posted
There appear to be 4 tubes, so I'm guessing here is 1 room per 2 tubes. Makes sense. Not smart to put the entire armory in one single room.
-------------------- "Lotta people go through life doing things badly. Racing's important to men who do it well. When you're racing, it's life. Anything that happens before or after is just waiting."
-Steve McQueen as Michael Delaney, LeMans
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Towards the end of the episode, Archer made a reference to "both tubes." So it sounds like only two of those holes are for the torpedoes. I guess the other two holes are for the plasma battery we saw in "Broken Bow." Plus, there's also, apparently, a rear tube in that pod. Damn it, and I was so hoping that was the engine room.
-------------------- The philosopher's stone. Those who possess it are no longer bound by the laws of equivalent exchange in alchemy. They gain without sacrifice and create without equal exchange. We searched for it, and we found it.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
I believe the plasma shots we saw in "Broken Bow" came from the top of the saucer.
-------------------- "Lotta people go through life doing things badly. Racing's important to men who do it well. When you're racing, it's life. Anything that happens before or after is just waiting."
-Steve McQueen as Michael Delaney, LeMans
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
capped
I WAS IN THE FUTURE, IT WAS TOO LATE TO RSVP
Member # 709
posted
I'm just waiting for them to try to convince us its old style by showing the gun crews rolling out the plasma cannons, swabbing them out, dropping in the plasma, opening the port and touching the fuse to fire
a guy can hope....
-------------------- "Are you worried that your thoughts are not quite.. clear?"
posted
haha you got to hand it to enterprise, their weapons suck ass!
and mesa likes! its quite a change to see how earth ships don't simply rule the galaxy becuase they're the good guys...
i got a whole babylon 5 feel toward enterpirse's weapon capabilities, by that i mean earth force ships in B5 were pretty bad and were almost always outgunned by aliens.
I hope they will improve her weapons slightly, its brings great luaghter to see the enterprise fire off a barrage of pulse fire and miss every shot!
Then she fire her precious missiles and you can hear the tension, then the aliens just brush them aside with their shields and weapons!!! LOL "oh my god, ha!" they're screwed and its fun to see.
Now back to more serious note, what more can we conclude about the enterprise's "shields" or primitive version/armor hybrid.
The first alien fire that impacted on the front of the bridge seemed to have resulted in a more shield like effect than some field enforced armor[ as previously hinted from dialogue] The second fire went clean through, i'm surprised the enterprise is not in a much worse state since the alien ship pounded her several rounds while the shuttle ever so slowly got back into the hanger.
One last comment, i have to say that the explosions were a little "fake" and the alien harvestor ship too, something about her outer hull lighting was very fake, the design is good though, very menacing looking even when sitting still.
posted
I didn't like that rear-firing torp tube. It seemed wrong. Wasn't there something in the TNG tech manual that said they didn't cover the rear "blind spot" until the 23rd century?
On the whole though, I like this new show. They haven't yet fucked over continuity of events, even though tech-wise it doesn't look older than TOS. Liked the reference to the Axanar.
-MMoM
-------------------- The flaws we find most objectionable in others are often those we recognize in ourselves.
posted
I just checked, and the TNG Technical Manual doesn't say much about rear-firing torpedo launchers. Mr. Scott's Guide to the Enterprise does talk about adding a rear-facing torpedo launcher to the Enterprise-A, but it was only said to be elimenating a tactical blindspot. Of course, I don't think the Enterprise-A had a rear-firing torpedo tube in the first place.
-------------------- The philosopher's stone. Those who possess it are no longer bound by the laws of equivalent exchange in alchemy. They gain without sacrifice and create without equal exchange. We searched for it, and we found it.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
capped
I WAS IN THE FUTURE, IT WAS TOO LATE TO RSVP
Member # 709
posted
Um, not to say that the TNG tech manual was leaving a blank, but the E-D's rear firing tube as featured quite prominently in 'Encounter at Farpoint' .. (remember. it was the first one?) and is visible in many graphics in thst book
-------------------- "Are you worried that your thoughts are not quite.. clear?"
Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
But we're not talking about "Encounter at Farpoint." We're talking about whether the TNG Technical Manual says that rear-firing torpedo launchers were an advancement installed on starships in the 23rd century. I checked, and the TNG Technical Manual does not say such a thing.
-------------------- The philosopher's stone. Those who possess it are no longer bound by the laws of equivalent exchange in alchemy. They gain without sacrifice and create without equal exchange. We searched for it, and we found it.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
I stand corrected. I probably got it from Mr. Scott's Guide. Still seems a bit wrong though, doesn't it? I mean, the E-nil was supposed to be Starfleet's "best" ship, and it didn't have a rear tube...
-------------------- The flaws we find most objectionable in others are often those we recognize in ourselves.
Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
Well, unlike those other things, from looking at the model there's no possible way for there to be a rear torp-tube. As to thrusters and lifeboats, those could be interpreted as things on the model. Perhaps the lifeboats are deployed from that big round yellow hatch on the underside of the engineering hull. Perhaps the thruster are hidden in the nacelle ends or are those little dots we see near the impulse engines. But there is definitely NO rear torpedo tube.
-------------------- The flaws we find most objectionable in others are often those we recognize in ourselves.
Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
Printer-friendly view of this topic
