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.