posted
Do you mean a breech door, because the breech is technically the compartment where a projectile is loaded until firing.
Why not a forcefield to seal the breach? Could possibly be done, but it seems like a lot of EM field interactions going on in a tight space. You would have the theoretical EM breach door, the mag pulse that launches the torp and then an EM recharge occuring at a nearby capacitor. I just assumed it would probably be easier to have a physical breech that could be shielded (using materials) to guard against all the adjacent EM fields.
Would probably work either way though and probably wouldn't gain any speed by using an EM field over a mechanical breech door.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
In his novel "Once Burned", Peter David has Calhoun exiting the ship in a torpedo tube. He has a force-field on the tube's exit into space that allows solid objects to pass through (i.e. a torpedo, or in this case Calhoun) but keeps gases (i.e. nitrogen, oxygen, argon, etc) inside to maintain an atmosphere. Same thing as a shuttlebay forcefield, I guess.
-------------------- I haul cardboard and cardboard accessories
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Despite some issues with the DS9TM, there are still some jewels remaining in the text. In regards to this discussion about the new torpedo launchers I found this....
"The launch of a photon or quantum torpedo from the runabout involves a fire-and-forget system, in the absence of a magnetic tube launcher. The guidance and navigation package of the torpedo attempts to keep to the programmed course, but may have dificulty during the first 3.7 seconds of powered flight."
So here we have a canon reference to the pod mounted compact torp launcher with no mag coils that has difficulty achieving a lock-on during the first 3.7 seconds of flight.....SOUND/LOOK FAMILIAR???
Looks like this type of launcher has actually been around since DS9, just now being integrated into larger ships as sort of a close-in (assuming sublight due to the absence of mag coils) weapons system. Of course, it also looks like they aren't limited by the pod size which could only fire 4 full size torps, but now they are integrated with magazines giving them a higher capacity.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Picked up the new issue of the ill-fated ST: Magazine this weekend (ST: Nemesis Special). While my scanner is currently DOA, I can tell you that there are 3 additional launchers beyond what Amasov posted. Two on the dorsal front of the saucer (in separate centerline emplacements) and one additional launcher aft ventral under the aft shuttlebay (again centerline). These all appear to be of the newer DS9 type launchers.
They appear to single tube mounts, much like the new one above the aft shuttlebay.
Art
quote:Originally posted by Mark Nguyen: This depends on whether the launcher Neggie mentions are single or dual tube mounts. Prior to today, we thought this:
Primary: Single rapid-fire launcher - ventral saucer mount
Secondary: Two twin-tube launchers - ventral stardrive mounts, fore and aft
Tertiary: One twin-tube and one single tube launcher, dorsal aft atop saucer and stardrive respectively; assumed "DS9-style" mini-launchers
This is eight so far; we're now adding three more emplacements, for as many as six more tertiary-style tubes.
posted
Eleven tubes total then, unless Eaves decided to put a tertiary launcher under the ventral saucer too.
I also just realized - the launcher above the aftmost shuttlebay may be a single-tube, but that tube is almost certinaly larger than the tubes used in the launcher on the saucer. Hmm...
posted
Here's what I don't get with all these tube-happy designers: wasn't the point of the torpedo in Star Trek to be like how torps on a sub work? It doesn't really matter where they're shot from since they're supposed to follow targets (true, pointing in the right direction would help), and you don't need that many launchers because one can fire multiple torps from a single supply instead of having multiple launchers each with their own smaller storage facility. Wasn't that the idea, or were Matt Jefferies and Andrew Probert just really naive in their designs?
You don't see Navy subs with tens of launchers with smaller storage bays, do you? (That's a real question, BTW. Perhaps someone with more knowledge on submarines can shed some light on how designers think when it comes to arming subs with torp launchers?)
Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
I think we're looking at a case of trading off accuracy vs. rate of fire vs. range. Torpedoes in Trek are certainly guided; however if they're going to hit a target a relatively close ranges then they've got a greater chance of missing.
Remember, the first torpedoes weren't even guided; their initial mission was to sink slow-moing targets. Their use against other submarines is a sort of secondary function, and one that was never used effectively in the big wars (I read a book once that said that a torpedo has NEVER been conclusively shown to be able to sink another submarine in either World War).
Perhaps this older style of torpedo warfare is what Trek is trying to allude to?
Printer-friendly view of this topic
