just to cover the bases of a very few ships that find themselves in very unlikely situations, like "getting stuck in the Delta Quadrant".
kv1at3485 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 28 2009, 01:53 AM   #57
kent
Lieutenant Commander
 
Re: Intrepid class VS a galaxy class, which was more powerful and adva

It wouldn't be an inefficient design if each section had the proper materials to operate independently, IE warp cores, computer cores, etc. I agree the smaller warp engines on the saucer probably can't handle higher warp factors, but still could go to warp.

I don't see how building three ships into one isn't efficient...It's would have independent capabilities and wouldn't cost as much as a larger ship would. that just makes no sense.

I don't recall that part of threshold. you may be right. that said it has one of the highest top cruising speeds in the fleet and that for sure is a fact. i don't see how me quoting the delta quadrant would be an outlier situation, it was merely an example.
kent is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 28 2009, 02:24 AM   #58
kv1at3485
Commodore
 
Re: Intrepid class VS a galaxy class, which was more powerful and adva

kent wrote: View Post
It wouldn't be an inefficient design if each section had the proper materials to operate independently, IE warp cores, computer cores, etc.

I don't see how building three ships into one isn't efficient...It's would have independent capabilities and wouldn't cost as much as a larger ship would. that just makes no sense.
Who's talking about a "larger ship"? We're talking about taking the same material/effort needed to build a Prometheus and building three ships of a single smaller class.

Which is far more streamlined than building three classes of ships and adding the docking facilities needed to mash together a Prometheus.

What you seem to keep missing is the whole concept of squadrons which give the same capabilities as Prometheus for much less hassle.

I don't recall that part of threshold. you may be right. that said it has one of the highest top cruising speeds in the fleet and that for sure is a fact.
It's even worse than I thought. According to this transcript, they reached 9.97 and the computer almost immediately started screaming about "structural failure in 45 seconds."

I don't know what definition of "cruising speed" you're using, but something that can't be sustained for an appreciable amount of time doesn't qualify as "cruising speed" in my book. More like: "killing-ourselves-may-be-more-merciful-than-the-alternative emergency speed."

i don't see how me quoting the delta quadrant would be an outlier situation, it was merely an example.
And it's an outlier example.
kv1at3485 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 13 2009, 10:38 AM   #59
Verkruk
Cadet
 
Re: Intrepid class VS a galaxy class, which was more powerful and adva

The Intrepid Class starship would lose.

Having the same type of Phasers equipped does not mean equal power.
The Galaxy class has almost 2000 emitters in its main Dorsal array.
The power of the phaser blast is determined by the amount of emitters used in each blast.

So there is no way that the Intrepid could hope to match a Galaxy class starships phaser output.

The Galaxy class starship is also capable of matching the Intrepid class vessels reactor efficiency.

The Intrepid class vessel does not fire Quantum Torpedoes.
It fires Photons and Tricobalt Devices.

In addition the Galaxy class has a 10 torpedo per tube capacity.
And it is very likely that the Galaxy has been upgraded to the new Bio-Neural systems by now.
Verkruk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 4 2009, 06:14 AM   #60
Voyager
Lieutenant Junior Grade
 
Location: Romulan Bureau of Bureaucracy
Re: Intrepid class VS a galaxy class, which was more powerful and adva

Odo's_Bucket wrote: View Post
That's like asking which would win, a Ticonderoga class cruiser or a Nimitz class carrier. Gee, I wonder. http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1266/...1248d785_o.jpg

sorry to derail here a bit but I had to get a shot in this...


neither...this would turn into a stale mate match...


reason:

the nimitz would send its planes over to bomb the crap out of the tricon, however the tricon would launch one or two of its own missles and send them into the side of the nimitz causeing it to sink, granted the planes would be left but if the batle was far enough away from any refuleing point (assumeing there is no allowance for mid air refuleing) the planes would just drop into the water or where ever they are once out of fuel...


as for the Intrepid VS galaxy?


depends on what variables you want...if looking at power vs power, galaxy hands down, if you want speed and quick manuverabality...the Intrepid hands down...


but here is an interesting question I shale post out of this...


assumeing we have the intrepid VS. Galaxy battle...who would win the battle if it was Picard in the Ent-d VS Janeway in the Voyager?
Voyager is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Tags
battles, fights, power, 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 04:25 PM.

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