Page 4 of 6
Re: To be, or yacht to be
Posted: Fri Apr 17, 2009 9:44 pm
by Tyyr
I think that's kind of the wrong end to approach it from. They carry sufficient torps for the tubes they have, just no where near the number of tubes they could. If they had more tubes they'd likely carry more torps.
Re: To be, or yacht to be
Posted: Sat Apr 18, 2009 2:44 pm
by Mikey
Tyyr wrote:I think that's kind of the wrong end to approach it from. They carry sufficient torps for the tubes they have, just no where near the number of tubes they could. If they had more tubes they'd likely carry more torps.
I see what you're saying, but based on the available space and length of missions, by that logic they would carry far more torps even for the current number of tubes.
Re: To be, or yacht to be
Posted: Sun Apr 19, 2009 2:50 am
by Tyyr
Well unless you can think up some reason why they simply can't carry more torps I think it either has to be chocked up to either:
1) They just didn't figure their ships would be involved in that much combat between stops at starbases or...
2) It's just another figure in Trek that doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
Re: To be, or yacht to be
Posted: Sun Apr 19, 2009 2:56 am
by Deepcrush
Stick with option two and you'll be ok 90% of the time with Trek.
Re: To be, or yacht to be
Posted: Sun Apr 19, 2009 12:39 pm
by steamrunner
You would think that the replicators could produce a large majority of torpedo parts, saving storage space for more warheads and propulsion systems...
Re: To be, or yacht to be
Posted: Sun Apr 19, 2009 2:25 pm
by Mikey
steamrunner wrote:You would think that the replicators could produce a large majority of torpedo parts, saving storage space for more warheads and propulsion systems...
Not really, considering the fact that they can't replicate a manhole cover...
Re: To be, or yacht to be
Posted: Sun Apr 19, 2009 2:30 pm
by Deepcrush
Mikey wrote:steamrunner wrote:You would think that the replicators could produce a large majority of torpedo parts, saving storage space for more warheads and propulsion systems...
Not really, considering the fact that they can't replicate a manhole cover...
Manhole cover?
![Confused :?](./images/smilies/icon_confused.gif)
Re: To be, or yacht to be
Posted: Sun Apr 19, 2009 2:31 pm
by Mikey
Yeah, the E-D couldn't replicate a hatch.
Re: To be, or yacht to be
Posted: Sun Apr 19, 2009 2:32 pm
by Deepcrush
Re: To be, or yacht to be
Posted: Sun Apr 19, 2009 3:01 pm
by Sionnach Glic
Yeah, IIRC they had to go to a starbase to pick up a circular chunk of metal.
Although we have seen them replicate metal objects before. So perhaps the hatch needed some weird element that couldn't be replicated, or the ship in general was running low on replicator stock.
Re: To be, or yacht to be
Posted: Sun Apr 19, 2009 3:02 pm
by Captain Seafort
Or it was simply too big.
Re: To be, or yacht to be
Posted: Sun Apr 19, 2009 3:03 pm
by Sionnach Glic
Aye, they may not have large replicators to create such things.
Re: To be, or yacht to be
Posted: Sun Apr 19, 2009 3:06 pm
by Deepcrush
Rochey wrote:Aye, they may not have large replicators to create such things.
![Banging head against wall :bangwall:](./images/smilies/1892.gif)
Re: To be, or yacht to be
Posted: Sun Apr 19, 2009 3:23 pm
by kostmayer
Do we have any numbers on the size / power requirements of an industrial replicator?
A room, possibly the size of a cargo bay given over to replicating could be well worth the space - I can't imagine the energy requirements would outway the energy needed to warp a Starship back to Starbase to pick up a hatch.
Or they could have just sent a Runabout.
Re: To be, or yacht to be
Posted: Sun Apr 19, 2009 3:41 pm
by Deepcrush
They should atleast have a machine shop on board each capital ship.