A theory on the bad warp core design

[TheDarkling]

Werent we always told the Defiant was over powered? if over powered = warp core problems then the Defiant should be very unstable since it isnt I think the theory takes a hit.

As for Voyager it didnt have a warp core as bad as a GCS - put some examples of warp core problems on Voyager forward (ones involving physical damage would be the most useful).

[Alyeska]

And there IS evidence to support my position.

After the Oddessy, no known example of GCSs exploding violently when severly damaged. Known examples of GCSs having been modified (at least three versions). Known examples of other ships using GCS parts taking massive damage but not outright blowing up.

[Stormbringer]

Werent we always told the Defiant was over powered? if over powered = warp core problems then the Defiant should be very unstable since it isnt I think the theory takes a hit.

But it was also a much, much smaller ship than GCS. It could have an old style Connie warp core and still have far more power than anything of a comparable size. It more to do with being overpowered for it's size than the sheer power output.

[Typhonis 1]

Any pics of these Galaxy variants?

[TheDarkling]

Yes I realise that but doesnt it also have a smaller warp core? - if Im wrong on that point thats where the confusion comes in.

Isnt this the point of the theory being put forward the more high powered a warp core the more unstable, I would think the power/size was implict there otherise it would be the size of the warp core that caused problems not the fact that the warp core outputs more power than a core of that size is safe to do.

[Howedar]

From my completely impartial *cough* position, it appears to me that the exploding warp cores was mostly a GCS-specific problem that was later rectified.

[TheDarkling]

Spacebattles link

Has some of the variants but I came across talk about a dark armour galaxy - Alyeska you got any info on that or when it appears?

Edit: Fixed long link. -Crayz9000

[Alyeska]

Any pics of these Galaxy variants?

Yes

Armored spine version.

Note how the spine of the GCS is darkened and it extends all the way up to the shuttle bay. Both GCSs have this modification and the angle is impossible for it to be a shadow.

Enlarged shuttlebay version.

Note how it has a smaller top section and a larger bottom section. Most likely the bottom is the landing point while the top is the launching point.

Venture variant

Note the phaser arrays on the warp engines just like those from the Galaxy-X.

Galaxy-X

For comparison, note the phasers and extentions on the warp engines and how they are identical to the Venture.

Another Galaxy-X view

Looking at this picture I get the impression that the shuttlebay is possibly englarged. If this is true, not only does the Venture have increased phaser capacity, but it also has the enlarged shuttle bay. The possibility of the armored spine on the Venture is not confirmed though.

[Alyeska]

Spacebattles link

Has some of the variants but I came across talk about a dark armour galaxy - Alyeska you got any info on that or when it appears?

That shot IIRC is from episode 604 or 605. It was durring the fleet gathering shortly before DS9 was retaken.

[Stormbringer]

Yes I realise that but doesnt it also have a smaller warp core? - if Im wrong on that point thats where the confusion comes in.

Isnt this the point of the theory being put forward the more high powered a warp core the more unstable, I would think the power/size was implict there otherise it would be the size of the warp core that caused problems not the fact that the warp core outputs more power than a core of that size is safe to do.

I think the theory is that the GCS and some of the other ships have warp cores that are essentially too overpowered for their size cutting the safety margins dengerously.

[TheDarkling]

Yes and the Defiant is to over powered for its size yet it doesnt have warp core problems thus discounting the theory.

[Stormbringer]

Yes and the Defiant is to over powered for its size yet it doesnt have warp core problems thus discounting the theory.

It's the size/power output. Not just sheer output. The Defiant may have a larger warp core than is standard for it's size.

[TheDarkling]

Yes I understand what you are saying but my point is we are told its over powered for a ship her size (although I cant remember seeing ships of her size before) you take this to mean it has a larger warp core that usual but if they were trying to squeeze as much power as possible then they would have used a warp core that has the power/size ratio of a GCS.

Now if yuo have proof of the Defiant having a larger than normal warp core for a ship her size then lets see it otherwise we have reached an impass.

[Moonshadow]

i think i can narrow down the Warp Core problem. In "Yesterdays Enterprise the ship had a "Coolent Leak" and had 2 minutes to a Warp Core Breach. In Generations, same deal. Probably its not the core itself, but the coolent system. It might somehow interfere with the Ejection system. We have also seen coolent leaks on other ship where it wasn't as big a problem.( The Ent-E when Data punched the conduit, the Ent-A in ST-VI had what looked like a coolent leak.)

[greenmm]

Yes and the Defiant is to over powered for its size yet it doesnt have warp core problems thus discounting the theory.

Which theory is that?

What if the Defiant's problem was completely different, and had something to do with:

-- the power delivery system (i.e. EPS conduits) not having the capacity to handle a full power load from the warp core
-- the warp drive nacelles didn't have the capacity to handle a full power load from the warp core
-- the phase arrays didn't have the capacity to handle full power from the warp core
-- combination of the above 3 and/or other factors

In this case, the problem might be akin to trying to shove a 5.7L V8 engine into a Geo Metro: assuming you can find the space to squeeze it in, the engine still might be too powerful for the car without major redesigning/rebuilding. That doesn't mean that the V8 engine is necessarily unsafe.

[greenmm]

No-one has claimed that it goes off 100% of the time, however thare is a huge pile of evidence that says the ting was heinously designed.

You have several examples from a single ship, and a single example from another ship. Then suddenly all of those problems cease to be a problem and we never see a GCS with said problem again. We have seen GCSs with modifications, and it is not hard to see the logical possibility that the warp core design problem was fixed as well.

I'll agree it's probable that they finally got around to fixing the problem. Perhaps a design flaw that they didn't think was too serious in peacetime became a huge liability with the need for Starfleet to remilitarize, and their need to have their ships last longer in battle caused them to fix what they could. After all, the British found out just how bad of an idea their own "tin-clad" battlecruisers and battleships were -- big guns can't do much if their armor can't even withstand light or heavy cruiser fire...

[Barton]

Yes and the Defiant is to over powered for its size yet it doesnt have warp core problems thus discounting the theory.

Which theory is that?

What if the Defiant's problem was completely different, and had something to do with:

-- the power delivery system (i.e. EPS conduits) not having the capacity to handle a full power load from the warp core
-- the warp drive nacelles didn't have the capacity to handle a full power load from the warp core
-- the phase arrays didn't have the capacity to handle full power from the warp core
-- combination of the above 3 and/or other factors

Please review the original source. A quote from DS9 "The Search Part 1" would fix your problem.

SISKO
You'll have complete access to the
ship evaluation reports, but to put
it simply... it's overgunned and
overpowered for a ship its size.
During battle drills, it nearly tore
itself apart when the engines were
tested at full capacity.


The problem was fixed in DS9 “The Sound of Her Voice” (I'll leave that for you to find) i.e. SIF was boosted for warp >9.x flight.

[Barton]

I was about to add that this theory sounded suspiciously familiar. Can we deny that the Federation warp cores are more powerful than in TOS BUT can we also deny that warp core breeches happen at the drop of a hat in TNG. FOr instance, when the Bozeman, a TOS era Miranda bumps into the Ent-D's nacelle a full blown warp core breech occurs - The Bozeman continues on its merry way yet its a 100 years older. This is PROOF that the older ships simply had more stable warp cores back then at the cost of power. With the advancement in safety features they were able to squeeze more power out of the warp cores.

There is a contingent out there that insists that the warp core breeches are a GCS specific flaw.

That contingent could be referring to BOBW’s less luxurious classes i.e
1. USS Melbourne (Nebula Class) (GCS Kitbash)
2. USS Kyushiu (New Orleans Class) (GCS Kitbash)
3. USS Ahwahnee (Cheyenne Class) (GCS Kitbash)
4. USS ??? (Niagara Class) (AmbassadorCS/GCS Kitbash)
5. USS ??? (Springfield Class) (GCS Kitbash).

[Alyeska]

Thanks to Stravo, whoose fanfic "Star Crossed" had the original idea of the unsafe warp cores being more powerful.

I was about to add that this theory sounded suspiciously familiar. Can we deny that the Federation warp cores are more powerful than in TOS BUT can we also deny that warp core breeches happen at the drop of a hat in TNG. FOr instance, when the Bozeman, a TOS era Miranda bumps into the Ent-D's nacelle a full blown warp core breech occurs - The Bozeman continues on its merry way yet its a 100 years older. This is PROOF that the older ships simply had more stable warp cores back then at the cost of power. With the advancement in safety features they were able to squeeze more power out of the warp cores.

There is a contingent out there that insists that the warp core breeches are a GCS specific flaw.

It is a commonly accepted idea that TOS era ships did not have near the warp core problem as TNG era ships. Where did this idea come from? The fact that we see the E-D having warp core problems all the time. Accept the E-D is about the ONLY ship we see these major problems with. We have seen example after example of Fed ships of even the newer classes surviving heavy levels of damage without their warp cores exploding (TNG BOBW, FC Battle, DS9 Changing Face of Evil being prime examples). So that means the real problem was limited to the Galaxy class, and as evidence has already shown it was limited to the first model of the GCS. We already know the GCS recieved modifications, it is reasonable to assume that they fixed the warpcore problem.

[Master of Ossus]

Mmmm.... I find the scenario unlikely on the basis that if the Galaxy was actually a warship designed to combat Romulan D'Derix class ships one on one, it should have been designed to so that its warp core had LARGER margins of safety. It is possible that it was designed with power as a trade off for safety, but a warship should be designed to withstand multiple hits while remaining functional. Also, the vast array of totally uneccessary systems on the GCS (for a warship) would seem to eliminate its design to fend of Romulan vessels. I find it more likely that the power was simply needed to manage energy requirements for a variety of more typical ship's functions, including high warp speeds first achieved by the GCS.

Of course, SF could also be subscribing to the infamous "Admiral weak Hull" Fallacy, which was shown by the British to be flawed in several engagements with elements from the German fleet in both WWI and WWII, in which battle cruisers were easily defeated by slower but more heavily armed and armored ships.

[Master of Ossus]

Thanks to Stravo, whoose fanfic "Star Crossed" had the original idea of the unsafe warp cores being more powerful.

I was about to add that this theory sounded suspiciously familiar. Can we deny that the Federation warp cores are more powerful than in TOS BUT can we also deny that warp core breeches happen at the drop of a hat in TNG. FOr instance, when the Bozeman, a TOS era Miranda bumps into the Ent-D's nacelle a full blown warp core breech occurs - The Bozeman continues on its merry way yet its a 100 years older. This is PROOF that the older ships simply had more stable warp cores back then at the cost of power. With the advancement in safety features they were able to squeeze more power out of the warp cores.

There is a contingent out there that insists that the warp core breeches are a GCS specific flaw.

It is a commonly accepted idea that TOS era ships did not have near the warp core problem as TNG era ships. Where did this idea come from? The fact that we see the E-D having warp core problems all the time. Accept the E-D is about the ONLY ship we see these major problems with. We have seen example after example of Fed ships of even the newer classes surviving heavy levels of damage without their warp cores exploding (TNG BOBW, FC Battle, DS9 Changing Face of Evil being prime examples). So that means the real problem was limited to the Galaxy class, and as evidence has already shown it was limited to the first model of the GCS. We already know the GCS recieved modifications, it is reasonable to assume that they fixed the warpcore problem.

It seems that there are other ships that are also reliable (ie. the Miranda and its variants, including the Centaur), but there are other examples of SF vessels destroying themselves with their own warp core, including the USS Grissom in TOS era, though to be fair that was a science vessel. On the other hand, so are ALL SF ships prior to the Defiant.

[Tsyroc]

You would think that if the problem was a GCS problem that the Nebula class ships would have also had that problem.

Maybe the Yamota blowing up is a bit of a red herring. Maybe the warp core problems were unique to the Enterprise D?

Geordi....should have stopped trying to supe up the warp engines.

[Master of Ossus]

You would think that if the problem was a GCS problem that the Nebula class ships would have also had that problem.

Not really. The problem may be with the placement of the warp engines in relation to the rest of the ship, in which case the Nebula may be much better off. Further and much more importantly, if we assume that the design fault is something with the GCS, the Nebula MUST have a redesigned engineering section, because it is clearly not meant to detach from the saucer section of the ship. This would allow for significant space in redundant systems to be moved or removed altogether, allowing for a different warp core design, and potentially a much safer one.

[Tsyroc]

Makes me wonder if some idiot decided that the GCS needed to be able to routinely seperate the saucer section late in the design of the GCS.

About the same time the morons decided to stick families on ships they decided that what was previously only used as a last resort would now be common place. That would explain why so many design flaws were in the GCS and why they seem to be linked to saucer seperation to varrying degrees.



What I meant about the last resort bit is based on some non-canon comic books where the Constitution class ships could separate the saucer from the engineering section by detonating explosive bolts. This was only done when abandoning the ship.

[Isolder74]

Makes me wonder if some idiot decided that the GCS needed to be able to routinely seperate the saucer section late in the design of the GCS.

About the same time the morons decided to stick families on ships they decided that what was previously only used as a last resort would now be common place. That would explain why so many design flaws were in the GCS and why they seem to be linked to saucer seperation to varrying degrees.

What I meant about the last resort bit is based on some non-canon comic books where the Constitution class ships could separate the saucer from the engineering section by detonating explosive bolts. This was only done when abandoning the ship.

Well the separation of the saucer is mantioned in The Apple or whatever the episode is that has Vall in it. Kirk mentions it as the ship is taking damage that could destroy the ship.