Question about Sheilds. And Capt Braxton -1 reply

Please wait...

roper34

All Hands Battlestations !!

50 XP

8th April 2004

0 Uploads

1,935 Posts

0 Threads

#1 12 years ago

Strange title for thread i know but these questions have been bugging me since i saw the below episodes, Hopefully you can help.

1. We all know that there are two types of sheilds, Bubble and contour-conforming, Presumably contour-conforming sheilds are a recent development as we saw in Nemesis, However In the Episode "Flashback" we see the the Klingons fireing at the Excelsior and when the Torpedos hit the ship the sheilds appear to be contour-conforming does this mean the Excelsior was equipped with them?

2. In the Episode "futures end part 2" we see Braxton come through the rift and captain Janeway says "you tried to destroy us in the 24th century" and then "then we saw you as an old man homeless in 1996", And captain Braxton says "I have no knowledge of that timeline". Then in the Episode "Relativity" he recollects that timeline how is this ?

Obviously the actor who plays Braxton changes in the episodes, But i read that his mother somehow changed in an alternate timeline thus the diffrent person. ???




Psychokenesis

I'm too cool to Post

50 XP

16th October 2003

0 Uploads

13,428 Posts

0 Threads

#2 12 years ago

On the shield issue.

I belive one is called omin-directional shielding...This is the new product at the twenty Fourth centruy. The Galaxy is one of the first or the first to use these types of shields

Which doesn't mean they didn't use them before: Kirk extended his shields around Mudd's ship to protect it from asteroid impact...It merely means this was a costly form for the shields. Perhaps not used untill perfected.

Star Trek ships in the twenty third century have omni-latteral shields that hug the hull. Appearently they don't prevent damage to hull by torpedoes as seen in Star Trek six.

Noteably Excellsior shields were So powerfull that torpedoes didn't leave a mark on the hull at all. (They specificly did this in the movie to show Fans for the first time shields in action and what they can do) Likely phaser wouldn't penetrate this shield as they have little phsycial force.

(This is where my theory of Trek shields evolved the idea that physical impact aren't something that is dealth with as easily as energy impacts)




roper34

All Hands Battlestations !!

50 XP

8th April 2004

0 Uploads

1,935 Posts

0 Threads

#3 12 years ago

Allright Saq

So contour conforming shields were around in the 23 century but were not often used ?




Psychokenesis

I'm too cool to Post

50 XP

16th October 2003

0 Uploads

13,428 Posts

0 Threads

#4 12 years ago

No, Omni Latteral shields were widely used. It was the next jump up fromcharged hull plating. (If you throw ENTERPRISE into the mix)

In FAct Enteprise displays omni-latteral shields in the Motion Picture not a buble and the shield displays confirm that aswell in Star Trek 2, 3, 5, 6. The omni directional shield is the most consistant special effect in trek.

I heard that the Omni-directional shields consumed lots of power. It's also intresting to not that Intrepid and Galaxy have never shown an apptiude to generate the omni latteral shields but Sovereign and Defiant have gone on and off to one or the other.

who knows if this is something done at dock or is readily accomplished onboard, Like the Enterprise displayed in the 23 century....




roper34

All Hands Battlestations !!

50 XP

8th April 2004

0 Uploads

1,935 Posts

0 Threads

#5 12 years ago

You make some intresting points, Do we mean the same thing when i say contour-conforming and you say Omni Latteral.

Im guessing that currently Starfleet is using both types of shielding.




Psychokenesis

I'm too cool to Post

50 XP

16th October 2003

0 Uploads

13,428 Posts

0 Threads

#6 12 years ago

What I term Omni latteral means that this shield covers over the surface of the ship fitting like a glove.

Omni directional is a spherical shield (buble) that protects the ship and a vicinity of surrounding space.

I think it's only right to have both...Star Fleets mission is defend and protect




roper34

All Hands Battlestations !!

50 XP

8th April 2004

0 Uploads

1,935 Posts

0 Threads

#7 12 years ago

Thanks for clearing that up. What shield would you prefur if you were in command of a starship ?

Any guesses about the Braxton queation ? I also read that Future Guy was Braxton, But i dont believe that at all.




Psychokenesis

I'm too cool to Post

50 XP

16th October 2003

0 Uploads

13,428 Posts

0 Threads

#8 12 years ago

I think Omni Directional is the better shield and most Star Fleet ships will be outfitted with them

Star Fleet really has fragile ships and engines... The defense perimeter bubble is better at preventing physical damage to the ship spreading the impact stress to the entire vessel...

Im not sure on the braxton issue... He could be both lying and telling the truth...the perspective here is variable and Braxton went through serveral inversions by the time we know him at the end of Voyager...

It really depends, I don't know.




werdborg

Liberated from Collective

50 XP

27th June 2006

0 Uploads

644 Posts

0 Threads

#9 12 years ago

I would agree with saquist especially if I was commanding a Galxy before the Dominion war as I would have to protect all those civilians from harm. If I was on a pure breed combat vessel I would go with a hull hugging formation especially with the Defiant class as the damage thats caused by shield impacts is far less do to the armor and the Heavy double Duranium Tritanium hull, note wasnt it multilateral shielding the one with the variable distance of the shield barrier from the hull as omnidirectional is where you change where your shields are most strongest like Duras did against Archer




roper34

All Hands Battlestations !!

50 XP

8th April 2004

0 Uploads

1,935 Posts

0 Threads

#10 12 years ago

Hello Werdborg

I would go with contour-conforming sheilds, But it would depend on the ship as you say.

I find it confusing when people use the term (Omni) as im use to diffent treminology, NOT that im saying that using the term omni is wrong.