RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 141,521
Posts: 5,512,250
Members: 25,138
Currently online: 449
Newest member: Tosty82

TrekToday headlines

Captain Kirk’s Boldest Missions
By: T'Bonz on Dec 25

Trek Paper Clips
By: T'Bonz on Dec 24

Sargent Passes
By: T'Bonz on Dec 23

QMx Trek Insignia Badges
By: T'Bonz on Dec 23

And The New Director Of Star Trek 3 Is…
By: T'Bonz on Dec 23

TV Alert: Pine On Tonight Show
By: T'Bonz on Dec 22

Retro Review: The Emperor’s New Cloak
By: Michelle on Dec 20

Star Trek Opera
By: T'Bonz on Dec 19

New Abrams Project
By: T'Bonz on Dec 18

IDW Publishing March 2015 Comics
By: T'Bonz on Dec 17


Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.


Go Back   The Trek BBS > Star Trek TV Series > Star Trek - Original Series

Star Trek - Original Series The one that started it all...

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old August 1 2014, 10:11 AM   #46
Ithekro
Fleet Captain
 
Ithekro's Avatar
 
Location: Republic of California
Re: Deflectors vs Sheilds

Does the lower one even glow? I don't recall it glowing like the upper one on Reliant.
Ithekro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 1 2014, 07:13 PM   #47
Trimm
Commander
 
Location: Memphis
Re: Deflectors vs Sheilds

Wait a second Timo, you really think it takes more effort to conclude that two strikingly dissimilar objects have different purposes than it does to conclude that they have the same purpose?

No sir, not buying that. not for a second. I already have laid out a very straightforward case that explains what we see in TWOK, based on exactly what we see and what the dialouge tells us. I have also laid out a very straightforeward case as to why these two obviously different structures likely serve different purposes. If you want to insist that two features on the Reliant must logically have the same purpose based only on the fact that they are both circles, then go ahead. We will have to agree to disagree.
__________________
Patrick: Liar Liar plants for hire.
Spongebob: Its "pants on fire" Patrick.
Patrick: Well you would know...liar.
Trimm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 1 2014, 07:35 PM   #48
Marsden
Captain
 
Marsden's Avatar
 
Location: The Temple of Syrinx
Re: Deflectors vs Sheilds

Well, since it's firmly established I was wrong and that isn't the Reliant's deflector dish, what was it?

Is the bottom one the deflector, then? It seems strange that every starship has some kind of deflector, except Reliant.
__________________
We've taken care of everything, the words you hear the songs you sing, the pictures that give pleasure to your eyes. It's one for all and all for one, we work together common sons, never need to wonder how or why.
Marsden is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 1 2014, 07:50 PM   #49
Trimm
Commander
 
Location: Memphis
Re: Deflectors vs Sheilds

On both the Miranda and Constellation classes, there is no visible deflector dish, and thus there has been a great deal of fan speculation to account for that. There are enough greeblies on both models where one could assume that they have a navigational deflector, just not the traditional dish.
__________________
Patrick: Liar Liar plants for hire.
Spongebob: Its "pants on fire" Patrick.
Patrick: Well you would know...liar.
Trimm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 2 2014, 12:11 AM   #50
The Old Building & Loan
Vice Admiral
 
The Old Building & Loan's Avatar
 
Location: Bedford Falls...or is that Pottersville...?
Re: Deflectors vs Sheilds

Rick Sternbach, I think, wrote up a technobabble explanation of how the Miranda's deflector system worked without a dish for Star Trek: The Magazine several years back. I don't recall the details.
__________________
The Old Mixer, chillin' in Connecticut.
The Old Building & Loan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 3 2014, 01:12 AM   #51
Rick Sternbach
Fleet Captain
 
Re: Deflectors vs Sheilds

The Old Mixer wrote: View Post
Rick Sternbach, I think, wrote up a technobabble explanation of how the Miranda's deflector system worked without a dish for Star Trek: The Magazine several years back. I don't recall the details.
Shaped fields from the shield grid. Best I can recall (there might also be dedicated devices sitting behind rad-transparent hull plating). Shield energy, transporter, tractor beams, etc. all operate on different but related flavors of energy generation and manipulation techniques. So in the face of VFX miniatures that don't exactly follow some imaginary standard of known pieces 'n' parts, we need to come up with clever explanations.

Rick
__________________
Senior Illustrator Emeritus
Star Trek 1978-2001
Rick Sternbach is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 3 2014, 01:30 AM   #52
AirCommodore
Lieutenant Commander
 
AirCommodore's Avatar
 
Re: Deflectors vs Sheilds

Trimm wrote: View Post
On both the Miranda and Constellation classes, there is no visible deflector dish, and thus there has been a great deal of fan speculation to account for that. There are enough greeblies on both models where one could assume that they have a navigational deflector, just not the traditional dish.
Later there would be ships with the deflector at the bow, like the Akira and NX Classes. That would seem to be a simple solution to where to put the deflector. Maybe that wasn't thought of when the Constellation and Miranda were designed. Or it was decided against for some reason. But for ships without the "classic" secondary hull, that looks to be the best idea.
AirCommodore is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 3 2014, 04:08 AM   #53
Wingsley
Commodore
 
Wingsley's Avatar
 
Location: Wingsley
Re: Deflectors vs Sheilds

I apologize in advance if this throws the discussion off in some weird and awkward discussion, but prior to Mr. Roddenberry's novelization of TMP, I do not recall any references to the TOS Enterprise's big honkin' dish being used as a "deflector" in any way.

To further complicate matters, NASA's new "IXS Enterprise" FTL ringship concept supposes that, if there is some form of ambient hydrogen or micrometeoroids in the path of the FTL craft, the instant it enters the "warp field" the ship's relative velocity is only what it is within the warp, not the relative FTL effect outside. So if NASA's conceptual IXS Enterprise is traveling at 10 times lightspeed (10c) relative to the universe outside of the warp, but the ship is only doing, say, 10 meters per second inside the field, then the ship will only collide with an outside object that enters the field at 10 meters per second (plus whatever velocity the outside object may be moving at). So maybe the "deflector" snow-plow logic was unnecessary from the beginning. (Assuming NASA or whatever future space authority actually gets around to building and deploying an FTL spacecraft in the far future.)
__________________
"The way that you wander is the way that you choose. / The day that you tarry is the day that you lose. / Sunshine or thunder, a man will always wonder / Where the fair wind blows ..."
-- Lyrics, Jeremiah Johnson's theme.

Last edited by Wingsley; August 3 2014 at 04:10 AM. Reason: typo
Wingsley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 3 2014, 06:46 AM   #54
Trimm
Commander
 
Location: Memphis
Re: Deflectors vs Sheilds

Sure, that might be the case at warp speed. But at impulse, the ship wouldn't have the subspace bubble around for that, so some sort of deflector would still be necessary at sublight speeds.

Do any of Matt Jeffries design drawings indicate what he thought the dish was for when he designed the Enterprise?
__________________
Patrick: Liar Liar plants for hire.
Spongebob: Its "pants on fire" Patrick.
Patrick: Well you would know...liar.
Trimm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 3 2014, 06:53 PM   #55
Timo
Admiral
 
Re: Deflectors vs Sheilds

Wait a second Timo, you really think it takes more effort to conclude that two strikingly dissimilar objects have different purposes than it does to conclude that they have the same purpose?
Logically, yes, as evidence from elsewhere establishes that details of shape are unconnected to the role of a dome (whatever that role) next to impulse nozzles. Similarity or dissimilarity is not a factor - a dome is a dome.

Beyond that, we just see "domes next to the impulse drive", a common motif in later Trek, so when we start segregating, we better have a damn good reason. The Reliant has those big pontoons below the ship, not above a separate secondary hull - so perhaps they aren't warp engines?

I already have laid out a very straightforward case that explains what we see in TWOK, based on exactly what we see and what the dialouge tells us.
And I'm entitled to do the same. Neither of these fantasies need correlate with what the writers intended, nor are the writers obligated to have intended anything at all. The story works very well without explanations, too.

We will have to agree to disagree.
No problem with that. There have been other interpretations, too, uncoupling the domes from the impulse drive altogether - one I find intriguing is the idea of this being the "photon control" that Sulu supposedly damaged.

It's a glowing dome, and Kirk's old ship also had glowing domes... Right where torps and phaser beams emerged from (that is, they emerged right next to the lower saucer dome in TOS, but also right next to the small secondary hull dome in the ENT mirror episode). Perhaps such domes are fire control radars of some sort?

at impulse, the ship wouldn't have the subspace bubble around for that, so some sort of deflector would still be necessary at sublight speeds
One wonders - high impulse is almost as impossible as FTL under current laws of physics, so a magical field around the ship would be highly helpful there. Indeed, this may be what the dome does if it really is both an "impulse deflection crystal" (TMP-associated technobabble) and a "warp field stabilizer" (ENT-associated technobabble): it manipulates the subspace field generated by the warp engines so that it reduces the inertial mass of the ship (we know this is what subspace fields do, from DS9 "Emissary" et al.), and therefore makes the ship magically light enough to be rocketed to high impulse speeds.

Ships without these domes can do high impulse (see TOS). But is that a strike against the theory? Not in terms of backstage doubletalk. The TNG Tech Manual makes a big deal about the Ambassador class introducing these inertial mass reducing thingamabobs directly as components of the impulse engines themselves. And it so happens that the Ambassador is the first in a long line of "movie era" designs to lack a blue dome. So perhaps there are those two ways of doing impulse: manipulating the warp field with a dome, or creating a dedicated impulse field without?

Timo Saloniemi
Timo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 4 2014, 05:42 AM   #56
Ithekro
Fleet Captain
 
Ithekro's Avatar
 
Location: Republic of California
Re: Deflectors vs Sheilds

One thing I did notice about the older drawing of the refit Enterprise. They have the antimatter storage at the bottom of the intermix shaft. On the top is the deflection crystal. Where is the matter storage? Federation warp drives at that time are powered by the collision of matter and antimatter, right? Where is the matter for the antimatter to collide with to create all this energy for the warp drive and other systems?

Is the crystal there, and transparent, in order to collect stray matter for the warp drive, then hold it there until needed? Taking that out would cut out the warp drive if they don't have the matter needed for the reaction process, but wouldn't destroy the ship since it doesn't release the antimatter into the ship made of matter if they'd blown a hole through the antimatter pods.
Ithekro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 4 2014, 10:04 AM   #57
Mytran
Fleet Captain
 
Mytran's Avatar
 
Location: North Wales
Re: Deflectors vs Sheilds

Matter at the top of the engine conduit is only really needed in a classic TNG setup. Most TMP configurations that I've seen have the M/AM reactors at the bottom of the shaft and presumably all reactants are stored there too.
Mytran is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 4 2014, 12:20 PM   #58
Timo
Admiral
 
Re: Deflectors vs Sheilds

As late as ST:TMP, the idea still seemed to be that the matter (and the antimatter) would be somewhat "magical", perhaps appearing out of thin air, perhaps being carried aboard in a magically compressed form. Matter might have been neutronium pellets in a jar on Scotty's shelf, say.

TNG tries a more by-the-physics approach, but OTOH chooses to use light gases as the annihilation fuel (which is practical because they then also become fusion fuel for the other type of drive aboard, but the fuel tanks they would really need for their quoted output, let alone the supposed fantastic energies of warp, would be hundreds of kilometers per side). There's no saying whether the two eras used the same power production technology, in-universe, but it does sound as if the TNG and ENT technologies are more or less identical even if the hardware looks dissimilar.

Whatever the source of annihilation fuel, having that dome suck it in sounds acceptable. Especially since these TOS movie ships don't have domes at the front ends of nacelles... There are some belt-and-suspenders ships out there, such as NX-01 and the E-B, but not that many.

Timo Saloniemi
Timo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 5 2014, 11:49 PM   #59
drt
Commander
 
Re: Deflectors vs Sheilds

Trimm wrote: View Post
Do any of Matt Jeffries design drawings indicate what he thought the dish was for when he designed the Enterprise?
The diagram in the original "Making of" book called it a "main sensor"
Timo wrote: View Post
As late as ST:TMP, the idea still seemed to be that the matter (and the antimatter) would be somewhat "magical", perhaps appearing out of thin air, perhaps being carried aboard in a magically compressed form. Matter might have been neutronium pellets in a jar on Scotty's shelf, say.

TNG tries a more by-the-physics approach, but OTOH chooses to use light gases as the annihilation fuel (which is practical because they then also become fusion fuel for the other type of drive aboard, but the fuel tanks they would really need for their quoted output, let alone the supposed fantastic energies of warp, would be hundreds of kilometers per side). There's no saying whether the two eras used the same power production technology, in-universe, but it does sound as if the TNG and ENT technologies are more or less identical even if the hardware looks dissimilar.

Whatever the source of annihilation fuel, having that dome suck it in sounds acceptable. Especially since these TOS movie ships don't have domes at the front ends of nacelles... There are some belt-and-suspenders ships out there, such as NX-01 and the E-B, but not that many.

Timo Saloniemi
Long before TNG premiered I had surmised that the hydrogen fuel for the impulse engine was stored in tanks under those rectangular-shaped panels visible on top of the saucer forward of the impulse deflection crystal. However, based on the Kimble cutaway, I did think that the reactor was at the bottom of the secondary hull, and I can't now recall where I thought the matter for that reaction was tanked (since it didn't need specialized containment like antimatter, I may have just assumed it was nearby, but not called out on the cutaway).
drt is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Tags
deflector dish, deflectors, hydrogen, shields, tractor beam

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:41 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.