StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Gil Hamilton wrote: There are definite physical limits to how strong a creature can be based on cross-section of the manipulator and composition. A biological creature is not going to be ripping up industrial steel plates bolted to a steel frame, so if we actually see one ripping something up, especially under as funky strength nullifying conditions are zero-gravity, we have to conclude that the frame and the support is really weak, rather than the creature being superstrong.

Doesn't work if you have empirical evidence said industrial steel, bolts and frame is impressively strong.

You mean the ones like Generations that turn out that Trekkies are making a mountain out of molehill?

That, along with the dozen or so other examples you're conveniently ignoring.

Yes, it did rip through the hull. Under suspension of disbelief, we've got absolutely no choice but to conclude that Voyagers hull was extremely weak because of it, because frankly it's a less convoluted and much simplier explaination for what happened.

Contradicts other evidence that said hulls (including said specific hull) are far more durable then you are attempting to assert.

In order to go the other way, you've already claimed that the BEM was millions of times stronger than a man, despite the fact it was in null gravity AND had just got schooled in a hand-to-hand fight with a Hirogen,

After the SP8472 entered Voyager, it slipped into a coma, and only came to shortly before it was forced to engage said Hirogen, and said Hirogen did not school it at all. He was knocked on his ass and was struggling to not be killed. Impressive for something that just came out of a coma. And said SP8472 also tore through a ship mounted forcefield as well before attacking the Hirogen. That could've easily further taxed it's already weakened state, buying the Hirogen a few extra seconds of struggling time.

AND that it was a powerful electromagnet in order to avoid claiming that it was gripping the hull with it's feet in order to walk and not fly off into space when it does lifting. At this point, the abilities that you're piling on the the S8472 is rediculous in order to maintain your belief that StarTrek hulls are really strong. It's a MUCH simplier explaination to conclude that it was able to breach the hull due to it being really weak.

Weak hulls contradicts empirical evidence already established that you have yet to effectively refute. Your arguement, summed up, is nothing more than a "it shouldn't have been able to do that, therefore it didn't". Your arguement steps outside of suspension of disbelief, and dismisses existing evidence to favor it.

Gil, do you know how mass and volume scale with size? Ever played with a Matchbox toy car and wondered why you can throw it into a wall or down the stairs at a scaled velocity of many hundred kph without so much as denting it--yet a full size car will total itself at a mere 40 kph?
The saucer in Generations was hundreds of meters to a side, and massed well over a million tons. Does that compute? We would be hard pressed to build something that big, that heavy, that shape. We couldn't even dream about dropping it; from any height.

If I double something's dimensions, I increase the volume and mass by 8. Your Mars landing craftweighs 539 kg Source The volume is hard to calc. but can be estimated as that of a sphere 1.4 m in diameter; see for yourself: Pic So a volume of ~1.44 m^3. This utalized extensive padding and shock absorbing to survive a controlled landing at ~10 m/s.
Now, lets make it bigger:
The Ent-D saucer hull is 380 m long, and somewhat wider, 467 m and ~60 m tall. Due to its weird shape I can estimate a box half as tall for a volume of ~5,320,000 m^3.
If you scale the lander up so it has a that volume, it needs to be made of materials some 3,700 times stronger to make that slow, padded landing.
Of course, the saucer is not a compact ball, its flattened shape increases the shear forces dramatically--think glass marble vs glass tea saucer; which one will break first?
Incidentally, the saucer is denser than the lander, which only increases the strength needed to survive that padded fall.
Thing is, there was no padding, and it was moving faster. How is this pathetically weak?

Then 600 km underwater--I can only assume this was on an Earth-grav world, so good ol rho*g*h. (1000kg/m^3)(9.81m/s^2)(600000m) = 5.88E9 Pa, plus 100,000 Pa = still 5.88E9 Pa
That means the Delta Flyer can take some 600,000 tons per m^2 to its bare hull. It's a big boxy thing, mostly hollow, yet it can survive these pressures...we struggle to get craft some 11 km down, and those are specially designed to do so. Clearly, weak as all hell...

(crickets chirp)

Alyeska wrote:(crickets chirp)

*shoots crickets to maintain akward silence*

Stupid crickets. I bet they don't have bug problems like that in Trek.

They did have those creepy voles on DS9 but they are more like rats than bugs.

not to mention bacteria that caused ships to rust at an accelerated rate....

The Yosemite Bear wrote:not to mention bacteria that caused ships to rust at an accelerated rate....

and the genetically engineered viruses that ate duranium?

and the Macrovirus that flew around in the air despite being too big to support itself in the real world?

and what ever you do dont sneeze or look crosseted at the warp core...

The Yosemite Bear wrote:and what ever you do dont sneeze or look crosseted at the warp core...

. . .with a hand grenade.

The Yosemite Bear wrote:and what ever you do dont sneeze or look crosseted at the warp core...

Alyeska wrote:An amendment to these rules.

No Galaxy Class bashing. No more "Warp Core sux0rs!" statements. No more stating the ship is made like a roman candle. We know what the various versions of this ship are capable of and we don't need idiotic reminders of problems in TNG.

hey the galaxy's aren't nearly the OSHA hazzard the intrepids may represent....

Galaxy's have nice thermal properties too:
Before
After

Notice the lack of thermal scorring, on the leading edge of the reentry no less! Just a bit of dirt.

The Silence and I wrote:Galaxy's have nice thermal properties too:
Before
After

Notice the lack of thermal scorring, on the leading edge of the reentry no less! Just a bit of dirt.

Also note the visable blue tint on the edge of the flames, which is consistent with what we saw in Nemesis for their shields.

So that says nothing about their thermal conductivity.

The Silence and I wrote:Gil, do you know how mass and volume scale with size? Ever played with a Matchbox toy car and wondered why you can throw it into a wall or down the stairs at a scaled velocity of many hundred kph without so much as denting it--yet a full size car will total itself at a mere 40 kph?
The saucer in Generations was hundreds of meters to a side, and massed well over a million tons. Does that compute? We would be hard pressed to build something that big, that heavy, that shape. We couldn't even dream about dropping it; from any height.

If I double something's dimensions, I increase the volume and mass by 8. Your Mars landing craftweighs 539 kg Source The volume is hard to calc. but can be estimated as that of a sphere 1.4 m in diameter; see for yourself: Pic So a volume of ~1.44 m^3. This utalized extensive padding and shock absorbing to survive a controlled landing at ~10 m/s.
Now, lets make it bigger:
The Ent-D saucer hull is 380 m long, and somewhat wider, 467 m and ~60 m tall. Due to its weird shape I can estimate a box half as tall for a volume of ~5,320,000 m^3.
If you scale the lander up so it has a that volume, it needs to be made of materials some 3,700 times stronger to make that slow, padded landing.
Of course, the saucer is not a compact ball, its flattened shape increases the shear forces dramatically--think glass marble vs glass tea saucer; which one will break first?
Incidentally, the saucer is denser than the lander, which only increases the strength needed to survive that padded fall.
Thing is, there was no padding, and it was moving faster. How is this pathetically weak?

Then 600 km underwater--I can only assume this was on an Earth-grav world, so good ol rho*g*h. (1000kg/m^3)(9.81m/s^2)(600000m) = 5.88E9 Pa, plus 100,000 Pa = still 5.88E9 Pa
That means the Delta Flyer can take some 600,000 tons per m^2 to its bare hull. It's a big boxy thing, mostly hollow, yet it can survive these pressures...we struggle to get craft some 11 km down, and those are specially designed to do so. Clearly, weak as all hell...

Now, like a good scientist, rationalize this with the fact that we have seen examples (EG cause and effect) where it was calculated on SB to be weaker then steel.

I'll wait.

Ender wrote:Now, like a good scientist, rationalize this with the fact that we have seen examples (EG cause and effect) where it was calculated on SB to be weaker then steel.

I'll wait.

Those are the warp nacells and may be constructed of a different material to allow for warp field technobabble. The impact itself obviously caused the warp coils to explode did we actually see the hull itself crumble under the impact? I don't believe so....

Ender wrote:
Notice the lack of thermal scorring, on the leading edge of the reentry no less! Just a bit of dirt.

Also note the visable blue tint on the edge of the flames, which is consistent with what we saw in Nemesis for their shields.

So that says nothing about their thermal conductivity.[/quote]

That certainly is possible that their shields were still up. However, there are a few episode which state hull temperature but I forget the names and specifics.

Ender wrote:

The Silence and I wrote:Galaxy's have nice thermal properties too:
Before
After

Notice the lack of thermal scorring, on the leading edge of the reentry no less! Just a bit of dirt.

Also note the visable blue tint on the edge of the flames, which is consistent with what we saw in Nemesis for their shields.

So that says nothing about their thermal conductivity.

Note the flames being visibly lit on on specific edges of the ship itself. Note that the ship was without main power and did not have any shields of note.

This says everything about thermal conductivity. The shields the E-D had was traditional buble style shields. The flames and heating up areas are specificaly over the hull of the ship. This is in areas where the shields do not exist.

Alyeska wrote:

Ender wrote:

The Silence and I wrote:Galaxy's have nice thermal properties too:
Before
After

Notice the lack of thermal scorring, on the leading edge of the reentry no less! Just a bit of dirt.

Also note the visable blue tint on the edge of the flames, which is consistent with what we saw in Nemesis for their shields.

So that says nothing about their thermal conductivity.

Note the flames being visibly lit on on specific edges of the ship itself.

Alyeska, the effect is blue and white, after we see red orange from the flames. If the blue effect was the hull heating from air friction it should be before the red/orange part because blue is indicative of a higher energy content. So it is not the material changing color from the energy input. Do you have an alternative theory to explain this?

Note that the ship was without main power

Withoput its warp core, yes. But originally they ran shields off fusion IIRC, so they could have these going off them

and did not have any shields of note.

The image kinda says otherwise Al. On the upside, it means that modified GCSs have multiple shield generators.

This says everything about thermal conductivity. The shields the E-D had was traditional buble style shields. The flames and heating up areas are specificaly over the hull of the ship. This is in areas where the shields do not exist.

Alyeska, do you have a superior theory? Because thermal conductivity does not explain this. The color scheme is off for it. It looks like shields do in other movies. It behaves like shields do in other movies. We know the Enterprise had modifications done already (different bridge). All this would mean is a seperate saucer bridge was yet another upgrade.

Ender wrote:Alyeska, the effect is blue and white, after we see red orange from the flames. If the blue effect was the hull heating from air friction it should be before the red/orange part because blue is indicative of a higher energy content. So it is not the material changing color from the energy input. Do you have an alternative theory to explain this?

No, however your theory is flawed. We already know what the E-D shields look like and this does not fit them.

Note that the ship was without main power

Withoput its warp core, yes. But originally they ran shields off fusion IIRC, so they could have these going off them

and did not have any shields of note.

The image kinda says otherwise Al. On the upside, it means that modified GCSs have multiple shield generators.

Alyeska, do you have a superior theory? Because thermal conductivity does not explain this. The color scheme is off for it. It looks like shields do in other movies. It behaves like shields do in other movies. We know the Enterprise had modifications done already (different bridge). All this would mean is a seperate saucer bridge was yet another upgrade.

Your theory does not fit the facts. The E-Ds shields are buble shields that extend very far from the ship. Furthermore the heating up is happening DIRECTLY on the hull. Note you can even see a ridge of plasma coming off the phaser arrays. This would not happen with shields.

Alyeska wrote:

Ender wrote:Alyeska, the effect is blue and white, after we see red orange from the flames. If the blue effect was the hull heating from air friction it should be before the red/orange part because blue is indicative of a higher energy content. So it is not the material changing color from the energy input. Do you have an alternative theory to explain this?

No, however your theory is flawed. We already know what the E-D shields look like and this does not fit them.

So I am suggesting that the newly installed section are of the newer hull hugging type. That would fit. Do you have an alternative that explains things?

Your theory does not fit the facts. The E-Ds shields are buble shields that extend very far from the ship. Furthermore the heating up is happening DIRECTLY on the hull.

It would appear that way with hull hugging shields Al.

Note you can even see a ridge of plasma coming off the phaser arrays. This would not happen with shields.

To me that looks more like the light is being reflected off it rather then plasma forming itself.

Ender wrote:So I am suggesting that the newly installed section are of the newer hull hugging type. That would fit. Do you have an alternative that explains things?

What you suggest doesn't work. We already see the E-D shields in action during the battle. If what you propose is true then we should have seen these new shields. Saucer shields are not indepedent designs that operate only when disconected from the stardrive. They work together. I don't need an alternate theory. Its obvious from the evidence at hand that the E-Ds shields were not working.

It would appear that way with hull hugging shields Al.

Hull hugging shields were not in use.

To me that looks more like the light is being reflected off it rather then plasma forming itself.

That certainly isn't light, that is plasma forming from the friction of reentry.

I always was under the impression that the structrual integraty fields were hull hugging/ hull entwined. And since soace isn't empty there's a godo chance that they redxuce the effects of friction...

Ender wrote:

The Silence and I wrote:Galaxy's have nice thermal properties too:
Before
After

Notice the lack of thermal scorring, on the leading edge of the reentry no less! Just a bit of dirt.

Also note the visable blue tint on the edge of the flames, which is consistent with what we saw in Nemesis for their shields.

So that says nothing about their thermal conductivity.

EDIT: After reading Ender's posts during my writing of this, I felt this needed clarification:
1) Except the shields are not hull conforming Ender. You are proposing that the saucer section has the more advanced hull conforming shields, but the battle hull, and the combined vessel, does not?
2) That blue tint, which is fainter than any shield glow, could easily have everything to do with the temperature of the atmosphere.
3) Those shields would have been extremely handy when the battle hull blew sky high. You do remember why they crashed, right? The shockwave disabled their engines, they fell into the atmosphere, and Data only achieved thruster control a few hundred meters above the surface. I highly doubt the shields were operational, to say nothing of points 1 and 2.

Now, like a good scientist, rationalize this with the fact that we have seen examples (EG cause and effect) where it was calculated on SB to be weaker then steel.

I'll wait.

Weaker than steel?
1) The nacelle assembly is widely recognized to be the weakest area of any starship, and is not representative of the Saucer's hull integrity.
2) Generations had a significantly larger budget than Cause and Effect, I find I trust that to be a better source of information; however, this is hard to defend, so see point three:
3) The Bozeman is ~240m long, and travelled somewhat more than its length in one second. It also masses some 2.4 e8 kg. Therefore it had some 5.8e10 kg*m/s to its name. Now, the impact was glancing, but some change in speed occured, simply because there was an impact. How much change in speed? Well it takes about one second for the Bozeman to cover the last 100 m of the Ent-D's nacelle, so perhaps as much as a 100 m/s difference.
What was the impact area? Hard to say, the leading edge of the Bozeman's nacelle struck, that edge is about 10 meters wide, though the corner of it actually struck. But the two nacelles slid over each other for about one hundred meters. At most that's 1000 m^2.
So, 2.4e10 kg*m/s over 1000m^2 over an impact time of again, one second. So a pressure of some 2.4e7 N/m^2. Or 244 tons of force per m^2. With a hull some 30-40 cm thick, and that is merely an average.
But, these numbers are shakey at best, useless at somewhat worse than best and go downhill from there. SO,
A) the numbers I crunched are likely wrong,
B) the nacelle blew up from the inside, i.e. the warp coil blew up; the hull was apparently fine (except of course the clear part where the plasma burst through).
C) If my numbers are close, then the nacelle pylon, despite being very thin, didn't even twist under the stress of 2,400,000 tons of force, for an entire second.
D) What ever the total force, it was the sudden impact that did the damage, not hull failure, evidenced by lack of hull debris, and lack of apparent damage when later viewed, after attitude failure, and just before core breach.
E) The Bozeman, with more stable design, was not destroyed, however it also suffered no hull damage in the shot. This is more icing on the cake, as a much older starship's hull stood up just fine. It is silly to propse a more advanced starship would have a weaker hull.

In Conclusion, it was a design flaw that destroyed the Enterprise D; no hull failure was observed, and the supporting pylon apparently can support the entire weight of the battle section, plus some. I fail to see how this is some kind of bitchslap.

The Yosemite Bear wrote:I always was under the impression that the structrual integraty fields were hull hugging/ hull entwined. And since soace isn't empty there's a godo chance that they redxuce the effects of friction...

Not really. SIF appears to artificaly increase the strength of materials it encompases. This means melting and boiling points increase, stress points increase, etc...

The actual material used might not be massively strong, but when you factor in SIF (and that it appears to never fail) the opperating hull strength of the ships are quite impressive. I would also wager that SIF has backup power of some sort so that it can continue to run even when main power is out. This explains why ships have maintained hull integrity even in terrible situations.

Now what I also theorize with SIF is that when two ships with SIF collide, SIF is canceled out and the normal material properties revert. This would explain colissions in space as compared to planetary crashes.

To add to those points, in Nemesis it is specifically stated that the Ent-E lost SIF on some of the decks, shortly after suffering weapons fire to the bare hull. I find this to be excellent evidence SIF increases the material's resistence to funky particle weapons like phasers and disruptors as well. Also see TOS, it's visuals are hard to use, but in the Day of the Dove four phaser shots completely phaserize a powerless D-7. Later on, phasers only score the hulls of their enemies (TWOK, GEN, NEM, come to mind). The big difference I think is SIF.

EDIT: Before and after, 17 frame difference
Note the huge difference in hieght. The midpoint of the saucer from the side is ~8 m high. This means the Saucer suffered a change in altitude of nearly 42 meters in under a second. The impulse here must be staggering, and this is clearly at the extreme far edge of what is a wide, flat plate. I never want to hear about the weakness of Federation hulls again