22nd Romulan Cloaking

[Timo]

And for all we know, the Romulan cloak in TOS and TNG is based on the very same principle, and none other exists in the Trek universe - save for the phase cloak, which is the one and only innovation in the field, and justly revered for this.

This doesn't explain why Spock would remain ignorant of Xyrillian and Romulan invisibility as late as the 2260s - never mind Suliban invisibility, a technology Starfleet itself exploited to notable tactical gain. Sure, invisibility might be a major military secret, and its use generally so limited that civilians need not learn of it. Starfleet thus might practice self-censorship and only inform certain key officers of this technology and its past uses. But nothing in TOS or other Trek makes this particularly likely; invisibility is quite commonplace there, and likely to be encountered by all sorts of spacefarers.

Timo Saloniemi

[Ketrick]

Timo wrote:

---

And for all we know, the Romulan cloak in TOS and TNG is based on the very same principle, and none other exists in the Trek universe - save for the phase cloak, which is the one and only innovation in the field, and justly revered for this.

This doesn't explain why Spock would remain ignorant of Xyrillian and Romulan invisibility as late as the 2260s - never mind Suliban invisibility, a technology Starfleet itself exploited to notable tactical gain. Sure, invisibility might be a major military secret, and its use generally so limited that civilians need not learn of it. Starfleet thus might practice self-censorship and only inform certain key officers of this technology and its past uses. But nothing in TOS or other Trek makes this particularly likely; invisibility is quite commonplace there, and likely to be encountered by all sorts of spacefarers.

Timo Saloniemi

Actually, TOS and TNG episodes suggest that 23rd and 24th cloaks work on different principles than the holographic camouflage I'm suggesting. Also, I may be splitting hairs, but an argument could be made that what I'm suggesting doesn't actually contradict Spock because the ships and mines aren't really invisible they're merely blending in with their surroundings. Also, Section 31 probably hid the info on the Suliban cloaking info and possibly covered up all info on the Temporal Cold War potentially explaining why Daniels said certain things weren't supposed to happen yet they were not reversed.

[Loskene]

They never actually used the Bird of Prey cloak for anything useful in the show. The lines "a ship is approaching" and "they are moving off" could have sufficed for both incidence of use.

The Mines themselves should have been the first appearance of a primitive useless cloak that only works on stationary objects with a low power source explaining the weak childlike quarter kiloton yield.

Frankly their use of ship cloaks in Enterprise even for the Suliban was unnecessary when they could have used say some type of sensor blocker. Visual detection is not something they use much in Star Trek, the view screen is mostly a sensor readout put to images.

Between that and the Ferengi and the Borg they should not have kicked cannon so much in the balls and hand waved it away with silly explanations like they didn't drop their name. Enterprise was good but it could have been just as good without the avoidable beaches in cannon.

[Ketrick]

Loskene wrote:

---

Between that and the Ferengi and the Borg they should not have kicked cannon so much in the balls and hand waved it away with silly explanations like they didn't drop their name. Enterprise was good but it could have been just as good without the avoidable beaches in cannon.

I don't mind the Ferengis or the Borg showing up too much. For one thing, first contact with the Ferengi was at Roswell in 1947 so "Acquisition" didn't mess with that and for another "Regeneration" merely picked up a thread from First Contact.

[Christopher]

And it's a myth that canon pre-Enterprise was all that consistent. TOS had a lot of inconsistencies, since they were making up the world as they went. Was it James R. Kirk or James T. Kirk? Was it one of Spock's ancestors who married a human or his father? Was the Enterprise an Earth ship or a Federation ship? TWOK contains some major continuity conflicts with "Space Seed" and the rest of TOS -- Khan recognizing Chekov, his followers being uniformly Nordic rather than multiethnic, Kirk having "never faced death" despite having lost Gary, Sam, Edith, Miramanee, etc. TNG also had plenty of contradictions, like Data using contractions constantly until it was suddenly asserted he couldn't, or "The Wounded" revealing that the Federation had been at war with the Cardassians during the first two seasons of the show even though those seasons depicted a peacetime Starfleet whose primary missions were science and diplomacy. All of Trek canon is a patchwork of clashing ideas that we only pretend are consistent with each other. ENT did no worse a job staying consistent with the previous series than they did staying consistent within themselves.

[Timo]

Actually, TOS and TNG episodes suggest that 23rd and 24th cloaks work on different principles than the holographic camouflage I'm suggesting.

I'm curious - what in TOS or TNG suggests this?

Also, I may be splitting hairs, but an argument could be made that what I'm suggesting doesn't actually contradict Spock because the ships and mines aren't really invisible they're merely blending in with their surroundings.

But again the underlying problem is that Spock universally and categorically declares the inability to see the enemy ship a novelty. Techniques don't feature in this - only the end results do.

Which makes Spock's insistence all the odder, because camouflage is the oldest dirty trick in the book: a degree of invisibility should be an ever-present aspect of all combat, in the 23rd century just as much as in the 20th, the 8th, or the 24th. What Spock confronts in "Balance of Terror" is just a degree of invisibility anyway, as his sensors can still track the movements of the enemy ship. He seems strangely fixated on the relevance of perfect optical camouflage and the absence of such a thing from preceding history.

They never actually used the Bird of Prey cloak for anything useful in the show. The lines "a ship is approaching" and "they are moving off" could have sufficed for both incidence of use.

Agreed on this and the other arguments on "Minefield". But in the greater scope of things, invisibility should be quite familiar to space adventurers in all centuries: surely the older cultures would have invented it even in eras where the younger hero or villain cultures struggle with basic things like warp drive, shields or tractor beams. Saying that invisibility is new in the 2260s is, well, like saying that visual communications were only invented two weeks before "Where No Man Has Gone Before". Which is how "Balance of Terror" could also be read, although this probably wasn't the writer's intention at all.

Timo Saloniemi

[Ketrick]

Timo wrote:

---

I'm curious - what in TOS or TNG suggests this?

The main thing that suggests this is a cloaking device itself. One device by itself wouldn't make my concept work. My concept requires holographic emitters, cameras, jammers, and other stealth tech working in concert with each other. (Of course, a stationary object would require a bit less equipment.). While the various cloaking devices seem to use some type or types of particles to render the ship, or whatever is being cloaked, invisible.

Timo wrote:

---

But again the underlying problem is that Spock universally and categorically declares the inability to see the enemy ship a novelty. Techniques don't feature in this - only the end results do.

Which makes Spock's insistence all the odder, because camouflage is the oldest dirty trick in the book: a degree of invisibility should be an ever-present aspect of all combat, in the 23rd century just as much as in the 20th, the 8th, or the 24th. What Spock confronts in "Balance of Terror" is just a degree of invisibility anyway, as his sensors can still track the movements of the enemy ship. He seems strangely fixated on the relevance of perfect optical camouflage and the absence of such a thing from preceding history.

My understanding of his statements is that he was only saying that perfect optical invisibility had never been achieved. If my understanding is right, beyond my concept being more a camouflage than a true cloak, there is a flaw inherent in my concept that makes it fit Spock's statement which is that it would probably never perfectly mask movement or at least there may sometimes be a visual distortion when a ship was moving.