Construction of ships in both verses

[Mike DiCenso]

Because, if you had bothered to look again at the image in the link, the D'kyr class in that one screencap is about 4 times the length of the 225 meter NX-01, which means that 900 meters, or nearly so was possible, and the Federation was even around then, this was just what the Vulcans were able to do on their own.

Wait a minute. First you said 600m-800m now all of a sudden is 900m. Memory alpha which you linked to says 600m and besides we are talking volume. With that huge empty space between the rings I can't see it being more massive than Galaxy.

Because previously I'd underestimated the size. Use your pixel counting crap and look at the size ratio between the two docked ships. It's not 2.67 to 1. It's at least 3.6 to 1. The 600 meter number is clearly off given the size difference. Even rounding down the NX class size, that is still around 800 meters long.

Now you're just mincing definitions. Is the B-1B Lancer a bomber or is it not? Is it an aircraft capable of super-sonic speeds? Yes to both. The capability existed for the U.S. to follow up and build a second class of large, super-sonic bomb post-XB-70. The only thing that changed was the mission requirements.

Also, the U.S. still has maintained the capability to build a large, sub-sonic bomber as witnessed by the B-2 Spirit stealth bomber. Although the stealth capability requirement necessitated a different configuration and use of composite materials, the overall size and capability of the B-2 is similar to the B-52 bombers.

You make it sound as if supersonic is a homogenous class of bombers and if you can build one you can build the other. Yes B-1 is a supersonic bomber just like XB-70. Meanwhile Galaxy is a warp ship just like D'Kyr. But just like B-1 is smaller than XB-70 the Galaxy might be smaller than D'Kyr. If US tried to build fleets of XB-70's today it would bankrupt itself. The same could be true with the Federation. I'm not saying that is the case merely responding to your claim that you can't loose previously owned capabilities.

One does not have to create exactly the XB-70 design. The whole XB-70 program was nearly cancelled because of the increasing missle threat, which eventually necessitated that a whole new approach of low-level penetration rather than high-altitude super-sonic speeds. The B1-B is better suited to that role and it still maintains a modest mach speed. As for your analogy, it is flawed; the ability to have a warp driven starship is important since it is a key propulsion advancement, just as super-sonic or hypersonic speeds are. For it to work, it would have to be a case were the capability to fly at super-sonic speed or warp speed were totally lost as technologies for large vehicles. In either case they were not.

Would the U.S. bankrupt itself, if it chose to revive the XB-70? Not necessarily as the data collected by North American, the U.S. Air Force, and NASA are still available, as are the aircraft's blueprints and the surviving number one prototype which could be used to back-engineer the aircraft and it's components, though no doubt an effort would be made to incorporate new technologies where possible.

In fact, the XB-70 bomber program from the sources I've seen cost $1.5 billion USD. Adjusting for inflation and assuming the earliest possible date of 1959, it would cost 10.64 billion dollars to redo the program from scratch. That's hardly enough to bankrupt the U.S.A, even in the current flagging economy.

No, you are the one broad-brush twisting of a dictionary definition. That JMS turned it back on you is simple tit-for-tat.

I wouldn't even have to use dictionary definitions if it wasn't for your overwhelming urge to find any way to ignore Death Star. Yes it can fly supralight, has weapons, shields, armor and EU sources explicitly describe sublight engines but is it really really really a starship?

JMS has already made many points against all of that. The EU is subordinate to the movie and novelization canon. If the Death Star only need use it's antigrav to slingshot around Yavin, rather than maneuver signifcantly, then it is a fuzzy area vehicle. Not quite a ship, but not a stationary structure, either.

Here's a thought for you to dwell on. If the Death Star had signifcant maneuver capability at sublight as a proper independantly mobile ship should, then why did it's commanders bother orbiting Yavin at all? Why not fly out and around to where the gas giant no longer blocked line of sight and just fired on the moon. Even if the power of the DS superlaser goes down by an order of magnitude, it should still be capable of dealing a death blow regardless, right? Would that not be quicker and easier?

They are not unavoidable, especially when you couple that evidence with Bernd's article's evidence.

I'll assume you meant unavoidable. Bernd makes the same assumption you do: that the Galaxies seen in various Dominion war battles were not the same which may or may not be true.

But his own research is independant of mine, and it contains very signficant evidence that I did not present eariler that only makes the assumptions we both worked from even more vaild than before. Evidence is evidence in this case.

You are the one pretending here. I have shown over and over more and more evidence, and all you do is come up with excuses, or handwaving to ignore it.

Bernd's article is merely icing on the cake with the additional "dark neck" variants that are seen nowhere else in addition to the Venture's unique "bumps" on her warp nacelles.

Venture's bumps only seen from above. Again I ask you did we see all five ships from above at once? And even if we did it only raises the number of ships by one. You can assume the ships are not the same but you can't call it evidence.

Again, we see enough of them at various points to know that they are not the Venture. We also see in later battles that the "dark neck" GCS are not in any of the fleet scenes, further indicating larger numbers of GCS.

So? Even if we were to assume the three gaps there, it still does not disclude that there are elements that have Galaxy wings in them as part of their makeup. That would be 2-3 GCS per fleet, or about 14 to 21 GCS total in Starfleet.

What are Galaxy wings? How many Galxies are in each? Does Galaxy wing consists only of Galaxy class ships or is the wing simply led by the Galaxy similar to " 5 Carrier battlegroup" which doesn't mean there is actually 5 groups each consisting of several aircraft carriers.

Obviously Galaxy wings are a formation of GCS as seen in SoA. If there are only 5 GCS total in the Operation Return battle, then we have to split the GCS seen between the two fleets whose elements made up the 624 ships present in the fight. Working off that as a minimum, we have 2 ships per each fleet, multiply that by seven known fleets, and you get 14 possible GCS at the time of the Dominion war. If three GCS per wing, then you get 21 GCS. All of which would, of course, not include the three GCS destroyed prior to the war, which would bring the counts up to 17 and 24 respectively. The average would be 17 GCS, excluding the lost three.

What does it matter? Why would all 8 (there are eight as per the screencap in Bernd's article) GCS be there? Were they having a GCS convention? It makes no sense, nor would it make sense that all 8 or more were sitting around within a light year of Earth just waiting for something to happen as per the dialog from "Endgame":

ADMIRAL PARIS: What the hell is it?
BARCLAY: A transwarp aperture. It's less than a light year from Earth.
OFFICER: How many Borg vessels?
BARCLAY: We can't get a clear reading, but the graviton emissions are off the scale.
ADMIRAL PARIS: I want every ship in range to converge on those co-ordinates now.
CREWWOMAN: Yes, sir

So even though this takes place about 3 years after the Dominion War in 2378, you still have to explain why all of the existing GCS in Starfleet are hanging out around within a light year of Earth. It certainly would not take that long for all of them to have battle damgage repaired, and it certainly would not take that long for redeployment to other parts of the Federation and beyond... Not unless there is a larger number of them out there. Like the "dark neck" GCS that are conspicously absent from the Endgame fleet, and the Venture with her distinctive warp nacelles.

Refit and repair perhaps. And I honestly never observed these "dark neck" Galaxies. In the images that supposedly show them they all look like normal Galaxies to me.

That many... the entire Federation contingent of Galaxy starships all at the same time? It makes no sense. As for the "dark necks", they do exist as Cocytus has shown. None are visible at all among the 7-8 GCS
at the "Endgame" engagement. Neither do there appear to be any GCS with warp nacelle bumps, thus excluding at least one other GCS.

No you are not. You are asking for ever increasing standards. I the Death Star 2 case, I remind you that I was stating that it was theoretically possible that the Empire could have or would have desired to complete it. I even clarified that for you. Did the DS2 get completed. Yes or no? No, obviously. Could have possibily been completed. Theoretically, yes.

You on the other hand are ignoring and continuing to do so with each level of evidence provided to increase the standard of that evidence concerning the existance of more than 5 GCS. Now you are faced with at least 8 currently existing GCS and likely 10 more, given the two "dark neck GCS", and an 11th in the form of the unique varient USS Venture. We also have to deal with the practicallities of deployments. Why would all 8 GCS be sitting around for 3 years in within a light year of Earth?

That does not even include the three GCS destroyed prior to the Dominion war which would bump that number up to 11-14.

My standards are not increasing: find me evidence of more than 5 or so Galaxies. So far we are at 8 or so not counting the 3 lost. I am not saying they definitely don't have more we just have no evidence either way.
We could assume that those seen at various campaigns are not the same but then it would have to be acknowledged it's an assumption.

Fine, for now we'll say it's an assumption. But even you would have to recognize that for an assumption, there is quite a bit behind having made it in the first place.

With the existance of at least two "dark neck" GCS varients confirmed, then we have to place the numbers even higher than 8 or so.

No, I would remind you that we have seen the second Death Star under a later stage of construction, while we saw the first Death Star early on, however unlike the second, there is a distinct lack of internal superstructure. The Mandel blueprints are not canon, nor even offically licensed material just as was the same with his ISD blueprints. We also have seen a distinct contradiction between the canon AoTC and RoTJ scematics of the Death Stars and most of the offical EU/ICS material.

As for the Unicomplex, I can simply turn things around to point out that neither did Paris or anyone else state that the signal was coming from 600 km away in a seperate unicomplex. In fact, in "Dark Frontier", they talk only about one unicomplex.

So what? We've seen the complete Death Star and it is one ship just as much as any Borg cube or Federation starship. Unicomplex on the other hand was never explored in detail and consists of many loosely connected structures and it's impossible to make out whether all are actually connected.
Anyway since we don't know other dimensions and since the entire complex is a bunch of barely connected modules your initial claim that it dwarfs the Death Star is baseless.

It's the total volume of all those structures, regarless of how they are connected. The minimum stated linear dimensions of the Unicomplex are on a scale that clearly dwarfs the only completed Death Star by a fairly significant amount, even if we choose to go with the 160 km ICS number.

The real question then becomes what size sphere would you get if you were to take those "thousands of structures" and roll them up? Obviously the Unicomplex is not a single-file chain 600 km long, or it would not be composed of thousands of interconnected stuctures, and probably would not be able to house trillions of drones.

This is the only view that I can find that shows anything like the whole complex, obvious it does not:

http://voy.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/ ... er_288.jpg

You'll have to copy and paste it since Trekcore does not allow hotlinking.

A shot of a cube ship dwarfed by one of the structures:

http://voy.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/ ... er_342.jpg

Opinion? The two ships are pretty much in the ballpark in terms of size, that is something even the average layperson would agree on. You are also confusing tonnages, BTW. The displacement tonnages are within 25% of each other, and the linear dimensions are within 90% of each other (30 meters for length, and 10 meters in beam).

Most people seeing the two ships side-by-side would not notice much of a difference to care about.

But that doesn't change the fact Soviet Union never constructed anything larger. I honestly don't understand why is it so hard for you to accept the same standard of evidence you seek for the Empire. We never saw the Federation construct larger ships and the fact that Romulan Empire and Dominion can do it doesn't mean the Federation can. They are not the same political, economic or technological entity.

Because they are different points of comparison, that is why. I find it odd that you cannot except that. Also, the Soviets did build a full-deck carrier class that was comparable in size, and was jump of up to four times anything they'd previously built. For our purposes, they are in the same approximate size catagory.

So by your logic, we would have to ignore it if the Federation built a ship 90% the linear dimensions and 75% the mass of a D'Deridex warbird.

The fact that we have an additional roughly equivalent powers in ST with which to compare and extrapolate what the Federation could do is important as is comparing what a single member (Vulcan) was capable of building in the 22nd century. All of this adds together.

On the other hand, there is no other movie or novelization canon level power in the SW universe with which to make a similar comparison. It is that simple, and I don't understand why you cannot grasp that.

You still don't understand, do you? The vane debris is not being pushed laterally by the explosion enough to make it appear larger in size. But that is not all. The YouTube Video of
"Azati Prime" at 3:11 through 3:16 shows the explosion in all visible directions is only a about a 100 or so meters a second.Thus even with an asymetrical explosion, in two seconds the fireball laterally is not travelling all that much further, and therefore the vissian ship is underneath the E-J saucer near or underneath the dome.

All of you objections so far are hand waving, and thus there is nothing to disclude the vissian ship being near the dome or just underneath the E-J saucer.

Now that I look at the video it's clear that no part of the ship that wouldn't be in the line of sight even if the ship is beyond the saucer is not illuminated. Bottom left of the dome is lit up bot not the dome facing Archer and Daniels. Again there is no evidence that the ship is beneath the saucer.

The screecap I linked to shows otherwise however for the lighting of the Archer/Daniels side of the dome's base structure (the dome itself appears to be illuminated from within ala the very similar TOS and ENT style domes).
-Mike

[SailorSaturn13]

Regarding Death Star: you disregard canon evidence. It is CLEARLY DESCRIBED as "armored space station" at the very beginning of ANH.

Personally I think this qualifies it as a "Flying Fortress", a special class, to which Starbases may or may not belong, though I think they do.

[Roondar]

Since we now know that -despite any other arguments- the DS 'transports' part of the planet into hyperspace to do it's work, you'll certainly agree that any statements regarding the DS's shield absorbing exploding planets are both false and unquantifiable.

How can hyperspace "do it's work"? The reactor needs to do the work to reach hyperspace not the other way around.
Secondly objects in hyperspace still interact with objects in normal space as stated by Han Solo thus even objects in hyperspace would hit the Death Star. Finally simply by observing Alderaans explosion we can clearly see that much of the planet still remains in "realspace". Even assuming 0.1% remained in realspace that's still 10^28J or 2 trillion megatons hitting Death Star.

The good part of Sci-Fi is that it is only a bit Sci and mostly Fi. Or perhaps better put: your assumption that the generator needs to do all the work is just that, an assumption. Frankly, seeing what is done in Starwars and how much that breaks, no downright insults real physics I see no reason to assume anything of the sort.

Especially since the book in question makes an effort to make it all sound like 'magic' and not like 'raw power'. Hypermatter reactor & Superluminal boost =/= real life science. There is no reason to assume it works even remotely like anything in real life science. The honest way to deal with it is to acknowledge we don't know the actual mechanisms. Not to start calculating 'realistic' figures based on a best-case scenario. Like you do.

--

Secondly, we never see any alleged collisions with the Deathstar. If this was Startrek, that would be enough for you to claim that nothing did in fact hit the Deathstar or at the very least that we can't quantify it.

And even if something did hit the DS, you are aware that the explosion clearly didn't send all matter in one direction but rather send it in all directions more or less evenly would severely limit your projection.

To make the point more directly: the DS will not under any circumstances be hit by more matter than reaches the 120-160KM sphere it occupies at the distance it is at.

If we assume Alderaan to be Earth sized, it will have a radius of about 6400 km. That translates to a volume of ~1,1 * 10^12 km^3.

As Alderaan explodes, it starts taking on much more volume. The DS is alleged to be at 75000 KM from Alderaan as it goes boom, so our radius goes from 6400 km to 75000 km. Volume is increased to ~1,8 * 10^15 km^3. Or roughly four orders of magnitude.

The Deathstar on the other hand occupies only (at the high end) a sphere of 160KM. This is equivalent to ~1,7 * 10^7 km^3 or roughly 0,000001% of the volume of Alderaan at the time the explosive matter reaches the DS.

Please show me the evidence, in detail, that the DS was actually hit by anything even remotely resembling 0,1% of Alderaan when we know full well that the DS is much smaller than that. The explosion is roughly omni-directional after all. Couple this with the fact that parts of the matter will have been vaporized or pushed aside into hyperspace (logically, the bits pushed into hyperspace will have been pushed in the same direction as the beam traveled, meaning away from the DS) and I find it very unlikely that anything of the sort actually happened.

[Kane Starkiller]

Try the perspective of the map, which matches with the radial segments in question converging at the galactic core. Try also the appearance of the map, which displays the arm structure of the galaxy.

It is exactly the perspective which can make the mapped area seem much larger than the rest of the galaxy. Naturally you completely ignore the problem of real star position which disprove that the map is anywhere near 5000ly wide.

What, and you think it's that special?

Many starbases are close to planets and have a need for stationkeeping thrusters.

Observing the same level of evidence you insisted upon with Death Star I ask you to show evidence of thruster keeping engines. Their calculations could easily be more precise to allow stable orbits for many centuries without any engines. Not to mention the existence of various tow ships which could use tractor beams to move the station when the slightest deviation starts to show.

Incorrect. We should be able to see active engines down to clusters the size of the one driving the ISD, or alternatively a very large number of small ones distributed about the equatorial trench (which the closer shots rule out as well.)

Assuming they were firing in the moments the camera shows Death Star.

As they would have to be, given SW ion thruster technology as seen on screen - either that, or extremely numerous, which is also ruled out.

Assuming you know their thrust strength. You don't. Number of engines times crossectional area times thrust per unit of surface gives the total strength. So far you have not shown any numbers.

As an outer ballpark, yes.

Outer ballpark meaning what?

As I have pointed out, the DS2 being incomplete means it is noticeably less massive as well.

Except you don't know what is the status of mass completion compared to status of engine completion.

It is in the process of "orbiting at maximum velocity." The engines should be at full through the approach.

Except we don't see it from behind during the approach when it is orbiting at maximum velocity.

Yes it is.

No it isn't.

You are again confusing justified opinion with unjustified opinion.

And there you go again. Justified according to whom? Again: you. You are using your opinions to support your opinions.

As far as the eye can see is a goodly distance. In this case, we're talking about hundreds of meters, generally. Great big open volumes constituting a very significant fraction of the sample of the DS2's interior we have seen.

You failed to provide quote, book name and page number I asked. Where does "as far as the eye can see" come from. Was it related to the depth or the width of the shaft?

You are again completely off-base.

The only fraction that really matters is the fraction of our observed sample, not the entire Death Star. It is more important for us to catalog the size of the typical open space, in comparison with the thickness of interior walls/supports.

Assuming of course the spaces we've seen in both ships correspond to the entire thing. For which you have no evidence. Even so what does a shaft tell us about the density of Death Star as opposed to the large toroidal area seen in the Borg ships and which are over a kilometer wide?

No... although the scenario I gave is hardly unusual in turns of moments. You can have a much more gradual distribution with a similarly sharp drop in moment of inertia.

Assuming uniform distribution is not conservative. You're losing a factor that could easily be up to 2. Add in the thruster location problem, and claimed possible accelerations drop floorward by a probable half order of magnitude.

Rather then continuing on this entire tangent of how are the engines placed, what is the distrubution of mass and definition of a starship I will simply provide calculations for the observed acceleration of DS1 as it approached Yavin:
DS1 15 minutes from firing position:

DS1 5 minutes from firing position:

DS1 in range:

In the display due to perspective Yavin is 253px wide and 87px tall meaning that pixel height has been compressed at 1:2.908 ratio.
We can measure that between 15min and 5min timestamp DS1 travels 25px which is actually 72.7px due to perspective. Yavin's radius is given in Galaxy Guide 2 as being 96239km thus the pixel distance ration on the display is 760.78km/px. Therefore in the first 10m Death Star crossed roughly 55308km. Assuming initial velocity is 0 the acceleration would be 307m/s2 and the final velocity 184.2km/s.
Using this image:

We can measure the distance DS1 crosses between 5m and 0m timestamp.
Comparing this edited image with the one above showing the position of DS1 in range you can see that the green lines correspond to the final position of the DS1. Taking into account that pixel height is compressed the distance DS1 traveled is 210px which is 159,763km. The initial velocity will be 184.2km/s therefore the acceleration of the DS1 is 2322m/s2 or 236g. The final velocity is thus 880.8km/s.

It is capable of travel within as well as without a system? It can fly within lower atmosphere? It can maneuver within combat? It is capable of evasive action? It can dock at space stations?

1.Yes
2.Unlikely since it is 120km wide
3.Yes although it cannot outmaneuver ships millions or trillions of times smaller
4.Not against ships millions and trillions times smaller
5.If it is sufficiently large, of course

A strategic weapon does not turn a military base into a warship. Comprende? If I built a Freedom Ship and launched an ICBM from it, it would not become a fighting ship in the way that a cruiser is.

What is with your obsession with Freedom Ship? A real example exists: Nuclear submarine. And they indeed are warships.

I suppose next you're going to say that you wouldn't believe the Chinese capable of putting a man on the moon, given the budget and motivation, until you see it - because they've never built an Apollo rocket.

That's exactly right. When they do it then we can discuss about Chinese possessing the capability to put a human on the Moon.

See TrekCore for screenshots of crashed Borg scout.

And what is your evidence that is the entire ship as opposed to a fragment?

Because the stated (and ever-reducing) intercept time is given as the fastest they could catch the Borg. If slowing to impulse was not required by the situation, then there would be a faster possible intercept time.

Especially given that high warp speeds, such as are used in desperation, are generally much faster than that.

In desperation? Tell me would you classify a Borg ship, that just destroyed everything Federation threw at it, hovering over Earth as a desperate situation?

You still don't even understand what I'm trying to explain to you, nor do you grasp the physics particularly well.

Inertia is not a force. It is the resistance to force. By communicating the force accelerating the ship evenly to the entire ship and its contents, as a spatial field, an inertial compensator eliminates internal collisions caused by uneven acceleration of different parts of the ship. A crewmember is fine not because they are not accelerating, but because all of their body is being accelerated in the same direction at the same time along with the walls surrounding them - hence behaving as if no force is present (locally) just as in a free fall.

Of course, then there's artificial gravity, and the occasional "lurch" when the field fluctuates by a small fraction while adjusting to an unexpected vector change.

I understand this perfectly but apparently you do not. Inertial compensator obviously works by projecting either gravity or antigravity field which has an area effect and thus keeps the humans and internal equipment safe.
Thus if you have an inertial compensator on the front of the ship and you turn it on it will pull the insides of the ship towards it thus canceling out their inertia or actually pulling them along with the ship.
But what happens with the engines? If the ship is standing still and you turn on the inertial compensator then the engines will get pulled towards the front of the ship in other words they will tend to fall "down" where down is now the location of the inertial compensator on the front of the ship. So now the engines are straining against their bracings with the force that is mass of the engines times acceleration provided by the inertial compensator. Now what happens when engines are turned on? The engines are now pushing in the same direction as the inertial compensation field and the bracings are subjected to even larger stress. This new force is equal to entire mass of the ship times the acceleration provided to that ship. This is the difference between load bearing infrastructure and non-load bearing objects like crew. Crew only feels the acceleration not the actual total force supplied by the engines. Thus the force that is applied by the ship while accelerating will be the same as the force supplied by the inertial compensator and they will work in the same direction thus eliminating inertia. Load bearing area on the other hand has to worry not only about it's own weight but the weight of the entire ship and it has to bear the full force provided by the ship's engines not merely the effects of the acceleration.
For another example suppose you are fitted with a super strong Jango Fett backpack and sent to the rear of the ship to push against it and accelerate it. Now inertial compensator on the front is turned on at say 1g and you are pinned to the rear wall of the ship along with the rest of your crewmates also pinned to the wall directly between them and the compensator. Now your backpack engines fire and the ship (say an ISD) starts accelerating at 1g. For the rest of your crewmembers things are fine. They are no longer pinned to the surfaces facing the inertial compensator but what about you? Your backpack is now pushing you against the same wall as the inertial field did a few moments before. Thus you are pressed against the rear surface of the ship even harder. But fare more importantly the force required to accelerate the ISD at 1g is being transmitted entirely through your torso. Assuming ISD has a mass of 5.5*10^10kg the force applied to your back is 500 billion N. Do you now understand why you can't apply inertial damper solution to the engines?

Straining the budget. And mind you, there was an entire class behind it, and not a word was said about how much of that was sunk into R&D.

It is more likely along the lines of "the straw that broke the camel's back" than something that, in and of itself, the Empire could not afford. Indubitably, without the Death Star project consuming so much in terms of resource, the Executor project would have probably not strained the military budget.

So the quote is actually that Executor strained the budget of several starsystems?

Certainly more than 7 were built, and it is very strongly suggested that there were a good number more than that operational.

Your claims about there only being 5 were downright ridiculous.

So far I've seen no evidence of more than 8. Secondly I said "5 or so" which I can't see how you can call "downright ridiculous" when you haven't shown evidence of more than 8.

Because previously I'd underestimated the size. Use your pixel counting crap and look at the size ratio between the two docked ships. It's not 2.67 to 1. It's at least 3.6 to 1. The 600 meter number is clearly off given the size difference. Even rounding down the NX class size, that is still around 800 meters long.

225m*3.6 is 810m not 900m. Furthermore length is not volume. The ship has a larges empty area in the middle and you still haven't shown that it is larger than Galaxy class.

One does not have to create exactly the XB-70 design. The whole XB-70 program was nearly cancelled because of the increasing missle threat, which eventually necessitated that a whole new approach of low-level penetration rather than high-altitude super-sonic speeds. The B1-B is better suited to that role and it still maintains a modest mach speed. As for your analogy, it is flawed; the ability to have a warp driven starship is important since it is a key propulsion advancement, just as super-sonic or hypersonic speeds are. For it to work, it would have to be a case were the capability to fly at super-sonic speed or warp speed were totally lost as technologies for large vehicles. In either case they were not.

Would the U.S. bankrupt itself, if it chose to revive the XB-70? Not necessarily as the data collected by North American, the U.S. Air Force, and NASA are still available, as are the aircraft's blueprints and the surviving number one prototype which could be used to back-engineer the aircraft and it's components, though no doubt an effort would be made to incorporate new technologies where possible.

In fact, the XB-70 bomber program from the sources I've seen cost $1.5 billion USD. Adjusting for inflation and assuming the earliest possible date of 1959, it would cost 10.64 billion dollars to redo the program from scratch. That's hardly enough to bankrupt the U.S.A, even in the current flagging economy.

That is merely the cost of prototype not the cost of the entire fleet of such bombers. Again the issue is size and speed. Can they create a ship of a certain size that can go supersonic or at sufficient warp speeds.

JMS has already made many points against all of that. The EU is subordinate to the movie and novelization canon. If the Death Star only need use it's antigrav to slingshot around Yavin, rather than maneuver signifcantly, then it is a fuzzy area vehicle. Not quite a ship, but not a stationary structure, either.

Here's a thought for you to dwell on. If the Death Star had signifcant maneuver capability at sublight as a proper independantly mobile ship should, then why did it's commanders bother orbiting Yavin at all? Why not fly out and around to where the gas giant no longer blocked line of sight and just fired on the moon. Even if the power of the DS superlaser goes down by an order of magnitude, it should still be capable of dealing a death blow regardless, right? Would that not be quicker and easier?

EU is subbordinate to the movie not to JMS fantasies. As I have shown above Death Star moved much faster than what a simple orbit would allow not to mention that none of you explained how exactly the antigrav would work when Death Star moved perpendicularly to the direction of the gravitational force. As for your questions about the decisions taken by Death Star's navigators and commanders you are assuming that there were no other considerations to take into account when deciding the method of approach.

But his own research is independant of mine, and it contains very signficant evidence that I did not present eariler that only makes the assumptions we both worked from even more vaild than before. Evidence is evidence in this case.

It doesn't matter how independent your research is when you take the same assumption as he does: that those are not the same Galaxies.

Again, we see enough of them at various points to know that they are not the Venture. We also see in later battles that the "dark neck" GCS are not in any of the fleet scenes, further indicating larger numbers of GCS.

The "dark neck" Galaxy is merely a shadow cast on the back of the neck. The shadow pattern is the same for both Galaxies on their right nacelle pylon.

Obviously Galaxy wings are a formation of GCS as seen in SoA. If there are only 5 GCS total in the Operation Return battle, then we have to split the GCS seen between the two fleets whose elements made up the 624 ships present in the fight. Working off that as a minimum, we have 2 ships per each fleet, multiply that by seven known fleets, and you get 14 possible GCS at the time of the Dominion war. If three GCS per wing, then you get 21 GCS. All of which would, of course, not include the three GCS destroyed prior to the war, which would bring the counts up to 17 and 24 respectively. The average would be 17 GCS, excluding the lost three.

How do you know the Galaxies seen turning all belong to the same wing as opposed to being leaders of separate wings? What is your evidence that each and every fleet has a Galaxy class in it?

That many... the entire Federation contingent of Galaxy starships all at the same time? It makes no sense. As for the "dark necks", they do exist as Cocytus has shown. None are visible at all among the 7-8 GCS
at the "Endgame" engagement. Neither do there appear to be any GCS with warp nacelle bumps, thus excluding at least one other GCS.

As I said shadow play. And why wouldn't it make sense? If they were all damaged and needed repairs then there would be no choice either way.

It's the total volume of all those structures, regarless of how they are connected. The minimum stated linear dimensions of the Unicomplex are on a scale that clearly dwarfs the only completed Death Star by a fairly significant amount, even if we choose to go with the 160 km ICS number.

The real question then becomes what size sphere would you get if you were to take those "thousands of structures" and roll them up? Obviously the Unicomplex is not a single-file chain 600 km long, or it would not be composed of thousands of interconnected stuctures, and probably would not be able to house trillions of drones.

I'm not saying it's a single file chain but you can see yourself how loosely connected they are for example in the second screenshots on the lower left. It's just a "thin" beam with larges modules every now and then. And it's completely isolated. Obviously even of that beam extends for 100km it won't add up to a Death Star comparable mass.

Because they are different points of comparison, that is why. I find it odd that you cannot except that. Also, the Soviets did build a full-deck carrier class that was comparable in size, and was jump of up to four times anything they'd previously built. For our purposes, they are in the same approximate size catagory.

So by your logic, we would have to ignore it if the Federation built a ship 90% the linear dimensions and 75% the mass of a D'Deridex warbird.

The fact that we have an additional roughly equivalent powers in ST with which to compare and extrapolate what the Federation could do is important as is comparing what a single member (Vulcan) was capable of building in the 22nd century. All of this adds together.

On the other hand, there is no other movie or novelization canon level power in the SW universe with which to make a similar comparison. It is that simple, and I don't understand why you cannot grasp that.

Analogy does not have to be perfectly identical to be accurate. The Soviet Union navy example was introduced to show how even roughly equal sides will not necessarily have the capability to construct equal fleet size or achieve the same maximum ship size. The fact that the size difference between D'Deridex and Galaxy is larger does not invalidate the analogy nor does it prove Federation can match Romulan shipbuilding.

The screecap I linked to shows otherwise however for the lighting of the Archer/Daniels side of the dome's base structure (the dome itself appears to be illuminated from within ala the very similar TOS and ENT style domes).

Yes glow which could've been easily reflected from surfaces on the left and back of the dome.

Secondly, we never see any alleged collisions with the Deathstar. If this was Startrek, that would be enough for you to claim that nothing did in fact hit the Deathstar or at the very least that we can't quantify it.

Except the Death Star is designed to blow up planets. Do you think that the Imperials would just hope Death Star will be missed by all fragments? Never mind that Death Star novel explicitly states thousands of fragments hit the shields.

If we assume Alderaan to be Earth sized, it will have a radius of about 6400 km. That translates to a volume of ~1,1 * 10^12 km^3.

As Alderaan explodes, it starts taking on much more volume. The DS is alleged to be at 75000 KM from Alderaan as it goes boom, so our radius goes from 6400 km to 75000 km. Volume is increased to ~1,8 * 10^15 km^3. Or roughly four orders of magnitude.

The Deathstar on the other hand occupies only (at the high end) a sphere of 160KM. This is equivalent to ~1,7 * 10^7 km^3 or roughly 0,000001% of the volume of Alderaan at the time the explosive matter reaches the DS.

That is not how you calculate the fraction of the planet that will hit Death Star. Fragments won't just magically stop to uniformly fill out the volume as they expand. They will continue to expand as a spherical shell of certain thickness. Thus the fraction of the fragments that will hit the Death Star is calculated by the dividing the total area of the expanding shell at the distance Death Star is with the crossectional area of Death Star. Area of the shell is 4*75,000^2*pi or 7*10^10km while the crossectional area of Death Star is 60^2*pi or 11,309km/s therefore Death Star will absorb 1.6*10^-7 fraction of energy released by Alderaan's explosion.

[Jedi Master Spock]

IIt is exactly the perspective which can make the mapped area seem much larger than the rest of the galaxy. Naturally you completely ignore the problem of real star position which disprove that the map is anywhere near 5000ly wide.

Not at all.

The perspective is precisely accounted for. The star positions are all messed up. (Relative positions are all wrong.)

Observing the same level of evidence you insisted upon with Death Star I ask you to show evidence of thruster keeping engines. Their calculations could easily be more precise to allow stable orbits for many centuries without any engines. Not to mention the existence of various tow ships which could use tractor beams to move the station when the slightest deviation starts to show.

Or they could have thrusters. Just like the only space station we've seen in that much detail.

Assuming they were firing in the moments the camera shows Death Star.

Which, as I mentioned, they ought to be.

Assuming you know their thrust strength. You don't.

We have a very good idea of the thrust strength of the ion engines seen elsewhere... and a very good idea of how little gas must be expelled how slowly to be invisible.

Outer ballpark meaning what?

Meaning that's the highest we can reasonably guess.

Except you don't know what is the status of mass completion compared to status of engine completion.

Engines: Working perfectly, unknown level of completion. In other words, probably mostly complete.

Superstructure: Known to be highly incomplete.

Except we don't see it from behind during the approach when it is orbiting at maximum velocity.

Actually, we do. See the SWTC page for images thereof.

And there you go again. Justified according to whom? Again: you. You are using your opinions to support your opinions.

No, I use the evidence to support my opinions.

You failed to provide quote, book name and page number I asked. Where does "as far as the eye can see" come from. Was it related to the depth or the width of the shaft?

It comes from the movies. Quotation marks unnecessary. The screenplay calls it a "treacherous abyss," of course, and similar language is present in the novel if you insist on quotations.

Assuming of course the spaces we've seen in both ships correspond to the entire thing.

Which is the most reasonable null hypothesis.

For which you have no evidence. Even so what does a shaft tell us about the density of Death Star as opposed to the large toroidal area seen in the Borg ships and which are over a kilometer wide?

We determine the density of the Death Star in relation to such things as the cramped X-Wing and slightly less spacious Star Destroyers, by comparing relative spaciousness; we determine the density of the Borg ships best by relying upon the hard figures actually given for smaller ships.

Rather then continuing on this entire tangent of how are the engines placed, what is the distrubution of mass and definition of a starship I will simply provide calculations for the observed acceleration of DS1 as it approached Yavin:
DS1 15 minutes from firing position:
DS1 5 minutes from firing position:
DS1 in range:In the display due to perspective Yavin is 253px wide and 87px tall meaning that pixel height has been compressed at 1:2.908 ratio.
We can measure that between 15min and 5min timestamp DS1 travels 25px which is actually 72.7px due to perspective. Yavin's radius is given in Galaxy Guide 2 as being 96239km thus the pixel distance ration on the display is 760.78km/px. Therefore in the first 10m Death Star crossed roughly 55308km. Assuming initial velocity is 0 the acceleration would be 307m/s2 and the final velocity 184.2km/s.
Using this image:
We can measure the distance DS1 crosses between 5m and 0m timestamp.
Comparing this edited image with the one above showing the position of DS1 in range you can see that the green lines correspond to the final position of the DS1. Taking into account that pixel height is compressed the distance DS1 traveled is 210px which is 159,763km. The initial velocity will be 184.2km/s therefore the acceleration of the DS1 is 2322m/s2 or 236g. The final velocity is thus 880.8km/s.

This particular argument has already been addressed via reductio ad absurdum on my website. The precision of the Rebel diagram is, of course, questionable in the first place (you might wish to also consider the Imperial diagram, which shows no such sudden velocity shift); the hard cold facts of the scenario are not.

If the Death Star was capable of accelerating at a steady 236g under its own power, it would have been able to fire upon Yavin much more quickly.. As I point out here, orbiting to fire upon Yavin in 30 minutes requires <10g. As I pointed out previously, this is almost certainly the antigravity drive at work, which does not function far outside the planetary strength gravity well.

1.Yes

Never seen and highly improbable.

2.Unlikely since it is 120km wide

Better to say "no."

3.Yes although it cannot outmaneuver ships millions or trillions of times smaller

No. Not in any reasonable sense of the term.

4.Not against ships millions and trillions times smaller

So again not in any reasonable sense of the term.

5.If it is sufficiently large, of course

In other words... no.

What is with your obsession with Freedom Ship? A real example exists: Nuclear submarine. And they indeed are warships.

But floating missile silos are not.

Nuclear-armed submarines are designed to operate in combat against other submarines.

That's exactly right. When they do it then we can discuss about Chinese possessing the capability to put a human on the Moon.

Right. And in the mean time, you will claim that it is impossible for them to do it any time in the next century?

And what is your evidence that is the entire ship as opposed to a fragment?

The fact that while fragmented slightly, the main body of the five man small craft is easily identifiable as the major portion of a cube, and contained within a small radius? The fact that the debris is limited to a fairly small area?

In desperation? Tell me would you classify a Borg ship, that just destroyed everything Federation threw at it, hovering over Earth as a desperate situation?

Right. So if warping from Jupiter to Earth in 5 seconds flat was an option, they would have done it.

I understand this perfectly but apparently you do not. Inertial compensator obviously works by projecting either gravity or antigravity field which has an area effect and thus keeps the humans and internal equipment safe.
Thus if you have an inertial compensator on the front of the ship and you turn it on it will pull the insides of the ship towards it thus canceling out their inertia or actually pulling them along with the ship.

Nope. Terrible explanation, and you're still not understanding mine - or what I've told you about the serious flaws in yours.

You're still trying to think of inertia as a force. It's throwing you for a loop. There is no such thing as an inertial force to be cancelled out.

But what happens with the engines? If the ship is standing still and you turn on the inertial compensator then the engines will get pulled towards the front of the ship in other words they will tend to fall "down" where down is now the location of the inertial compensator on the front of the ship.

And since the rest of the ship is being pulled at the same rate, that makes no difference.

So now the engines are straining against their bracings with the force that is mass of the engines times acceleration provided by the inertial compensator.

Nope. Not if they're in a uniform field.

Now what happens when engines are turned on? The engines are now pushing in the same direction as the inertial compensation field and the bracings are subjected to even larger stress.

No, just the same stress... assuming that you don't vary the field with distance, effectively spreading the strain throughout the entire ship. I.e., the sensible thing to do.

This new force is equal to entire mass of the ship times the acceleration provided to that ship.

And, since it is distributed nicely to everything, doesn't crush you any more than the gravity accelerating him crushes a man inside a falling elevator.

This is the difference between load bearing infrastructure and non-load bearing objects like crew. Crew only feels the acceleration not the actual total force supplied by the engines.

The only difference is in how you care to treat them. And if you have inertial compensation, and don't use it on the whole ship, it's because (a) you don't need to or (b) you have a terrible design.

Thus the force that is applied by the ship while accelerating will be the same as the force supplied by the inertial compensator and they will work in the same direction thus eliminating inertia.

No. Inertia will remain invariant in a compensating field. Mass reduction, which reduces inertia, is an entirely different trick.

Load bearing area on the other hand has to worry not only about it's own weight but the weight of the entire ship and it has to bear the full force provided by the ship's engines not merely the effects of the acceleration.

... nope.

For another example suppose you are fitted with a super strong Jango Fett backpack and sent to the rear of the ship to push against it and accelerate it. Now inertial compensator on the front is turned on at say 1g and you are pinned to the rear wall of the ship along with the rest of your crewmates also pinned to the wall directly between them and the compensator. Now your backpack engines fire and the ship (say an ISD) starts accelerating at 1g. For the rest of your crewmembers things are fine. They are no longer pinned to the surfaces facing the inertial compensator but what about you? Your backpack is now pushing you against the same wall as the inertial field did a few moments before. Thus you are pressed against the rear surface of the ship even harder. But fare more importantly the force required to accelerate the ISD at 1g is being transmitted entirely through your torso. Assuming ISD has a mass of 5.5*10^10kg the force applied to your back is 500 billion N.

And you're implicitly operating on the theory that somehow, the force of the inertial compensator applies to only Jango, squishing him against the ship, rather than the whole ship, including the engines, causing them to accelerate uniformly.

So the quote is actually that Executor strained the budget of several starsystems?

The quote, in context, talks about the Executor as an overpriced boondoggle. IIRC.

So far I've seen no evidence of more than 8. Secondly I said "5 or so" which I can't see how you can call "downright ridiculous" when you haven't shown evidence of more than 8.

You missed where I indicated ten known named GCS, I take it? Or the fact that those eight are in addition to already destroyed GCS and variant GCS? Or that those were all immediately close to Earth?

5 is a gross underestimate. 8 is absurdly minimalistic. Even 12, by the end of Voyager, strains credibility.

[Roondar]

I don't think my reply on the Deathstar collision issues fits this thread, so I placed it in the Deathstar and the destruction of Alderaan one.

[The Elder Dwoof]

The First Federation ship Fesarius is the biggest ship we've seen in Trek...about 4 miles in diameter, based on comparisons between the size of the features on it's surface to the size of the Enterprise.

Considering that we've never seen any FF ships anywhere else in the any Trek Series or movies, however, it seems likely that Balok was a time traveller or something similar, otherwise such a powerful race, even if they only had the one ship, would be a formidable and influential force.

Their one-shot appearance is...unsettling.

[Jedi Master Spock]

I more got the impression that they were way out on the fringe of things and probably just mostly kept to themselves.

It's actually not the largest ship seen in Trek even if we take it to be 4 miles (EAS scales it to 1.6 km in diameter, so I'd like to see details on getting to 4 miles); V'Ger and the whale probe are both bigger. It's actually not much larger than the upper-end scalings on some Borg cubes (a 4 mile sphere is a hair bigger than a 5 km cube).

[The Elder Dwoof]

I more got the impression that they were way out on the fringe of things and probably just mostly kept to themselves.

It's actually not the largest ship seen in Trek even if we take it to be 4 miles (EAS scales it to 1.6 km in diameter, so I'd like to see details on getting to 4 miles); V'Ger and the whale probe are both bigger. It's actually not much larger than the upper-end scalings on some Borg cubes (a 4 mile sphere is a hair bigger than a 5 km cube).

Got the 4 mile figure from memory alpha...they said it was based on scaling the size of the enterprise to the size of the dome-structures on the Fesarius' surface. I wasn't including robotic ships, you're right, some of them are (lots) bigger...particularly V'ger.

[Mike DiCenso]

One mile (1.6 km) only comes from Spock's dialog statement in the episode. It is at odds with the various original and now remastered effects which show a substantially larger ship. Is the Fesarius really 4 miles wide? The large domes are 126 meters in dimeter since they are at least as wide as the Constitution class Enterprise's saucer section.

I count thatthe domes span 20 to a side across the Fesarius's diameter in the new remastered CGI version. That would make the Fesarius some 2.5 km wide, not 6.4 km (4 miles). This seems consistant with the original FX as well, too.
-Mike

[Cocytus]

Both the Varro ship from "The Disease" and the Voth city ship from "Distant Origin" are many kilometers long. If the internal bay into which Voyager was beamed is any indication, the city ship might even rival the Executor in terms of size.

[Praeothmin]

the Voth city ship from "Distant Origin" are many kilometers long. If the internal bay into which Voyager was beamed is any indication, the city ship might even rival the Executor in terms of size.

Yes, but the Voth ship was clearly way more advanced then Voyager, so this isn't a good indication of the capabilities of the Federation...

[Cocytus]

So are the aforementioned V'Ger and the whale probe. It was just an example of something else we've seen in Trek that's larger than the Fesarius. Certainly I wouldn't imagine any Federation vessel posing a credible threat to the Voth city ship. Or any Imperial vessel for that matter.

[Kane Starkiller]

Not at all.

The perspective is precisely accounted for. The star positions are all messed up. (Relative positions are all wrong.)

Where did you account for the perspective? Secondly if the relative positions of stars are all wrong then the map is useless isn't it?

Or they could have thrusters. Just like the only space station we've seen in that much detail.

Which Federation build space station was said to have thrusters? In any case to observe the evidence criteria you yourself insisted upon concerning Death Star show me evidence that large spacedock type has those thrusters or someone mentioning them.

Which, as I mentioned, they ought to be.

Yes you "mentioned" they "ought to be". That is not evidence.

Meaning that's the highest we can reasonably guess.

It isn't the highest since the DS2 was incomplete. I honestly don't see why you fail to understand that incomplete objects cannot be used to determine the upper limits or outer ballparks.

Engines: Working perfectly, unknown level of completion. In other words, probably mostly complete.

Superstructure: Known to be highly incomplete.

What exactly does "working perfectly" mean? I take it that means that those that are completed are working without glitches. But the second part is simply laughable: "Unknown level of completion in other words complete". You have no evidence and I don't accept your gut feelings as substitute.

Actually, we do. See the SWTC page for images thereof.

I have the film. Nowhere do we see it from behind when it starts to orbit the planet.

No, I use the evidence to support my opinions.

If you have evidence for your claims they are no longer opinions. What you have is evidence which in your opinion support your opinion. Namely that ion engines were not mentioned "enough times" in your opinion.

It comes from the movies. Quotation marks unnecessary. The screenplay calls it a "treacherous abyss," of course, and similar language is present in the novel if you insist on quotations.

A "treacherous abyss"? And somehow from that you came to conclusion that it actually goes down to the core?

Which is the most reasonable null hypothesis.

Why? You have no idea what purpose the shaft serves therefore you have no evidence to justify your claim these shafts are spread throughout the Death Star as reasonable.

We determine the density of the Death Star in relation to such things as the cramped X-Wing and slightly less spacious Star Destroyers, by comparing relative spaciousness; we determine the density of the Borg ships best by relying upon the hard figures actually given for smaller ships.

You didn't answer my question. How big is the large toroid area in Borg ships compared to Death Star shaft? Not to mention other large open spaces on Borg ships. As for the "hard" figures given for smaller ships I'll deal with that below.

This particular argument has already been addressed via reductio ad absurdum on my website. The precision of the Rebel diagram is, of course, questionable in the first place (you might wish to also consider the Imperial diagram, which shows no such sudden velocity shift); the hard cold facts of the scenario are not.

If the Death Star was capable of accelerating at a steady 236g under its own power, it would have been able to fire upon Yavin much more quickly.. As I point out here, orbiting to fire upon Yavin in 30 minutes requires <10g. As I pointed out previously, this is almost certainly the antigravity drive at work, which does not function far outside the planetary strength gravity well.

First of all Rebel sensors were extremely accurate. The Yavin base actually picked up TIE fighters as they were launched and warned the Rebel starfighters. If they can detect ~10m vessels with precision of no less than ~100km there will be no chance they will somehow incorrectly determine the position of a 120km object to be tens of thousands of km away. Imperial diagram shows Yavin 4 head on so we can only determine the velocity component perpendicular to the Rebel base. Furthermore what you think Death Star commanders should have done is again your opinion. The point remains unchanged: Death Star accelerated at at least 236g. Why they didn't do it immediately is their business.
Finally I would like to see some more details, quotes and page numbers for this Death Stars "antigravity drive" which is supposedly responsoble for all high g acceleration of Death Star. Seeing as how Death Star accelerated perpendicularly to the direction of the gravity field I don't see how repulsorlift could've been used.

Never seen and highly improbable.

Yes it is seen:236g in orbit around Yavin. That you insist with no evidence this were actually antigravity drives is your problem.

Better to say "no."

Why? If the atmosphere is thick enough Death Star could do it?

No. Not in any reasonable sense of the term.

Why would it be reasonable to expect Death Star to outmaneuver ships trillion times smaller than it is?

So again not in any reasonable sense of the term.

Again why is it reasonable to expect Death Star to outmaneuver ships trillions of times smaller than it is?

In other words... no.

That's not what I said. If the spacedock is sufficiently larges Death Star can dock with it. If the spacedock is too small then the problem is with spacedock not with the Death Star isn't it? If an Airbus A380 can't land to an airstrip because it's too short does that somehow make it less of an airplane?

But floating missile silos are not.

Nuclear-armed submarines are designed to operate in combat against other submarines.

It's not Death Star's fault Rebels never had comparable vessels.

Right. And in the mean time, you will claim that it is impossible for them to do it any time in the next century?

I don't claim anything. I am saying that when I see Chinese astronaut planting Chinese flag on the surface of the Moon then I'll accept their capability to land a person on the Moon. Not sooner.

The fact that while fragmented slightly, the main body of the five man small craft is easily identifiable as the major portion of a cube, and contained within a small radius? The fact that the debris is limited to a fairly small area?

What does any of this prove? Even a miniscule fragment could still be cubical. Secondly we only ever get a closeup scene showing a part of the ship so there is no way to tell how far away the fragments are scattered. For all we know it could be dozens of kilometers.

Right. So if warping from Jupiter to Earth in 5 seconds flat was an option, they would have done it.

Meaning they can't go to high warp within a solar system. But that doesn't stop them from going to lower warp unless they are simply masochistic.

And you're implicitly operating on the theory that somehow, the force of the inertial compensator applies to only Jango, squishing him against the ship, rather than the whole ship, including the engines, causing them to accelerate uniformly.

I don't see why you ripped my paragraph into million pieces instead of simply answering with a paragraph of your own. It only makes it more difficult to follow so I will respond to your points regarding inertial compensation here.
You seem to be under impression that I didn't assume the inertial compensator applies a uniform force field to the entire ship and second that if you apply a uniform force field to everything in the ship the problems relating to stress go away. I did and they don't.

First of all the ship will be "accelerated" by the field in the sense that the field will try to accelerate the ship at a certain rate. But since the inertial compensator is attached to the ship then it obviously won't work and the end result will be that ship's construction is straining against the field similar to how buildings are straining against Earth's gravity field. The fact that field is uniform is of no consequence. Your feet are exerting pressure against the building floor regardless of the fact that both you and building are being "accelerated" by the Earth's gravity.
But again we are faced with an even greater problem: engines which push the ship.

To get back to Jango you are still claiming inertial compensator field will save him if it's applied "uniformly to him". How exactly? How exactly will this inertial compensator field nullify 500 billion N? Do you even understand that if Jango Fett does not press against the rear wall with the force of 500 billion N then the ship isn't accelerated thus even if it could somehow be possible to magically nullify the force it would be useless?

You missed where I indicated ten known named GCS, I take it? Or the fact that those eight are in addition to already destroyed GCS and variant GCS? Or that those were all immediately close to Earth?

5 is a gross underestimate. 8 is absurdly minimalistic. Even 12, by the end of Voyager, strains credibility.

This is the list of ship you gave:
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
That is 8 three of which are destroyed. What additional named Galaxies did you mention? Again you provided no evidence as to whether the Galaxies seen in Endgame are different ships or not and again you have no basis in claiming that 12 total ships "strains credibility".
P.S. Reading through the memory alpha I see that nowhere is it established that Magellan is in fact a Galaxy class starship.

[Roondar]

His basis for objection is quite simple:

All of the Galaxies present at one location stretches credibility because we know that Federation FTL tech is just not fast enough for them to instantly relocated their ships to wherever they wish them to be.

Because of this and because we've seen that Galaxy class cruisers tend to be sent out on missions across the entire Federation and not just the immediate vicinity of Earth, coupled with the fact that maintenance is a) not limited to the Sol system and b) not frequently needed it becomes extremely, extremely unlikely that all of the ships are in range of Sol at the time of Endgame.

Unlikely enough for your stance being the one that needs proving: provide a reasonable explanation (and no, despite your wish neither repairs nor maintenance is one as explained above) why we should accept those eight ships to be all of the class.

I submit you actually have zero realistic evidence for your position.

Now, had your position been that eight Galaxy class cruisers is a lower limit you would have had a point. But since you claim it to be an upper limit the burden of proof there are no more than eight lies squarely on your shoulders.