There is no north or south in space!
- Thread starter Duane
- Start date
- Status
head-on shots have the loweest percentage chance of hitting, better to line up for a shot at their flanks.
of course, using some kind of projectile missile-type weapon with a decent sensor system - IR for one - would make that irrelevant as you just need to lock on to the honking big source of heat.
of course, using some kind of projectile missile-type weapon with a decent sensor system - IR for one - would make that irrelevant as you just need to lock on to the honking big source of heat.
What you say about a head-on target is true, but the ship being targeted is going to know this and they aren't going to waltz up to a strange ship with its flank exposed. We're also talking about standard operations and routine navigation, not necessarily movement in the heat of battle.
"Some kind of projectile weapon with a decent sensor system"? Trek has those they're called "photon/quantum torpedoes".
And why use simple, easily confused IR sensors when you've got access to far more advanced subspace technology?As regards sensors, we know through our very own eyes that those ships that lack a cloaking device have a completely unjammed visual signature. So a visual sensor should work fine for terminal guidance. But it's likely that a torpedo warhead has at least two or three dozen distinct sensor systems plus a halfway competent AI to decide which of those to trust and which not to. Such capabilities are perfectly achievable even today - it's just that they are unnecessary because current threats have very primitive jamming and evasion systems.
As regards current practices of spaceflight, not all of it is particularly relevant to Trek. Starfleet starships do not have a preferred orientation for solar power or gyroscopic-tidal stationkeeping or thermal management; they are far more robust than that. The only known factors for deciding the ship's attitude would be
a) pointing the payload (sensors, guns) in the desired direction
b) orienting the ship for optimal escape or attack vector, should such maneuvering become necessary
c) possibly staying true to a certain spatial relationship with the underlying subspace structure of our galaxy, so that impulse and warp systems work with maximal efficiency
d) preparing for docking
But most starships have omnidirectional payloads, save perhaps for torpedo tubes. And there's little tactical advantage to be gained from pointing one's nose away from the opponent, because the opponent then knows which way you intend to move. And ships extremely seldom perform a physical docking, at least after the ENT era - but even then, the argument favors orienting in the same plane. Similarly, if the ship needs to stay in a certain orientation vis-á-vis local subspace, then the opposing ship probably needs to stay in the same orientation as well.
Timo Saloniemi
As regards current practices of spaceflight, not all of it is particularly relevant to Trek. Starfleet starships do not have a preferred orientation for solar power or gyroscopic-tidal stationkeeping or thermal management; they are far more robust than that. The only known factors for deciding the ship's attitude would be
a) pointing the payload (sensors, guns) in the desired direction
b) orienting the ship for optimal escape or attack vector, should such maneuvering become necessary
c) possibly staying true to a certain spatial relationship with the underlying subspace structure of our galaxy, so that impulse and warp systems work with maximal efficiency
d) preparing for docking
But most starships have omnidirectional payloads, save perhaps for torpedo tubes. And there's little tactical advantage to be gained from pointing one's nose away from the opponent, because the opponent then knows which way you intend to move. And ships extremely seldom perform a physical docking, at least after the ENT era - but even then, the argument favors orienting in the same plane. Similarly, if the ship needs to stay in a certain orientation vis-á-vis local subspace, then the opposing ship probably needs to stay in the same orientation as well.
Timo Saloniemi
'Sacrifice of Angels' sees the Klingon fleet 'diving out of the sun', yes. and it's probably between 45 to 50 degrees, not 90.
...And it does seem that they do a "steep dive" like a bunch of aircraft would. That is, they all have a common "down" which is the same as the "down" of the Federation and Cardassian/Dominion forces - the Klingons merely have their noses pointed slightly down, but their wings are level with the imaginary horizon.
This as opposed to an engagement where there is no common down, and the Klingons not only have their noses pointing at a different direction than the Feds, but also have their wingtips pointing at a different horizon. That we haven't seen yet in Trek. (But we did see something like that with a single ship when the future E-D swooped up and rolled madly when engaging the two Klingon ships in "All Good Things...")
Timo Saloniemi
This as opposed to an engagement where there is no common down, and the Klingons not only have their noses pointing at a different direction than the Feds, but also have their wingtips pointing at a different horizon. That we haven't seen yet in Trek. (But we did see something like that with a single ship when the future E-D swooped up and rolled madly when engaging the two Klingon ships in "All Good Things...")
Timo Saloniemi
I've heard that, and just heard, that you can find a pair of glasses that will 'flip' your vision making it upside down. Eventually your eyes compensate and you see normally again. Getting to the 180 change, I'm not sure how long that would take. Also there is the consideration of the inner ear being thrown off too. Depending on species. I can give that there is no NSEW but the whole thing is based on the sphere that surrounds the ship.
So I also thank the cinematographer.
So I also thank the cinematographer.
It's not only the 'universal orientation' assumption, but also the assumption that starships don't have an own rotation when in rest. At least, we only very rarely see that 'rule' violated. In Genesis we see the ent-D in a slow roll, when Data and Picard approach it by shuttle, and there it seems to be meant as a visual cue that something is very wrong. But I'll agree that not having a rotation probably is a simple matter of practicality.
FWIW, Galactic North and Galactic South are real world items. There are even poles:
https://astronomy.swin.edu.au/cosmos/N/North+Galactic+Pole
https://astronomy.swin.edu.au/cosmos/N/North+Galactic+Pole
Well, anything that spins has a North and a South by the definition. But, as said, ships don't generally spin much.
Modern Trek, that is, DSC and PIC, does a lot of spinning of the camera. This somewhat confuses the issue of whether these shows also give a spin to their ships: when the camera stops making us expunge our stomach contents, the ships in the picture have typically aligned neatly in a mutually agreed-upon plane, too (such as when the Enterprise and the Discovery hard-dock for the first half of the season finale). But looking closely, the spin typically is there: modern CGI not only allows for these "odd" orientations but also lures the VFX artists into using them, giving two starships different orientations "at first".
...Only not during pitched battles where two (or, in some cases, two hundred!) ships first meet to posture, then start firing at each other without bothering to maneuver. Those scenes still rely on visual simplicity in both DSC and PIC, and perhaps for the better.
But perhaps new Trek will keep on adding relevant data to this zombie thread? I rather liked the couple of times our heroes parked USS Discovery "vertically" on orbit above the planet of the week, instead of having the bow and stern oriented towards the opposite horizons. Much more impressive visually than having the ship spin and weave madly in a fancy fight, yet nevertheless point her belly towards a common down most of the time, which DSC also does a lot.
Timo Saloniemi
Modern Trek, that is, DSC and PIC, does a lot of spinning of the camera. This somewhat confuses the issue of whether these shows also give a spin to their ships: when the camera stops making us expunge our stomach contents, the ships in the picture have typically aligned neatly in a mutually agreed-upon plane, too (such as when the Enterprise and the Discovery hard-dock for the first half of the season finale). But looking closely, the spin typically is there: modern CGI not only allows for these "odd" orientations but also lures the VFX artists into using them, giving two starships different orientations "at first".
...Only not during pitched battles where two (or, in some cases, two hundred!) ships first meet to posture, then start firing at each other without bothering to maneuver. Those scenes still rely on visual simplicity in both DSC and PIC, and perhaps for the better.
But perhaps new Trek will keep on adding relevant data to this zombie thread? I rather liked the couple of times our heroes parked USS Discovery "vertically" on orbit above the planet of the week, instead of having the bow and stern oriented towards the opposite horizons. Much more impressive visually than having the ship spin and weave madly in a fancy fight, yet nevertheless point her belly towards a common down most of the time, which DSC also does a lot.
Timo Saloniemi
'All Good Things' had the E-D decloak and shoot 'up' at the Klingon ships. I thought that was neat.
I think it'd be interesting if new shows did more with it but I'm okay with the older shows not having done it.
I think it'd be interesting if new shows did more with it but I'm okay with the older shows not having done it.
As discussed before...
Resurrecting dead threads. If you find a thread that has not had a post in it in over a year, don't post in it. Start a new thread instead. You can, if necessary, link back to the old thread if something crucial is in the thread.
Thanks
- Status
Similar threads
