RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 139,602
Posts: 5,424,942
Members: 24,810
Currently online: 410
Newest member: David Ellerman

TrekToday headlines

September Loot Crate Features Trek Surprise
By: T'Bonz on Sep 16

USS Enterprise Miniature Out For Refit
By: T'Bonz on Sep 16

Star Trek/Planet of the Apes Comic Crossover
By: T'Bonz on Sep 16

Trek 3 Shooting Next Spring?
By: T'Bonz on Sep 16

Star Trek: Alien Domain Game Announced
By: T'Bonz on Sep 15

Red Shirt Diaries Episode Three
By: T'Bonz on Sep 15

Made Out Of Mudd Photonovel
By: T'Bonz on Sep 15

Takei Has Growth Removed
By: T'Bonz on Sep 15

Retro Review: Tears of the Prophets
By: Michelle on Sep 12

New Wizkids Attack Wing Ships
By: T'Bonz on Sep 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 Movies > Star Trek Movies XI+

Star Trek Movies XI+ Discuss J.J. Abrams' rebooted Star Trek here.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old June 2 2014, 12:50 PM   #181
Gov Kodos
Admiral
 
Gov Kodos's Avatar
 
Location: Gov Kodos Regretably far from Boston
Re: "...all 72 torpedoes are still in their tubes."

YARN wrote: View Post
Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
Are you again assuming the audience of Star Trek movie are more familiar with military history (and submarines, for that matter) than they are with Star Trek?
Are you again beating your spouse?
Not cool, man. It's just a movie.
__________________
We are quicksilver, a fleeting shadow, a distant sound... our home has no boundaries beyond which we cannot pass. We live in music, in a flash of color... we live on the wind and in the sparkle of a star! Endora, Bewitched
Gov Kodos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 2 2014, 01:15 PM   #182
YARN
Fleet Captain
 
Re: "...all 72 torpedoes are still in their tubes."

Gov Kodos wrote: View Post
YARN wrote: View Post
Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
Are you again assuming the audience of Star Trek movie are more familiar with military history (and submarines, for that matter) than they are with Star Trek?
Are you again beating your spouse?
Not cool, man. It's just a movie.
It's not a serious question or even an insult. It is, rather, the classic (literally the primary textbook) example of the "fallacy of many questions." By inserting an unwelcome assumption, there is no way you can provide a direct answer to the question. Crazy Eddie asks me if I am again going to do something which I have not agreed that I have done. I cannot answer his question directly without implicating myself in doing something I deny. It's not a fair question. My response highlights NOT my suspicion of spousal abuse (the question is both preposterous and conventional), but rather the form of the question.

I think you doth protest too much (also a conventional expression, but in this case intended literally).
YARN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 2 2014, 01:36 PM   #183
Gov Kodos
Admiral
 
Gov Kodos's Avatar
 
Location: Gov Kodos Regretably far from Boston
Re: "...all 72 torpedoes are still in their tubes."

It's still not cool. It should go the way of other odious language used for minorities, gays, and women to insult, hector, castigate, and annoy them.
__________________
We are quicksilver, a fleeting shadow, a distant sound... our home has no boundaries beyond which we cannot pass. We live in music, in a flash of color... we live on the wind and in the sparkle of a star! Endora, Bewitched
Gov Kodos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 2 2014, 01:43 PM   #184
YARN
Fleet Captain
 
Re: "...all 72 torpedoes are still in their tubes."

Gov Kodos wrote: View Post
It's still not cool. It should go the way of other odious language used for minorities, gays, and women to insult, hector, castigate, and annoy them.
Well, I guess we should tell textbook writers to remove this example from all those textbooks.

Also, we should note that the modern phrasing of the example is no longer heterosexist (e.g., not asking about "wives," but spouses) or intrinsically tied gendered violence. It's pretty PC as far as examples of fallacies go.
YARN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 2 2014, 03:53 PM   #185
King Daniel Into Darkness
Admiral
 
King Daniel Into Darkness's Avatar
 
Location: England again
Re: "...all 72 torpedoes are still in their tubes."

Belz... wrote: View Post
JarodRussell wrote: View Post
I came to the conclusion that in the new Trek, there is a pathologic "I don't care" way of thinking when it comes to ship/technical details.
Is that supposed to be unique to this version of Trek ?

The second dead-beat argument. Just because they have been inconsistent in the past, it's too much to ask to be consistent in the future?
So you're in fact admitting that Trek has always had a "I don't care" way of thinking when it comes to ship/technical details. So why mention it at all ?
Indeed. Is TNG diminished by scenes in Ten Forward (which is far too big for the Enterprise-D's saucer rim) or every time we see Picard's impossible Ready Room window? Of course not. Did the TNG movies fail when Picard walked into his Ready Room there, which isn't on the exterior model at all?

The old Enterprise didn't have 72 torpedo launchers, this one does. Where is the big deal? Scotty doesn't like the direction Starfleet is taking in ID and resigns. Still not seeing a problem.
__________________
Star Trek Imponderables, fun mashups of Trek's biggest continuity errors! Ep1, Ep2 and Ep3
King Daniel Into Darkness is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 2 2014, 04:52 PM   #186
M'Sharak
Definitely Herbert. Maybe.
 
M'Sharak's Avatar
 
Location: Terra Inlandia
Re: "...all 72 torpedoes are still in their tubes."

YARN wrote: View Post
Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
Are you again assuming the audience of Star Trek movie are more familiar with military history (and submarines, for that matter) than they are with Star Trek?
Are you again beating your spouse?

<snip>
Knock it off, both of you. If you cannot carry on a discussion without resorting to taking debate-school pokes at each other, then the thing for you to do is to voluntarily withdraw from the public conversation and take your personal squabble elsewhere.

YARN wrote: View Post
Gov Kodos wrote: View Post
YARN wrote: View Post

Are you again beating your spouse?
Not cool, man. It's just a movie.
It's not a serious question or even an insult. It is, rather, the classic (literally the primary textbook) example of the "fallacy of many questions." By inserting an unwelcome assumption, there is no way you can provide a direct answer to the question. Crazy Eddie asks me if I am again going to do something which I have not agreed that I have done. I cannot answer his question directly without implicating myself in doing something I deny. It's not a fair question. My response highlights NOT my suspicion of spousal abuse (the question is both preposterous and conventional), but rather the form of the question.

I think you doth protest too much (also a conventional expression, but in this case intended literally).
YARN wrote: View Post
Gov Kodos wrote: View Post
It's still not cool. It should go the way of other odious language used for minorities, gays, and women to insult, hector, castigate, and annoy them.
Well, I guess we should tell textbook writers to remove this example from all those textbooks.

Also, we should note that the modern phrasing of the example is no longer heterosexist (e.g., not asking about "wives," but spouses) or intrinsically tied gendered violence. It's pretty PC as far as examples of fallacies go.
YARN, you're conducting lectures again, something from which you've been specifically directed on more than one occasion to refrain. That will earn you a warning.

Any and all comments concerning this are to be taken to PM. Discussion of torpedoes, tubes and the like will now be resumed without further interruption. And... go.
__________________
"Recently my 8 year-old cousin asked me, with a wicked twinkle in his eye, if I'd ever microwaved a banana. I'm terrified to try, but I'm sure whatever happens—splattering, abrupt, radioactive—sounds exactly like an Annie Clark guitar solo."
M'Sharak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 2 2014, 10:47 PM   #187
Kevman7987
Commander
 
Kevman7987's Avatar
 
Location: Erie, PA, USA
View Kevman7987's Twitter Profile
Re: "...all 72 torpedoes are still in their tubes."

If we assume the Enterprise has less than 72 tubes, I wonder how many torpedoes can be loaded into each launch tube?
__________________
"Don't do it, Meat!"
"Don't do it, Cheese!"
Kevman7987 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 3 2014, 12:30 AM   #188
urbandefault
Captain
 
urbandefault's Avatar
 
Location: Chicken pot, chicken pot, chicken pot pie!
Re: "...all 72 torpedoes are still in their tubes."

If there are 5 tubes on each side and 2 in the neck, that's 12. So ... 6?
__________________
"Hello pants." - Gary Busey
urbandefault is online now   Reply With Quote
Old June 3 2014, 12:46 AM   #189
Chemahkuu
Vice Admiral
 
Chemahkuu's Avatar
 
Location: United Kingdom
Send a message via Yahoo to Chemahkuu
Re: "...all 72 torpedoes are still in their tubes."

Kevman7987 wrote: View Post
If we assume the Enterprise has less than 72 tubes, I wonder how many torpedoes can be loaded into each launch tube?
I suggested a few pages ago that 9 tubes each side, 18 in all, could hold 4 torpedoes each, giving 72.

The screencap posted only a page or two ago which shows Vengeance's scan of the Enterprise shows maybe 18 each side, or 2 torpedoes each.
__________________
"But there's no sense crying over every mistake. You just keep on trying till you run out of cake."
Chemahkuu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 3 2014, 09:50 AM   #190
Gov Kodos
Admiral
 
Gov Kodos's Avatar
 
Location: Gov Kodos Regretably far from Boston
Re: "...all 72 torpedoes are still in their tubes."

Chemahkuu wrote: View Post
Kevman7987 wrote: View Post
If we assume the Enterprise has less than 72 tubes, I wonder how many torpedoes can be loaded into each launch tube?
I suggested a few pages ago that 9 tubes each side, 18 in all, could hold 4 torpedoes each, giving 72.

The screencap posted only a page or two ago which shows Vengeance's scan of the Enterprise shows maybe 18 each side, or 2 torpedoes each.
And the big issue would be how fast they reload rather than the number of tubes.
__________________
We are quicksilver, a fleeting shadow, a distant sound... our home has no boundaries beyond which we cannot pass. We live in music, in a flash of color... we live on the wind and in the sparkle of a star! Endora, Bewitched
Gov Kodos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 3 2014, 08:22 PM   #191
Crazy Eddie
Rear Admiral
 
Crazy Eddie's Avatar
 
Location: I'm in your ___, ___ing your ___
Re: "...all 72 torpedoes are still in their tubes."

YARN wrote: View Post
Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
Are you again assuming the audience of Star Trek movie are more familiar with military history (and submarines, for that matter) than they are with Star Trek?
Are you again beating your spouse?
That doesn't answer the question. You keep making these far-reaching claims about what the audience knows from "cultural memory" or whatever as if to predict how they're most likely to interpret those torpedo tubes. I can't help but wonder if the reason you're getting defensive all of a sudden is because you have no idea what you're talking about.

Right, the six-shooter thingees.

Are they loading up the phase-cannons?
No, because phase cannons are a 22nd century technology, and even those didn't fire solid projectiles.

If so, then it would seem that in addition to having tubes for 72 torpedoes...
Are you going to address the fact that I have just conclusively shown you it is EXTREMELY UNLIKELY the ship actually has 72 torpedoes in the lower weapons bay?

If so, only one torpedo can be aligned with the tube at a time!
Doubtful. In the case of the smaller launcher, it would make sense if all six of them share a common launch hatch, like the VLS tubes on an Ohio SSGN conversion. The ESSM missiles in the Mk-41 VLS can also be quad packed, four missiles to a tube, which I suspect is what we're seeing in the first film. It's not clear to me if they are a different weapon system customized for short-range engagement (e.g. an additional point defense system) or an adapter that has been fitted to the larger tubes to make the smaller weapons useable.

I prefer the former explanation just because it explains why the two sets look so different, but considering both the shuttlebay and the engine room both undergo cosmetic changes between the two films it is entirely possible they are the same system.

Thus when Khan says "I see all 72 torpedoes are still in their tubes," he cannot be referring to torpedoes being in giant rotating six-gun cylinders
Of course he could. We about as much about the Enterprise's design as Khan does. Probably more, actually, since Khan has never actually SEEN the Enterprise' weapons bay and we have.

OTOH, based on the graphic it's a lot more likely the torpedoes are ether loaded in-line in the tube or queued up right behind it, an arrangement which is strongly implied by the graphic itself.

Thus the Enterprise must still have 72 torpedo tubes or you must maintain that Khan is wrong.
We've already established that Khan was wrong. The question is, HOW wrong was he?
__________________
The Complete Illustrated Guide to Starfleet - Online Now!
Crazy Eddie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 3 2014, 08:28 PM   #192
Crazy Eddie
Rear Admiral
 
Crazy Eddie's Avatar
 
Location: I'm in your ___, ___ing your ___
Re: "...all 72 torpedoes are still in their tubes."

Gov Kodos wrote: View Post
Chemahkuu wrote: View Post
Kevman7987 wrote: View Post
If we assume the Enterprise has less than 72 tubes, I wonder how many torpedoes can be loaded into each launch tube?
I suggested a few pages ago that 9 tubes each side, 18 in all, could hold 4 torpedoes each, giving 72.

The screencap posted only a page or two ago which shows Vengeance's scan of the Enterprise shows maybe 18 each side, or 2 torpedoes each.
And the big issue would be how fast they reload rather than the number of tubes.
Well, we saw them being loaded in the first place using this big mechanical cranes, so assuming nothing goes disastrously wrong in the weapons bay, they could probably reload all 18 tubes in thirty to sixty seconds.

I'm actually of the opinion that these tubes are similar to the ones on the TMP Enterprise, which means the tube is really a kind of reinforced airlock with an outer and an inner chamber. The TMP launcher carries at least two torpedoes in each chamber (TSFS and WOK imply as much), so probably the launcher is designed to eject the torpedo and then quickly push the next one into launch position.
__________________
The Complete Illustrated Guide to Starfleet - Online Now!
Crazy Eddie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 4 2014, 12:54 AM   #193
Chemahkuu
Vice Admiral
 
Chemahkuu's Avatar
 
Location: United Kingdom
Send a message via Yahoo to Chemahkuu
Re: "...all 72 torpedoes are still in their tubes."

Yup, and they wouldn't literally all be fired at once unless there was a very serious emergency that needed 9/18 torpedoes hitting something at once.

So some of the tubes fire, they're reloaded with several other tubes still fully loaded ready to go. Alternating fire from even 9 tubes a side could give sustained fire at a fast enough rate.

72 super torpedoes plus maybe as many from the neck tube is 144 torpedoes overall. Some prime universe ships had 200+ according to some of the tech manuals/books.
__________________
"But there's no sense crying over every mistake. You just keep on trying till you run out of cake."
Chemahkuu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 4 2014, 01:25 AM   #194
urbandefault
Captain
 
urbandefault's Avatar
 
Location: Chicken pot, chicken pot, chicken pot pie!
Re: "...all 72 torpedoes are still in their tubes."

Consider that "tube" could equal "magazine." Each magazine holds a number of torpedoes which are fed one after another into a launcher, or "chamber." When one torpedo fires, the next one is automatically loaded, ready to fire.

Not really a difficult concept as far as I'm concerned.
__________________
"Hello pants." - Gary Busey
urbandefault is online now   Reply With Quote
Old June 4 2014, 01:44 AM   #195
Chemahkuu
Vice Admiral
 
Chemahkuu's Avatar
 
Location: United Kingdom
Send a message via Yahoo to Chemahkuu
Re: "...all 72 torpedoes are still in their tubes."

Those "tubes" were pretty long, segmented the entire length we could see, and the torpedoes external hatch implies a final loading chamber at the end. So they could have as many torpedoes as necessary parked in the tube behind it.

For all we know fully loaded they could carry 180 of the things, 10 each.
__________________
"But there's no sense crying over every mistake. You just keep on trying till you run out of cake."
Chemahkuu 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 01:48 PM.

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