|
|
Post by the light works on Oct 1, 2019 13:51:59 GMT
I understand the use of Missiles in long range space combat where relativistic weapons are ineffective. However, the reason you use them is also what would make them ineffective. A missile is fired so that it can track a ship as it moves. However, because it is long range and take a noticeable amount of time to reach it's target, you also have plenty of time of the other side to detect it and deploy countermeasures. For a missile to be effective, it would almost have to have its own stealth design/systems to allow it to get closer and allow less time for evasive action/countermeasures to be deployed. that is why missile based combat tends to use high volume of fire. in the honorverse, there is nothing so unstealthy as a missile launch. the stardrive - as mentioned in another thread - is a gravity drive system - and missiles fire at accelerations measured in hundreds of gravities. - at ranges high enough that missile flight times are measured in minutes. the two things that can make a significant difference in a battle are how good your telemetry to your missiles is, and how much volume of fire your missile defense can put out. your telemetry tries to defeat your opponent's ECM to keep your missiles on target, and your missile defense tries to kill off the missiles that get through your own ECM. a basic shipkiller missile (as opposed to an EW missile) will power into attack range, and if it locks on its target, will attempt to maneuver to target a weak region of the ship's drive field, and then fire a single shot laser into the ship - which can be at any angle to the missile's flight path. and that is the biggest reason why that universe doesn't have "fighters." they have been replaced by missiles. |
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Oct 1, 2019 14:51:44 GMT
I understand the use of Missiles in long range space combat where relativistic weapons are ineffective. However, the reason you use them is also what would make them ineffective. A missile is fired so that it can track a ship as it moves. However, because it is long range and take a noticeable amount of time to reach it's target, you also have plenty of time of the other side to detect it and deploy countermeasures. For a missile to be effective, it would almost have to have its own stealth design/systems to allow it to get closer and allow less time for evasive action/countermeasures to be deployed. At range you 'cold fire' missiles, launching them from the target craft using an unpowered or emission free system. Think something like a strong spring. The idea is to have the missiles drift into the area of your target before it activates its passive sensors and tries to locate the target ship. At this point if it finds its target it quietly makes a course correction to try and get as close as possible before it needs to fully activate and use its engines and active sensors for the final attack run. Space mines would work in the same way; actually being missiles in a powered down/passive mode. The tactic is to have the missile 'appear' on a targets sensors at such a close range its defensive guns have very little time to react. It is likely that each missile would actually be little more than a container to transport a number of individual warheads which would split off and make their own attack runs to further saturate defenses. At close range the tactic is similar, with a 'cold launch' but the missiles activate almost at once and are fired in larger numbers. Chances are that missiles intended and designed for long range fire would be larger, to allow both more fuel and better sensors (as the last stages of the attack would be done on the missiles own sensors). Those intended for closer range engagements would most likely be smaller as they don't need as much fuel and can use targeting information from the launch ship more effectively. Note that the background technology for the Alien universe works this way; Treating space combat as more akin to submarine warfare than WW1/2 dogfights or fleet battles. This is less visually spectacular, but both more realistic and more tension filled. Even more 'Space Opera' types of technology can utilize such types of engagement; ToS had Balance of Terror and DS9 Starship Down. Even Wrath of Khan utilizes such types of battle for the final battle. In order to work out how space combat would logically play out you need to work out and develop what types of technology exist, the strengths and weaknesses of those technology and from there logically deduce how they would interact and limit each other. For example missiles exist in the Star Trek universe, as opposed to torpedoes, but are (at least by TNG) considered utterly obsolete technology and no threat to the Enterprise. (The language used would imply that no Star Fleet ship would consider missiles a threat). This could in part be due to the Enterprises ease at shooting the missiles down, Worf's inability to understand the concept of leading a target notwithstanding. But is more likely, based on comments about other obsolete weapons, to be a case of such weapons being countered by the ships navigational deflector. In the case of missiles this may be a mixture of low yield warheads and the deflectors being able to simply push the missiles out of the ships path. Going the other way, starting with how you want battles to be fought, will still require working out the technology and limitations of that technology to some degree. For both there is a creative reason for doing this. First it will assist in making the universe seem more 'real', due to their being consistent rules and logic that can be understood. Second is that if you understand the technology you may also end up developing in universe tactics, logistics and strategic aspects to warfare beyond what you originally intended. Such organic evolution can further help flesh out a setting as well as opening up possibilities for stories or events you did not originally consider. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Oct 1, 2019 15:33:44 GMT
I understand the use of Missiles in long range space combat where relativistic weapons are ineffective. However, the reason you use them is also what would make them ineffective. A missile is fired so that it can track a ship as it moves. However, because it is long range and take a noticeable amount of time to reach it's target, you also have plenty of time of the other side to detect it and deploy countermeasures. For a missile to be effective, it would almost have to have its own stealth design/systems to allow it to get closer and allow less time for evasive action/countermeasures to be deployed. At range you 'cold fire' missiles, launching them from the target craft using an unpowered or emission free system. Think something like a strong spring. The idea is to have the missiles drift into the area of your target before it activates its passive sensors and tries to locate the target ship. At this point if it finds its target it quietly makes a course correction to try and get as close as possible before it needs to fully activate and use its engines and active sensors for the final attack run. Space mines would work in the same way; actually being missiles in a powered down/passive mode. The tactic is to have the missile 'appear' on a targets sensors at such a close range its defensive guns have very little time to react. It is likely that each missile would actually be little more than a container to transport a number of individual warheads which would split off and make their own attack runs to further saturate defenses. At close range the tactic is similar, with a 'cold launch' but the missiles activate almost at once and are fired in larger numbers. Chances are that missiles intended and designed for long range fire would be larger, to allow both more fuel and better sensors (as the last stages of the attack would be done on the missiles own sensors). Those intended for closer range engagements would most likely be smaller as they don't need as much fuel and can use targeting information from the launch ship more effectively. Note that the background technology for the Alien universe works this way; Treating space combat as more akin to submarine warfare than WW1/2 dogfights or fleet battles. This is less visually spectacular, but both more realistic and more tension filled. Even more 'Space Opera' types of technology can utilize such types of engagement; ToS had Balance of Terror and DS9 Starship Down. Even Wrath of Khan utilizes such types of battle for the final battle. In order to work out how space combat would logically play out you need to work out and develop what types of technology exist, the strengths and weaknesses of those technology and from there logically deduce how they would interact and limit each other. For example missiles exist in the Star Trek universe, as opposed to torpedoes, but are (at least by TNG) considered utterly obsolete technology and no threat to the Enterprise. (The language used would imply that no Star Fleet ship would consider missiles a threat). This could in part be due to the Enterprises ease at shooting the missiles down, Worf's inability to understand the concept of leading a target notwithstanding. But is more likely, based on comments about other obsolete weapons, to be a case of such weapons being countered by the ships navigational deflector. In the case of missiles this may be a mixture of low yield warheads and the deflectors being able to simply push the missiles out of the ships path. Going the other way, starting with how you want battles to be fought, will still require working out the technology and limitations of that technology to some degree. For both there is a creative reason for doing this. First it will assist in making the universe seem more 'real', due to their being consistent rules and logic that can be understood. Second is that if you understand the technology you may also end up developing in universe tactics, logistics and strategic aspects to warfare beyond what you originally intended. Such organic evolution can further help flesh out a setting as well as opening up possibilities for stories or events you did not originally consider. if you "cold fire" the missiles, you'd better be very good at leading the target. because with them coasting, unpowered, you would go from minutes of flight time to hours of flight time. |
|
|
|
Post by wvengineer on Oct 1, 2019 17:45:48 GMT
Basically, in a missile based combat universe, anything less than a capitol ship is little more than a mobile missile launching and countermeasure platform. You don't need manned fighters for close in combat because the missiles will out perform them. These missile platforms give a larger array of targets to draw file away from the more valuable assets and increase counter measure coverage volume.
It is interesting to note that in the last ~30 years after the Persian Gulf war, air-air combat has next to disappeared. There are a few instances of live pilots going after live pilots, but i the last few years, it as been almost all human vs drone match ups. Air to air and ship to ship combat is missile based today and for the foreseeable future.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Oct 1, 2019 18:05:00 GMT
Basically, in a missile based combat universe, anything less than a capitol ship is little more than a mobile missile launching and countermeasure platform. You don't need manned fighters for close in combat because the missiles will out perform them. These missile platforms give a larger array of targets to draw file away from the more valuable assets and increase counter measure coverage volume. It is interesting to note that in the last ~30 years after the Persian Gulf war, air-air combat has next to disappeared. There are a few instances of live pilots going after live pilots, but i the last few years, it as been almost all human vs drone match ups. Air to air and ship to ship combat is missile based today and for the foreseeable future. essentially, out technology has reached a point where civilized countries could have their wars in a 100% virtual reality environment. except for the fact nobody would admit defeat. |
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Oct 1, 2019 18:30:55 GMT
Basically, in a missile based combat universe, anything less than a capitol ship is little more than a mobile missile launching and countermeasure platform. You don't need manned fighters for close in combat because the missiles will out perform them. These missile platforms give a larger array of targets to draw file away from the more valuable assets and increase counter measure coverage volume. It is interesting to note that in the last ~30 years after the Persian Gulf war, air-air combat has next to disappeared. There are a few instances of live pilots going after live pilots, but i the last few years, it as been almost all human vs drone match ups. Air to air and ship to ship combat is missile based today and for the foreseeable future. essentially, out technology has reached a point where civilized countries could have their wars in a 100% virtual reality environment. except for the fact nobody would admit defeat. Wasn't there an old Star Trek (original series) about that where people were actually executed because the computer simulation declared them a causality of war? |
|
|
|
Post by wvengineer on Oct 1, 2019 19:03:42 GMT
A Taste of Armageddon, Season 1, Episode 23.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Oct 1, 2019 19:33:51 GMT
One thing to note is that missiles will require a strong logistics network and solid industrial base behind them.
It is also a case that it will ultimately limit the effective combat endurance of ships due to the need to resupply stores. Even the biggest ships are going to have a very limited supply of missiles available. While larger ships could be equipped with the ability to manufacture missiles they would require raw materials (or more likely processed materials) with which to do so.
Thus space combat would most likely consist of short high intensity engagements after which ships would need to head back to resupply.
In theory ships could mine raw materials from asteroids, but that in turn would require mining equipment, processing facilities and storage space. Basically your gigantic battleship is going to be a lot larger than it needs to be, have a lot of largely wasted space and have a lot less firepower and possibly less tactical endurance as a result. So smaller ships that lack such systems might actually have a big advantage.
This logistical aspect is often overlooked when it comes to sci-fi creation. Star Trek and Star Wars actually got this correct, in that both use torpeoes (missile weapons) as secondary weapons even though they are more powerful than the primary energy based weapons their ships carry. This is true even of the Enterprise D, which (although not stated) certainly has the ability to manufacture/replicate torpedo casings and uses the same material (antimatter) as the ships fuel and torpedo explosive. (The antimatter used in the torpedoes is drawn from the ships fuel supply when loading the torpedoes rather than keeping the torpedoes 'armed' all the time).
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Oct 1, 2019 21:13:37 GMT
One thing to note is that missiles will require a strong logistics network and solid industrial base behind them. It is also a case that it will ultimately limit the effective combat endurance of ships due to the need to resupply stores. Even the biggest ships are going to have a very limited supply of missiles available. While larger ships could be equipped with the ability to manufacture missiles they would require raw materials (or more likely processed materials) with which to do so. Thus space combat would most likely consist of short high intensity engagements after which ships would need to head back to resupply. In theory ships could mine raw materials from asteroids, but that in turn would require mining equipment, processing facilities and storage space. Basically your gigantic battleship is going to be a lot larger than it needs to be, have a lot of largely wasted space and have a lot less firepower and possibly less tactical endurance as a result. So smaller ships that lack such systems might actually have a big advantage. This logistical aspect is often overlooked when it comes to sci-fi creation. Star Trek and Star Wars actually got this correct, in that both use torpeoes (missile weapons) as secondary weapons even though they are more powerful than the primary energy based weapons their ships carry. This is true even of the Enterprise D, which (although not stated) certainly has the ability to manufacture/replicate torpedo casings and uses the same material (antimatter) as the ships fuel and torpedo explosive. (The antimatter used in the torpedoes is drawn from the ships fuel supply when loading the torpedoes rather than keeping the torpedoes 'armed' all the time). true. in the honorverse, missile colliers are important strategic considerations - and the big game changer that was introduced midway in the saga was the ability to deploy missile pods, which significantly increased the throw weight per launch, and in the process redesigned the podlayers with more of an eye towards magazine capacity. even so, fleet engagements tend to consist of one massive opening volley, and may need one or two follow up launches. - at which point, the victor collects the survivors and any surviving prize ships, and returns to a supply base. the other side of the coin is that energy weapons require a lot more powerful energy supply system - and many "energy" weapons are actually a hybrid system which still require material. this was addressed in DS-9 when depleted phaser power cells were used as trophies during the battle with the dominion. similarly, in the Star Wars Extended Universe, blasters require a rare gas to form the discharge. of course - if space combat was easy, they'd call it baseball. |
|
|
|
Post by mrfatso on Oct 1, 2019 22:10:50 GMT
Another wrinkle in how Starships work in any given universe, which has been touched on by TLW is how the drive systems both FTL and sublight work.
In Larry Nivens “Mote in Gods Eye” and it’s sequels travel is done by jumping from very specific points in a star system were the fundamental forces of the universe allowed it to happen, defending such places was a matter of garrisoning ships, mine fields etc. to destroy incoming craft. It also helps that the jump drive temporarily disoriented incoming crews.
In Star Trek ships at warp can be detected and affected by some weapon systems as they travel at warp, but Shields are so powerful in that universe fighters are irrelevant Roddenberry wanted battle cruisers in space.
Star Wars however has ships that are basically not affected by weapons when in hyperspace, and unlike some universes like Battletech it’s ships can jump into a system close to a planet and be ready for combat straight away. This means that their fighters can be very close to enemy ships before the opposition know it.
How the combination of various technologies, weapon systems, defence systems, drive systems etc interplay affects what design of starfighter or not is useful in that universe.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Oct 1, 2019 23:19:26 GMT
Trek Power cells are basically batteries, or more specifically capacitors, that can be recharged from a power source - usually the main power system on a ship. The power cells you are talking about came from hand weapons not from ships, although ships do have capacitors as well as the Enterprise E's were drained during the Battle with the Scimitar after heavy use. Kirks Enterprise had the same problem a couple of times in TOS and in WOK; In the latter its is probable that the phaser capacitors were not fully charged before the ship was damaged and main power knocked out.
The reason, for ships, is probably less overall power requirements in itself and more as a way to protect against power surges. This is seen on Ent as it was possible for the impulse engines to directly power the phasers, but not advised as this caused feedback that could damage the ship. Direct powering phasers was also an issue with the refitted Enterprise in TMP where the phasers drew their power straight from the warp core. The latter shows another reason for not powering phasers this way as Decker counterman's Kirks order to use phasers when the Enterprise tries to go to warp the first time. It is explained that the malfunction that caused the problem with the warp drive also knocked the phasers offline, something Kirk didn't know as this was a new (and presumably very short lived) design feature. (In the novelization Scotty starts working on a way to bypass this feature, which he had argued against)
Star War's blasters used Tibanna gas. The gas itself was fairly rare in nature, but could be synthesized. It is usually stated that the natural gas was of higher quality than the synthesized version. But one does have to wonder if that is less reality and more marketing from the gas mining guilds Lando mentions in Empire. (Cloud City is a Tibanna gas mining facility)
In Trek ships have always been able to detect other ships while one or both is at warp unless one of the ships is using a cloaking device.
Both torpedoes and phasers can be used at warp, but warp fields scatter the energy discharge from direct energy weapons to the point they are basically ineffective even against ships moving at the same speed. Photon, and quantum, torpedoes have warp sustainer engines as part of their construction. If fired at warp speed they can basically pinch off part of the warp field from the firing ship, maintain and add to it to increase their velocity. So are just as effective at warp as they are at impulse speeds; At impulse the drive system allows torpeoes to reach high speeds but not cross the warp threshold to go FTL. This sustainer engine is why long range message pods are basically photon torpedo's with something else in place of the warhead, be that a message or a half-Kingon woman who has a history with your security chief.
Although fighters were not part of Treks official component for TOS era, by the time of TNG they have clearly reached a point where they have become practical components of fleets and dangerous if fighting in groups. DS9 showed that Marque fighters were capable of disabling an Excelsior class starship and the stations runabouts were used as fighter cover for the USS Odyssey at the end of season 2, having engaged in fighter combat at least once prior to that against other fighters.
By the time of the Dominion War Star Fleet has clearly added fighters to the composition of their fleets, as during the Battle to retake DS9 Sisko orders fighter wings into action and later it is mentioned that the fighters escorting the Defiant had all been destroyed. Odo also, at one point, comments at not being a fighter pilot when the runabout he is piloting is being attacked.
Of course 'fighter' in this context isn't quite the same as what we'd think of as a fighter today, starting with them apparently having a minimum crew of three and probably more than this due to Chokota's 'fighter' carrying enough personal to make up for the crew losses Voyager suffered when she was dragged into the Delta Quadrant*. These 'fighters' were and are more akin to small starships in their own right, even down to the weapons systems carried and a fully working warp drive. (Which is understandable as a Trek fighter without warp drive would be unable to get anywhere near a target that had even limited warp capability.) The closest we get to seeing what we could consider a fighter would be the craft carried by the Scimitar in Nemesis which were small two seater craft. However while these were clearly combat craft it isn't clear if they were space fighters or intended for air support for ground troops. Considering none were deployed during the final battle the latter would seem to be the case.
*No big loss in the case of Voyagers original first officer, since his idea of 'bracing for impact' involved him running across the wide open area of the bridge and away from anything he could hold onto.
Exactly. If the drive technology is similar to modern reaction drives then, ironically, engagement ranges are like to be large since ships won't be able to alter their position quickly. As such you can predict the area the target is going to be in at far greater ranges more accurately (Think BSG in terms of technology, although their battles tended to be at much closer ranges than are realistic for that technology. Of course had they been 100% realistic in this regard you'd never see what they were actually firing at). If however you have reactionless drives that allow for much higher speeds and rapid changes in speed and direction you'd get much shorter engagement ranges as predicting where an opponent is at range becomes more and more difficult.
This in turn could effect what weapon systems are preferred. With slow moving ships projectile weapons become effective, as their damage potential will be the same regardless of the range. But the projectiles take time to reach a target so become less effective against faster moving targets. In that situation guided munitions and energy weapons start to become more and more useful; The former as they can adjust their course the latter due to the speed of the 'projectile'. Energy weapons will however suffer from a drop in damage potential at range as the energy becomes scattered.
*Edit; Addition*
Ships in BT can't jump into a system wherever they want. They can only jump into or out of areas where there is no gravity or it is cancelled out by the position of planetary bodies. The usual, and safest, locations are at the poles of a systems star which has the added bonus of allowing ships to use solar sails to charge capacitors up to power the jump drive. (That CAN be done by the jump ships own fusion engines but is generally considered a really bad idea only to be used in an emergency and still takes a couple of days).
None-standard jump points (both in and out) are known as 'Pirate points' and require very detailed navigational data about the system to locate. not helped by most of them only existing for short periods when the planetary bodies are in specific positions relative to each other. Most space battles in BT tend to take place at a stars poles or at the Lagrange points in a system both of which are as heavily defended as the system (or house) can afford to make them. Known pirate points are likewise usually defended, or at least watched very closely.
Fights away from these areas are usually planetary defense forces engaging an invading force on planetary approach, which depending on the nature of the system will probably consist of a number of hit and run attacks from fighter and drop ship forces located further out.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Oct 2, 2019 1:56:27 GMT
ummm... the phaser components Sisko was celebrating depleting were about the size of a Cornelius Keg. not a hand phaser capacitor.
|
|
|
|
Post by mrfatso on Oct 2, 2019 8:40:06 GMT
Precisely Cyber the whole sentence was comparing Star Wars where at battles like Endor or Scariff we saw ships jump from their starting positions through hyperspace into close company straight away, and BT where Jumpships have to travel to jump points and allow drop ships to move towards their destination at sublight speed.
|
|
|
|
Post by mrfatso on Oct 2, 2019 8:44:21 GMT
ummm... the phaser components Sisko was celebrating depleting were about the size of a Cornelius Keg. not a hand phaser capacitor. Yes it was the scene where They hang depleted power cells on the wall of the wardroom, along with other similar cells. The fact they had managed to deplete what are normally easily recharged devices showed how heavy the fighting had been in. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Oct 2, 2019 13:52:45 GMT
ummm... the phaser components Sisko was celebrating depleting were about the size of a Cornelius Keg. not a hand phaser capacitor. Yes it was the scene where They hang depleted power cells on the wall of the wardroom, along with other similar cells. The fact they had managed to deplete what are normally easily recharged devices showed how heavy the fighting had been in. my impression was more that they were something that usually had sufficient capacity that replacing them was a matter of routine maintenance. I.E. when a ship was in for scheduled service. - sort of a "the fighting is so heavy we're actually having to swap out infinite magazines" note. which is to say, if those are the rechargeable power cells for the phasers, why are they hanging on the wardroom wall instead of in the chargers? |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Oct 2, 2019 13:56:23 GMT
another sci-fi meme is where the enemy is so high tech that the good guys have to regress in order to hit the in a way they aren't used to being hit. another series I recently read involved an enemy who, like the borg, was essentially impervious to the standard energy weapons, and could easily dodge missiles, so the only thing that could hurt it were the kinetic weapons on the older ships which hadn't been mothballed, yet.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Oct 2, 2019 14:42:15 GMT
I may be confusing the power cells with something in another episode. From the description I'm wondering if those were from the Trek equivalent of heavy machine guns rather than hand weapons, or even squad recharging equipment.
It is interesting to note that one more or less consistent aspect of FTL is that its not something done in or near planets.
In both Battletech and Star Wars the FLT systems don't work within gravity wells. In BSG, Trek and Babylon 5 the actual technology works but its usually not considered a good idea to try and jump into a planet's atmosphere. In both BSG and B5 it seems that the reason is that you need VERY accurate navigational data to avoid slamming straight into the ground. In Trek it seems that the reason is due to the friction caused by an atmosphere simply being far too great for the ship to survive*. In TOS and early (as of season 2) TNG there also seems to be an element of limitations of the navigational equipment risking hitting the atmosphere if you go to drop out of warp too close to a planet. Post season 2 of TNG this seems to be less of a factor, but still not something you'd really want to try; Especially it seems if the planet is hostile and has defenses as that would presumably include ECM systems that could mess up your calculations.
Star Wars and B5 also have gravity play a role in FTL navigation. For SW this is, as noted, because it doesn't work within them. For B5 gravity wells (that is the effect of stars, black holes and probably planets) cause eddies within hyperspace that can pull ships off course. In both cases FTL navigation has to compensate for such gravity wells making exploration of unknown areas dangerous and slow, and resulting in largely 'fixed' shipping routes.
*Yes, it does appear that in Voyage Home the Bounty (The Bird of Prey they are using in the film) goes to warp while still within the atmosphere. Being charitable lets assume it was actually hitting high impulse speeds rather than going to warp. Sulu is presumably smart enough to translate 'full speed' or even 'warp speed' to mean 'as soon as we are in a situation where that isn't going to result in the ship instantaneously melting'. Its also hard to see how else they could have shown the ship speeding off with the effects at that time.
Because they are Dominion power packs and not used or compatible with Federation weapons. That would be why they are trophies.
The power packs for Phasers, and one would assume Dominion weapons as well, are designed (at least by this time) to be easy to remove and replace in the field. Basically they act like magazines in modern firearms. This wasn't shown in TNG but is seen in TNG films and on DS9. Although the Phaser pistols used in Final Frontier and Undiscovered Country (same prop) had a removable/detachable 'magazine' in the pistol grip. (I have one of the toys and, appropriately enough, that's where the batteries go)
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Oct 2, 2019 14:57:42 GMT
I may be confusing the power cells with something in another episode. From the description I'm wondering if those were from the Trek equivalent of heavy machine guns rather than hand weapons, or even squad recharging equipment. It is interesting to note that one more or less consistent aspect of FTL is that its not something done in or near planets. In both Battletech and Star Wars the FLT systems don't work within gravity wells. In BSG, Trek and Babylon 5 the actual technology works but its usually not considered a good idea to try and jump into a planet's atmosphere. In both BSG and B5 it seems that the reason is that you need VERY accurate navigational data to avoid slamming straight into the ground. In Trek it seems that the reason is due to the friction caused by an atmosphere simply being far too great for the ship to survive*. In TOS and early (as of season 2) TNG there also seems to be an element of limitations of the navigational equipment risking hitting the atmosphere if you go to drop out of warp too close to a planet. Post season 2 of TNG this seems to be less of a factor, but still not something you'd really want to try; Especially it seems if the planet is hostile and has defenses as that would presumably include ECM systems that could mess up your calculations. Star Wars and B5 also have gravity play a role in FTL navigation. For SW this is, as noted, because it doesn't work within them. For B5 gravity wells (that is the effect of stars, black holes and probably planets) cause eddies within hyperspace that can pull ships off course. In both cases FTL navigation has to compensate for such gravity wells making exploration of unknown areas dangerous and slow, and resulting in largely 'fixed' shipping routes. *Yes, it does appear that in Voyage Home the Bounty (The Bird of Prey they are using in the film) goes to warp while still within the atmosphere. Being charitable lets assume it was actually hitting high impulse speeds rather than going to warp. Sulu is presumably smart enough to translate 'full speed' or even 'warp speed' to mean 'as soon as we are in a situation where that isn't going to result in the ship instantaneously melting'. Its also hard to see how else they could have shown the ship speeding off with the effects at that time. Because they are Dominion power packs and not used or compatible with Federation weapons. That would be why they are trophies. The power packs for Phasers, and one would assume Dominion weapons as well, are designed (at least by this time) to be easy to remove and replace in the field. Basically they act like magazines in modern firearms. This wasn't shown in TNG but is seen in TNG films and on DS9. Although the Phaser pistols used in Final Frontier and Undiscovered Country (same prop) had a removable/detachable 'magazine' in the pistol grip. (I have one of the toys and, appropriately enough, that's where the batteries go) I looked it up, and the semi official explanation is they were power cells from the Defiant, which had hit the end of their service life. so something like saving a shot out machine gun barrel as a trophy. www.tor.com/2014/08/19/star-trek-deep-space-nine-rewatch-behind-the-lines/ |
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Oct 2, 2019 16:04:07 GMT
Sounds reasonable. There would, presumably, be a limit to how often you could recharge the power cells before they started to degrade.
It would also make sense at them being trophies considering that such limits for Federation technology must presumably be huge. So wearing them out really would be a big deal and a sign of some serious combat.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Oct 2, 2019 16:11:29 GMT
Sounds reasonable. There would, presumably, be a limit to how often you could recharge the power cells before they started to degrade. It would also make sense at them being trophies considering that such limits for Federation technology must presumably be huge. So wearing them out really would be a big deal and a sign of some serious combat. it would also explain why we'd never seen one replaced before. - outside of a long running shooting war, it would just be a routine maintenance item. |
|
