I ran out of time to keep reading the thread after the end of year report card. This is literally nothing but my responses to stuff BEFORE the logs, and my comments on events IN The logs.
I loved the logs. Obviously Captain ka'Sharren getting trapped in a time loop took the first prize, but the others were
worthy of it, and that is saying something.
Hm. If a groundhog goes looking for its shadow on Andoria, they're getting six more weeks of winter whether it finds it or not, aren't they...?
EDIT: Battle analysis- okay, that Cardie battlecruiser has a glass jaw once the shields go down. That helped. Also, we might actually have had a good chance of winning that one with a few techs in the Lone Ranger tree, because bonuses while outnumbered would have brought the situation close to parity. And yes,
Enterprise-B got insanely lucky in the final iteration (OOC second, IC 27th) of the battle. But on the other hand they could have been significantly less lucky (i.e. getting hit four times more often) and still won the battle without noticeable hull damage.
This wasn't a hopeless fight the first time around, though it was a
REALLY GOOD Cardassian ambush and had a good chance of working; our ship would have wound up in the hospital without ludicrous good luck, and I suspect the most probable outcome would be "lose
Enterprise, heavy damage to both Cardassian ships, probably not taking either of them with us but maybe."
How the fuck did Nash get stuck in a time loop?! Assuming no interference by Q, that is...
The explosion of the
Enterprise's warp core wrapped her in a temporal anomaly that jumped her back to the moment just before the Cardassians ambushed her ship.
Captain ka'Sharren wound up having to iterate the time loop over and over until she "got it right," resulting in an outcome that doesn't end in the
Enterprise's warp core blowing up, which then breaks the loop and allows the universe to go on as normal. Failure leads to re-iteration, until re-iteration leads to success.
This is reminiscent of both
Generations the TNG episode "Cause and Effect," only funnier because she's the only one who knows she's caught in a time loop while everyone around her behaves normally.
Now, if we could figure out what the hell was going on with the warp core to make that happen, THAT would be great. Not likely, though I'm sure Nash will spend the next several days trying to find out.
I am abso-fucking-lutely looking forward to writing this up.
Poor Nash getting stuck in a conscious Bozeman loop for who knows how long.
Twenty-seven times, to be exact. Unless she lost count.
Also, those fucking Cardassians must be just ready to fucking give up now. One of our "Explorer" ships wrecked more than her weight in pure warship.
I could feel sorry for them, but I don't.
Also, this vindicates the "humans are insane and design ships that do weird things nobody else's ships do" hypothesis, which in turn lowers my resistance ot the idea of, um, things. Yes. Things.
[walks away, whistling quietly and cheerfully]
========================
Let me add something to the Constellation discussion. In about ten years we are looking at a major crew crunch. Adding more members and Academy expansions will help alleviate that, but there is still going to come a point where we are building ships faster than we can crew them, if not in ten years then in 15. We may well reach the point where it makes sense to mothball the Constellations in order to move their crews over to Renaissances. Just FYI.
I support mothballing
Constellations IF NECESSARY, but I want them to be viable, functional ships that do what we need them to do. I don't want to just write them off and cry about how weak and stupid they are, when we really do need all our ships and need them operating at full effect.
Moreover, this is a very bad time for us to adopt a "ten year rule" and plan our fleet around things that won't happen for ten years or more. Ten years from now the situation may look very different. We may end up fighting a war with the Cardassians in which most of our explorers get blown to hell and be scrambling to replace them. We may end up fighting a war with the Cardassians that results in recruits from the affiliate races flocking to our banner in such numbers that we can't build hulls fast enough to keep up with them. We may do both. We may do neither.
It's good for us to prepare in advance by designing good ship classes and making plans, and I am totally 100% behind the idea that we
should remember the possibility of retiring
Constellations to save on crew numbers.
But we also need to be mindful of what will be happening one, two, and five years down the road, not just ten to fifteen, and in this particular debate, the 1-5 year question is rather significant.
Can you post any ship design tips you have like the one about the odd-numbered hull in the Ship Design thread? I can threadmark it afterwards for reference.
I will be happy to do that when I have time later today (just keeping up with this thread is practically a full time job). But I thought at least the
basic fact itself was something that deserved to become general knowledge.
[snip ramble]
We can segregate a lot of the ship talk, including the parts that are burdensome to the mind of those who are not
unusually interested in ship design. But we can't segregate ALL the ship talk in a quest that is literally all about the creation and deployment of ships.
Except that it actually *isn't* more expensive.
A 1mt berth costs 10 PP in the Andorian or Tellarite systems, and a budget increase of 60 BR and 30 SR per year costs 30 PP at this point. That is less PP than the refit, and provides us with the space and resources that we can churn out a Centaur every 2 years, while having some BR left over, even. On top of that we're saving the BR and SR that the refits would cost, which is nothing to sneeze at, either.
In
sixteen years that will give us enough extra
Centaur-As to replace the last of the
Constellations. Our overall fleet strength will be largely unchanged from what it was in 2307- this is a move that will take until some time around 2325 to
break even.
Furthermore, the homeworld fleets of each member species will still be using
Constellations, which will be delivered into our hands unmodified and un-refitted if we should ever need to call on them for reinforcements.
And above all this, your entire argument is predicated on the forty-point political will cost of the refit program. What would you do if that went down? Would your argument still be valid if the program cost thirty points? Twenty? Ten? Five? One? Where, approximately, do you draw the line?
Look, your point that the cost of the refit program(s) is excessive is well taken. I think everyone agrees with you on that point- given that we aren't likely to ever order another
Constellation, the cost is excessive. It made sense for the
Centaurs because we're actually building MORE
Centaurs, so the payoff of making all future
Centaurs stronger is significant. With the
Constellations and
Mirandas that is probably not going to be happening, so the cost-payoff dynamic is different.
But you still seem to be behaving as if the costs of the refits are significant while the costs of replacement are not.
And unlike the Constellation refit, the berths and budget increase would be useful for the entirety of the game, since they would be just as useful for building Renaissance, or Sabers, or Steamrunners, or any other sort of vessel we want to produce. Whereas the PP spent on the Constellation refit do just that.
We've spent numerous political will points on one-time benefits. We've spent thirty-five political will to date, and intend to go on spending more,
purely to deal with the scandals created by Captain ka'Sharren, when literally all she does is provide a +1 to the stats of a single ship: the
Enterprise-B.
Tell me with a straight face that that hasn't been worth it.
Moreover, upgrading ships is
not a one-time benefit, because if the ship is employed correctly (and the
Constellations have been), improved ship stats translate directly into long-term benefits such as improved interspecies relations, freebie resources and political will.
Small black holes (the mass of a mountain) that you could feasibly carry around in a star ship are HOT HOT HOT. You need to continuously force feed them mass to stop the quantum foam eroding them with a big flash as the whole mass of the black hole turns into pure energy in a few picoseconds...
To be fair, I had sort of tacitly assumed that Star Trek has a technobabble way of "stabilizing" quantum black holes. I know it doesn't fit into the Standard Model, but neither do subspace communications.
Otherwise, Romulan power plants would be so insanely unstable and unreliable and fuel-hungry that it stops making any sense why they use singularity-core power plants instead of matter-antimatter reactors.
The
artificially stabilized singularity that you don't need to feed constantly and which is not in the process of rapid uncontrolled decay could more plausibly be used as a heat sink. And yes, there's no way to do that in the Standard Model, but again, in the Standard Model artificial gravity is not a thing.
So basically, IF the Romulans have artificial quantum black holes they can use as shipboard power sources at all, I almost have to assume they have the ability to use those black holes as heat sinks, by artificially "denying" those black holes from radiating. It presumably can't last forever.
If you have the right artificial barrier in place, you CAN force a system to remain in a low-entropy state, at the cost of EVENTUALLY increasing entropy overall or having previously increased entropy to set up the barrier.
[snip part where I ramble for several paragraphs about this]
No quite. Temperature IS intensity. You seem to be using the word "temperature" when you should be talking about total energy - with that change of terms all of what you said makes sense. This doesn't have anything to do with insulation though. Changing the temperature of the surface while keeping the total energy flux the same is simply a matter of changing the surface area of the surface. So hiding a secret base inside a giant metal balloon would work just as well as hiding a secret base inside the core of an ice moon (assuming the base has been on that moon for a long time).
The insulating properties of the ice moon are only useful for smoothing any spikes in energy output. (Of course, if you had a temporary base, then you could leave before the spike in emissions had traveled through the moon.)
My original choice of an ice moon was fairly arbitrary, when I was pitching my explanation at a level that would make intuitive sense to people without an undergraduate STEM degree.
People understand that a big ice ball will continue to be a big ice ball even if you put a small heat source in its center. They may NOT understand that a big spherical balloon surrounding a 300K heat source may have a surface temperature of thirty, or three, kelvins.
The balloon trick is, I have learned from painful experience, surprisingly hard to explain to people whose knowledge of science doesn't extent to upper-level undergraduate physics. Unless I've gotten a lot better at explaining things than I used to be.
As to the details- I am using intensity i the most literal sense possible, to refer to the amount of energy radiated by an object in watts, divided by surface area in square meters. This is affected by a number of factors, including temperature (as per the Stefan-Boltzmann law), emissivity of the surface, and (as you alluded) the surface area of the object.
You do come across as having the same knowledge. I'm pretty sure you're forgetting important details though.
I am trying to explain in layman's terms and to show my reasoning so a) everyone reading the thread could follow what I was saying so that it was at least someone useful for those who don't find physics quite as interesting and b) so that if I am the one who is forgetting things or using flawed reasoning you can follow my chain of thought and tell me where you think I am slipping up.
I do hope the tone didn't come across as overbearing?
It... kind of did at first, but got better over time. I do get what you're trying to do.