Next generation starship program

[Lord Revan]

tbh few countries have that many "alternative" names to begin with.

isn't the Yamato part of the first batch Galaxies so it's possible that the naming convention wasn't established (or that it's named after a famous Starfleet vessel like the Enterprise is). IIRC (this could just be official and not canon I'm not 100% sure on this) the first 3 Galaxies, were the USS Galaxy, USS Enterprise and the USS Yamato

[Prometheus Unbound]

I wonder if you could somehow use a warp-capable shuttle to propel an entire starship - even if it was only at a very low warp factor...

Dunno about warp, but a runabout pulled along a Galor class fine at impulse in Emissary. They can tractor ships at warp, but I've only ever seen a starship do it once or twice to a smaller vessel.

EDIT: We've seen a runabout tow a runabout at warp. No idea about scaling but they can at least carry twice their own mass into warp.

DS9 season 6 opens up with a ragtag fleet of starships - there's an excelsior class that's "turned off" being towed by tractorbeam by what looks like some barge type, but again this is at impulse.


I'd think the biggest problem would be extending the warp field from a shuttle to something that large. Enterprise D tried to tractor a small moon once (dunno about orders of magnitude here, just going off memory) and they tried to bring their warp field around it but only managed something like 10% coverage.

[Borgholio]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure Deep Space 9 is much larger than any starship. Its fusion reactor may be too large and bulky to fit on a mobile platform unless you make that mobile platform big. And making the reactor very large has other problems (it's a big target that has to be protected by big armor and it distorts the physical shape of the hull which may have adverse effects on warp field geometry).

Sure it's big, but the whole thing is proportional. The station is bigger and thus the reactor must be too. Compared to the entire station, the actual reactor dome at the bottom of the station is fairly small. I don't think it would cause any serious design issues for a starship, especially if they had multiple smaller reactors all over the ship for redundancy purposes.

The Romulans' artificial black hole engines... do not sound safer than a warp core. In fact, honestly, I cannot possibly imagine how you would "safe" a black hole inside your ship. The only plausible failure modes for the engine in an emergency are "black hole explodes in a spray of Hawking radiation" and "black hole eats your ship." Not a recipe for being safer than an antimatter warp core.

The Phoenix was also barely capable of Warp One; it's a bit like suggesting that we could power modern fighter jets with a liquid fuel rocket, because that's what the Bell X-1 used to break the sound barrier.

Oh I actually agree with you on both examples, but my point was that you don't NEED a M/AM reactor to achieve warp flight. Other sources of power can be used. The only drawback I can see is that maybe a fusion reactor, while able to enter warp, doesn't have the power output to sustain high warp speeds. In which case maybe a smaller M/AM reactor can be used a supplementary power source when needed for high warp...like turning on the NO2 in a race car when you need that extra boost of speed. Or...interestingly...the gas engine on my Prius. It turns on when I need to go fast, but I run on the cleaner (and safer) batteries when at low speeds.

If the small M/AM reactor only runs when needed, and isn't expected to power the whole ship, that would reduce the danger of explosion or containment loss right there. For general power needs or low warp speeds, the fusion reactors would be the only things turned on.

Have we seen Trek ships sustain high warp speeds on fusion power alone after an initial burst from the antimatter reactor?

On screen, no. According to the background documentation, the saucer section of a Galaxy Class ship should be able to sustain high warp speeds for awhile without a M/AM reactor if separated from the Engineering section at warp. Photorps use a "warp sustainer engine" to do the same thing. Only info I can find on that is that it's powered by a M/AM "fuel cell". How that differs from a reactor I have no idea. But on a device designed to explode in the first place, they probably don't care about engine safety.

[Lord Revan]

IIRC we've seen DS9's reactor (it's the glowing bit under the promenade section), however it's strongly implied if not outright stated that a signifigant portion of s starships power goes to propulsion, which DS9 hasn't got at all so it's not 100% portional when you compared starships and stations.

and while small compared to DS9 that reactor dome is still quite large compared to most starships.

[Prometheus Unbound]

also "turn on when needed" - warp cores dont just explode randomly, even on the Ent-D - it's always when they're pretty much at Red Alert anyway - they dont tend to suddenly start breaching when in standard orbit of a planet. I wouldn't have thought keeping it turned off for most of the time would significantly increase safety.

[Lord Revan]

true enough while I've used the wording "if you look at it meanly", truthly you need some degree of damage to the warpcore to have it breach containment even the Yamato was killed by failure of the control systems due to a computer virus, not because the core felt like blowing up that time.

[Prometheus Unbound]

Also re: fusion reactors, the spheres in Enterprise were fusion powered. I can't remember the size of the spheres but the reactors were 12km each and there were seven originally installed. In one they came across that was actively generating anomalies for lightyears around it and had been for a thousand years, had 3 still operational.

[Lord Revan]

Also re: fusion reactors, the spheres in Enterprise were fusion powered. I can't remember the size of the spheres but the reactors were 12km each and there were seven originally installed. In one they came across that was actively generating anomalies for lightyears around it and had been for a thousand years, had 3 still operational.

the problem there is that we really don't know the power needs for "generating subspace anomalies"

[Prometheus Unbound]

oh sure, there's no calc for it. Just that three 12km reactors can power anomalies which can have effects for light years. But then these reactors are larger than 24th century starbases so...


Errr, no point, I guess heh.

[Lord Revan]

the size of the spheres was given as "small moon" in memory alpha which could mean alot of things.

[Prometheus Unbound]

well presumably a bit bigger than 12km - the reactors seemed to go to the edges more or less, when seen from the inside. 12km is a small moon...

[Simon_Jester]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure Deep Space 9 is much larger than any starship. Its fusion reactor may be too large and bulky to fit on a mobile platform unless you make that mobile platform big. And making the reactor very large has other problems (it's a big target that has to be protected by big armor and it distorts the physical shape of the hull which may have adverse effects on warp field geometry).

Sure it's big, but the whole thing is proportional. The station is bigger and thus the reactor must be too. Compared to the entire station, the actual reactor dome at the bottom of the station is fairly small. I don't think it would cause any serious design issues for a starship...

Debateable. We know DS9's reactor is adequate to power defenses that can repel a fleet of starships, but how big is the fleet in terms of total volume and tonnage? What classes of ships have attacked it, and in what numbers?

A ten million ton station with a one million ton reactor (10% of mass devoted to bulky reactor) might well be able to repel the attack of two million tons of starships with fifty thousand tons of (more efficient) reactors. But what would it do if attacked by five times as many ships? Would it still be able to hold its own? Solutions that work for a fixed installation need not work for a mobile platform.

especially if they had multiple smaller reactors all over the ship for redundancy purposes.

Having numerous small reactors is likely to create more inefficiency in terms of requiring extra mass and tonnage, compared to a single large reactor.

For instance, the extra layer of armor you wrap around the reactor to contain an explosion and/or stop enemy fire from hitting it scales with the surface area of the reactor, not the volume, so if one reactor that is twice as big in every dimension and has eight times the volume, it only needs four times as much armor, resulting in weight savings. You likewise save on crew (the 8x reactor probably doesn't require eight times more crew than the 1x reactor), and on the volume required for redundant engineering spaces to support the reactor (you need three sets of redundant fuel lines, not twenty-four).

Oh I actually agree with you on both examples, but my point was that you don't NEED a M/AM reactor to achieve warp flight. Other sources of power can be used. The only drawback I can see is that maybe a fusion reactor, while able to enter warp, doesn't have the power output to sustain high warp speeds. In which case maybe a smaller M/AM reactor can be used a supplementary power source when needed for high warp...like turning on the NO2 in a race car when you need that extra boost of speed. Or...interestingly...the gas engine on my Prius. It turns on when I need to go fast, but I run on the cleaner (and safer) batteries when at low speeds.

If the small M/AM reactor only runs when needed, and isn't expected to power the whole ship, that would reduce the danger of explosion or containment loss right there. For general power needs or low warp speeds, the fusion reactors would be the only things turned on.

Then you have a ship which can't go to high warp without taking considerable time to warm up its warp core. Plus, you now have to add all the extra cost and weight of storing antimatter (and very extensive safety/containment systems) aboard the ship, which partly defeats the purpose.

Once you're already committed to storing antimatter, it becomes very tempting to just add ten thousand tons more antimatter reactor, if that would save you twenty thousand tons of bulkier fusion reactor and preserve your same power output. Those extra ten thousand tons of mass savings could be committed to all sorts of defensive measures that might well do MUCH more to improve the ship's survivability.

Have we seen Trek ships sustain high warp speeds on fusion power alone after an initial burst from the antimatter reactor?

On screen, no. According to the background documentation, the saucer section of a Galaxy Class ship should be able to sustain high warp speeds for awhile without a M/AM reactor if separated from the Engineering section at warp. Photorps use a "warp sustainer engine" to do the same thing. Only info I can find on that is that it's powered by a M/AM "fuel cell". How that differs from a reactor I have no idea. But on a device designed to explode in the first place, they probably don't care about engine safety.

I always thought the saucer of the Galaxies was much slower in warp than the engineering hull.

[Borgholio]

Debateable. We know DS9's reactor is adequate to power defenses that can repel a fleet of starships, but how big is the fleet in terms of total volume and tonnage? What classes of ships have attacked it, and in what numbers?

According to Memory Alpha, about 50 Klingon ships. 30 or so were Birds of Prey and the rest were cruiser-sized or larger. I can't find specs on the mass of the individual ships though.

Having numerous small reactors is likely to create more inefficiency in terms of requiring extra mass and tonnage, compared to a single large reactor.

Didn't think about things such as armor. It's also possible that a large reactor can be more efficient than a smaller one.

Once you're already committed to storing antimatter, it becomes very tempting to just add ten thousand tons more antimatter reactor, if that would save you twenty thousand tons of bulkier fusion reactor and preserve your same power output. Those extra ten thousand tons of mass savings could be committed to all sorts of defensive measures that might well do MUCH more to improve the ship's survivability.

So you're saying it's probably better to focus on improving the safety of the M/AM reactor than supply the bulk of the power needs with fusion.

I always thought the saucer of the Galaxies was much slower in warp than the engineering hull.

It can maintain whatever speed the whole ship was at when first separated, but it will gradually slow down back to impulse speeds since it has no warp engines of it's own.

[Simon_Jester]

Debateable. We know DS9's reactor is adequate to power defenses that can repel a fleet of starships, but how big is the fleet in terms of total volume and tonnage? What classes of ships have attacked it, and in what numbers?

According to Memory Alpha, about 50 Klingon ships. 30 or so were Birds of Prey and the rest were cruiser-sized or larger. I can't find specs on the mass of the individual ships though.

Hm, that's respectable tonnage, although Birds of Prey are very small compared to larger Klingon vessels- most of the punch is with the cruisers. Another question is whether the Klingons attacked simultaneously or in waves.

Having numerous small reactors is likely to create more inefficiency in terms of requiring extra mass and tonnage, compared to a single large reactor.

Didn't think about things such as armor. It's also possible that a large reactor can be more efficient than a smaller one.

Right- but basically, the problem is... Even if the efficiency is constant per cubic meter of reactor, the support systems and infrastructure for that reactor don't automatically scale with power output.

There's a reason that the, hah, USS Enterprise (the recently retired nuclear carrier) had eight reactors while the immediate follow-on Nimitz-class had two.

Once you're already committed to storing antimatter, it becomes very tempting to just add ten thousand tons more antimatter reactor, if that would save you twenty thousand tons of bulkier fusion reactor and preserve your same power output. Those extra ten thousand tons of mass savings could be committed to all sorts of defensive measures that might well do MUCH more to improve the ship's survivability.

So you're saying it's probably better to focus on improving the safety of the M/AM reactor than supply the bulk of the power needs with fusion.

Probably, or Starfleet wouldn't be using antimatter warp cores in the first place. They require rare materials, explode frequently, and are clearly quite difficult to maintain. Unless they're complete morons, drooling halfwits, they wouldn't be using them if it was truly unnecessary.

Now, the exact answer would depend on a host of design details- power efficiency per cubic meter and per ton of power plant, the exact space and mass and maintenance requirements of different types of power plant, surge versus sustained load, et cetera.

But we should at least seriously consider that maybe people in Star Trek use antimatter reactors for reasons other than "we suck at engineering." It's not like the Federation is the only one doing it, after all.

I always thought the saucer of the Galaxies was much slower in warp than the engineering hull.

It can maintain whatever speed the whole ship was at when first separated, but it will gradually slow down back to impulse speeds since it has no warp engines of it's own.

That... is interesting. But, again, it suggests that it is impractical to keep up high warp speeds without an antimatter reactor, or failing that a very very large fusion reactor, disproportionately large compared to the existing warp cores.

[Prometheus Unbound]

That... is interesting. But, again, it suggests that it is impractical to keep up high warp speeds without an antimatter reactor, or failing that a very very large fusion reactor, disproportionately large compared to the existing warp cores.

Well that and they don't have warp engines...

[Simon_Jester]

Ah, sorry, I was so busy thinking about the lack of a warp core that I forgot to think about the lack of nacelles.

[SpottedKitty]

Ah, sorry, I was so busy thinking about the lack of a warp core that I forgot to think about the lack of nacelles.

I think I remember a mention in the TNG Tech Manual of "sustainer coils" — possibly built into the saucer impulse drive — that can grab a piece of the existing warp bubble and keep the saucer in warp for a while, but can't put it into warp if it's sublight. The same thing is used to let photon torpedoes be fired if the launcher and target are both at warp.

[Simon_Jester]

Right.

Well, sustainer coils are a known technology, but they're not a full-up warp drive and obviously don't take the place of one.

Also, let me just note that the whole 'saucer separation' concept is just plain a bad idea as Starfleet implemented it. It takes the whole "we have too many dependent civilians and defenseless assets on our ship" problem and compounds them by cramming all of them into a single gigantic disk of vulnerability. And given how fast starships at warp can come streaking in to attack without warning, just tucking the saucer away "behind" you is no guarantee the enemy won't find and attack it... or hold it hostage to secure the surrender of the engineering hull.

Arguably the best use for the saucer is found in Generations- as a glorified lifeboat in case of an engineering casualty that disables, you guessed it, the warp core...

[Scottish Ninja]

Personally, I'd love to see one of the original TOS ideas for saucer separation - ie the saucer detaches and goes down to the planet's surface as a complete landing ship, and the drive section is basically there to push it around from planet to planet.

Granted that we'd never see it (or maybe once or twice) in a realistic screen production because of the cost of special effects, just like saucer separation in TNG and Voyager's ability to land on planets.

[Tribble]

I've never had problems with the concept of civilians being on board for long-range exploration missions. Due to replicators, it's not like the ship really has to worry about food-stocks or water running low, only fuel usage. I'd imagine the energy used to sustain that population would be negligible next to generating a warp field.

The problem is that Starfleet didn't really know what they wanted with the Galaxy-class. They built a long-range exploration ship with dedicated scientific research capabilities... yet also made it the quickest and most heavily armed / shielded ship in Federation history, pretty much guaranteeing that it would be sent on dangerous missions like patrolling the Neutral Zone. Then they compounded that error by leaving the civilians on board even when it became clear that the E-D wasn't going to be doing any long-term missions for the foreseeable future.

One would think that should have been a relatively easy problem to solve- make a clean break between scientific/exploration and military ships. Or between military ships and civilian ships in general. There is a big difference between a multi-role warship and what the Galaxy-class does. I always found it pretty bizarre watching the E-D go on a dangerous combat mission, to conducting scientific research, to conducting diplomacy, to hauling cargo etc. Although I'm sure the USS Nimitz is perfectly capable of handling a wide variety of military and civilian tasks, how often do we see it hauling farmers and fertilizer one day, conducting airstrikes the next, then studying penguins afterwards? The Galaxy class's schizophrenic design goals does not help.

And speaking of civilian vessels, why are they so small? Particularly the freighters? The world' largest warships are dwarfed by some of the cruise ships and tankers out there. Yet in TNG, I'm not aware of any civilian ship that approaches a Miranda-class in terms of size, let alone something like the E-D. Why is that?

[Borgholio]

And speaking of civilian vessels, why are they so small? Particularly the freighters? The world' largest warships are dwarfed by some of the cruise ships and tankers out there. Yet in TNG, I'm not aware of any civilian ship that approaches a Miranda-class in terms of size, let alone something like the E-D. Why is that?

I've always questioned that myself. I mean I visited the USS Iowa not too long ago. She was one of the largest battleships ever built, but she was still dwarfed by the nearby container ships and cruise liners. As far as freight and commerce goes, larger is often better. There are clear economies of scale at work when hauling cargo. When talking about interstellar freighters where they might be in space for months, it would only make sense to have the freighter be as big as possible and stuff with as many goods as possible to make the trip as efficient as possible.

[Simon_Jester]

Modern supercarriers are built to more like the same scale as cruise liners and container ships, but yes.

I suspect part of the reason is that so many of the 'colonies' we see in Star Trek are relatively small and they have a replicator economy that makes bulk goods transport kind of pointless. You might as well replicate stuff in one place as another.

So about the only obvious major category of large freighter you might need would be mining vessels to extract the raw materials to support the replicator economy.

[Tribble]

Modern supercarriers are built to more like the same scale as cruise liners and container ships, but yes.

The Nimitz Class is ~100,000 tons or so. That's less than half the size of some cruise ships and super-tankers. I guess you could say the largest warship is about the same size as an average cruise ship or super-tanker.

I suspect part of the reason is that so many of the 'colonies' we see in Star Trek are relatively small and they have a replicator economy that makes bulk goods transport kind of pointless. You might as well replicate stuff in one place as another.

So about the only obvious major category of large freighter you might need would be mining vessels to extract the raw materials to support the replicator economy.

Also, now that I think of it it's probable that most starships routinely haul cargo as well, since we've seen the E-D do it on more than one occasion. If so, that would certainly limit the demand for civilian freighters.

[FaxModem1]

It could also be a focus on numbers and speed instead of size. You could have 1 superfreighter carrying 10x amount of cargo, or you could have 10 small freighters carrying 1x of cargo, making many small runs on a monthly basis instead of a giant run every year or so. Its also a good way to hedge bets in cases of those pesky ion storms, pirates, anomaly of the week, or whatever else may happen, so that if a shipment is lost, its only 1x of shipments lost and not the whole kit and kaboodle.

[Simon_Jester]

On the other hand, larger ships generally tend to be faster in Star Trek, and the overhead costs of running 100 small ships tend to be much higher than those of one large ship. A large freighter generally won't require you to hire 100 times as many crew as a small one.