I think Rikere has a good point.
Quite simply said, while the Lexington isn't designed to sustain high-warp velocity for a long period of time, it is meant to be able to rush into a situation (say a battle) and then rush out.
The Akira, in this fleet, has much less room devoted to the warp core (and still carries a large load for its size) and is capable of 6 cruise, 9 sustained maximum, and 9.8 for 12 hours.
The Galaxy, which in this fleet is both longer, wider and taller and nearly 30 year old technology, is capable of 6, 9.2, and 9.99 (for 12 hours).
The Sovereign, which is longer, wider and barely taller (and 15 years old in reference to the Lexington's construction date), is capable of 6, 9.7 and 9.9 (for 12 hours).
The Excalibur, which is significantly longer, significantly wider, and significantly taller and only has one warp core, is capable of 8, 9.2, and 9.75 (for 12 hours).
More specifically, I am saying: we have a plethora of vessels that are two, nearly three decades old that have only one warp core. These vessels, which are typically larger (not including Akira in this; I included that because it is technically a carrier too) and older are capable of higher speeds. I talked to Blackcat about this on the phone for a bit, and agreed that the Lexington would need oversized inertial dampeners to handle the workload of faster-than-light operations. However, the dual three-deck warp cores should be able to handle powering the vessel as well as operating systems since the Galaxy and Sovereign (which are significantly older and significantly larger yet just as streamlined) are capable of more with less (only one 3 level warp core)
I know your argument was size of the ship versus power output, but if you look at the dynamics of the Canon vessels, I don't think it is asking that much to have the maximum warp 9 and the emergency warp 9.5 or something like that. I know that this vessel is meant to sit back and at most fire longer range weapons (torpedoes) at its prey, which makes sense that the larger vessels (Sovereign, galaxy, Excalibur, Lexington) do not have great acceleration with sublight engines. It does not make sense that the warp capabilities would be any different however between classes, particularly since the Shiloh's power source is more geared towards a stable warp field and improved efficiency. I know that if the ship ran on one warp core, it would probably only do 6/7/7.5. But since both warp engines are meant to work together, I don't think it is asking much for 6-7/9.2/9.5-9.7.
Lexington Class
Moderator: Clement
Re: Lexington Class
Hahaha, now you're just trying to appease. But give me counter points. I mean, I want to know why its limited to 6/8/9.
I know that we discussed your concern about the "sleekness" of the vessel and whether the "through deck" was open. Maybe this will put that to rest.
http://sdcgi.stdragon.com/wip/sentinelv2/sentinel.htm
Check that site out. It pretty much goes over how the creator of the class designed the ship, step by step. It shows the dual warp core ejector hatches, thrusters, everything. Though it doesn't call the hatch at the bottom of the saucer a drop bay like we use for the Lexington, it still has that and the aft saucer hangar bay doors.
Maybe look at that to clear up what the class actually looks like.
I know that we discussed your concern about the "sleekness" of the vessel and whether the "through deck" was open. Maybe this will put that to rest.
http://sdcgi.stdragon.com/wip/sentinelv2/sentinel.htm
Check that site out. It pretty much goes over how the creator of the class designed the ship, step by step. It shows the dual warp core ejector hatches, thrusters, everything. Though it doesn't call the hatch at the bottom of the saucer a drop bay like we use for the Lexington, it still has that and the aft saucer hangar bay doors.
Maybe look at that to clear up what the class actually looks like.
Re: Lexington Class
Actually, it's the amount of ships it carries, and the need to provide extraordinary inertial dampening, Then we also have to take into account not just the outer size of the ship, but the actual mass involved with the ships and support systems.
Yes you have 2 big engines, but there are also a lot of draws than normal ships don't have. You have a lot of ships, spare parts, fuel, and support systems for them.
Todd
Yes you have 2 big engines, but there are also a lot of draws than normal ships don't have. You have a lot of ships, spare parts, fuel, and support systems for them.
Todd
nnn >^o.o^< nnn
Re: Lexington Class
The Density argument, to me, doesn't make sense. There is a lot more equipment and junk in the Galaxy, Sovereign, and Excalibur than there are in the Shiloh. We have thin decks for a reason - so we can accommodate for our massive empty space in the Saucer.
I know you are saying we have a lot of spare parts and cargo to transport, but bear with me and read this through:
The Lexington is meant to be Thin-Deck type ship, 3 meters per deck as opposed to the usual 4. That means that the amount of material used in the ship is effectively cut down since things are in fact crammed into smaller compartments. But that means density? Right? Yes and no. No because the ship weighs less. Yes because the things are closer to each other than the other ships.
The reason why the Lexington has a thin-deck configuration is because the vessel needs a lot of room to house the auxiliary craft. We have a "Through-deck" in the saucer. As you look at the pictures from the site I have listed, you'll note that shuttles and fighters enter from the aft saucer and can depart through the bottom center of the saucer. Decks 6-10 and several large areas devoted to fighter/shuttle maintenance from decks 11-15 are widely open. That means entire sections of the ship are "empty".
Besides the fact that shuttles are stored in there (which I fail to see is different than giant armor hulls of the Galaxy, Sovereign, Excalibur), I cannot find a reason why there would be a greater density or why it would make a difference on the inertial dampeners. In fact, I would find it would be less of a load since less atoms are being strained in FTL space travel.
The Lexington is not meant to be the fastest ship in the fleet. It is meant to do a job and move to the next job. But how would a ship that is much larger (with thicker decks and more crew and comparable size of fighters and thus more density) be faster... with less power.
I know you are saying we have a lot of spare parts and cargo to transport, but bear with me and read this through:
The Lexington is meant to be Thin-Deck type ship, 3 meters per deck as opposed to the usual 4. That means that the amount of material used in the ship is effectively cut down since things are in fact crammed into smaller compartments. But that means density? Right? Yes and no. No because the ship weighs less. Yes because the things are closer to each other than the other ships.
The reason why the Lexington has a thin-deck configuration is because the vessel needs a lot of room to house the auxiliary craft. We have a "Through-deck" in the saucer. As you look at the pictures from the site I have listed, you'll note that shuttles and fighters enter from the aft saucer and can depart through the bottom center of the saucer. Decks 6-10 and several large areas devoted to fighter/shuttle maintenance from decks 11-15 are widely open. That means entire sections of the ship are "empty".
Besides the fact that shuttles are stored in there (which I fail to see is different than giant armor hulls of the Galaxy, Sovereign, Excalibur), I cannot find a reason why there would be a greater density or why it would make a difference on the inertial dampeners. In fact, I would find it would be less of a load since less atoms are being strained in FTL space travel.
The Lexington is not meant to be the fastest ship in the fleet. It is meant to do a job and move to the next job. But how would a ship that is much larger (with thicker decks and more crew and comparable size of fighters and thus more density) be faster... with less power.
Re: Lexington Class
I'll throw my opinion in as well...
The intertial dampening system, be it huge or not relies on the grav plating to actually compensate for the change in motion. Big or not, that 'big' part is just sensors and to be truthful, that just means a few more processing cycles on the main computer to crunch how to tweak the gravitons to make us stay down and not get thrown around.
And for mass, once you go to warp, mass becomes a smaller issue, as we no longer have to worry about the increase of energy and mass found at sublight speeds (e=mc^2, as I understand it)... While at warp, we're propelled by the impeller coils in the warp nacelles and our biggest "drag" problem originates from subspace field geometry, which with new technology is much more manageable (the USS Prometheus's ability to separate safely, at warp for instance).
The intertial dampening system, be it huge or not relies on the grav plating to actually compensate for the change in motion. Big or not, that 'big' part is just sensors and to be truthful, that just means a few more processing cycles on the main computer to crunch how to tweak the gravitons to make us stay down and not get thrown around.
And for mass, once you go to warp, mass becomes a smaller issue, as we no longer have to worry about the increase of energy and mass found at sublight speeds (e=mc^2, as I understand it)... While at warp, we're propelled by the impeller coils in the warp nacelles and our biggest "drag" problem originates from subspace field geometry, which with new technology is much more manageable (the USS Prometheus's ability to separate safely, at warp for instance).
Postings:
USS Glenn - Will Warden - FNN Liason
USS Glenn - Will Warden - FNN Liason
Re: Lexington Class
Inertial Dampening isn't related to the Grav Plating at all... If it were, every time we slowed from even warp 1 to all stop, we'd be crushed wafer thin instantly.
Inertial Dampening is a "Magic Tech", just like the Transporters that we've all come to know and love. It doesn't have any real relation to physics as we currently in real life understand them.
However, from some specs that are available, you'll see "SIF/IDF Generators" (we don't list them, they are integral parts of every vessel, from the lowly work-bee to the Sovvies) which suggests that the Inertial Dampening Fields, Structural Integrity Fields and Force Fields are closely related.
We've all seen shuttles leaving the bays, the little crackling of the SIF interacting with the shuttle's TUNED shields, to allow the shuttle to pass through. We've also likely seen a prisoner bouncing off a Force Field, only to be thrown back by the reaction. We know that in ST: Nemisis, Data had to have Geordi turn off the SIF on the damaged section in order to jump to the other ship, further strengthening the suggestion of the relation between SIF and Force Fields. We haven't seen anyone crazy enough to jump at an active SIF field yet, but that they had to shut one down so that Data could jump suggests that they would likely bounce off.
Now we've reached the sticky bit. We only have the fact that they are listed together on ship specs to suggest that they are related, but the functions of the SIF and IDF are very similar. The SIF and Force Fields prevent the transfer of matter through a space. The IDF prevents the effects of an object in motion in relation to the external motion of the ship, holding them instead to their state of motion with regards to the ship itself. Rather than a thin plane of concentrated energy, it's an area of energy that ties the objects within it to one another in a way that keeps that relationship as opposed to the relationship with the outside of the ship overall. The energy field encompasses the objects within as well as without, because if it was a simple bubble, the object would be crushed against the event side of the bubble.
In this the IDF is much like a medical Stasis Field, which arrests all motion within it. It differs in that it only arrests the motions related to forces external to the ship instead of all motion. Larger or more dense objects would require more energy to resist the larger amount of potential energy of the object.
Say you had 2 steel balls the size of bowling balls, one merely a 1 mm thick skin, the other solid steel. Now say they were thrown at you at a speed of 5 miles an hour. The hollow one you would fairly easily catch, it doesn't take much energy to stop. The solid one? I wouldn't even think of trying it. I could catch it sure, but I could break ribs, arms... No thank you.
The IDFs would have to apply similar amounts of energy to stop these balls. The difference between stopping a human being across the room and stopping a Dragoon Class transport would be similar to their mass. All those support craft aboard the Lexington are like the solid balls that need to be stopped. There are undoubtedly large objects on the Galaxies and Sovvies, but the same large objects exist on the Lexington in addition to all those extra support craft. Hence the need for so much power to be applied to the IDF generators.
Todd
Inertial Dampening is a "Magic Tech", just like the Transporters that we've all come to know and love. It doesn't have any real relation to physics as we currently in real life understand them.
However, from some specs that are available, you'll see "SIF/IDF Generators" (we don't list them, they are integral parts of every vessel, from the lowly work-bee to the Sovvies) which suggests that the Inertial Dampening Fields, Structural Integrity Fields and Force Fields are closely related.
We've all seen shuttles leaving the bays, the little crackling of the SIF interacting with the shuttle's TUNED shields, to allow the shuttle to pass through. We've also likely seen a prisoner bouncing off a Force Field, only to be thrown back by the reaction. We know that in ST: Nemisis, Data had to have Geordi turn off the SIF on the damaged section in order to jump to the other ship, further strengthening the suggestion of the relation between SIF and Force Fields. We haven't seen anyone crazy enough to jump at an active SIF field yet, but that they had to shut one down so that Data could jump suggests that they would likely bounce off.
Now we've reached the sticky bit. We only have the fact that they are listed together on ship specs to suggest that they are related, but the functions of the SIF and IDF are very similar. The SIF and Force Fields prevent the transfer of matter through a space. The IDF prevents the effects of an object in motion in relation to the external motion of the ship, holding them instead to their state of motion with regards to the ship itself. Rather than a thin plane of concentrated energy, it's an area of energy that ties the objects within it to one another in a way that keeps that relationship as opposed to the relationship with the outside of the ship overall. The energy field encompasses the objects within as well as without, because if it was a simple bubble, the object would be crushed against the event side of the bubble.
In this the IDF is much like a medical Stasis Field, which arrests all motion within it. It differs in that it only arrests the motions related to forces external to the ship instead of all motion. Larger or more dense objects would require more energy to resist the larger amount of potential energy of the object.
Say you had 2 steel balls the size of bowling balls, one merely a 1 mm thick skin, the other solid steel. Now say they were thrown at you at a speed of 5 miles an hour. The hollow one you would fairly easily catch, it doesn't take much energy to stop. The solid one? I wouldn't even think of trying it. I could catch it sure, but I could break ribs, arms... No thank you.
The IDFs would have to apply similar amounts of energy to stop these balls. The difference between stopping a human being across the room and stopping a Dragoon Class transport would be similar to their mass. All those support craft aboard the Lexington are like the solid balls that need to be stopped. There are undoubtedly large objects on the Galaxies and Sovvies, but the same large objects exist on the Lexington in addition to all those extra support craft. Hence the need for so much power to be applied to the IDF generators.
Todd
nnn >^o.o^< nnn
Re: Lexington Class
Now, have you considered that the Support craft and fighters are not just sitting on the deck? All support
craft are either in racks on the sides of the hangar bay, or locked down with clamps on the deck. It would be terribly dangerous to merely rely on the gravity plates to ensure they sit there.
Real aircraft are always tied down in one way or another. No one relies upon the weight of the plane to have it sitting there. On carriers, due to the pitching and rolling, even aircraft stowed
below in the hangar deck are locked down.
Any thoughts on how locking down the planes in racks and with clamps would affect this?
craft are either in racks on the sides of the hangar bay, or locked down with clamps on the deck. It would be terribly dangerous to merely rely on the gravity plates to ensure they sit there.
Real aircraft are always tied down in one way or another. No one relies upon the weight of the plane to have it sitting there. On carriers, due to the pitching and rolling, even aircraft stowed
below in the hangar deck are locked down.
Any thoughts on how locking down the planes in racks and with clamps would affect this?
Re: Lexington Class
Actually yes, I have. Locking them down is safer for the craft, but doesn't alter the inertial forces at play here. The inertia with regards to the outside of the ship is still a tremendous amount of force, more than the clamps, tie-downs, what have you could bear, even more than the tie-down or clamp hardpoints on the ship could withstand without full inertial dampening.
Consider the ship to be a moving truck, and say a Dragoon Transport to be a refrigerator tied to the wall with strapping, which is your clamps. Now imagine the moving truck is going 50 down the highway and goes to go through a tunnel, but misses the entrance and hits a solid concrete wall to the side. The truck stops moving near instantly. That strapping likely isn't going to hold, the refrigerator will likely go flying. Even if it does hold, it's going to mangle the refrigerator, the hooks on the strapping that tie it to the wall and in fact the clip spots on the wall are going to be mangled too. This is what travelling without inertial dampening on the ships would be like, except instead of a fridge, it's a multi-ton vessel, and it's not just 50 miles an hour, it's quite a larger fraction of the speed of light.
The tie downs are a safety feature for handling minor glitches in the Inertial Dampeners, and can not themselves be expected to do the entire job of the Inertial Dampening. It's like trying to put out a forest fire with a squirt gun.
Todd
Consider the ship to be a moving truck, and say a Dragoon Transport to be a refrigerator tied to the wall with strapping, which is your clamps. Now imagine the moving truck is going 50 down the highway and goes to go through a tunnel, but misses the entrance and hits a solid concrete wall to the side. The truck stops moving near instantly. That strapping likely isn't going to hold, the refrigerator will likely go flying. Even if it does hold, it's going to mangle the refrigerator, the hooks on the strapping that tie it to the wall and in fact the clip spots on the wall are going to be mangled too. This is what travelling without inertial dampening on the ships would be like, except instead of a fridge, it's a multi-ton vessel, and it's not just 50 miles an hour, it's quite a larger fraction of the speed of light.
The tie downs are a safety feature for handling minor glitches in the Inertial Dampeners, and can not themselves be expected to do the entire job of the Inertial Dampening. It's like trying to put out a forest fire with a squirt gun.
Todd
nnn >^o.o^< nnn
Re: Lexington Class
As pertinent discussions have occurred within the past 3 days, discussions on the Lexington Class will continue till the shorter of 3 days where there are no further discussions, or 2 weeks. If the discussions reach the 2 week point, the specs as they are at that point will be presented to the PFA for a vote. Currently, this may be posted tomorrow (May 12th) if the discussions are at an end.
Todd
Todd
nnn >^o.o^< nnn