Starship testing
- Thread starter Unicron
- Start date
Yes they are - ie: Defiant and Prometheus. The NX designation (in place of NCC) denotes a proto-type.
USS Defiant - NX 74205
USS Prometheus - NX 59656
Right, but I'm not necessarily talking a fully functional prototype. Only one of the same scale, i.e. a full starship hull to test a new nacelle configuration. It might be a fully functional testbed like the Defiant and the Prometheus, but it might also just be the hull with the bare control essentials.
Sure. The TNG Tech Manual states as much. They tested out the full-scale spaceframe at impulse and warp and did a bunch of other stuff before they filled out all the decks with quarters, science labs, etc...
One might observe current trends and argue that prototyping will disappear in the high-tech future altogether. Heck, even construction might disappear, all products instead appearing in complete form from a replicator-type mechanism. But Trek has always been a bit "retro", and it's not difficult to justify why this might be.
Today, it's possible for the first time to work out the aerodynamics of a plane by computational means. All it takes is insane amounts of calculating power to compensate for the clumsy mathematics. In the 24th century, modeling of a warp field might be a computationally challenging problem that is more easily (and cheaply!) solved by building numerous full-scale prototypes.
Today, CAD methods allow the integration of thousands upon thousands of components at the design phase, rather than during physical prototyping. By the 24th century, the ante might have been upped so that the trillions of components on a starship are beyond the abilities of the virtual design aids and AIs.
Today, we can simulate the work environment to create ergonomically and psychologically advantageous vehicles and machines. In the Trek era, starships might need to be designed so that each of the hundreds upon hundreds of crewmembers enjoys perfect ergonomy, going beyond the capabilities of virtual design.
And so forth. Any sort of return to 20th or even 17th century design and construction methods could be justified, and made to look as if it actually makes engineering and not just dramatic sense.
Timo Saloniemi
Today, it's possible for the first time to work out the aerodynamics of a plane by computational means. All it takes is insane amounts of calculating power to compensate for the clumsy mathematics. In the 24th century, modeling of a warp field might be a computationally challenging problem that is more easily (and cheaply!) solved by building numerous full-scale prototypes.
Today, CAD methods allow the integration of thousands upon thousands of components at the design phase, rather than during physical prototyping. By the 24th century, the ante might have been upped so that the trillions of components on a starship are beyond the abilities of the virtual design aids and AIs.
Today, we can simulate the work environment to create ergonomically and psychologically advantageous vehicles and machines. In the Trek era, starships might need to be designed so that each of the hundreds upon hundreds of crewmembers enjoys perfect ergonomy, going beyond the capabilities of virtual design.
And so forth. Any sort of return to 20th or even 17th century design and construction methods could be justified, and made to look as if it actually makes engineering and not just dramatic sense.
Timo Saloniemi
Possibly, but predictions don't always work out the way the designers think they will, even when they're good predictions. This seems to be the case with my favorite interpretation of the Excelsior experiment - the transwarp drive did work, but its advantages on a full scale starship proved to be only minimal compared to traditional warp drive. They were not able to get the kind of superior performance they were hoping for, and the marginal increase wasn't worth the cost of using a more expensive system.
Plus, the holodeck might get a glitch.
Plus, the holodeck might get a glitch.
I think that's kinda saying what Timo said, except he didn't think to do all that on a holodeck. Now that you mention it, I can imagine an engineering firm having exactly that kind of environment to test a virtual finished product.
You can do a full performance simulation from a virtual bridge, and you can do a virtual walk-thru of the full interior to see if everything's comfy and funstional. That kinda thing is done even now, but on a computer screen instead of in a holodeck.
Possibly, but predictions don't always work out the way the designers think they will, even when they're good predictions. This seems to be the case with my favorite interpretation of the Excelsior experiment - the transwarp drive did work, but its advantages on a full scale starship proved to be only minimal compared to traditional warp drive. They were not able to get the kind of superior performance they were hoping for, and the marginal increase wasn't worth the cost of using a more expensive system.
Plus, the holodeck might get a glitch.
The program is only as good as the programmer, after all.
I echo what Timo said, and I think that Starfleet certainly builds a full-size structural test model, which they either put in a giant warp 'wind tunnel' or equip for minimal operational flight, or perhaps both.
As to transwarp, I think the one good thing that 'Threshold' gave us was an easy explanation for the Great Experiment's failure: the engine was overpowered and threatened to tear the ship apart. I do though think that
the advances made in the project gave us the modern TNG-style warp drive.
But I digress...
I do agree there is perhaps a structural factor though, as the Borg were said to project an SIF ahead of a ship when using transwarp.More like it defines Warp 10 that way. Which is fine with me, as the theoretical construct makes perfect sense. Classically thinking (and warp drive indeed seems to remove relativity as a factor and reduce the universe into a classical case), infinite velocity would indeed result in one being everywhere at once, unless the geometry of the universe were of some very peculiar type.
Now, reaching infinite speed is a somewhat different matter. Not theoretically impossible as a thing, of course: theoretically, you could construct two perfectly identical objects, place them at distance x from each other, and argue that they are one object that moves infinitely fast across x (at least in the classical view, where the concept of simultaneity still retains some meaning). Indeed, some people prefer to explain elementary particles that way, even stating that there exists only one electron in the universe. but to use "conventional" propulsive technology to reach infinite speed does indeed sound a bit iffy.
And to have this conventional propulsion fail because of a structural problem, and then succeed when the structure is reinforced by a finite amount... Now that sounds insane. Surely the structure should be reinforced by an infinite amount in such a case?
Timo Saloniemi
The image of seeing a skeletal Galaxy class with only impulse and warp engines drop out of warp and then go back into warp gives me a nice warm feeling....
Simulations are great at showing what we THINK will happen, given certain preconceptions. But it's a MODEL, it's not reality.
We currently have "climate models" that are often referred to when discussing the climate. Yet it's been demonstrated that the "models" don't really match up with reality. Reality is far more complex than the model, and while a model can be useful, it's only as useful as the results prove to be.
In design, you always do analysis... TONS of analysis... prior to producing any product. But the trick is to understand that the analysis gives you a hint as to "sort of" what's going to happen. The biggest mistake inexperienced engineers make is to assume that the results of their analysis are "real." The results of any analysis, at best, give you a "ballpark" idea of what to expect when you do real testing.
And as often as not, the testing gives you significantly different results... in which case, you have to figure out why, and adjust your model to take into account whatever it was you left out of the prior analysis. THEN you re-run the analysis, fix the design, run it again... and once you're happy, you do another REAL test.
The worst disasters I've seen have been related to people assuming that because a FLUENT (computational fluid dynamics simulation) or ANSYS (finite element analysis simulation) run says your design is "good" that your design is really good... then the part or flow network or whatever fails in operation, because the model didn't take into account the random and chaotic nature of porosity of the surface of the part, or of the presence of a tiny inclusion of impurity inside... or assumed laminar fluid flow when there's some other chaotic turbulence issue which could not be seen in the analysis.
Analysis is a crucial first-step, and it saves a lot of time and gives better final results. But only an idiot treats a SIMULATION (which inherently looks at a finite number of parameters) as though it were REALITY (which inherently involves an INFINITE number of parameters).
As Cary L. Brown noted, simulation is good, but not infallible. On the 787 program at Boeing, we have been doing a great deal of computer modeling, but we also perform physical tests on actual structures to verify the accuracy of those models. And even, then we sometimes miss. The center wingbox on the first six frames proved weaker in actual testing then what the models said it should be, so we had to do some minor bracing to bring them back to spec and will modify the future units to ensure they are on spec.
There are numerous types of Transwarp drive, for instance, Borg transwarp conduits, quantum slipstreams, and, of course, the Warp 10 transwarp, which is a specific type, utilizing more-or-less traditional warp mechanics.
Similar threads
