.com.unity Forums

.com.unity Forums (http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/index.php)
-   Space Empires: IV & V (http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/forumdisplay.php?f=20)
-   -   OT: Revised Edition Star Trek (http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/showthread.php?t=26041)

narf poit chez BOOM September 22nd, 2005 04:17 PM

OT: Revised Edition Star Trek
 
In the Space & Beyond thread, I got the idea of revising ST to be consistant, realistic and make sense, taking what we wanted from the shows and leaving what we didn't want, out of a discussion about the inconsistancies of ST.
http://www.shrapnelcommunity.com/thr...;Number=381643

At least a couple people showed interest in the idea, so I made a new thread. Posts are qouted below.

Quote:

Narf:
Hey, anyone want to create a rational and consistant ST universe? Start with the earliest episodes and work forwards, picking things that make sense and whatnot?

Say, someone with bandwidth and storage hosting a wiki?

First proposal: Klingons are nasty, backstabbing sabatuers, like in early ST. But, since they look to much like humans, brow ridges are in. All black is out, since...Not enough sarcasm.

Second proposal: Romulons, like we saw them in the first place, are honorable, dedicated conquerers, who happen to like tactics, stealth and espionage. Naturally, they are also cousins to the Vulcans.

More proposals: Pon far: Out the daar. Yeah, I know it's spelt door. But that doesn't rhyme. It does nothing but turn the vulcans into savages, which is what the're not supposed to be.

The Prime Directive: Did Kirk ever act like there was a prime directive in the first ones? No. But it makes sense, in a limited way, so some sort of common-sense non-interferance directive. Not 'Stay Out Entirely', but 'Stay Out Unless You Have To Meddle'.

Original Crew: All in. I like them. Miniskirts, out. No whining. They make absolutely no sense, especially aboard a spaceship.

So...Whaddya think?

Quote:

El_Phil
Well if your honest, those people who walked around with clipboards could go too. And all the redshirts (they just die anyway). And most of the crew who aren't in engineering or the bridge as they don't do anything, apart from fly around during explosions.

Quote:

Wolfman77
Big question: Whos warp system do we use?

Personaly, I liked TNG before the speed limit incident. Voyagers warp 10 is out. Come to think of it, let's just forget that whole show existed for these puposes.

Anyone know if "Enterprise" use TOS warp numbers?

Quote:

Narf
Science section - In, obviously. Say, 40 people for a well-rounded section.
Medical section - In. Size will depend on the size of the crew.
Weapons (phasers, torpedos) - In. Probably no more than three crewmen, one of whom is a member of the bridge crew. plus help from engineering - ST weapons fire is pretty automatic.
Engineering - Big ship. Say, 40 people. Some of whom will be walking around with clipboards.
Security (Red Shirts) - Need security and replacements in case of away missions to hostile territory or boarding. Say, 20-30 people. Also, they will not drop like flies. Presume some basic combat skills. - Remember, realistic.

What was TOS's warp system? And how do you calculate Stardates?

Yeah, no warp 10 is infinite. It's just really fast. TOS and TNG broke 10 lots of times.

Voyager, Enterprise, assume anything there is out unless there is a good reason. Too much contradiction in Enterprise. Can't recall anything Voyager added, aside from nerfing the borg.

Which is too bad, cause Enterprise is a good show, taken by itself.

Votes on keeping Q and the Borg? I say no to Q, he's just an annoying twerp who's only purpose is to run the TNG crew through some weird and nonsensical plot.

The Borg? What do they have to do with exploring the galaxy?

Quote:

El_Phil
The Borg were essentially a Q plot device, which got extended because the audience liked them.

If you keep them, then you'd want the original "Big super tough scary half machines. Of Doom!" not the pathetic Voyager borg.

Quote:

Narf
Of course.

But 'How the Federation encountered the Borg' can always be re-done. No need for Q.

Quote:

SJ - I put this post second, because my post was in responce to El_Phil
If you're only going to have 200 crew or so, the ship will be very very empty.

You could probably fill the empty space with lots of reactors, weapon ports, shield generation and armor. With a gaggle of technicians to keep things running.
Maybe an industrial-sized replicator so you can snatch a passing asteroid for mass and make big replacement parts like fighters/shuttles, torpedoes or even big reactors in one piece.

Quote:

Ashton
A galaxy class starship has over 1,000 crew members. So no 200 crew there.

Enterprise used TNG warp numbers. TNG warp numbers is an exponential system, with numbers from 1 to 10. Intergral warp numbers, like 2, or 9, are the most energy efficient. From 9 to 10, that is the zone of the really really fast. Warp 10, theoretically, is being completly submerged in subspace, existing everywhere at once. Let's just assume that means you can pop out anywhere, anytime.

Subspace also has some very interesting effects on biology...

Quote:

Wolfman77
I don't recall TNG ever going to warp 10. I have a TNG manual at home if you want exact numbers on stuff. What about stuff from the movies.

The Voyage Home had them slingshot around the sun to reach warp 10, I think. Warp 10 on TOS was regularly exceeded in TNG, so that must be out.

Then there is the trip to the center of the galaxy in just a few weeks.... We'll just pretend that didn't happen, for the sake of our sanity (or whatever it's been replaced with)



NullAshton September 22nd, 2005 04:21 PM

Re: OT: Revised Edition Star Trek
 
Warp 10 is theoretical, and not an actual speed, kinda like infinity. Technically, you're completly in subspace, which is everywhere at once. So you can pop back in anywhere in normal space.

narf poit chez BOOM September 22nd, 2005 04:22 PM

Re: OT: Revised Edition Star Trek
 
In one TNG, they travelled to another galaxy, with the help of this mystic guy.

Wolfman77: No trips to the center of the galaxy. For the sake of what's left of our sanity.

Slingshot around the sun makes absolutly no sense as explained.

SJ: If you assume a large environmental system, 200 crew might not rattle around in there.

Starhawk September 22nd, 2005 04:25 PM

Re: OT: Revised Edition Star Trek
 
LOL in TOS they hit warp 45 or something like that in at least 1 episode and warp 100+ in another heh

NullAshton September 22nd, 2005 04:28 PM

Re: OT: Revised Edition Star Trek
 
That's because they had a linear warp system. Slingshoting aroudn the sun has something to do with timetravel, gravity wells, and FTL travel.

Suicide Junkie September 22nd, 2005 04:29 PM

Re: OT: Revised Edition Star Trek
 
The point here is not to chat about the crazy stuff.

Its to distill the reasonable bits.

NullAshton September 22nd, 2005 04:30 PM

Re: OT: Revised Edition Star Trek
 
I propose that all timetravel is out, and that the Q remain to themselves.

Strategia_In_Ultima September 22nd, 2005 04:32 PM

Re: OT: Revised Edition Star Trek
 
Also, No gravity plating, as it would be hideously difficult to engineer right. Most people would have magnetic boots, but you might see people walking around on the ceiling, or simply floating about. However, perhaps around the warp core, if we assume it generates a small gravity well. The warp core could be mounted inside a largish sphere, on which people could walk without need of magnetic boots.

Of course, without artificial gravity, miniskirts are out of the question too..... shame really..... but I guess you'd have mass feminist strikes across Starfleet, which kinda messes up operations.....

Wolfman77 September 22nd, 2005 04:32 PM

Re: OT: Revised Edition Star Trek
 
200 crew for what size ship? Constitution or Galaxy?

I agree, no "expendable" crew.

NullAshton September 22nd, 2005 04:33 PM

Re: OT: Revised Edition Star Trek
 
The Enterprise doesn't have gravity plating. Rather, it has gravity generators, which create a downward pull from gravity. A galaxy class starship has over 1,000 crewmembers, and capability for more.

narf poit chez BOOM September 22nd, 2005 04:36 PM

Re: OT: Revised Edition Star Trek
 
Constitution. That's only a rough figure; this isn't just my project. The final number will be whatever we think is reasonable for a functioning starship.

Also, it should still remain Star Trek. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Artificial gravity? Hmm...I don't see so much of a problem. After all, the've got pretty fast FTL. Sure, it'd be hideus for us...But them? Not so sure.

NullAshton September 22nd, 2005 04:37 PM

Re: OT: Revised Edition Star Trek
 
They also have structural integerty fields, running along specialized conduits in the bulkheads. Those probally direct the gravity as well.

Wolfman77 September 22nd, 2005 04:45 PM

Re: OT: Revised Edition Star Trek
 
I agree, no big changes to the ST universe. Just drop some of the inconsistancies between the different series.

200 sounds about right for a constitution class.

I believe the manual I have states that gravity would fluctuate slightly from the center of the generator to the edges. I forget how big they are, but I think they are about half the width of the coridors. I'll try to find the book tonight and bring it to work tommorrow.

NullAshton September 22nd, 2005 04:47 PM

Re: OT: Revised Edition Star Trek
 
I have the technical manual for the Enterprise-D. So all your questions about that ship, I can answer. I've also seen every TNG episode ever made, all the movies, most of the Enterprise episodes, and quite a few Voyager episodes...

Wolfman77 September 22nd, 2005 05:10 PM

Re: OT: Revised Edition Star Trek
 
I think I have the same book.

Cloak detection: Exhaust, Tachyons, or neither? I'm partial to the tachyon method myself. Anyone else, for or against?

Starhawk September 22nd, 2005 05:11 PM

Re: OT: Revised Edition Star Trek
 
Anyone remember the original pilot for ST? Captain Pike (with Constitution Enterprise) had a crew of 150 or something like that although granted he lost a third of his crew somehow but still anyone remember that?

Although some people say it was not in fact the Constitution class enterprise but instead just a very similar hull configuration, like the "DReadnought" which was basically just an oversized constitution with three engines.

Wolfman77 September 22nd, 2005 05:18 PM

Re: OT: Revised Edition Star Trek
 
I remember one where they put him on trial, I think. It's been a while so I might be completly confused. I don't remember and details though.

NullAshton September 22nd, 2005 05:27 PM

Re: OT: Revised Edition Star Trek
 
Theoretically, it can be done for either. Tachyons are emitted by the cloaking device, which CAN be masked... The helium exhaust can just be placed in empty deutrium tanks.

Suicide Junkie September 22nd, 2005 05:40 PM

Re: OT: Revised Edition Star Trek
 
Quote:

Wolfman77 said:
I think I have the same book.

Cloak detection: Exhaust, Tachyons, or neither? I'm partial to the tachyon method myself. Anyone else, for or against?

The thermodynamic impossibility of making it completely emissionless?

You can do pretty good, by limiting power generation and concentrating your emissions in hard-to-detect forms and directions, though.

You could also buffer the emissions temporarily... for thermal emissions, it would be like refridgerating the outer hull and pumping all the heat into a specially designed container until it melts down.

Wolfman77 September 22nd, 2005 05:47 PM

Re: OT: Revised Edition Star Trek
 
I think, in one TNG episode they mentioned that they had mastered thermodynamics. Have they ever used thermal sensors to detect cloaked ships?

Kamog September 23rd, 2005 01:27 AM

Re: OT: Revised Edition Star Trek
 
"Quadrant" means something different depending on which Star Trek series. In TOS, there were many many quadrants in the galaxy, but in STNG there are only four: Alpha, Beta, Delta, Gamma.

The linear warp speed scale of TOS made more sense than the warp-10 maximum scale later on. With the 10-maximum scale, it's hard to say how fast one warp factor is compared to another. For example, how much faster is warp 9.9 compared to warp 9.8? Is it just 1% faster, or is more like 10 times faster? How do you calculate the actual speed?

Atrocities September 23rd, 2005 01:49 AM

Re: OT: Revised Edition Star Trek
 
Quote:

Starhawk said:
Anyone remember the original pilot for ST? Captain Pike (with Constitution Enterprise) had a crew of 150 or something like that although granted he lost a third of his crew somehow but still anyone remember that?

Although some people say it was not in fact the Constitution class enterprise but instead just a very similar hull configuration, like the "DReadnought" which was basically just an oversized constitution with three engines.

I have it on DVD. (Of course he would) They were attacked by some race on some planet and suffored a lot of casualities.

I saw the original B&W version when I was a kid. I thought to myself... they made this in the 60's, what visionaries.

They lost that visionary aspect of the show when they turned to treknobable.

El_Phil September 23rd, 2005 08:57 AM

Re: OT: Revised Edition Star Trek
 
I'd go for exhausts myself, there seems no reason for Tachyons other than they're a sci-fi standard. Everyone uses them when they need a clever particle.

Exhausts at least give you clever options and more to work with story wise, whereas if you start being consistent with tachyons cloaks are either easy to penetrate or very very hard to.

Wolfman77 September 23rd, 2005 11:02 AM

Re: OT: Revised Edition Star Trek
 
Warp 9.9 is quite a bit faster than 9.8. I have never been able to find an exact formula, but I haven't tried since 8th grade or so. Here's the approximate breakdown of the interger warp speeds:
Warp 1 - 1 times the speed of light
2 - 10
3 - 39
4 - 102
5 - 214
6 - 392
7 - 656
8 - 1024
9 - 1516
They used an Excel spreadsheet to calculate them.

narf poit chez BOOM September 23rd, 2005 12:43 PM

Re: OT: Revised Edition Star Trek
 
Suggestion: I make an ongoing list of stuff, then make polls every now and then.

Current list: Linear or exponential warp. Tachyons or exhaust to penatrate cloak or tachyons and exhaust. Many quadrants or four quadrants. Artificial gravity or no artificial gravity. Time travel or no time travel. Q or no Q. Borg or no Borg.

Comments?

Wolfman77 September 23rd, 2005 12:49 PM

Re: OT: Revised Edition Star Trek
 
Sounds like a plan. Maybe throw in neither for the cloak qustion.

Don't know why I didn't think of google earlier, but here is a link to a warp factor calculator.

http://home.att.net/~srschmitt/script_warpcalc.html

Seems fairly acurate for TNG, I don't know TOS warp factors.
9.8 = 4472 times the speed of light
9.9 = 6555
approximately

Strategia_In_Ultima September 23rd, 2005 05:32 PM

Re: OT: Revised Edition Star Trek
 
Quote:

narf poit chez BOOM said:
Current list: Linear or exponential warp. Tachyons or exhaust to penatrate cloak or tachyons and exhaust. Many quadrants or four quadrants. Artificial gravity or no artificial gravity. Time travel or no time travel. Q or no Q. Borg or no Borg.

Warp should be exponential. Otherwise, at the really high speeds, you get odd situations with slightly fluctuating warp speeds (say, between 276 and 280 or so), it seems kinda awkward when synchronizing speeds (and especially acceleration), moreover, it just sounds wierd.

Tachyons are supposed to be FTL particles according to ST lore. Me, I believe in "tachyons" in RL, but I think they have little place in sci-fi, even if it would be just because of the fact that IT IS SIMPLY IMPOSSIBLE TO CAPTURE AND UTILIZE A TACHYON. Exhaust, temperature, seems right but what makes more sense to me; gravitic distortions. Each object emits gravity, and in the near-vacuum of space, the gravity emitted by a cloaked ship would be almost laughably easy to find. However, you might get interference from such things as dark matter clumps, but that aside..... I say go with gravitic sensors to detect cloaked ships.

Look at the word; "quadrant". Look at the first four letters; "quad". Exactly. Sure, you'll have smaller dividers (like Sections, Regions, Sectors, Vicinities (i.e. Badlands vicinity), Systems, Orbits), but "quadrant" implies "one of four sections".

Maybe TNG featured a gravity generator (like that abomination Enterprise does), DS9 features gravity plating. Trust me, I have the DS9 Technical Manual so I guess that counts as canon. Gravity plating consists of a large net of gravity generators..... each about the length of a US football. I say either a gravity (well) generator, or zero-G, mag-boots and a warp core which emits a gravity well allowing people to walk on it.

No time travel. Reasons? Well, for one it is physically impossible and plainly stupid. Time travel is generally stupid, except in H.G. Wells' The Time Machine, and perhaps some other sources I don't know about.

Q = God. ST = science. Q =/= ST.

Borg..... well, possibly. Only then A.) they use nanoprobes for a heck of a lot more tasks than just assimilation, or B.) their ships are (partially) organic. No Borg Queen, no Locutus. Both are plainly stupid.

*****

Also, for purposes of avoiding fits of rage, Enterprise (shudder) is considered to be absolutely non-canon. I mean, they made First Contact with the Ferengi, the Romulans and the Xindi. The Romulans were only first encountered in TOS, the Ferengi in TNG and the Xindi weren't encountered at all in later series. Enterprise = biggest [censored section is five pages long] to ever have been broadcast under the Star Trek moniker. And don't give me that "Enterprise isn't ST 'cause there's no ST in the title" sh***, Enterprise has warp drives, Zephram Cochrane, and the Vulcans. Hence, Enterprise is ST. Enterprise is NOT canon. [/rant]

Wolfman77 September 23rd, 2005 05:55 PM

Re: OT: Revised Edition Star Trek
 
The TNG manual has gravity generators in it. Enterprise-D uses 1200 total, 800 in the saucer, split into two sections and 400 in the Battle/Engineering section also split into two sections. They are also tied to the Inertial Dampeners. They are only 25cm high and 50cm in diameter, and apperently effective to 30 meters.

Sounds like these, or a smaller version, make up the gravity plating for DS9. I don't think it matters too much which way we go.

Do we want to change things in the ST universe, or just get rid of the things that contradict each other?

I second the motion for no time travel. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Captain Kwok September 23rd, 2005 06:19 PM

Re: OT: Revised Edition Star Trek
 
Exciting stuff.

But instead of revising Star Trek, why don't you just create your own sci-fi universe based on your discussions here and populate it with your own 'plausible' technologies, races, etc?

narf poit chez BOOM September 24th, 2005 03:44 AM

Re: OT: Revised Edition Star Trek
 
Well, I want a rational ST that I can like without having to ignore these jarring plot holes.

Wolfman77 September 26th, 2005 10:08 AM

Re: OT: Revised Edition Star Trek
 
We could do both, but if we want our own universe we should probably do it in a new thread. Keep this for Narf's original idea of a revised ST.

narf poit chez BOOM September 26th, 2005 01:09 PM

Re: OT: Revised Edition Star Trek
 
Poll thread created. http://www.shrapnelcommunity.com/thr...;Number=382781

Hey, I'd be interested in that, too.

I'm not running it, though. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...ies/tongue.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif

narf poit chez BOOM September 27th, 2005 08:05 PM

Re: OT: Revised Edition Star Trek
 
Warp: Exponential; 10-2. (Whine whine oh well)
Cloak detection: Tachyons 4; Exhaust 4; Tachyons and Exhaust 4; None 0. Propose further discussion - If nobody wants to discuss further, Tachyons and Exhaust.
Quadrants: Four; 10-2
Artificial Gravity: Yes; 12-0 (Only clear-cut vote)
Time Travel: No; 11-1
The Q: No; 9-3 (Woot!)
The Borg: Yes; 11-1

Suicide Junkie September 27th, 2005 09:16 PM

Re: OT: Revised Edition Star Trek
 
For the two people who voted for linear warp speeds, please explain why you think talking about "warp 216" instead of a nice easy "warp 6" is a good idea.

El_Phil September 27th, 2005 09:16 PM

Re: OT: Revised Edition Star Trek
 
Going for both makes things flexible, you can have cloaked ships with good anti-tachyon work but bad exhausts, or vice versa. Or, on ships that are suitably rare and expensive, good at beating both.

Come to think of it, how about Romulan cloaks you beat with tachyons, Klingons with exhausts? TNG had the throwing tachyons at Romulan cloaks, and ST:VI sought the Klingon exhausts so it's even consistent! (excluding the hundreds of contradictory examples I've almost certainly forgotten)

Suicide Junkie September 27th, 2005 09:39 PM

Re: OT: Revised Edition Star Trek
 
My main issue with the tachyons, is;
What makes them any different from the rest of the "particles-of-the-week"?

IMO, the critical thing about cloaks is that:
- They make it very hard, but not quite impossible, to detect the ship.
Using tachyons to detect the ship smacks of recycled PotW.

Ed Kolis September 27th, 2005 09:51 PM

Re: OT: Revised Edition Star Trek
 
Quote:

Suicide Junkie said:
For the two people who voted for linear warp speeds, please explain why you think talking about "warp 216" instead of a nice easy "warp 6" is a good idea.

Because you wouldn't talk in terms of weird powers and stuff to begin with - you'd just say "helm, bring us to warp 200" (or even better, "helm, bring us to 200c" http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif) - do you ever see speed limits posted as 49 miles per hour just because 49 is square and so it's "gear 7" or something? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...ies/tongue.gif No, you round your speeds off to a nice decimal value!

Suicide Junkie September 27th, 2005 09:54 PM

Re: OT: Revised Edition Star Trek
 
Ah. Sounds good. I hereby change my vote!

Atrocities September 27th, 2005 09:57 PM

Re: OT: Revised Edition Star Trek
 
Warp is just a stupid way to say "GO REALY FAST AND GET US THE HELL OUT OF HERE MR. SULU!"

El_Phil September 27th, 2005 10:16 PM

Re: OT: Revised Edition Star Trek
 
Quote:

Suicide Junkie said:
My main issue with the tachyons, is;
What makes them any different from the rest of the "particles-of-the-week"?


They do have a large variety of funky properties, mainly gaining speed when they lose energy. The other man trick is their slowest possible speed, which is the speed of light. Of course this is entirely irreleveant to this issue as no ST writer ever thinks that deeply about it.

What makes them different is that they are a sci-fi standby since they year dot. There must be a law, or strict guideline, that requies the use of tachyons in anything calling itself sci-fi, its the only explanation.

Suicide Junkie September 27th, 2005 10:30 PM

Re: OT: Revised Edition Star Trek
 
Everything you posted there makes it seem more technobabbly.

In the same manner that "gamma rays" make "the hulk", "tachyons" make the "cloak detector".
Pure fertilizer-grade technobabble.

Atrocities September 28th, 2005 02:36 AM

Re: OT: Revised Edition Star Trek
 
What is your favorite Trecknobabble comment of all time?

Mine was in Generation when Scotty was coming with the the idea on how to get the Enterprise B out of the Nexus. I do miss him, and McCoy too. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/frown.gif

Wolfman77 September 28th, 2005 11:13 AM

Re: OT: Revised Edition Star Trek
 
Yeah tachyons are all technobabble, but how does exhaust make sense? What exhaust does a matter-antimatter reaction produce? The only thing I can find is that they produce gamma-rays (funny how that ties in, huh SJ?). We can detect gamma-rays wit hour current level of technology, It's only fair to assume they can as well. Therefore cloaking devices must block any gamma-rays that the warp core shielding doesn't, or they would be spoted quite easily.

Since we are keeping the artificial gravity, masking that signature should be doable.

I suppose we could say a few gamma rays leak through, compareable to background radiation, but if their sensors are configure to look for only to wavelength produced by certain engines, they could at least narrow it down. Especially it the source is moving. Still a bit of technobabble, but no tachyons.

NullAshton September 28th, 2005 11:54 AM

Re: OT: Revised Edition Star Trek
 
Matter-antimatter engines are only used for warp drive, and are simply not used for impulse engines. Impulse engines use fusion generators, which also serve as secondary power in battle. Helium exhaust! Q is plot device, and doesn't mess with stuff that much, so I say leave him in there. And timetravel is just plain funny, and serves as a good excuse to revisit yesterday's enterprise. Besides, I like that episode where the Enterprise-D is stuck in a timeloop.

NullAshton September 28th, 2005 11:55 AM

Re: OT: Revised Edition Star Trek
 
And tachyons are emitted by the cloaking generator as a by-product of cloaking the ship.

Suicide Junkie September 28th, 2005 12:46 PM

Re: OT: Revised Edition Star Trek
 
The goal of a reactor would be to absorb all of the gamma rays for use by ship's systems. None need be emitted by the ship.

The thermodynamic argument is simple. If the cloaking device prevents the ship from emitting energy (in order to be undetectable), then the ship can't be losing energy.
Since the ship is generating energy to power lifesupport, the cloak, and anything else they're using, the energy in the ship is monotonically increasing.
At some point, the temperature of the ship will exceed the melting point of its hull, and its bye-bye cloaked ship.

Thusly, the ship must be emitting at least as much energy as it is generating, averaged over time. Even when cloaked.
This can be in the form of neutrinos, large numbers of low energy photons, small numbers of high energy photons, hot particles, whatever.
It is highly unlikely that you would see gamma rays. That would mean that their reactor is not powering the ship, and is unshielded (in the lead-wall sense).

Wolfman77 September 28th, 2005 03:16 PM

Re: OT: Revised Edition Star Trek
 
Null: I thought they needed the matter-antimatter engines to run the cloak. Even so why not store the helium while you are cloaked? Of course it seems rather odd as the cloak is supposed to absorb energy, why does it need energy to run?

SJ: yes, the reactor would absorb gamma rays to create power, I just didn't think it needed to absorb every single one. Thought they might have a few leak out though, since some of those high energy ones can pass right through the Earth and all, but I suppose those would be hard for sensors to detect. My original thought was that the reactors could absorb them up to a certain wavelength (or down to as more acurately discribes higher energy EM waves). After this the shielding (lead wall sense) would absorb the rest, but not perfectly.

Then again if the cloak is absorbing energy, or even just deflecting it back to the ship, couldn't that be used as a temporary power source while cloaked? Assuming that some, barely detectable, energy is lost, then its just a matter of sensitve enough sensors to pick it up. Or waiting untill they need to start their engines for loss of power after a few hours or something. I suppose this could be called the exhaust.

NullAshton September 28th, 2005 03:30 PM

Re: OT: Revised Edition Star Trek
 
Romulan cloaks don't work by masking emissions, they work by phasing a ship a bit out of tune with reality. In theory, a perfect cloak would be indetectable, and the cloaked ship would be able to move through other objects. The energy is expended in remaining out-of-phase. My guess is that the expended energy is re-emitted as tachyons, like heat is emitted during most reactions.

ST reactors do not 'absourb' gamma rays, rather, they use the dilithium crystal to channel the energy into a purer form, called 'plasma', which is redirected through the plasma conduits to power the main systems, and isn't very regulated. Fusion power is used for the items that require less power, such as lights, or those touch panels.

Exhaust could be contained... but for regular space-travel it's probally so small as to not give away the ship. They just didn't think that exhaust would give away a cloaked ship, since sensors probally weren't programmed to detect it...

Suicide Junkie September 28th, 2005 03:31 PM

Re: OT: Revised Edition Star Trek
 
My point is that the power source dosen't matter.
They need to have some energy generation in order to stay alive and operating.
If they were to have no emmissions, then the temperature of the ship would have to rise. On a temporary basis that can be handled, but these ships run on gigawatts. Lifesupport, artificial gravity, structural integrity, containment fields, doors & lifts, and all the bells and whistles. It won't take long before they have to release the waste heat or melt into a bubble of expensive goo.

NullAshton September 28th, 2005 03:36 PM

Re: OT: Revised Edition Star Trek
 
Okay, so the more energy it uses, the faster the tachyons emitted are? Or slower, actually.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:34 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©1999 - 2025, Shrapnel Games, Inc. - All Rights Reserved.