View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently 27 Jul 2017 12:31



Reply to topic  [ 30 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3
SOTSF Mysteries 
Author Message
Rear Admiral
Rear Admiral

Joined: 31 Dec 2008 20:59
Posts: 3358
So exactly how long would your version of an Independence class two stand up to a Klingon D-7?

And thank you for reminding me of the that one's phasers. 76/32's to be exact. if they were 20th century weapons I would say that a 76/32 would do harm, but not be very accurate at long range. A 447/54 is bigger than any gun ever in service for naval use. But would be quite accurate.

Also on the science channel yesterday, I caught an article on virtural autopies. The use a CAT scan to do so, and genrate 6 gigabytes of data. But here is the rub. No computer yet invented ccan process that much data in real time. So the operator selects which views they desire to look at. Which with time get more refined. This limitation of computers explains certain things in all of Star Trek. Everything from the hand scanner to the tricorder to the main station on the bridge...


28 Jan 2009 16:44
Profile
Lieutenant
Lieutenant
User avatar

Joined: 05 Jan 2009 09:58
Posts: 196
Quote:
o, given the incredible mass requirements, "one half impulse" is emphatically NOT one half the speed of light, but rather something considerably less. And/or the space warping capability of the ship is used to accelerate to sublight speeds as well, bending space, probably using antigravitational negative energy only, to push against the fabric of spacetime. It is unfortunate we only hear a term like "warp point five" very rarely, because THAT is how I'd distinguish between this kind of exotic propulsion at high fractions of the speed of light, and the impulse rockets which likely work at far lower speeds.


I've never been quite sure how compatible your timeline of warp evolution is with Sternbach's 24th century ideas (which admittedly uses terms less grounded in real science, but is in working principle a quite literal implementation of Von Puttkamer's ideas for TMP, afaik). Anyway, the TNG Tech Manual also attempts to solve the sublight propulsion issue by saying that the impulse engines have a warp-coil like element (the Driver Coil Assembly) that produces a weak subspace field which lowers the apparent mass of the ship. In the TNGTM, the impulse engines are essentially nuclear fusion powered plasma thrusters.

My idea is that impulse rockets are essentially simple plasma (or antimatter) thrusters. On early/light spaceships, they are probably enough to provide STL flight. On larger vessels, impulse engines either require a low-energy warp field to overcome the mass of the vessel. This field can be created by the main engines running at low power (I think this translates to your antigravity negative energy rings), or by a specific device that is part of the impulse drive system (driver coil in TNG).

Whatever it is, the biggest clue that sublight and superlight propulsion are strongly connected comes in the maiden voyage of the refit E, where we indeed hear warp factors below 1. Going by the TNG theories, a warp factor below one represents a non-propulsive subspace field that reduces the ship's apparent mass.

I'm more at home with TNG lingo, translate to FRS tech at your own discretion ;)

EDIT: Just noticed I'm replying to page 1.. oh well, it could still be relevant.


28 Jan 2009 18:04
Profile
Commodore
Commodore
User avatar

Joined: 20 Dec 2008 18:39
Posts: 2374
Location: toltec sector
Quote:
I don't remember Class Four -- were those unmanned vehicles?


probes/drones i think, class 3 would've been small shuttles & travel pods... ; )

there might've been another similar scheme for bases, from Starbases & major construction assets at one end of the scale - down to relay stations (with modest temporary life support requirements) - and ending up with unmanned bouys/navsats/comsats, etc.

_________________

All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force...
We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind.
This Mind is the matrix of all matter.
Max Planck


28 Jan 2009 18:54
Profile
Rear Admiral
Rear Admiral

Joined: 31 Dec 2008 20:59
Posts: 3358
By the way, about Starbases. Looking at Vangard Star Base 47 of the stories of the same name. I think it logical for this design to be in existence. Why?

Well if you have spread out all over the place, things like construction shacks, space docks etc., then they interfer with lines of fire. Worse, the junk out side can be used as weapons against the base. So you want something tight, close in as you can get it.

One further note; The fire power of a base should so exceed that of a star ship that no star ship would dare get anywhre near it. That is, a Klingon Battle Cruiser would in one shot be gone. Out side of its range.

Another question what is the difference between Duotronic I, II, III, and IV?

I think for Duotronic IV that we have seen it. On board the Enterprise-B in Star Trek Generations. Further more, I expect that each unit would store 2.15 kiloquads. Why? They ressemble the later Isolinear chips, but are twice the size, or eight times the volume. To me they represent the blades of that society.


29 Jan 2009 20:20
Profile
Site Admin
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 16 Dec 2008 23:08
Posts: 3101
Location: Star Fleet Publications, Park Presidio Enclave
Quote:
Well if you have spread out all over the place, things like construction shacks, space docks etc., then they interfer with lines of fire. Worse, the junk out side can be used as weapons against the base. So you want something tight, close in as you can get it.


I strongly disagree with this. Decentralizing a force affords an enemy far less opportunity to score multiple hits with each score. Each score can at maximum make one hit.

OTOH, centralizing a force -- particularly in such a way that leaves that force ineffective (read: a sitting duck) -- affords the enemy a density of targets that raises the possibility of taking out more than one ship with one hit.

The only way to avoid this is to armor the station to the point of invulnerability. In a universe where the potential threats (whale probe, V'ger) are of unknown strength, that would seem to be impossible.

_________________
"The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others."
-Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia Query XVII, 1783

"...here we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor to tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it." -Thomas Jefferson, 1820


30 Jan 2009 00:18
Profile WWW
Rear Admiral
Rear Admiral

Joined: 31 Dec 2008 20:59
Posts: 3358
Think of it this way, when one constructs a fort/castle/whatever in the wilderness, one clears the land out to a certain distance. This is done so as not to give an enemy cover. You don't want to give an enemy any advantage.

Now you could sppread out docks/construction shacks/what have you out far enough away for the central area to prevent this. But then you have travel times to contend with. Mind you the 'central' control area doesn't have to look like anything to the eye, but to ECM it would.

Note also that weapons have limited range. It could be several light-minutes (Think Andromeda) but don't count of being able to produce anything small. That is, to have a phaser bank able to destroy a D-7 in one shot must be quite large. Which implies a large power supply et el...

It may be that style comes into play here. One generation's ideas give way with new tech, and then swing back again.


30 Jan 2009 16:29
Profile
Question for Aridas, do you have any approximate date for when the Komarov and Darwin classes entered service?


20 Feb 2009 17:28
Site Admin
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 16 Dec 2008 23:08
Posts: 3101
Location: Star Fleet Publications, Park Presidio Enclave
I never nailed it down beyond the fact that both needed to be in service by the appearance of Grissom in ST 3. If the lower "pod" on Grissom is an ACE nacelle as I take it to be, and the other two nacelles are linear, then it narrows Komarov down to post-2275 or so, though Komarov could be a later retrofit of Darwin to provide it with enhanced capabilities. I'm a little torn on that score because the Grissom nacelles look like an early linear type -- sort of reminiscent of the simplicity of the Endeavor's LN-52 set.

So, to get to your question, we might say that Darwin comes first, around 2270, and that Komarov comes later, around 2278.

_________________
"The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others."
-Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia Query XVII, 1783

"...here we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor to tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it." -Thomas Jefferson, 1820


21 Feb 2009 01:36
Profile WWW
Rear Admiral
Rear Admiral

Joined: 31 Dec 2008 20:59
Posts: 3358
ACE nacelle with power/fuel plant plaese. By moving the matter-antimatter reactor down there, it cleans up a great many problems.


21 Feb 2009 09:20
Profile
ACE nacelle does make alot of sense with those service entry dates. A always figured it was a massive passive sensor pod. It is a natural progression from the barebones Darwin to a more capable Komarov. Also havin it come into service in the late 2270s leave time for the two other unnamed Superscout classes before Ianetos to be built.


21 Feb 2009 13:14
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 30 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron

Forum hosting by ProphpBB | Software by phpBB | Report Abuse | Privacy