Construction of ships in both verses

[Kane Starkiller]

And I can. It has a defined width, with a defined low-brightness area in front and behind.

If you continue to snip out my entire response leaving only the first sentence don't expect me to take you seriously.

Not at all. The map is accurate as a gross scale representation of the Federation. Just like a poorly labeled map of the US that has "VIRGINIA" scrawled across the West Coast and "CALIFORNIA" painted into Oklahoma.

If that was the only map of US in existence and we had no way of verifying it than that map would be utterly useless as well.

Because one randomly selected white male happens to have a hat, however, leads us to expect that other white males are reasonably likely to have hats.

We have next to no evidence, of course - but it is on my side here.

What other males? Can you point to a specific white male and say that he has a hat because one other on the street had it? No therefore you have no evidence.

Because it's an important feature if they are of any size.

Important in whose opinion? What is your point exactly? That each and every source dealing with Death Star must mention ion engines or you won't accept them? I already posted two sources how many do you require?

Alderaan and Yavin approaches. (Minimal observed rotation in the latter case, of course.)

Time is always of the essence. There is no reason to rotate haphazardly if you are going to bother to.

Calculations please.

The much slower DS1 rotation.

What evidence do you have it rotated slower?

And an opinion. Opinions can be factual, counterfactual, or indeterminate, Kane, and remain in all cases opinions. The notion that the two sets are mutually exclusive is an example of the second category - a counterfactual opinion.

But for the purpose of the discussion what is important is whether it is a fact. Your stance of how often Death Star's ion engines should be mentioned is an opinion not a fact.

Than the minimum figures I mentioned. As with everything, our information is limited... but again, what little we have is strongly in my corner. Death Star full of giant open spaces? Sure, just look inside.

What minimim figure? I don't remember anything? You provided evidence that Death Star has two open spaces. Where is your evidence it is full of open spaces?

Two? I count at least three large vacant spaces.

In ROTJ, we see a similar sample of the incomplete DS2's interior, and not all of the wide open spaces seem to be a product of its incompleteness.

So there were three. Again where is your evidence Death Star is full of such open spaces and evidence of how big they are? DS2 as you say is incomplete.

Is this is with the cube that nobody can agree on the scaling of?

And a dream sequence, to boot. You would not accept this as evidence. However, I would like to see what you're scaling this against. Especially because my rough scan gives about a kilometer tall, meaning the whole space is... 4 km or so... wider than you'd like to scale the BOBW cube.

It is a flashback sequence not a dream sequence. Secondly there will be errors when scaling something off a single human up to 1km which means you can still squeeze it down. Even if the scaling is not perfectly reliable (even being a dream) we have seen those toroidal areas look exactly the same on other ship and there is no doubt finally that they are much bigger than any shaft seen on Death Star. Never mind other open spaces like the one Janeway was beamed into and the first cube seen by the Enterprise. You can slice it any way you want at the end of the day open spaces on the Borg cubes are bigger than those seen on Death Star.

Perhaps the "updated periodically" and "massive rounding error" bit should draw your attention? Look, check the sequence where we first see the diagram... and see it blip forward a significant angle in an instant. This is not a real-time continuous-motion display.

How often it was updated has nothing to do with accuracy and massive rounding error is your claim without any backing. How big is the error?

Yes, it does. See, if you're heading at maximum possible velocity to the target, you're using maximum possible acceleration, whether your maximal velocity curve is constant speed (and circular) or not.

Wrong. This was simply the speed where centripetal force is equal to gravitational force of Yavin. Later they accelerated. You insist on an interpretation that will contradict the Rebel diagram.

Again, such are not seen. The probe droid hovers on its repulsorlifts, the only drive it is described as having.

Then we have Watto. Watto's belt is a repulsorbelt, but again, capable of lateral motion (the tiny wings are clearly not enough to push him around at his weight.)

Then we have all other craft and droids described as driven by repulsors.

In short, a great heaping pile of evidence indicates repulsors are useful for more than "maintaining altitude." They are sources of real positive thrust.

Just because you haven't seen the engines doesn't mean probe droid doesn't have them. Prove Watto's wing wouldn't be able to push him laterally once repulsorlift had him airborne. How much does he weigh anyway? Your "great heaping pile" doesn't exist especially since we have seen the ships and pod racers use jet engines.

Factually. You're relying on a very dramatic shift in apparent acceleration based on a ridiculous level of rounding error in a slow-updating Rebel position chart.

Look. If we count the position chart as being absolutely accurate in time, then we have to deal with the Death Star teleporting when we see it update.

I'm not relying on a dramatic shift, I am observing it. What is the rounding error? What difference does it make how often is the digram updated? And no we don't have to assume Death Star is teleporting merely that diagram is periodically updating.

Conceal them from the Rebels, and dramatically drop the distance traveled.

How do you know it would conceal them from the rebels? At such speeds firction through the atmpsphere would be enormous. That wouldn't be so easy to conceal from sensors which detect individual fighter launches. As for reducing the distance significantly how deep through the planet do you thing it would pass?

Even at its slowest, Voyager is a hundred times as nimble.

But not as fast. It's upper limit acceleration is 43% times greater than Death Star's lower limit. Seeing as how Death Star is over a billion times bigger that is saying something.

What air duct?

The Death Star is something you dock ships to.

You asked can Death Star be docked to a station. I sad yes. You asked what "capabilities" Death Star has for docking as if there is some great technology required. All you need is an air duct. Or do you think that a space station won't have it, that it is beyond SW technology?

You claim it isn't, and engage in fallacy.

I have proven Death Star is not immobile above. That you refuse to accept reality is your problem.

It cannot effectively engage them. It can only be engaged by them... again, just as a space station.

Sure it can. If the smaller ships decide to run that is their problem. It will only make Death Stars mission that much easier.

Nope. Your appeal to "Well, it must just coincidentally have missed notice, even though it's one of the handful of features that actually affect its performance" is just as silly as insisting that truly enormous hollow spaces are just missing notice.

No it isn't. Again what should be on the diagram is your opinion. How likely is that something will be shown is determined by it's relative size. Hence small engines are sometimes missed but 99.999% empty space won't be. Not to mention that you continue to ignore other sources which do show the ion engines.

But we do know that it crashlanded. We also know that Borg vessels are tough by Federation standards, in which we would see... one piece of wreckage for a downed shuttle.

Again so what? 10 times a car crash will only involve a bend bumper and 11th time it will involve a car being torn to pieces and crushed beyond recognition. You have no idea what caused the crash, how damaged the craft was even before entering the atmosphere, what was the speed and angle.

It shows absurdity. You're inventing reams of things offscreen which should by all rights be seen in order to justify trying to ignore the simple reasonable interpretation of the evidence.

Which, in brief, suggests that Borg ships have a bulk density that tends towards the high end.

It shows the absurdity of your invented dialogue. They scanned the surface detected a survivor and reported it.

BOBW. TPM. "The Naked Now." "The First Duty." "Relics." "Doctor's Orders." Even DS9 itself is rated for up to 500+ g in the pilot episode. "The 37s." "Demon." "Elogium," probably, if I quantify it carefully.

And then there's "Parallax." Which we should probably ignore.

BOBW-being disputed as we speak and not a valid source of information, you can't support an incident by citing the incident itself
TPM-Kirk orders Warp 0.5
DS9 pilot-160 million km in a day is less than 10g
You are going to have to be more specific about other episodes.

Simple. Jango has a total force of -500 GN applied directly and evenly to the appropriate parts of his jetpack (this excepts the propellant, of course) and then something like +5 KN applied evenly to every atom in his body, accelerating him alongside the ship, which receives the remaining +499.995 GN, distributed evenly through its structure. Net accelerative force contributed by the compensator: 0.

Net thrust: 500 GN.

Stress: 0, give or take some change.

Of course, if you have a minor error in distribution, Jango gets to push against the wall a little, but under no circumstances is this even the full original 500 GN force, let alone the 1000 GN you seem to think it should be. Even if your gradient is limited, you can use this to substantially reduce stress problems - as you see, what we effectively do is take away the force in one spot and apply it to the rest.

Excuse me but how exactly does the jetpack apply it's force evenly to Jango. It is simply pressing against his back.

[Jedi Master Spock]

If that was the only map of US in existence and we had no way of verifying it than that map would be utterly useless as well.

Ahh... but it isn't.

We know the real location of many of the stars featured in Star Trek. We know the overall length of the Federation (8 kLY) as of ST:FC. We've even seen two other maps, which similarly suggest that's a bulk map of the Federation. All the evidence is pointing in the same direction, regardless of the actual quality of the map. ("Here there be Klingons. Yar!")

We also are dealing with labels that are small and briefly seen - and thus not error-checked as well.

What other males? Can you point to a specific white male and say that he has a hat because one other on the street had it? No therefore you have no evidence.

As a matter of fact, most people own a hat.

Important in whose opinion? What is your point exactly? That each and every source dealing with Death Star must mention ion engines or you won't accept them? I already posted two sources how many do you require?

As I pointed out... there is no problem with the existence of some small and weak ion thrusters. Their significance, and their role in doing anything but turning the Death Star, is what is under question, directly from the G canon.

Calculations please.

See earlier in thread. Even you have done rough calculations. Others have been referenced.

But for the purpose of the discussion what is important is whether it is a fact. Your stance of how often Death Star's ion engines should be mentioned is an opinion not a fact.

And again you engage in this false dilemma. Whether or not something is held as an opinion has nothing to do with whether or not it is factual.

What minimim figure? I don't remember anything? You provided evidence that Death Star has two open spaces. Where is your evidence it is full of open spaces?

That our sample of the interior contains, as a very significant fraction of observed volume, large empty spaces.

It is a flashback sequence not a dream sequence.

Another false dilemma. It's a nightmare, containing at least elements of his experience with the Borg... but not necessarily all of it, and not necessarily accurately.

Secondly there will be errors when scaling something off a single human up to 1km which means you can still squeeze it down.

Total scaling error should be less than 20% even for my rough work. The zoom is nice, and we have quite regular subfeatures to draw from. A careful inspection can be accurate to within 10%.

This is a problem for your preferred scalings of the BOBW cube.

How often it was updated has nothing to do with accuracy and massive rounding error is your claim without any backing. How big is the error?

Yes it does.

You have an integer set of positions, updated on the scale of 5-10 minutes or so. When you pick the correct values of times to look at it, it will appear to be standing still; when you pick others, it will appear to have moved suddenly. Your accuracy is on the order of 1/n for any interval, and your intervals are almost certainly all dealing with n=1 or n=2.

Wrong. This was simply the speed where centripetal force is equal to gravitational force of Yavin. Later they accelerated. You insist on an interpretation that will contradict the Rebel diagram.

You insist on an interpretation that has the Imperials suddenly accelerating - and yet still hitting the firing window at their originally scheduled time. Clearly enough, both sides knew exactly how quickly the Death Star could reach the firing window, and also clearly, it was doing so as quickly as it could.

Just because you haven't seen the engines doesn't mean probe droid doesn't have them. Prove Watto's wing wouldn't be able to push him laterally once repulsorlift had him airborne. How much does he weigh anyway? Your "great heaping pile" doesn't exist especially since we have seen the ships and pod racers use jet engines.

It does. Read the EU sometime. You might even check... oh... vehicle and droid construction and operation details.

How do you know it would conceal them from the rebels? At such speeds firction through the atmpsphere would be enormous. That wouldn't be so easy to conceal from sensors which detect individual fighter launches. As for reducing the distance significantly how deep through the planet do you thing it would pass?

At a bare minimum, you could "skim" to the depth where one usually places the gas giant's "surface."

But not as fast. It's upper limit acceleration is 43% times greater than Death Star's lower limit. Seeing as how Death Star is over a billion times bigger that is saying something.

Correction: The lowest its top sublight acceleration can possibly be interpreted as is still about sixty times the maximum acceleration the Death Star can reasonably sustain under the most generous reasonable assumptions possible.

You asked can Death Star be docked to a station. I sad yes. You asked what "capabilities" Death Star has for docking as if there is some great technology required. All you need is an air duct. Or do you think that a space station won't have it, that it is beyond SW technology?

No, I think you would have to build any external docking tube. I doubt it has them.

I have proven Death Star is not immobile above.

... nope. And we're not getting anywhere by reciting "no you haven't!" "yes I have!" back at each other.

Sure it can.

No more than Deep Space Nine can.

No it isn't.

Yes, it is.

Again what should be on the diagram is your opinion. How likely is that something will be shown is determined by it's relative size. Hence small engines are sometimes missed but 99.999% empty space won't be. Not to mention that you continue to ignore other sources which do show the ion engines.

Actually, it is determined by its relative importance. If large sections were hollow, you'd usually skip them in favor of the more interesting slices.

Again so what? 10 times a car crash will only involve a bend bumper and 11th time it will involve a car being torn to pieces and crushed beyond recognition. You have no idea what caused the crash, how damaged the craft was even before entering the atmosphere, what was the speed and angle.

We're familiar with the circumstances behind the other crashes in question. It is ludicrously unlikely that this crash was several orders of magnitude more destructive of the Borg cube.

It shows the absurdity of your invented dialogue. They scanned the surface detected a survivor and reported it.

And they also talked about the downed small craft.

BOBW-being disputed as we speak and not a valid source of information, you can't support an incident by citing the incident itself
TPM-Kirk orders Warp 0.5
DS9 pilot-160 million km in a day is less than 10g
You are going to have to be more specific about other episodes.

See the main website. They're all discussed there.

Suffice it to say that the example you use is, unsurprisingly, the lowest possible "upper limit" to apply to impulse.

Excuse me but how exactly does the jetpack apply it's force evenly to Jango. It is simply pressing against his back.

Actually, at this point, the jet pack isn't. It's "pressing against" the whole ship, indirectly, but with a canceling field applied to it relative to the ship, it's not pushing Jango at all.

Or minimally. Which was the whole point of the exercise.

[SailorSaturn13]

The Rebel diagram and Imperial screen are definitely contradicting. The former requires the DS1 to crosss the Yavin-Yavin 4 line, while the latter clearly shows it has not crossed this line.

[Kane Starkiller]

Ahh... but it isn't.

We know the real location of many of the stars featured in Star Trek. We know the overall length of the Federation (8 kLY) as of ST:FC. We've even seen two other maps, which similarly suggest that's a bulk map of the Federation. All the evidence is pointing in the same direction, regardless of the actual quality of the map. ("Here there be Klingons. Yar!")

We also are dealing with labels that are small and briefly seen - and thus not error-checked as well.

First of all we don't know that the overall length of Federation is 8000ly but that it has 150 planets spread across 8000ly. France has dozens of cities spread across 7500km. What other maps are you talking about? Again I ask you: how can we know what the map represents if we don't know what the labels are? Is it a Federation map? Or a map of all major powers?

As a matter of fact, most people own a hat.

Yes and you know this by many years of living in and interacting with a society, being familiar with fashion etc. Not by simply observing a single human closely enough to make out what he is wearing.

As I pointed out... there is no problem with the existence of some small and weak ion thrusters. Their significance, and their role in doing anything but turning the Death Star, is what is under question, directly from the G canon.

"Small" and "weak" are a matter of perspective. We know they are capable of accelerating the Death Star at 262g.

See earlier in thread. Even you have done rough calculations. Others have been referenced.

None of which was an upper limit.

And again you engage in this false dilemma. Whether or not something is held as an opinion has nothing to do with whether or not it is factual.

And your opinion is not factual. Nowhere have you produced any evidence for a some kind of rule which states how many times ion engines must be mentioned or what percentage of all EU sources dealing with Death Star must explicitly mention ion engines before they are accepted.

That our sample of the interior contains, as a very significant fraction of observed volume, large empty spaces.

What sample? Obi-Wan and Luke weren't performing a bottomless shaft survey on the Death Star. Provide evidence of more shafts.

Another false dilemma. It's a nightmare, containing at least elements of his experience with the Borg... but not necessarily all of it, and not necessarily accurately.

You still haven't provided any evidence the initial Borg cube scene is a nightmare as opposed to flashback. Secondly the scene showed alcoves, drones, corridors, uniforms with perfect accuracy. What evidence do you have that the size of toroidal area is suddenly off by order of magnitude or so.

Total scaling error should be less than 20% even for my rough work. The zoom is nice, and we have quite regular subfeatures to draw from. A careful inspection can be accurate to within 10%.

This is a problem for your preferred scalings of the BOBW cube.

I appreciate your concern for my "preferred" scalings however I simply said the Borg cube from BOBW had unreliable scaling. Some of which showed a cube larger than 3km other smaller than 1km. That doesn't suddenly mean the cube is actually 5000km wide or 5m wide. The true size is somewhere in the 1km-3km area. The toroid finally is not necessarily spherical but could be elliptical when looked from "above". You could thus squeeze a 4km wide toroid in a cube 2.83km on a side. Accounting for any errors the cube could be smaller still. Even the central area of the toroid is itself mostly empty space.

This is a toroidal are from a Borg sphere. The overall heigth to width ratio is smaller but all the characteristic parts are there.

Yes it does.

You have an integer set of positions, updated on the scale of 5-10 minutes or so. When you pick the correct values of times to look at it, it will appear to be standing still; when you pick others, it will appear to have moved suddenly. Your accuracy is on the order of 1/n for any interval, and your intervals are almost certainly all dealing with n=1 or n=2.

The position of Death Star is updated as the voice announces the remaining time to firing range. There are no confusions here.

You insist on an interpretation that has the Imperials suddenly accelerating - and yet still hitting the firing window at their originally scheduled time. Clearly enough, both sides knew exactly how quickly the Death Star could reach the firing window, and also clearly, it was doing so as quickly as it could.

It's not my interpretation, it is clearly shown in the diagram. Which you insist was wrong without providing a shred of evidence. Secondly that both Rebel and Imperial estimate were the same is nothing strange since they would be basing it on the current speed of the Death Star.

It does. Read the EU sometime. You might even check... oh... vehicle and droid construction and operation details.

Details please. EU is quite large and I doubt anyone ever read all of it.

At a bare minimum, you could "skim" to the depth where one usually places the gas giant's "surface."

Which is how deep? How dense? What maximum speed could Death Star achieve there? How much of a trip would it shave off?

Correction: The lowest its top sublight acceleration can possibly be interpreted as is still about sixty times the maximum acceleration the Death Star can reasonably sustain under the most generous reasonable assumptions possible.

You've got it backwards. Voyager was not able to accelerate at 400g otherwise it would escape. Thus it's actual acceleration is under that figure, how much lower we don't know but it is an upper limit. Death Star on the other hand demonstrated it can accelerate at a rate of at least 262g unless you insist that diagram was wrong without a shred of evidence. Whether it can go faster we don't know but it is a lower limit.

No, I think you would have to build any external docking tube. I doubt it has them.

Well I hope the Empire will be able to master the technology of building an airduct.

... nope. And we're not getting anywhere by reciting "no you haven't!" "yes I have!" back at each other.

Then why is your only answer "nope"? You can play games all you wish. Death Star accelerated 262g. Your only answers to this were to insist Rebel diagram is wrong and that Death Star actually uses antigravity engines so "it doesn't count".

No more than Deep Space Nine can.

DS9 accelerated at less than 10g and it nearly broke apart doing so.

Yes, it is.

No it isn't. What is it with you? Up there you ask not to play "yes you did no I didn't" games and then you do this. Snip out the first sentence from my response just so you can play this same game.

Actually, it is determined by its relative importance. If large sections were hollow, you'd usually skip them in favor of the more interesting slices.

Well then we are back at your personal opinion: what is important and what is interesting.

We're familiar with the circumstances behind the other crashes in question. It is ludicrously unlikely that this crash was several orders of magnitude more destructive of the Borg cube.

By all means provide evidence for that assertion. Remember that crashes involving Galaxy saucer, Voyager etc had the ships impacting the ground at a very low angle and at speeds of few dozen meters per second relative to the ground.

And they also talked about the downed small craft.

How small is "small"? A cubical ship 150m on a side and 2.5 million tons mass would have a density of 740kg/m3.

See the main website. They're all discussed there.

Suffice it to say that the example you use is, unsurprisingly, the lowest possible "upper limit" to apply to impulse.

Let's go through the examples you gave then:
"The Naked Now"-no quantifications whatsoever
"The first duty"-you simply assume that ships needed to accelerate to 80,000kph within 1-10 seconds without any evidence
"Relics"-as you say yourself crossing 200 million km in 1:40 minutes means they'd be traveling 2 million km/s thus the example is not valid
"Doctor's orders"-I didn't find any mention of it in the STL essays
"The 37s"-no acceleration quantification other than 10,000kph on atmospheric entry, since atmosphere altitude at which entry effects become noticeable for an Earth like planet is 120km that gives a lower limit acceleration of 32m/s2 or 3.28g
"Demon"-4ly in several weeks is obviously FTL travel which has nothing to do with STL acceleration
"Elogium"-no quantifications are given

Actually, at this point, the jet pack isn't. It's "pressing against" the whole ship, indirectly, but with a canceling field applied to it relative to the ship, it's not pushing Jango at all.

Or minimally. Which was the whole point of the exercise.

How? Quantify the uniform area effect forces which act upon the ship, their direction and bracing point.

The Rebel diagram and Imperial screen are definitely contradicting. The former requires the DS1 to crosss the Yavin-Yavin 4 line, while the latter clearly shows it has not crossed this line.

Wrong. The Rebel diagram shows Death Star in line of sight only after the final update when the speaker declares that Death Star is in range.

[Cocytus]

You still haven't provided any evidence the initial Borg cube scene is a nightmare as opposed to flashback. Secondly the scene showed alcoves, drones, corridors, uniforms with perfect accuracy. What evidence do you have that the size of toroidal area is suddenly off by order of magnitude or so.

Watch the film again. First the long drawback from Picard's eye through the cube. Then the interior shots showing alcoves and drones, Picard being assimilated, the eye piercer, then a rapid zoom in on Picard sitting at his desk. He goes to the sink to wash his face, then the cheek popper pokes out of his face, THEN he is awoken by his computer alerting him to Admiral Hayes' communique.

Just a minor note here, but am I imagining things, or does Slave One's hatch hit Jango on the head as it's closing, just before Obi-Wan throws the homing beacon?

[Mike DiCenso]

That's not your imagination. Jango really does hit his head on Slave-I's hatch. It was intentionally done as an homage to the unintentional Stormtrooper hitting his head blooper from ANH.
-Mike

[Mike DiCenso]

Kane, do you understand what someone means when they say "at least" as I do above? 810 meters from 3.6 times is a lower limit here. I also note that you do not dispute this either, so I'am also going to assume that you have verified the minimum estimate on your own. The D'kyr is longer by a good 157 meters at minimum, and likely much more than that, thus our estimate for the D'kyr type's volume will go up substantially. A D'kyr of 600 meters or so will not be bigger, but one of 800-900 meters may well be.

In other words you have no evidence that either ship is bigger than Galaxy. So we are back to square one: Galaxy is the biggest ship the Federation can build.

It's considerably longer than any Federation starship, that much there is evidence of. Or do you dispute this? If so, instead more hand-waving, I suggest you prove otherwise. In fact, in the last image at the bottom here, the D'kyr is nearly 5 times longer than the NX-01 (not including the portion of the bow tip just out of frame at the top right corner), or approximately 1,060 meters! This would far and away make the ship not only longer, but more volumous than a Galaxy.

Ironically you may have hit apon an important point here, even if you do not fully realize it; the reason the enourmous D'kyr and Sh'ran type ships were abandoned by the fledgling Federation is because their massive anular warp drives may just be too big and they are at the limit (warp 7) of what they can do and would reach a point of diminishing returns to try and push them beyond warp 7. Instead the duel warp nacelles being the more efficent way to go, which in turn lead to moderate sized vessels due to this efficency.

But getting back to the XB-70, your analogy is still flawed since in the era of high-accuracy AA missles and improved ICBMs, the B-70 mission is almost completely obsolete as a role. Point being, there is no need for the B-70, and that is why the large bomber program in the U.S. has been redirected towards low-observable tech and low-level penetration of enemy airspace with the B-1 Lancer and B-2 Spirit stealth bombers. Some of the cost estimates I've seen for a production B-70 would make it in adjusted dollars comparable to the price tag of a B-2 in adjusted dollars.

Interestingly enough, the B-1R as it is currently being proposed, would up the super-sonic capability of the B1 bomber to mach 2.2.

But my point being still stands; the U.S.A still has the capability, should it desire, to build a large super-sonic bomber.

I don't know whether the first paragraph is canon information or your theorising but either way it does not prove Federation can build anything bigger than Galaxy. Secondly accuracy of SAMs was greatly overestimated in the early days while the accuracy of ABMs was underestimated. When both USSR and USA leadership realized this they knew what blunder they made to switch from bombers to ICBMs hence the anti ABM treaty: a gentleman's agreement to keep ICBM viable. USA is now moving to correct that mistake and it's ABM will soon render ICBM obsolete hence Russia's screaming. Now USA now does not have the capability to build supersonic bombers. It doesn't have the tooling to make wings or hulls. Therefore it would first need to create the tooling and only then proceed to building.

I gave both some speculation and some canon fact. The Fact is that the D'Kyr, Surak, and Sh'ran vulcan starships, have top, pushing the limit speeds from warp 6 to warp 7 as established in various episodes, and their anular warp drives do take up a very significant amount of space. On top of that, in "Future Tense" [ENT, Season 2], we see on Daniel's projector a class of Vulcan starship that T'Pol states has not yet been built that has three interlacing nacelle-like drive structures, indicating that Vulcan will be moving away from the anular warp drive concept.

Even if the accuracy of the SAMs was over-estimated, it still does not change what was known, or rather thought to be known at that time concerning their accuracy, nor did it change the point that it had a signficant impact on the XB-70 program.

And if the United States lost the ability to build super-sonic bombers, then you still have yet to explain the successful construction, deployment and maintance of the B-1 Lancer fleet of super-sonic heavy bombers, nor have you explained away the fact that the USA is seriously examining upping their capabilties to mach 2.2 with the B-1R program.

Simply put, you are trying to hinge your argument on a very specific
design of supersonic heavy bomber aircraft, and are trying to hand-wave any other type.

Fantasies? JMS is not making any such thing up here, he is using the preponderance of the evidence, namely the upper limit on how long it would take to orbit Yavin (30 minutes at maximum velocity), the more accurate Death Star monitor display, and the fact that the Rebel display has some very serious flaws in it among other things.

You on the other hand, are focusing solely on the Rebel diagram to almost the exclusion of all other sources of information in the movie.

This supposed Imperial-Rebel monitor discrepancy is fiction of yours. Imperial monitor shows the view head on, Rebel one shows the view top down.

It is not fiction, Kane. Only in your hand-waving away it is. The rather numerous discrepancies between them have been noted before, regardless of whether or not you take into account the difference in viewing angle

They aren't the same GCS, your handwaving tactics where the evidence is concerned not withstanding.

What handwaving? You assume that Galaxy classes shown in various scenes are not the same. To say that is your assumption and not evidence is not handwaving it is simply stating a fact.

What you do mostly is handwave because do not address the issue, or you point to one example in the face of others to try and ignore the points and evidence presented.

In every single battle mentioned so far, especially Endgame, it is almost impossible operationally for those ships to be the same GCS, and given the varients mentioned, but not seen in among the 8 GCS at Endgame, it only clinches the case further.

But to sum it up and bring the point back to where it should be: there at the very minimum, eight GCS at the time of the Dominion War and adding in the three destroyed GCS previously mentioned, and we have a minimum number of 11 GCS built by the Federation since at least 2364 through at least 2171, and therefore it is a much more common vessel, more readily replaced than you would like. Whereas there were only 2 Death Star class battlestations built by the Empire over a 25 year period, with a gap of at least 5 years between the loss of the first one and the start of the second one, but the DS2 only being 60% structurely complete at the time it was destroyed, and only capable apparently of stationary orbit.

Prove those are shadows, then. I've tried, and not gotten the neck to turn dark in such an oddly specific way like that. It certainly is odd that both ships in that scene have virtually identical shadowing given their relatively different orientations to the local main light source.

You don't get to declare a subclass just because the necks of two ships appear darker and then expect me to prove that they are in fact shadows. The fact that other shadows are similar casts additional doubt.

I am, in fact, doing so. Mostly because it isn't just my observation, but other people's as well. This has been gone over with you why they are not shadows. You are the one that has to show that dark coloration is shadow, not some unique feature, like extra armor or some other material that may result in difference.

Observation of every battle we've seen in the war. The Galaxy wings are clearly at least two or more GCS operating together, not merely leading other starships around, though they could be doing that as well. The two GCS pouncing on the lone Galor is a great example of this.

What do you mean "leading other ships around"? When I say Galaxy class is the lead ship I don't mean other ships are following it around as puppies. Not to mention that in those scenes are too short to make any kind of determination about other ships following it or not.

Are the GCS seen leadning groups of other types of starships around, or aren't they? If they are, then you know what I mean. Like a carrier task force, which obviously is not a fleet of lone aircraft carriers, but a single carrier with several vessels for defense and logistical support. That could be the case with each Galaxy wing, and yet we see GCS operating either in pairs or by themselves in SoA, indicating they are a seperate kind of formation.

No mere "shadow play" explains that odd a pattern on the neck. That may be what the FX crew was trying to create, but that is mere speculation. Please prove that they are shadows. Also your explanation is very seriously flawed given that there are other options for repair and upgrade for the GCS elsewhere in the Federation that make better sense from a deployment standpoint. Furthermore, each of the GCS shown appeared undamaged and were apparently fully operational and able to engage the Borg sphere.

Really? You know for a fact that shadow cannot explain the darker neck? The "odd pattern" could easily be shadow cast on the saucer from the shuttle hangars. And yes Galaxies appeared to be undamaged and fully operational.

I've tried several time with a couple different GCS models to try and simulate that kind of shadowing effect, and it doesn't work out.

I'am not talking about the connecting structures, though those would play a part in the final tally, I'am talking about the big (read larger than Borg cube) structures that are what Tuvok and the others are refering to in the dialog. There are at least "thousands" of those structures. Roughly a 120 km Death Star is worth some 33,000 3 km Borg cubes, if I did my math correctly. The structures seen in "Dark Frontier dwarfed the cube ships flying around near them. Some are cylinderical, others are more cube-shaped. If they are cubical, and are only half a km wider than a borg cube, then we would need some 21,000 of them to equal the DS1's volume.

To be conservative, let us say that by "thousands" that there are about 5 thousand of these large structures (the rough average between 2,000 and 9,999 possible structures). That's nearly one-fifth the DS1's volume right there.

Then the next thing to figure out is how many of at least tens of thousands of the connecting conduit structures there are, what their volumes are, and add that in to the equation.

Why do you assume that the cubes seen flying around are of the 3km type rather than 500m type?

And how do you know that the are 500 meter cubes, and maybe not 3.5 or 5 km wide cubes? Or even 1.8 km or 2 km cubes, for that matter. Given the disparate scalings just for the same cube ship seen in "Q Who?" and BoBW, I'am going with the only available concrete size mentioned in dialog from "Dark Frontier".

The Federation does not have to match the physical size, since we know from episodes like "The Enemy" and "Tin Man", that a GCS is a rough match in firepower and can overmatch it in speed again validates the concept that the Federation concetrates it's efforts on quality for their ships, not making them bigger, though they certainly have the potential for making longer, wider starships. But my analogy shows that the Soviet navy did produce a full-deck carrier that in terms of size and mass is still very comparable to the largest of U.S. navy carriers. It would again be as though the Federation had built a 1,200 meter x 900 x 250 meter starship!

D'Deridex dimensions are misleading since it is mostly hollow. And again "very comparable" is not exactly the same is it? Can a Galaxy class drop Warbird's shield by 70% with a few shots? I don't think I ever saw anything like that.

If there was such a disparity in firepower, especially given the huge numbers of D'Deridex ships fielded by the Star Empire, they'd have been able to run roughshod right over the Federation or the Klingons. In "The Defector", the Romulans used two warbirds to face off against what they thought was the lone E-D, and they certainly did not stick around after the large Klingon BoPs decloaked indicating that their firepower, if it is superior to a GCS, is not so signficantly greater. We also saw in the Dominion war D'Deridex take far greater damage than did their GCS counterparts.

As for volume, a D'Deridex has more than 26 million cubic meters of internal volume, even with the large empty space between the "wing" sections, where a GCS has a little over 5.8 million cubic meters.

Except that based on the glow, it is being shined on the dome structures from below, not the sides as you are implying. "

How exactly can you know this?

Because there is no other way for the light from the initial start of the explosion to reach the back of the dome base and be reflected around, and we do not see an reflected glow from Archer and Daniel's position until the explosion has reached it's maximum luminosity peak at the end.

Thanks. I looked over the Trekcore SOA screencaps, and you are right; there are at least 6 seperate Galaxy class starships in those screencaps. You say there are up to eight. If you get high-res screencaps of your own posted, I'd like to see you point them all out. If you are correct, that would make an average of up to 4 GCS per each Galaxy wing, or up to 28 GCS in all seven of the known fleets. Thirty one total GCS would have been built over all, if we were to include the 3 lost GCS from prior to the Dominion war.

Again you are piling one assumption after another: that "Galaxy wing" consists only of Galaxy class ships instead of simply being the lead ship and that each and every fleet has Galaxy class ships.

We have seen operationally two or more GCS in formation together in SoA and before that in "Favor the Bold" for it to be merely only a carrier task force like arrangement. At any rate, just two fleet's elements brought up to eight GCS to the Operation Return battle. If the other 4 known fleets have a GCS or two in then then we're still looking at between 4 and 8 additional GCS, or 14-16 GCS total.
-Mike

[Jedi Master Spock]

First of all we don't know that the overall length of Federation is 8000ly but that it has 150 planets spread across 8000ly. France has dozens of cities spread across 7500km. What other maps are you talking about? Again I ask you: how can we know what the map represents if we don't know what the labels are? Is it a Federation map? Or a map of all major powers?

"Length" is usually taken to be the largest dimension of something in three-space, all things being equal.

We also know that humanity is spread to a "thousand worlds," of course. Other maps include the one seen in Voyager (showing the ship's route home), and particularly spectacular one in another TNG episode. Both show similar "boxy" subdivisions, one on the scale of the whole area displayed on the map in question, one on the scale of its boxes.

We also know a number of familiar stars which are included in the Federation, whether or not their positions are labeled appropriately on the map. Federation worlds are spread over a couple thousand light years in TOS.

We also know what percentage of the galaxy is charted in TNG, and that most of the outer Alpha Quadrant is known, and that the Beta Quadrant has been under exploration for some time.

All of these pieces of evidence support the precise same conclusions that I have made from the map alone.

Yes and you know this by many years of living in and interacting with a society, being familiar with fashion etc. Not by simply observing a single human closely enough to make out what he is wearing.

And by being familiar with the requirements of having a station able to adjust its orbit about a planet, maintain station, etc, through orbital perturbation, ships launching, etc etc, I can assume that stationkeeping thrusters, such as seen on DS9, are common on starbases.

"Small" and "weak" are a matter of perspective. We know they are capable of accelerating the Death Star at 262g.

We know they are incapable of accelerating the Death Star at more than 10g at the absolute most.

None of which was an upper limit.

... and none of which were anywhere near the DS2 turn rate.

And your opinion is not factual.

It is.

Nowhere have you produced any evidence for a some kind of rule which states how many times ion engines must be mentioned or what percentage of all EU sources dealing with Death Star must explicitly mention ion engines before they are accepted.

I could readily formulate an explicit rule, if you desire one. However, I've pointed out that the significance and power of such engines - not their existence - is the point being called into question.

If they could accelerate the Death Star at the speeds you describe, they are much more significant, and should be mentioned more. Ion thrusters large and powerful enough to accelerate the Death Star at such accelerations (which, I will note, exceed most ISD acceleration figures, and compete closely with the higher end fighter figures) would be worth noting in every single treatment. We could thus excuse their absence in no more than a couple works.

What sample? Obi-Wan and Luke weren't performing a bottomless shaft survey on the Death Star. Provide evidence of more shafts.

What sample? The interior volume actually seen. That they were not actively seeking them makes it an unbiased sample.

You still haven't provided any evidence the initial Borg cube scene is a nightmare as opposed to flashback.

Such as the fact that we watch Picard wake from it?

The line between flashback and nightmare is thin.

Secondly the scene showed alcoves, drones, corridors, uniforms with perfect accuracy. What evidence do you have that the size of toroidal area is suddenly off by order of magnitude or so.

I don't. However, it requires a very big cube.

I appreciate your concern for my "preferred" scalings however I simply said the Borg cube from BOBW had unreliable scaling. Some of which showed a cube larger than 3km other smaller than 1km. That doesn't suddenly mean the cube is actually 5000km wide or 5m wide. The true size is somewhere in the 1km-3km area.

That size is ruled out by the toroid in question.

The toroid finally is not necessarily spherical but could be elliptical when looked from "above".

It shows every evidence of circular symmetry. That would be unusual.

You could thus squeeze a 4km wide toroid in a cube 2.83km on a side. Accounting for any errors the cube could be smaller still. Even the central area of the toroid is itself mostly empty space.

This is a toroidal are from a Borg sphere. The overall heigth to width ratio is smaller but all the characteristic parts are there.

And that would also be a stretch. By the bye, there is nothing to scale that toroid by.

The position of Death Star is updated as the voice announces the remaining time to firing range. There are no confusions here.

No confusion - simply extremely limited accuracy, from which you are deriving a highly inappropriate result in direct contravention of all other evidence from the film.

You're selecting the most error-prone method possible and insisting it is correct and that we must simply dismiss all other evidence. There's no logic to that. Again, both the fact that the Death Star was on a least-time approach and the Imperial diagram contradict your narrow interpretation.

Details please. EU is quite large and I doubt anyone ever read all of it.

Details? You might start with the easily accessible. Go to the SWDB. Look up an assortment of droids and vehicles. Note which have only repulsors listed.

Which is how deep? How dense? What maximum speed could Death Star achieve there? How much of a trip would it shave off?

Depends on a lot of undefined parameters.

You've got it backwards. Voyager was not able to accelerate at 400g otherwise it would escape.

Or was not able to average a speed of .67c relative to its original velocity using only impulse engines. The disjunction is important - nor is it so far below the threshold that it was not worth considering.

By contrast, the Death Star is about two orders of magnitude below that "upper limit," which, as I have mentioned, is the lowest such available, contradicting numerous other references.

Well I hope the Empire will be able to master the technology of building an airduct.

We're not talking about an airduct here.

Your only answers to this were to insist Rebel diagram is wrong and that Death Star actually uses antigravity engines so "it doesn't count".

Not wrong; simply substantially less precise than you count on it being. Nor is the distinction between antigravity and ion engines academic; one only functions within a gravity well, but does not require the exhaust of ionized gas.

DS9 accelerated at less than 10g and it nearly broke apart doing so.

The range of possible accelerations is wide. The timeframe is between 3 and 28 hours; the distance is 160 million km. This gives an acceleration of up to 560 g for a zero-zero intercept. 10 g is on the low end of this range.

Well then we are back at your personal opinion: what is important and what is interesting.

And you are back to where you were: Without any reason to find a distinction between your silliness and the silliness I suggested as equivalent.

By all means provide evidence for that assertion. Remember that crashes involving Galaxy saucer, Voyager etc had the ships impacting the ground at a very low angle and at speeds of few dozen meters per second relative to the ground.

"A few dozen meters per second"? Excuse me? We have stated velocities and uncontrolled orbital re-entries, at up to warp speed ("The Ship"). Every single ship and shuttlecraft has survived structurally intact.

How small is "small"? A cubical ship 150m on a side and 2.5 million tons mass would have a density of 740kg/m3.

And would be many orders of magnitude more than the fragments we see. Which brings us back to the original point; the original scout ship is quite small enough for us to feel pretty sure its density is higher than 1 g/cc, which is a pretty high bulk density for a ship.

Let's go through the examples you gave then:
"The Naked Now"-no quantifications whatsoever
"The first duty"-you simply assume that ships needed to accelerate to 80,000kph within 1-10 seconds without any evidence

Evidence within the episode. 10 seconds is actually quite high. It's an episode dealing with formation flying at 80,000 kph relative velocity and tightly circling. Too tightly, in fact.

"Relics"-as you say yourself crossing 200 million km in 1:40 minutes means they'd be traveling 2 million km/s thus the example is not valid

Sure it is. Just as BOBW is valid, and for the same reasons. We need either FTL impulse or ridiculous acceleration within a relativistic frame.

"Doctor's orders"-I didn't find any mention of it in the STL essays

That's because it's an example of FTL impulse drive.

"The 37s"-no acceleration quantification other than 10,000kph on atmospheric entry, since atmosphere altitude at which entry effects become noticeable for an Earth like planet is 120km that gives a lower limit acceleration of 32m/s2 or 3.28g

"Demon"-4ly in several weeks is obviously FTL travel which has nothing to do with STL acceleration

... another piece of the FTL impulse puzzle.

"Elogium"-no quantifications are given

Dig the episode. As I said, I could probably cook up some, but I haven't written any up.

How? Quantify the uniform area effect forces which act upon the ship, their direction and bracing point.

What "bracing point" ? There is no "bracing point."

Wrong. The Rebel diagram shows Death Star in line of sight only after the final update when the speaker declares that Death Star is in range.

I believe you're responding to someone else, but I suspect they mean the lines between the cores - i.e., the point at which it would have been shorter for the Death Star to go the other direction.

[Kane Starkiller]

It's considerably longer than any Federation starship, that much there is evidence of. Or do you dispute this? If so, instead more hand-waving, I suggest you prove otherwise. In fact, in the last image at the bottom here, the D'kyr is nearly 5 times longer than the NX-01 (not including the portion of the bow tip just out of frame at the top right corner), or approximately 1,060 meters! This would far and away make the ship not only longer, but more volumous than a Galaxy.

When did I dispute the lengths of ships? I am talking about volume or mass. If the D'Kyr is larger than Galaxy then prove it. The image you point to overestimates the front length of D'Kyr when compared to rear area. Look at the sixth image from the top (GVulcShips1.jpg) to see a more accurate ratio of ring length to font length. Even if the D'Kyr is bigger than Galaxy it doesn't change anything in comparison to the Empire.

I gave both some speculation and some canon fact. The Fact is that the D'Kyr, Surak, and Sh'ran vulcan starships, have top, pushing the limit speeds from warp 6 to warp 7 as established in various episodes, and their anular warp drives do take up a very significant amount of space. On top of that, in "Future Tense" [ENT, Season 2], we see on Daniel's projector a class of Vulcan starship that T'Pol states has not yet been built that has three interlacing nacelle-like drive structures, indicating that Vulcan will be moving away from the anular warp drive concept.

Even if the accuracy of the SAMs was over-estimated, it still does not change what was known, or rather thought to be known at that time concerning their accuracy, nor did it change the point that it had a signficant impact on the XB-70 program.

And if the United States lost the ability to build super-sonic bombers, then you still have yet to explain the successful construction, deployment and maintance of the B-1 Lancer fleet of super-sonic heavy bombers, nor have you explained away the fact that the USA is seriously examining upping their capabilties to mach 2.2 with the B-1R program.

Simply put, you are trying to hinge your argument on a very specific
design of supersonic heavy bomber aircraft, and are trying to hand-wave any other type.

B-1R program is not materialized and it's not sure it ever will. Even so it doesn't come close to the Valkyrie.

It is not fiction, Kane. Only in your hand-waving away it is. The rather numerous discrepancies between them have been noted before, regardless of whether or not you take into account the difference in viewing angle

Linking to articles which make the same unfounded claim as you does not somehow prove your point. You are both claiming that there was absolutely positively no way Death Star navigator would choose to travel the longer path and thus Rebel diagram must be wrong. By all means prove that claim.

What you do mostly is handwave because do not address the issue, or you point to one example in the face of others to try and ignore the points and evidence presented.

In every single battle mentioned so far, especially Endgame, it is almost impossible operationally for those ships to be the same GCS, and given the varients mentioned, but not seen in among the 8 GCS at Endgame, it only clinches the case further.

But to sum it up and bring the point back to where it should be: there at the very minimum, eight GCS at the time of the Dominion War and adding in the three destroyed GCS previously mentioned, and we have a minimum number of 11 GCS built by the Federation since at least 2364 through at least 2171, and therefore it is a much more common vessel, more readily replaced than you would like. Whereas there were only 2 Death Star class battlestations built by the Empire over a 25 year period, with a gap of at least 5 years between the loss of the first one and the start of the second one, but the DS2 only being 60% structurely complete at the time it was destroyed, and only capable apparently of stationary orbit.

Yet again you accuse me of handwaving without even specifying what exactly am I supposedly handwaving. Your assumptions that it is "almost impossible operationally" for those ships to be the same? Pointing out those are assumptions and not facts is not handwaving. You (or JediMasterSpock) provided a list of 7 Galaxy class ships 3 of which were destroyed. We saw perhaps 8 ships in Endgame. That is say even 10 ships built somewhere from before 2364 to 2377. In comparison Empire built one Death Star and half completed the second in 25 years.

I am, in fact, doing so. Mostly because it isn't just my observation, but other people's as well. This has been gone over with you why they are not shadows. You are the one that has to show that dark coloration is shadow, not some unique feature, like extra armor or some other material that may result in difference.

No conclusive evidence has been presented that this is something other than a shadow. A single scene featuring a darker surface on two ships is nothing conclusive.

Are the GCS seen leadning groups of other types of starships around, or aren't they? If they are, then you know what I mean. Like a carrier task force, which obviously is not a fleet of lone aircraft carriers, but a single carrier with several vessels for defense and logistical support. That could be the case with each Galaxy wing, and yet we see GCS operating either in pairs or by themselves in SoA, indicating they are a seperate kind of formation.

The entire fleet is traveling at close range and it is impossible to say what ships are part of which formations or sub fleets. The fact two Galaxies concentrated their fire on the same target does not mean they are parts of the same wing.

I've tried several time with a couple different GCS models to try and simulate that kind of shadowing effect, and it doesn't work out.

So what? Your inability to replicate the scene proves nothing.

And how do you know that the are 500 meter cubes, and maybe not 3.5 or 5 km wide cubes? Or even 1.8 km or 2 km cubes, for that matter. Given the disparate scalings just for the same cube ship seen in "Q Who?" and BoBW, I'am going with the only available concrete size mentioned in dialog from "Dark Frontier".

As I already demonstrated existence of cubes larger than 3km has never been reliably demonstrated. Secondly since you are trying to prove that Unicomplex is larger than Death Star and you don't know which variant the cubes seen were then you need to show that even using smallest variant the Unicomplex is still larger. Otherwise you have no case.

If there was such a disparity in firepower, especially given the huge numbers of D'Deridex ships fielded by the Star Empire, they'd have been able to run roughshod right over the Federation or the Klingons. In "The Defector", the Romulans used two warbirds to face off against what they thought was the lone E-D, and they certainly did not stick around after the large Klingon BoPs decloaked indicating that their firepower, if it is superior to a GCS, is not so signficantly greater. We also saw in the Dominion war D'Deridex take far greater damage than did their GCS counterparts.

As for volume, a D'Deridex has more than 26 million cubic meters of internal volume, even with the large empty space between the "wing" sections, where a GCS has a little over 5.8 million cubic meters.

Just because Romulan commander didn't want to push his luck after the Klingons decloaked doesn't mean that those two warbirds were actually outgunned. Secondly could you quantify these "huge numbers" of D'Deridex ships?
Finally there is no way D'Deridex, a roughly 1000m long ship, is 26 million cubic meters in volume seeing how most of it is empty space.

Because there is no other way for the light from the initial start of the explosion to reach the back of the dome base and be reflected around, and we do not see an reflected glow from Archer and Daniel's position until the explosion has reached it's maximum luminosity peak at the end.

The light could've easily reflected off the underside of the saucer to the left and back of the dome.

We have seen operationally two or more GCS in formation together in SoA and before that in "Favor the Bold" for it to be merely only a carrier task force like arrangement. At any rate, just two fleet's elements brought up to eight GCS to the Operation Return battle. If the other 4 known fleets have a GCS or two in then then we're still looking at between 4 and 8 additional GCS, or 14-16 GCS total.

Yes assuming that other fleets have similar number of Galaxies this brings them to 14-16 Galaxies. But that is an assumption isn't it? Not to mention that even 20 Galaxies over 15 years do not amount to large production capacity.

"Length" is usually taken to be the largest dimension of something in three-space, all things being equal.

We also know that humanity is spread to a "thousand worlds," of course.

Again there is no evidence the Federation is contiguous throughout the 8000ly between it's most far flung members. Similar to France and French Guyana. Secondly we know that Kirk stated "we" are on a thousand worlds. There was no specification that they were human worlds. In any case this statement dates back from the 23rd century. In the 24th century the number of planets was 150.

Other maps include the one seen in Voyager (showing the ship's route home), and particularly spectacular one in another TNG episode. Both show similar "boxy" subdivisions, one on the scale of the whole area displayed on the map in question, one on the scale of its boxes.

We also know a number of familiar stars which are included in the Federation, whether or not their positions are labeled appropriately on the map. Federation worlds are spread over a couple thousand light years in TOS.

We also know what percentage of the galaxy is charted in TNG, and that most of the outer Alpha Quadrant is known, and that the Beta Quadrant has been under exploration for some time.

All of these pieces of evidence support the precise same conclusions that I have made from the map alone.

I'd like to see those other maps that supposedly show a large Federation. Secondly several stars have the same name. Deneb Kaitos, for example, is 100ly from Earth. And of course "charted" does not mean visited by a starship or space probe and even less owned.

And by being familiar with the requirements of having a station able to adjust its orbit about a planet, maintain station, etc, through orbital perturbation, ships launching, etc etc, I can assume that stationkeeping thrusters, such as seen on DS9, are common on starbases.

Then you admit it's an assumption. It is a clear double standard where you insisted that Death Star, which actually travels between systems, could somehow model it's approach to orbit around planets without engines yet stationary Federation starbases which go nowhere require them. Again all of that can be accomplished with various tow ships equipped with tractor beams which can correct their orbit whenever the slightest irregularity crops up.

We know they are incapable of accelerating the Death Star at more than 10g at the absolute most.

Rebel diagram disproves that statement.

... and none of which were anywhere near the DS2 turn rate.

Which doesn't change the fact it's not an upper limit.

It is.

So you claim. I await for evidence.

I could readily formulate an explicit rule, if you desire one. However, I've pointed out that the significance and power of such engines - not their existence - is the point being called into question.

If they could accelerate the Death Star at the speeds you describe, they are much more significant, and should be mentioned more. Ion thrusters large and powerful enough to accelerate the Death Star at such accelerations (which, I will note, exceed most ISD acceleration figures, and compete closely with the higher end fighter figures) would be worth noting in every single treatment. We could thus excuse their absence in no more than a couple works.

How often they should be mentioned is your opinion which you keep restating as fact. Acceleration of ships comparable to ISD are 3500G for Acclamator and 3000G for Venator.

What sample? The interior volume actually seen. That they were not actively seeking them makes it an unbiased sample.

But they were. Obi-Wan specifically went to deactivate the tractor beam for example. The point is they had specific mission goals in mind which brought them in contact with specific parts of the ship: tractor control, detention etc. It's not a reliable sample and ship parts are not randomly placed throughout the ship. Their placement denotes their purpose. What is the purpose of the shafts? You can't simply declare they are placed all over the ship.

Such as the fact that we watch Picard wake from it?

The line between flashback and nightmare is thin.

He woke from the dream that he was on board Enterprise. Which also shows perfect interior and perfect accuracy regarding the Borg implants. The same kind grew out of Seven's skin in an other episode.

I don't. However, it requires a very big cube.

No bigger than 2.8km on a side as I've shown below.

It shows every evidence of circular symmetry. That would be unusual.

Unusual? How many other Borg cube toroids have we seen exactly? And seen from above to know their shape?

And that would also be a stretch. By the bye, there is nothing to scale that toroid by.

I know. The point is that it is similar to the one from First Contact proving this one wasn't merely Picard's imagination.

No confusion - simply extremely limited accuracy, from which you are deriving a highly inappropriate result in direct contravention of all other evidence from the film.

You're selecting the most error-prone method possible and insisting it is correct and that we must simply dismiss all other evidence. There's no logic to that. Again, both the fact that the Death Star was on a least-time approach and the Imperial diagram contradict your narrow interpretation.

Death Star's position is updated as the voice updates the remaining time. Prove the accuracy of the position is "limited". How much is limited, +/-100km?+/-10,000km? No other evidence is being dismissed other than your own assumptions and unproven claims.

Details? You might start with the easily accessible. Go to the SWDB. Look up an assortment of droids and vehicles. Note which have only repulsors listed.

And which have CPU make listed? Optical sensors? Auditory sensors? Should we assume they don't have those as well since they are not listed?

Depends on a lot of undefined parameters.

Well then your initial claim that Death Star would go through Yavin if it could at all travel through atmosphere is unsupported.

Or was not able to average a speed of .67c relative to its original velocity using only impulse engines. The disjunction is important - nor is it so far below the threshold that it was not worth considering.

By contrast, the Death Star is about two orders of magnitude below that "upper limit," which, as I have mentioned, is the lowest such available, contradicting numerous other references.

Relativistic effects of time dilation and length contraction are not pronounced enough at 200,000km/s to factor significantly into the equation. Voyager simply couldn't outrun the particle anomaly which was closing at 200,000km/s in 15 hours time. Death Star accelerated at 262g as I have shown. Your refusal to accept evidence doesn't change anything.

We're not talking about an airduct here.

What are we talking about then? I said that Death Star can dock with a space station if it's big enough. You said that you don't know whether it is equipped with a docking tube as if that will present any kind of problem to a galactic civilization that builds 120km wide space objects and travels faster than light.

Not wrong; simply substantially less precise than you count on it being. Nor is the distinction between antigravity and ion engines academic; one only functions within a gravity well, but does not require the exhaust of ionized gas.

Then provide evidence it is not precise. You keep repeating your claim that Death Star used antigravity drive without explaining how they did that since they were moving perpendicularly do the gravity field.

The range of possible accelerations is wide. The timeframe is between 3 and 28 hours; the distance is 160 million km. This gives an acceleration of up to 560 g for a zero-zero intercept. 10 g is on the low end of this range.

It is timeframe required by Kira and barely provided by O'Brien at a risk to the station. If you claim that they actually went the extra mile by bringing it down to 3 hours regardless of the risk then prove it. And by prove I mean more than simply pointing to the fact that at one point during the transit O'Brien stated that they still have 3 hours.

And you are back to where you were: Without any reason to find a distinction between your silliness and the silliness I suggested as equivalent.

You can pretend that omitting 0.001% and 99.999% of space is equal all you wish. It still isn't. Not to mention that those 0.001% (the engines) actually are identified in various sources. Your 99.999% empty space is not.

"A few dozen meters per second"? Excuse me? We have stated velocities and uncontrolled orbital re-entries, at up to warp speed ("The Ship"). Every single ship and shuttlecraft has survived structurally intact.

I am talking about crashes we have seen:Galaxy saucer, Voyager. Both of those involve ships approaching the ground on the order of 10m/s. If you have evidence of other show it.

And would be many orders of magnitude more than the fragments we see. Which brings us back to the original point; the original scout ship is quite small enough for us to feel pretty sure its density is higher than 1 g/cc, which is a pretty high bulk density for a ship.

I brings us back to your original unsupported and undefined claim that it is "quite small". Again the fragments could easily be scattered over many kilometers and what we've seen could've only been a small part.

Evidence within the episode. 10 seconds is actually quite high. It's an episode dealing with formation flying at 80,000 kph relative velocity and tightly circling. Too tightly, in fact.

Circling at what distance? The fact that two ships collided does not mean they were actually circling at 1m from each other or anything but simply the they collided as they were passing by. Again where is your evidence of 1-10 seconds?

Sure it is. Just as BOBW is valid, and for the same reasons. We need either FTL impulse or ridiculous acceleration within a relativistic frame.

Seeing as Scotty announces shields will go down in 2 minutes relativistic frame doesn't explain it. Therefore it involves FTL travel which then involves warp field. We know that Kirk ordered impulse power ahead warp point five.

That's because it's an example of FTL impulse drive.

Which has nothing to do with acceleration.

... another piece of the FTL impulse puzzle.

Again telling us nothing about acceleration.

Dig the episode. As I said, I could probably cook up some, but I haven't written any up.

I don't have time or energy to do your research for you.

What "bracing point" ? There is no "bracing point."

Perhaps I used the wrong term. I mean the point where the uniform area effect force is being projected from. Where is the projector located? What is the direction or vector of the force. How strong is the field, that is what acceleration does it provide? Answer those questions for the hypothetical situation of 5.5*10^10kg ship being accelerated by Jango's backpack at a rate of 1g.

[Jedi Master Spock]

Again there is no evidence the Federation is contiguous throughout the 8000ly between it's most far flung members. Similar to France and French Guyana. Secondly we know that Kirk stated "we" are on a thousand worlds. There was no specification that they were human worlds. In any case this statement dates back from the 23rd century. In the 24th century the number of planets was 150.

And yet expanding the whole time. The easy solution is that not all colonies are counted as members.

There is evidence the Federation is not in separate chunks. It has borders, territory, etc. That's not to say that it's solid - of course it doesn't occupy every star system! - but all indications, including the map, are that its area of influence is a single large chunk.

I'd like to see those other maps that supposedly show a large Federation. Secondly several stars have the same name. Deneb Kaitos, for example, is 100ly from Earth. And of course "charted" does not mean visited by a starship or space probe and even less owned.

And is not known simply as "Deneb." And as explained in detail in "Voyager," charting pretty well requires getting within a reasonable sensor scope. Voyager improved its charts continually.

Nor is charted territory equivalent to Federation territory. The swath seen in "The Chase" is far larger than 8,000 light years.

Then you admit it's an assumption.

An educated assumption.

It is a clear double standard where you insisted that Death Star, which actually travels between systems, could somehow model it's approach to orbit around planets without engines

Without? No, not without. Using only antigravity drive and hyperdrive.

yet stationary Federation starbases which go nowhere require them.

The Federation doesn't use an antigravity drive regularly. Our single example definitely uses regular thrusters for stationkeeping.

Again all of that can be accomplished with various tow ships equipped with tractor beams which can correct their orbit whenever the slightest irregularity crops up.

And what evidence do we have for fleets of tender craft?

Rebel diagram disproves that statement.

It most certainly does not.

Which doesn't change the fact it's not an upper limit.

Which doesn't change the fact that it's a reasonable estimation of the top turning rate.

How often they should be mentioned is your opinion which you keep restating as fact. Acceleration of ships comparable to ISD are 3500G for Acclamator and 3000G for Venator.

Incorrect again. The films give otherwise. Even fighters in a hurry clock in at around a tenth of that.

But they were. Obi-Wan specifically went to deactivate the tractor beam for example. The point is they had specific mission goals in mind which brought them in contact with specific parts of the ship: tractor control, detention etc. It's not a reliable sample and ship parts are not randomly placed throughout the ship. Their placement denotes their purpose. What is the purpose of the shafts? You can't simply declare they are placed all over the ship.

And "running away aimlessly." None of the missions had anything to do with the placement of large artificial canyons.

He woke from the dream that he was on board Enterprise. Which also shows perfect interior and perfect accuracy regarding the Borg implants. The same kind grew out of Seven's skin in an other episode.

I will not trust the "perfect" cinematic accuracy of a dream sequence.

No bigger than 2.8km on a side as I've shown below.

Realistically, the toroid is circular and no less than 4 km wide... implying a >4 km cube.

Unusual?

Yes. It takes a remarkable coincidence of camera angles to produce an illusion of circularity from an oblate compressed ellipse. Plus the Borg go in big for symmetry.

I know. The point is that it is similar to the one from First Contact proving this one wasn't merely Picard's imagination.

But is Picard's image even from a cube? The Unicomplex? Virtual imagery, or real imagery? Scaled correctly?

Death Star's position is updated as the voice updates the remaining time. Prove the accuracy of the position is "limited". How much is limited, +/-100km?+/-10,000km? No other evidence is being dismissed other than your own assumptions and unproven claims.

How much? We have periodic updates on the order of the size interval you're using. That gives incredible variation in delta-t - in absolute magnitude, we're talking about +/- 5 minutes as the outer limits. Even working with half that ("rounded to the nearest five minute interval"), it's huge.

For delta-t of five minutes, accurate to within half an interval, that's an error factor of 3 (50% to 150%) on every velocity figure. The differences between velocities will usually compound on each other (because what's cheated from one interval will be added to the next measurement) meaning that delta-v is accurate to within 100% of the original figure... 0 to 200%.

Making the figure only marginally meaningful as an "upper" bound, and pretty much meaningless as an estimate.

And which have CPU make listed? Optical sensors? Auditory sensors? Should we assume they don't have those as well since they are not listed?

Actually, many list general processor type (e.g., heuristic, remote, etc). The fact that the motive type is listed, yet does not include "thruster," is particularly worth noting. You might also look at the description of repulsorlift-driven craft and droids in general.

It's quite firm. These are repulsor-driven, and have lateral motion.

Well then your initial claim that Death Star would go through Yavin if it could at all travel through atmosphere is unsupported.

If it could, it surely would at least skim Yavin's apparent "surface." There's no reason not to.

Relativistic effects of time dilation and length contraction are not pronounced enough at 200,000km/s to factor significantly into the equation.

They are. However, total delta-v is most significant. An engine can be limited in acceleration, and in total delta-v by total quantity of propellant, maximum warp field strength, etc.

That you do not even consider this additional potential limiting factor after it being pointed out is not particularly good.

What are we talking about then? I said that Death Star can dock with a space station if it's big enough. You said that you don't know whether it is equipped with a docking tube as if that will present any kind of problem to a galactic civilization that builds 120km wide space objects and travels faster than light.

A docking tube is not the same thing as an air duct. The latter are often not even vacuum sealed.

As I said, it's a fairly moot point. The Death Star is not designed to dock with a space station; it is designed to have ships dock inside of it, being a station.

Then provide evidence it is not precise.

I have.

You keep repeating your claim that Death Star used antigravity drive without explaining how they did that since they were moving perpendicularly do the gravity field.

You keep repeating the claim that antigravity drive is incapable of lateral motion in spite of the evidence (e.g., probe droids) to the contrary, and without any evidence in your favor. I recommend you come up with evidence supporting your contention, or cede the point about the limitations of anti-gravity drive.

It is timeframe required by Kira and barely provided by O'Brien at a risk to the station. If you claim that they actually went the extra mile by bringing it down to 3 hours regardless of the risk then prove it. And by prove I mean more than simply pointing to the fact that at one point during the transit O'Brien stated that they still have 3 hours.

That is the only point after O'Brien gets the warp field up at which we have an ETA (and does not fall very late in the sequence of things). We are not given the total time to make the modifications. Hence that is the range of times.

You can pretend that omitting 0.001% and 99.999% of space is equal all you wish. It still isn't. Not to mention that those 0.001% (the engines) actually are identified in various sources. Your 99.999% empty space is not.

"Various" meaning "two, in disagreeable fashion," correct?

I am talking about crashes we have seen:Galaxy saucer, Voyager. Both of those involve ships approaching the ground on the order of 10m/s. If you have evidence of other show it.

I disagree with your estimate of impact speeds. I suggest you find something to actually back it up.

I also disagree with your choice of throwing out every shuttle crash and every other crash event. The Jem'Hadar ship's crash, for example, was much more violent.

I brings us back to your original unsupported and undefined claim that it is "quite small". Again the fragments could easily be scattered over many kilometers and what we've seen could've only been a small part.

The absurdity of that interpretation has already been explained.

Circling at what distance?

Practically nose to tail. In each other's exhaust trails. And we actually see them do the starburst on a diagram. The maneuver takes only a few seconds.

I said 1-10 because I didn't feel like clocking it precisely.

Seeing as Scotty announces shields will go down in 2 minutes relativistic frame doesn't explain it. Therefore it involves FTL travel which then involves warp field. We know that Kirk ordered impulse power ahead warp point five.

If shields go down in two minutes... within a relativistic frame - that works.

Which has nothing to do with acceleration.

Impulse has no warp transition.

Again telling us nothing about acceleration.

Sure it does. Impulse has no warp transition. Ergo, ridiculous accelerations required.

Perhaps I used the wrong term. I mean the point where the uniform area effect force is being projected from.

Why is there some point source?

Where is the projector located? What is the direction or vector of the force. How strong is the field, that is what acceleration does it provide? Answer those questions for the hypothetical situation of 5.5*10^10kg ship being accelerated by Jango's backpack at a rate of 1g.

I already answered them. With numbers for your example. You seem to be unduly puzzled.

[Kane Starkiller]

And yet expanding the whole time. The easy solution is that not all colonies are counted as members.

There is evidence the Federation is not in separate chunks. It has borders, territory, etc. That's not to say that it's solid - of course it doesn't occupy every star system! - but all indications, including the map, are that its area of influence is a single large chunk.

Who says the Federation was, on the whole, expanding? We see it visit a colony here and there and founded some but then again we've seen it loose planets like Tasha Jar's colony. Why should we assume the number of planets must always go up?
Why exactly does existence of borders and territory imply there are no separate chunks? Last I checked Indonesia had borders and territory as did Japan or UK or US or France. All we know that certain two planets in the Federation are 8000ly apart.

And is not known simply as "Deneb." And as explained in detail in "Voyager," charting pretty well requires getting within a reasonable sensor scope. Voyager improved its charts continually.

Nor is charted territory equivalent to Federation territory. The swath seen in "The Chase" is far larger than 8,000 light years.

Actually the full name of the Deneb is Deneb Adige but it is often contracted since it is best known. In the future if other Deneb was colonized it could likely be contracted itself since it would become more known. Secondly who says that when Kosinski or Wesely talked about percentage of the galaxy that is charted only took into account most detailed sensor sweeps?

An educated assumption.

You'll excuse me if I deem your self proclaimed expertise as irrelevant.

Without? No, not without. Using only antigravity drive and hyperdrive.

And what prevents Starbases to use the same antigravity engines to slightly shift their position over decades?

The Federation doesn't use an antigravity drive regularly. Our single example definitely uses regular thrusters for stationkeeping.

Our single example is not a Federation starship.

And what evidence do we have for fleets of tender craft?

Any ship passing by and equipped with a tractor beam could be used to change the position of the starbase when orbital decay is detected.

It most certainly does not.

You are outright lying. It is one thing to say that diagram is wrong but to outright deny what it shows is nothing less than a lie.

Which doesn't change the fact that it's a reasonable estimation of the top turning rate.

Assuming an incomplete ship can provide a an estimation of top turning rate is not reasonable.

Incorrect again. The films give otherwise. Even fighters in a hurry clock in at around a tenth of that.

Specify. Where exactly are upper limits on starship acceleration observed in the films?

And "running away aimlessly." None of the missions had anything to do with the placement of large artificial canyons.

So what? They were still aiming for specific parts of the Death Star. You are making a completely unreasonable assumptions that equipment inside Death Star is uniformly dispersed throughout the ship. That is like expecting fuel tanks will be dispersed throughout a car or an airplane.

I will not trust the "perfect" cinematic accuracy of a dream sequence.

What you will trust is your business it doesn't change the fact you haven't proven any unreliability nor that it is in fact a dream sequence.

Realistically, the toroid is circular and no less than 4 km wide... implying a >4 km cube.

You have not shown why that is realistic.

Yes. It takes a remarkable coincidence of camera angles to produce an illusion of circularity from an oblate compressed ellipse. Plus the Borg go in big for symmetry.

It is also a remarkable coincidence a camera will be positioned inside a 8 billion ly wide universe to give as a view of various space battles. Secondly some Borg constructs are symmetric others are not. Some objects are symmetric on certain sides, on others they are not.

But is Picard's image even from a cube? The Unicomplex? Virtual imagery, or real imagery? Scaled correctly?

It is obviously from the cube seen in BOBW. As for your other arguments it is up to you to prove them since no errors were to be found in the initial scene.

How much? We have periodic updates on the order of the size interval you're using. That gives incredible variation in delta-t - in absolute magnitude, we're talking about +/- 5 minutes as the outer limits. Even working with half that ("rounded to the nearest five minute interval"), it's huge.

For delta-t of five minutes, accurate to within half an interval, that's an error factor of 3 (50% to 150%) on every velocity figure. The differences between velocities will usually compound on each other (because what's cheated from one interval will be added to the next measurement) meaning that delta-v is accurate to within 100% of the original figure... 0 to 200%.

Making the figure only marginally meaningful as an "upper" bound, and pretty much meaningless as an estimate.

The accuracy between intervals is irrelevant since we see the updates. Update in position is simultaneous with the time update. Thus we know exactly where Death Star is 15 minutes, 5 minutes and 1 minute before firing. The fact that position was not updated for 14,13,12 or 7 minute is irrelevant.

Actually, many list general processor type (e.g., heuristic, remote, etc). The fact that the motive type is listed, yet does not include "thruster," is particularly worth noting. You might also look at the description of repulsorlift-driven craft and droids in general.

It's quite firm. These are repulsor-driven, and have lateral motion.

You'll also notice that R2D2's engines are referred to as "anti-grav" boosters even though they obviously also involved a reaction drive. You still haven't provided any evidence repulsorlift alone can provide lateral motion.

If it could, it surely would at least skim Yavin's apparent "surface." There's no reason not to.

Why? It didn't even come close to the surface in the films. They obviously had no intention of cutting the trip as short as possible.

They are. However, total delta-v is most significant. An engine can be limited in acceleration, and in total delta-v by total quantity of propellant, maximum warp field strength, etc.

That you do not even consider this additional potential limiting factor after it being pointed out is not particularly good.

Indeed Federation starship is unlikely to have a power supply sufficient for the required change in energy state however that doesn't change anything since your near C acceleration in a few minutes or hours are just as contradicted by the incident.

A docking tube is not the same thing as an air duct. The latter are often not even vacuum sealed.

As I said, it's a fairly moot point. The Death Star is not designed to dock with a space station; it is designed to have ships dock inside of it, being a station.

These games of yours prove nothing. What docks into what is determined by their size not by their "starshipness" or "stationisness".

I have.

No you haven't.

You keep repeating the claim that antigravity drive is incapable of lateral motion in spite of the evidence (e.g., probe droids) to the contrary, and without any evidence in your favor. I recommend you come up with evidence supporting your contention, or cede the point about the limitations of anti-gravity drive.

It is you who has to prove antigrav has certain capabilities in the first place. As databank states repulsorlift pushes against the gravity field. Why does R2D2 or Jango use rocket packs to move around then?

That is the only point after O'Brien gets the warp field up at which we have an ETA (and does not fall very late in the sequence of things). We are not given the total time to make the modifications. Hence that is the range of times.

It is not a range just because at one point O'Brien states the remaining time. Using that logic if we didn't hear O'Brien give any ETA the lower limit would be 0 and acceleration infinite. All we know they needed it within a day.

"Various" meaning "two, in disagreeable fashion," correct?

Two are ICS and Death Star companion and there are no disagreements. Speaking of numbers could you specify what sources are you speaking of?

I disagree with your estimate of impact speeds. I suggest you find something to actually back it up.

I also disagree with your choice of throwing out every shuttle crash and every other crash event. The Jem'Hadar ship's crash, for example, was much more violent.

The relative speed can be easily observed by watching the Generations. Saucer is less than it's width above the ground and it still takes 10 seconds to impact the ground. Jem'Hadar crash was never seen and again the ship was completely parallel to the ground indicating another low angle impact.

The absurdity of that interpretation has already been explained.

You explained nothing especially not why a ship that could easily be moving at several km/s and breaking up above ground could not be dispersed over many kilometers.

Practically nose to tail. In each other's exhaust trails. And we actually see them do the starburst on a diagram. The maneuver takes only a few seconds.

I said 1-10 because I didn't feel like clocking it precisely.

I've examined the episode and there is no mention of them flying at 80,000kph during the maneuver merely they were flying at 80,000kph relative to a certain point during the flight. They were all in formation so it wasn't relative to each other.

If shields go down in two minutes... within a relativistic frame - that works.

Really and away team always works and tracks time within the relativistic frame of a starship as opposed the other way around? In any case this is up to you to prove.

Impulse has no warp transition.
Sure it does. Impulse has no warp transition. Ergo, ridiculous accelerations required.

Except we know impulse can't reach 200,000km/s in 15 hours. Yet suddenly it can somehow accelerate beyond light speed? How exactly? Do relativistic calculations apply to impulse acceleration as you keep implying above? If so then do you realize it can never accelerate beyond light speed?

Why is there some point source?

It doesn't. A single source is introduced for simplicity. If you want model with more sources go right ahead. Ultimately projectors need to be braced somewhere. Explain where they will be located.

I already answered them. With numbers for your example. You seem to be unduly puzzled.

You mean that ridiculous post where you said 5 kN per atom will solve the problem? Do you know how fast that would accelerate the atom? On the order of 10^31m/s2. How exactly does this keep Jango from splattering across the rear wall of the ship or being impaled by the jetpack assuming the force goes in the opposite direction. Stop evading and provide a coherent explanation for your claim.

[Cocytus]

No conclusive evidence has been presented that this is something other than a shadow. A single scene featuring a darker surface on two ships is nothing conclusive.

You assert these are shadows, we assert they are not. The following evidence supports our position:
-The patches do not change as the ships move, but the shadows on the nacelle pylons do.
-There is no intervening object which could cast shadows of that shape.
-The light source is in the wrong position for those to be shadows cast by the shuttlebay platform.
-There is no other light source which could cast shadows of that shape.
-The right saucer patches on each ship directly face the light source. Obviously those can't be cast by any component of the ships themselves and there are no intervening objects.
Quite simply, the preponderance of visual information available to anyone who bothered to take more than the briefest cursory perusal of the image supports the view that they are not shadows.
I'm curious to see what visual evidence you can glean from the image to support your position.

Our assumption that these are additional Galaxies is an assumption, yes, but one predicated upon analysis of canon information, and therefore valid. Your assumption (yes, that's what it is) that these are shadows flies in the face of the aforementioned canonical visual information I just listed, and is therefore not valid. Furthermore, our assumption that these are armored variants is supported by in-universe precedent and necessity. Starfleet needed ships to combat the Dominion, powerful ships like the Galaxy. Starfleet has already modified the Venture (which we first see in Way of the Warrior) so it stands to reason they would be exploring other possible modifications to the Galaxy class to enhance its offensive and defensive capabilities.

Curiously, several of the Galaxies we see in these battles don't even appear to have visible registry numbers. I guess Starfleet was in such a hurry to get the new ships to the front that they just skipped that part.

[2046]

Dear Kane Starkiller,

1. If you want people to believe your arguments about esoteric, abstract details of Star Trek and Star Wars, it would be best not to deny simpler, obvious, plainly-visible things like the dark-neck Galaxy. You can reject what others claim it means, but to reject the obvious fact itself is rather directly Black-Knight-esque.

2. Also, the argument from personal incredulity (e.g. "you haven't proven to me that such-and-such is the case"), along with related appeals to ignorance, are things which must be used sparingly if you feel forced to argue fallaciously. Note also that forcing yourself to argue fallaciously because you are requiring yourself to negate every single sentence of your opponent is no excuse for the technique . . . indeed, there is none. Making whole posts which almost exclusively feature such negations and fallacies also goes against the whole "if you want people to believe your arguments" thing.

That is all. Carry on.

[Kane Starkiller]

Dear Kane Starkiller,

1. If you want people to believe your arguments about esoteric, abstract details of Star Trek and Star Wars, it would be best not to deny simpler, obvious, plainly-visible things like the dark-neck Galaxy. You can reject what others claim it means, but to reject the obvious fact itself is rather directly Black-Knight-esque.

Well if you say so then it must be true. Curiously I seem to have discovered an unknown subclass of Federation starship:

Look at those three Mirandas above Defiant.
It must be the new dark-portside-undersaucer subclass.

[l33telboi]

Don't know if it matters, but on SB the galaxy-class with a dark neck is called "War Galaxy", I'm guessing there is some info on it in non-canonical material which is where the name comes from.