View Single Post
Old January 2 2013, 10:39 PM   #37
Re: Caseless Torpedoes

Except it obviously IS new hardware, hence he calls them "the new torpedoes."
That would be like saying "the new torpedoes for our submarine have arrived. They have 11% more Torpex, and I have personally tuned the passive sonar. Oh, and they now work by hanging from hot air balloons pushed by wind, but I will not mention that at all because it is not particularly relevant."

If the "Genesis" torps indeed are rocket-propelled guided missiles while the older ones were abstract light shows emerging from a fixed cartridge, the above example would be belittling the absurdity of the situation.

And this is Starfleet we're talking about; leaving unexploded ordinance lying around has got to be a MASSIVE no-no for them.
Which of course is the reason they all have the scuttling system installed as standard, despite your no-proof pretense to the contrary.

The element sitting on the ship would be the guidance system itself, like the launch tube for a TOW missile with the cable trailing behind it. In this case, a computer-guided tow missile, taking its instructions from the sensors in the launcher (modern heavy torpedoes do exactly this, although they're linked to the SHIP'S sensors until they enter their terminal phase).
So you can come up with no explanation whatsoever as to why Spock and McCoy would install the sensor in the torpedo, as opposed to leaving it where it originally was?

Epic fail. ST6:TUC is sufficient proof for the missile nature of the weapon, and any postulated adventures away from that obvious standard configuration must be exceptionally solidly argued for, or they are not worth even a brief laugh.

Actually we see a quantum torpedo casing in "The Valiant" and it looks more or less exactly like a photon torpedo.
Nog works on a torpedo of unknown type, in order to give it unique special qualities that will supposedly give victory. Thereafter, the torpedo is fired.

However, neither during the working nor during the firing is anything said to indicate that "quantum" torpedoes would be involved - and Aaron Eisenberg stands right in front of the part of the casing that might read "quantum"! As far as we can tell, quantums were abandoned as a weapon when our heroes and guests decided that the special warhead would be the way to go.

Incidentally, this would mean that the cheek launchers of this class of starship can indeed fire ordnance other than the type called "quantum torpedo", nicely staining an otherwise clean record. And that all colors are okay for all types of torp, too. Which is already established for anybody watching the TOS movies anyway.

Of course, I have no strong desire to believe in such things. But I can't accept something like this as solid proof either way.

There's the fact that photon grenades do not appear to EXPLODE as such, but emit a very bright flash that stuns/incapacitates things around them
The issue is somewhat confused. The MACO in ENT use flash-bangs that are called "stun grenades"; "photon grenades" are unseen things from TNG "Legacy" and DS9 "Homefront"; and the impressively exploding mortar ammo from TOS "Arena" goes unnamed.

So we still don't know whether the Starfleet photon grenade is like or unlike a miniature photon torpedo. (We do see alien photon grenades in action in two VOY episodes, though, and these do seem to behave much like propulsion-less mini-torps.

Photon torpedoes -- as far as we can tell from 27 seasons of television and 11 feature films -- don't.
Why should this matter? Your side of the argument is completely based on the absence of evidence against your wilder claims, too.

A torpedo at long ranges would have a fair excuse for coasting without a glow, as torpedoes are never seen (or mentioned used) at long ranges. In contrast, if a Class 8 Probe can fly at warp without glow, what excuse does a photon torpedo have for not doing the same? It's speculation against speculation on all aspects of this.

Because then you won't have to use any energy from the bolt to heat up the payload.
What does that mean? If "the bolt" is your supposed abstract ball of destructive light, what is "the payload"?

If you mean that sending a physical projectile close to the enemy for the dissolving act somehow ties down more heat in the projectile than doing the dissolving act in the "launch" tube, then you are making no sense. Surely the heat would be tied down in the "cartridge" equally regardless of whether the cartridge sat in the launch tube or was almost touching the target.

And yet, the casing hardly needs to be IN SPACE to do that.
Obviously it does. The casing is the only way to send the sensor to space. And the sensor obviously needs to be in space, or else Spock and McCoy would never have unbolted it from its rack in the laboratory where it had successfully charter gaseous anomalies until then.

As for the visuals, they are always large enough to hide a runabout, especially in the picture you linked to.

Timo Saloniemi
Timo is offline   Reply With Quote