Topic: Torpedoes and phasers...

[Centurus]

Been having an interesting debate with someone over on DA over phasers and torpedoes from TOS and on, where this individual states that torpedoes in TOS had no physical form and were pure energy, therefore the ship would have unlimited photon torpedoes, and that phasers have a proximity feature, or there are proximity phasers.

Thoughts anyone?

[FCM_SFHQ_XC]

Doubtful they would, they would look more like energy due to graphics in those days but Fed ships have always had something to physically lob at the enemy and never have relied on just energy weapons for defense

[Centurus]

That's the same way I feel as well.  As for the proximity phasers, I did find a reference to them in the episode Balance Of Terror.

Regardless, perhaps linking everyone to the actual conversation might also help people in their opinions and thoughts?

[762_XC]

Matter and antimatter in a magnetic bottle have a definite physical form.

Balance of Terror was written before there was any consistency in these things...so I would not put much stock in "proximity phasers".

[Starfox1701]

TOS offten did these kind of things. I don't think they thought it out that far. SFB took the thought that photons are energy weps but then again they tret plasmatorps like physical missles too

[FoaS_XC]

I'm of the opinion that Photorps are energy weapons. What we see loaded into the torpedo bay are drones - which is also what the klinks have been using. Fitting real canon to my canon is all ^_^

[762_XC]

Well the TNG Technical Manual (which was basically canon as far as the writers of that series were concerned), as written by Michael Okuda, stated very clearly they were physical projectiles with a matter/antimatter warhead. And while it is retconning abit to apply that to TOS, to say they were something else would mean the weapon would have to undergo a drastic change between the TOS and TNG eras. We also clearly see physical torpedoes in the TMP era (which are described as such in dialogue and even written on the torpedo itself).

[FoaS_XC]

Eh, you know my willingness to wave canon. ^_^

[FA Frey XC]

Enterprise supports 762's theorum even more, as much as I hate to reference that series.

"Proximity" phasers in TOS were just phaser banks set on proximity mode - IE dedicated to only shooting at anything that came within a specific radius. That doesn't mean they are banks dedicated to JUST that.

Plasma torpedoes are simply plasma held within a field - now how they get them to track and move towards a target I'll never know (unless they had, indeed, some physical part to them that allowed such.

Bottom line is, TOS DID have a "bible" for consistancy - but they preferred to not define such things to a fanboys degree to allow future creativity and plots.

Give "The making of Star Trek the TV Show" a read sometime - it's amazing how much thought and what not they put into the "little" things, while truly not saying much of anything at all .

[FA Frey XC]

Eh, you know my willingness to wave canon. ^_^

This scares me.

Regards,

[FoaS_XC]

Eh, you know my willingness to wave canon. ^_^

This scares me.

Regards,

Why? its just my own "private" interpretation of the 'verse - i keep it separate from traditional canon.

[FCM_SFHQ_XC]

Humans also like physical things, both in the present and future. Even the day police have lasers instead of guns, they'll probably still have that same old stick they carry today too, just as good measure. Same hold, I'd doubt people would be willing not to have a physical weapon for defense/offense, thus physical torpedos with energy phasers makes a fed ship.

[knightstorm]

Proximity phasers suffered from a poorly thought out visual effect.  In BoT, Stiles described it as blanketing the target.  Some sort of wide width beam would have been more appropriate.

[Age]

I'm of the opinion that Photorps are energy weapons. What we see loaded into the torpedo bay are drones - which is also what the klinks have been using. Fitting real canon to my canon is all ^_^

I see them as non energy weapons much like that of the modern torpedo on a submarine.They don't use energy only fuel to propel it to its target and nothing can jam it like ecm.This is the way I see photons used in Star Trek.

[FA Frey XC]

Proximity phasers suffered from a poorly thought out visual effect.  In BoT, Stiles described it as blanketing the target.  Some sort of wide width beam would have been more appropriate.

Well, problem with that is it wouldn't do squat. Point defense is, by design, just that - point and shoot defense. Turretting (like in BSG) is a completely different concept, and basically relies upon scattershot to "fill up the sky" with metallic debris that essentially would shred incoming missiles / drones and the like. It's truly like AMD in SFB . Point defense phasers essentially (according to geek-tech) have a very narrow quantified targeting band and range. If it's X and it's within X meters, point defense phasers (still starship phasers, phaser 3, 2 or 1 ) fire at incoming ordanence and torpedoes, hopefully until they die.

Blanketing I can see in so much as it's a steady phaser beam (until the emitter shorts or the capacitor runs out) thats dedicated to maintaining it's fire until the object is done. Have only one object, then all your PDP's would fire on it, steady beams, converging until the object is destroyed or it hits the ship.

"Wide beam" just doesn't work on starships, however, as the dispersal in space would make the phaser shot useless. That's why they just didn't "Paint" an entire area with blanketing fire when a ship cloaked, but "stabbed" in the dark. If you saw a hit, then VIOLA targetting computer does it's impression of Sulu in ST6 and we go home happy. Any starship phaser on a "wide" setting would effectively be dumping energy into space, lol.

Nice discussion though

Regards,

[FoaS_XC]

"Blanketing" makes me think of suppressive fire. Pulse-mode X-phasers from Module X1R anyone? Not really related, but wanted to chime in again with that ><

[FA Frey XC]

Right, but you can't really do "suppressive fire" with starship phasers. I mean, I guess you could just shoot out within a certain field or angle but you'd have too.... beam weapons just are not made to truly "blanket". Projectile weapons sure, but beam weapons...I dunno !!!!

Regards,

[FoaS_XC]

Right, but you can't really do "suppressive fire" with starship phasers. I mean, I guess you could just shoot out within a certain field or angle but you'd have too.... beam weapons just are not made to truly "blanket". Projectile weapons sure, but beam weapons...I dunno !!!!

No, you're right. It's just what the terminology sprung to mind.

[Sirgod]

Right, but you can't really do "suppressive fire" with starship phasers. I mean, I guess you could just shoot out within a certain field or angle but you'd have too.... beam weapons just are not made to truly "blanket". Projectile weapons sure, but beam weapons...I dunno !!!!

Regards,

Actually, I can see a way to do it, as I have done it with small scale Lasers, and managed to keep the power up. That being said, Star ships are not designed for the placement of such a weapon. 

For example using a large scale spring like you would find in a pocket watch ie.  @  One could affix a laser to it, that spins around and back, without loosing power. And yes, I use this for area Denial but that is for another topic.

I just don't see where something like this could be mounted on a starship, without having to move the ship itself via Pitch and Yaw in order to get a hit. in other words, It would just rotate at the bottom of say the saucer section, but if you moved the device any , it would hit your own hull.

Stephen

[Centurus]

Here's the link to the discussion. 

http://daihak.deviantart.com/#/d3np0ds