StarDestroyer.Net BBS

forgive me (the noob) if amin the wrong place asking the wrong question but am a huge sci fi fan and this have been bugging me. i just want to kno what you guys think.

isnt the UFP advance enough to make Andromeda type missiles (missiles that go 95% the speed of light) or high powered ap cannons ?we kno the have antimatter so why not. why dont they make AI which is a lot better that their computers ?

2) if the Andromeda was in the star trek universe and replace all her system with say a galaxy class systems except her AI and weapons , so she would have federation warp driver , sensors , shield etc how powerful would she be compared to alpha quadrant ships , Borg or the dominion ?

any reply will be appreciated. this is not a st vs Andromeda am just trying to picture Andromeda style weapons in star trek.

Other than the lack of shields, FTL communications and anywhere, any time, just tell me where to go FTL Andromeda is by and large vastly more powerful than AQ Trek. There's actually little indication the AQ can build high fractional c missiles without cheating (AKA mass reduction, which kinda nixes the whole point of relativistic kinetic missiles), and at least the Andromeda Ascendant has point defense weapons.
Prior to the '09 relaunch movie, there was exactly one attempt to shoot down an incoming torpedo (and even that's based on interpreting dialogue).
And what makes you think they can make an AI much better than their computer? Not that I see what's wrong with their computer (as opposed to their computer security, but that's a whole different issue). Data is vastly ahead of anything the Federation can do at the time and even he is thick as a plank occasionally.

As for 2), she'd actually be worse off than standard Andromeda. Sure, shields are nice, as is the ability to go FTL anytime anywhere you want, but slipstream is strategically massively faster than Warp, and Andromeda ships have accelerations and agility AQ ships can only dream of STL. Plus even without shields, Romy's defenses were generally up to the task (against weapons that make AQ missiles look like sitting still no less). Keeping her weapons would mean Andromeda is effectively unbeatable because she can engage at ls ranges in realtime now thanks to the Galaxy's FTL sensors.

Batman wrote:Other than the lack of shields, FTL communications and anywhere, any time, just tell me where to go FTL Andromeda is by and large vastly more powerful than AQ Trek. There's actually little indication the AQ can build high fractional c missiles without cheating (AKA mass reduction, which kinda nixes the whole point of relativistic kinetic missiles), and at least the Andromeda Ascendant has point defense weapons.

I have absolutely no scientific data to consult on the theory of mass lightening, so it's impossible to predict what happens when you actually lighten a mass in order to achieve acceleration. However, what I do know is that if we apply the equation for kinetic energy (KE = 0.5Mv2), lower mass means less energy necessary to achieve a velocity. If that mass suddenly becomes heavier, then in theory, it should remain travelling at the same velocity. Again, in theory. I have no idea what it'll actually do. However, if you took a mass, halved it to accelerate it to .95c and then doubled its mass (which should be just a reverse of the process used to lighten it) then you inflict twice the damage with half the expended energy. The further away from your normal mass, the greater the difference in the end.

Now of course any starship has the potential to create a Hammer of God weapon, which is just a rod weighing several kilograms dropped from orbit. If you parked a starship in about the middle of low orbit (roughly 1000km above the surface) and dropped a 10 kilogram rod (this keeps it relatively stable and reduces drag on the atmosphere). Because potential energy is PE = mgh, the potential energy would be 98*106 Joules, or roughly 23.423 kilograms of TNT. Now, I'm well aware that there are better ways to destroy stuff from orbit (phasers, torpedoes, etc.) but if you want to expel the least amount of effort, then orbital bombardment with large mass objects is the way to go.

Now, let's assume that you want to destroy a planet (who hasn't wanted to?) and you want to be as lazy as possible about it. How would you go about it? Well, for starters, every planet has objects that travel close to them. Asteroids, comets, general cosmic trash. A starship can outpace any asteroid heading for a planet, and with a nudge at the right time, it can be quite effective. A minor jolt can translate to a collision months down the line. It's a long, slow process, but the mass of many asteroids is large enough that if it doesn't impact a city or colony directly, the sheer atmospheric and environmental damage will make thriving worlds perish.

Batman wrote:Prior to the '09 relaunch movie, there was exactly one attempt to shoot down an incoming torpedo (and even that's based on interpreting dialogue).
And what makes you think they can make an AI much better than their computer? Not that I see what's wrong with their computer (as opposed to their computer security, but that's a whole different issue). Data is vastly ahead of anything the Federation can do at the time and even he is thick as a plank occasionally.

Given the attitudes of some characters towards artificial beings (such as holograms) is a negative one, possibly due to things such as the M5 computer. We saw the Federation had laws against artificial augmentation of genetics due to the Eugenics Wars, which happened before Starfleet even existed. Quite possibly there is pressure from the Federation Council and/or Starfleet to limit the research into AI technology in the hopes of preventing a sudden outbreak of rogue AIs running rampant. Data was a unique individual who appeared to be no more a threat than anyone else, so they let it slide.

As far as actual computing, according to STTNG:BotF, Duotronic computing, which was seen in the computers on the original Enterprise, used two atoms in different quantum states to compute data at the same time, literally doubling their computing power somehow. Isolinear chips are supposedly faster than that and bioneural gel packs are supposed to be faster. However, despite having large computer cores no doubt filled with processors, we don't see much improvement. I'll allow some leniency for not knowing computers that well or their capabilities, but it might also be a genuine case of a computer trying to handle the countless requests for data and information and entertainment.

Yet even then I must also point to Moriarty, the sentient holographic character created in TNG: Ship in a Bottle. The processing needed to maintain a character as complicated as Moriarty must be daunting, and yet we saw Picard stuff him in a special computer core that he could literally carry around, about the same size (relatively) as a desktop PC. If they can fit that much information and processing power into a computer that small, then why can't a computer that spans an entire room (reference pic below) be able to handle things like sunshine220 said? Shooting down incoming enemy torpedoes?

Baffalo, there is no way the Federation can create a computer on Andromeda levels. No way. The closest to that would be Data and even he pales in comparison - and he is also non-replicable to them.

Thanas wrote:Baffalo, there is no way the Federation can create a computer on Andromeda levels. No way. The closest to that would be Data and even he pales in comparison - and he is also non-replicable to them.

I haven't seen the show so I'm going to take your word on that. Thank you for your input Thanas. I was just stating what the Federation SHOULD be capable of but hasn't shown the ability to do.

For one thing, the Andromeda AI is said to be based on quantum computers as per The Banks of the Lethe. And I do not think the Federation has an inkling of quantum computing yet.

Plus, the Andromeda AI is waaaaaay hotter than Data

Baffalo wrote:

Batman wrote:Other than the lack of shields, FTL communications and anywhere, any time, just tell me where to go FTL Andromeda is by and large vastly more powerful than AQ Trek. There's actually little indication the AQ can build high fractional c missiles without cheating (AKA mass reduction, which kinda nixes the whole point of relativistic kinetic missiles), and at least the Andromeda Ascendant has point defense weapons.

I have absolutely no scientific data to consult on the theory of mass lightening, so it's impossible to predict what happens when you actually lighten a mass in order to achieve acceleration. However, what I do know is that if we apply the equation for kinetic energy (KE = 0.5Mv2), lower mass means less energy necessary to achieve a velocity. If that mass suddenly becomes heavier, then in theory, it should remain travelling at the same velocity. Again, in theory. I have no idea what it'll actually do. However, if you took a mass, halved it to accelerate it to .95c and then doubled its mass (which should be just a reverse of the process used to lighten it) then you inflict twice the damage with half the expended energy. The further away from your normal mass, the greater the difference in the end.

Except that violates CoE.

Depends on how the "mass lightening" works.

Connor MacLeod wrote:

Batman wrote:Except that violates CoE

Depends on how the "mass lightening" works.

Agreed. Like I said, I have no scientific data on this because there IS no scientific data. We have yet to figure out if a graviton even exists, even though the models say there should be something like it. There should be dark matter floating around but we don't know the damnest thing about it. Quantum physics makes my head hurt.

Connor MacLeod wrote:Depends on how the "mass lightening" works.

I'm all ears (well, eyes, this being a textual medium). Now I won't pretend to be a physicist but the way I see it it, it works this way-
1.Ship is mass lightened
2. Ship is accelerated to speed x
3. Mass lightening is turned off
4. Ship somehow retains its speed
To me, that looks like the ship suddenly has goodly amount of kinetic energy it never gained to begin with, which looks like violating CoE to me.

What are you talking about? Proton torpedos?

Batman wrote:

Connor MacLeod wrote:Depends on how the "mass lightening" works.

I'm all ears (well, eyes, this being a textual medium). Now I won't pretend to be a physicist but the way I see it it, it works this way-
1.Ship is mass lightened
2. Ship is accelerated to speed x
3. Mass lightening is turned off
4. Ship somehow retains its speed
To me, that looks like the ship suddenly has goodly amount of kinetic energy it never gained to begin with, which looks like violating CoE to me.

If it really works like that, than the only way to preserve CoE would be that the difference in energy gained by the ship must be equal to the energy used to lighten its mass.

In other words:
Energy required for mass lightening + Energy required to accelerate lightened ship = kinetic energy of ship once it has been made heavy again.

Thanas wrote:What are you talking about? Proton torpedos?

Why the hell would I be talking about proton torpedoes?

Because of:

There's actually little indication the AQ can build high fractional c missiles without cheating (AKA mass reduction, which kinda nixes the whole point of relativistic kinetic missiles

Batman wrote:

Connor MacLeod wrote:Depends on how the "mass lightening" works.

I'm all ears (well, eyes, this being a textual medium). Now I won't pretend to be a physicist but the way I see it it, it works this way-
1.Ship is mass lightened
2. Ship is accelerated to speed x
3. Mass lightening is turned off
4. Ship somehow retains its speed
To me, that looks like the ship suddenly has goodly amount of kinetic energy it never gained to begin with, which looks like violating CoE to me.

From what I understand, when a ship goes into warp, most of its mass is shunted into subspace. I don't think you can turn the "mass lightening" off without resorting to dropping out of warp.

@Thanas
Ah, I see (not the proton torpedoes bit, that'd be Wars, not Trek, but I assume you meant photon torpedoes). I rather think we've moved to the issue of mass lightening in general rather than the specific issue of how it does (or does not) apply to Trek missile weapons.

Batman wrote:

Connor MacLeod wrote:Depends on how the "mass lightening" works.

I'm all ears (well, eyes, this being a textual medium). Now I won't pretend to be a physicist but the way I see it it, it works this way-
1.Ship is mass lightened
2. Ship is accelerated to speed x
3. Mass lightening is turned off
4. Ship somehow retains its speed
To me, that looks like the ship suddenly has goodly amount of kinetic energy it never gained to begin with, which looks like violating CoE to me.

I suddenly remembered what Mass Effect, which uses similar effects, had to say. When a ship is travelling FTL with a mass effect field, it is because the mass was lightened enough for it to do so without violating relativistic effects. If for some reason a ship suddenly finds its engines failing while in FTL flight, it is suddenly returned to its original mass, which is bad, because when that happens it decelerates to its initial velocity and also brings with it a burst of Cerenkov radiation which turns the crew into puddles of cancer-riddled goo. If the effects are similar in both universes, then the mass-lightening would let the missile obtain incredible velocity at the cost of mass, or you can have a huge mass but it would be incredibly slow.

Connor MacLeod wrote:Depends on how the "mass lightening" works.

Well, their AP cannons are shooting at 99% PSL. Had such speed actually translated to an increase in kinetic energy, using antimatter would have been meaningless.

Omeganian wrote:

Connor MacLeod wrote:Depends on how the "mass lightening" works.

Well, their AP cannons are shooting at 99% PSL. Had such speed actually translated to an increase in kinetic energy, using antimatter would have been meaningless.

Could you please translate PSL for those of us unfamiliar with the show?

PSL = percent of light speed.

So, 99 PSL is 0.99c

They also use LS and LM as units of distance, for Light-Second and Light-Minute respectively.

Baffalo wrote: I suddenly remembered what Mass Effect, which uses similar effects, had to say. When a ship is travelling FTL with a mass effect field, it is because the mass was lightened enough for it to do so without violating relativistic effects. If for some reason a ship suddenly finds its engines failing while in FTL flight, it is suddenly returned to its original mass, which is bad, because when that happens it decelerates to its initial velocity and also brings with it a burst of Cerenkov radiation which turns the crew into puddles of cancer-riddled goo. If the effects are similar in both universes, then the mass-lightening would let the missile obtain incredible velocity at the cost of mass, or you can have a huge mass but it would be incredibly slow.

I think i read somewhere that in Mass Effect the danger wasn't engine failure since they actually turn off the mass effect field in order to return to relativistic speeds, The danger (as far as i remember) was if the mass effect field got ruptured during FTL flights.