Well, obviously an extremly weak point on almost every ship is the belly. Look at what all is down there. Deflector dishes, antimatter pods, the very bottom of the warp core, heck, even some torpedo launchers (which means that the torpedo storage bay ain't too far away either).
So, my question is, why would you want to put highly explosive stuff, especially antimatter pods, on the very bottom of the ship where only the exterior hull is what stands between you and an oncoming torpedo or phaser blast? Why aren't the antimatter pods put somewhere in the middle of the ship, and then have the antimatter piped elsewhere to the antimatter injector.
Of course, why have your antimatter injector so close to the belly of the ship as well? Really, the only answer for that is, so the core can be dumped. Now, if you wanted to forget dumping, having a horizontal core to me would be more practical, since it'd be deeply imbedded in the ship.
Also something else to tack onto this - why are the warp cores so tall? I mean, if the Defiant can have a core that's only 3 decks tall, why does a Galaxy need one that's about 12 decks tall? Both of them have reaction chambers that are nearly the same size, so I don't see how the height of the core could affect power output.
Uh, yes it did.
"So, my question is, why would you want to put highly explosive stuff, especially antimatter pods, on the very bottom of the ship where only the exterior hull is what stands between you and an oncoming torpedo or phaser blast? Why aren't the antimatter pods put somewhere in the middle of the ship, and then have the antimatter piped elsewhere to the antimatter injector. "
You're saying "let's get rid of the "belly" or "engineering" hull of most Starfleet ships. The most known ship so far with your "ideal" layout is the Defiant-Class, where all the engineering equipment is effectively in the "middle" of the ship thus giving these parts extra protection. Can you think of any other starship layout to meet your requirements?
[ June 30, 2001: Message edited by: Ace ]
Unofficially, we've seen this doesn't hold ground (for example, the many battles of DS9 where combat took place between unshielded ships). Obviously, the Defiant's design is a testiment to a more militaristic design philosophy - ablative armor, warpcore and bridge tucked away safely, etc. So, why is the bridge located on top then? Because it represents the most dominant position, the 'highest' point on a vessel, from which everything is controlled, watched, etc. It's a psychological thing, not unlike the idea behind DS9's Operations layout - the Prefect's office is a a yard or so above 'ground level', so other officers have to look up to him.
Finally, why is the Defiant's core apparently just as powerful as that of a Galaxy, yet so much shorter? Because the very concept of the Defiant is flawed. It's very small, but still more than a match for most cruisers - however, smaller means less space! - when it comes to (star)ships, 'bigger is better' applies. You can't have a small destroyer with as much raw firepower as a dreadnought. Had I designed it, I would have made it roughly 400 meters in length, with the entire front section being essentially being one big gun (remember TNG's deflector weapon from TBOBW?), and perhaps two horizontal warp cores running along the entire length of the ship. To me, that seems like a much more credible warship - and it resolves the issue nicely
Sigh...let's read your post:
"Well, obviously an extremly weak point on almost every ship is the belly. Look at what all is down there. Deflector dishes, antimatter pods, the very bottom of the warp core, heck, even some torpedo launchers (which means that the torpedo storage bay ain't too far away either)."
"Of course, why have your antimatter injector so close to the belly of the ship as well? Really, the only answer for that is, so the core can be dumped. Now, if you wanted to forget dumping, having a horizontal core to me would be more practical, since it'd be deeply imbedded in the ship."
If you keep the lower hull as you suggest, we'll all hear the OTHER arguments:
1. Why is the deflector dish so exposed on the lower hull if it can get hit like the Odyssey?
2. Why make the lower hull and neck so exposed if it will get hit like the Ent-A in ST II (especially if nothing important is down there...)?
3. Why not tuck everything into the middle of the ship (like the Defiant...)?
I'm beginning to sense a little hostility and that you will not even tolerate anything I say, so I shall drop out of this topic. Have a nice day!
[ July 01, 2001: Message edited by: Ace ]
Which brings up the thought, why would you NOT want to be able to dump the core?
"Oh no! We just lost magnetic containment!"
"Eject the core!"
"But we CAN'T!!"
"Damn."
BOOM
As for the deflector dish, well, where would YOU put it? It's kind of hard to bury something like that. It has to be visible from the front and have a rather large angle of effect or whatever. It NEEDS to be exposed to do it's work.
But with the ejection of the core thing, it's sort of a trade off. Would you rather risk the core instantly being blown to bits by a torpedo hit just so there is the possibility of ejecting it, or would you rather have the core protected, but you can't eject it?
Either way, you could either save the ship or lose it.
section 29, paragraph 8, line 62.
A 24 or above Cochrane warpcore may not be stored aboard a type 7 federation or starfleet vessel in a horizontal position due to the inceased risk of heads breaching the low hanging plasma coolant tanks or interns tripping over the dilithium chamber hatch while carrying self sealing stembolts.......
So there...
also it would be a real bitch to install an intergrated warpcore.....
[ July 01, 2001: Message edited by: Reverend ]
quote:
Originally posted by Reverend:
I think its more a matter of keeping the antimatter pods and the matter tanks as far apart as possible.....just incase.
It doesn't matter... the antimatter will react with the pods if the containment fields fail. On the other hand you still need to give the matter a reason to explode [a spark is a good example].
The best reason is the layout of the ship. Keeping the warp core and the main impulse engines away from each other divides a single target [main power] into two different locations. However, the warp core is the only one that needs antimatter on a constant basis so it is the only one that needs ready access to the antimatter. However the Impulse systems only need matter [boosting amounts of antimatter would probably come in portable containers]. Thus the placement of the deuterium tank has to be between the two locations.
The only example of difference I've seen is the Defiant and Intrepid. The Defiant is too small for it to matter, you put things where they'll fit. But with the Intrepid they place the impulse engines with the warp nacelles [something that recombines them into a single target, no wonder they were dead in the water so much]. Anyway... there are still other systems that only need deuterium that are in the saucer section. These include the RCS and the backup fusion generators.