A nitpick, but still...

[Robert Walper]

Quoting Mike Wong's site:

"Phasers appear to be much less effective against armor than they are against shields. The TM states that 2.4TJ is sufficient to vaporize one cubic metre of tritanium which is used in starship hulls, so if phasers were equivalent to 30,000 TW of EM radiation they would vaporize 12,500 cubic metres of Federation tritanium starship armor every second! This obviously doesn't happen- phasers appear to destroy less than 5 cubic metres of starship armor per second of continuous impact, so they seem to be tactically equivalent to 1-10 TW lasers. This is undoubtedly due to the negative impact of heavy transuranium elements on the NDF chain reaction."

This seems like a good analysis overall, however it seems to overlook one very important factor in Federation hull design, "Structural Intergrity Fields", which is an unaccounted and unmeasured element of the durability of Federation hulls. So Federation phasers may still in fact destroy the amount of material as stated in the TM, however, that material is not supported by SIF technology. This would seem to be a good way of calculating how effective SIF is instead of dismissing the technology and assuming weak phaser firepower against hulls.

Comments?

[Evil Jerk]

I'm under the impression that SIF is for keeping the ship from falling apart when it moves, not something that strengthens the hull during battle.

[Shadow]

I'm under the impression that SIF is for keeping the ship from falling apart when it moves, not something that strengthens the hull during battle.

In "Gambit," reinforcing it protected the E-D without shields.

[Ender]

I'm under the impression that SIF is for keeping the ship from falling apart when it moves, not something that strengthens the hull during battle.

In "Gambit," reinforcing it protected the E-D without shields.

And it is also a part of how the Batmobile armor works

[Patrick Degan]

Quoting Mike Wong's site:

"Phasers appear to be much less effective against armor than they are against shields. The TM states that 2.4TJ is sufficient to vaporize one cubic metre of tritanium which is used in starship hulls, so if phasers were equivalent to 30,000 TW of EM radiation they would vaporize 12,500 cubic metres of Federation tritanium starship armor every second! This obviously doesn't happen- phasers appear to destroy less than 5 cubic metres of starship armor per second of continuous impact, so they seem to be tactically equivalent to 1-10 TW lasers. This is undoubtedly due to the negative impact of heavy transuranium elements on the NDF chain reaction."

This seems like a good analysis overall, however it seems to overlook one very important factor in Federation hull design, "Structural Intergrity Fields", which is an unaccounted and unmeasured element of the durability of Federation hulls. So Federation phasers may still in fact destroy the amount of material as stated in the TM, however, that material is not supported by SIF technology. This would seem to be a good way of calculating how effective SIF is instead of dismissing the technology and assuming weak phaser firepower against hulls.

Comments?

Ah, technobabble. The High Priest of False Security.

The problem is that the SIFs will last only as long as the generators do. Destroy enough of them or run their reserves down, and the whole ship is as fragile as an ice cream fortress. Blow large enough holes in the hull and spaceframe, and it's not going to matter how many of the SIF generators are still functioning.

Raw firepower against fragile starships needing forcefields simply to hold the damn things together is always an unfortuante combination.

[Robert Walper]

Ah, technobabble. The High Priest of False Security.

Treknobabble, agreed, but it is canon and should not be dismissed out of hand.

The problem is that the SIFs will last only as long as the generators do.

And you're point being? Shields only last as long as their generators. Therefore, there is problem with shields too?

Destroy enough of them or run their reserves down, and the whole ship is as fragile as an ice cream fortress.

Damage shields or run their reserves down, and the ship is defenseless as well. Therefore, shields are useless, right?

Blow large enough holes in the hull and spaceframe, and it's not going to matter how many of the SIF generators are still functioning.

Your arguement makes no sense. You claim damaging the generators and hull will make the SIF useless, even though you must get by the SIF in the first place?

Raw firepower against fragile starships needing forcefields simply to hold the damn things together is always an unfortuante combination.

Can you provide evidence that SIF technology is designed to hold fragile ships together rather than simply adding additional structural integrity that isn't necessary for a ship to simply move?

[Patrick Degan]

Ah, technobabble. The High Priest of False Security.

Treknobabble, agreed, but it is canon and should not be dismissed out of hand.

[/i]The problem is that the SIFs will last only as long as the generators do.

And you're point being? Shields only last as long as their generators. Therefore, there is problem with shields too?

So it is your argument that structural integrity fields run off the same generators as the deflector shields? The TNG episodes "Yesterday's Enterprise" and "Tin Man" suggest quite the opposite.

Damage shields or run their reserves down, and the ship is defenseless as well. Therefore, shields are useless, right?

A very childish strawman. I said no such thing and you know it.

Blow large enough holes in the hull and spaceframe, and it's not going to matter how many of the SIF generators are still functioning.


Your arguement makes no sense. You claim damaging the generators and hull will make the SIF useless, even though you must get by the SIF in the first place?

It makes perfect sense if you are capable of perceiving the engineering illogic entailed in making a starship's very structural stability dependent upon forcefield support.

Raw firepower against fragile starships needing forcefields simply to hold the damn things together is always an unfortuante combination.


Can you provide evidence that SIF technology is designed to hold fragile ships together rather than simply adding additional structural integrity that isn't necessary for a ship to simply move?

The destruction of the USS Odyssey in the DS9 episode "The Jem'Hadar" makes my case for me. The ship in question was rammed by a Jem'Hadar attack boat massing roughly 10,000 metric tons and running at a velocity of between 600-1000 m/s. The kinetic force of impact measured at about 5E12 J. Considering that the mass of a Galaxy-class starship has been quoted in the figure of 6.5 million metric tons, it would require a propulsive force of 3.9E17J simply to accelerate the ship at 11km/sec^2, or escape velocity from a terrestrial planet. Which means that the Odyssey was effectively destroyed by an impact which was only .000013% of the inertial force involved in an 1100g acceleration.

Do you understand what this says? The ship should pulverise itself attempting to execute an 1100g acceleration; either that or the impulse engines should simply rip themselves through the ship as easily as a hot knife going through butter when the helmsman hits the control (which would be a rather comical sight to witness —sorta like a Roadrunner cartoon). So I invite you to explain how the ship is simply holding itself together under propulsion stress if it is not dependent upon its forcefields to keep the spaceframe rigid.

Furthermore, The Star Trek Encyclopedia has this reference:

Structural Integrity Field Shaped forcefield used on Federation starships to supplement the mechanical strength of the ship's spaceframe. Without the structural integrity field, a starship would not be able to withstand the trememdous accelerations involved in spaceflight.

(STE, pg 324)

I think that answers your question.

[ArmorPierce]

yes

[Howedar]

So it is your argument that structural integrity fields run off the same generators as the deflector shields? The TNG episodes "Yesterday's Enterprise" and "Tin Man" suggest quite the opposite.

I believe his point was that SIF was a sort of alternative (or at least a suppliment) to shielding, not that they were one and the same system.

A very childish strawman. I said no such thing and you know it.

It is a fair point. SIF and shielding seem to act very similarly.

It makes perfect sense if you are capable of perceiving the engineering illogic entailed in making a starship's very structural stability dependent upon forcefield support.

It is foolish to be sure, but combining SIF with a hull that didn't need it wouldn't be a bad idea IMHO, assuming it doesn't have nasty hidden side effects.

Raw firepower against fragile starships needing forcefields simply to hold the damn things together is always an unfortuante combination.
Raw firepower against anything that cannot withstand it is unfortunate, regardless of whether the thing is a veritable block of armor or a tinfoil Trekship.

The destruction of the USS Odyssey in the DS9 episode "The Jem'Hadar" makes my case for me. The ship in question was rammed by a Jem'Hadar attack boat massing roughly 10,000 metric tons and running at a velocity of between 600-1000 m/s. The kinetic force of impact measured at about 5E12 J. Considering that the mass of a Galaxy-class starship has been quoted in the figure of 6.5 million metric tons, it would require a propulsive force of 3.9E17J simply to accelerate the ship at 11km/sec^2, or escape velocity from a terrestrial planet. Which means that the Odyssey was effectively destroyed by an impact which was only .000013% of the inertial force involved in an 1100g acceleration.

Do you understand what this says? The ship should pulverise itself attempting to execute an 1100g acceleration; either that or the impulse engines should simply rip themselves through the ship as easily as a hot knife going through butter when the helmsman hits the control (which would be a rather comical sight to witness —sorta like a Roadrunner cartoon). So I invite you to explain how the ship is simply holding itself together under propulsion stress if it is not dependent upon its forcefields to keep the spaceframe rigid.

Furthermore, The Star Trek Encyclopedia has this reference:

Structural Integrity Field Shaped forcefield used on Federation starships to supplement the mechanical strength of the ship's spaceframe. Without the structural integrity field, a starship would not be able to withstand the trememdous accelerations involved in spaceflight.

(STE, pg 324)

I think that answers your question.

Some sort of damned-fool subspace technobabble allows such accelerations by reducing inertia IIRC. Oh, and your reference to the STE is irrelivent, considering it is totally uncanon. You should know better.

[Patrick Degan]

So it is your argument that structural integrity fields run off the same generators as the deflector shields? The TNG episodes "Yesterday's Enterprise" and "Tin Man" suggest quite the opposite.

I believe his point was that SIF was a sort of alternative (or at least a suppliment) to shielding, not that they were one and the same system.

I did not see that in his response, but assuming that it was, then his point is even murkier in regards to arguing against the risk in depending upon forcefields to keep a ship stable or that they are necessary for such in the first place.

A very childish strawman. I said no such thing and you know it.

It is a fair point. SIF and shielding seem to act very similarly.

No, he missed my point.

It makes perfect sense if you are capable of perceiving the engineering illogic entailed in making a starship's very structural stability dependent upon forcefield support.

It is foolish to be sure, but combining SIF with a hull that didn't need it wouldn't be a bad idea IMHO, assuming it doesn't have nasty hidden side effects.

What would be the point in wasting the power for a forcefield system that isn't vital to the ship's survival when a perfectly good blast door can protect life support shipwide in the event of a hull breach and if its spaceframe was rigid enough to withstand propulsion stress on its own?

Raw firepower against fragile starships needing forcefields simply to hold the damn things together is always an unfortuante combination.


Raw firepower against anything that cannot withstand it is unfortunate, regardless of whether the thing is a veritable block of armor or a tinfoil Trekship.

Well, we agree there. However, we are talking about tinfoil Feddie starships here.

The destruction of the USS Odyssey in the DS9 episode "The Jem'Hadar" makes my case for me. The ship in question was rammed by a Jem'Hadar attack boat massing roughly 10,000 metric tons and running at a velocity of between 600-1000 m/s. The kinetic force of impact measured at about 5E12 J. Considering that the mass of a Galaxy-class starship has been quoted in the figure of 6.5 million metric tons, it would require a propulsive force of 3.9E17J simply to accelerate the ship at 11km/sec^2, or escape velocity from a terrestrial planet. Which means that the Odyssey was effectively destroyed by an impact which was only .000013% of the inertial force involved in an 1100g acceleration.

Do you understand what this says? The ship should pulverise itself attempting to execute an 1100g acceleration; either that or the impulse engines should simply rip themselves through the ship as easily as a hot knife going through butter when the helmsman hits the control (which would be a rather comical sight to witness —sorta like a Roadrunner cartoon). So I invite you to explain how the ship is simply holding itself together under propulsion stress if it is not dependent upon its forcefields to keep the spaceframe rigid.

Furthermore, The Star Trek Encyclopedia has this reference:

Structural Integrity Field Shaped forcefield used on Federation starships to supplement the mechanical strength of the ship's spaceframe. Without the structural integrity field, a starship would not be able to withstand the trememdous accelerations involved in spaceflight.

(STE, pg 324)

I think that answers your question.

Some sort of damned-fool subspace technobabble allows such accelerations by reducing inertia IIRC.

Then there is no need for a structural integrity field, unless the ship is so damned fragile that it cannot even remain rigid while at rest within its technobabble subspace field, and it says nothing as to the inability of the Odyssey to survive an impact it should have been able to if the damn ship had been built properly.

Oh, and your reference to the STE is irrelivent, considering it is totally uncanon. You should know better.

No, you should know better. The encyclopedia is comprised of nothing but canon material. It references nothing beyond the television episodes and movies. The quote therefore is anything but irrelevant —particularly as the SIF reference was in connection with a scene from the TNG third season episode "Tin Man".

[Stormbringer]

The destruction of the USS Odyssey in the DS9 episode "The Jem'Hadar" makes my case for me. The ship in question was rammed by a Jem'Hadar attack boat massing roughly 10,000 metric tons and running at a velocity of between 600-1000 m/s.

If a Jem Hadar ship is anything like a federation ship it has plenty of antimatter waiting for the slightest reason to go off. That would add, considerably, to the damage inflicted on the Odyssey. Not to say it isn't appallingly weak but not quite as weak as you would make it appear.

[Patrick Degan]

The destruction of the USS Odyssey in the DS9 episode "The Jem'Hadar" makes my case for me. The ship in question was rammed by a Jem'Hadar attack boat massing roughly 10,000 metric tons and running at a velocity of between 600-1000 m/s.

If a Jem Hadar ship is anything like a federation ship it has plenty of antimatter waiting for the slightest reason to go off. That would add, considerably, to the damage inflicted on the Odyssey. Not to say it isn't appallingly weak but not quite as weak as you would make it appear.

The screenshots of the collision with the Odyssey show no indication of an antimatter explosion accompanying the moment of impact. The Jem'Hadar attack boat rammed the starship, which resulted in a kinetic impact blast which left a large hole in the engineering hull of the Federation ship. A chunk of debris from the attack boat flew off from the impact site and spiraled into the Odyssey's starboard warp nacelle, inflicting additional impact damage on the stricken starship. It took about five to eight seconds before the Federation ship ripped herself apart from an internal explosion —presumably a warp core breach.

If the stored antimatter aboard the attack boat had fueled a blast, it would have been considerably larger and more violent than what we see in the episode. The visuals however indicate that kinetic impact alone was enough to eventually result in the Federation starship's destruction which occured as a delayed reaction to the collsion damage. Furthermore, the physics of the impact tells us that a Federation starship's hull cannot withstand the force of a 12KT blast.[/img]

[Master of Ossus]

I have always thought of SIF fields as things that are designed to create pressure on the hull of a starship, forcibly holding the ship together (just like how water in deep-sea vents is around 300 degrees C, but does not boil because it is under such high pressure).

[Patrick Degan]

The movie Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country gives us a graphic demonstration as to how vulnerable a starship hull is to relatively low-velocity, low mass kinetic impact in the form of the photorp strike on the Enterprise at Khitomer after the shields failed. The last torpedo Chang fired at the ship blasted through the hull, punching all the way through two decks and out the upper surface of the saucer section without its warhead detonating (the torpedoes were set for impact detonation instead of proximity blast, so the principle would be somewhat similar to an armour-piercing shell passing through an unarmoured ship). The blast resulting from the impact and the relatively slight structural damage inflicted on the Enterprise suggests a force which wouldn't even measure in the kiloton range.

[Kamakazie Sith]

So it is your argument that structural integrity fields run off the same generators as the deflector shields? The TNG episodes "Yesterday's Enterprise" and "Tin Man" suggest quite the opposite.

[/quote]


I think he was only trying to point out that Wongs calculations may be inaccurate given the fact that the hull is also reinforced by SIF.

[Master of Ossus]

So? They're upper limits. Including SIF's should actually lower the resistance of the Odyssey's hull, seeing as how the SIF would strengthen the ship's hull, and its observed resistance to the Jem'Hadar ship was fairly low. The actual hull strength is likely far lower, with the SIF's providing additional support and resistance.

[TheDarkling]

Hes trying to boost phaser power by saying the SIF affects it.

[Master of Ossus]

Hes trying to boost phaser power by saying the SIF affects it.

Okay, so are phaser shots against metal without SIF's as powerful as they are against rock? No. Why should we assume that the SIF affects phaser power when it fires on a ST hull, which is primarily made of metal?

[TheDarkling]

I dont know show us an example of a phaser cutting into metal without a SIF and lets have a look.

[Master of Ossus]

We repeatedly see phaser shots putting scorch marks on crates during DS9 (but doing no structural damage to them) and the phaser pistol seems to have a similarly pathetic yield in Enterprise.

[Master of Ossus]

D'oh. I meant "phase pistol," not "phaser pistol."

[TheDarkling]

yes but when they hit people they only stun/scorch them so its the classic low weapon setting that certain people enjoy using so much .

[Master of Ossus]

yes but when they hit people they only stun/scorch them so its the classic low weapon setting that certain people enjoy using so much .

One wonders, though, why they DON'T set for much higher power if such yields are available. They could try to destroy their enemy's cover, and then have their friends engage the surviving enemy troops.

[Kamakazie Sith]

yes but when they hit people they only stun/scorch them so its the classic low weapon setting that certain people enjoy using so much .

One wonders, though, why they DON'T set for much higher power if such yields are available. They could try to destroy their enemy's cover, and then have their friends engage the surviving enemy troops.

What's in those crates?

[TheDarkling]

Well yes exactly blowing up people cargo isnt exactly a good idea.