RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 141,395
Posts: 5,505,581
Members: 25,127
Currently online: 451
Newest member: OneOfFour

TrekToday headlines

Retro Review: The Emperor’s New Cloak
By: Michelle on Dec 20

Star Trek Opera
By: T'Bonz on Dec 19

New Abrams Project
By: T'Bonz on Dec 18

IDW Publishing March 2015 Comics
By: T'Bonz on Dec 17

Paramount Star Trek 3 Expectations
By: T'Bonz on Dec 17

Star Trek #39 Sneak Peek
By: T'Bonz on Dec 16

Star Trek 3 Potential Director Shortlist
By: T'Bonz on Dec 16

Official Starships Collection Update
By: T'Bonz on Dec 15

Retro Review: Prodigal Daughter
By: Michelle on Dec 13

Sindicate Lager To Debut In The US Next Week
By: T'Bonz on Dec 12


Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.


Go Back   The Trek BBS > Star Trek TV Series > Voyager

Voyager There's coffee in this forum!

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old January 31 2014, 08:24 PM   #31
EmperorTiberius
Captain
 
EmperorTiberius's Avatar
 
Re: Endless ammo and other inconsistencies

Christopher wrote: View Post


But that makes no physical sense. Despite the conceits of fiction, "energy" is not something that has an independent existence. It's a property that things possess. In order to deliver energy from one object to another, there has to be something exchanged. Really, all weapons are energy weapons. Clubs, arrows, knives, cannonballs, and bullets inflict damage by delivering kinetic energy to a target. Bombs and missiles do their damage with chemical energy. Energy is, in effect, the payload of a weapon. There has to be some mechanism to deliver it.

They are not called photons, they are called photon torpedoes. According to The Making of Star Trek, photon torpedoes were originally intended to be "energy pods of matter and anti-matter contained and held temporarily separated in a magno-photon force field." Which was often interpreted in fandom to mean that they had no physical casing, that they were pure force field bubbles containing the matter and antimatter, but that doesn't make sense; what was generating the force field? Still, they were always meant to be antimatter weapons, despite the shorthand name.

I don't understand the premise of the question. Since they are physical objects, then that means the supply of them is limited; therefore you wouldn't want to use them unless you had to.

Besides, 50 would be overkill. An antimatter warhead is far more powerful than a nuclear warhead. Just one photon torpedo should be enough to destroy a city, let alone an unshielded starship. (Although unfortunately too many TV writers are lazy and treat them as basically equivalent to cannonballs.)

Not to mention that antimatter is a rare and valuable resource. It's extremely sparse in naturally occurring forms -- of course, since it's destroyed by interaction with matter -- and it's difficult to manufacture. It's not something you throw away willy-nill
y.

It makes sense within the universe, not real world. When I say energy, I mean something along the lines of particles or plasma. Phaser is after all Phase Energy Rectification, not a laser, but a some sort of stream of particles.

As for your second argument, I just don't buy it. Listing cost as a reason or scarcity as a reason why they don't use them much makes no sense when lives are at stake. The premise of my question was this:

If torpedos are, for all intents and purposes, semi-guided missiles with m/am warheads, why don't they stock 10,000 of them on the Enterprise, so when it's faced with two Romulan Warbirds, they can fire off ten, then reload, and six seconds later, fire another ten at the other bird and get it over with?

Or why doesn't the Enterprise-E unleash dozens upon dozens of these at the two Son'a ships?

Why doesn't Riker order couple of patern "Sieras" at the Klingon BoP in Generations?

Why the heck are they glowing?

90% of battles seen on screen would make more sense if they were energy weapons -the launchers "making" the torps right before it launches them.

Of course, then we couldn't put Spock's body into the coffin.
EmperorTiberius is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 31 2014, 09:22 PM   #32
Christopher
Writer
 
Christopher's Avatar
 
Re: Endless ammo and other inconsistencies

MacLeod wrote: View Post
It makes sense within the universe, not real world. When I say energy, I mean something along the lines of particles or plasma. Phaser is after all Phase Energy Rectification, not a laser, but a some sort of stream of particles.
Even so, as I've shown, photon torpedoes were always meant to be antimatter weapons. The name was just figurative.



As for your second argument, I just don't buy it. Listing cost as a reason or scarcity as a reason why they don't use them much makes no sense when lives are at stake. If torpedos are, for all intents and purposes, semi-guided missiles with m/am warheads, why don't they stock 10,000 of them on the Enterprise, so when it's faced with two Romulan Warbirds, they can fire off ten, then reload, and six seconds later, fire another ten at the other bird and get it over with?
You can't just wish away scarcity on the basis of need. Say that one ship "needs" 10,000 torpedoes to battle the Romulans. What about all the other ships that are fighting Klingons or Borg or Tzenkethi or whoever? What are they gonna use if all the antimatter's been used for that one ship? A finite resource is a finite resource. There's only so much to go around.

Besides, overkill is not the only military tactic that exists. TV and movies show people firing automatic weapons in continuous sprays, but the fact is that it takes less than two seconds to exhaust a clip at continuous fire, and most or all of those bullets are going to go to waste because it's impossible to aim while your gun is jerking around from a dozen recoils a second. So soldiers are taught to use short bursts for suppression fire and single shots when they actually need to hit something. Conserving resources is part of good battle tactics. You don't need overwhelming firepower if you wield it carefully and precisely. And any resource you waste is one you don't have available if you need it later.

So yeah, there may be some cases where firing a large number of torpedoes at once is a good tactic, but it would be foolhardy to make that your opening move. You'd save that for if and when you needed it.


Why the heck are they glowing?
Because with 1960s visual-effects technology it was easier to animate blobs of light. See also the Klingon ship in "Friday's Child" and the Orion ship in "Journey to Babel," which were also just glowing blobs.


90% of battles seen on screen would make more sense if they were energy weapons -the launchers "making" the torps right before it launches them.
I see no reason why that makes more sense. If anything, it seems a much worse way of doing it. Having to make your weapons right before firing them? That adds too many steps to the procedure. When your life depends on something, you want it to be as straightforward and failsafe as possible. So it's far preferable to have the weapons already made and ready to be launched -- that way there are fewer steps in the process that can be disrupted by damage to the ship.

Heck, with physical torpedoes, you don't even need a functional launcher. If the enemy ship is chasing you, just drop the torpedoes out an airlock and use them to mine your course.
__________________
Christopher L. Bennett Homepage -- Site update 11/16/14 including annotations for "The Caress of a Butterfly's Wing" and overview for DTI: The Collectors

Written Worlds -- My blog
Christopher is online now   Reply With Quote
Old February 1 2014, 12:53 AM   #33
EmperorTiberius
Captain
 
EmperorTiberius's Avatar
 
Re: Endless ammo and other inconsistencies

I'm not talking about what's an ideal weapon. I'm talking about within what we've seen on screen so far, the launchers makings some sort of energy weapon on the spot is the only thing that makes sense. This would introduce a believable bottleneck and explain away all the times ships was about to be destroyed, but they couldn't use torpedos. Another example I forgot to list above would be Yesterday's Enterprise for example. They fire off 5 torps and then let themselves be pounded into oblivion. Why? To save torpedos because there aren't enough? Makes no sense to me.

Again, I think you are reaching with the scarcity argument. Not only do we know the ship had plenty of torps, but didn't use them even though there is an imminent destruction at hand, but after 100+ years of them being around, it's hard to believe they are still hard to manufacture. They contain 2 kg of antimatter, it's not that much for a ship that carries massive tanks of it for the main reactor.

By the way, they do in a way make the weapon right before firing it. When torps are armed/loaded, antimatter is dropped into them, and they are ready to go. But this is simply not a believable bottleneck: The Galaxy launcher can load 10 every 6 seconds, so in my mind, there is stil no explanation why they are not used more often.

Scarcity is simply not a logical explanation and Voyager strangely goes to prove my point: they must have refueled their antimatter tanks somewhere along the line, and that's all they needed to make more.

I think it would be a good idea if Star Trek writers came up with a good explanation if this comes up in books. I hope you don't use scarcity, but something like "sophisticated guidence" is expansive, or jamming is prevelant (although not discussed on screen), etc
EmperorTiberius is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 1 2014, 01:12 AM   #34
MacLeod
Admiral
 
Location: Great Britain
Re: Endless ammo and other inconsistencies

Well it's probable they did refuel the matter and anti-matter tanks at some point, but it's just as likely they left Utopia with full tanks.

But it obviously wasn't easy to replace torpedeo as we are flat out told that they have no way to replace them. So as part of the fictional universe that is ST we are told that the USS Voyager has no way of replacing it's torpedeos, so they have laid down one of the rules under which this universe will work. By basically ignoring their own rules because they are inconveniant they are breaking the suspension of disbelief. Now of course you can change the rules but rather than ignoring them you address them.

Yes the problems might be down to a network edict but that doesn't diminish the point that it's bad story telling. If we look at ENT S1-2 were laqrgely in the vein of TNG and VOY episodic based. S3-4 went for a more serialised approach. Now sure the ratings continued to decline but in the case of ENT the last 2 seasons were better receieved. So what was different about those seasons?
__________________
On the continent of wild endeavour in the mountains of solace and solitude there stood the citadel of the time lords, the oldest and most mighty race in the universe looking down on the galaxies below sworn never to interfere only to watch.
MacLeod is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 1 2014, 02:26 AM   #35
Christopher
Writer
 
Christopher's Avatar
 
Re: Endless ammo and other inconsistencies

EmperorTiberius wrote: View Post
I'm not talking about what's an ideal weapon. I'm talking about within what we've seen on screen so far, the launchers makings some sort of energy weapon on the spot is the only thing that makes sense. This would introduce a believable bottleneck and explain away all the times ships was about to be destroyed, but they couldn't use torpedos.
I'm sorry, but your argument makes no sense to me. A finite supply of physical torpedoes is an entirely believable bottleneck. A quick web search suggests that the typical number of torpedoes a submarine is carrying aboard it at any one time is generally somewhere in the range of 24 to 36, whereas a US Navy battleship might typically have something like 48 missiles. That's all. Not 10,000, just a few dozen at a time on any given ship. Torpedoes and missiles are a finite resource for a vessel in real life. They're finite because they're physical objects that have weight and volume, so that you can only carry so many of them on a single ship. And that means they can be used up far more quickly than energy weapons like phasers that don't expend ammo but can be recharged indefinitely as long as ship's power holds out. So your reasoning is completely backward. It's harder to justify a finite supply for an energy weapon than for a physical weapon.


Another example I forgot to list above would be Yesterday's Enterprise for example. They fire off 5 torps and then let themselves be pounded into oblivion. Why? To save torpedos because there aren't enough? Makes no sense to me.
Lots of things about Trek space battles make no sense. They're meant to be entertaining light shows, not realistic wargame scenarios. And even if the writer does work out plausible details, portions of the battle may be cut out in editing to save time or money. But it makes no more sense if torpedoes are energy weapons.


Again, I think you are reaching with the scarcity argument. Not only do we know the ship had plenty of torps, but didn't use them even though there is an imminent destruction at hand, but after 100+ years of them being around, it's hard to believe they are still hard to manufacture. They contain 2 kg of antimatter, it's not that much for a ship that carries massive tanks of it for the main reactor.
Where are you getting that 2 kg figure from? That's frankly an insane amount. That would produce an 86-megaton explosion. The largest nuclear weapon ever detonated was only 50 megatons; the most powerful ever detonated by the US only 15. There's no sensible reason to put two whole kilograms of antimatter in a torpedo unless you were planning to blow up an island or an asteroid or something. Whatever source you got that from, they clearly don't know their physics.

And yes, the ship has those antimatter tanks for the main reactor. So if the ship is stranded in the Delta Quadrant and needs its warp engines to get home, it would be foolhardy to squander the engines' fuel supply on profligate use of weapons. It makes enormous sense for them to avoid using more antimatter than they need to -- aside from the obvious fact that Starfleet rules of engagement demand that only the minimum necessary force be used in any situation, and that violence be avoided altogether if possible.


Scarcity is simply not a logical explanation and Voyager strangely goes to prove my point: they must have refueled their antimatter tanks somewhere along the line, and that's all they needed to make more.
Just because it's possible to replenish antimatter, that doesn't mean it's a ubiquitous or easily obtained resource. Clearly they did find ways to refuel, but it's not like there was a Texaco antimatter station at every subspace exit.


MacLeod wrote: View Post
But it obviously wasn't easy to replace torpedeo as we are flat out told that they have no way to replace them. So as part of the fictional universe that is ST we are told that the USS Voyager has no way of replacing it's torpedeos, so they have laid down one of the rules under which this universe will work.
No, that doesn't follow. It simply describes the state of affairs on the ship at the time that was stated. Given that they were under severe power rationing at the time, including replicator rationing, it's logical to assume they lacked the ability to replace their torpedoes because they lacked the power or the parts to run the replicators, not that there was some inviolable law of the universe preventing them from ever rebuilding torpedoes.

So yeah, it's a continuity glitch, but it's an extremely easy one to rationalize. It's not that big a deal compared to something like the changing number of personnel aboard the ship.


If we look at ENT S1-2 were laqrgely in the vein of TNG and VOY episodic based. S3-4 went for a more serialised approach. Now sure the ratings continued to decline but in the case of ENT the last 2 seasons were better receieved. So what was different about those seasons?
What was different was that the ratings were falling and the network was willing to experiment. Also that serialized storytelling had become far more commonplace by that time, so maybe the network recognized it could be an effective strategy for boosting ratings.
__________________
Christopher L. Bennett Homepage -- Site update 11/16/14 including annotations for "The Caress of a Butterfly's Wing" and overview for DTI: The Collectors

Written Worlds -- My blog
Christopher is online now   Reply With Quote
Old February 1 2014, 03:56 AM   #36
JirinPanthosa
Rear Admiral
 
Re: Endless ammo and other inconsistencies

I think it was deliberately left vague what a replicator could and couldn't reproduce. I thought they could create antimatter but just couldn't create dilithium. And if they can create MINES they certainly can create torpedoes.

But they could have so easily just tossed in one line saying "Oh, we're at full energy now! Now we can use the replicator to replenish supplies!"
JirinPanthosa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 1 2014, 04:30 AM   #37
Cookies and Cake
Admiral
 
Location: North America
Re: Endless ammo and other inconsistencies

^ I think that the warp sustainer is a part that a mine wouldn't need but that a torpedo would.
__________________
CorporalCaptain
Cookies and Cake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 1 2014, 11:15 AM   #38
MacLeod
Admiral
 
Location: Great Britain
Re: Endless ammo and other inconsistencies

Perhpas Christopher but the line was something like "We have no way of replacing of them." Not something like "We'll struggle to replace them". Now as I and others have said all it needed was a line dropped into an episode to explain away why they could now replace them. But as you said another inconsistency was the number of crew seemed to fluctuate up and down between episodes. Sure all these things might be minor details on themeselves but when added together it comes across as the audiance won't notice these things. And yes some part of the audiance might not or not care, but another part would care. It's not like they could get replacements parts/personal or visit or starfleet shipyard inbetween episodes.
__________________
On the continent of wild endeavour in the mountains of solace and solitude there stood the citadel of the time lords, the oldest and most mighty race in the universe looking down on the galaxies below sworn never to interfere only to watch.
MacLeod is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 1 2014, 03:22 PM   #39
Anwar
Vice Admiral
 
Anwar's Avatar
 
Location: Regina, SK, Canada
Re: Endless ammo and other inconsistencies

What didn't make sense was them saying they couldn't replace them.

That's like a gunslinger saying he'd never ever ever be able to get more bullets for his gun, despite going to trading posts where they sell bullets. And he had money for them.

They had all the resources they needed to make weapons, meaning the whole "We can't make more" line is what didn't make sense.
Anwar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 1 2014, 09:02 PM   #40
Guy Gardener
Fleet Admiral
 
Guy Gardener's Avatar
 
Location: In the lap of squalor I assure you.
Re: Endless ammo and other inconsistencies

The spent phaser cells from when Sisko got promoted?

Evidence, not evidence, who cares, but... Could that have been a writer on DS9 (subtly) bitch slapping the Voyagers Writers room?

Nah.
__________________
"Glitter is the herpes of arts and craft."

Troy Yingst. My Life as Liz
Guy Gardener is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 2 2014, 05:42 AM   #41
Nebusj
Rear Admiral
 
Nebusj's Avatar
 
View Nebusj's Twitter Profile
Re: Endless ammo and other inconsistencies

Anwar wrote: View Post
What didn't make sense was them saying they couldn't replace them.

That's like a gunslinger saying he'd never ever ever be able to get more bullets for his gun, despite going to trading posts where they sell bullets. And he had money for them.
Not … really. I mean, why should anyone in the Delta Quadrant know how to make photon torpedoes?

First, they're a weapon developed in the Alpha Quadrant, inspired by whatever inventors had thought them up and whatever economic and military factors led them to being useful. There's not much reason to think that a completely independent science would develop them unless they're a blisteringly obvious byproduct of, say, warp drive or whatever. They were in a part of space where replicators were unknown; how could they guess whether whatever technology provided photon torpedoes was available? (Heck, what if photon torpedoes follow from replicator technology?)

Second, even if something like a photon torpedo is inevitable, there's little reason to think anyone in the Delta Quadrant would have, or even might be able to make, one that fits Voyager. Photon torpedoes are part of a system, and the torpedoes and the torpedo-holding and torpedo-launching systems have evolved together for centuries and which have been optimized for each other.

The gunslinger can expect to buy bullets for his gun because he's likely to be going places that have guns, and because his gun doesn't need bullets that are too finely matched to the particular design of his gun. But even there, if the town doesn't make bullets of a suitable diameter or length, they're useless. And the higher the technology the tougher the match is.

Given enough time, and a suitable industrial base, Voyager could probably trade for photon torpedoes, given time and a trustworthy partner. Could make an interesting story finding such.
Nebusj is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 2 2014, 06:09 AM   #42
Guy Gardener
Fleet Admiral
 
Guy Gardener's Avatar
 
Location: In the lap of squalor I assure you.
Re: Endless ammo and other inconsistencies

The Romulans during their century of isolation between the conclusion of the earth Romulan/War and year one of Kirk's historic 5 year mission, invented both the cloak and the Photon Torpedo, which completely changed the game during NBC's ninth episode Balance of Terror.

By episode 19, the Arena, the Federation had cracked and reverse engineered that technology and installed it on the the Enterprise.

(My google fu suggests that there was actually very few uses of the term "photon torpedo" in the original series.)

The photonic weapons that were torpedo like being used in Archer's time, must have been pisspoor dead end technology compared to how the Romulans eventually figured out how to manipulate photons with antimatter, no matter how similarly they seem to be named.

A photon torpedo can blow up a city, and a 23rd century Federation Starship can melt the crust off a planet if it felt the need (Star Fleet Regulation general order 24: A captain can say that if you don't hear from him again in the next 24 hours, assume he's already dead and annihilate the planet he was/is standing on.)

Meanwhile dozens of Photonic torpedoes used in Enterprises last season couldn't make a dent in a 2 thousand year old stone building in the middle of a desert.
__________________
"Glitter is the herpes of arts and craft."

Troy Yingst. My Life as Liz
Guy Gardener is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 2 2014, 08:25 PM   #43
Anwar
Vice Admiral
 
Anwar's Avatar
 
Location: Regina, SK, Canada
Re: Endless ammo and other inconsistencies

Nebusj wrote: View Post
Given enough time, and a suitable industrial base, Voyager could probably trade for photon torpedoes, given time and a trustworthy partner. Could make an interesting story finding such.
That's the problem, they shot themselves in the foot by how constrained they made the premise. They more or less included "We can never create a power base for ourselves" as part of the core premise.

If they'd dropped all of that "No support" things, then the show would've been more free to do stuff that could explain all this.
Anwar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 2 2014, 09:00 PM   #44
MacLeod
Admiral
 
Location: Great Britain
Re: Endless ammo and other inconsistencies

I would disagree they didn't shoot themselves in the foot by constraining the premise. They shot themselves in the foot by no adhering to their constraints. By using constraints they could make life harder for our heros, sure do you use up something here, which you might need later? risk vs reward. Having a constraint is not always a bad thing.
__________________
On the continent of wild endeavour in the mountains of solace and solitude there stood the citadel of the time lords, the oldest and most mighty race in the universe looking down on the galaxies below sworn never to interfere only to watch.
MacLeod is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 2 2014, 09:09 PM   #45
Guy Gardener
Fleet Admiral
 
Guy Gardener's Avatar
 
Location: In the lap of squalor I assure you.
Re: Endless ammo and other inconsistencies

They can't trade federation technology with species that haven't been vetted by the Federation, but they can take, technology, and by take, i do mean buy, ech from any given alien race. Voyager could have had an ever changing exotic array of ever changing armaments, depending on who they were buying weapons off this week.

Of course that would call for irregular special effects and an inability to use stock footage.

But imagine if Voyager had to "trade" something harmless for weapons from the Carebears?

You don't think that the Carebear stare wasn't scary potent?

__________________
"Glitter is the herpes of arts and craft."

Troy Yingst. My Life as Liz
Guy Gardener is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:21 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.