Actually, it is apples to oranges, because at least with Nebula/Galaxy comparisons we can be reasonably sure that the warp coils are the same.
Put a peppy engine in a sports car, then stick an identicle one in a delivery truck. Then drag race the two. Which one would win? The sports car, because the car is both lighter and has far superior aerodynamics.
Similar mode of thinking for the Galaxy/Nebula with the same engine. The sleek, quasi aerodynamic look of the starships has to do with making the warp field efficient and thus allowing for higher cruising speeds. It isn't the ammount of brute power the engine produces that's the primary limiting factor in speed of the vessel, it's the warp field geometry (aerodynamics for lack of a better comparison ). Galaxy was highly optimized while in design stage for maximum efficiency that translated into a very fast ship. Nebula used pretty much the same components but went for a less efficient (speed wise) but more compact design (better for defense).
Alyeska wrote:Its already been stated by the ships creators that their rather areodynamic shape is dictated by warp mechanics. If you want your ship to go fast, you HAVE to shape them like that. Thats why ship designs have gotten sleeker and sleeker. The Nebula could have the exact same power plant but because of its design it has worse warp mechanics and is therefore slower.
Perhaps subspace affects a ship at warp like atmosphere affects an aircraft while flying. Hence the aero dynamic shape.
I have to tell you something everything I wrote above is a lie.
Actually, it is apples to oranges, because at least with Nebula/Galaxy comparisons we can be reasonably sure that the warp coils are the same.
Put a peppy engine in a sports car, then stick an identicle one in a delivery truck. Then drag race the two. Which one would win? The sports car, because the car is both lighter and has far superior aerodynamics.
Similar mode of thinking for the Galaxy/Nebula with the same engine. The sleek, quasi aerodynamic look of the starships has to do with making the warp field efficient and thus allowing for higher cruising speeds. It isn't the ammount of brute power the engine produces that's the primary limiting factor in speed of the vessel, it's the warp field geometry (aerodynamics for lack of a better comparison ). Galaxy was highly optimized while in design stage for maximum efficiency that translated into a very fast ship. Nebula used pretty much the same components but went for a less efficient (speed wise) but more compact design (better for defense).
How does this address at all my point that bringing the Defiant into the debate was somewhat misleading because we don't know the nature of the other half of the Defiant's propulsion system, i.e. the warp coils?
Actually, it is apples to oranges, because at least with Nebula/Galaxy comparisons we can be reasonably sure that the warp coils are the same.
Put a peppy engine in a sports car, then stick an identicle one in a delivery truck. Then drag race the two. Which one would win? The sports car, because the car is both lighter and has far superior aerodynamics.
Similar mode of thinking for the Galaxy/Nebula with the same engine. The sleek, quasi aerodynamic look of the starships has to do with making the warp field efficient and thus allowing for higher cruising speeds. It isn't the ammount of brute power the engine produces that's the primary limiting factor in speed of the vessel, it's the warp field geometry (aerodynamics for lack of a better comparison ). Galaxy was highly optimized while in design stage for maximum efficiency that translated into a very fast ship. Nebula used pretty much the same components but went for a less efficient (speed wise) but more compact design (better for defense).
How does this address at all my point that bringing the Defiant into the debate was somewhat misleading because we don't know the nature of the other half of the Defiant's propulsion system, i.e. the warp coils?
Its points out the fact that power is not the sole determining factor in speed. You claimed the Nebula class has less power because it was slower then the Galaxy class. I point out that the overly power for its size Defiant is still a relatively slow ship.
"If the facts are on your side, pound on the facts. If the law is on your side, pound on the law. If neither is on your side, pound on the table."
"The captain claimed our people violated a 4,000 year old treaty forbidding us to develop hyperspace technology. Extermination of our planet was the consequence. The subject did not survive interrogation."
Alyeska wrote:
Furthermore, the Borg are full of shit with this statement. We know that the warpod Nebula exists and is more powerful then the Galaxy.
Why is the weapons module Nebula necessarily more powerful than the GCS? It does have two fwd. torpedo launchers, but we don't know both launchers' ROF.
Pain, or damage, don't end the world, or despair, or fuckin' beatin's. The world ends when you're dead. Until then, ya got more punishment in store. Stand it like a man ... and give some back.
-Al Swearengen
Cry woe, destruction, ruin and decay: The worst is death, and death will have his day.
-Ole' Shakey's "Richard II," Act III, scene ii.
seanrobertson wrote:I only have a second here, so this will be quick:
Alyeska wrote:
Furthermore, the Borg are full of shit with this statement. We know that the warpod Nebula exists and is more powerful then the Galaxy.
Why is the weapons module Nebula necessarily more powerful than the GCS? It does have two fwd. torpedo launchers, but we don't know both launchers' ROF.
Two GCS type torpedo launchers along with 8 more launchers is going to be more then the firepower of a GCS. The slowest refire type launcher they have in service (and have the largest supply of) is the old Constitution & Miranda type. They can average 1 torpedo every 2 seconds though they can fire a 2 torpedo burst with a 4 second reload. That means the Nebula can fire a minimum volley of 28 torpedoes. Thats 6 torpedoes per GCS style launcher (12 total) and 2 torpedoes per warpod extra launcher (16 total).
"If the facts are on your side, pound on the facts. If the law is on your side, pound on the law. If neither is on your side, pound on the table."
"The captain claimed our people violated a 4,000 year old treaty forbidding us to develop hyperspace technology. Extermination of our planet was the consequence. The subject did not survive interrogation."
Its points out the fact that power is not the sole determining factor in speed. You claimed the Nebula class has less power because it was slower then the Galaxy class. I point out that the overly power for its size Defiant is still a relatively slow ship.
But that could be due to the warp coils. At least with Nebula/Galaxy comparisons, we can go along with the assumption that those nacelles are very similar if not nearly identical, and rule them out as a cause of reduced speed. We cannot do this with the Defiant because it's a very different ship with very different warp coils.
Two GCS type torpedo launchers along with 8 more launchers is going to be more then the firepower of a GCS. The slowest refire type launcher they have in service (and have the largest supply of) is the old Constitution & Miranda type. They can average 1 torpedo every 2 seconds though they can fire a 2 torpedo burst with a 4 second reload. That means the Nebula can fire a minimum volley of 28 torpedoes. Thats 6 torpedoes per GCS style launcher (12 total) and 2 torpedoes per warpod extra launcher (16 total).
Where are these GCS-esque torp tubes, anyway?
And what's the source on the reload rate on the Constitution/Miranda launchers?
Uraniun235 wrote:But that could be due to the warp coils. At least with Nebula/Galaxy comparisons, we can go along with the assumption that those nacelles are very similar if not nearly identical, and rule them out as a cause of reduced speed. We cannot do this with the Defiant because it's a very different ship with very different warp coils.
And yet this violates your own logic because your assuming not everything on the Nebula is stock.
Where are these GCS-esque torp tubes, anyway?
There is on located in the standard pod (both warpod and Sutherland type) as well as one located between the saucer section and engineering sections.
And what's the source on the reload rate on the Constitution/Miranda launchers?
Deep Space Nine. An observed rate of fire from a Miranda in combat in "Sacrafice Angels". Infact over a period of 6 seconds it fired 5 torpedoes from two launchers. Thats better refire then I gave the launcher credit. I was using ST3 refire rates on a Constitution tube when it fired two torpeoes in rapid succession from a single tube.
"If the facts are on your side, pound on the facts. If the law is on your side, pound on the law. If neither is on your side, pound on the table."
"The captain claimed our people violated a 4,000 year old treaty forbidding us to develop hyperspace technology. Extermination of our planet was the consequence. The subject did not survive interrogation."
And yet this violates your own logic because your assuming not everything on the Nebula is stock.
How so? He said the Defiant's coils weren't comparable to a Galaxy's, not that the Nebula's weren't comparable to the Galaxy's. In fact, he said that we may assume that the coils are identical.
Uraniun235 wrote:But that could be due to the warp coils. At least with Nebula/Galaxy comparisons, we can go along with the assumption that those nacelles are very similar if not nearly identical, and rule them out as a cause of reduced speed. We cannot do this with the Defiant because it's a very different ship with very different warp coils.
And yet this violates your own logic because your assuming not everything on the Nebula is stock.
At least with Nebula/Galaxy comparisons, we can go along with the assumption
Besides, the important thing is that you're saying the Nebula uses stock GCS components, and therefore your Defiant comparison is apples to oranges because the Defiant doesn't use the same coils.
And if the coils between the Nebula and Galaxy are different, then who's to say the warp core isn't either?
Uraniun235 wrote:But that could be due to the warp coils. At least with Nebula/Galaxy comparisons, we can go along with the assumption that those nacelles are very similar if not nearly identical, and rule them out as a cause of reduced speed. We cannot do this with the Defiant because it's a very different ship with very different warp coils.
And yet this violates your own logic because your assuming not everything on the Nebula is stock.
At least with Nebula/Galaxy comparisons, we can go along with the assumption
Besides, the important thing is that you're saying the Nebula uses stock GCS components, and therefore your Defiant comparison is apples to oranges because the Defiant doesn't use the same coils.
And if the coils between the Nebula and Galaxy are different, then who's to say the warp core isn't either?
Now your dodging the issue. Either the Nebula uses stock GCS parts whenever possible, or it doesn't. I have already proven that the Nebula has more then sufficent space for the GCS warp core. I have pointed out that sheer power does not make a fast ship. I have pointed out that the creators of the ship said their design is mandated by warp theory. I have provided sufficent evidence to prove the Nebula class has the same power generation as the Galaxy class.
"If the facts are on your side, pound on the facts. If the law is on your side, pound on the law. If neither is on your side, pound on the table."
"The captain claimed our people violated a 4,000 year old treaty forbidding us to develop hyperspace technology. Extermination of our planet was the consequence. The subject did not survive interrogation."
I figured it was clear some time ago that I had stopped addressing the main topic and was going off on the tangent that your Defiant comparison wasn't appropriate.
Do you want a fucking stated concession? Fine, I'll fucking concede that I can't disprove the notion that the Nebula is a superior vessel.
I still have some issues, however.
From Starship Modeler, some pictures of a/the studio shooting model:
Alyeska wrote:Its already been stated by the ships creators that their rather areodynamic shape is dictated by warp mechanics. If you want your ship to go fast, you HAVE to shape them like that. Thats why ship designs have gotten sleeker and sleeker. The Nebula could have the exact same power plant but because of its design it has worse warp mechanics and is therefore slower.
Perhaps subspace affects a ship at warp like atmosphere affects an aircraft while flying. Hence the aero dynamic shape.
That's exactly what Alyeska just said, EC...
I believe in a sign of Zeta.
[BOTM|WG|JL|Mecha Maniacs|Pax Cybertronia|Veteran of the Psychic Wars|Eva Expert]
"And besides, who cares if a monster destroys Australia?"
Uraniun235 wrote:I figured it was clear some time ago that I had stopped addressing the main topic and was going off on the tangent that your Defiant comparison wasn't appropriate.
You never stated as much so I couldn't know.
Do you want a fucking stated concession? Fine, I'll fucking concede that I can't disprove the notion that the Nebula is a superior vessel.
Calm down man.
I still have some issues, however.
From Starship Modeler, some pictures of a/the studio shooting model:
I never said that the Nebula class used exclusive parts. I said the engineering section was very similar to the GCS, but modified.
As for the GCS type launcher. Ever notice how the two GCS launchers on the GCS have dissimilar exterior looks? Just because the main launcher in the pod doesn't have the same opening as the launcher in the kneck of the GCS doesn't mean its not the same type. Considering the number of stock GCS parts it would be logical that this torpedo launcher (which is confirmed in the Sutherland) is the same design.
"If the facts are on your side, pound on the facts. If the law is on your side, pound on the law. If neither is on your side, pound on the table."
"The captain claimed our people violated a 4,000 year old treaty forbidding us to develop hyperspace technology. Extermination of our planet was the consequence. The subject did not survive interrogation."
Alyeska wrote:Its already been stated by the ships creators that their rather areodynamic shape is dictated by warp mechanics. If you want your ship to go fast, you HAVE to shape them like that. Thats why ship designs have gotten sleeker and sleeker. The Nebula could have the exact same power plant but because of its design it has worse warp mechanics and is therefore slower.
Perhaps subspace affects a ship at warp like atmosphere affects an aircraft while flying. Hence the aero dynamic shape.
That's exactly what Alyeska just said, EC...
This of course is absurd, but thats the explination used by the ship creators to explain their designs. So as far as I am concerned, it stands.
"If the facts are on your side, pound on the facts. If the law is on your side, pound on the law. If neither is on your side, pound on the table."
"The captain claimed our people violated a 4,000 year old treaty forbidding us to develop hyperspace technology. Extermination of our planet was the consequence. The subject did not survive interrogation."
Put a peppy engine in a sports car, then stick an identicle one in a delivery truck. Then drag race the two. Which one would win? The sports car, because the car is both lighter and has far superior aerodynamics.
Sorry, but drag racing is what I like to do more often than not. Your statement is incorrect. A lot of variables go into a drag car and I won't go into all of them. But if your engine is for example a 1000 hp chevy big block, then the possibility exists that your delivery truck will be heavy enough to put more of that power to the pavement and move, while your sports car is too light to maintain adequate traction and losses. Which I believe is part of the problem with the Defiant in a warp field mechanics kind of way. That was the only reason I said your comparison isn’t right. In drag racing, it’s not always how fast your car can go, but how fast you get to the end. If you have 2 cars with identical engines and I run the first 60 feet in 1.6 (good traction) seconds and you run it in 2 (ok traction)seconds, assuming both cars have the same acceleration curve, who gets there first? Me, naturally.
Point is there are lots of things that can affect the performance of a race car or starship. I would imagine a lot more things with a starship.
"You can run and get bit, or stand there and get bit. Either way, YOUR GETTING BIT!"
Ironwolf wrote:Sorry, but drag racing is what I like to do more often than not. Your statement is incorrect. A lot of variables go into a drag car and I won't go into all of them. But if your engine is for example a 1000 hp chevy big block, then the possibility exists that your delivery truck will be heavy enough to put more of that power to the pavement and move, while your sports car is too light to maintain adequate traction and losses. Which I believe is part of the problem with the Defiant in a warp field mechanics kind of way. That was the only reason I said your comparison isn’t right. In drag racing, it’s not always how fast your car can go, but how fast you get to the end. If you have 2 cars with identical engines and I run the first 60 feet in 1.6 (good traction) seconds and you run it in 2 (ok traction)seconds, assuming both cars have the same acceleration curve, who gets there first? Me, naturally.
Point is there are lots of things that can affect the performance of a race car or starship. I would imagine a lot more things with a starship.
I know that there are a lot more things that affect the outcome of a drag race than what I stated. I was trying to boil it down to the LCD for simplicity's sake rather than confusing the issue with unnecessary information.
Let me clarify my point further: EVERYTHING ELSE BEING EQUAL, the sports car will win because it has a higher acceleration potential and a better flow of air around it (less air resistance). Didn't include things like traction and driver reaction times because they add needless info (guess I should stop making assumptions...)
Quick question. Was the Warpod attachment Nebula variant in service when the Borg made that statement? If we didn't see it before the epp in question (when the borg said Picard commanded the most powerful vessel), then the warpod itself could have been brought about (allong with designs like the Defiant class) by Starfleet prepping for a battle with the Borg and wanting to give their larger and most easily moddifiable starship some nasty teeth.
Alyeska wrote:Furthermore, the Borg are full of shit with this statement. We know that the warpod Nebula exists and is more powerful then the Galaxy.
They're wrong because... we know they're wrong?
You have got to be shitting me.
The Borg are full of shit because their statement is invalidated by facts we have at hand.
"If the facts are on your side, pound on the facts. If the law is on your side, pound on the law. If neither is on your side, pound on the table."
"The captain claimed our people violated a 4,000 year old treaty forbidding us to develop hyperspace technology. Extermination of our planet was the consequence. The subject did not survive interrogation."
HappyTarget wrote:Quick question. Was the Warpod attachment Nebula variant in service when the Borg made that statement? If we didn't see it before the epp in question (when the borg said Picard commanded the most powerful vessel), then the warpod itself could have been brought about (allong with designs like the Defiant class) by Starfleet prepping for a battle with the Borg and wanting to give their larger and most easily moddifiable starship some nasty teeth.
We first see it (the Sutherland was similar, but not identical) on the Farragut. I don't see any reason to assume it was done after the Borg though. To me the design seems logical to be part of the whole process. Even taking that into account the Sutherland type could still curb stomp a Galaxy because it has most of its firepower oriented forward. It probably has 90% the power of a GCS (not as many phasers) but it has double the forward torpedo capacity.
"If the facts are on your side, pound on the facts. If the law is on your side, pound on the law. If neither is on your side, pound on the table."
"The captain claimed our people violated a 4,000 year old treaty forbidding us to develop hyperspace technology. Extermination of our planet was the consequence. The subject did not survive interrogation."
Alyeska wrote:Ever notice how the two GCS launchers on the GCS have dissimilar exterior looks?
No, actually, I think they're fairly similar, although perhaps oriented differently and with different crap surrounding them.
The two GCS launchers exteriors never looked that similar to me.
"If the facts are on your side, pound on the facts. If the law is on your side, pound on the law. If neither is on your side, pound on the table."
"The captain claimed our people violated a 4,000 year old treaty forbidding us to develop hyperspace technology. Extermination of our planet was the consequence. The subject did not survive interrogation."
). Galaxy was highly optimized while in design stage for maximum efficiency that translated into a very fast ship. Nebula used pretty much the same components but went for a less efficient (speed wise) but more compact design (better for defense).
