www.ditl.org

GrahamKennedy wrote:Which only proves that any leaks were minor or localised, or that said leaks were internal rather than hull leaks. It does NOT prove that no such damage occurred at all.

Very well then, simply replace the overpressure with powerful springs.

What we get to is how much damage was done on a case by case basis. But we have no real way to assess that. Canonically speaking, the only thing we can state in any given case is that the damage was sufficient to disable the ejection systems.

In two of those examples - "Contaigon" and "Thine Own Self" - there was no physical damage whatsoever. The loss of containment was caused by equipment malfuction. This proves that Fed starships do no have failsafes as, by definition, a power failure in such a system would trigger pod ejection, not prevent it.

In Voyager it was once mentioned that they had five thousand Terawatts running through one single conduit - with the ship at impulse at the time, by the way. Even if you took that figure as the entire output of the warp core, and assumed that only one second's worth of it would be released in an improper core ejection, the resulting energy release would be essentially a one megaton bomb going off inside the ship.

If that amount of energy is so dangerous to the ship then how exactly does the conduit survive? It has to deal with those sort of power levels for years on end - so why would a few seconds of vastly less dense plasma serious damage the ship?

Captain Seafort wrote:Very well then, simply replace the overpressure with powerful springs.

And if they get broke you're back to the same thing.

In two of those examples - "Contaigon" and "Thine Own Self" - there was no physical damage whatsoever. The loss of containment was caused by equipment malfuction. This proves that Fed starships do no have failsafes as, by definition, a power failure in such a system would trigger pod ejection, not prevent it.

But we already knew this; it's elementary. None of the systems you have described are failsafe systems, they all depend on pressure integrity or physical integrity of the springs or the giant rubber band or whatever else remaining intact. Antimatter is by definition not a failsafe system; it has to have some system or other work in order to stop it blowing up the ship. Either the containment systems have to work to keep the antimatter in the pods safely, or the ejection system has to work to shove them out. No matter how you rig your ejection system it has to physically do something, it has to perform work to push the pods out. And so it is subject to failure. And since the initial complaint is that these systems do fail, then the idea that it must be due to stupid/incompetent designers simply goes out the window. It's an absurd conclusion as far as I am concerned.

In Voyager it was once mentioned that they had five thousand Terawatts running through one single conduit - with the ship at impulse at the time, by the way. Even if you took that figure as the entire output of the warp core, and assumed that only one second's worth of it would be released in an improper core ejection, the resulting energy release would be essentially a one megaton bomb going off inside the ship.

If that amount of energy is so dangerous to the ship then how exactly does the conduit survive? It has to deal with those sort of power levels for years on end - so why would a few seconds of vastly less dense plasma serious damage the ship?[/quote]

It survives because all the plasma is contained within conduits, by magnetic containment fields and possibly structural integrity fields and lord knows what else. Stuff which, for all we know, cannot simply be shut off and ripped apart in an instant by some failsafe system.

GrahamKennedy wrote:And if they get broke you're back to the same thing.

It's still a major improvement over an active ejection system.

But we already knew this; it's elementary. None of the systems you have described are failsafe systems, they all depend on pressure integrity or physical integrity of the springs or the giant rubber band or whatever else remaining intact. Antimatter is by definition not a failsafe system; it has to have some system or other work in order to stop it blowing up the ship. Either the containment systems have to work to keep the antimatter in the pods safely, or the ejection system has to work to shove them out. No matter how you rig your ejection system it has to physically do something, it has to perform work to push the pods out. And so it is subject to failure. And since the initial complaint is that these systems do fail, then the idea that it must be due to stupid/incompetent designers simply goes out the window. It's an absurd conclusion as far as I am concerned.

The intial complaint was the reliance on active systems to eject the core or pods - when the power failed, they lost the ability to jettison the malfunctioning equipment, so the ship blew up. This system is triggered by failure - when they lose power, the electromagnets lose the ability to resist the pressure of the overpressure/springs/rubber band, and so the core is thrown clear of the ship. It's an inherently safer concept.

It survives because all the plasma is contained within conduits, by magnetic containment fields and possibly structural integrity fields and lord knows what else. Stuff which, for all we know, cannot simply be shut off and ripped apart in an instant by some failsafe system.

Then use explosive charges, with the detonators held back against springs by electromagets on the same circuit as the main electromagnets, to get rid of the conduits. You're implying that these conduits have mystical properties whereby only they can contain warp plasma, and that it's impossible for any other part of the ship to withstand it. Moreover, you're implying that a few hundred cubic metres of hot gas is more dangerous than hundreds of tons of antimatter. This is, to put it mildly, ridiculous.

Captain Seafort wrote:It's still a major improvement over an active ejection system.

It IS an active ejection system.

The intial complaint was the reliance on active systems to eject the core or pods - when the power failed, they lost the ability to jettison the malfunctioning equipment, so the ship blew up. This system is triggered by failure - when they lose power, the electromagnets lose the ability to resist the pressure of the overpressure/springs/rubber band, and so the core is thrown clear of the ship. It's an inherently safer concept.

I believe I've already shown reasons why such a system is impractical, and in any case still subject to failure.

Then use explosive charges, with the detonators held back against springs by electromagets on the same circuit as the main electromagnets, to get rid of the conduits. You're implying that these conduits have mystical properties whereby only they can contain warp plasma, and that it's impossible for any other part of the ship to withstand it. Moreover, you're implying that a few hundred cubic metres of hot gas is more dangerous than hundreds of tons of antimatter. This is, to put it mildly, ridiculous.

Well if I were suggesting that it would be, but that's just a strawman so it's not really a problem for me.

First off, nobody suggested "mystical properties". Conduits use magnetic fields to contain high energy plasma. We know this. The conduits channel the output of the warp core, they have to be able to withstand the same amounts of energy/power that the warp core does. That only stands to reason. There is no reason to suppose that the entire ship, every bulkhead and conduit, is designed with such protection. And frankly it's a silly idea to suggest that it could or would be. It's no different than wondering why they don't build the rest of the plane to be as strong as the black box since that survives the crash.

As for "a few hundred cubic metres of hot gas is more dangerous than hundreds of tons of antimatter", that's not even implied. Comparing it to a huge explosion versus a steam leak is a poor comparison, precisely because a steam leak doesn't cause much damage.

If ejecting a warp core improperly causes an explosion big enough to destroy the ship, and just leaving it there and letting it blow makes an explosion a million times bigger than that, then an improper ejection system becomes entirely pointless. It accomplishes absolutely nothing useful. In fact it becomes, effectively, nothing more than an automatic self destruct system.

it's a nice idea to suggest that there could be some simple, easy and failure proof way to eject the core. But the realities of how the system works could easily make such a thing an impossibility, and in fact an outright liability.

GrahamKennedy wrote:It IS an active ejection system.

No it isn't. An active system requires power to operate. This does not.

I believe I've already shown reasons why such a system is impractical, and in any case still subject to failure.

Then you'll ghave to rephrase yourself, because I've seen no such thing.

First off, nobody suggested "mystical properties". Conduits use magnetic fields to contain high energy plasma. We know this. The conduits channel the output of the warp core, they have to be able to withstand the same amounts of energy/power that the warp core does. That only stands to reason. There is no reason to suppose that the entire ship, every bulkhead and conduit, is designed with such protection. And frankly it's a silly idea to suggest that it could or would be. It's no different than wondering why they don't build the rest of the plane to be as strong as the black box since that survives the crash.

On the contrary, it's equivalent to the shielding around a nuclear reactor. Quite apart from the fact that we've heard of conduit ruptures time after time, and the ship's never blown up, and has merely suffered local damage.

As for "a few hundred cubic metres of hot gas is more dangerous than hundreds of tons of antimatter", that's not even implied. Comparing it to a huge explosion versus a steam leak is a poor comparison, precisely because a steam leak doesn't cause much damage.

Neither do conduit breaches in Trek.

If ejecting a warp core improperly causes an explosion big enough to destroy the ship, and just leaving it there and letting it blow makes an explosion a million times bigger than that, then an improper ejection system becomes entirely pointless. It accomplishes absolutely nothing useful. In fact it becomes, effectively, nothing more than an automatic self destruct system.

If you feel that, then kindly point out a single example of a ship being destroyed by a conduit rupture. We've heard of them time after time, and never seen the vast explosion you seem to think is inevitable.

Or just link the ejection system to a completely independent computer system and power supply. After all, how complex would this system have to be? That way it wouldn't be connected to the main computer, or the internal power supply, and be that much harder to damage in battle.

Captain Seafort wrote:

GrahamKennedy wrote:It IS an active ejection system.

No it isn't. An active system requires power to operate. This does not.

What I mean is that it's active in the sense that the system still has to perform an action to make the system safe. You're still reliant on it actively doing something - shoving the core out - to put it in a safe condition.

Then you'll ghave to rephrase yourself, because I've seen no such thing.

You suggested high pressure launchers, but those are susceptible to leaks. You suggested springs, but those are susceptible to mechanical failure. And so will anything else you suggest, because they are all reliant on doing work to move the core, and anything that does work can break.

And that's before we even get into the realm of how far overboard the stuff has to be thrown and whether mechanical systems like pressure, springs, etc could even accomplish the task at all. Personally I find it highly unlikely that what is basically a big spring loaded catapult could throw what is basically a gigantic nuclear bomb to a safe distance in any reasonable time.

On the contrary, it's equivalent to the shielding around a nuclear reactor. Quite apart from the fact that we've heard of conduit ruptures time after time, and the ship's never blown up, and has merely suffered local damage.

Which could just go to show that the safety systems work that well.

I'll also point out that we all give trek a lot of shit for stuff like them not having seatbelts and other things like that.

Could you imagin the amount of shit we and pretty much everyone would give trek if their engines sat on a giant spring that popped the core out like a jack in the box.

GrahamKennedy wrote:What I mean is that it's active in the sense that the system still has to perform an action to make the system safe. You're still reliant on it actively doing something - shoving the core out - to put it in a safe condition.

It has to do work, certainly, but it doesn't require external input (either power or, worse, computer intervention) to make it operate.

You suggested high pressure launchers, but those are susceptible to leaks. You suggested springs, but those are susceptible to mechanical failure. And so will anything else you suggest, because they are all reliant on doing work to move the core, and anything that does work can break.

Of course, but the fact that it isn't infallible is not a reason to suggest that the current horrifically flawed system we've seen is in any way equal or superior.

And that's before we even get into the realm of how far overboard the stuff has to be thrown and whether mechanical systems like pressure, springs, etc could even accomplish the task at all. Personally I find it highly unlikely that what is basically a big spring loaded catapult could throw what is basically a gigantic nuclear bomb to a safe distance in any reasonable time.

Then what would you suggest? Bearing in mind that a system that (for example) throws the core a kilometre clear before it blows, but works, is far superior to a system that would throw it five kilometres clear, but consistently fails.

Which could just go to show that the safety systems work that well.

Or plasma simply isn't that dangerous. Given that Spock and McCoy needed to rig a torpedo to scan for gasseous anomalies in TUC, rather than simply aiming at an enormous glowing cloud of plasma, it can't be that energetic.

Captain Seafort wrote:

GrahamKennedy wrote:What I mean is that it's active in the sense that the system still has to perform an action to make the system safe. You're still reliant on it actively doing something - shoving the core out - to put it in a safe condition.

It has to do work, certainly, but it doesn't require external input (either power or, worse, computer intervention) to make it operate.

Yes, I accept that. But since it requires active work, it's not failure proof in any way.

And that's before we even get into the realm of how far overboard the stuff has to be thrown and whether mechanical systems like pressure, springs, etc could even accomplish the task at all. Personally I find it highly unlikely that what is basically a big spring loaded catapult could throw what is basically a gigantic nuclear bomb to a safe distance in any reasonable time.

Then what would you suggest? Bearing in mind that a system that (for example) throws the core a kilometre clear before it blows, but works, is far superior to a system that would throw it five kilometres clear, but consistently fails.

No, it's not, if ten kilometres is required for the ship to actually be saved. It's absurd to install a safety system that can't work.

Or plasma simply isn't that dangerous. Given that Spock and McCoy needed to rig a torpedo to scan for gasseous anomalies in TUC, rather than simply aiming at an enormous glowing cloud of plasma, it can't be that energetic.

We have no idea how much plasma gets dumped overboard as opposed to being recycled, so that's not really an issue.

My point here is that it's misleading to simply assume on the basis of little to no evidence that something must be simple, and that therefore failure in operating it must mean that the people doing so are all a bunch of idiots. Engines tend to be simple in theory, and complex in execution. A steam engine is a simple thing in theory - just a kettle that uses steam to drive a turbine. But I've walked around an engine room, and it's a horribly, fantastically complicated place.

A warp core is simple in theory. But I have no problem believing that it's actually tremendously complex in application. We've certainly heard enough to suggest that it is. Voyager's core uses matter and antimatter... and omicron particles (The Cloud) and tellerium (Resistance). Night shows that they have "ways to purify the reactants so there's no toxic waste"; "residual anti-matter" is processed in the "transkinetic chamber, where it's broken down on the subatomic level", and theta radiation is "absorbed by a series of radiometric converters" and recycled to power stuff. And on, and on, with who knows what the hell else.

Point being, it's a bloody complex system, and to suggest that it absolutely HAS to be possible to yank the whole thing right out of the ship at a moment's notice with no warning and no active intervention, and that the fact that they don't do that can ONLY be because the best and smartest group of people in existence are a bunch of simpering morons... well it's not that reasonable a take on the situation, in my view.

Your mileage may vary.

GrahamKennedy wrote:Yes, I accept that. But since it requires active work, it's not failure proof in any way.

Of course not - and calling it such would probably guarantee it's failure. Nonetheless, failing after massive structural damage is a big improvement on failing due to a simple power failure.

No, it's not, if ten kilometres is required for the ship to actually be saved. It's absurd to install a safety system that can't work.

Five kilometres should be more than enough. Assuming the 1.275E19 W figure from "True Q" is accurate, and that a warp core breech releases 1 second's supply of antimatter, at 5km the ship would be hit by the equivalent of 100 tons of TNT. Given that the ship can survive hits from PTs, which are kiloton range at the very least, that shouldn't be any threat to the ship's survival.

We have no idea how much plasma gets dumped overboard as opposed to being recycled, so that's not really an issue.

If they recycle a lot of it, then the BoP's exhaust should have even more energetic, because it would have had less plasma to dissipate heat. Indeed, it would have had to have been more energetic than a typical ship, as the exhaust would have been its only way of disipating heat, whereas most ships would have been able to radiate it from the entire surface of the ship.

My point here is that it's misleading to simply assume on the basis of little to no evidence that something must be simple, and that therefore failure in operating it must mean that the people doing so are all a bunch of idiots.

My argument isn't that the thing's simple to operate, or that the the people operating it are idiots. My argument is that the people who designed it are idiots because they ignored several principles of engineering - the requirement for failsafes being the one we're debating.

Engines tend to be simple in theory, and complex in execution. A steam engine is a simple thing in theory - just a kettle that uses steam to drive a turbine. But I've walked around an engine room, and it's a horribly, fantastically complicated place.

Point being, it's a bloody complex system, and to suggest that it absolutely HAS to be possible to yank the whole thing right out of the ship at a moment's notice with no warning and no active intervention, and that the fact that they don't do that can ONLY be because the best and smartest group of people in existence are a bunch of simpering morons... well it's not that reasonable a take on the situation, in my view.

The problem with that theory (that there's a lot of complicated stuff to do before the core can be jettisoned) is contradicted by "Insurrection", and Voyager's "Cathexis" and "Day of Honour". In all cases the warp core was ejected by a simple command, with no evidence whatsoever that any complicated proceedure was required.

Captain Seafort wrote:

GrahamKennedy wrote:Yes, I accept that. But since it requires active work, it's not failure proof in any way.

Of course not - and calling it such would probably guarantee it's failure. Nonetheless, failing after massive structural damage is a big improvement on failing due to a simple power failure.

No, it's not, if ten kilometres is required for the ship to actually be saved. It's absurd to install a safety system that can't work.

Five kilometres should be more than enough. Assuming the 1.275E19 W figure from "True Q" is accurate, and that a warp core breech releases 1 second's supply of antimatter, at 5km the ship would be hit by the equivalent of 100 tons of TNT. Given that the ship can survive hits from PTs, which are kiloton range at the very least, that shouldn't be any threat to the ship's survival.

No no, I suggested the *conduits* might release something like one second's worth of energy in a breach. The antimatter pods are a whole other story, that's the whole fuel supply going there. We don't know how much energy that would be, but certainly millions of times as much as that.

If they recycle a lot of it, then the BoP's exhaust should have even more energetic, because it would have had less plasma to dissipate heat. Indeed, it would have had to have been more energetic than a typical ship, as the exhaust would have been its only way of disipating heat, whereas most ships would have been able to radiate it from the entire surface of the ship.

We have no idea how much energy the plasma carries off into space either. We can't just make up assumptions like this and then claim them as truth!

My argument isn't that the thing's simple to operate, or that the the people operating it are idiots. My argument is that the people who designed it are idiots because they ignored several principles of engineering - the requirement for failsafes being the one we're debating.

Little difference in who the idiots are. Seems to me that it's a far better way to go to assume that the people involved actually know what they are doing, and then postulate why the system does what it does. Unless, that is, you just like hurling abuse at the fictional characters, or those who write them. Which if so, hey, more power to you. Just don't pretend that the "it must work the way I think and so the designers are morons!" is the only possible way to approach the issue.

The problem with that theory (that there's a lot of complicated stuff to do before the core can be jettisoned) is contradicted by "Insurrection", and Voyager's "Cathexis" and "Day of Honour". In all cases the warp core was ejected by a simple command, with no evidence whatsoever that any complicated proceedure was required.

You don't think that the command "eject the warp core" might initiate a complex sequence of events? Commands like "launch the missile" and "submerge the submarine" certainly do.

GrahamKennedy wrote:No no, I suggested the *conduits* might release something like one second's worth of energy in a breach. The antimatter pods are a whole other story, that's the whole fuel supply going there. We don't know how much energy that would be, but certainly millions of times as much as that.

Point. After lots of buggering around with excel I've decided the maximum fuel load is probably around 40,000 tons, and it would have to be 4,400km away to hit the ship with 1Mt of energy (about equivelent to a PT). That would require the ejection system to impart a force of 3.5E14 N. Quite a kick.

We have no idea how much energy the plasma carries off into space either. We can't just make up assumptions like this and then claim them as truth!

What assumptions? I'm pointing out the characteristics of the cloak - since all other emissions are masked, the only way of dissipating heat is through the plasma exhaust and neutron emissions. Therefore, the fact that said emissions can only be detected at very short range puts limits on how much power said cloaked ship can be generating.

Little difference in who the idiots are. Seems to me that it's a far better way to go to assume that the people involved actually know what they are doing, and then postulate why the system does what it does. Unless, that is, you just like hurling abuse at the fictional characters, or those who write them. Which if so, hey, more power to you. Just don't pretend that the "it must work the way I think and so the designers are morons!" is the only possible way to approach the issue.

The arguments I've been articulating haven't been mine, so much as those I've read and have been rephrasing in my own words. Since the original writer is a professional engineer, I'm willing to take his word that Trek starship designers are idiots, especially as the basic points made (such as safety systems that are triggered by power failure rather than disabled) are good ones.

You don't think that the command "eject the warp core" might initiate a complex sequence of events? Commands like "launch the missile" and "submerge the submarine" certainly do.

It might. Or it might be the equivalent of scraming a nuclear reactor - cut power and let the control rods drop. Couldn't be simpler.

Captain Seafort wrote:What assumptions? I'm pointing out the characteristics of the cloak - since all other emissions are masked, the only way of dissipating heat is through the plasma exhaust and neutron emissions. Therefore, the fact that said emissions can only be detected at very short range puts limits on how much power said cloaked ship can be generating.

The energy produced by the ship isn't necessarily vented as heat or neutrinos. For instance the BoP was using its impulse drive, which involves mass lightening effects - we think, the whole mass reduction thing is largely speculative. But how much energy goes to that? How much goes to the Structural Integrity Fields? How much goes to the cloaking device effect? We have no real canonical idea how any of this works, no real idea of even the basic physics behind most of it. So we can't really claim that if the ship is producing X amount of energy then X must end up being dumped overboard as energetic plasma.

The arguments I've been articulating haven't been mine, so much as those I've read and have been rephrasing in my own words. Since the original writer is a professional engineer, I'm willing to take his word that Trek starship designers are idiots, especially as the basic points made (such as safety systems that are triggered by power failure rather than disabled) are good ones.

I'll wager that he's not an engineer with any experience or theoretical knowledge whatsoever in designing matter/antimatter power systems to power faster than light warp drives. When it comes to this stuff, it's made up science with some basis in reality. Nobody alive today can do more than guess at the intimate details of how it would work - except, rather ironically, the writers and technical advisors who are the very ones being called idiots.

To me, the whole thing smacks of the Montgolfier brothers looking at how their balloons work and then critiquing the design of the Space Shuttle. Or a 10th century alchemist confidently saying that it's nonsense to talk about Carbon as an element because the elements are Earth, air, fire and water.

Very Euro-centric of you, Graham. Evey enlightened person knows that the elements are REALLY metal, wood, earth, water, and air.