www.ditl.org

Captain Peabody wrote:Speaking of which, does anyone know if the saucer section has it's own torpedo launcher? Certainly we've never seen it in action...

It does - at least according to the TM. It's in the undercut, facing aft, hidden by the cobra head of the stardrive while the ship is combined.

Seafort wrote:Bugger. Ah well, try this:

All I'm getting for that is the red X.

It does - at least according to the TM. It's in the undercut, facing aft, hidden by the cobra head of the stardrive while the ship is combined.

So it's hidden while the ship isn't seperated?

Captain Seafort wrote:

Captain Peabody wrote:Speaking of which, does anyone know if the saucer section has it's own torpedo launcher? Certainly we've never seen it in action...

It does - at least according to the TM. It's in the undercut, facing aft, hidden by the cobra head of the stardrive while the ship is combined.

That way it can make any one chasing it think twice. I would love to see what happens if fired while docked.

I would love to see what happens if fired while docked.

Um, the ship very rapidly undergoes an emergencey seperation?

Rochey wrote:All I'm getting for that is the red X.

Double bugger. It was working when I previewed it.

Third time lucky.

Okay, I can see it now.

Rochey wrote:Okay, I can see it now.

Finally, a link that works. Moral of the story - use photobucket.

Captain Seafort wrote:

johnsmith wrote:Even assuming the stardrive had only half of the impulse power, you've got to figure it probably has only a quarter of the mass.

On the contrary - it's substantially more massive, sincethat the warp coils are exceptionally dense. Look at the Intrepid class for example - it wouldn't be able to stand on its legs if it's centre of mass weren't a good deal further aft than a uniform-density object of the same shape.

This might have been discussed before, but why was Voyager made with landing capabilities?

And how much modifacation would be required to allow a Starship to fly inside the atmostphere of say, an M Class Planet? The heat of re-entry can't put that much of a strain on the shields, and the thrusters must be enough to counteract the planets gravity.

kostmayer wrote:

Captain Seafort wrote:

johnsmith wrote:Even assuming the stardrive had only half of the impulse power, you've got to figure it probably has only a quarter of the mass.

On the contrary - it's substantially more massive, sincethat the warp coils are exceptionally dense. Look at the Intrepid class for example - it wouldn't be able to stand on its legs if it's centre of mass weren't a good deal further aft than a uniform-density object of the same shape.

This might have been discussed before, but why was Voyager made with landing capabilities?

And how much modifacation would be required to allow a Starship to fly inside the atmostphere of say, an M Class Planet? The heat of re-entry can't put that much of a strain on the shields, and the thrusters must be enough to counteract the planets gravity.

This was discussed before. Possible reasons for the landing abilities are 1) a mobile base of operations for both military and scientific missions, 2) quicker resupply when transporter are useless or can't handle the load(no on-screen evidence to support this. Just makes sense), and 3) the ability to refit and handle major repairs with little to no support

As for flying in atmosphere, we've seen many ships fly through the atmosphere without modification. The E-D did it in season one while in seperated mode, using the atmoshere's friction reveal a cloaked enemy. The Defiant flew into a gas giant in season 4 and played submarine in the much thicker atmosphere. And the E-nil has passed through the atmosphere of planets on occasion, like the time they shot down an F-104 by accident during one of their accidental time travel incidents. Flying through atmosphere is easy. Now, landing the ship safely, that's hard.

Look at the Intrepid class for example - it wouldn't be able to stand on its legs if it's centre of mass weren't a good deal further aft than a uniform-density object of the same shape.

It shouldn't be able to stand on it's legs at all. But I get your point.

Rochey wrote:

Look at the Intrepid class for example - it wouldn't be able to stand on its legs if it's centre of mass weren't a good deal further aft than a uniform-density object of the same shape.

It shouldn't be able to stand on it's legs at all. But I get your point.

We showed you the math before and proved that it should be possible by the 24th century. I thought we convinced you of that before.

*looks through the thread again*

Uh, nope. Both of you stopped replying to our points. Seafort provided a video that showed Voyager's hull strength was much lower than was being claimed. In the end, the general consensus was that it relied on the SIF, or something, to keep it up.

Rochey wrote:*looks through the thread again*

Uh, nope. Both of you stopped replying to our points. Seafort provided a video that showed Voyager's hull strength was much lower than was being claimed. In the end, the general consensus was that it relied on the SIF, or something, to keep it up.

The hull was weak from being torn out of Slipstream, and the only reason I can think of for why I stopped posting is that you were being unreasonable.

The hull was weak from being torn out of Slipstream,

Seafort also showed that it would have had to be weakened by about 1000 times for the hull to be as strong as was being claimed.

and the only reason I can think of for why I stopped posting is that you were being unreasonable.

Yeah, because providing canon evidence and then asking for others to do the same is unreasonable.

We have almost nothing to go on with slipstream physics so it's possible. And our canon evidence is, we've seen the legs hold the ship up on multiple occasions, with no mention of an active system being used.