Hull Strength, Ramming, and Warp Fields.

For polite and reasoned discussion of Star Wars and/or Star Trek.
Locked
User avatar
Trinoya
Security Officer
Posts: 658
Joined: Sat Aug 19, 2006 6:35 am

Hull Strength, Ramming, and Warp Fields.

Post by Trinoya » Tue Jun 07, 2011 7:14 pm

Had a crazy random thought, figured I'd post it before I forgot it.

I was watching an episode of DS9 (specifically where the galaxy class bites it) and it dawned on me that the ships in question during the ramming incident both utilize warp fields and so on and I wonder if this could actually play a major role in regards to some of the ramming incidents we see.

We know from Voyager that an Inverse Warp Field was akin to 'dropping anchor' although that required some meddling if iirc, although it was supposed to handle something like 200,000km impact and keep voyager anchored or some such (which provides at least some statement to its power capabilities). More importantly we also have the statement that something that is only partially encompassed by the field can be destroyed via subspace compression.

Sadly I don't have any good screen captures or video captures of some of the more notable ramming incidents (when at least one side would have a warp field potentially), but perhaps this could be the cause for some ships apparently slicing through other ships.

Perhaps it may even be the cause of torpedo glow (the idea being that it's just a very small warp field that happens to assist in hull penetration).


Anyway, just some food for thought.

User avatar
Praeothmin
Jedi Master
Posts: 3920
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 10:24 pm

Re: Hull Strength, Ramming, and Warp Fields.

Post by Praeothmin » Thu Jun 09, 2011 1:37 pm

Well, since all ships were battling at STL, and there still isn't any proof of mass lightening at STL in ST, than the estimates calculated for the ramming incidents are still valid IMO...

Picard
Starship Captain
Posts: 1433
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm

Re: Hull Strength, Ramming, and Warp Fields.

Post by Picard » Thu Jun 09, 2011 2:39 pm

And what about mass heavying at STL? If mass heavying increases KE more than loss in speed will reduce it, it would make sense.

Locked