Starship Prometheus

[sojourner]

Read this thread, afterword you'll wonder how anyone could think the prommie was a good idea.

http://www.trekbbs.com/showthread.php?t=94334&highlight=prometheus

 

[PrimeDirective]

It is science fiction, not science fact.

I find a starship capable of separating into 3 pieces and recombining a lot more plausible than say, Harry Potter for example.

"This..is...not..." "Real? If by 'real" you mean what you can taste, smell, touch, see, and hear, then all 'real' is, is a bunch of electrical signals interpreted by your brain."

 

[PrimeDirective]

Read this thread, afterword you'll wonder how anyone could think the prommie was a good idea.

http://www.trekbbs.com/showthread.php?t=94334&highlight=prometheus

I think the Prometheus was an excellent idea, if you wanted to create a starship whose sole purpose was that of a warship. What better way to assault an ememy, or multiple ones, than by having a ship that can split up into multiple pieces, and still kick the enemy's ass?

 

[DonIago]

I'm wondering whether people are assuming the ship was intended to have all sections fully staffed, when it seemed clear that the primary advantage of MVAM was that 2/3 of the ship could enter combat under full automation...even if two sections get destroyed, you can still escape at warp and you've suffered far fewer casualties than if similar damage was done to, say, a Galaxy-class ship.

 

[blssdwlf]

The Prommie is an interesting anime-like idea.

We've seen that a dedicated war/escort ship like the Defiant can be fairly small yet powerful so it wouldn't hurt to try 3 similar sized small ships and have them combine into one normally largish ship.

You can do a "raid" (pretend to be one ship on the sensor but separate out into three at the last moment). However, do it once, everyone except the new alien of the week in the galaxy will know that ship class sensor signature by heart and know better next time.

And add to that during combat it would be dicey to do the ship separation while under fire if the Captain(s) was not alert enough to do it earlier...

Dunno, doesn't seem all that practical.

 

[PrimeDirective]

The Prommie is an interesting anime-like idea.

We've seen that a dedicated war/escort ship like the Defiant can be fairly small yet powerful so it wouldn't hurt to try 3 similar sized small ships and have them combine into one normally largish ship.

You can do a "raid" (pretend to be one ship on the sensor but separate out into three at the last moment). However, do it once, everyone except the new alien of the week in the galaxy will know that ship class sensor signature by heart and know better next time.

And add to that during combat it would be dicey to do the ship separation while under fire if the Captain(s) was not alert enough to do it earlier...

Dunno, doesn't seem all that practical.

Do you really think that Federation scientists, once they've created a piece of technology, just forget about it? If the basic design was a good idea, like the Prometheus is, then they're going to try to make it as advanced and tactically sound as they can. You're right that once word gets out about the tactical abilities of a ship, Starfleet adversaries are going to do anything they can to not get beat by the ship again. Even after that happens, Starfleet is going to do everything that it can to keep their enemes guessing.

 

[sojourner]

^That's just it. The Prommie is no a good idea. It's a one trick pony. Once everyone is aware of it's existence, the advantage is gone. You're better off building 3 full ships at that point.

 

[DonIago]

How is 3 ships with, let's say, 100 crewmen a piece better than one ship with 100 crew that can perform as well in combat?

I'm a bit surprised that my point about automation was completely overlooked, I suppose.

 

[T'Girl]

Heart Of Glory
KORRIS: We have heard this ship can separate in time of battle.
WORF: Yes. When relieved of its bulk, the Enterprise becomes an exceptional weapon.

Each of the three sections would possess it's own engineering, life support, medical and weapons, however all the other facilities that a starship must also possess, living quarters, flight deck, storage holds, etc. can be divided among the three sections. When separated the different sections each only carry a portion of the non-combat "bulk" into battle, three separate ships of the same capacities would each carry ALL the additional bulk with them.

Simply leave all the extras off the three ships? Sure you could, except. The ship would spend most of it's time in the joined configuration. Cruising, patrolling, surveying, diplomacy, doing all those non-combat starship things. For months and years the Prometheus would have all those little goodies that Starfleet crews have come to expect. The crews of three ships would, well, just have to rough it. For years.

One of the big expenses for a modern military is manpower costs. The Prometheus, of course, has a single crew.

While the Prometheus would cost more to construct, maintain and operate than a single ship with the abilities of one of the Prometheus's cruiser sections, the joined Prometheus would be all around cheaper than the three ship equivalent.

A combatants knowledge of the Prometheus's ability to separate is no different than than the similar knowledge of the Enterprise D's being able to separate. The tactical advantage of three sections would still be there.

Nor would the ship have to separate for every combat situation, the MVAM would be one option.

The two cruiser sections might remain joined and the smaller frigate section sent off on reconnaissance
missions (think delta flyer).

The two cruiser sections engage attackers and again the frigate leaves, carrying important diplomatic VIP's or maybe critical cargo.

The small frigate, with it's flat bottom, might be able to both land and take-off from a planet's surface. Flexibility.

Lastly, in the ENT episode "Azati Prime" Jonathon Archer is taken to the 26th century and the Enterprise J, in the battle he witnesses, there are one or more Prometheus style ships, meaning that it's still being used two centuries after it first appeared.

 

[SpyOne]

How is 3 ships with, let's say, 100 crewmen a piece better than one ship with 100 crew that can perform as well in combat?

I'm a bit surprised that my point about automation was completely overlooked, I suppose.

The crew is there to man and maintain the systems. If 100 people is enough to do that, then 100 is enough to do that.
So we are not comparing 1 ship with a crew of 100 versus 3 ships with 100 each, we are comparing 1 ship with a crew of 300 to 3 ships with 100 each.
Or, if you prefer, 1 ship with 100 to 3 ships with 33 each (Saber Class has a crew of 40, so Starfleet really does do ships that small).

When comparing apples to apples, the added complication of being able to join together doesn't seem practical, as it seems to provide zero benefit.

 

[DonIago]

I still maintain that the Prometheus requires fewer crew than a standard ship of its size. I also don't recall any canonical evidence that the MVAM is used for anything other than largely-automated combat manuvers, which supports the notion that each section isn't fully crewed.

 

[N1N]

How is 3 ships with, let's say, 100 crewmen a piece better than one ship with 100 crew that can perform as well in combat?

I'm a bit surprised that my point about automation was completely overlooked, I suppose.

The crew is there to man and maintain the systems. If 100 people is enough to do that, then 100 is enough to do that.
So we are not comparing 1 ship with a crew of 100 versus 3 ships with 100 each, we are comparing 1 ship with a crew of 300 to 3 ships with 100 each.
Or, if you prefer, 1 ship with 100 to 3 ships with 33 each (Saber Class has a crew of 40, so Starfleet really does do ships that small).

When comparing apples to apples, the added complication of being able to join together doesn't seem practical, as it seems to provide zero benefit.

I'm sorry why would be comparing 1 ship with a crew of 300 to 3 ships with 100 each?
There is nothing to support that the USS Prometheus would need a larger crew as opposed to 3 other ships of similar size. Now the Intrepid class is pretty similar in size to the Prometheus class and that runs with a crew compliment of about 150 (maybe more due to voyager unique circumstances). It is not a stretch to assume that the Prometheus would have a similar crew size.
I don't really know what is complicated about separating a ship and re-integrating again. Starfleet has been in the business of doing this for quite some time now. Also defensively the Prometheus is definitely stronger as a whole and separately. Having regenerative shielding, ablative hull armour and reinforced SIF makes it a lot tougher.

 

[sojourner]

^Why would the prommie have a crew closer to that of 3 ships? 3 times the systems to maintain. 3 times the weapons, 3 times the warp cores, etc... Yes, not all systems are duplicated, but the critical combat systems are.

 

[DonIago]

It doesn't necessarily follow that more systems = more people to maintain them.

 

[T'Girl]

which supports the notion that each section isn't fully crewed.

This.

There's no need for each section to be "fully"crewed. The Prometheus demonstrated that it can perform with no crew at all and while I believe that in most separated combat there would be a engineering/damage control crew in each section, this wouldn't always be the case. In some tactical situations the two cruiser sections might be employed in a "suicide mode" penetrating a enemy formation without any expectation of getting the two unmanned sections back
(if you do, so much the better). The upper frigate can most likely join with the lower most cruiser section directly if necessary. At other times all three sections would have not only a engineering/damage control crew, but also a full command team as well. It makes sense that all three sections would possess a bridge. Even in that scenario the various sections wouldn't be fully manned.

If you step away from the Prometheus being a pure warship and instead being a fully capable multi-role starship, the joined ship would have science personnel, but each section would not have a full complement of science personnel, only the middle section has a flight deck and the people to go along with it. All sections do not have a flight deck and crew.

This is where the Promeheus has the advantage over the often mentioned three ships, the three ships each have to have everything that make for a full starship, the Promtheus only needs everything when it's joined.

Separated it's lighter and more maneuverable in both impulse and warp flight modes.

 

[sojourner]

It doesn't necessarily follow that more systems = more people to maintain them.

If it takes 40 man hours per week to maintain a warp core, then having more warp cores is going to require either A)over working your crews B) more crew.

The best way to achieve MVAM capability is to use a fighter/carrier anology. Splitting ships into equal parts is inefficient.

 

[DonIago]

Granted you might need just as much engineering staff, but there's a lot of crew on a starship that have nothing to do with engineering.

Security comes to mind. Also Sciences.

 

[SpyOne]

Even if the crew is only in one section of the ship when it separates, the systems in the other sections need maintenance, so the crew in the third section would be much larger than for a standard ship of its size. (That is, the size of the crewed section alone.)
And because it is devoting more space to quarters, less of it's space can be given to weapons, shields, and warp cores.

Still, the other two parts, with no crew quarters, have extra space for weapons and engines and stuff. Perhaps it all balances out.

N1N, you pointed out that the Prometheus is roughly the same size as Voyager, which had a crew of roughly 150. Fine, I'll use those numbers:
We would then be comparing the utility and cost of one ship with a crew of 150 that can split into 3 parts, or three ships each with a crew of 50.
As I noted above, the Sabre Class supposedly has a crew of 40, so Starfleet does make ships that small.

So what benefit is derived from the Prometheus's ability to assemble its three parts into one USS Voltron?

I can, actually, think of one. The warp drive cannot be run at maximum output for long periods, and in fact cannot be run at "cruising speed" for very long periods: despite the fact that the Galaxy Class is supposed to "cruise" at around 1600 lightyears/year, the DS9 Technical Manual says that no Federation Starship has ever covered 1000 lightyears in a single year, suggesting that even at cruising speed the drive is shut down for maintenance about 1/3 of the time.
It has been suggested that the reason for 4-nacelled designs like the Constellation Class is that one pair can be used while maintenance is done on the other pair. With multiple warp cores, one core could be shut down while the other is used.
Thus it is possible that the USS Prometheus can travel great distances faster than any other Federation ship while joined, because it can alternate which warp core and nacelles it is using and do maintenance on one set while still underway.
HOWEVER, this would require that each of the warp cores so used be able to put out enough power to move the entire, joined, ship at the full speed. Basically, it would need at least two (I'm assuming the fold-away nacelles on the section with the bridge can only be used while separated) warp cores as big as Voyager's, and enough engineers to be operating one while working on the other.
This version of the USS Prometheus would need a much larger crew than a comparable ship (like Voyager), because it would need double the Engineering crew.

To a certain extent, I can see the idea that if I'm already giving it two warp cores, two sets of nacelles, and two crews worth of engineers, I could have it able to split into two equally viable ships (instead of one combat god and one sitting duck like the separated Galaxy Class).

But that leaves the question of the third section. Lifeboat for the crew?

I don't really know what is complicated about separating a ship and re-integrating again. Starfleet has been in the business of doing this for quite some time now.

Yes, they've been doing it for a long time. And it is still more expensive than not doing it. Moving parts break, moving parts need maintenance, and moving parts need to mesh correctly: a small mis-alignment of two parts is probably okay, but a small mis-alignment of four parts adds up to a major mis-alignment between the first and the last, which can lead to catastrophic failure. More moving parts = easier to break.
For this reason, you never build something with more moving parts than you need to. (Well, unless your goal is consumerism: products designed to break and need replacing. Starfleet seems to have evolved beyond that.)
So when the engineer shows you the really toyettic design he's got for a family sedan that can split into four unicycles, you ask him "what advantage does that give that is worth the extra cost in design, manufacture, and maintenance?"

USS Prometheus was designed to appeal to the part of me that looks at a fighterplane that can transform into a humanoid robot and goes "Coooool!". And it does. But another part of me realizes that in the real world such things are rarely worth the expense they represent.

 

[T'Girl]

Even if the crew is only in one section of the ship when it separates, the systems in the other sections need maintenance, so the crew in the third section would be much larger than for a standard ship of its size. (That is, the size of the crewed section alone.) And because it is devoting more space to quarters, less of it's space can be given to weapons, shields, and warp cores. Still, the other two parts, with no crew quarters, have extra space for weapons and engines and stuff. Perhaps it all balances out.

I think the crew quarters would be more evenly devided between the sections. On those occasions when the entire crew was solely in one of the three sections they would be "crammed in" for the duration of the separation. In the case of the weapons, the torpedoes would be equally divided, but the phasers would be somewhat heavier in the two cruiser sections based on engine size and probable power output.

 

[N1N]

SpyOne, i don't think anyone can say for sure how the Prometheus crew complement would have played out. There is nothing to say the everything is split equally. Lets take the USS Voyager & the USS Defiant, now Voyager is clearly meant for science & exploration duties as opposed to the Defiant which is meant for escort & battle. Now would you assume that the Defiant had as many science officers (proportionate to it size) as Voyager does, of course not. The two ships have very different roles and this is reflected in the type of crews they have.

Sojourner, i think your overestimating the amount of maintenance the Prometheus will need. Sure it's maintenance will be higher than normal for a ship it size, but I'm pretty sure that is not a big problem. I hope we all are thinking the bulk of the maintenance on the Prometheus will be due to it's MVAM. I don't really see that as a problem as starfleet clearly make it a practice to use predictive maintenance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predictive_maintenance). I don't imagine that MVAM will be used very often, so there is no real need to do constant maintenance on it. That would just be a waste of time and labour.