Chamber Failure
Posted: 2003-12-24 07:08pm
In TOS, was there ever an instance of the Anti-Matter/Matter Combustion Chamber failing like we see time and again in TNG?
Get your fill of sci-fi, science, and mockery of stupid ideas
https://bbs.stardestroyer.net/
Onboard the USS Constellation, yes.Jeremy wrote:In TOS, was there ever an instance of the Anti-Matter/Matter Combustion Chamber failing like we see time and again in TNG?
correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the Constellation self-destruct against the Planetkiller using it's impulse drives?Ender wrote:Onboard the USS Constellation, yes.Jeremy wrote:In TOS, was there ever an instance of the Anti-Matter/Matter Combustion Chamber failing like we see time and again in TNG?
Course that was intentional so...
That is self destructing the ship by delibaretly overloading the warp core not a system failure. TOS era ships were better designed than TNG ones and none were lost from warp core failures.Kitsune wrote:Didn't Scotty mention blowing the ship up in that way in Star Trek: The Motion picture?
Obviously. The E-D was a true embarrassment for Federation starship designers. Think of it as Starfleet's Pinto.Jeremy wrote:So then it would be a better design compared to the one on Ent-D?
Even the TNG Tech Manual suggests that the Galaxy had a lot of problems during development, especially with regard to the materials used in the main reactor. It also suggests that the Galaxy class ships took thirteen years to build; by contrast, the extensive refit of the E-nil IIRC took a scant 18 months.Obviously. The E-D was a true embarrassment for Federation starship designers. Think of it as Starfleet's Pinto.
Correct. The Constellation detonated it's impulse engines, as the warp engines were utterly useless. Scotty said all of the antimatter had been 'neutralized', but also said that the engines themselves were a 'pile of junk'. In what order this occurred (neutralization and engine destruction) is not known.correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the Constellation self-destruct against the Planetkiller using it's impulse drives?
They caused an overload in the ship's fusion reactor.Matt Huang wrote:correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the Constellation self-destruct against the Planetkiller using it's impulse drives?
I must disagree. I'm thinking more along the lines of a Pacer.Darth Wong wrote:Obviously. The E-D was a true embarrassment for Federation starship designers. Think of it as Starfleet's Pinto.Jeremy wrote:So then it would be a better design compared to the one on Ent-D?
the impulse drives are fusion reactors.Defiant wrote:They caused an overload in the ship's fusion reactor.Matt Huang wrote:correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the Constellation self-destruct against the Planetkiller using it's impulse drives?
I'd extend that to the entire first flight of Galaxy class ships, minus the Galaxy herself.Darth Wong wrote:Obviously. The E-D was a true embarrassment for Federation starship designers. Think of it as Starfleet's Pinto.Jeremy wrote:So then it would be a better design compared to the one on Ent-D?
It's not as powerful (the E-D's core moved a much bigger ship much faster), but other than that, it's superior in every imaginable respect, especially safety.Jeremy wrote:So then it would be a better design compared to the one on Ent-D?
I will maintain until the end of my days, despite whatever evidence to the contrary, that it was Scotty, returning from his vacation on the dyson sphere, who fixed the GCS design and whipped out the sovie, defiant, and all the other kick ass designs.Chris OFarrell wrote:I wonder if Dr Brahms was shot...and who fixed up the design...probably the people who worked up the Defiant and Sovereign designs.Darth Wong wrote:Obviously. The E-D was a true embarrassment for Federation starship designers. Think of it as Starfleet's Pinto.Jeremy wrote:So then it would be a better design compared to the one on Ent-D?
Actually, the fusion reactors provide power to the impulse drives.[/i]Matt Huang wrote:the impulse drives are fusion reactors.Defiant wrote:They caused an overload in the ship's fusion reactor.Matt Huang wrote:correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the Constellation self-destruct against the Planetkiller using it's impulse drives?
According to the non-cannon Shatner books your right. Scottie became reactive in Starfleet R&D and was the Chief Engineer of the Soverign. The Defiant was partly down to Be Sisko IIRC.Ender wrote:I will maintain until the end of my days, despite whatever evidence to the contrary, that it was Scotty, returning from his vacation on the dyson sphere, who fixed the GCS design and whipped out the sovie, defiant, and all the other kick ass designs.
What about Voyager?Darth Wong wrote:Obviously. The E-D was a true embarrassment for Federation starship designers. Think of it as Starfleet's Pinto.Jeremy wrote:So then it would be a better design compared to the one on Ent-D?
It's not too bad for a light cruiser, it's fast and pretty decently armed, especially when compared to the Galaxy. And the warp core didn't throw out half the crap a Galaxy warp core did.Connor MacLeod wrote:What about Voyager?Darth Wong wrote:Obviously. The E-D was a true embarrassment for Federation starship designers. Think of it as Starfleet's Pinto.Jeremy wrote:So then it would be a better design compared to the one on Ent-D?
Huh? What episode, what ship, what class, and what series?Jeremy wrote:Hey here is a question: Why did they have plexi glass windows on the door that closed down around the Anti-Matter/Matter Combustion Chamber when it was about to blow? Or I am just imagining those plexi-glass windows existed?