There are no word games here, just you being clueless. According to that statement, Technical Manuals are canon because they report on what is canon. That however means that if there is any contradiction at all between the Technical Manual and what is shown on screen, then Manuals are not canon, in that instance at least.
That's funny, because that isn't what he said. You are trying to infer that, based on an interpretation that you would prefer.
TM does not settle the issue, because we see that a) short range engagements happen far more often than long-range engagements and b) short-range engagements are a rule, not an exception, in fleet battles.
Your only real proof to assert that is the case, is by appealing to visuals, as if Star Trek were a documentary. It is not and when we do investigate into the situation, we find that engagements between peers is generally around 30-40k, with close-range targeting generally around the single thousands.
You don't get to ignore what is shown to be a regular occurrence on screen just because TM agrees that they have the capability to engage at longer range. We already know that they have said capability from canon - there is no contradiction. But saying that it is a) normally employed and b) normally employed in fleet battles, is incorrect, because on-screen evidence shows otherwise.
I'm not ignoring it. I have already addressed it. Star Trek is a TV show. And while yes, there are undoubtedly instances where the portrayal is very accurate, there are times when it is not going to be. The people who worked with the show said as much:
Ronald D. Moore said: "The weapons are way too powerful to present them in any realistic kind of way. Given the real power of a hand phaser, we shouldn't be able to show ANY firefights on camera where the opponents are even in sight of each other, much less around the corner! It's annoying, but just one of those things that we tend to slide by in order to concentrate on telling a dramatic and interesting story." (AOL chat, 1997)
And when you compare it with this from one of their writer's manuals:
Notes on distances in space: giving precise distances and speeds in dialogue sometimes backs our visual effects staff into difficult corners. An example is a case when two ships are described as being 10,000 kilometers apart and the dramatics of a scene require both ships to be seen in the same shot. We've found that it's often best to use only enough numeric data to convey the aerospace/nautical "flavor" of the scene, but to otherwise fall back on relatively nonspecific statements such as "alien ship coming alongside"
So let's see, we KNOW it's a fictional TV show, so treating it like some sort of documentary is inappropriate. We also have a statement from one of the people running the show to fans that they have to let certain aspects of the setting slide in order to tell a dramatic and interesting story. And we also have directions to writers describing ship maximum range as 300,000 km, torpedoes with million km ranges, and at the same time--also telling writers to avoid precise figures because it could make things difficult for the special effects guys later in the process of creating an episode. If I'm not mistaken, these episodes could take 10 to 12 weeks to produce, with it generally starting with the writing.
This is solid proof that while I'm sure everyone who worked there did their best to present as accurate a portrayal of Star Trek as they were taught and imagined, they were still limited by things like budget, time, and dramatic storytelling. I am simply acknowledging this fact and I have supported it with evidence.
Neither is that quote you have provided canonical.
It is. You simply refuse to acknowledge it.
Why do we see ships receiving damage through shields, and shields being described as weakening as they accumulate damage? There is no reason why shields would be weaker as they accumulate heat - so long as heat sinks are not past capacity, shields are up. Once heat sinks go past the capacity, shields come down. Up or down, 1 or 0. That is what heat sinks would result in. That is, in fact, the purpose of heat sinks.
There are numerous reasons why shields might differ in combat situations. The emitters could be damaged, the generators could be damaged, the conduits that supply them could be damaged--there's really a whole host of reasons.
If shields are limited by heat sink system, why does it matter that "forward shields are at 30%" beyond how long will they last? Why dumping auxilliary power into shields apparently restores them - more power shouldn't affect heat sink capacity.
Please explain.
I don't know why auxiliary power would really affect anything, considering the warpcore would easily be able to generate all the power that they need. That only makes sense if there's some sort of energy shortage. If that's the case, it seems like an issue with the power grid, either where the fuel is being supplied, to where the energy is produced, and to where the energy is received. The only other interpretation might be them bringing up one of the auxiliary generators to support a failing generator. That would address the issue of needing more power.
Meanwhile, I'm not entirely certain how trying to generate more power to restore a matter screen that has probably been (at least partially) vaporized is going to make one bit of difference. If the field itself isn't primarily the thing affected by enemy weapons and rather the matter, then it should be an issue of pumping out more matter.
Technical manual at best, may show writers' intent - but even if you take writers' intent as canon, that only holds true if not contradicted by other evidence.
Also:
"The deflector field itself is emitted and shaped by a series of conformal transmission grids on the spacecraft exterior, resulting in a field that closely follows the form of the vehicle itself." - Considering how The Next Generation is the era when we actually get bubble shields, and conformal shields do not reappear until the appearance of Sovereign class - in fact, if I recall correctly, it was only in Nemesis that we actually see conformal shielding being used again.
Yeah, Technical Manual obviously doesn't really align with actual canon.
I'll take it that you don't have your own copy of the TNG TM. Otherwise, you would realize that they do in fact, look like that. This chart, which shows the shields set to low-end to deflect debris while the ship is in its flight path, shows the actual layout of the shields:
Portrayal attempts or style has changed what the human eyes see, but you can see how it retains the overall rough shape of the ship. Below, you can see a rare instance where more than one layer is visible
And here is a more typical TNG portrayal:
We see it when weapons fire hits the shields.
No, that shield flare can be (and has been) explained as something else. If you wish to suggest that there is physical matter present, then you need to present evidence that it's there. It's rather hypocritical of you also, to demand that we strongly adhere to visual evidence when you yourself do not the moment it becomes convenient.
Now you explain why a graviton field would glow when hit by weapons fire.
I already posted the canonical explanation.
So basically, "fuck the show"? Then we have nothing to discuss.
I never at any point said that something within the show can't be accurate in its portrayal. What I said, is that it is a TV show and the whole point of the TM is to provide us with the technical understanding of how the show works. That same information has been provided to writers by the company, both the official book and in writer manuals. If the company didn't believe that this was an accurate portrayal of their show, they wouldn't have bothered.
Which is something I have pointed out before: regardless of how many long-range duels we have, fleet engagements always happen at short range, meaning that it is clearly tactically advantageous, or else there is a technological reason. Or both.
But there's no strategic reason why they would do that. It would make sense if they used their phasers to shoot down incoming projectiles, as we see in later re-interpretations of the show, but in TNG and DS9, their defense systems are primarily their shields. Therefore, it really makes no sense as to why they would wait to start lobbing torpedoes at each other. In fact, they'd be better off, since at that distance, they could set their torpedoes to high megaton range and hit as many ships as possible with one torpedo.
Certainly, once both fleets collide, ships will probably be moving slower and will be at much closer ranges, probably fairly accurate to what we saw in the show.
Why not? They are certainly capable of it.
Because the Defiant was trying to escape. It would also imply that the Defiant has immense (and absurd) acceleration and de-acceleration abilities.
1) During the Dominion War? It is safe to assume that they were. And if the enemy is outnumbered, then the enemy would want to close in as quickly as possible. In other words, you would only get a long-range battle when forces are nearly equal - and even that only as long as one side doesn't start winning.
That's a well-thought-out explanation, but let's explore that argument. First, I don't believe that a larger fleet would necessarily want to engage at close-range. The reason is that space is generally empty and most ST battles are done in relatively empty space. Since that's the case, it doesn't make sense why a larger fleet that could lob torpedoes at the enemy without obstruction, would choose to engage at closer range, where its own ships would act as cover for the smaller fleet.
It would in fact, behoove the smaller fleet in some situations to move in as quickly as possible, even while taking heavy fire, because despite the losses, they aren't likely to win an endurance match with a larger fleet of peer power. And we see this sort of thought highlighted in Sacrifice of Angels, where Sisko tried to create an opening in the fleet by antagonizing the Cardassians. Dukat took a risk in making the opening as part of his feint and Sisko took a risk in entering there.
The real question, regardless of which way you want to slice it, is why fleets don't lob torpedoes at longer ranges. You accept that ships can do it. So either you would need to accept that the actual battle began at farther ranges and the distance shortened or you have to explain why the fleet whose advantaged by the distance wouldn't immediately lob torpedoes while they had that advantage.
2) Possibly - I mean, why would there be only one reason? But regardless of the reason(s), short-range battles seem to be the norm.
They appear to be the norm because of the style choice in the portrayal, which was influenced by Wrath of Khan. That movie is credited with saving the entire franchise and is hands down one of, if not the best movie they ever made. Regardless of the source for the style though, it requires both ships to be onscreen at once. And therefore, both ships have to be within a few dozen kilometers of each other.
3) Even with torpedoes, Federation ships have front and aft coverage, which seems to be rather an exception - Klingons appear to have only frontal torpedo launchers, and Romulan warbirds are front-loaded as well.
Because front-loading is more pragmatic. There really are only two options as far as actual space tactics go. You can design a ship that favors broadsides--thereby bringing an exceptional amount of firepower against your opponent at the risk of presenting a greater target OR you can have lots of weapons on the front, cutting down your exposure at the cost of reducing your firepower. In this case, it seems the popular thought is to have as many weapons facing forward. That would suggest that ships make attack runs against each other; firing off as many weapons as possible before swinging back around for another go.
Which is the combat style shown almost exclusively in TOS and is sometimes seen and spoken of in TNG/DS9.
However, that design would also encourage a battle to begin at longer ranges, where one side can inflict as much damage and exhaustion on the other before making the close.
* Which is particularly interesting, as the fleet comes into the field of deactivated weapons platforms to destroy them instead of destroying them from further away.
Which makes no sense. Especially if they're afraid that the platforms might activate soon, you'd lob as much firepower at them as possible and as soon as possible.
Maximum effective range, yes. But as I said: they are just as liable to close to visual range as to actually utilize said range. Most of the time, engagements will end up - and often start - at distances of dozens to maybe hundreds of kilometers, and sometimes even single-digit kilometers. This is especially true in fleet battles: literally all examples we have of actual long-range combat are between individual starships.
And this is where we differ. While there are certain situations where ships won't engage until closer in one on one fights or where only a few combatants are present, there is no reason for them to do so in large fleet engagements, because of the concentration of firepower. They do not (and cannot) jam photon torpedoes, they cannot avoid a large volume of torpedoes, and there is little evidence they use phasers to dispatch torpedoes. Some argue that torpedoes are even shielded.
Also, Phoenix engaged at closer to 200 000 kilometers than to 300 000 kilometers. Looking here and at the episode itself, Phoenix has weapons range of some 230 000 - 240 000 kilometers, with phasers demonstrating range of some 190 000 - 200 000 km. But that is just splitting hairs.
Good, so there's no need to really discuss it then.
100 000 km is "well within the weapons range" of Jem'Hadar warships, so I'd say that battlebugs actually also have range of some 150 000 - 200 000 kilometers (considering "well within"). And implication was that it made battlebugs a danger, so it is clear that weapons aren't affected too much by how small or maneuverable target may be.
The Defiant was cloaked at the time, which means its shields were down. Which means yes, they were still dangerous. Because not everything on the ship is going to be able to tank a multi-megajoule particle beam. And in fact, the wider spread would imply some sensors could easily get fried.
Not just phasers. Torpedoes as well are both shown and stated to be far more powerful than what TNG TM implies. And I don't mean just stuff like "The Die is Cast".
How so? Torpedoes are implied to generally be 45 megatons. That's roughly what you'd expect from that sort of weapon.
Also, if shields have no matter (like The Technical Manual states), and phasers are also as weak as the TM states... how can you explain phasers being useful - or usable - against shields at all? Either one of these must be wrong: either shields are based around some sort of matter (and are thus affected by NDF, whatever it is), or phasers have far more raw energy than the Manual states.
Or, if neither is true, phasers are completely, utterly useless against shielded targets. Which is bullshit.
Because the shields need to match the incoming energy for maximum efficiency. Since they're not always present, some damage is likely to seep through because there's (probably) going to be a waning and waxing in terms of how much energy is there at any given time. Matching an enemy's frequency is so difficult that only the Borg can manage it, but you can probably guess when the shields are weaker as opposed to stronger. Phaser strikes placed at the right frequency can inflict more damage to the ship. Damage a couple of shield emitters, for example, and the shields will be weaker.
There is also the fact that there is a difference between ships. In the TM, a Romulan Warbird discharges 20 GW disruptors. The Ferengi marauder's weapons discharge at 500 MWs, by the by. So it really depends upon the ship. Disruptors seem more powerful, probably at a cost of range, since they tend to be highly prized among the Klingons and Romulans, who prefer using cloaks for ambush attacks.
It was behind-the-scenes somewhere; couldn't find it right now.
Well, let me know if you find it.
You know, if you are going to offer evidence, you might want to make sure people can see it.
The link works? I tried to embed the image, but it gave me problems and I wasn't going to fight with it just for an image.
But yeah, I managed to find it - it is 700 MW. Which makes absolutely no sense considering that NX-01 had phase cannon with output of 250 - 500 GW (500 GJ over 1 - 2 s burst). So either Cardassian starships have weapons that are three orders of magnitude less powerful than those of 22nd century Earth starship (no wonder they couldn't even scratch the paint on unshielded Phoenix!), or displays are not reliable source of information.
Well, I would remind you that 500 GWs would also allow the NX to one-shot the Enterprise D with one shot, according to the numbers spoken by the characters in the Survivors. Overall, it seems the TNG, DS9, and even VOY era generally agree with the TMs in terms of weapon power scaling. Enterprise (and Voyager too) had this odd habit of really high power draws or outputs for no reason. Obviously a ship cannon has a reason to use that much power, but if you look at ENT's Silent Enemy, there's a device one of the intruders place in the ship, which draws in 600 MJ (watts?) of energy. For what reason? Keep in mind, 10 MJs is the power you get from a modern tank round. How is that thing able to even store that much energy, let alone ask what it's doing--unless it happens to be a bomb. Then you have Reed's phase pistols, which he up dialed to 10 MJs. Which, I really need to ask, just how is that possible? How can he fire that thing?
At least by DS9, I can pretend they might have found a way to manage ~800 KJs coming out in the span of a quarter of a second, but watching Reed fire what is in effect, equal to a tank round, and not seeing it reduce the borg drone he shoots to paste is I imagine, what a drug trip would feel like. And then the other drones somehow ADAPT to that!
So I would argue this.
The NX's figures are orders of magnitude too big. A more reasonable figure of 500 MW and 80 MW is more believable when we take the rest of the setting into account. That or we would need to assume that it's a retcon of some sort, in which case everything needs to go up by that same value. Since there is no reason to believe that and since ENT and VOY have had these odd sorts of numbers thrown out before, I would simply assume that they should have done MWs, not GWs.
That "rifle" is Phaser III, yes. It was also being tested for behavior of its energy unit, which means that stated output is unlikely to be absolute maximum. Point is, even if we assume it is, cca 0,8 - 0,9 MW output is still much closer to output TNG:TM states for Galaxy class phaser emitter (5,1 MW, or factor of 5,7 - 6,4) than to 10 kW you mentioned for phasers.
I don't think you read what I posted carefully, but it was long and somewhat tedious, so I'll put it more simply. The TNG's figure of ~10 KWs only logically applies to Phaser I, which tops off at around 15 KWs. Phaser II actually goes up to 1.55 MWs, but the actual total energy discharged is closer to 800 KJs, because the phaser only discharges for about a quarter of a second. So what we saw in the show actually works fine; the Phaser is discharging at around 1 MW, which is about in line with the maximum output for Phaser II. The DS9 TM suggests that the only major difference between the two is the power source.
Meanwhile, the TM indicates that phasers can fire without fail for 45 minutes if they needed to. So the actual energy delivered by the ship-based elements (just on their own) is 7x greater than that of the sidearms.
Anyway, what Manual states for Setting 16 is: Explosive/Disruption Effects; discharge energy 1.55 x 10^6 for 0.28 seconds.
That would actually imply discharge of 5,54 MW (1,55 MJ in 0,28 s) or else 1,55 MW (0,43 MJ). Thing is, phasers seem to usually fire a one-second burst/blast, so I have no clue where TNG TM writer got 0,28 seconds from.
I can see how you came to that, but I would disagree. I had the same conclusion you did at first, but as I've read through the writer's work, he seems to think in watts as to the rate of how much energy is being transferred, then specifies the amount of time that it is transferred. If you read through the portion on deflector shields, it's rather clear that's how he writes. Which would mean that it's 1.55 megawatts, but the device only fires for .28 seconds for a discharge of around 800 KWs.
Why else would there be grooves, if not to denote emitter segments?
It certainly could be that, but we don't know if that is the case. You're presuming that the emitter grooves are the segments themselves. After all, if each of those emitters could handle emitting the energy from all the other elements, why not just make a handful of energy cannons with the same output? However, if there is an additional layer to the weapon, where that energy is passed into and then primarily directed, it makes more sense.
At any rate, this brings us back to shield interaction. Sure, it might be that phasers are that weak, yet have effect on shields far beyond what they should have based on their energy... yet torpedoes have far more energy (64 MT even according to the Manual, and way beyond that if we actually look at what has been both stated and shown in the series itself) but are not ridiculously overpowered compared to phasers.
That's a conundrum I struggled with for years, but I actually found the answer while dunking on B5ers. I won't bore you with the details, but needless to say, it was about a nuclear missile that had variable yields. Photon torpedoes have multiple settings, ten according to the writer's manual. So we know adjusting the yield is possible. Moreover, space is really big. One of the things that I learned with Children of a Dead Earth, was that a missile is not likely to land a direct hit. Space is big and the enemy doesn't want to be hit. And high speed does not necessarily transfer to high maneuverability. Direct hits are probably not likely.
Try out this calculator here: Wayback Machine
If you put in a 45 megaton warhead, you'll notice how quickly the power drops at range. At 250 meters, the energy is ~24 megajoules per cm^2. I profess to being ignorant as to the area of a phaser beam's endpoint, but that's much closer to the directed energy of a phaser than one might believe when first they look at the weapon yields.
At longer ranges, those torpedoes would probably use proximity detonations, which means a torpedo could easily be 300 or even 600 meters from the shield when it goes off. In that case, the energy per square cm drops to 16 or even 4 MJs. At closer ranges, ships will probably use lower yields, because there's a danger in firing torpedoes too close to the ship, as we're told in the Nth Degree and in Q Who. The lower yield is offset by a more accurate or even direct hit.
Hence, torpedoes will consistently be more effective than torpedoes, but they won't by necessity effortlessly outshine them. Phasers are precise weapons that can be fired at points when shields are low for maximum penetration (as a knight might use the point of his sword to reach a gap in the enemy's armor) and apply the energy to a specific point, whereas a torpedo is more akin to a hammer or mace, that uses raw energy to batter the enemy.
Only solution I can think of is that phasers somehow disrupt the shields beyond what torpedoes can do... which would suggest shields are comprised of some sort of matter that is affected by phasers far more than it is by "normal" energy such as torpedoes. Which means that shields simply cannot be what TM states them to be.
That's a solution, but it requires that we prove that there is matter there for it to interact with.
And we still have issue of NX-01 phase cannons being rated for 500 GJ output (though there was also mention of 80 GJ later?) - and managing some ten times more in actual test. That alone would absolutely negate TM, as either one would mean that NX-01 has far more power in its one phase cannon than E-D has from an entire primary phaser array.
As I said, ENT was pretty terrible with its energy figures. And really, it was unnecessary. Any realistic spaceship in the foreseeable future is generally going to top out with guns at 1 GW. For the largest ships. Even as they carry kiloton and megaton-level nukes.
No. Phaser bank is an installation of two phaser emitters side by side. Phaser array is phaser array, not a phaser "bank".
Also, it was a small phaser bank, as in, emitters that were less powerful than those of Enterprise D.
No, that doesn't seem to be the case. Phaser bank refers to a phaser weapon. It may be a cannon (such as the Defiant or Constitution II) or it can be an array. The term is used interchangeably. You can see this in the show:
Yesterday's Enterprise
CASTILLO: You're right, I don't. But imagine coming home after twenty-two years. Would I even recognize them?
TASHA: What are the stats on main phaser banks?
CASTILLO: Emitters available, sixty percent forward, fifty-two percent aft.
TASHA: Good. Let's take a look at the torpedo launchers.
.
As you can see, Tasha, who is from the Enterprise D (a ship with all phaser arrays) refers to the phaser emplacements as "phaser banks" when regarding the Enterprise C. One look at the Ambassador class and you will see that they have phaser arrays.
So the term is clearly interchangeable. And that means we really have no idea how large this phaser bank actually is, what they're comparing it to (planetary or ship-based?) and to top it off, we don't know how much energy is required to power those banks, unless you think they have 100% efficiency (as in, no energy lost due to waste), in addition to needing to power the other systems for such a weapon.
Ship is moving at impulse speed, computers are active, life support systems are active... and yes, the Enterprise is moving. It is clearly seen - impulse engines are active, and so are warp nacelles, which apparently are also used at impulse speed. They aren't sitting idle, and apparently Star Trek treats universe like ocean with active propulsion required to keep moving. Also, don't forget that in Voyager: "Revulsion", you have five million gigawatts running through a single conduit. Considering that, you want me to believe that the entire Galaxy class starship have energy output of less than single Intrepid-class plasma conduit.
Yes, obviously the ship is doing something, but the Enterprise D didn't need what amounts to literal gigatons of energy annihilated every second to keep the ship running. And that power couldn't be applied to the impulse engines, because the impulse engines have their own dedicated power system; ie, the fusion reactors. I don't oppose that the ship could generate such energy--but that would need to be at warp. There is no indication that they use it for some kind of weapon system. The only time they were able to do that was when they passed all that energy through the main deflector dish, which was stated to be the only thing onboard (apart from the engines, obviously) that could handle that much power.
And as for Voyager, Voyager gives weird-ass shit numbers all the time. While some are sensible, others are not. Like the fucking Borg alcove that REQUIRED 30 megawatts to fucking work. What is it doing with 30 megawatts? What could it possibly need with that much energy? And even the conduit you reference is part of a nonsensical discussion of how Seven's exoskeleton arm could withstand that same energy. If that's the case, why worry about phasers? At all? Because 4 MWs per cm^2 is enough to vaporize over 900 millimeters of titanium armor, yet I'm supposed to believe her arm will be just fine while she sticks it in the path of 5 petajoules of energy? That's the full frontal force of a 1-megaton bomb.
What's even worse, is that Seven for some reason thinks that this is no big deal and that even if her ARM were to somehow survive it, it begs the question of how safe it is to mess with the power system that has a megaton bomb running through it every second. It makes her look either suicidal or stupid because she could quickly core her own ship.
So do I object to the power figures? No. Do I object to that figure if the Enterprise is doing nothing? Obviously and we don't know where Data was going with his example. And is the arm thing stupid? Sure, but that energy has to be transferred from the core to the engines somehow.
Last edited: