ST Torpedo Discussion
What's your favourite episode? How is romulan ale brewed? - Star Trek in general :-)
posted on November 12th, 2010, 8:09 pm
Last edited by Anonymous on November 12th, 2010, 8:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.
this is waaaaay off topic, and tl;dr, start a new thread if u wanna discuss it.
EDIT: thanks for the split dom.
EDIT: thanks for the split dom.
posted on November 12th, 2010, 8:22 pm
Tok`ra wrote:As I recall being mentiond once (forget if it was a tech manual or an episode) torpedos fired at warp had a very small warp drive that burned out very quickly, but that burnout didnt matter as by then it had inpacted or missed, and the regular ones had very small impulse thrusters.
Torps don't have Warp drive, just a Warp sustainer that allows them to stay at Warp for a small time if fired at warp. If fired at Impulse, they can only reach high Impulse.
Tok`ra wrote:ST:TMP anyone ? They loose power from the warp core to weapons, and are stuck on course towards that astroid, and cant fire phasers, but they CAN fire photons. That implies that photons require MUCH less power. And as even the FO tooltip says, photons are OLD tech. New changes would mostly be in accuracy and payload but why would those changes be done so they disarm older vessels.
Actually, the loss of phasers was a design flaw created by refitting the Constitution Class. Other ships don't share that issue.
Photons are old, but haven't really changed much over the years. The only real 'improvement' is in the yield.
posted on November 13th, 2010, 12:31 am
A sustainer is a warp drive, just a baby one designed to let it 'coast' at the launch speed
Yes, I know that was a design flaw. There is no mention of its being fixed however, which implies that it was decided to be worth it, however one would assume they made using them at lower power levels possible.
Which raises the question, why would a ship's weapons be downgraded from something that had been part of the hull for bout a century?
Yes, I know that was a design flaw. There is no mention of its being fixed however, which implies that it was decided to be worth it, however one would assume they made using them at lower power levels possible.
Photons are old, but haven't really changed much over the years. The only real 'improvement' is in the yield.
Which raises the question, why would a ship's weapons be downgraded from something that had been part of the hull for bout a century?
posted on November 13th, 2010, 2:34 pm
A sustainer isn't a Warp drive, a Warp drive independently propels something to warp. The sustainer just keeps its momentum from dying. A 'baby' warp drive is a tiny one like shuttles use.
No mention of it being fixed? Why mention it when they could simply show Voyager fire Phasers at warp to show they solved the 'no phasers at warp' issue. There was never anything to imply that any later ships had the problem, only the original Enterprise refit showed it.
No mention of it being fixed? Why mention it when they could simply show Voyager fire Phasers at warp to show they solved the 'no phasers at warp' issue. There was never anything to imply that any later ships had the problem, only the original Enterprise refit showed it.
posted on November 13th, 2010, 3:48 pm
also the bonchune fired phasers at warp too.
posted on November 13th, 2010, 8:11 pm
Tyler wrote:A sustainer isn't a Warp drive, a Warp drive independently propels something to warp. The sustainer just keeps its momentum from dying. A 'baby' warp drive is a tiny one like shuttles use.
No mention of it being fixed? Why mention it when they could simply show Voyager fire Phasers at warp to show they solved the 'no phasers at warp' issue. There was never anything to imply that any later ships had the problem, only the original Enterprise refit showed it.
When did anything say no phasers at warp. Tehre was ne ver such an issue.
The problem was the refit enterprise phasers could not operate if they were not getting power from the warp core. One would assume that later ships of its own era they made the phasers work at lower power input levels.
As for the sustainer....... how does it sustain... it must create a warp field of some sort..... which takes a warp drive to do. Hence: baby warp drive.
posted on November 13th, 2010, 8:14 pm
Tok`ra wrote:As for the sustainer....... how does it sustain... it must create a warp field of some sort..... which takes a warp drive to do. Hence: baby warp drive.
that's clearly not true.
if torps could travel at warp on their own then when fired at impulse they would hit instantly, covering sublight distances so fast.
when fired at warp they simply sustain the warp field of the firing ship to travel to the target ship.
hence: warp sustainer, not warp drive. when fired from a ship travelling at impulse, a torpedo is limited to impulse.
posted on November 13th, 2010, 8:34 pm
Tok`ra wrote:The problem was the refit enterprise phasers could not operate if they were not getting power from the warp core. One would assume that later ships of its own era they made the phasers work at lower power input levels.
The problem had nothing to do with how much power they used, considering modern phasers use more power than TMP-era ones. The phasers were cut off from their power source when the ship was at warp.
posted on November 13th, 2010, 11:38 pm
I think some evidence to support the fact that torpedoes do not take a lot of energy to fire comes form the Voyager episode Future's End were Janeway fires a torpedo manually at the time ship to prevent it from destroying the timeline. Something that I think would not be possible if torpedoes took large amounts of energy to fire.
But some possible reasoning behind the b'rel having micro torpedoes is they refit it to increase its total number of torpedoes carried allowing it to stay out in the field and raid light targets longer at the cost of some of its overall fire power.
But some possible reasoning behind the b'rel having micro torpedoes is they refit it to increase its total number of torpedoes carried allowing it to stay out in the field and raid light targets longer at the cost of some of its overall fire power.
posted on November 13th, 2010, 11:57 pm
That doesn't support any side, it only shows that they can fire from 2 places instead of 1. You could fire from the Bridge, the Torpedo launcher room or by remote on a Planet surface and the power requirement wouldn't change.
posted on November 14th, 2010, 12:17 am
Now that you mention it not the best example ever.
But I still think that the B'rel carrying micro torpedoes could be do to the fact that it is use to engage lighter targets in more of a raider capacity than when it was first built 80 years ago.
But I still think that the B'rel carrying micro torpedoes could be do to the fact that it is use to engage lighter targets in more of a raider capacity than when it was first built 80 years ago.
posted on November 14th, 2010, 4:11 am
Myles wrote:that's clearly not true.
if torps could travel at warp on their own then when fired at impulse they would hit instantly, covering sublight distances so fast.
when fired at warp they simply sustain the warp field of the firing ship to travel to the target ship.
hence: warp sustainer, not warp drive. when fired from a ship travelling at impulse, a torpedo is limited to impulse.
So how does it sustain unless its a warp drive. Not saying it can do much, but the sustainer clearly is enough of a warp drive to generate a warp field for a few seconds, enough for the torpedo to impact.
As for why they dont use them at warp speeds in impulse battles.... likley because such a small warp drive is too small to attain warp speeds on its own.......... but is more than capable of sustaining warp flight for the few secons from launch to impact.
If a warp drive equipped vessel was a supersonic fighter, then a warp sustainer would be a simple glider, it can keep flying when launched mid flight, but cant take off on its own.
Tyler wrote:The problem had nothing to do with how much power they used, considering modern phasers use more power than TMP-era ones. The phasers were cut off from their power source when the ship was at warp.
Were does it say tehy cant use phasers at warp ? As I recall from TMP, the problem was the warp drive wasnt working right and power from it was shut off.
E34big6 wrote:I think some evidence to support the fact that torpedoes do not take a lot of energy to fire comes form the Voyager episode Future's End were Janeway fires a torpedo manually at the time ship to prevent it from destroying the timeline. Something that I think would not be possible if torpedoes took large amounts of energy to fire.
But some possible reasoning behind the b'rel having micro torpedoes is they refit it to increase its total number of torpedoes carried allowing it to stay out in the field and raid light targets longer at the cost of some of its overall fire power.
Finaly, someone uses a little reason.
Ok true that does make sense, however raiding light targets, why use torpedos ?
And cmon, a Klingon sacrifice firepower ?
Besides, the old BoPs as I recall had more than enough torpedos to sustain the craft for extended periods.
Not to mention, they can just replicate new torpedos, with the antimatter supply being the main issue, since it's the warhead payload AND fuel source for the vessels main engine.
posted on November 14th, 2010, 10:22 am
Tok`ra wrote:So how does it sustain unless its a warp drive. Not saying it can do much, but the sustainer clearly is enough of a warp drive to generate a warp field for a few seconds, enough for the torpedo to impact.
As for why they dont use them at warp speeds in impulse battles.... likley because such a small warp drive is too small to attain warp speeds on its own.......... but is more than capable of sustaining warp flight for the few secons from launch to impact.
If a warp drive equipped vessel was a supersonic fighter, then a warp sustainer would be a simple glider, it can keep flying when launched mid flight, but cant take off on its own.
it doesnt generate any warp fields. it takes the existing warp field of the firing vessel and extends it. like being in a bubble and pushing against the side without it bursting. warp sustainers dont generate a warp field, they merely use the existing one. it can sustain a warp field without being a warp drive. a warp drive will take something at impulse and make it go to warp. a sustainer has to be at warp already. the torp is at warp with the rest of the ship when its fired.
your glider example is nearly complete, add a catapult launching system (torpedo tube) to get it ahead of its mother plane and its complete. the glider cant get airborne on its own, but if launched from an airborne jumbo jet it can glide a limited range.
posted on November 14th, 2010, 11:49 am
Last edited by Tyler on November 14th, 2010, 11:57 am, edited 1 time in total.
Tok`ra wrote:Were does it say tehy cant use phasers at warp ? As I recall from TMP, the problem was the warp drive wasnt working right and power from it was shut off.
Power from the warp drive wasn't available because they were using the drive already for warp travel, cutting the phasers off from their power source. The result of the drive not working right was the 'wormhole' they were stuck in. The phaser issue was caused by redesigning the system to take power straight from the core instead of the normal methods, something that later ships don't seem to use.
Tok`ra wrote:Finaly, someone uses a little reason.
Ok true that does make sense, however raiding light targets, why use torpedos ?
And cmon, a Klingon sacrifice firepower ?
Besides, the old BoPs as I recall had more than enough torpedos to sustain the craft for extended periods.
Not to mention, they can just replicate new torpedos, with the antimatter supply being the main issue, since it's the warhead payload AND fuel source for the vessels main engine.
It's not sacrificing power when a large number of weapons is as deadly as a smaller number of indivually stronger ones while also lasting long and being able to be used against more targets. Klingons know that running out of weapons is worse then a small cut to the power of each weapon.
How exactly do you expect a ship that is pretty much a flying weapons array, crammed to the limit with weapons would have a weaopon plant in it? There tends to be a reason outposts are dedicated to weapons production.
I also doubt the Klingons carry much matter/antimatter reserves, considering they don't use it as fuel.
posted on November 14th, 2010, 11:52 am
the defiant used those oversized AA batteries.
i prefer powering from the warp core.
i prefer powering from the warp core.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests