Topic: Dumb Question, BUT... (Read 9963 times)

Smiley · « **on:** January 21, 2007, 11:28:44 am »

Where are the aft firing torpedo tubes on a Connie?

Vipre · « **Reply #1 on:** January 21, 2007, 11:45:05 am »

Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

Wicked Zombie · « **Reply #2 on:** January 21, 2007, 02:56:15 pm »

It depends on which version. The TOS Enterprise most likely didn't have aft tubes, or at the least, never had a reason to use them onscreen. The TOS Defiant on Ent fired from the neck/saucer connection area. The TMP Connie obviously doesn't have aft tubes. Then there's the designs from other sources which gives even more options to choose from.

Some people get rather militant about the Defiant firing aft weapons, regardless of the fact that no two ships are ever going to be identical. It basically just comes down to which variant you prefer and whether or not you care about the dozens of fan designs and publications floating around.

Smiley · « **Reply #3 on:** January 21, 2007, 03:24:17 pm »

I was chatting to Atolm about this and apparently, as you suggest, there are no aft firing torpedo launchers on a Constitution. [If the TMP refit did not have them, it is logical to assume that the TOS version definitely did not have them - why remove something instead upgrading it when upgrading the whole ship? Simple, they were never there to upgrade in the first place.]

Apparently they are fired from the forward launchers in the neck and track around to targets at the rear like on a nautical submarine.

The funny thing is that I didn't think that the torpedos in TMP tracked...? Seems like most games go on the 'direct-fire' philosophy, i.e. it has to be within the facing arc of the weapon mount before it can get a target lock?

Vipre · « **Reply #4 on:** January 21, 2007, 03:38:08 pm »

Quote from: Smiley on January 21, 2007, 03:24:17 pm

I was chatting to Atolm about this and apparently, as you suggest, there are no aft firing torpedo launchers on a Constitution. [If the TMP refit did not have them, it is logical to assume that the TOS version definitely did not have them - why remove something instead upgrading it when upgrading the whole ship? Simple, they were never there to upgrade in the first place.]

Apparently they are fired from the forward launchers in the neck and track around to targets at the rear like on a nautical submarine.

The funny thing is that I didn't think that the torpedoes in TMP tracked...? Seems like most games go on the 'direct-fire' philosophy, i.e. it has to be within the facing arc of the weapon mount before it can get a target lock?

Correct and correct. Photon torpedoes do in fact track targets like on a nautical submarine, they suck at it however before TNG. Right again that they can only track in the forward arc. At best they can lock on in a 120 degree arc left or right and a 60 degree down. Ent can sod off for all I care, there is no way a standard torpedo can fire at a target to the rear of the ship. I would allow for a special torpedo that can be 'dropped' like a probe facing aft then activate it's engine, but it'd probably only be useful for hitting stationary targets.

Oh yeah, As for 'In a Mirror Darkly', before this there wasn't an aft firing tube. I offer 3 options for this stupidity 1) That Defiant is from an alternate reality and isn't really the one seen in the TOS episode, 2) The FX guys screwed the pooch or 3) The writers just needed the ship to fire a torpedo at something behind the ship and did the best they could. In any case I think it should be an exception and not used to rewrite all that came before it.

Greenvalv · « **Reply #5 on:** January 21, 2007, 03:40:32 pm »

I like these blueprints: http://www.cygnus-x1.net/links/lcars/blueprints-main2.php

This one show's the torp launcher below the bridge...

Vipre · « **Reply #6 on:** January 21, 2007, 03:51:36 pm »

That's a sweet pic. I myself pulled out my first edition copy of the Starfleet Technical Manual to see why on earth In a Mirror Darkly's Defiant was firing phasers from a Homing Beacon and Navigational Array.

http://www.cygnus-x1.net/links/lcars/blueprints/federation-starship-uss-enterprise-sheet-13.jpg

Smiley · « **Reply #7 on:** January 21, 2007, 04:13:47 pm »

Ok so the pic that has been just been posted has contradicted all of the talk? The item labelled as 'X' is the Aft Torpedo Launcher.....?

Vipre · « **Reply #8 on:** January 21, 2007, 04:27:00 pm »

Quote from: Smiley on January 21, 2007, 04:13:47 pm

Ok so the pic that has been just been posted has contradicted all of the talk? The item labelled as 'X' is the Aft Torpedo Launcher.....?

That picture is wrong, that area is smooth on the model. I dont know why everthing else on it is correct, but trust me there has never been a rear firing torpedo tube on the TOS Constitution clas starship.

Hexx · « **Reply #9 on:** January 21, 2007, 04:36:14 pm »

Heh basically either realize that "Star Trek Continuity" is a complete oxymoron.
Or simply (as mentioned) go with the fact that (even today) different ships of the same class have different layouts
including different weapons.
If it really bothers you just go with the fact that all the Consitution Class schematics are for the original, and the Defiant was
a Constitution-b or something

Greenvalv · « **Reply #10 on:** January 21, 2007, 05:00:06 pm »

From the episode...

See the phaser nodes (As small as they are)?

Vipre · « **Reply #11 on:** January 21, 2007, 05:00:28 pm »

Quote from: Hexx on January 21, 2007, 04:36:14 pm

He basically either realize that "Star Trek Continuity" is a complete oxymoron.
Or simply (as mentioned) go with the fact that (even today) different ships of the same class have different layouts
including different weapons.
If it really bothers you just go with the fact that all the Constitution Class schematics are for the original, and the Defiant was
a Constitution-b or something

That's what I've been saying. Thank you. Look a the Defiant as an exception. The TOS Enterprise couldn't fire torpedoes aft, the TMP Enterprise couldn't fire a torpedo aft, that picture is from a schematic booklet done in 2001, The Franz Joseph Technical manual made no mention of aft tubes in '75 but listed all the other weapon hardpoints. If you want to make a Constitution variant with an aft tube go for it, but it wasn't part of the standard package.

Vipre · « **Reply #12 on:** January 21, 2007, 05:04:59 pm »

Quote from: Greenvalv on January 21, 2007, 05:00:06 pm

From the episode...

See the phaser nodes (As small as they are)?

Thanks Greenvalv, I haven't seen that second shot before, only the one that's showing the beams. That clearly shows the phaser node next to the Nav array and clears my confusion.

Tus-XC · « **Reply #13 on:** January 21, 2007, 05:38:03 pm »

wz had the best response, as it is the one that most closely represents real world, no two ships are made the same, who is to say the the defiant was not a variant that had rear torps on it. Anything else is purely speculation (and i do believe onscreen they said photon torpedoes... so what you are going to tell me is that they hit the wrong button right?

)

Vipre · « **Reply #14 on:** January 21, 2007, 05:59:06 pm »

Quote from: Tus on January 21, 2007, 05:38:03 pm

wz had the best response, as it is the one that most closely represents real world, no two ships are made the same, who is to say the the defiant was not a variant that had rear torps on it. Anything else is purely speculation (and i do believe onscreen they said photon torpedoes... so what you are going to tell me is that they hit the wrong button right? )

Naaahhh not me

I agree with you and WZ but see my 3 options post as that's workable as well. Anyone remember the multiverse TNG episode with the solar system full of Ent-D's?

The only thing that really irks me is that for near 30 years the weapons loadout of the quote unquote stock Constituion has been accepted to be 6 phaser banks (3x2 top of the saucer & 3x2 bottom) and two torpedo tubes (forward arc). Now because of lazy writers everyone's trying to rewrite the past. I say loudly 'Keep your stinking history rewriting hands off my starship!

'

Greenvalv · « **Reply #15 on:** January 21, 2007, 06:08:07 pm »

They did fire torpedos...

Left the tube...

Close up of torpedo (Interesting looking)...

EDIT: Thought I'd add this pic as well (Phaser nodes on the saucer, again small)...

Vipre · « **Reply #16 on:** January 21, 2007, 06:24:03 pm »

I've a question, with all the time travel stuff in ENT is it possible they pulled a Babylon 4 with the defiant? The Tholians drug it through a rift into an alternate diminsion and then refit the ship with additional weapons? The TOS Connie didn't have a phaser bank above the shuttle bay either and those are really strange looking torpedoes. I stick with the 'It's a Defiant from an alternate reality that closely resembles TOS but isn't'

to all

Atolm-Rising · « **Reply #17 on:** January 21, 2007, 07:44:17 pm »

the Connie is a class, each ship for the most part are variants...lets review the on screen evidence:
original Connies Ent vs later Ent, vs later than that Ent, vs Constellation
TMP Refit Ent vs ST:4/5 Ent-A
Then Ent-A ST:6 retro-fit
TNG Galaxy Ent vs Galaxy classed Challenger, Yamato, Odessey, Venture
Nebula-class Phoenix vs Sutherland, Endeavor
All the Miranda classes are different
All the Oberths are different
damn even the Excells are different, and Defiants
Oh and of course the Constellation Hathaway vs the Stargazer....
So it would seem that all the fed ships follow (on screen wize) actual Naval vessel ideology

oh damn I forgot...
All the Rom ships and Klink ships do it too
Oh and the Spoonhead Cardassians do aswell

And best of all this our favored game SFC follows this ideology too, a connie hull as a CA, FCA, CC, etc...
so most likely and in all likely-hood the ships were made to show differences in advancement, ease of differenciating to same-class vessels from each other for the viewer, time and budgeting, lazyness...etc...

I personally subscribe to WZ's and Tus' accessments of the ships (no surprise there) as it makes the most sense in an "if Trek was real setting".

intermech · « **Reply #18 on:** January 21, 2007, 08:59:41 pm »

I design major components of ships for a living (seagoing). Generally, a company will take an existing design, and closely emulate those features in the next design, however, component price and availablity is always changing. In addition, there is always a wishlist of improvements for the next design. As a result, you get several ships that look nearly exactly the same to the untrained eye and have the same class name, but they may act and perform differently. There are even several instances where I have seen purposely scaled-down versions of the same class ship. While this messes with the rigid ship classing concepts used by order-loving Trekkers, it is certainly realistic to see two "Constitution Class" starships performing very different tasks and sprouting new components when "convenient." So, I would go with Atolm, WZ, and TUS; no two ships are exactly alike, and further more, a single ship itself is an evolving entity, hopefully ever increasing its efficiency and productivity. SFC series is great about getting this concept across with all of the varients available.

Lieutenant_Q · « **Reply #19 on:** January 21, 2007, 09:27:48 pm »

Well, Here's my take on it.

The first 12 Connie Cruisers were similar to the Enterprise. When Kirk said there was twelve like them in the fleet (to Captain Christopher), it meant that there was twelve Constitution Class Cruisers at the time. Which would be 1071 Constellation, 1371 Republic, 1700 Constitution, 1701 Enterprise, 1703 Lexington, 1704 Yorktown, 1705 Excalibur, 1706 Exeter, 1707 Hood, 1710 Kongo, 1711 Potemkin, theres another one but I can't find/nor remember the hull number and name.

The next set was 1712 Bonhomme Richard, which while still looking like a Constitution, had some subtle difference that may or may not have included rear firing torpedoes. 1764 Defiant obviously belongs to this subclass.

(Of course, MY take on it is going to be completely thrown out most likely when TOS remastered gets to The Omega Glory or The Ulitmate Computer)

News:

Topic: Dumb Question, BUT... (Read 9963 times) var addthis_config = {"data_track_clickback":true};

intermech

Topic: Dumb Question, BUT... (Read 9963 times)