test content
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc
Options

It makes more sense for the Galaxy X's third nacelle to be on the saucer section?

kayajaykayajay Member Posts: 1,990 Arc User
This is a stray thought and of course, we never saw the actual D-X separate its saucer, but since the original Galaxy's saucer didn't have warp capability, it would have made so much sense for that third nacelle to still overpower the ship and allow it to make Warp 13, but also to allow the saucer to fly in warp.

In STO, we can see the X separate, but the three nacelles stay on the drive section. If the ship has split differently, with say it's spine with a nacelle off at the back like a tail...that would have looked terrific.

It's always been suggested that the Sovereign could have separated its saucer too, but I wouldn't see any Prometheus-esque warp capability on that either. Unusual Defiant-esque warp engines would be great stuck anywhere though and actually on Prometheus...I always thought that those two plates on either side of the saucer should have raised up, a bit like Risian sails and there have been warp engines/buzzard collectors there.
Post edited by baddmoonrizin on

Comments

  • Options
    spiritbornspiritborn Member Posts: 4,263 Arc User
    I don't think TNG designers think about that back in the days and as for why it doesn't work that way in STO IIRC Galaxy-x shares customization with rest of the Galaxy line and thus cannot deviate from it too much.
  • Options
    corlunacorluna Member Posts: 13 Arc User
    edited July 2021
    For the Galaxy X saucer to have warp capabilities just having a warp nacelle would not be enough, it would need its own seperate warp core, and im not sure the inner structure of the ship is modular enough to fit another warp core in.

    The Prometheus was designed specifically to have 3 seperate warp capable ships, so it has 2 warpcores, of which one is separable (the one that is in between the lower and middle section). The upper section has its own little warpcore and two small nacelles, one on top which extends when MVAM is active, the other one hidden below, only visible when separated. The two plates on the side of the saucer are actually the impulse engines.
  • Options
    spiritbornspiritborn Member Posts: 4,263 Arc User
    corluna wrote: »
    For the Galaxy X saucer to have warp capabilities just having a warp nacelle would not be enough, it would need its own seperate warp core, and im not sure the inner structure of the ship is modular enough to fit another warp core in.

    The Prometheus was designed specifically to have 3 seperate warp capable ships, so it has 2 warpcores, of which one is separable (the one that is in between the lower and middle section). The upper section has its own little warpcore and two small nacelles, one on top which extends when MVAM is active, the other one hidden below, only visible when separated. The two plates on the side of the saucer are actually the impulse engines.

    Unless the saucer has go into warp a simple sustainer engine similar to those used in Photon Torpedos could be used taking power from the impulse engines. There's nothing special about the warp core that makes it so it's needed to power the warp engines, it's just a powerful reactor, granted the warp is the only reactor in the ships with fuel/size ration that makes it possible to use higher warp speeds freely.
  • Options
    truewarpertruewarper Member Posts: 928 Arc User
    spiritborn wrote: »
    corluna wrote: »
    For the Galaxy X saucer to have warp capabilities just having a warp nacelle would not be enough, it would need its own seperate warp core, and im not sure the inner structure of the ship is modular enough to fit another warp core in.

    The Prometheus was designed specifically to have 3 seperate warp capable ships, so it has 2 warpcores, of which one is separable (the one that is in between the lower and middle section). The upper section has its own little warpcore and two small nacelles, one on top which extends when MVAM is active, the other one hidden below, only visible when separated. The two plates on the side of the saucer are actually the impulse engines.

    Unless the saucer has go into warp a simple sustainer engine similar to those used in Photon Torpedos could be used taking power from the impulse engines. There's nothing special about the warp core that makes it so it's needed to power the warp engines, it's just a powerful reactor, granted the warp is the only reactor in the ships with fuel/size ration that makes it possible to use higher warp speeds freely.

    Impulse engines are powered by Fusion reactors, one or two steps below of an Anti-matter reaction.

    They can achieve a Warp Factor speed of 0.5, the energy release is plasma for thrust. This is still under Warp Factor 1 breaking envelope... Source below.

    https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Impulse_engine
    52611496918_3c42b8bab8.jpg
    Departing from Sol *Earth* by Carlos A Smith,on Flickr
    SPACE---The Last and Great Frontier. A 14th-year journey
    Vna res, una mens, unum cor et anima una. Cetera omnia, somnium est.
  • Options
    truewarpertruewarper Member Posts: 928 Arc User
    edited July 2021
    kayajay wrote: »
    This is a stray thought and of course, we never saw the actual D-X separate its saucer, but since the original Galaxy's saucer didn't have warp capability, it would have made so much sense for that third nacelle to still overpower the ship and allow it to make Warp 13, but also to allow the saucer to fly in warp.

    In STO, we can see the X separate, but the three nacelles stay on the drive section. If the ship has split differently, with say it's spine with a nacelle off at the back like a tail...that would have looked terrific.

    It's always been suggested that the Sovereign could have separated its saucer too, but I wouldn't see any Prometheus-esque warp capability on that either. Unusual Defiant-esque warp engines would be great stuck anywhere though and actually on Prometheus...I always thought that those two plates on either side of the saucer should have raised up, a bit like Risian sails and there have been warp engines/buzzard collectors there.

    Rule of Thumb...any part of a ship, that needs to have warp capabilities, must have a inner Warp core and access to anti-matter.

    For the Galaxy D design, it would have been difficult to place, one issue will be it cannot be placed near the Computer Core, unless certains areas of the ship are sacrificed to achieve such a placement. But having two areas of possible vunerabilites in the same area or near too. It can be expolitied to a high degree.

    52611496918_3c42b8bab8.jpg
    Departing from Sol *Earth* by Carlos A Smith,on Flickr
    SPACE---The Last and Great Frontier. A 14th-year journey
    Vna res, una mens, unum cor et anima una. Cetera omnia, somnium est.
  • Options
    kayajaykayajay Member Posts: 1,990 Arc User
    truewarper wrote: »
    kayajay wrote: »
    This is a stray thought and of course, we never saw the actual D-X separate its saucer, but since the original Galaxy's saucer didn't have warp capability, it would have made so much sense for that third nacelle to still overpower the ship and allow it to make Warp 13, but also to allow the saucer to fly in warp.

    In STO, we can see the X separate, but the three nacelles stay on the drive section. If the ship has split differently, with say it's spine with a nacelle off at the back like a tail...that would have looked terrific.

    It's always been suggested that the Sovereign could have separated its saucer too, but I wouldn't see any Prometheus-esque warp capability on that either. Unusual Defiant-esque warp engines would be great stuck anywhere though and actually on Prometheus...I always thought that those two plates on either side of the saucer should have raised up, a bit like Risian sails and there have been warp engines/buzzard collectors there.

    Rule of Thumb...any part of a ship, that needs to have warp capabilities, must have a inner Warp core and access to anti-matter.

    For the Galaxy D design, it would have been difficult to place, one issue will be it cannot be placed near the Computer Core, unless certains areas of the ship are sacrificed to achieve such a placement. But having two areas of possible vunerabilites in the same area or near too. It can be expolitied to a high degree.

    That said...from the photos I've seen, the third warp nacelle took away the main shuttlebay. With that shuttlebay eliminated and repurposed, that could have allowed an internal rearrangement.
  • Options
    spiritbornspiritborn Member Posts: 4,263 Arc User
    truewarper wrote: »
    spiritborn wrote: »
    corluna wrote: »
    For the Galaxy X saucer to have warp capabilities just having a warp nacelle would not be enough, it would need its own seperate warp core, and im not sure the inner structure of the ship is modular enough to fit another warp core in.

    The Prometheus was designed specifically to have 3 seperate warp capable ships, so it has 2 warpcores, of which one is separable (the one that is in between the lower and middle section). The upper section has its own little warpcore and two small nacelles, one on top which extends when MVAM is active, the other one hidden below, only visible when separated. The two plates on the side of the saucer are actually the impulse engines.

    Unless the saucer has go into warp a simple sustainer engine similar to those used in Photon Torpedos could be used taking power from the impulse engines. There's nothing special about the warp core that makes it so it's needed to power the warp engines, it's just a powerful reactor, granted the warp is the only reactor in the ships with fuel/size ration that makes it possible to use higher warp speeds freely.

    Impulse engines are powered by Fusion reactors, one or two steps below of an Anti-matter reaction.

    They can achieve a Warp Factor speed of 0.5, the energy release is plasma for thrust. This is still under Warp Factor 1 breaking envelope... Source below.

    https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Impulse_engine

    That's why I said sustainer engine, photon torps have those, they only sustain the current speed (hence the name), so with such engine config the saucer could keep what speed it had before separation+ any boost it got during separation but not add to it and if it slowed down to sublight it could not re-enter warp.

    We also know that the fusion generators that power the impulse engines can be used to power other things as well. The reason warp engines need M/AM based reactors is that power needed to break the warp barrier.

    and since we've seen torps fired at warp from the forward firing arc they need some ability to travel at warp speeds (objects without active warp bubble will drop out, we know this as well they can coast for a while but not gain speed but rather are loosing it constantly)
  • Options
    legendarylycan#5411 legendarylycan Member Posts: 37,280 Arc User
    You do not need antimatter to break the warp barrier - you need it to go higher than a certain warp factor. Earth didn't have any kind of antimatter reactor tech immediately after WW3, yet Cochrane was able to break warp 1 just fine.​​
    Like special weapons from other Star Trek games? Wondering if they can be replicated in STO even a little bit? Check this out: https://forum.arcgames.com/startrekonline/discussion/1262277/a-mostly-comprehensive-guide-to-star-trek-videogame-special-weapons-and-their-sto-equivalents

    #LegalizeAwoo

    A normie goes "Oh, what's this?"
    An otaku goes "UwU, what's this?"
    A furry goes "OwO, what's this?"
    A werewolf goes "Awoo, what's this?"


    "It's nothing personal, I just don't feel like I've gotten to know a person until I've sniffed their crotch."
    "We said 'no' to Mr. Curiosity. We're not home. Curiosity is not welcome, it is not to be invited in. Curiosity...is bad. It gets you in trouble, it gets you killed, and more importantly...it makes you poor!"
    Passion and Serenity are one.
    I gain power by understanding both.
    In the chaos of their battle, I bring order.
    I am a shadow, darkness born from light.
    The Force is united within me.
  • Options
    rattler2rattler2 Member Posts: 58,018 Community Moderator
    The problem is that realistically, the Galaxy-X shouldn't even be able to do saucer separation anyways. The placement of the 3rd nacelle means you have to be a LOT more careful with the separation, as well as reconnecting, pretty much having to thread a needle for all intents and purposes, and the Phaser Spinal Lance supposedly is supposed to go all the way through the neck, preventing separation in the first place.

    STO did kinda skirt that later on by making the elements on the saucer more for focusing I guess, hence why the Lance is more of a shotgun blast when separated rather than a powerful beam, but still...
    db80k0m-89201ed8-eadb-45d3-830f-bb2f0d4c0fe7.png?token=eyJ0eXAiOiJKV1QiLCJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiJ9.eyJzdWIiOiJ1cm46YXBwOjdlMGQxODg5ODIyNjQzNzNhNWYwZDQxNWVhMGQyNmUwIiwiaXNzIjoidXJuOmFwcDo3ZTBkMTg4OTgyMjY0MzczYTVmMGQ0MTVlYTBkMjZlMCIsIm9iaiI6W1t7InBhdGgiOiJcL2ZcL2ExOGQ4ZWM2LTUyZjQtNDdiMS05YTI1LTVlYmZkYmJkOGM3N1wvZGI4MGswbS04OTIwMWVkOC1lYWRiLTQ1ZDMtODMwZi1iYjJmMGQ0YzBmZTcucG5nIn1dXSwiYXVkIjpbInVybjpzZXJ2aWNlOmZpbGUuZG93bmxvYWQiXX0.8G-Pg35Qi8qxiKLjAofaKRH6fmNH3qAAEI628gW0eXc
    I can't take it anymore! Could everyone just chill out for two seconds before something CRAZY happens again?!
    The nut who actually ground out many packs. The resident forum voice of reason (I HAZ FORUM REP! YAY!)
  • Options
    nixie50nixie50 Member Posts: 1,268 Arc User
    I think they did not do it is a more legal reason. In the TOS Star trek technical manual, Franz Joseph created a dreadnought.

    cef806c22c2b472e5df45b39b4ba0b1f.png


    Maybe they did not want to risk a lawsuit
    u7acy6aymfw7.gif
    We Need BERETS in the tailor
  • Options
    discojerdiscojer Member Posts: 533 Arc User
    The ship from the Lower Decks looks a lot like Joseph's "Tug", basically just the saucer with the two nacelles
  • Options
    kayajaykayajay Member Posts: 1,990 Arc User
    nixie50 wrote: »
    I think they did not do it is a more legal reason. In the TOS Star trek technical manual, Franz Joseph created a dreadnought.

    cef806c22c2b472e5df45b39b4ba0b1f.png


    Maybe they did not want to risk a lawsuit

    Now see, that makes total sense...although I'm puzzled by the rear deflector dish. The Galaxy X though had a bizarre new impulse engine where the shuttlebay was and if the nacelle really had bee there instead...
  • Options
    smokebaileysmokebailey Member Posts: 4,664 Arc User
    nixie50 wrote: »
    I think they did not do it is a more legal reason. In the TOS Star trek technical manual, Franz Joseph created a dreadnought.

    cef806c22c2b472e5df45b39b4ba0b1f.png


    Maybe they did not want to risk a lawsuit

    Beat me to it.
    dvZq2Aj.jpg
  • Options
    kayajaykayajay Member Posts: 1,990 Arc User
    It is strange though how the temporal two-look ships were released without issue. I'd personally love each and every ship to be able to have the Type 0 skin and a pointy deflector...let alone an actual TOS rejiggering.
  • Options
    truewarpertruewarper Member Posts: 928 Arc User
    You do not need antimatter to break the warp barrier - you need it to go higher than a certain warp factor. Earth didn't have any kind of antimatter reactor tech immediately after WW3, yet Cochrane was able to break warp 1 just fine.​​

    Uhm, The Phoenix has a Warp drive, what other evidence can provide to show otherwise. As posted earlier, Impulse can't break that break that barrier. And yes, torpedoes can carry the speed of warp, due to being the only object to release a destructive force against another object. They are not built for a long duration of flight.

    Source...https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Phoenix

    52611496918_3c42b8bab8.jpg
    Departing from Sol *Earth* by Carlos A Smith,on Flickr
    SPACE---The Last and Great Frontier. A 14th-year journey
    Vna res, una mens, unum cor et anima una. Cetera omnia, somnium est.
  • Options
    rattler2rattler2 Member Posts: 58,018 Community Moderator
    Yea... the Phoenix had the FIRST warp drive, that didn't rely on a traditional warp core. It was built out of scrap. Was probably ONLY capable of Warp 1, and probably not for an extended duration, but it could hit Warp 1.
    db80k0m-89201ed8-eadb-45d3-830f-bb2f0d4c0fe7.png?token=eyJ0eXAiOiJKV1QiLCJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiJ9.eyJzdWIiOiJ1cm46YXBwOjdlMGQxODg5ODIyNjQzNzNhNWYwZDQxNWVhMGQyNmUwIiwiaXNzIjoidXJuOmFwcDo3ZTBkMTg4OTgyMjY0MzczYTVmMGQ0MTVlYTBkMjZlMCIsIm9iaiI6W1t7InBhdGgiOiJcL2ZcL2ExOGQ4ZWM2LTUyZjQtNDdiMS05YTI1LTVlYmZkYmJkOGM3N1wvZGI4MGswbS04OTIwMWVkOC1lYWRiLTQ1ZDMtODMwZi1iYjJmMGQ0YzBmZTcucG5nIn1dXSwiYXVkIjpbInVybjpzZXJ2aWNlOmZpbGUuZG93bmxvYWQiXX0.8G-Pg35Qi8qxiKLjAofaKRH6fmNH3qAAEI628gW0eXc
    I can't take it anymore! Could everyone just chill out for two seconds before something CRAZY happens again?!
    The nut who actually ground out many packs. The resident forum voice of reason (I HAZ FORUM REP! YAY!)
  • Options
    spiritbornspiritborn Member Posts: 4,263 Arc User
    edited July 2021
    Yeah no-one is arguing the Phoenix didn't have Warp drive but what people are arguing is that M/AM isn't essential for a Warp Drive to function. We know of Warp capable ships with singularity based reactors and IIRC there was one ship in TNG that had massive fusion reactor to fuel its Warp drive (though said drive was said to inferior to that on ENT-D)
    Post edited by spiritborn on
  • Options
    kayajaykayajay Member Posts: 1,990 Arc User
    I really wish Enterprise had referenced First Contact more. No transporter and the ship lands, no antimatter and something "primitive". I used to be so scathing about Enterprise for making itself more modern than it should have been...I've found need appreciation in comparison to Disco now of course, but some reach kitsch and differences would have been great.

    We know there are a lot of different warps...matter/antimatter, artificial quantum singularity, soliton waves, the Bajoran solar sails and I think the Dauntless was capable of warp as well as Quantum Slipstream and Paris said that it didn't use antimatter.
  • Options
    rattler2rattler2 Member Posts: 58,018 Community Moderator
    I liked Enterprise because we were seeing a lot of the tech we were familiar with being developed, and how characters viewed them.

    For the most part characters were pretty uncomfortable with the idea of the Transporter and preferred using Shuttlepods. The Transporter was mostly used in emergencies, or when they needed the tactical advantage. The Phase weapons were clearly ment to be the ancestor to the Phaser as we know it. While I would have liked to see the EM Plasma weapons more, the Phase weapons were still alright. And Enterprise didn't start with early Photon Torpedoes, she started with Spacial Torpedoes, which I assume may have been nuclear warheads. But as we saw they were painfully SLOW compared to Photonic Torpedoes.

    Hell... Enterprise didn't even have shields.

    The only thing that at the time may have seemed out of place was the limited use of holograms for target practice. But I guess its natural progression. Limited to Target Practice and no dedicated room (ENT) > dedicated room on an experimental starship (DSC) > Standard on most starships for recreation (TNG)
    db80k0m-89201ed8-eadb-45d3-830f-bb2f0d4c0fe7.png?token=eyJ0eXAiOiJKV1QiLCJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiJ9.eyJzdWIiOiJ1cm46YXBwOjdlMGQxODg5ODIyNjQzNzNhNWYwZDQxNWVhMGQyNmUwIiwiaXNzIjoidXJuOmFwcDo3ZTBkMTg4OTgyMjY0MzczYTVmMGQ0MTVlYTBkMjZlMCIsIm9iaiI6W1t7InBhdGgiOiJcL2ZcL2ExOGQ4ZWM2LTUyZjQtNDdiMS05YTI1LTVlYmZkYmJkOGM3N1wvZGI4MGswbS04OTIwMWVkOC1lYWRiLTQ1ZDMtODMwZi1iYjJmMGQ0YzBmZTcucG5nIn1dXSwiYXVkIjpbInVybjpzZXJ2aWNlOmZpbGUuZG93bmxvYWQiXX0.8G-Pg35Qi8qxiKLjAofaKRH6fmNH3qAAEI628gW0eXc
    I can't take it anymore! Could everyone just chill out for two seconds before something CRAZY happens again?!
    The nut who actually ground out many packs. The resident forum voice of reason (I HAZ FORUM REP! YAY!)
  • Options
    kayajaykayajay Member Posts: 1,990 Arc User
    rattler2 wrote: »
    I liked Enterprise because we were seeing a lot of the tech we were familiar with being developed, and how characters viewed them.

    For the most part characters were pretty uncomfortable with the idea of the Transporter and preferred using Shuttlepods. The Transporter was mostly used in emergencies, or when they needed the tactical advantage. The Phase weapons were clearly ment to be the ancestor to the Phaser as we know it. While I would have liked to see the EM Plasma weapons more, the Phase weapons were still alright. And Enterprise didn't start with early Photon Torpedoes, she started with Spacial Torpedoes, which I assume may have been nuclear warheads. But as we saw they were painfully SLOW compared to Photonic Torpedoes.

    Hell... Enterprise didn't even have shields.

    The only thing that at the time may have seemed out of place was the limited use of holograms for target practice. But I guess its natural progression. Limited to Target Practice and no dedicated room (ENT) > dedicated room on an experimental starship (DSC) > Standard on most starships for recreation (TNG)

    I think the two things that got to me the most...Enterprise being able to use its transporter to beam vital components about of its future self. And polarizing the hull...which was seemingly more effective than shields. The shuttlepods and decontamination were basically an excuse to have the cast in their underwear, rubbing each other down, but the transporter shouldn't have played a part. And polarizing was an ENT creation, which no series before could have used and would have been great when their shields were down. It shouldn't have been allowed, but the producers couldn't keep having the ship smashed apart...although that is what JJ did in the films.
  • Options
    legendarylycan#5411 legendarylycan Member Posts: 37,280 Arc User
    edited July 2021
    It wasn't an excuse, though they certainly focused way more time on those decon scenes than they should have - I would expect ANY ship to have at least some form of decontamination at all embarkation points, even the smaller ones - that's just being smart. The fact that we never saw any such setups AFTER the time period Enterprise took place in is...odd - yes, transporters have decontamination built in, but what about for those who don't take transporters for whatever reasons, like Reginald Broccoli Barclay?​​
    Like special weapons from other Star Trek games? Wondering if they can be replicated in STO even a little bit? Check this out: https://forum.arcgames.com/startrekonline/discussion/1262277/a-mostly-comprehensive-guide-to-star-trek-videogame-special-weapons-and-their-sto-equivalents

    #LegalizeAwoo

    A normie goes "Oh, what's this?"
    An otaku goes "UwU, what's this?"
    A furry goes "OwO, what's this?"
    A werewolf goes "Awoo, what's this?"


    "It's nothing personal, I just don't feel like I've gotten to know a person until I've sniffed their crotch."
    "We said 'no' to Mr. Curiosity. We're not home. Curiosity is not welcome, it is not to be invited in. Curiosity...is bad. It gets you in trouble, it gets you killed, and more importantly...it makes you poor!"
    Passion and Serenity are one.
    I gain power by understanding both.
    In the chaos of their battle, I bring order.
    I am a shadow, darkness born from light.
    The Force is united within me.
  • Options
    kayajaykayajay Member Posts: 1,990 Arc User
    It wasn't an excuse, though they certainly focused way more time on those decon scenes than they should have - I would expect ANY ship to have at least some form of decontamination at all embarkation points, even the smaller ones - that's just being smart. The fact that we never saw any such setups AFTER the time period Enterprise took place in is...odd - yes, transporters have decontamination built in, but what about for those who don't take transporters for whatever reasons, like Reginald Broccoli Barclay?​​

    I just wish that it could have been more like the decontamination in the original Andromeda Strain. Off with your clothes, a good old spray down like a carwash and then back on duty. Sitting around in a blue sauna, in what ended up looking like a cheap porno, really took you out of an episode.
  • Options
    rattler2rattler2 Member Posts: 58,018 Community Moderator
    I think the reason we don't see Hull Polarization has to do with the advent of Shield technology. Its entirely possible that Polarized Hull Plating is just as resiliant as shields, but shields are more effecient on power. Another factor could be advancements in hull material, which would basically make 22nd Century style Hull Polarization redundant.

    In STO we do have Polarize Hull, which actually does give a Damage Resistance Buff on top of being able to break a Tractor Lock, but note that its only for a short duration. If we apply that, it could show that the energy effeciency of that capability is nowhere near that of Shields so it can't be kept up as long. And you also need to have nodes throughout the ship in order to impart that charge to the hull, which takes up space.
    db80k0m-89201ed8-eadb-45d3-830f-bb2f0d4c0fe7.png?token=eyJ0eXAiOiJKV1QiLCJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiJ9.eyJzdWIiOiJ1cm46YXBwOjdlMGQxODg5ODIyNjQzNzNhNWYwZDQxNWVhMGQyNmUwIiwiaXNzIjoidXJuOmFwcDo3ZTBkMTg4OTgyMjY0MzczYTVmMGQ0MTVlYTBkMjZlMCIsIm9iaiI6W1t7InBhdGgiOiJcL2ZcL2ExOGQ4ZWM2LTUyZjQtNDdiMS05YTI1LTVlYmZkYmJkOGM3N1wvZGI4MGswbS04OTIwMWVkOC1lYWRiLTQ1ZDMtODMwZi1iYjJmMGQ0YzBmZTcucG5nIn1dXSwiYXVkIjpbInVybjpzZXJ2aWNlOmZpbGUuZG93bmxvYWQiXX0.8G-Pg35Qi8qxiKLjAofaKRH6fmNH3qAAEI628gW0eXc
    I can't take it anymore! Could everyone just chill out for two seconds before something CRAZY happens again?!
    The nut who actually ground out many packs. The resident forum voice of reason (I HAZ FORUM REP! YAY!)
This discussion has been closed.