posted
Well, that was kind of my point. He didn't see the need to bristle his design with tubes everywhere because of "blindspots." Was he wrong?
Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
This is why we go back to the notion of different kinds of torpedoes, including smaller torps used for point defence, close-range assault, and options for variable-yield torpedo attacks without taking the time to modify existing torpedoes. The large number of tertiary launchers seems to support the idea of close-range torpedo uses.
As it stands, depending on what kind of torpedo you use you can inflict a range of damage amounts and types without wasting time refitting torpedoes - they're already in the appropriate launchers. Evidence suggests that only the one big launcher is capable of firing quantum torpedoes... Thus, within the forward firing arc, you can fire the big hitter quantorps, more conventional photorps, and whatever kind of torpedoes the tertiary launchers can fire. In the aft arc you don't have quantums, but the conventional photorps and the extra torpedo tubes are there providing dorsal and ventral coverage.
The only problem with the close-range uses are that there is absolutely no coverage on the port or starboard sides... Eaves forgot these arcs that the Akira at least seems to cover.
posted
Okay...um, fine. Matt Jefferies didn't put any visible weapons at all on the Enterprise, does that make you feel better? That still doesn't change my point. He knew what cannons looked liked. He could have said, "Gee, I bet this ship would look really cool with 15 cannons attached to it!" but he didn't. (Yes, he liked the idea of everything such as machinery inside the ship, no rough details on the outside)
I was simply wondering why there's a trend to put 11 or 12 torpedo launchers on Star Trek ships recently when just a few years ago, anything over 5 was considered too much. Probert even states he originally had a dorsal saucer torpedo launcher on the E-D but eliminated it (among other things like moving the bridge to the top as Roddenberry wanted), thinking the two main ones were sufficient.
Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
My point is that to say that Jeffries' design for the weaponry of the Enterprise was superior (or inferior) to any other is simply meaningless, because he never designed any. That's all. I feel much as you do regarding the Enterprise E being peppered with launchers, but that has next to nothing to do with what made the original Enterprise such a neat design.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Ah, I see the point of this whole mess now.
When I posted the Jefferies and Probert line, I was simply trying to say that these earlier designers didn't take the time to point out everywhere on their design "here's another torpedo launcher!" like some hyperactive kindergartener drawing scribbles of smileys and messy lines all over his paper while drooling spittle down his chin (not the best analogy, but oh well). As you point out, Jefferies didn't give much thought to it at all. I just wanted to contrast that with how Eaves and newer designers feel somehow that their ships are "unprotected" (self-conscious, perhaps?) without launchers bursting out of every corner like teenage acne (okay, second awkward analogy, I'm on a roll!).
I didn't mean to suggest Jefferies' design for weaponary was superior (nor Probert for that matter), and I wasn't trying to comment on how launchers (or the lack there of) made the original Enterprise such a neat design.
Do you get what I'm trying to write?
You do? Good, 'cause I'm lost now.
Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
On a tangent to that, even if Jeffries didn't arm the E-nil to the teeth, the TOS writers and VFX folks did that for him. From a purely observational-treknological standpoint, fifteen tubes on the Akira is not that different from at least six forward tubes on the E-nil in "Balance of Terror".
The existence of more than two torp tubes on the likes of E-A is also a distinct possibility - they could still reside wherever the tubes were on the unrefitted Constitutions. That would help explain the four(!) torp bays seen in ST2 aboard the refitted E-nil - two or more were in the saucer somewhere (perhaps behind those hatches we mistook for airlocks or landing legs), and just happened to fire an inferior type of torpedo that Kirk didn't want to bring to play in the battle.
The apparent scarsity of tubes aboard the E-D could also be observer bias - the saucer could have had sixteen, for use in separated flight mode. Or fifty, and those fired the antimatter spread we saw in "BoBW II". The two big 'uns on the stardrive section were simply better for most purposes.
posted
Considering modern real world developments, I am not a believer in a ship of Star Trek's time requiring this many tubes. Here's my idea.
In the film "The Fifth Element", Zog introduced a weapon to hired-for-money thugs. This weapon had many neat features, one of which is the ability of the bullet to do a straight line trajectory, curve, and then strike the target behind the shooter. How does this apply to Star Trek?
The torpodoes on a starship are smart weapons which can analyze and track a target. When fired from a launcher, a torpodoe will have the ability for assaulting a moving target aft of the firing ship. When fired in groups, this can be quite effective. There is no need for this many torpodoe launchers.
I see the explosion of torpodoe launchers as a trend in Star Trek. First, we see a fleet blown up to ridiculous numbers. (In TOS and TNG, ships were spaced far apart and there was a time lag in acquiring ships for a fleet wide movement. By DS9, Starfleet had thousands of ships at her disposal.) Second, we see the size of the Federation expanded considerable. Third, the explosion of number of launchers on a starship. I call this the "Kewl Factor". This factor, which started in fandom, has spread with all the rapidity and ugliness of a disease to canon Trek. Where's the cure?
Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
Re Matt Jeffries defense, the Enterprise was clearly designed prior to decisions being made about just about anything of the ship's features. I suspect Roddenberry et al gave little or no thought to guns or torpedoes until the script for "Balance of Terror" was in the works. In fact, that they land a laser cannon on Talos IV in "The Cage" makes me suspect no one originally anticipated the ship being armed.
I agree with the assertion that a zillion launchers is silly. Albeit the torp was modified for Star Trek VI, the one that tracks down Chang's BOP behaved exactly as I always thought the photorps should...as guided missiles, not unguided rockets.
-------------------- "Well, I mean, it's generally understood that, of all of the people in the world, Mike Nelson is the best." -- ULTRA MAGNUS, steadfast in curmudgeon
Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
Remember that the designers on Star Trek do not have as much influence as you're according them -- a lot of design decisions ultimately rest with Berman.
Whenever we've seen torpedoes firing from odd places in the past, it was because the VFX people weren't happy with the designed locations. There is nothing in the Nemesis script to suggest additional torpedo launchers, but there *are* a lot of unknown names in the VFX credits of Nemesis. Digital Domain had never done a Trek show or a movie before. Eaves would've naturally modified his design to match.
However, the ultimate blame or credit rests with the producers who hire these people and oversee their designs/VFX. Don't forget that the proto-Voyager was the final design from Rick Sternbach's POV, and that he went curvy only because Jeri Taylor (an executive producer) wanted him to.
posted
To say that the EE yacht launcher is the only launcher capable of firing quantums isn't exactly a true statement. We've only seen quantums from this launcher, but if we are to assume these are the "DS9" style (personally I think we should call them something else since they weren't on DS9...how about "short" launchers??) the DS9TM states they can fire both photon and quantums....additionally we see other evidence in the TM that suggests the two torps are interchangeable in the torp tubes.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Granted, the differences between quantums and photons should not keep them in seperate launchers. However, perhaps this was a tactical decision for maintenance or tactical issues? If you have all the torpedoes of one kind in one launchers, it'd make 'em easier to keep running and your launcher configured specifically to 'em. Plus, if the notion is correct that there aren't that many quantum torpedoes to go around, keeping them all where they will do the most damage - when attacking a target - will have it make sense to be in the one big launcher. Note for example that Defiant never fired quantums aft ("Paradise Lost" et. al.).
And yeah, "DS9-style" launchers don't make much sense. But calling 'em "short" launchers means calling the other ones "long" launchers. How about "Eaves" and "Sternbach" style for the TNG era? The former accents short tubes and unconventional launch mechanics, wheras the longer emphasizes longer tubes, multiple torpedoes per launch, and lots of ancillary machinery besides the tube itself.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
