Weapons effects

[knightgrace]

Just saw an old (1958) film on YouTube about atomic bomb effects on aircraft and the amount of experimentation that was involved...

Aside from needing an emotion showing a person hitting the floor repeatedly...

I am fine.


No didn't find one.

Okay, mission parameters required by SAC, required a fifty percent of maximum exposure to thermal radiation - gamma, x-ray et el weren't considered due to the fact that by the time of detination, it would have been too little to worry about...
Not sure if I believe that.
Considering that they down played the problem with fallout.

So, what does this mean for Starships?

According to Gene Roddenberry, and FASA, the deflector screens (FASA) are supposed to take 10 megajoules of weapon effects. Meaning that a five megajoule is the desired limit. Not allowing for surge events. Going by the Honor Harrington universe, the maximum allowable for civilian ships would be 70 percent, 80 percent for military.

This is based upon data recorded in the site 'Pearl's of Weber'. Don't know if it is still there.for acceleration rates of military versus civilian ships.

Commercial ships are designed for maximum endurance for the ships in question, with as little maintenance as possible. Military ships are designed to win...

Notice that I referred to the deflector screens of Star Trek, not the hull. In other words Gene Roddenberry got the straight dope, on what was required. Keeping in mind that there is no transmission of atmospheric effects in space for some strange reason.

 

[Mark_Nguyen]

I'm sorry, but I'm REALLY having trouble deciphering what you're trying to mean. Are you making a statement? Asking a question? Inviting discussion? Your text is drifting from one topic to another and not easily linking any references to a position, written with sentence fragments and grammatical errors.

I'm saying this as a fellow fan, but please try to be more clear in what you're writing about or trying to accomplish with your posts. Doing so will result in a lot more engagement from the community here. I can see you're trying to make a point, but I'm not sure what it really is.

Mark

 

[knightgrace]

Inviting discussion.

When I was watching that film, a few weeks ago, I was struck by the science that the United States Air Force used. Extremely struck.

It showed what was considered to be the safety premises of the Air Force at that time. Which led directly to looking at Star Trek in a new light.

FASA, however confused by deflector technology, was going in the right direction. You don't go for the high end effects, but for something sustainable...In the book 'Star Trek Phase II' on page 50, Roddenberry, expanded on the previous simplified statements on deflector technology.

 

[Firebird]

How are you inviting discussion when your follow-up comment follows literally the same structure as the opening post of the thread, just in compact form? You're still not asking a question.

 

[knightgrace]

Sorry. I got interrupted, due to something called "work". I "work" a split sift...

So getting back on course.

One of the fundamental questions that I am indirectly asking, is what is Starfleet's stance?

What is a realistic methodology to determine what it should be?

The Primary Forcefield, also known as as a skin shield, also known in FASA parlance as the Navigational Deflector System also known in the Franz Joseph Booklet of General Plans as radiation shielding (all decks have built-in...)

What are some of the properties there of? How do you see it?

I don't think that the radiation effects at a distance from Earth's sun, is intense enough so that I am playing around with less than 1/10 of an a. u.

Which means at least one hundred times the solar flux experienced at one a. u.

 

[FreddyE]

Are you asking about how Starfleet would determine the needed design requirements of the deflector shields?


Its a bit difficult to answer. If I was a Starfleet engenieer I would first try to figure out how much energy the weapons of a the most common possible enemies (Romulans, Klingons...etc) have, their reloading times, etc. and somehow come up with a base value and maybe up that by 20 % or something...so a design manual would probably say something like "shields must be able to withstand incoming energy based weapons fire of at least 70 Megajoule or above"

 

[knightgrace]

Which is where my problem came in.

What are the reasonable requirements for protection?

That video brought to light, for me, that insufficient thought was the problem. It is the existence of deflector screens, that one has to design for. Not the hull. Why? Because radiation is the problem. All kinds...meaning that solar flux is simply the beginning, not the end. There is a further problem, and that is the difference between the types of stars. Designing and building for an average case, doesn't work, unless there is flexibility of operation in the basic deflector screen.

Now there is another problem: politics. If you watch the news pirate attacks in some parts of the world are an actual event. But International Law, is another problem, especially for civilian/commercial vessels. International Law, limits what civilian/commercial authorities are permitted to do. This in turn means that in 'modern' times civilian and commercial shipping aren't permitted to carry ship based weapons. The closest is loud speakers.

What is Star Trek's solution? What is practical in terms of viability?

A long time ago I think that it was Tod Gunther drew, a highly excellent version of blueprints of the Sherman class Cargo Drone. The drawings stated that the Drone doesn't have extensive deflector shields, but does have extensive deflector screens which don't provide protection from weapons fire. Radiation? Yes. Weapons fire no.

To put it another way, a laser can penetrate a deflector screen, with ease, but not a deflector shield. Meaning that shipping whether a civilian yacht or a commercial Freighter is more than a little vulnerable. Suicidal, is a better way to put it. Granted that a civilian/commercial vessel might have better protection than a Drone would, but still...