They've stood INSIDE one. The episode with the nanites. It was a very large space.
Computer cores on Fed starships...why so huge?
- Thread starter Tribble puncher
- Start date
They've stood INSIDE one. The episode with the nanites. It was a very large space.
In "Evolution", this place was called a "computer access room" by Worf and the "computer core" by Stubbs.
http://tng.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/s3/3x02/evolution188.jpg
Later on, further action took place in the same set, although this one was not given a name.
http://tng.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/s3/3x02/evolution260.jpg
http://tng.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/s3/3x02/evolution261.jpg
Indeed, when Stubbs speaks with the nanites in this set, with Data as their spokesandroid, Stubbs says that he was responsible for the deaths "in the computer core" - almost as if said core was a different location, despite the reuse of the suggestively cylinder-shaped set.
Timo Saloniemi
http://tng.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/s3/3x02/evolution188.jpg
Later on, further action took place in the same set, although this one was not given a name.
http://tng.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/s3/3x02/evolution260.jpg
http://tng.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/s3/3x02/evolution261.jpg
Indeed, when Stubbs speaks with the nanites in this set, with Data as their spokesandroid, Stubbs says that he was responsible for the deaths "in the computer core" - almost as if said core was a different location, despite the reuse of the suggestively cylinder-shaped set.
In "Hero Worship", LaForge points to two locations on the diagram of an Oberth class vessel, and calls both of them "core". Supposedly, the writer thought that these would be one and the same, and be the computer core, because the dialogue was about a character who worked with the computer, and was found dead next to it. However, LeVar Burton chose (or was directed) to point at two completely different locations, despite calling both of them "the" core - making it more palatable to think that one was the computer core (in the saucer) and the other was the warp core (in the secondary hull or pod or whatever)...
Timo Saloniemi
Found it, "Evolution". Although the dialogue seems to indicate that what we saw may not have been the crew inside the core but outside it.
WORF: He entered a computer access room and sterilised one of the processors with gamma radiation.
DATA: The nanites in the upper core are all dead, Captain.
That scene looked alot like a computer terminal next to the TNG version of a mainframe.DATA: The nanites in the upper core are all dead, Captain.
LAFORGE: Call up the cross-section of computer core processor four five one. I want to see elements zero two hundred through zero three hundred.
But since Stubbs shot a single processor and that processor was shown to be very large, then the physical size of the entire computer core could be massive considering that they were looking at processor 451. How large and if they were actually shaped as a cylinder and whether they were all in one spot or spread across the ship as suggested by Picard's intent to irradiate "all computer systems throughout the Enterprise" we would need more info.
Interestingly, the processor also contained "linear memory crystal" but it is unclear whether it was considered permanent memory or a temporary cache.
I agree with that a computer, especially one that holds so many things from so many worlds, and with the ability to utilize at faster than light speed, and with the redundancies to make sure they all work properly at all times, I'm fine with them being big. And I am sure there's a lot of crawl spaces and rooms in it to allow folks to go inside and make sure it runs well and to do maintenance.
If NuTrek supporters are fine with a brewery/engineering area the size of a football stadium, then a computer core 100 feet taller, or more, should be just fine as well.
If NuTrek supporters are fine with a brewery/engineering area the size of a football stadium, then a computer core 100 feet taller, or more, should be just fine as well.
Hm... given the prominence of isolinear chips, it's entirely possible that most of the area is occupied for storage.
It IS an exploratory vessel after all that has vast amounts of memory as Picard himself stated (and likely storage capacity).
While it is likely that any data will be compressed to such levels where you can for example store enormous amounts on an isolinear chip, you still need large amounts of room to store future data.
Voyager's computer processor was stolen in one of the episodes... it wasn't as big as the Enterprise-D, but the ship did use bio-neural circuitry for increasing computer response times (plus if some aspects of the said technology were adapted to storage, then it's likely that Voyager was able to get a more powerful core with even larger amounts of storage capacity).
It IS an exploratory vessel after all that has vast amounts of memory as Picard himself stated (and likely storage capacity).
While it is likely that any data will be compressed to such levels where you can for example store enormous amounts on an isolinear chip, you still need large amounts of room to store future data.
Voyager's computer processor was stolen in one of the episodes... it wasn't as big as the Enterprise-D, but the ship did use bio-neural circuitry for increasing computer response times (plus if some aspects of the said technology were adapted to storage, then it's likely that Voyager was able to get a more powerful core with even larger amounts of storage capacity).
The Defiant also had a prominent and easily identifiable computer core, insofar as we can trust MSDs. In fact, it appears to be the biggest so far in relation to the size of the ship herself. We should probably disassociate computer core size from exploration missions and the like, then...
Timo Saloniemi
Timo Saloniemi
Given the defensive and intelligence gathering capacity of the Defiant, its core is probably full of an extremely comprehensive tactical catalog as well as storage systems for all the intel a cloaked ship in enemy territory could pull together. Plus, given the Defiant was to be stationed at DS9 right at the wormhole, maybe it was given high end storage capacity for sensor data when it made Gamma Quadrant trips. Other vessels of the same class may not be as well equipped.
No to all.
Defiant was originally designed as an anti-Borg weapon and was nearly cancelled at that. Sisko was able to obtain the prototype just because it was an emergency, and same again with the cloaking device.
In that sense, a starship specifically designed to fight the Borg is probably intended to fight in large swarming formations to hit it from all sides. Not a lot of recon work or long range mission parameters there; Defiant has no science labs, no amenities, very little in the way of scientific equipment of any kind.
Of course, the only evidence for a large computer core is the ship's MSD, which I wouldn't trust as far as I could beam it.
We might argue that the Defiant needed a supercomputer to fight the Borg, who themselves represent a formidable computing threat. Or then we might resign to the idea that big cores are a standard fixture unrelated to mission profile - and perhaps even speculate that smaller cores would be nonfunctional, perhaps because a minimum size is required for creating those FTL computing fields.
Or we might choose to argue that computer cores in the MSDs are always represented as hugely oversized, because they are functional elements frequently needed in MSD "operations". That is, people computing things with the help of the MSD frequently need to click on the computer core icon, or even specific parts of it. Other MSD objects might be blown up for ease of use at other times - plasma conduit nodes when power rerouting is being done, weapons emitters when those are being manipulated, and so forth.
It would be a bit disappointing to simply accept that the MSDs are static and useless decorations, IMHO. Especially when we have on occasion seen affordable/half-hearted attempts at giving some life to such a graphic.
Timo Saloniemi
Or we might choose to argue that computer cores in the MSDs are always represented as hugely oversized, because they are functional elements frequently needed in MSD "operations". That is, people computing things with the help of the MSD frequently need to click on the computer core icon, or even specific parts of it. Other MSD objects might be blown up for ease of use at other times - plasma conduit nodes when power rerouting is being done, weapons emitters when those are being manipulated, and so forth.
It would be a bit disappointing to simply accept that the MSDs are static and useless decorations, IMHO. Especially when we have on occasion seen affordable/half-hearted attempts at giving some life to such a graphic.
Timo Saloniemi
I suppose it could be becouse theres a lot of lcars and systems like the replicators what use computers so i guess thats why if i was to take a guess.
I thought that Defiant would be the opposite--NORAD simple, like NuGalactica, and therefore immune to Borg computer virus. Rather like HAL without his higher order systems, with things hardwired.
Having a computer that is only smart enough to have a warp-field mirror space conditions means a somewhat slower, but more resiliant ship.
So the AI-Moriarty life-form we saw Data create on a Galaxy class would not be possible on Defiant. And not much of a holosuite either--maybe more like a holosuit that is stand alone.
I have this idea for a story that a big federation starship ejects a computer core full of an alien civilizations info intor a wormhole back to earth, with a TOS simple sub-computer left behind to operate the ship so the data won't be destroyed when the rest of the ship goes on a suicide mission. Or a life form emerging out of a computer core, like the cyborg Superman.
I don't see why a Defiant would be any less capable than the Enterprise-D in terms of processing power.
There might be a difference storage-wise, but it just doesn't make sense it would be less powerful/capable because if anything, fighting the Borg would also mean the computer needs to try and stay ahead of the Borg frequency-wise, adapting in it's own right.
There might be a difference storage-wise, but it just doesn't make sense it would be less powerful/capable because if anything, fighting the Borg would also mean the computer needs to try and stay ahead of the Borg frequency-wise, adapting in it's own right.
Yet military hardware is always a compromise today. And it's not (solely) because today's technology is primitive and today's engineers fallible - but because the enemy can always identify a single area of potential weakness, and then compromise on its own weaponry in order to concentrate all resources to exploiting the weakness.
The compromised design always triumphs against the generalist design with all other things being equal, then. And the smaller the ship, the better reason there is to compromise, because small ships can afford to be specialist designs built to be useful in one application only, while large ships would be wasted if they only worked against one type of threat. Plus, a small ship will get "on par" with much larger generalists by concentrating on a single strength, while a large ship will only get needless "overkill" out of the compromise as there won't be an even larger adversary to get on par with.
Timo Saloniemi
The compromised design always triumphs against the generalist design with all other things being equal, then. And the smaller the ship, the better reason there is to compromise, because small ships can afford to be specialist designs built to be useful in one application only, while large ships would be wasted if they only worked against one type of threat. Plus, a small ship will get "on par" with much larger generalists by concentrating on a single strength, while a large ship will only get needless "overkill" out of the compromise as there won't be an even larger adversary to get on par with.
Timo Saloniemi
The TNG and DS9 Technical Manuals are your friends.
Think about the computer cores as the 24th century equivalent of main-frames. They run thousands, if not millions of applications and processes in parallel. Add to that that the core includes all of the equipment to run its nano-processors at FTL speeds (via subspace fields of course!).
Consider some of the things that a ship's computer core is used to do:
-Run a nearly sentient AI with voice interface and instantaneous language translation
-Process and store hundreds of terabytes of sensor information every second
-Coordinate all of the engineering systems (i.e. power production, power transmission, power regulation, life-support systems)
-Simulate incredibly complex interactive environments within a holodeck
Even if you could scale an entire processor down to a couple of nanometers, run it at FTL speeds, you'd need a lot of processing power and crap-load of storage to operate a starship. In the end this would translate into a lot of physical space.
This thread has really interested me.
I am in the process of trying to develop LCARS.
Not just something that looks like it, but the actual system.
As part of my design parameters, I have designated a part of the system "CORE".
The way I see it working, and this is just my take on it, is as such:
Each terminal fetches programming from CORE.
If CORE is offline, the terminal uses the last program it downloaded and runs in offline mode.
CORE stores all of the data to be used by each terminal.
when a terminal access CORE, the information it is given is dependent on the function assigned to that terminal.
any terminal that is unknown to CORE is given a kind of "standby" program to run.
see
http://lcars.lybredyne.net/
for more information, or using a VNC client, such as TightVNC, visit
lcars.lybredyne.net:0
to see the in-work version
I am in the process of trying to develop LCARS.
Not just something that looks like it, but the actual system.
As part of my design parameters, I have designated a part of the system "CORE".
The way I see it working, and this is just my take on it, is as such:
Each terminal fetches programming from CORE.
If CORE is offline, the terminal uses the last program it downloaded and runs in offline mode.
CORE stores all of the data to be used by each terminal.
when a terminal access CORE, the information it is given is dependent on the function assigned to that terminal.
any terminal that is unknown to CORE is given a kind of "standby" program to run.
see
http://lcars.lybredyne.net/
for more information, or using a VNC client, such as TightVNC, visit
lcars.lybredyne.net:0
to see the in-work version
The computers are an interesting thing... because there is the core, with all the main processors and storage units, the FTL field (in 24th century at least), and whatever kind of dampening and insulation you'd need so nothing causes interference... and yet, when there's critical system failure, there's still push button controls and computer-looking things that can still work throughout the ship. It's like on one hand, there's distributed computing - and on the other hand, there's still some self-contained computer/electronics.
For instance, in Disaster, they could manually control some engineering functions even though the main computer was down. Suppose the bridge always has some dedicated optical network paths to some standalone-capable computers to run the manual controls (whatever 24th century equivalent of servos or electrically-run mechanical devices that regulate plasma or what not). They always talk about manual override...but they always manually override with a push button, so, I hope they don't have a single point of failure with 1 or 2 centrally located mainframes!
For instance, in Disaster, they could manually control some engineering functions even though the main computer was down. Suppose the bridge always has some dedicated optical network paths to some standalone-capable computers to run the manual controls (whatever 24th century equivalent of servos or electrically-run mechanical devices that regulate plasma or what not). They always talk about manual override...but they always manually override with a push button, so, I hope they don't have a single point of failure with 1 or 2 centrally located mainframes!
I guess the "non-manual" option there is essentially an artificial intelligence, while the "manual" one is a stupid little automaton comparable to today's computers. And the AI can only live and breathe in the big core thingamabob, even if it normally extends its tentacles through all those automatons installed in the machinery, in the control consoles, in the portable PADDs, the tricorders, the commbadges and so forth.
There's going to be precious little that one can accomplish with mere mechanical force on a starship. Cranking shut a pressure hatch, yeah, that's something LaForge can do with his left hand and blind, if you excuse the accurate phrasing. But jettisoning a warp core is likely to be 4.7% physical force and 95.3% intricate control of antimatter flows, timing of valve operations, adjusting of peristaltic forcefields and so forth. Your muscles will mainly be needed to press the appropriate buttons that unleash the automatons to the task.
Timo Saloniemi
There's going to be precious little that one can accomplish with mere mechanical force on a starship. Cranking shut a pressure hatch, yeah, that's something LaForge can do with his left hand and blind, if you excuse the accurate phrasing. But jettisoning a warp core is likely to be 4.7% physical force and 95.3% intricate control of antimatter flows, timing of valve operations, adjusting of peristaltic forcefields and so forth. Your muscles will mainly be needed to press the appropriate buttons that unleash the automatons to the task.
Timo Saloniemi
Real tech:
Hypercomputation http://arxiv.org/abs/1204.1773
Misc:
http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php/130669-First-message-transmitted-with-neutrinos
Hypercomputation http://arxiv.org/abs/1204.1773
Misc:
http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php/130669-First-message-transmitted-with-neutrinos
