Construction of ships in both verses

[Kane Starkiller]

First to deal with Death Star's ability to move through normal space:

Engineering, another department within technical services, had the sole assignment of keeping the battle station's sublight and hyperdrive engines in working order. While it was but one task it was a demanding and vital one. Engine blocks were located along the Death Star's equator and it's poles, providing the thrust to move the massive vessel through space. Sublight drives moved Death Star through realspace. While many types and models of sublight engines exist, the Death Star employed a series of ion engines

Moving the sphere will be accomplished through the use of massive ion sublight engines while in realspace, and through redundant hyperdrive engines for travel from system to system.

Thus the Death Star can indeed move through normal space and uses ion engines to do so.

Assuming uniform high density, a particular disputable size, and also assuming that the mechanism used for rotation can be applied directly to linear acceleration. These are dubious assumptions. The acceleration you cite is also ridiculously small to start with. We're talking about 44 cm/s^2 and on the order of a tenth of the angular acceleration I mentioned earlier.

I assumed the density of water. I don't see how that is "high density". Secondly decreasing size to 120km doesn't really change anything since mass is reduced for translational acceleration as well. Energy is reduced to 1.78*10^22J but due to reduced mass by factor of 2.37 the speed is still 200m/s. Of course important to note is that this speed is derived merely as a lower limit by simple observation of it's rotation. After all Death Star wasn't in a special hurry at the moment.

And yes, the Death Star can engage hyperdrive while in orbit. I've pointed out the typical limits for that before.

That's not what I asked. I asked are you saying Death Star could engage hyperdrive as close to Yavin as it was:

An astronaut's helmet is a device designed to operate outside Earth's atmosphere. It is not, however, a spacecraft, although it meets your qualifications.

By your abuse of definitions, if I launch a helmet into deep space, and it winds up in Proxima Centauri, that helmet is a starship. You may wish to reconsider this absurdity.

It would be a spacecraft just as much as a ball of metal with a radio called Sputnik was a spacecraft. And yes launching helmet into space would be absurd but that is your idea not mine so I don't see why I should reconsider anything.

And what you consider a loose sense is really your own subjective opinion. I am working with actual definitions as stated in the dictionary.

Very poorly.

That may be your opinion.

It exited quite near Alderaan and quite near Yavin.

A plane moves through real space in the same way that a truck or car does. The Death Star, in real space, is essentially immobile, possibly nearly ballistic in all its motion. I may as well be throwing things through a gate or wormhole.

Since I have proven the existence of sublight ion engines with a quote above this line of discussion is no longer relevant.

You can't? It's a hypothetical which speaks directly to the situation. Consider it carefully.

What is the difference between a station with a hyperdrive slapped on, and a starship? If you don't think there is one, then I can turn DS9 into a starship by the simple expedient of inventing a wormhole generator, or a long range transporter beam, or any similar device.

What do you mean by hyperdrive "slapped on"? Hyperdrive is a critical piece of equipment for the very idea of Death Star since it would be useless without it. Again what is your point with introducing DS9 and it's imaginary wormhole generator? It doesn't exist so DS9 is not a starship.

All of which, curiously, are immobile sites. Locations, in fact, aptly enough.

But Death Star isn't. Not in sublight terms not in supralight. And need I point out that "Locations" lists Death Star 2 and Emperors Throne Room separately? The list was obviously made with thematic considerations in mind rather than technical.

If you care to be that naive as to claim "proof" from an inadequate interpretation of a definition, the fact that variance exists in our opinions is in and of itself proof that the Death Star's status is debatable - as I have asserted. We are even now debating about it.

We are debating it since you choose to refuse the obvious. Death Star moved both at sublight and supralight in the films. The EU explicitly describes sublight engines.

I was actually talking about the Empire (the Borg have millions of vessels); the Empire's Star Destroyer fleet is quite potentially a more impressive feat regarding starship construction.

One: you provided no evidence for millions of Borg vessels.
Two: Death Star is actually far more impressive. Imagine if US Navy constructed a ship whose displacement was comparable to it's entire fleet.

0.3, actually. Remember, the cube, unlike the Death Star, has symmetry of facing. What that doesn't mention is that is pretty slow looking - and at that, Borg cubes, due to their symmetry and wide angles of attack from each face, don't need to rotate at all.

Fine we can use 120km Death Star. You still haven't shown a 3km cube as having even 17degrees/s2 acceleration. Also whether a Borg cube needs to rotate is irrelevant, CAN it do it is the question.

You did not challenge it. The Death Stars show little indication of being strong sources of gravity, and every indication (power core) of having a denser core than outer layers.

The Borg have been noted to use high density materials and in some cases to have silly ship densities.

Since it was you who started the argument that Borg cubes were denser than Death Star it is up to you to provide evidence. So far you have presented none.

I did that long ago. BOBW gives times, and the distances between the planets in Earth's solar system are quite well known. The speed with which the Borg cube travels at impulse is extraordinarily high.

Where in this thread? I don't see it.

[Mike DiCenso]

But you imply that the Empire could build numerous DS battlestations, or build something much larger, hence my eariler point.

No I don't. My point was always that there is no more or less evidence that Empire can build ships larger than Death Star than there is evidence of Federation being able to build ships larger than Galaxy.

No, that is wrong. Unlike with the Empire, as I've been pointing out over and over, the Federation has contemporary, rough-par technological powers with which to compare. The fact that you keep denying those points of comparison is also irrelevent. But that is something else to deal with, as is the fact that the E-J is far larger than you care to admit to.

Because they (the Death Stars) represent something highly unusual for SW ships in every possible way from their power plants to their shape, to their size, and most importantly, their frequency of construction and available numbers in the Imperial fleet.

I'll have to dig up the book again. But if you have it, it's towards the end of the book with Mon Motha and IIRC Bail Organa discussing the matter.

None of this changes the fact that Empire built it nor that it represents an example of Imperial ship building abilities. How "unique" or "special" you think it is is irrelevant.

It represents the uppermost limit for the Empire as far as we can tell. It is not a normal case which would come into play. The Executor, or other SSDs are what should be the common point of comparison. In that, the Empire does win.

I did. You simply do not want to acknowledge it. More specifically, we know that there were indeed a "handful" of GCS known at the time of early TNG, with only the USS Galaxy, Enterprise-D, and Yamato. Theoretically, according to her registry number, the USS Challenger (NCC-71099) might also fit in this time frame, but with the occasional off registries, it might be best to leave that one out for the time being.

There are at least 5 GCS seen in four different campaigns of the Dominon War that we know of representing at least 3 seperate fleets, and the Endgame fleet had 4-5 GCS in it. I find it really hard to accept that each time it is the same exact GCS any more than you would except that the ISDs seen at Endor in RoTJ represent all the ISDs the Imperial Navy has at it's disposal.

You claim that I don't want to acknowledge the evidence yet you have presented none. In TNG the fleet was dispersed while in DS9 there was a war and fleets were concentrated in a single place. Obviously we'll see more Galaxies. That you find it hard to accept is really your opinion and not evidence. As for ROTJ we know that it doesn't represent the Imperial Navy since it was "spread throughout the galaxy in a vain effort" to engage the Rebels. Not to mention that there are novels explicitly stating 25,000 ISDs alone were in the Imperial Navy.

I have kept presenting evidence over and over, yet you do not acknowledge it, or you choose to misinterpret it. If you want to hold to your "opinion", then we can easily turn it around and say that the Federation cranked out dozens of GCS, even in the early days. That only helps my point that the GCS is more of a common vessel, and not a unique one.

It certainly fits in well with the Federation cranking out what have to be at least hundreds, if not thousands of 467 meter Excelsior class starships over some 8 decades.

So just remember you can't have your cake and eat it, too, Kane. Either there were few GCS in the early days of TNG, or there were many being cranked out.

There are at least 3 GCS there at the time Voyager is under construction, and several partially completed saucer sections that could be Nebulas or GCS saucer sections. But definitely are one or the other.

It occurs to me you don't accept DS2 as an example of Imperial ship since it wasn't completed. Should I accept these uncompleted Galaxies? But more to the point 3 GCS still doesn't exceed 5. Hence you still have no evidence of more than 5 or so GCS.

It occurs to me that you cannot see the difference in context, either. The examples cited are from different time periods throughout recent Federation history. Please pay attention:

- Prior to Voyager's launch three GCS were lost (Yamato, Enterprise-D, and Odyssey). We see however several complete, or nearly complete GCS at Utopia Planita. We also see several spaceframes in the works that could be, most likely are GCS.

- By the time of the Dominon War, there were no less than 4-5 GCS in each of the 4 major campaigns were GCS are seen taken part in the action.

- At least 5 GCS seen in the hastily gathered fleet in VOY's "Endgame".

It is likely, given this chronological order that the Federation was and is cranking out GCS, making that class of starship more common. The Federation even apparently reached a point where they could call several GCS together near the Sol system on short notice to intercept a Borg ship.

All of this points strongly towards numerous seperate GCS, and that the Federation build a fair number of them, and may likely be continuing to construct more.

You're only example of a larger-than-SD type ship is to point to the highly unique DS battlestations. Even the SSDs do not compete with a 3 km Borg cube for volume as already demonstrated. The
Borg, when needed, have demonstrated with the Unicomplex, the ability to build vast structures on the order of hundreds of km wide.

You are comparing the largest starship we have seen Borg construct with the one which is 200,000 times smaller than the largest Imperial ship. Apples and oranges. Unicomplex is irrelevant to the discussion since it is not a starship but merely modules connected to each other and built over an unknown period of time. Perhaps even over "a thousand centuries".

The Unicomplex is a signficant marshalling of resources to build a space structure that dwarfs even the incomplete DS2 in size. Also the Borg history is a bit fuzzy thanks to VOY's "Dragon's Teeth" as during the Vaadwuar's hayday some 900 years prior, the Borg are said to have only been in possession of "a handful of systems", and now they have "spread throughout the quadrent like a plaque". I doubt that the Borg necessarily took thousands of centuries, when it more likely took them centuries at longest to build the Unicomplex.

The Ul'yanovsk was more than a mere paper study, it was laid down and was 40% complete when cancelled after the Soviet Union's collapse in 1991. But she would have been nuclear powered had she been completed, and she was hardly the first large Soviet vessel to have them. She also would have had a comparable loaded displacement nearly 80,000 tons that of the Nimitz class.

But even with conventional power plants, the hull of the Ul'yanovsk class, just as with any of the aforementioned fictional powers is what matters. Even the Kuznetsov, as I pointed out previously, matched the size and displacement of one of the earlier U.S. Navy carriers, which in turn were only some 100 feet (30 meters) shorter than a Nimitz class carrier. We are talking still about ships of a very comparable size catagory here.

Ul'yanovsk was never built and I note that you are using a 40% built craft as an example of Soviet naval industry while you refuse to do the same with DS2. Secondly as you say the hull is what matters and hull of Kuznetsov is not as large as that of Nimitz

.

No, you misunderstand again; the whole point was to note that it was more than just a paper study, it was a real project underway, and only stopped by politics and and a post-collapse economy. At any rate, I only noted that the DS2 was the largest theoretical ship in context to your implication that the Empire could crank out something much bigger.

Given that the Prometheus is of a fairly well understood size range, it should be possible to do trigonometry to determine that distance, and if nothing else, the Sphere Builder ship seen being destroyed actually is under the saucer as seen by the way the fireball reaches the E-J's saucer's ventral (sensor?) dome.

That ship is apparently a Vissian starship, which is larger than a 225 meter NX class starship. But assuming for the sake of being conservative that ship is only 100 meters long, it is four times smaller than the visible portion of the E-J's saucer to the right of the sensor dome it is under when it explodes (note the signficant glow being cast on the E-J saucer's underside by the exploding ship making it clearly underneath the saucer). This means that the E-J's saucer is at least some 800 meters wide, and likely a good deal larger given the Vissian ship being larger than the NX class, and the fact that we are not measuring the full starboard side of the E-J saucer section since it is not completely visible out the window that Archer and Daniels are looking out of.

First of all it is possible that debris and fireball reach the saucer without the ship being under it itself. Explosions are not necessarily symmetrical so this is not evidence. Evidence would be a ship itself actually overlapping with the saucer. Something we don't see.

There you go again, denying the evidence before your eyes. Look at how the explosion expands, and look at the glow being cast on the E=J's hull even before the fireball reaches the small sensor dome. The Vissian ship is right under, or nearly under that dome.
-Mike

[Kane Starkiller]

No, that is wrong. Unlike with the Empire, as I've been pointing out over and over, the Federation has contemporary, rough-par technological powers with which to compare. The fact that you keep denying those points of comparison is also irrelevent. But that is something else to deal with, as is the fact that the E-J is far larger than you care to admit to.

Yes rough-par. Not identical. That the Romulans or Dominion can build certain ship size does not translate automatically to the Federation.

It represents the uppermost limit for the Empire as far as we can tell. It is not a normal case which would come into play. The Executor, or other SSDs are what should be the common point of comparison. In that, the Empire does win.

Yes just like Galaxy represents the uppermost limit for the Federation as far as we can tall. This thread started as a question as to how big a ships of various factions can get. Death Star is the answer as far as Empire is concerned. How many were built is irrelevant.

I have kept presenting evidence over and over, yet you do not acknowledge it, or you choose to misinterpret it. If you want to hold to your "opinion", then we can easily turn it around and say that the Federation cranked out dozens of GCS, even in the early days. That only helps my point that the GCS is more of a common vessel, and not a unique one.

It certainly fits in well with the Federation cranking out what have to be at least hundreds, if not thousands of 467 meter Excelsior class starships over some 8 decades.

So just remember you can't have your cake and eat it, too, Kane. Either there were few GCS in the early days of TNG, or there were many being cranked out.

You showed no evidence that Federation had more than 5 or so Galaxies at any point. Secondly your choice that either there were few Galaxies in TNG or there were many cranked out is a false dilemma; a third option exists: that Federation had few (5 or so) Galaxies in TNG and in DS9.

- Prior to Voyager's launch three GCS were lost (Yamato, Enterprise-D, and Odyssey). We see however several complete, or nearly complete GCS at Utopia Planita. We also see several spaceframes in the works that could be, most likely are GCS.

How does this prove Federation has more than 5 or so Galaxies?

- By the time of the Dominon War, there were no less than 4-5 GCS in each of the 4 major campaigns were GCS are seen taken part in the action.

And in which Defiant took action right? If Defiant was in all campaigns then why is so unbelievable that those were the same Galaxies? In any case you have no evidence different Galaxies were involved.

- At least 5 GCS seen in the hastily gathered fleet in VOY's "Endgame".

Again how does this point to more than 5 or so Galaxies?

It is likely, given this chronological order that the Federation was and is cranking out GCS, making that class of starship more common. The Federation even apparently reached a point where they could call several GCS together near the Sol system on short notice to intercept a Borg ship.

All of this points strongly towards numerous seperate GCS, and that the Federation build a fair number of them, and may likely be continuing to construct more.

Nothing you have said proves in any way Federation was "cranking out" Galaxies whatever that even means in actual number of ships. All you pointed out was several different occasions neither of which showed more than 5 ships. You provided no evidence whether these are the same ships or not.

The Unicomplex is a signficant marshalling of resources to build a space structure that dwarfs even the incomplete DS2 in size. Also the Borg history is a bit fuzzy thanks to VOY's "Dragon's Teeth" as during the Vaadwuar's hayday some 900 years prior, the Borg are said to have only been in possession of "a handful of systems", and now they have "spread throughout the quadrent like a plaque". I doubt that the Borg necessarily took thousands of centuries, when it more likely took them centuries at longest to build the Unicomplex.

How exactly did you determine Unicomplex's volume to know it dwarfs Death Star? It is a bunch of loosely connected modules with huge open spaces between. Secondly having only a "handful of systems" wouldn't prevent them from already beginning the construction. Again since it is not a starship what relevance does it have to the thread?

No, you misunderstand again; the whole point was to note that it was more than just a paper study, it was a real project underway, and only stopped by politics and and a post-collapse economy. At any rate, I only noted that the DS2 was the largest theoretical ship in context to your implication that the Empire could crank out something much bigger.

I already acknowledged it was underway: it was 40% completed. And it still wouldn't have been as big as a Nimitz class. In the end it was never completed. Would they make it? Who knows.

There you go again, denying the evidence before your eyes. Look at how the explosion expands, and look at the glow being cast on the E=J's hull even before the fireball reaches the small sensor dome. The Vissian ship is right under, or nearly under that dome.

You haven't addressed my point of the explosion not necessarily expanding symmetrically. Explosion could have reached the saucer (and illuminate it) without the ship being near it. And, while I let it go the previous post, there is still a question of what evidence you have of that blurry ship being Vissian. I have no problem with evidence. But assumptions about explosion shape and ship class are not it.

[Jedi Master Spock]

First to deal with Death Star's ability to move through normal space:

Engineering, another department within technical services, had the sole assignment of keeping the battle station's sublight and hyperdrive engines in working order. While it was but one task it was a demanding and vital one. Engine blocks were located along the Death Star's equator and it's poles, providing the thrust to move the massive vessel through space. Sublight drives moved Death Star through realspace. While many types and models of sublight engines exist, the Death Star employed a series of ion engines

Moving the sphere will be accomplished through the use of massive ion sublight engines while in realspace, and through redundant hyperdrive engines for travel from system to system.

Thus the Death Star can indeed move through normal space and uses ion engines to do so.

I hate to break it to you... but the sort of Star Wars grade ion drives necessary to move something the Death Star would be visible in the films when the Death Star is "orbiting at maximum velocity."

It isn't. The films show a Death Star with no visible ion drives; if it has ion thrusters, they are quite small, and quite weak (e.g., providing for angular acceleration as seen).

I assumed the density of water. I don't see how that is "high density".

For an spacious artificial construct, it is.

Secondly decreasing size to 120km doesn't really change anything since mass is reduced for translational acceleration as well. Energy is reduced to 1.78*10^22J but due to reduced mass by factor of 2.37 the speed is still 200m/s. Of course important to note is that this speed is derived merely as a lower limit by simple observation of it's rotation. After all Death Star wasn't in a special hurry at the moment.

As I pointed out, it isn't. The Death Star could easily be modeled as having most of its mass near the center, and much less on the outer skin. Distribution of matter determines moment of inertia.

As I pointed out, that's a ridiculously small acceleration.

That's not what I asked. I asked are you saying Death Star could engage hyperdrive as close to Yavin as it was:

From the perspective of that shot, are you claiming anything?

For that matter, the Death Star was in an elliptical orbit, not a circular one. Try modeling the Death Star's orbit as highly elliptical. You'll find it explains a great deal. Could it engage hyperdrive while close to Yavin? Probably not. While at the peak of an elliptical orbit, or after escaping from the planet in a parabolic orbit? Easily.

It would be a spacecraft just as much as a ball of metal with a radio called Sputnik was a spacecraft. And yes launching helmet into space would be absurd but that is your idea not mine so I don't see why I should reconsider anything.

It would be a starship.. by your definition. Which is absurd.

Sputnik's purpose was to fly around in orbit. It was a satellite. Its status as a "craft" is more solid than the Death Star, but I would still be hard-pressed to call it a starship simply by virtue of having slung it much faster and much farther.

That may be your opinion.

And the truth of the matter. When you treat the term "starship" as broadly as you are wont to (please - an astronaut's helmet, flung into deep space at high velocity, a starship?) the term becomes meaningless.

Since I have proven the existence of sublight ion engines with a quote above this line of discussion is no longer relevant.

Since the movie does not allow for the existence of any significant ion engines on the Death Star, your appeal to the EU is easily dismissed.

What do you mean by hyperdrive "slapped on"? Hyperdrive is a critical piece of equipment for the very idea of Death Star since it would be useless without it. Again what is your point with introducing DS9 and it's imaginary wormhole generator? It doesn't exist so DS9 is not a starship.

Work with me here. Grasp the hypothetical example. DS9 with a wormhole generator is by your definition a starship.

But Death Star isn't. Not in sublight terms not in supralight. And need I point out that "Locations" lists Death Star 2 and Emperors Throne Room separately? The list was obviously made with thematic considerations in mind rather than technical.

Planets aren't stationary in the absolute sense. Nor are stars. Nor are galaxies.

It's treated as a location because that's the category they find most useful. "Wandering artificial moon - place."

We are debating it since you choose to refuse the obvious. Death Star moved both at sublight and supralight in the films. The EU explicitly describes sublight engines.

Actually, I could mention other EU sources that describe antimatter thrusters, or don't mention ion engines... but as I pointed out, the films rule out any significant ion engines in the Star Wars style.

One: you provided no evidence for millions of Borg vessels.
Two: Death Star is actually far more impressive. Imagine if US Navy constructed a ship whose displacement was comparable to it's entire fleet.

Total displacement of the US Navy's fighting ships (last I heard) is 2.86 million. The proposed Freedom Ship would have a 2.7 million ton displacement. While constructing it would be quite a feat of engineering, the US navy doing so would not be something I found more impressive than the creation of the carrier fleets. I do not doubt that they could do so if they wanted; it seems readily possible, if not particularly worthwhile militarily.

As a point of fact, the Freedom Ship's total construction cost - if the ship is ever actually built - is estimated to be less than that of a single carrier group.

The construction techniques are wholly different; the ability to build something like the Freedom Ship says next to nothing about your ability to build a nuclear carrier, or an old fashioned armored battleship.

Fine we can use 120km Death Star. You still haven't shown a 3km cube as having even 17degrees/s2 acceleration. Also whether a Borg cube needs to rotate is irrelevant, CAN it do it is the question.

This is something worth investigating further.

Since it was you who started the argument that Borg cubes were denser than Death Star it is up to you to provide evidence. So far you have presented none.

Time to point out the Borg scout ship's ridiculous reported mass and reported composition again?

Where in this thread? I don't see it.

Main website. Ages ago.

[Roondar]

About the 5 Galaxies: I'd like to point out that while no one has evidence there where more than five, no one has evidence there are only five either.

Claiming the later position (i.e. there are only five Galaxy class starships) is no better than claiming there are more. We just don't know.

As a counterpart for this: we only ever see one SSD and some ten-twenty ISD's on screen. By the logic of some of the debaters here there is then no reason to assume the Empire has any more of them, if we just watch the films. (And before you say it: this little bit was merely meant as illustration, not as a statement that movies are the beginning and end of Starwars)


The same goes for the 'jedi mind tricks' about Borg building time - we where given no indication of how long it took them to build that complex. Assuming it to have taken centuries is just as likely as someone assuming it took half a week. We don't know how long it took. Claiming otherwise is silly.

[Kane Starkiller]

I hate to break it to you... but the sort of Star Wars grade ion drives necessary to move something the Death Star would be visible in the films when the Death Star is "orbiting at maximum velocity."

It isn't. The films show a Death Star with no visible ion drives; if it has ion thrusters, they are quite small, and quite weak (e.g., providing for angular acceleration as seen).

I await your evidence that the kind of ion drives necessary to move the Death Star would have to be so big as to be visible.

I assumed the density of water. I don't see how that is "high density".

For an spacious artificial construct, it is.

What evidence you have for Death Star being spacious? Any more spacious than a Borg cube for example.

As I pointed out, it isn't. The Death Star could easily be modeled as having most of its mass near the center, and much less on the outer skin. Distribution of matter determines moment of inertia.

As I pointed out, that's a ridiculously small acceleration.

I am not interested in what you can model only in what you can prove. What evidence do you have that Death Star's overall density is smaller than that of a cube?
Secondly the acceleration is small but it is derived simply from Death Star rotation. Therefore it is a lower limit. But the point is that Death Star can accelerate thus it is not immobile as you claim.

From the perspective of that shot, are you claiming anything?

For that matter, the Death Star was in an elliptical orbit, not a circular one. Try modeling the Death Star's orbit as highly elliptical. You'll find it explains a great deal. Could it engage hyperdrive while close to Yavin? Probably not. While at the peak of an elliptical orbit, or after escaping from the planet in a parabolic orbit? Easily.

Except the Death Star exited on the opposite side to Yavin and the command staff didn't know it until they exited hyperspace. Hence we hear them reporting it to Tarkin. Only then did they "prepare" to orbit the planet. Something had to move the Death Star into the appropriate orbit. And that something were the ion engines.

It would be a starship.. by your definition. Which is absurd.

Sputnik's purpose was to fly around in orbit. It was a satellite. Its status as a "craft" is more solid than the Death Star, but I would still be hard-pressed to call it a starship simply by virtue of having slung it much faster and much farther.

However Death Star does indeed have engines as I have proven.

And the truth of the matter. When you treat the term "starship" as broadly as you are wont to (please - an astronaut's helmet, flung into deep space at high velocity, a starship?) the term becomes meaningless.

I applied the term as it was stated in the dictionary. That you choose to play games is your problem not mine.

Since the movie does not allow for the existence of any significant ion engines on the Death Star, your appeal to the EU is easily dismissed.

Seeing as how you haven't defined what "significant ion engines" means your objection to the EU quote is meaningless.

Work with me here. Grasp the hypothetical example. DS9 with a wormhole generator is by your definition a starship.

So?

Planets aren't stationary in the absolute sense. Nor are stars. Nor are galaxies.

It's treated as a location because that's the category they find most useful. "Wandering artificial moon - place."

Yes most useful from a thematic standpoint. Not technical.

Actually, I could mention other EU sources that describe antimatter thrusters, or don't mention ion engines... but as I pointed out, the films rule out any significant ion engines in the Star Wars style.

I fail to see why every EU source must mention ion engines in order for them to be accepted. Secondly antimatter refers to the power source and ion to the way the ship is propelled. And as I said "significant ion engines" is your undefined term making the objection meaningless.

Total displacement of the US Navy's fighting ships (last I heard) is 2.86 million. The proposed Freedom Ship would have a 2.7 million ton displacement. While constructing it would be quite a feat of engineering, the US navy doing so would not be something I found more impressive than the creation of the carrier fleets. I do not doubt that they could do so if they wanted; it seems readily possible, if not particularly worthwhile militarily.

As a point of fact, the Freedom Ship's total construction cost - if the ship is ever actually built - is estimated to be less than that of a single carrier group.

The construction techniques are wholly different; the ability to build something like the Freedom Ship says next to nothing about your ability to build a nuclear carrier, or an old fashioned armored battleship.

That looks very good on paper. But until I see it actually coasting with passengers it is irrelevant. When the ship is built and operating then we will examine the costs and difficulty in constructing it.
By the way that is not a military ship with military requirements.

This is something worth investigating further.

Good. Come back when you have something.

Time to point out the Borg scout ship's ridiculous reported mass and reported composition again?

Actually I would be more interested in it's size.

Main website. Ages ago.

And in which you, yourself point out that traveling from Jupiter to Earth in 27 minutes requires speeds greater than light.

About the 5 Galaxies: I'd like to point out that while no one has evidence there where more than five, no one has evidence there are only five either.

Claiming the later position (i.e. there are only five Galaxy class starships) is no better than claiming there are more. We just don't know.

As a counterpart for this: we only ever see one SSD and some ten-twenty ISD's on screen. By the logic of some of the debaters here there is then no reason to assume the Empire has any more of them, if we just watch the films. (And before you say it: this little bit was merely meant as illustration, not as a statement that movies are the beginning and end of Starwars)


The same goes for the 'jedi mind tricks' about Borg building time - we where given no indication of how long it took them to build that complex. Assuming it to have taken centuries is just as likely as someone assuming it took half a week. We don't know how long it took. Claiming otherwise is silly.

That is my point. We DON'T KNOW whether Federation has more than 5 Galaxies so we have to go with what we do know. The same goes for Borg building time: we don't know. Therefore we don't know what is their yearly production capacity. We do know that Empire has more ISDs since 25,000 were explicitly mentioned in EU and Mon Mothma remarks in the ROTJ that the fleet is "spread throughout the galaxy in a vain effort to engage us."

[Jedi Master Spock]

About the 5 Galaxies: I'd like to point out that while no one has evidence there where more than five, no one has evidence there are only five either.

Claiming the later position (i.e. there are only five Galaxy class starships) is no better than claiming there are more. We just don't know.

Actually, there have been definitely more than five GCS ships:

USS Challenger NCC-71099
USS Enterprise NCC-1701-D
USS Galaxy NCC-70637
USS Magellan
USS Odyssey NCC-71832
USS Venture NCC-71854
USS Trinculo NCC-71867
USS Yamato NCC-71807

List of named canon GCS courtesy of EAS. I might also mention what Dr. Schneider has said about the number of GCS ships - namely, that there have been almost certainly more than twelve of them, in spite of what the TNGTM says:

In the very episodes of TNG, DS9 and Voyager, however, so many different ships were mentioned or were even seen at a time that it is difficult to maintain that there are twelve Galaxy-class ships altogether.

[Roondar]

About the 5 Galaxies: I'd like to point out that while no one has evidence there where more than five, no one has evidence there are only five either.

Claiming the later position (i.e. there are only five Galaxy class starships) is no better than claiming there are more. We just don't know.

As a counterpart for this: we only ever see one SSD and some ten-twenty ISD's on screen. By the logic of some of the debaters here there is then no reason to assume the Empire has any more of them, if we just watch the films. (And before you say it: this little bit was merely meant as illustration, not as a statement that movies are the beginning and end of Starwars)


The same goes for the 'jedi mind tricks' about Borg building time - we where given no indication of how long it took them to build that complex. Assuming it to have taken centuries is just as likely as someone assuming it took half a week. We don't know how long it took. Claiming otherwise is silly.

That is my point. We DON'T KNOW whether Federation has more than 5 Galaxies so we have to go with what we do know. The same goes for Borg building time: we don't know. Therefore we don't know what is their yearly production capacity. We do know that Empire has more ISDs since 25,000 were explicitly mentioned in EU and Mon Mothma remarks in the ROTJ that the fleet is "spread throughout the galaxy in a vain effort to engage us."

Exactly. We have to go with what we know. Since for the Federation that means we don't know, we can't make judgments about the quantity of ships at all. The only thing we can say is that they have at least five. But we can't use that to conclude or even imply that this is the extent of them.

Especially since we do know from dialogue that Starfleet has more vessels than those we see on screen. We just don't know what type and how many.

About the EU: the point there is moot - I was showing you (somewhat successfully) that it is quite logical that both sides are going to have a great deal more ships than what we see on screen.

Given the travel times in ST it would be downright ludicrous to accept that an '8000 lightyear' Federation would have only a couple of hundred starships flying about. Peaceful or not, they'd get defeated in any war by logistics needs easily if they only have what we see on screen. And as we all know the Federation is not portrayed as a small player in the region, but rather a big and powerful one.

The same would go for the galactic empire. If it truly spans the galaxy 25000 ISDs is a stupidly low amount. High speeds or not.

[Kane Starkiller]

I have no doubt that Federation has far more ships than 5 or 50. How many Galaxies does it have is the question. Now obviously 5 (or 8 not counting the fact that Yamato, Enterprise and Odyssey were destroyed) is of course a lower limit. But lower limits is what we compare between Empire and Federation, trying to limit ourselves on what we have seen or what was stated in a book. Assuming more Galaxies are built is just that: an assumption. And you can't compare assumptions with evidence.

[Jedi Master Spock]

I await your evidence that the kind of ion drives necessary to move the Death Star would have to be so big as to be visible.

Item: We have seen the Death Star's surface, many portions thereof, at resolutions of greater than 100m.

Item: Ion drives used to move Star Destroyers at accelerations of around 30 g are very visible on this scale.

Item: The Death Star should be using these full force.

Item: The Death Star is incapable of rotating much more quickly than seen (maximum speed rotation of the improved DS2 seen in ROTJ).

Item: Using ion drives means a backwash of ionized gas, which is generally visible. This is the case in real life and in Star Wars.

Item: Thrusters used for occasional rotation may well not have the supply of propellant needed for continuous thrust.

For an spacious artificial construct, it is.

What evidence you have for Death Star being spacious? Any more spacious than a Borg cube for example.[/quote]
Headroom. Giant open shafts.

I am not interested in what you can model only in what you can prove.

Are you not interested in the fact that the Death Star's reactor core has, in all probability, an enormous and fairly solid concentration of matter/energy and heavy duty equipment?

Secondly the acceleration is small but it is derived simply from Death Star rotation. Therefore it is a lower limit. But the point is that Death Star can accelerate thus it is not immobile as you claim.

No, it's an upper limit. This thrust might not be freely vectored; for that matter, there are methods of rotation which do not involve thrust.

Except the Death Star exited on the opposite side to Yavin and the command staff didn't know it until they exited hyperspace. Hence we hear them reporting it to Tarkin. Only then did they "prepare" to orbit the planet. Something had to move the Death Star into the appropriate orbit. And that something were the ion engines.

Not necessarily. If they'd come out on the same side, perhaps they would have simply shot and gone straight back into hyperspace. "Oh, look, Tarkin, we're dropping into orbit instead of shooting them. Prepare to make an orbit."

If something adjusted their orbit, that something was almost certainly the antigravity drive. Which is great for keeping station and adjusting orbits, but not for interplanetary travel. Those only work in a gravity well.

However Death Star does indeed have engines as I have proven.

I applied the term as it was stated in the dictionary. That you choose to play games is your problem not mine.

I play games with the definition to demonstrate that you have played games.

Using the same stringent standards by which you consider the Death Star a starship, we can consider almost anything a starship circumstantially.

We can consider a ballpoint pen designed to work in space to be a spacecraft, with these sorts of stringent standards.

Seeing as how you haven't defined what "significant ion engines" means your objection to the EU quote is meaningless.

I have. Capable of practical interplanetary travel.

Yes most useful from a thematic standpoint. Not technical.

"Not technical" is a flimsy objection to the problem - namely, that the Death Star conspicuously is not called a starship.

I fail to see why every EU source must mention ion engines in order for them to be accepted. Secondly antimatter refers to the power source and ion to the way the ship is propelled. And as I said "significant ion engines" is your undefined term making the objection meaningless.

Any reasonably complete technical treatment should mention them... they don't. The first one, for example, gives the Death Star antimatter engines and a maximum acceleration of ~1 mm/s^2.

As Saxton points out, if one is able to control one's exit from hyperspace, significant thrust is not necessary.

That looks very good on paper. But until I see it actually coasting with passengers it is irrelevant. When the ship is built and operating then we will examine the costs and difficulty in constructing it.
By the way that is not a military ship with military requirements.

Nor is the Death Star a "military ship" with the same sort of engineering requirements as a conventional warship. The simple fact is that something like the Freedom Ship can be readily built at less cost than a single carrier group.

For that matter, the largest conventionally constructed ship is around 600,000 tons - but again, building that ship is not nearly so impressive as constructing a fleet of 600,000 tons of fighting ships.

Actually I would be more interested in it's size.

A small scout vessel. I.e., not very big.

And in which you, yourself point out that traveling from Jupiter to Earth in 27 minutes requires speeds greater than light.

Or measurement in a relativistic frame, in which case we may mainly measure it from the ability to brake quickly from relativistic speeds. In either case, impulse drive gives enormous real-space acceleration.

The simple fact of the matter is that linear acceleration should be independent of size, and the Death Star has practically none. This is crucial in considering the main engineering problems of sci-fi starship construction - how much strain can the ship's structure take under acceleration and maneuver?

Like the proposed Freedom Ship, the Death Star was not built in a regular shipyard, nor using regular ship construction techniques. Even if you choose to accept it as a starship, it makes a poor measure of the ability to build large conventional starships.

The Executor, which the EU describes incidentally as quite expensive, is a much better measure of this ability.

[Praeothmin]

If it truly spans the galaxy 25000 ISDs is a stupidly low amount. High speeds or not.

Although we know (from the EU) of many other types of vessels that are part of the Empire's fleet and used for patrol, attack, like the Carrack-class, the Nebulons, Dreadnaughts, etc...

So I have no problem with the 25000 ISD number, since we know of many more type of vessels used by the Empire.

[Kane Starkiller]

Item: We have seen the Death Star's surface, many portions thereof, at resolutions of greater than 100m.

What percentage of the surface have we seen at those resolutions? More specifically what percentage of equatorial area and poles where the engines are placed have we seen? What evidence do you have for your implicit assumption that engines were wider than 100m?

Item: Ion drives used to move Star Destroyers at accelerations of around 30 g are very visible on this scale.

Various ships had various relative size of their engines. This proves nothing.

Item: The Death Star should be using these full force.

When? All the time?

Item: The Death Star is incapable of rotating much more quickly than seen (maximum speed rotation of the improved DS2 seen in ROTJ).

One: Death Star 2 was incomplete thus not a reliable benchmark for upper limits.
Two: Where is it stated that improvements to DS2 encompassed it's engines?

Item: Using ion drives means a backwash of ionized gas, which is generally visible. This is the case in real life and in Star Wars.

This depends on the mass of the engine efflux and it's speed. A small amount of mass expelled at high relativistic speeds won't be as visible.

Item: Thrusters used for occasional rotation may well not have the supply of propellant needed for continuous thrust.

This is your assumption. The technical manual mentions no such limitations.

For an spacious artificial construct, it is.

What evidence you have for Death Star being spacious? Any more spacious than a Borg cube for example.

Headroom. Giant open shafts.

How does the headroom compare to Borg cube? What percentage of total DS volume do the shafts take compared to open spaces on Borg cubes such as large toroidal space seen in First Contact and later on various Borg ships? Quantify.

Are you not interested in the fact that the Death Star's reactor core has, in all probability, an enormous and fairly solid concentration of matter/energy and heavy duty equipment?

If it is "in all probability" then it's not a fact is it? To make things clear: There is a difference between saying that Death Star's core is more dense than Death Star's outer layers and saying that Death Star's outer layers are less dense than a Borg cube. What I am asking you is proof that Death Star's outer layers are less dense than Borg cube.

No, it's an upper limit. This thrust might not be freely vectored; for that matter, there are methods of rotation which do not involve thrust.

You say it's an upper limit because thrust might not be freely vectored. You cannot declare something an upper limit based on your unsupported assumptions and theories. The same goes for your vague allusion about modeling other methods of rotation.

Not necessarily. If they'd come out on the same side, perhaps they would have simply shot and gone straight back into hyperspace. "Oh, look, Tarkin, we're dropping into orbit instead of shooting them. Prepare to make an orbit."

If something adjusted their orbit, that something was almost certainly the antigravity drive. Which is great for keeping station and adjusting orbits, but not for interplanetary travel. Those only work in a gravity well.

I don't understand what you mean with that first part. The point was they didn't expect to exit on the opposite side and had to adjust their heading. And "almost certainly" is not evidence.

I play games with the definition to demonstrate that you have played games.

Using the same stringent standards by which you consider the Death Star a starship, we can consider almost anything a starship circumstantially.

We can consider a ballpoint pen designed to work in space to be a spacecraft, with these sorts of stringent standards.

Yes we can. If it can operate in space and travel between starsystems then it's a starship. Obviously if you think up ridiculous concepts for starships you'll end up with ridiculous starships. What is your point?

Seeing as how you haven't defined what "significant ion engines" means your objection to the EU quote is meaningless.

I have. Capable of practical interplanetary travel.

Yet another vague term. Not that it matters since you objected we cannot see the engines. Thus relevant definitions will involve evidence about size and brightness. Something you haven't provided.

"Not technical" is a flimsy objection to the problem - namely, that the Death Star conspicuously is not called a starship.

I never claimed that it was called a starship. The point is that regardless of what it's called it is indeed a starship.

Any reasonably complete technical treatment should mention them... they don't.

What you consider "reasonably complete" is your opinion. Consequently their failure to meet you own personal standards means nothing.

The first one, for example, gives the Death Star antimatter engines and a maximum acceleration of ~1 mm/s^2.

As Saxton points out, if one is able to control one's exit from hyperspace, significant thrust is not necessary.

I would like to see the name, page number and quote from the sources which set the acceleration to 1mm/s2. And Saxton is right though I don't see how that changes the fact that Death Star does indeed have the capability of moving at sublight under it's own power as stated in the technical manual.

Nor is the Death Star a "military ship" with the same sort of engineering requirements as a conventional warship. The simple fact is that something like the Freedom Ship can be readily built at less cost than a single carrier group.

For that matter, the largest conventionally constructed ship is around 600,000 tons - but again, building that ship is not nearly so impressive as constructing a fleet of 600,000 tons of fighting ships.

One: Death Star is indeed a military ship since it is operated by military and must satisfy every criteria set upon a military ship-sublight capability, supralight capability, weapon, defenses-
Two:You have not proven Freedom Ship can be built seeing as wiki article doesn't contain a single blueprint or a calculation.
Three: The 600,000 ton ship is NOT a military vehicle nor is it comparable to the entire US Navy.

A small scout vessel. I.e., not very big.

In other words you have no information about it's size and thus cannot derive any density from stated mass. Thus your claims of supposed Borg superior density are null.

Or measurement in a relativistic frame, in which case we may mainly measure it from the ability to brake quickly from relativistic speeds. In either case, impulse drive gives enormous real-space acceleration.

So you are saying that 27 minutes were given as measured from Enterprise? How can we then determine the time as measured from Earth? There are no dilation equations for a ship traveling at warp as Enterprise was.

The simple fact of the matter is that linear acceleration should be independent of size, and the Death Star has practically none. This is crucial in considering the main engineering problems of sci-fi starship construction - how much strain can the ship's structure take under acceleration and maneuver?

No it shouldn't since force required to accelerate the ship will rise with it's mass which will rise with the ship's volume or third power of radius. The pressure the engine will exert on ship's construction will decline with it's cross sectional area or with the second power of radius. Thus a 1000 times bigger ship accelerating 10 times slower will still have it's engines apply the same pressure to the construction assuming engines have relatively same exhaust surface.

Like the proposed Freedom Ship, the Death Star was not built in a regular shipyard, nor using regular ship construction techniques. Even if you choose to accept it as a starship, it makes a poor measure of the ability to build large conventional starships.

What is a regular Imperial shipyard? What evidence do you have they didn't use regular ship construction techniques on Death Star?

The Executor, which the EU describes incidentally as quite expensive, is a much better measure of this ability.

That particular statement is obviously wrong since Empire built two Death Stars without bankrupting. Not to mention 25,000 ISDs and numerous other Executor class starships.

[Roondar]

That particular statement is obviously wrong since Empire built two Death Stars without bankrupting. Not to mention 25,000 ISDs and numerous other Executor class starships.

When I bought my car it was quite expensive to me. Later on I bought a house which cost more than ten times that amount.

I'm not bankrupt.

Or in short: there is no reason to assume it is a wrong statement.

We do not know how the empire financed their DS projects. They could have easily loaned money for it or financed it partly (or even largely) with outside private investors helping - governments do so all the time for big projects.

[Kane Starkiller]

Actually the statement he is referring to I believe explicitly states that Executor nearly bankrupted the Empire. Nonsense considering other projects of the Empire.

[Mike DiCenso]

No, that is wrong. Unlike with the Empire, as I've been pointing out over and over, the Federation has contemporary, rough-par technological powers with which to compare. The fact that you keep denying those points of comparison is also irrelevent. But that is something else to deal with, as is the fact that the E-J is far larger than you care to admit to.

Yes rough-par. Not identical. That the Romulans or Dominion can build certain ship size does not translate automatically to the Federation.

While that is true, it still sets the strong possibility for the Federation to build such a large vessel, if they so chose. That combined with the Federation backing away for about a century's time from 600-800 meter sized starships and concentrating on moderate-sized, but vastly more advanced and powerful starships is very telling in the significant change in design philosophy that occured, and then the re-shifting back to larger as well as advanced capability vessels over the next intervening century.

Another thing to consider; the Vulcan High Command built those 600-800 meter starships on their ownbefore there was a Federation, and a sharing of resources. Are you suggesting now that Federation somehow magically lost that ability? I doubt it. Even if the Vulcans chose not to build large starships anymore, there is nothing stoping Earth, Andor and Tellar from combining resources to do so.

It represents the uppermost limit for the Empire as far as we can tell. It is not a normal case which would come into play. The Executor, or other SSDs are what should be the common point of comparison. In that, the Empire does win.

Yes just like Galaxy represents the uppermost limit for the Federation as far as we can tall. This thread started as a question as to how big a ships of various factions can get. Death Star is the answer as far as Empire is concerned. How many were built is irrelevant.

And as JMS has pointed out, there is a reason why the Death Star I (and likely the DS2) is called a "battlestation", not a "starship" by every authority with knowledge in the SW universe, and he has set out a few decent reasons why that would be the case.

The SSDs are true starships, on the other hand, and not refered to as "battlestations". Again, JMS has gone over this.

I have kept presenting evidence over and over, yet you do not acknowledge it, or you choose to misinterpret it. If you want to hold to your "opinion", then we can easily turn it around and say that the Federation cranked out dozens of GCS, even in the early days. That only helps my point that the GCS is more of a common vessel, and not a unique one.

It certainly fits in well with the Federation cranking out what have to be at least hundreds, if not thousands of 467 meter Excelsior class starships over some 8 decades.

So just remember you can't have your cake and eat it, too, Kane. Either there were few GCS in the early days of TNG, or there were many being cranked out.

You showed no evidence that Federation had more than 5 or so Galaxies at any point. Secondly your choice that either there were few Galaxies in TNG or there were many cranked out is a false dilemma; a third option exists: that Federation had few (5 or so) Galaxies in TNG and in DS9.

Look, you can keep on being obtuse, or you can look at what I presented. There is ample circumstantial evidence. You just keep jumping through hoops to not acknowledge it. But here is another point:

At least twice in TNG's season one and into season two the Galaxy class is refered to as being brand new were likely just out of the testing phase, indicatiing there are only a few or so GCS at this time. In "All Good Things" [TNG, S7], we see that the E-D launched just prior to the events of "Encounter at Farpoint" [TNG, S1].

Therefore the class is certainly brand new as it is refered to as such, and the E-D herself was very new early on. It is highly unlikely that the Federation just went and built all 8 or so GCS all at once? Even back in the late 23rd century, the Excelsior was the only one of her class in existance for at least the first year or two as well as well the Defiant. They always start off with one prototype and then work up from there.

So the only other alternative you have here is that the Galaxy class had been around for a while and the E-D was only new in the sense that she was the latest of the GCS off the line. But that then flies in the face of statements concering the newness of the class in general, not just for one specific starship.

- Prior to Voyager's launch three GCS were lost (Yamato, Enterprise-D, and Odyssey). We see however several complete, or nearly complete GCS at Utopia Planita. We also see several spaceframes in the works that could be, most likely are GCS.

How does this prove Federation has more than 5 or so Galaxies?

I would have hoped you would not need me to point out the obvious, but here it is; we have 3 GCS (Yamato, Enterprise-D, and Odyssey) lost prior to the timeframe shown in "Relativity", then we see
3 more ships in dry docks nearly complete or undergoing some kind of maintance, with the partially completed space frames of saucer sections for at least 1-2 more possible GCS. Therefore the only conclusion when you add in the three lost GCS with the three or so at the UP shipyards, and you get at least 6-7 GCS built from 2164 to 2171.

- By the time of the Dominon War, there were no less than 4-5 GCS in each of the 4 major campaigns were GCS are seen taken part in the action.

And in which Defiant took action right? If Defiant was in all campaigns then why is so unbelievable that those were the same Galaxies? In any case you have no evidence different Galaxies were involved.

Not quite so as the USS Venture handily illustrates with her unique raised bumps and extra phaser strips on her warp nacelles.

What is so important about that? In all of the Utopia Planita scenes as well as the Dominion War scenes, we do not spot a single GCS with those unique modifications. Not once, even though the ship is mentioned by name in "Sacrifice of Angels". That means that the Venture was there
But elsewhere in the fleet deployments, and this matches up well with the dialog which refers to "Galaxy wings", and possible might refer to seperate GCS squadrons deployed throughout the 624 ship fleet. In addition, the SoA "big fleet" was made of elements of the 2nd and 5th fleets, and would have included elements of the 9th fleet had fleet not had to depart early due to the Cardassians and Dominion bringing down minefield. Therefore is very likely that we are seeing 2-5 GCS per each of the 10 fleets.

- At least 5 GCS seen in the hastily gathered fleet in VOY's "Endgame".

Again how does this point to more than 5 or so Galaxies?

Because the deployments are so disparate in location that you cannot possibly have all five of the ships showing up at all these locations by sheer conicidence. The Defiant being at several battles makes some sense as at least she was deployed to a base where she could make it to those particular frontlines readily enough as well she was the choosen flagship of the base's commander.

It is likely, given this chronological order that the Federation was and is cranking out GCS, making that class of starship more common. The Federation even apparently reached a point where they could call several GCS together near the Sol system on short notice to intercept a Borg ship.

All of this points strongly towards numerous seperate GCS, and that the Federation build a fair number of them, and may likely be continuing to construct more.

Nothing you have said proves in any way Federation was "cranking out" Galaxies whatever that even means in actual number of ships. All you pointed out was several different occasions neither of which showed more than 5 ships. You provided no evidence whether these are the same ships or not.

Which I have and the further proof is in the canonical names listed by JMS of GCS, which means at least 8 vessels were built. The other thing that argues for there being more is that the fleet deployments I've already mentioned would not always allow for the same GCS being deployed to such disparate locations. The USS Defiant being absent at the "Endgame" deployment showing that even a hero starship can't be everywhere.

The Unicomplex is a signficant marshalling of resources to build a space structure that dwarfs even the incomplete DS2 in size. Also the Borg history is a bit fuzzy thanks to VOY's "Dragon's Teeth" as during the Vaadwuar's hayday some 900 years prior, the Borg are said to have only been in possession of "a handful of systems", and now they have "spread throughout the quadrent like a plaque". I doubt that the Borg necessarily took thousands of centuries, when it more likely took them centuries at longest to build the Unicomplex.

How exactly did you determine Unicomplex's volume to know it dwarfs Death Star? It is a bunch of loosely connected modules with huge open spaces between. Secondly having only a "handful of systems" wouldn't prevent them from already beginning the construction. Again since it is not a starship what relevance does it have to the thread?

Simple. Dialog:

JANEWAY: Report.
TUVOK: I'm detecting thousands of integrated substructures, trillions of lifeforms, all Borg.
PARIS: There's a cube coming up fast off our port bow.
JANEWAY: Did they detect us?
TUVOK: I don't believe so.
JANEWAY: Any sign of our Sphere?
PARIS: Yes, ma'am. Its ion signature leads directly to that whatever it is.
JANEWAY: Take us in, Mister Paris, minimum thrusters. Begin scanning for Seven, Tuvok.
TUVOK: Aye, Captain.


JANEWAY: Our transmission's being deflected.
EMH: By whom?
JANEWAY: I'm not certain.
TUVOK: I have isolated Seven's position. She's inside a large infrastructure approximately six hundred kilometres away.
JANEWAY: Set a course, Mister Paris.

The thousands of structures quote is important as we see cube ship sized structures (some even appearing to surpass a cube in size that flies by them). In the establishing shots we see them spread out quite a ways as the Delta Flyer approaches the complex. The 600 km quote is very important as Paris speaks this while they are deep inside the complex itself, and the location were they go to is not at the edge of the complex, but still deep within it Thus the absolute minimum possible size for the Unicomplex is 600 km, which is vastily larger than the DS in terms of linear size, and may well surpass it in volume, if it is double or even triple the minimum size.

No, you misunderstand again; the whole point was to note that it was more than just a paper study, it was a real project underway, and only stopped by politics and and a post-collapse economy. At any rate, I only noted that the DS2 was the largest theoretical ship in context to your implication that the Empire could crank out something much bigger.

I already acknowledged it was underway: it was 40% completed. And it still wouldn't have been as big as a Nimitz class. In the end it was never completed. Would they make it? Who knows.

Yes it was. A Nimitz full loadout is only 20,000 tons greater. But the two ships' measurements were not that far off: 1,050 feet (320 meters) versus 1,115 feet (339m) . They are very comparable.

But before the Soviet collapse, they still managed to build two ship hulls of 1,000 feet (300 meters) and 67,000 tons, and also comparable in the same rough size range. For a comparison in size difference equal to that of the GCS versus a D'Deridex or battleship, we would need as an analogy a much smaller real-world ship versus a Nimitz. Something that is just less than half it's length, and eight times smaller in volume and displacement. A Moskva class carrier, for instance with a displacement of about 17,500 tons and a length of 620' (189m). But look at the huge jump between the Moskva and Admiral Kuznetsov class ships. Clearly the Soviets were able to make a signficant leap there. Nearly double the length and 4 times the displacement tonnage.

There you go again, denying the evidence before your eyes. Look at how the explosion expands, and look at the glow being cast on the E=J's hull even before the fireball reaches the small sensor dome. The Vissian ship is right under, or nearly under that dome.

You haven't addressed my point of the explosion not necessarily expanding symmetrically. Explosion could have reached the saucer (and illuminate it) without the ship being near it. And, while I let it go the previous post, there is still a question of what evidence you have of that blurry ship being Vissian. I have no problem with evidence. But assumptions about explosion shape and ship class are not it.

Look at the first image showing the inital starting breakup of the vissian ship, the glow is still there, though weak, and illuminating parts of the sensor dome's structure that should be shadowed, were the ship as far away as you suggest it could be. The second image only confirms this as well as illuminates it more highly, the explosions still not having expanded very far from the destructing vessel. Finally, the third image shows the fireball actually reaching the dome. No that ship is nearly underneath, if not right under the dome.

Also another thing: the vissian ship is double the length of the 225 meter NX-01, or about some 450 meters long, which in turn makes the E-J saucer much, much larger. About 3.6 km wide total.
-Mike