Hull material and ablative armor
Nepheus Spodei
First off, I'd like to thank everyone for answering my questions about
the Prometheus and now the tricorder... great info (humorous at points,
too)... thanks! :-)
So, here's my question: what's the hull of the Enterprise-D and other
"normal" ships made up of (what material, the molecular structure, etc.,
if any of it is known), and what exactly is "ablative armor"? Does the
Enterprise-E have it? (Or the Lakota for that matter... pretty tough
ship... ;-) ) Or is the Defiant the only ship with it?
Thanks!
John
--
Spamkiller in use. Please add an "n" (minus the quotes) to the end of my
username (the part before the @) to reply. Sorry it's so rotten, but
simplicity rules... :-)
Jonah Rapp
Nepheus Spodei wrote:
>
> First off, I'd like to thank everyone for answering my questions about
> the Prometheus and now the tricorder... great info (humorous at points,
> too)... thanks! :-)
>
> So, here's my question: what's the hull of the Enterprise-D and other
> "normal" ships made up of (what material, the molecular structure, etc.,
> if any of it is known), and what exactly is "ablative armor"? Does the
> Enterprise-E have it? (Or the Lakota for that matter... pretty tough
> ship... ;-) ) Or is the Defiant the only ship with it?
The hull of the Enterprise-D was described several times as being a
Duranium alloy. More accurate decription available from the TNG tech
manual. Ablative armour can be composed of any of several types of
material, but the end effect is the same: when the ship is hit by enemy
fire, some of the armour plating "ablates" -- vaporises, sublimates, or
whatever is particular to the material in question -- thus sparing the
ship any (or at least most) of the concussive/penetrating force of the
shot. The fact that Captain Benteen recognised the Defiant as having
ablative armour from the effects of their shots, and not a records scan,
suggests that other ships are equipped with it, but maybe not any as
small as the Defiant -- hence her mild surprise. As for the
Enterprise-E... we'll just have to wait and see.
--Jonah
Gregg E.
In article <34EB7B...@erols.com>, esp...@erols.com says...
> if any of it is known), and what exactly is "ablative armor"? Does the
Ablative armor either breaks off, burns, melts, or even explodes to
keep the energy of an attack from penetrating to the critical parts
of a ship, tank, etc. Exploding ablative armor is commonly known as
reactive armor. Pioneered by the Isralei Army in the mid 1980's on their
tanks. They used several flat metal boxes filled with high explosive
that would detonate and blast outwards when pierced by an anti-tank
missile or shell. This was countered by their enemies mounting long
titaniun spikes on the points of their missiles and shells, which the
Israleis countered with double layer reactive armor!
The heat shields used on the Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo capsules was
also ablative by melting and evaporating to carry away heat.
Ablative armor is a one shot deal, unless you survive the battle and
have it replaced. Don't get hit twice in the same spot!
Kasey Chang (fix address before replying to me!)
On Wed, 18 Feb 1998 18:43:34 -0800, b...@camasnet.com (Gregg E.) wrote:
>In article <34EB7B...@erols.com>, esp...@erols.com says...
>Ablative armor either breaks off, burns, melts, or even explodes to
>keep the energy of an attack from penetrating to the critical parts
>of a ship, tank, etc. Exploding ablative armor is commonly known as
>reactive armor. Pioneered by the Isralei Army in the mid 1980's on their
>tanks. They used several flat metal boxes filled with high explosive
>that would detonate and blast outwards when pierced by an anti-tank
>missile or shell. This was countered by their enemies mounting long
>titaniun spikes on the points of their missiles and shells, which the
>Israleis countered with double layer reactive armor!
Slight correction. Reactive armor only works on HEAT (high-explosive
anti-tank) rounds, it does not affect sabot rounds. Sabot round's
velocity is too great to have any affect by reative armor. It works by
disrupting the stream of "molten metal" created by a HEAT round.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Kasey Chang DCL, Fremont, CA k a s e y c @ d i s c o p y . c o m
PDOXWIN, Star Trek, Computer Games, Science Fiction, Writing, && more
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Commercial use of this e-mail address implies your consent to pay me
amounts of up to US$100.00 per e-mail message from you received by me.
Michael Wong
>>Ablative armor either breaks off, burns, melts, or even explodes to
>>keep the energy of an attack from penetrating to the critical parts
>>of a ship, tank, etc. Exploding ablative armor is commonly known as
>>reactive armor. Pioneered by the Isralei Army in the mid 1980's on their
>>tanks. They used several flat metal boxes filled with high explosive
>>that would detonate and blast outwards when pierced by an anti-tank
>>missile or shell. This was countered by their enemies mounting long
>>titaniun spikes on the points of their missiles and shells, which the
>>Israleis countered with double layer reactive armor!
>Slight correction. Reactive armor only works on HEAT (high-explosive
>anti-tank) rounds, it does not affect sabot rounds. Sabot round's
>velocity is too great to have any affect by reative armor. It works by
>disrupting the stream of "molten metal" created by a HEAT round.
Yes, I've heard this as well. I've read that the tip of a HEAT round
becomes liquid metal and weakens the armor so that a depleted uranium
slug can punch through it, and that ablative armor disrupts the spray
of liquid metal by exploding outwards.
In any case, the Defiant's "ablative armor" is nonsensical in the
extreme. They survived TWO FULL MINUTES of bombardment by several
Klingon warships with their SHIELDS DOWN once, but later on, this
magical armor was pierced by a Gem Haddar DUD torpedo, which didn't go
off but simply punched THROUGH this super-duper hull with sheer
sublight kinetic energy! Talk about consistency problems ...
Stjepan Pejic
Michael Wong wrote:
> In any case, the Defiant's "ablative armor" is nonsensical in the
> extreme. They survived TWO FULL MINUTES of bombardment by several
> Klingon warships with their SHIELDS DOWN once, but later on, this
> magical armor was pierced by a Gem Haddar DUD torpedo, which didn't go
> off but simply punched THROUGH this super-duper hull with sheer
> sublight kinetic energy! Talk about consistency problems ...
This can happen if the mess hall area hull does not have armor.
I seem to recall that the mess hall has windows, and the only
are on the ship with windows is on the inner portions of the ship.
This could mean that these portions are not armored (as it is not
a part that is easily hit, and it would wreck the majestic view of
of space which every crew member cherishes).
Stjepan Pejic
CFB1
Michael Wong wrote:
> >>Ablative armor either breaks off, burns, melts, or even explodes to
> >>keep the energy of an attack from penetrating to the critical parts
> >>of a ship, tank, etc. Exploding ablative armor is commonly known as
> >>reactive armor. Pioneered by the Isralei Army in the mid 1980's on their
> >>tanks. They used several flat metal boxes filled with high explosive
> >>that would detonate and blast outwards when pierced by an anti-tank
> >>missile or shell. This was countered by their enemies mounting long
> >>titaniun spikes on the points of their missiles and shells, which the
> >>Israleis countered with double layer reactive armor!
>
> >Slight correction. Reactive armor only works on HEAT (high-explosive
> >anti-tank) rounds, it does not affect sabot rounds. Sabot round's
> >velocity is too great to have any affect by reative armor. It works by
> >disrupting the stream of "molten metal" created by a HEAT round.
>
> Yes, I've heard this as well. I've read that the tip of a HEAT round
> becomes liquid metal and weakens the armor so that a depleted uranium
> slug can punch through it, and that ablative armor disrupts the spray
> of liquid metal by exploding outwards.
>
> In any case, the Defiant's "ablative armor" is nonsensical in the
> extreme. They survived TWO FULL MINUTES of bombardment by several
> Klingon warships with their SHIELDS DOWN once, but later on, this
> magical armor was pierced by a Gem Haddar DUD torpedo, which didn't go
> off but simply punched THROUGH this super-duper hull with sheer
> sublight kinetic energy! Talk about consistency problems ...
Unless it just reacts to energy weapons, and not kinetic.
--
From Bad Carl's Cavern.
***WARNING***
Spamming me can be hazardous to your health.
Like sticking your thumb up a leopard's ass.
Don't say I didn't warn you.
When any government, or any church for that
matter, undertakes to say to its subjects, 'This you
may not read, this you must not see, this you are
forbidden to know,' the end result is tyranny and
oppression, no matter how holy the motives.
Mighty little force is needed to control a man
whose mind has been hoodwinked; contrawise, no
amount of force can control a free man, a man
whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission
bombs, not anything--you can't conquer a free man;
the most you can do is kill him.
R.A.H. 1940
And still true today. . .
pwc...@earthlinkno.spam.net
On Fri, 20 Feb 1998 02:56:53 GMT, nospam...@ebtech.net (Michael
Wong) wrote:
>Kasey Chang wrote:
>
>>Slight correction. Reactive armor only works on HEAT (high-explosive
>>anti-tank) rounds, it does not affect sabot rounds. Sabot round's
>>velocity is too great to have any affect by reative armor. It works by
>>disrupting the stream of "molten metal" created by a HEAT round.
>
>Yes, I've heard this as well. I've read that the tip of a HEAT round
>becomes liquid metal and weakens the armor so that a depleted uranium
>slug can punch through it, and that ablative armor disrupts the spray
>of liquid metal by exploding outwards.
Hmm, a two-stage warhead? Pretty neat. Which country(s) fields this?
>In any case, the Defiant's "ablative armor" is nonsensical in the
>extreme. They survived TWO FULL MINUTES of bombardment by several
Clarification: The Defiant took only 5 disruptor hits in that period
of time before its armor failed.
>Klingon warships with their SHIELDS DOWN once, but later on, this
>magical armor was pierced by a Gem Haddar DUD torpedo, which didn't go
>off but simply punched THROUGH this super-duper hull with sheer
>sublight kinetic energy!
Second addition: The hull was already under considerable pressure at
that point. Dialogue stated that the Defiant was already being
subjected to million+ GSCs. You could probably take a hammer and
breach the hull. Good thing for their magical SIF.
>Talk about consistency problems ...
One was a kinetic hit while the other was a disruptor hit. You might
be able to draw a consistency problem if you found other comparable
forms of damage. But not from two different hits against armor that
has not been defined to affect all types of hits.
Lotus IV
>Ablative armor either breaks off, burns, melts, or even explodes to
>keep the energy of an attack from penetrating to the critical parts
>of a ship, tank, etc. Exploding ablative armor is commonly known as
>reactive armor. Pioneered by the Isralei Army in the mid 1980's on their
>tanks. They used several flat metal boxes filled with high explosive
>that would detonate and blast outwards when pierced by an anti-tank
>missile or shell. This was countered by their enemies mounting long
>titaniun spikes on the points of their missiles and shells, which the
>Israleis countered with double layer reactive armor!
>
>also ablative by melting and evaporating to carry away heat.
>
>Ablative armor is a one shot deal, unless you survive the battle and
>have it replaced. Don't get hit twice in the same spot!
>
>
So, ablative armor was developed in the 50's for the space program. Not for
tanks in the eightis. It must have been incredible to see the flame from the
armor streaking past the window on re-entry. Almost a shame we have tiles and
what not now. It still gets really hot, and I believe plasma is still made,
but I don't think that it would be the same to watch a shuttle and a mercury
come back from the inside
Lotus IV
>
>Ablative armor is a one shot deal, unless you survive the battle and
>have it replaced. Don't get hit twice in the same spot!
>
>
>
it may move itself around so that you are always covered, like liquid metal, or
something. i think that this could make a great F/X for DS9 to play with in a
battle sequence!
Lotus IV
>>Talk about consistency problems ...
>
>One was a kinetic hit while the other was a disruptor hit. You might
>be able to draw a consistency problem if you found other comparable
>forms of damage. But not from two different hits against armor that
>has not been defined to affect all types of hits.
>
>
Ablative armor should burn away, and let the disruptor in, the dud shouldn't
have buned away any armor, so I go with the streesed hull idea.
Ian Ross-Gowan
Michael Wong wrote...
>In any case, the Defiant's "ablative armor" is nonsensical in the
>extreme. They survived TWO FULL MINUTES of bombardment by several
>magical armor was pierced by a Gem Haddar DUD torpedo, which didn't go
>off but simply punched THROUGH this super-duper hull with sheer
If you mean as shown in Way of the Warrior that was 1 Vor'cha (the 1
remaining BoP was shown attacking the Cardassian ship), not several and the
Defiant used a Tractor on her. This restricted the Vor'cha to firing with
only her nose disruptor and its effectiveness was reduced to 50%. Despite
this some damage was reported from the first hit even though the ablative
armour was holding. When the E-D used a tractor in a similar way to stop
the Stargazer, the Stargazer was unable to damage the E-D at all.
Ian
Michael Wong
>>Talk about consistency problems ...
>One was a kinetic hit while the other was a disruptor hit. You might
>be able to draw a consistency problem if you found other comparable
>forms of damage. But not from two different hits against armor that
>has not been defined to affect all types of hits.
Notice, however, that the nose end of the torpedo was totally
undamaged, even to the point that access panels could be easily opened
by hand, not being jammed or warped by the force of impact at all.
This indicates low kinetic energy.
It also indicates that the Defiant's ablative armor is incredibly weak
to kinetic impacts, and this would not be consistent with the idea
that they survived TWO FULL MINUTES of bombardment with disruptors.
Even if ablative armor works the way you say it does, the Klingons
should have been able to blast away at one particular patch of the
armor until they breached the hull, unless it was ridiculously strong
in addition to incorporating explosive elements (which it could not
have been if a low-energy kinetic hit punched clean through).
pwc...@earthlinkno.spam.net
>>>Talk about consistency problems ...
>
>>One was a kinetic hit while the other was a disruptor hit. You might
>>be able to draw a consistency problem if you found other comparable
>>forms of damage. But not from two different hits against armor that
>>has not been defined to affect all types of hits.
>
>Notice, however, that the nose end of the torpedo was totally
>undamaged, even to the point that access panels could be easily opened
>by hand, not being jammed or warped by the force of impact at all.
>This indicates low kinetic energy.
This depends on whether the Jem'hedar torpedo was built like a
Federation torpedo. We've seen many Fed torps used in hitting deep
underground targets ("Pen Pals", etc) as well as delivery direct into
stars ("Half a Life"). It could very well be that the Jem'hedar torp
was designed tough enough to maintain its integrity upon striking
hardened targets, perhaps with the intent of detonating after
penetration of target. (Not that the stressed hull of the Defiant
would be considered hardened...)
>It also indicates that the Defiant's ablative armor is incredibly weak
>to kinetic impacts, and this would not be consistent with the idea
Actually, what I've been (and others as well) have suggested is that
ablative armor on the Defiant is only useful against energy hits. A
kinetic/physical hit apparently is not one of the type of hits that
has been claimed to be/ is effective against.
>that they survived TWO FULL MINUTES of bombardment with disruptors.
Still, they were only hit 5 times. Thats very reasonable plus we are
not certain that the Vor'cha was successful in targeting the same
location with each hit (other than the aft sections). If they were
full power hits, it is likely the Vor'cha would have penetrated in 2-3
hits.
>Even if ablative armor works the way you say it does, the Klingons
>should have been able to blast away at one particular patch of the
>armor until they breached the hull, unless it was ridiculously strong
>in addition to incorporating explosive elements
The Klingon Vor'cha did blast away quickly with only 5 disruptor hits
before the ablative armor gave out. Given that the effectiveness of
each was "halved", its pretty darn quick IMO.
>(which it could not
>have been if a low-energy kinetic hit punched clean through).
Well, as said before, the hull of the Defiant in "Starship Down" was
already under considerable pressure and also that the ablative armor
has not been associated with the ability to resist physical attacks.
Timo S Saloniemi
In article <01bd3ed7$065b9d40$LocalHost@IanRoss-Gowan> "Ian Ross-Gowan" <Ross...@N130.aone.net.au> writes:
>Michael Wong wrote...
>>In any case, the Defiant's "ablative armor" is nonsensical in the
>>extreme. They survived TWO FULL MINUTES of bombardment by several
>>Klingon warships with their SHIELDS DOWN once,
>If you mean as shown in Way of the Warrior that was 1 Vor'cha (the 1
>remaining BoP was shown attacking the Cardassian ship), not several and the
>Defiant used a Tractor on her. This restricted the Vor'cha to firing with
>only her nose disruptor and its effectiveness was reduced to 50%. Despite
>this some damage was reported from the first hit even though the ablative
>armour was holding.
It is somewhat plausible to say that the tractor beam prevented the
Klingons from hitting the same spot twice. Thus, the ablative armor
could theoretically have worked. However, there were no signs of
bombardment on the ship afterward. Perhaps this ablative armor is
self-replacing? Perhaps it's constantly being replenished by
replicators?
>When the E-D used a tractor in a similar way to stop
>the Stargazer, the Stargazer was unable to damage the E-D at all.
The Stargazer didn't even try. Apparently, Picard was too shocked
by the tractor beam - he was so convinced that this was the Ferengi
attack all over again that he probably did not do any tactical
thinking (or thinking, period!). He just redid what he had done the
first time around, and when a new element like the tractor beam was
introduced, he got hopelessly lost and forgot to order the torpedoes
and phasers to fire. That gave Riker time for yet another silly "wake
up, captain!" speech that ultimately stopped Picard's rampage.
>Ian
Timo Saloniemi
Ian Ross-Gowan
Timo S Saloniemi wrote...
>>If you mean as shown in Way of the Warrior that was 1 Vor'cha (the 1
>>remaining BoP was shown attacking the Cardassian ship), not several and
the
>>Defiant used a Tractor on her. This restricted the Vor'cha to firing with
>>only her nose disruptor and its effectiveness was reduced to 50%. Despite
>>this some damage was reported from the first hit even though the ablative
>>armour was holding.
>
>It is somewhat plausible to say that the tractor beam prevented the
>Klingons from hitting the same spot twice. Thus, the ablative armor
>could theoretically have worked.
If by worked you mean limited the damage then yes it did. If you mean
worked as in stopped the damage as effectively as a shield then reread what
I said -- The Defiant was damaged by the FIRST 50% effectiveness shot.
>However, there were no signs of
>bombardment on the ship afterward. Perhaps this ablative armor is
>self-replacing? Perhaps it's constantly being replenished by
>replicators?
That is an awful lot of perhaps. However -- No, on the last shot it said
that the ablative armour had failed and this is when the Defaint suffered a
number of plasma leaks & lost her aft torpedo launcher.
>>When the E-D used a tractor in a similar way to stop
>>the Stargazer, the Stargazer was unable to damage the E-D at all.
>
>The Stargazer didn't even try. Apparently, Picard was too shocked
>by the tractor beam - he was so convinced that this was the Ferengi
>attack all over again that he probably did not do any tactical
>thinking (or thinking, period!). He just redid what he had done the
>first time around, and when a new element like the tractor beam was
>introduced, he got hopelessly lost and forgot to order the torpedoes
>and phasers to fire. That gave Riker time for yet another silly "wake
>up, captain!" speech that ultimately stopped Picard's rampage.
No, all you can say is that the Stargazer appeared not to fire not that she
did not even try. Think about it this way -- Riker would not have thought I
know I'll tractor him in the hopes that he will become befuddled and not
shoot. Riker must have thought the tractor would have done something. The
fact that Picard was not thinking straight has nothing to do with how Riker
was thinking.
Ian
Lotus IV
>
>Even if ablative armor works the way you say it does, the Klingons
>should have been able to blast away at one particular patch of the
>armor until they breached the hull, unless it was ridiculously strong
>have been if a low-energy kinetic hit punched clean through).
Maybe the explosive only reacts to high impacts, so you don't wind up with it
blowing up whenever you move. This could be entirely consistent.
Carl Seutter
Lotus IV wrote:
There seems to be confusion between Ablative armor and Reactive armor. Ablative
armor dissipates energy by vaporizing away. The energy transfer is due to
vaporization. Reactive armor deflects the energy by violently exploding outwards.
This would work against low speed solid objects, not energy weapons. It can't
even deflect a kinetic kill projectile. Reactive armor is meant for slow chemical
reaction warheads. (knock the stream apart and warhead away from the underlying
conventional armor.)
Ablative armor would absorb the energy and vaporize in the process. The intense
energy expended rapidly against such armor would produce a flash similar in
appearance to a reactive armor detonation, but the principle and it's
effectiveness would differ greatly. Ablative armor may or may not stop a kinetic
kill weapon. It wasn't designed for that. It was designed to shed energy by
evaporating. That's why the past manned missions used ablative shields to reenter
the atmosphere. It dissipates heat energy by evaporating. The package is
protected due to the ablative nature of the shield.
Reactive armor detonates when struck and tries to deflect the chemical energy
stream and plastic copper projectile following it. A disruptor or phaser would
have already broken down such a system by the time it struck it. (a disrupted
chemical explosive would be useless in stopping anything.)
Defiant's armor is Ablative. It evaporates when hit to absorb the energy imparted
on it. This protects the vessel after shield failure and allows a second chance.
The armor can always be replaced easily. The starship takes far more resources to
replace.
Carl
Z. Cochrane
>>
>...However -- No, on the last shot it said
>that the ablative armour had failed and this is when the Defaint suffered a
>number of plasma leaks & lost her aft torpedo launcher.
So the ablative armour has done its job very good: A Defiant under attack
with ablative armour is an undamaged Defiant, but when she lost that armour
she was pretty damaged in ONE shot.
Carl Seutter
Z. Cochrane wrote:
It served it's purpose and bought time. That's all that can be asked of ablative
armor. It sacrifices itself to protect the package. Once it's gone, you'd better
have shields back up or a way to cover that section of the ship. The ship still
has it's integrity fields to hold together the blasted remains of a structural
component in the damaged section. The room may not have any working equipment
left, but the stress bearing parts of it are held by the field. Unless that
system has taken a beating as well. Voyager lost an entire deck in an episode
that ended up in all damage being reversed. (They should have set up a
subroutine to replenish their torps!)
Carl
Ian Ross-Gowan
Z. Cochrane wrote...
>>...However -- No, on the last shot it said
>>that the ablative armour had failed and this is when the Defaint suffered
a
>>number of plasma leaks & lost her aft torpedo launcher.
>
>So the ablative armour has done its job very good: A Defiant under attack
>with ablative armour is an undamaged Defiant, but when she lost that
armour
>she was pretty damaged in ONE shot.
Not so well nor so undamaged -- The console behind Dax exploded on the very
first hit on the Defiant without shields. Also the Cloak was damaged
sometime before the Ablative Armour failed. This is based on the fact that
the cloak damage was not listed with the damage sustained on failure of the
armour so probably happened beforehand.
Given the choice, give me sheids anytime
Ian
sdo...@ix.netcom.com
On 24 Feb 1998 22:37:10 GMT, lot...@aol.com (Lotus IV) wrote:
>>
>>Even if ablative armor works the way you say it does, the Klingons
>>should have been able to blast away at one particular patch of the
>>armor until they breached the hull, unless it was ridiculously strong
>>in addition to incorporating explosive elements (which it could not
>>have been if a low-energy kinetic hit punched clean through).
>
>Maybe the explosive only reacts to high impacts, so you don't wind up with it
>blowing up whenever you move. This could be entirely consistent.
Ablative armor? I guess I should have my hearing checked. I thought
the term as given in the show was "A BLADE OF armor" :)
Martin Crosbie
The whole argument centres around what we think ablative armour
actually does. In Way of the warrior, a panel explodes behind Jadzia,
and she reports that "the Ablative armour is holding!" this suggests
that the armour is still there. I would suggest that the Defiant carries
armour similar to the mirrors and reflective foil we have planned for
use as 'anti laser beam' armour. the Defiant can reflect phazer and
disruptor blasts away from it (not torpedoes as they don't work the same
way as light, try using a mirror next time you get mugged by someone
with a gun) The Process is not 100%, meaning that not all the energy is
reflected and the angle also effects the transer rate, so some shots
hurt more and do more damage making the armour good but not perfect, and
certainly better than shields which rely on absorbing the energy before
radiating it away.
--
The Croz, U.K.
RAF/ATC Sergeant
Martin Crosbie
Aged 17 (Alcohol not withstanding)
"we are all Jem Hadar, We are all dead, we go into battle to
reclaim our lives!"
"My name is Miles Edward O'brien, I'm very much alive and I intend
to stay that way!"
DS9, an good episode if only I remembered what it was about!!
Z. Cochrane
>Given the choice, give me shields anytime
>
>Ian
Given the choice between ablative armor and normal ship hull, give me
ablative armor anytime...
John
Z. Cochrane wrote in message <6djv6g$ba...@reader1.wxs.nl>...
Look at the monotanium hull armor on the Hirogyen warships - much better
than shields.
I'll take the ablative armor.
Die Well Friend, (Old Klingon Saying)
John
Ian Ross-Gowan
Z. Cochrane...
>>>Given the choice, give me shields anytime
>>
>>me ablative armor anytime...
Had you not said it, it would have gone without saying
Ian
John wrote...
>Look at the monotanium hull armor on the Hirogyen warships - much
>better than shields.
>
>I'll take the ablative armor.
You do that but I'm sure you just helped to establish the effectiveness
order as (from Best to Worst):
1 Monotanium Hull Armour
2 Shields
3 Ablative Amour
4 Normal Ship Hull
Ian
Ian Ross-Gowan
Martin Crosbie wrote...
>The whole argument centres around what we think ablative armour
>actually does. In Way of the warrior, a panel explodes behind Jadzia,
>and she reports that "the Ablative armour is holding!" this suggests
>that the armour is still there. I would suggest that the Defiant carries
>armour similar to the mirrors and reflective foil we have planned for
>use as 'anti laser beam' armour. the Defiant can reflect phazer and
>disruptor blasts away from it (not torpedoes as they don't work the same
>way as light, try using a mirror next time you get mugged by someone
>with a gun) The Process is not 100%, meaning that not all the energy is
>reflected and the angle also effects the transer rate, so some shots
>hurt more and do more damage making the armour good but not perfect, and
>certainly better than shields which rely on absorbing the energy before
>radiating it away.
I agree with all that you say about how ablative armour is not 100%
successful but:
1. I don't think the ablative armour is similar at all to reflective foil
or mirrors. One of the definitions of Ablation is the process of
evaporation or melting of part of the outer surface of a spacecraft through
heating up by friction with the atmosphere. Whilst we cannot assume that
all Techno babble words will have the same definition as they do now,
Ablative Armour using up the power of a hit by melting is too similar and
too well supported by on screen canon to need to be redefined as something
totally different.
2. Shields do not rely on absorbing energy then radiating it, they deflect
it.
3. You admit that Ablative Armour fails to stop 100% of a shot. Canonical
evidence shows that a shield does a better job in same episode - Way of the
Warrior. Nothing blows up behind Jadzia Dax nor is anything listed as
damaged whilst the shields are up and the Defiant is shot at by the Vor'cha
class Attack Cruiser a number of times. The very first shot that hits on
Ablative Armour alone causes damage and explosions not just the buffeting
the Defiant recieved as she deflected the shots with shields.
Ian
pwc...@earthlinkno.spam.net
On 5 Mar 1998 12:28:56 GMT, "Ian Ross-Gowan"
<Ross...@N130.aone.net.au> wrote:
>
>You do that but I'm sure you just helped to establish the effectiveness
>order as (from Best to Worst):
>
>1 Monotanium Hull Armour
>2 Shields
>3 Ablative Amour
>4 Normal Ship Hull
Personally its
1. Neutronium
2. Shields
3. Monotanium (they were refered to as "shield reinforced")
4. Ablative
5. Ship hull (Trititanium, Duranium, SIFs included...)
Ian Ross-Gowan
Peter Chung wrote...
>You do that but I'm sure you just helped to establish the effectiveness
>>order as (from Best to Worst):
>>
>>1 Monotanium Hull Armour
>>2 Shields
>>3 Ablative Amour
>>4 Normal Ship Hull
>
>Personally its
>
>1. Neutronium
>2. Shields
>3. Monotanium (they were refered to as "shield reinforced")
>4. Ablative
>5. Ship hull (Trititanium, Duranium, SIFs included...)
Without detailed study of montanium Vs shields I can accept this alternate
order.
Ian
Kasey Chang (fix address before replying to me!)
On 6 Mar 1998 12:00:02 GMT, "Ian Ross-Gowan"
<Ross...@N130.aone.net.au> wrote:
Agreed. Ablative practically means "sacrificial" armor.
>2. Shields do not rely on absorbing energy then radiating it, they deflect
>it.
The two school of thoughts here, perhaps we can say that a shield
deflects MOST of the damage and "absorbs" the rest, which is then
dissipated? (Which would account for Yar's comment in Yesterday's
Enterprise).
Actually, that would also fit with your "phase-sync" idea about the
sheilds, but we'll work out the math on that later.
>3. You admit that Ablative Armour fails to stop 100% of a shot. Canonical
>evidence shows that a shield does a better job in same episode - Way of the
>Warrior. Nothing blows up behind Jadzia Dax nor is anything listed as
>damaged whilst the shields are up and the Defiant is shot at by the Vor'cha
>class Attack Cruiser a number of times. The very first shot that hits on
>Ablative Armour alone causes damage and explosions not just the buffeting
>the Defiant recieved as she deflected the shots with shields.
The "problem" is the armor only stops PHYSICAL damage. EM effects from
the blast cannot be contained, and that can cause surges in the nearby
conduits, thus causing the consoles to blow up. Shields stops the
entire attack except the "leak-through" when the shield power gets
low.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Kasey Chang DCL, Fremont, CA k a s e y c @ d i s c o p y . c o m
PDOXWIN, Star Trek, Computer Games, Science Fiction, Writing, && more
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Commercial use of this e-mail address implies your consent to pay me
amounts of up to US$100.00 per e-mail message from you received by me.
Michael Wong
>>You do that but I'm sure you just helped to establish the effectiveness
>>order as (from Best to Worst):
>>1 Monotanium Hull Armour
>>2 Shields
>>3 Ablative Amour
>>4 Normal Ship Hull
>Personally its
>1. Neutronium
>2. Shields
>3. Monotanium (they were refered to as "shield reinforced")
>4. Ablative
>5. Ship hull (Trititanium, Duranium, SIFs included...)
Actually, it's:
1) Whatever armor is on any ship carrying a major ST character
2) Anything else
Carl Seutter
pwc...@earthlinkno.spam.net wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Feb 1998 04:56:58 GMT, nospam...@ebtech.net (Michael
> Wong) wrote:
>
> >>>Talk about consistency problems ...
> >
> >>One was a kinetic hit while the other was a disruptor hit. You might
> >>be able to draw a consistency problem if you found other comparable
> >>forms of damage. But not from two different hits against armor that
> >>has not been defined to affect all types of hits.
> >
> >Notice, however, that the nose end of the torpedo was totally
> >undamaged, even to the point that access panels could be easily opened
> >by hand, not being jammed or warped by the force of impact at all.
> >This indicates low kinetic energy.
We currently make bombs that count the reinforced concrete floors they pass
through before they detonate. The USAF is going to test a new version of
the B-61 nuke freefall bomb that kinetically passes through a dozen feet of
reinforced concrete and the shell only needs a new paint job and fins
before it's next test. This new bomb casing is going to be tested this
spring in the state of Alaska. They are going to see how much permafrost
(it's far more resistant to impact than rebarred concrete.) the bomb can
penetrate. (the warhead is just depleted uranium to simulate the mass of
the B-61's selective yield fission fusion device.) Considering this is 20th
century tech, it's quite possible that harder materials have been developed
and used for torpedo casings. We can't tell much of anything about the
kinetic energy of a projectile from it's state after the impact if we don't
know it's hardness and malleability.
>
>
> This depends on whether the Jem'hedar torpedo was built like a
> Federation torpedo. We've seen many Fed torps used in hitting deep
> underground targets ("Pen Pals", etc) as well as delivery direct into
> stars ("Half a Life"). It could very well be that the Jem'hedar torp
> was designed tough enough to maintain its integrity upon striking
> hardened targets, perhaps with the intent of detonating after
> penetration of target. (Not that the stressed hull of the Defiant
> would be considered hardened...)
>
> >It also indicates that the Defiant's ablative armor is incredibly weak
> >to kinetic impacts, and this would not be consistent with the idea
>
> Actually, what I've been (and others as well) have suggested is that
> ablative armor on the Defiant is only useful against energy hits. A
> kinetic/physical hit apparently is not one of the type of hits that
> has been claimed to be/ is effective against.
Abalative armor would only be useful against energy weapons. It absorbs the
energy and uses the energy to liberate it's molecules. It's kind of like
taking a blow torch to an ice cube. The ice absorbs the heat and the
molecules use the energy to fly away as steam and water. To stop a kinetic
strike, they would need either extremely hard and yet resilient armor, or
reactive armor that deflects the kinetic energy with a release of its' own
kinetic energy. That's the idea behind current reactive armor fitted on
tanks. The armor detonates when it's struck hard enough, to cancel out the
kinetic energy of the incoming projectile. In the case of a HEAT round, the
fuse of the weapon sets off the armor and the resulting blast disrupts and
cancels out the energy of the pressure spike that the HEAT round forms to
punch a molten copper slug through regular armor. Something similar would
work for kinetic torps set to detonate after passing through the hull of a
ship. The problem with reactive armor is that it will still transmit some
residual energy backwards into the vessel it's protecting. The difference
is that even though everyone has some hearing loss and a slight concussion
(sensitive equipment will be knocked offline as well,) they are still alive
and able to have another chance.
>
>
> >that they survived TWO FULL MINUTES of bombardment with disruptors.
>
> Still, they were only hit 5 times. Thats very reasonable plus we are
> not certain that the Vor'cha was successful in targeting the same
> location with each hit (other than the aft sections). If they were
> full power hits, it is likely the Vor'cha would have penetrated in 2-3
> hits.
>
> >Even if ablative armor works the way you say it does, the Klingons
> >should have been able to blast away at one particular patch of the
> >armor until they breached the hull, unless it was ridiculously strong
> >in addition to incorporating explosive elements
>
> The Klingon Vor'cha did blast away quickly with only 5 disruptor hits
> before the ablative armor gave out. Given that the effectiveness of
> each was "halved", its pretty darn quick IMO.
The ablative armor is just a last chance. It is not meant to replace
shields in any sense. But if the shields fail, the extra armor buys that
much more time. The idea is to trade some mass that would be otherwise used
for botanical gardens, holosuites, or whatever and place it on the hull as
a backup when the shields go off line and lives are at stake. The reactive
armor did exactly what it was meant to do. That's far better than what a
bare hull would have done! :)
>
>
> >(which it could not
> >have been if a low-energy kinetic hit punched clean through).
>
> Well, as said before, the hull of the Defiant in "Starship Down" was
> already under considerable pressure and also that the ablative armor
> has not been associated with the ability to resist physical attacks.
Agreed. Use ablative armor for a last chance against energy beams and
pulses, and use reactive armor against kinetic kill weapons when in an area
where there is a high probability of kinetic weapons. (the defense against
a torp would still be minimal, since a prematurely detonated and repulsed
torp will probably still buckle or collapse a section or two, especially if
they are fired at full yield settings. You'd better hope it's a dud! :) )
Carl
Ian Ross-Gowan
Kasey Chang wrote...
>>2. Shields do not rely on absorbing energy then radiating it, they
deflect
>>it.
>
>The two school of thoughts here, perhaps we can say that a shield
>deflects MOST of the damage and "absorbs" the rest, which is then
>dissipated? (Which would account for Yar's comment in Yesterday's
>Enterprise).
>
>Actually, that would also fit with your "phase-sync" idea about the
>sheilds, but we'll work out the math on that later.
Rather than absorbing and then dissipating the undeflected energy this
could be the cause of the gradual collapse of a shield by successive shots.
This would be different from the complete collapse due to a single shot
completely overwhelming the shields (or remaining shields)
>>3. You admit that Ablative Armour fails to stop 100% of a shot. Canonical
>>evidence shows that a shield does a better job in same episode - Way of
the
>>Warrior. Nothing blows up behind Jadzia Dax nor is anything listed as
>>damaged whilst the shields are up and the Defiant is shot at by the
Vor'cha
>>class Attack Cruiser a number of times. The very first shot that hits on
>>Ablative Armour alone causes damage and explosions not just the buffeting
>>the Defiant recieved as she deflected the shots with shields.
>
>The "problem" is the armor only stops PHYSICAL damage. EM effects from
>the blast cannot be contained, and that can cause surges in the nearby
>conduits, thus causing the consoles to blow up. Shields stops the
>entire attack except the "leak-through" when the shield power gets
>low.
I concur with you that Ablative Amour fails to contain all the effects of a
hit and that it could be the EM spectrum damage which gets through. It
could also be that some of the physical damage gets through as well.
"Starship Down" causes a complication here. The Jem'Hadar torpedo was not
physically stopped by the armour and by not exploding created very little
in the way of EM damage. Of cause there were a lot of variables in this
scenario -- being in the atmosphere of a gas giant, the damage the Defiant
had already suffered, the non critical nature of the location hit, the
torpedo not exploding. The fact that the torpedo got through was only
considered to be a hull breach taken care of by the SIF, but the show gave
the impression that we would be looking for a new cast and ship if it did
explode.
On another level, given th success of James Cromwell's jigs in both Babe
and First Contact, why wasn't a jig somehow put in the script.
Ian
P.S. I eagerly await your reply to my treatise on Shield theory. I
pwc...@earthlinkno.spam.net
Hehe. I would make every major good ST character a armor bonus to the
normal order : )
Who Me
Alblative armor is a thin layer of some form of material which
evaporates when hit, dissipating the kinetic energy and
surface-conducted disintegratoion effects of the weapon impact. As we
all know from the good old star trek tech manual, many weapons, namely
phasers, have a surface conducted disintegration effect; e.g. data's use
of his phaser to destroy th eaquaduct and water in that next gen
episode. Moreover, antimatter would aslo work in the same way:
destroying first that with which it came into contact with. Therefore,
in accordance with the Star Trek Encyclopedia, and what I have observed
on TV and in the movies, ablative armor is some advanced compound,
layerd on kinda like we layer kevlar onto warships currently i the US
Navy. Ablative armor is most likely replaced after each battle.
Moreover, the more layers of ablative armor a ship has (the thicker the
coating) the more likely it is to withstand the hit. This would explain
why the Defiant class vessel Defiant can take hitws from the phased
polaron beams of the jem hadda's attack ships and vessels, and why the
unnamed defiant class ship in the Voyager episode with the MULTI VECTO
ASSAULT MODE ship (with the two holodoctors in command) took hits dead
on from photons and phasers (which destroyed a non ablative armored
nebula class ship, and survived. So, imagine several thin layers of wax
over a sheet of paper. Then hit it with a water gun, a pellet gun, or
try to set it on fire... it will not be harmed, at first, since the wax
will slow down the pellet, melt, burning off the heat of teh flames, and
repell the water until all of the wax is either burned, crushed, or
abraised away. Some of the the force or heat, if any will still be
transmitted through the wax and into the paper. the paper is the hull
of a federation starship, and the wax is the ablative armor. Enough
Said.
-Resistance is futile..
-Assimilate this!