| Subject: Re: Imperial fleet Vs Federation fleet |
Author:
Warspite
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 09:00:31 10/01/02 Tue
Author Host/IP: ipd54b191d.free.wxs.nl/213.75.25.29
In reply to:
TrekGOD
's message, "Re: Imperial fleet Vs Federation fleet" on 21:56:23 09/30/02 Mon
>I'm talking about the time differential between
>Traveling @ warp vs. Sublight. assuming of course the
>weapons can cross the warp barrier to the sublight
>realm, there is a 99.9 probability that you would
>overshoot the target. They've said it repeatedly in
>DS9, Voyager and Enterprise and to include ST:TNG BOBW
>where o'brian mentions the ship had to match warp
>velocity's to do any type of combat.
No, he said that they had to match warp velocities for TRANSPORT. He doesn't mention combat, why would he, he is the transporter chief, not the tactical officer!
I think you are making up the 99.9% figure. How many times have we seen a ship drop out of warp right next to their target, without overshooting. In TNG:Descent, the Enterprise is able to drop out of warp right on the edge of a planets atmosphere. They can judge pretty precisely where they drop out of warp. Answer me this, name three occassion where the ship has accidently over shot their target. Surely you should be able to get three examples from five series and nine films if they do it 99.9% of the time.
>Checov wasn't
>that great of a gunner during TOS days. Perhaps the
>movie era. I mean .00008 seconds is a really short
>amount of time to target something + fire the weapon.
>And if you say anything about the sensors, I will
>smite you because in order to do battle you have to
>use your latteral sensors to get detailed tracking
>information and that would mean if your moving @ warp
>4 you traverse your lateral sensor range in .008
>seconds.
>
And you are getting the sensor range from where? According to the TM, the sensor range is 17 light years (medium to low res), or 5 light years (high res mode) Five light years is plenty for targeting time. Hell, 1 ly would be ample. In fact, even a couple of light minutes would be long enough.
Where is it said that lateral sensors are required for combat? In TNG:Gambit, the Enterprise is going into battle, tracking a ship. The ship has stealth properties, and only when they start to lose the contact, are the lateral sensors brought on line. This would indicate that they are not necessary, but can be used if required.
>And don't tell me they can drop to impulse from warp
>because it is stated in the show (mind you) that a
>weapon fired at warp stays @ warp unless it has a
>subspace field inverter which is a peice of equipment
>no smaller the 18 meters long so it can't fit inside
>of a torpedo casing.
ROTFLMAO! Where is that stated? It is so obviously wrong, its laughable. A Type VI shuttle is only 6m long, and it can drop out or go to warp as it pleases. A 18m long piece of equipment would not fit inside. Hell, even a type 9a cargo shuttle is only 10.5m long. Are you making that up?
It is also a canon fact that a ship will drop out of warp unless the warp field is actively maintained. We see that happen with the saucer in Encounter at far point, and it is confirmed by the TM. The DS9:TM also states..
"....if the torpedo is moving at warp and the target makes a drop to impulse the torpedo will NOT make a commensurate drop to impulse, since it cannot re-establish it's warp sustainer field. In this case it would detonate on impact or at closest approach using data from the proximity sensors and three axis relative velocity algorithms."
In other words, it could drop to impulse speeds, but if it does and the target goes back to warp, then it would not be able to follow. This passage implies two things. Firstly that the torpedo can make a successful warp-impulse attack, and secondly that the torpedo could (if necessary) drop to impulse on command.
>Then if you really want to get mad read this: The
>directors and writers of the original series
>discredited that episode due to their lack of
>knowledge. If they discredit it.. it become
>non-official even if it is in the TV Show.
>
Hmmmm....I definitely want a reference on that. I have been debating this stuff for years and have NEVER heard that. Its easy to say it, but can you provide some proof?
>I mean explain Star Trek V. And don't tell me they
>where traveling "twords the center of the galaxy"
>because Cybok clearly says that Shakarei was "In the
>center of the Galaxy" in the speach to the crew of the
>Enterprise. There was no Wormhole or any other
>phenomina or else they would have at least mentioned
>it. but 6.7 hours from Nimbus 3 to the center of the
>galaxy?? If this is official then any ship wanting
>to go to the center of the galaxy should make a quick
>3 day trip from earth to Nimbus 3 then leave and head
>to the center of the galaxy.
This is an interesting one. Gene Roddenberry wanted to 'de-canonize' parts of ST:V before he died. I have always suspected that the trip to the centre of the galaxy was the most obvious bit to do. It doesn't make sense to the rest of the show. However, by that time, Paramount owned the rights, not him.
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 
