posted
Of course, the first torpedo shot by Khan was a special effects/technical disaster. As was stated, a torpedo shot at the unshielded hull of the Enterprise whould have done serious damamge which was never seen. As a matter of fact, I don't think they ever showed *any* damage from that shot, (except for all those sparks on the bridge). So Timo could be correct with the idea of a proximity blast.
(It should be kept in mind however, that torpedoes were in a relatively low state of technological advancement. According to TNG:TM, they were little more than seperate sections of matter and antimatter thrust together on impact, much like a fission warhead. No big technical components to "increase isoton yield per gram" or whatever. Still though, even a couple of grams would have wreaked havoc. Someone already referenced to ST-IV.)
IMO, the reason Kirk thought Sulu could shoot down the incoming photorp was that it was traveling relatively slowly, (i.e., well below light speed), and could be targeted. Apparently not slowly enough though. (and it was Spock that said "too late," not Sulu.)
Also, could someone please explain how that nasty black spot got on the portside-aft underside of the primary hull? I remember seeing it in the shot with the Reliant and Enterprise facing off after Khan had made his attack, camera behind the Enterprise.
posted
Honestly, I always thought that was the torpedo impact!
Of course, perhaps the explosion of the torpedo in space caused it -- burned the hull? I dunno, that's my best thought. Otherwise, I'd say Reliant scored the shot while the movie is showing the Enterprise bridge ...
------------------ Star Trek Gamma Quadrant Average Rated 7.64 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux (with six eps posted) *** "Oh, yes, screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!" -Omega 11:48am, Jan. 19th, 2001 **** And homeschooling also turns you into a socially well-adjusted person, capable of talking to people without them wanting to ram a f***ing chair down your throat! - PsyLiam, 3/11/01
posted
I always assumed that the impact of the torpedo had ample enough energy to blow stuff up all over the ship. Including all those consoles on the bridge. Face it, with all that energy coming from the blast it's gonna go somewhere, including up to the bridge.
------------------ In this crazy world of lemons, baby...you're lemonade!
* Enterprise is being replaced in 2013 by CVNX-1 (CVN-78), the first of a new class of supercarrier *
There's some disagreement as to whether this will be a CV or a CVN. They're planning electromagnetic catapults, so it won't require big reactors to generate steam. In terms of construction and operational costs, gas turbine propulsion is a lot cheaper, important for the new, smaller Navy.
------------------ Never give up. Never surrender.
[This message has been edited by Tech Sergeant Chen (edited March 18, 2001).]
posted
Quatre Winner, energy from a weapons blast is completely uncontrolled. I don't think that the sparks flying from consoles and power distributors come directly from the energy of the blast per se, but more from systems overloads caused by the blast, (i.e., shield power flushing back through the system), which is why some of those overloads are impossible. Why would the science station explode if shields were down and it was only the hull taking damage?
For example, (not that I know much about this, but), if an explosive hit the deck of an aircraft carrier, would the helm console on the bridge overload?
posted
Tech Sergeant Chen, I just read your post. Where did this come from? GAS turbines? As in no nuclear reactors? Is that why they're confused over the CV versus CVN? Electromagnetic catapults? New class of supercarrier as in *not* Nimitz-class? Get me your source! I wanna read about this! I'm stuck back in my Jane's 1975-76 edition.
Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
I'd think that at this point, the carrier is still more of a wishful dream. The British want to have a new conventional carrier, too, possibly with electromagnetic but more probably with steam catapults (I trust they want to purchase the VTOL version of the JSF, and ski-jumps don't work quite as well with that as they do with Harrier - and catapults would allow for the CTOL version, too). But changing political climates may see a lesser need for the USN to project air power, and a greater need for European navies to do so. Building a new carrier for the USN doesn't seem very acute now that there are so many CVNs to choose from, and most of those aren't geriatric yet.
And we know carriers will be outdated by WWIII in the 2050s anyway, so whatever they come up with next will be the last example of that ship type...
posted
Carriers will ber as useless in 10-20 years as battleships are today. In my opinion there should be no more carriers anymore. Just stop building them and leave the others alone. Planes now have the range to reach far off places in thw world. The US (right now) won't do anything with the UN's approval anyway. So if the US has support then the US could use the ally's own airbases to bomb that country.
Perhaps the phton was of low yield? In TNG's "Redeption II" showed use that the torpedoes explosive yeild could be lowered. So maybe Kahn lowered the yield so he let Kirk "who it was who beated you" as Kahn has said.
------------------ Signature for sale! For a mere price of $20 per letter you get this wonderful little space to say your own things. Get it now while there's still space!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
