StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Hi Everyone

In the ENT episode "Anomaly" we learn that The NX-01 has almost month's supply of fuel in the main reactor if that's not excess reactivity I don't what is
Please tell what do you think of this and how does this affect the "exploding Warp Core" problem of post TNG starships.

The exploding warp core problem was the result of a design fluke in the Galaxy Class starship. There's no direct connection whatsoever to Enterprise, given the series are separated by a good 150 years timeline wise. unless you happen to have a connection that you can show that is.

Darth_Zod wrote:The exploding warp core problem was the result of a design fluke in the Galaxy Class starship. There's no direct connection whatsoever to Enterprise, given the series are separated by a good 150 years timeline wise. unless you happen to have a connection that you can show that is.

The desing fluke made The GCS warp core have so much unused fuel in the core that the drive section blows up when security system fail (and they do fail as we know. . Now the NX class month's fuel supply in main reactor. Both ships suffer from extreme excess reactivity the only difference is that NX reactor is much more stable. (compere "Generations" and "ENT:Azati Prime".
Did I make my point clear ?

Lord Revan wrote:

Darth_Zod wrote:The exploding warp core problem was the result of a design fluke in the Galaxy Class starship. There's no direct connection whatsoever to Enterprise, given the series are separated by a good 150 years timeline wise. unless you happen to have a connection that you can show that is.

The desing fluke made The GCS warp core have so much unused fuel in the core that the drive section blows up when security system fail (and they do fail as we know. . Now the NX class month's fuel supply in main reactor. Both ships suffer from extreme excess reactivity the only difference is that NX reactor is much more stable. (compere "Generations" and "ENT:Azati Prime".
Did I make my point clear ?

i'm still not seeing much of a connection here, or a point. Your effective argument is that a design in the NX-01's warp core had a direct impact on the design fluke of a new warp core system 150+ years later? despite the fact the design has gone through dozens of engineers, scientists and been worked over so many times it isn't even the same? It would be like arguing that because the original model T had a fluke in its engine it's somehow connected to the latest Dodge Ram's fluke nearly 80 years later which appears to be similar.

Lord Revan wrote:

Darth_Zod wrote:The exploding warp core problem was the result of a design fluke in the Galaxy Class starship. There's no direct connection whatsoever to Enterprise, given the series are separated by a good 150 years timeline wise. unless you happen to have a connection that you can show that is.

The desing fluke made The GCS warp core have so much unused fuel in the core that the drive section blows up when security system fail (and they do fail as we know. . Now the NX class month's fuel supply in main reactor. Both ships suffer from extreme excess reactivity the only difference is that NX reactor is much more stable. (compere "Generations" and "ENT:Azati Prime".
Did I make my point clear ?

Based off of what canon evidence?

What Lord Revan is saying is that the Enterprise carries too much fuel, and he's asking how this could contribute to the poor safety record of the Enterprise-D.

The problem, Revan, is that these starships are designed with long-range exploration in mind, where resupply may not be available for weeks, or even months (IIRC, The TNG tech manual suggests a potential operating range of years for the Galaxy class). How are they supposed to accomplish this with less fuel?

Thanks for the replies

Ok my point is that earth and (TNG) federation starfleet ships have SAME problem of massive excess reactivity (odly TOS starships don't have this problem.). you would think that even starfleet would know not to use. Are basic operating princebles of a modern nuclear reactor any different of that where made in the 50's. Of course the warp drive systems of the NX and Galaxy have little if anything in common. The warp core of GCS and the main Reactor of NX are both M/AM reactors. So tell my how much has operating princeble a car piston changed since the Model T ford?

Lord Revan wrote:Thanks for the replies

Ok my point is that earth and (TNG) federation starfleet ships have SAME problem of massive excess reactivity (odly TOS starships don't have this problem.). you would think that even starfleet would know not to use. Are basic operating princebles of a modern nuclear reactor any different of that where made in the 50's. Of course the warp drive systems of the NX and Galaxy have little if anything in common. The warp core of GCS and the main Reactor of NX are both M/AM reactors. So tell my how much has operating princeble a car piston changed since the Model T ford?

You aren't listening to anyone. TNG starships don't have this problem either. It was simply a design flaw in the GCS.

But Revan, suppose that this excess reactivity is the only way Starfleet can achieve it's goals. What then?

Uraniun235 wrote:But Revan, suppose that this excess reactivity is the only way Starfleet can achieve it's goals. What then?

I don't know about you, but I rather be in bit slower that was not a time bomb

Lord Revan wrote:

Uraniun235 wrote:But Revan, suppose that this excess reactivity is the only way Starfleet can achieve it's goals. What then?

I don't know about you, but I rather be in bit slower that was not a time bomb

It's not just about speed though. You're talking about power generation, and that would mean they would have less power. The Romulans, the Borg, ect would walk all over them.

Once again they aren't time bombs.

Lord Revan wrote:

Uraniun235 wrote:But Revan, suppose that this excess reactivity is the only way Starfleet can achieve it's goals. What then?

I don't know about you, but I rather be in bit slower that was not a time bomb

No, you would never get anywhere without fuel.

Alyeska wrote:

Lord Revan wrote:

Uraniun235 wrote:But Revan, suppose that this excess reactivity is the only way Starfleet can achieve it's goals. What then?

I don't know about you, but I rather be in bit slower that was not a time bomb

No, you would never get anywhere without fuel.

I think would keep the unused fuel in the fuel tanks or are the AM-pods in ST starships just decorations

Lord Revan wrote:

Alyeska wrote:

Lord Revan wrote: I don't know about you, but I rather be in bit slower that was not a time bomb

No, you would never get anywhere without fuel.

I think would keep the unused fuel in the fuel tanks or are the AM-pods in ST starships just decorations

You don't get it do you? First you take something from ENT and accuse TNG of doing the same thing.

Starships do not keep lots of fuel in its M/AM reactors. The fuel is stored in pods until they are needed.

Alyeska wrote:

Lord Revan wrote:

Alyeska wrote: No, you would never get anywhere without fuel.

I think would keep the unused fuel in the fuel tanks or are the AM-pods in ST starships just decorations

You don't get it do you? First you take something from ENT and accuse TNG of doing the same thing.

Starships do not keep lots of fuel in its M/AM reactors. The fuel is stored in pods until they are needed.

Fist in in the TNG episode "Contagion" the Yamato blew up even after dumped part of it's antimatter. The explotion so violent that there nothing left of drive section. the Odyssey alos fell victim to same thing but it had all of it's AM fuel left.

The ENT fargument comes from dialoge with Archer and Trip and it states the AM pods where stolen in a pirate raid.

Alyeska wrote:Starships do not keep lots of fuel in its M/AM reactors. The fuel is stored in pods until they are needed.

Aly, if you'd read the opening post then you'd have learned that Enterprise does in fact keep lots of fuel in its reactor.

Unless the newbie misquoted in which case I apologize.

Howedar wrote: Unless the newbie misquoted in which case I apologize.

I did not misqoute

The Dialoge whent something like this

Trip "And captain they took all the antimatter pods."

Archer "so that leaves us only with what's left in the main reactor. That's about moth's worth"

Trip "a little less..."

if anyone versions of this please post it since this from memory and not a very good version of the dialoge.

Lord Revan wrote: Fist in in the TNG episode "Contagion" the Yamato blew up even after dumped part of it's antimatter. The explotion so violent that there nothing left of drive section. the Odyssey alos fell victim to same thing but it had all of it's AM fuel left.

The ENT fargument comes from dialoge with Archer and Trip and it states the AM pods where stolen in a pirate raid.

The Yamato blew up after the magnetic shielding on all the pods failed thanks to the Oconian virus. Meaning that the unused fuel is kept in the M/AM pods.....

Wait, how do you know the Odyssey had all its fuel left?

Kamakazie Sith wrote:

Lord Revan wrote: Fist in in the TNG episode "Contagion" the Yamato blew up even after dumped part of it's antimatter. The explotion so violent that there nothing left of drive section. the Odyssey alos fell victim to same thing but it had all of it's AM fuel left.

The ENT fargument comes from dialoge with Archer and Trip and it states the AM pods where stolen in a pirate raid.

The Yamato blew up after the magnetic shielding on all the pods failed thanks to the Oconian virus. Meaning that the unused fuel is kept in the M/AM pods.....

Wait, how do you know the Odyssey had all its fuel left?

first these are only non E-D examples.
And I wouldn't bump most of the fuel supply before going to batlle, but I'm no starfleet captain.

Lord Revan wrote:

Howedar wrote: Unless the newbie misquoted in which case I apologize.

I did not misqoute

The Dialoge whent something like this

Trip "And captain they took all the antimatter pods."

Archer "so that leaves us only with what's left in the main reactor. That's about moth's worth"

Trip "a little less..."

if anyone versions of this please post it since this from memory and not a very good version of the dialoge.

Certainly a problem, but not necessarily relevant to TNG+. We know that TOS/TMP didn't have this problem, so it seems unlikely that excessive reactivity was a long-term repeating design flaw. In addition, most other TNG+ ships have not shown the GCS' propensity towards blowing up at the first opportunity. I would surmise that in TNG+, excess reactivity was a problem with the GCS design, not necessarily with the fleet as a whole.

Of course, it's too early to tell whether or not the problem in common in the Ent-era Starfleet.

Howedar wrote:

Alyeska wrote:Starships do not keep lots of fuel in its M/AM reactors. The fuel is stored in pods until they are needed.

Aly, if you'd read the opening post then you'd have learned that Enterprise does in fact keep lots of fuel in its reactor.

Unless the newbie misquoted in which case I apologize.

The newbie is taking a statement from ENT and assuming it still applies in TNG and beyond.

Alyeska wrote:The newbie is taking a statement from ENT and assuming it still applies in TNG and beyond.

then tell why does GCS have a warp core ejection system this does not apply.

Lord Revan wrote:

Alyeska wrote:The newbie is taking a statement from ENT and assuming it still applies in TNG and beyond.

then tell why does GCS have a warp core ejection system this does not apply.

Reword your question so I can understand it.

What Lord Revan seems to be addressing is the observation that the Enterprise NX-01 is carrying a month's worth of fuel in the reaction chamber.

There is no sensible reason to have that much fuel in the reactor at any given time. We have seen that the TNG-era Galaxy-class starship has a similar problem. Both of these designs apparently carry more than enough anti-matter in the reaction chamber to destroy the ship in the event of a core containment failure.

Granted, the NX-01 doesn't have a track record of losing core containment under relatively minor duress like Galaxy-class ships, but that still doesn't excuse the enormous amount of excess fuel inside the NX-01's reactor. It's a design problem that we see repeated by Federation designers centuries later; compounded by the relative instability of the Galaxy-class containment system.

Ted C wrote:What Lord Revan seems to be addressing is the observation that the Enterprise NX-01 is carrying a month's worth of fuel in the reaction chamber.

There is no sensible reason to have that much fuel in the reactor at any given time. We have seen that the TNG-era Galaxy-class starship has a similar problem. Both of these designs apparently carry more than enough anti-matter in the reaction chamber to destroy the ship in the event of a core containment failure.

Granted, the NX-01 doesn't have a track record of losing core containment under relatively minor duress like Galaxy-class ships, but that still doesn't excuse the enormous amount of excess fuel inside the NX-01's reactor. It's a design problem that we see repeated by Federation designers centuries later; compounded by the relative instability of the Galaxy-class containment system.

Thank god that somebody did see my point.