Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
Flare Sci-Fi Forums
»
Star Trek
»
Starships & Technology
»
Starship construction times
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message:
HTML is enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Siegfried: [QB] [QUOTE]1) What other thrusters are we talking about here? Aside from the ones used in "Booby Trap", I don't recall the ship ever using another type of thruster.[/QUOTE]There are four RCS thruster units on the edge of the saucer section. Those are the little yellow-brown rectangular things. Other than "Booby Trap," we've never seen a thruster fire period although we've heard orders for them several times. [QUOTE]2) If the saucer engines were so advantageous in maneuvers, why in 7 years of TNG were they only used when the saucer was separated? As far as I remember, the first time we ever saw the saucer engines used while a Galaxy-class was in one piece was during the Dominion war.[/QUOTE]And that's the point. The Federation goes to war, and suddenly the Galaxy class starships are using all three sets of impulse engines. In wartime, the ship needs to be more maneuverable, so those engines were brought online. Hell, some of the Mirandas flew around with extra impulse engines, too. [QUOTE]1) Would the fusion reactors put out enough power to equal the savings earned by not having to drag around a million or so tons of unnecessary mass? And would those reactors even be there if the hull is largely empty?[/QUOTE]Temporary decking could be laid in place to keep the components from rolling around. The Galaxy class is 5 million metric tons. About half that is in the saucer... when the ship is completely outfitted to the standards in the TNG Tech Manual. If the vast majority of the saucer is empty, it wouldn't be adding as much mass as you think. I think that the output does justify it. [QUOTE]2) The phaser array on the head of the secondary hull doesn't [i]need[/i] the degree of range of the saucer array. A large part of that array is there to allow the ship access to areas blocked by its own hull. Get rid of the saucer, and the three arrays on the battle head can cover the area quite nicely.[/QUOTE]Except for part of the area covered by the ventral saucer array. The large array on the stardrive's head is near the same orientation as the dorsal saucer array. The ventral stardrive array could compensate, but it's degree of range is severely limited due to its positioning. [QUOTE]Granted. And in the long run, on a multi-year mission, the energy savings would add up. However, in the short term, I think it would make more sense to simply produce the stardrive section. Devoid of the need to move the extra mass of the saucer (in either flight mode) and to power the saucer's systems, the stardrive section could devote its entire energy output to combat (which is the whole point of the saucer separation in the first place). Besides, if the whole point of an accelerated production schedule is to churn out ships for the war effort, why waste time and materials on something that's not absolutely necessary?[/QUOTE]Which is why I ended my original post with the opinion that in spite of some incentives for having the saucer section attached to the ship, the reality is that I doubt the make the need for the saucer absolutely necessary. [/QB][/QUOTE]
Instant Graemlins
Instant UBB Code™
What is UBB Code™?
Options
Disable Graemlins in this post.
*** Click here to review this topic. ***
© 1999-2024 Charles Capps
Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3