In TOS' Defense

[TOSDOC]

Hello all, long time reader, first time poster. Reading all of the posts here has led me to a question.

First of all, nice site. Otherwise I wouldn’t be posting here. I have a lot of respect for what is being said in some of the posts, so I went back and checked the rules and all of the ST posts before writing this (took me days!).

I like Mike Wong, and a lot of his ideas. We happen to share a lot of the same tastes in entertainment, and I’ve read his SD site and personal site, equally enjoying and agreeing with a lot of his analyses on the shows, his takedowns of hardcore trekkies and trolls, and his rants on the world on his personal site (some of which I have to remember to tell my kids when they’re old enough). I’m a veterinarian, so I won’t pretend to be an expert in engineering, applied science or theoretical physics. I’m also both a SW and ST:TOS fan, and have a hard time seeing both in the same universe, so one vs. the other in direct combat isn’t nearly as interesting IMO as comparisons of the two series of entertainment. I just watch the show, and enjoy imagining what could be. I haven’t watched DS9, VOY, or ENT. I also haven’t looked at the TNG technical manual, and certainly wouldn’t take it as canon. It’s a book, and Paramount said none of the books were canon, so I’m good with that (if there was one book I wish was canon, it’s The Final Reflection by John M. Ford, a far more realistic depiction of Klingons than any in the new ST series, meshing perfectly with the TOS Klingons and a fantastic science fiction novel even without the ST elements). TNG had a lot of entertaining stories, but the science behind it was getting ridiculous, and I found the TNG movies horrible. Mike’s take on Nemesis and RedLetterMedia’s reviews are spot-on. The new Star Trek movie is far closer to the old series’ ideals, although its parallels to SW:ANH can’t be ignored and are a key ingredient to its success.

While reading your posts, I noted a greater modicum of respect for TOS than the other series. The series was far more impressive back before TNG, when even a 97 (.835) megaton explosion inside a Planet Killer sounded like a lot when you were a kid. There were some posts that did have me pinching my nose like Stan Marsh (such as ideas on Pon Farr, Vulcan emotions, or why Klingons shouldn’t exist) but like I said, I checked the rules and won’t resurrect an old post until invited. Anyway, while I was reading these a question formed: if you removed everything ST except the TOS shows’ dialogue, (including TNG, DS9, VOY, ENT, the later TNG movies, and the technical manuals), than how do you feel about the ST technical base? Or in other words, if you suddenly found yourself, a 21st century human, standing in the back of a Constitution-class bridge listening to the bridge officers, would you be impressed?

Here’s an example even a veterinarian can appreciate: In the teaser for The Corbomite Maneuver, one of the first Trek episodes produced, Enterprise encounters a solid cube traveling towards them at light speed. The dialogue explains Enterprise’s deflectors are activated before visual contact is made, but Bailey the navigator exclaims the deflectors are not stopping the object a full 8 seconds before they make visual contact. Given that the cube is moving at light speed, and Enterprise was certainly established to be moving towards it in turn (Spock stops the ship only after the deflectors aren’t deflecting anything), those sound like some very far-reaching deflectors, which sounds like impressive abilities far beyond what I’ve read here in the forums as mentioned in the later series (sounds like the makings of a good SAT question, too, now that I’ve typed it out). Don’t tell me they’re just the navigational deflectors either. Those should have already been on if Enterprise was already moving, yet Spock says “Deflectors, full intensity” as soon as Sulu reports the object.

That’s long enough for a post, and I hope an auspicious start. Thanks for reading. Thoughts?

[Sela]

What you're asking, essentially, is "What do you think of the powerbase of TOS if you ignore all canon evidence except for what we hear in words," is that more or less correct?

Whipping this out a bit fast, but I think your approach is fundamentally off-base. Firstly, the cornerstone of the Suspension-of-Disbelief doctrine for analyzing data is that we act as if what we see and hear in the movies/shows is actually happening. In such a scenario, visual evidence is paramount. Removing all visual evidence leaves us with little to go on but our belief in the characters' statements and their claims about what's happening. It also leaves us no way to verify whether what we're being told is or is not correct.

Secondly, why should we care how powerful the tech-base of TOS is? The thing that board members here by and large like about TOS as opposed to TNG or the later more bastardized Star Trek series is how it does a better job conforming to a realistic military approach. We don't see Kirk talking ad nauseum about some "utopian age" which clearly isn't there (looking at you, Beverly), or scoffing at the concept of battle-drills on a battleship ("Peak Performance"). He'd flip out at the idea of having children and no end of civilians on a ship-of-the-line, etc. Moreover, we consistently see Kirk put the lives of his crew above all else whereas Picard's approach (which I personally enjoy more) was to put his view of 'morality' before all else - even when it put his life or the lives of all on board at stake. These are all value judgments; reasons to find TOS more entertaining.
I say all this so you understand clearly my next point: This board does not prefer TOS on the notion of it having a notably superior technological base to either TNG or the rest of the Trek series; much less against the Galactic Empire.

The question quickly becomes then what's the point of measuring the TOS tech-base power level? Out of curiousity - knock yourself out. But to compare against other powers, why not use the Star Trek franchise to draw on for information instead of limiting yourself to just that generation? Makes for more interesting matchups with more potential for each side.


Finally, to analyze the example you gave, we really have very little information to go on as to what the nature of the deflectors in that scenario are. Quite possibly there are any other number of limiting factors on its ability to stall Bailock's cube. Maybe as distance increases the power they can commit to the deflector decreases (inverse square law effect). Certainly one would expect a deflector (used to prevent collisions with oncoming objects) to have a range at least large enough to protect from the object you'll hit in a few seconds, no? High range doesn't translate to high effective range; I can fire a pistol at a 45degree angle for a huge max range and get virtually no accuracy as a result.

As for actual power we later will see just how powerful the constitution class Enterprise's deflectors are when all the power it can muster can barely divert an asteroid a mere few degrees from point blank range!

[Stofsk]

Anyway, while I was reading these a question formed: if you removed everything ST except the TOS shows’ dialogue, (including TNG, DS9, VOY, ENT, the later TNG movies, and the technical manuals), than how do you feel about the ST technical base? Or in other words, if you suddenly found yourself, a 21st century human, standing in the back of a Constitution-class bridge listening to the bridge officers, would you be impressed?

Fuck yes.

Also, mad props for your call on 'The Final Reflection'. It's a fucking masterpiece.

Here’s an example even a veterinarian can appreciate: In the teaser for The Corbomite Maneuver, one of the first Trek episodes produced, Enterprise encounters a solid cube traveling towards them at light speed. The dialogue explains Enterprise’s deflectors are activated before visual contact is made, but Bailey the navigator exclaims the deflectors are not stopping the object a full 8 seconds before they make visual contact. Given that the cube is moving at light speed, and Enterprise was certainly established to be moving towards it in turn (Spock stops the ship only after the deflectors aren’t deflecting anything), those sound like some very far-reaching deflectors, which sounds like impressive abilities far beyond what I’ve read here in the forums as mentioned in the later series (sounds like the makings of a good SAT question, too, now that I’ve typed it out). Don’t tell me they’re just the navigational deflectors either. Those should have already been on if Enterprise was already moving, yet Spock says “Deflectors, full intensity” as soon as Sulu reports the object.

Deflectors are meant to be used at warp speed to deflect particles in front of the vessel so that they don't impact upon it. So it makes sense that you can extend it in front of the ship. They do the same thing in 'Mudd's Women' when chasing Mudd's ship into an asteroid field. It was too far for tractors and just barely in transporter range, but they could extend the deflectors to cover it (although this overstressed their systems - which again, makes sense).

I love TOS. I just finished watching the entire series on my DVDs, and I'm gonna get the blu-rays when I get the money.

[Imperial Overlord]

Star Trek's technology is extremely impressive. Teleporters, FTL, force fields, replicators, and so forth? Who wouldn't be impressed? It would be awesome to have. Versus debates center how Trek would fare against a galaxy spanning civilization but saying that Trek would lose to a civilization that can build moon sized planet destroyers in its black budget isn't a condemnation of Trek.

TOS is generally well respected because the minds behind it were better. Rodenberry wasn't all there in his later years and you had B&B running things into the ground in TNG and later series. In TOS had episodes written by great science fiction writer and much less technobabble. That isn't to say there wasn't good TNG or DS9 episodes, but that TOS simply had a stronger hand in the writing area and that counted for a lot. TOS had its turkeys as well, of course.

As for The Final Reflection, I'm the resident rabid fanboy of that book and I resent you moving into my territory. On a more serious note, Ford wrote it after doing work on the FASA RPG, specifically on the Klingons, which is why if you ever find background material on the old RPG their Klingons and part of the their history matches up exactly. Ronald Moore read it and that's one of the reasons why you can find pieces of it in TNG and DS9. The High Council, Great Houses, family lines, the Black Fleet, Martok swearing by Kahless's Hand, the importance of honour and glory, and the cloud shrouded homeworld all clearly have their origins in The Final Reflection. It's a pity the alien, but understandable Klingons in the book weren't adopted instead of giving us the one dimensional warrior society.

[TOSDOC]

Imperial Overlord, all I ask is that I be allowed to read my copy of The Final Reflection as many times as I want. Your reputation as the “resident rabid fanboy” of the novel is secure.

As I read all your responses, my thoughts were certainly brought into focus. What I was at first lamenting on was the quality of the shows’ portrayal over the years, and how it would be if you were standing on each ship listening to what’s going on: Kirk’s Enterprise ( “Dude, did you hear what he just said? Their deflectors have got to be extending at least a million miles into space in front of them!”) vs. the Enterprise-D (“Dude, did you understand anything that engineer just said over the intercom?” “No, sounded like a lot of technobabble bull to me.”). Star Trek certainly took 73 years worth of step-backs in the spin-offs, and when I read posts here about people who still haven’t seen TOS, I just want to tell them they’re really missing out.

Sela, your points are well-taken. I should have said “What we see and hear”. I don’t have any desire to subvert board members’ purpose here, only to seek clarification on how you interpret your raw data, because it’s entertaining to read here how current scientific laws and equations are applied to what is seen on screen, and in turn used in debates. To me, the TOS depiction certainly seemed much more technologically advanced than TNG, the politics and economics much more realistic, and its starship crews much more professional and capable in their conduct. But a lot of TOS technology was depicted only in dialogue and “shaky cam”, because they didn’t have the money for effects shots to actually show it. It’s easy to be a more advanced civilization in expository dialogue. First, I agree with you that visual evidence is paramount, but if it is not available, what do you do? Second, if technology is accepted as depicted in TOS, how do you reconcile it if it takes a step back in TNG? There’s another episode that illustrates this, TOS “Obsession”.

Stofsk, I was hoping you would appear. I enjoyed reading your debate posts at “Mass Effect vs. Federation” while searching for the TOS episode “Obsession” in past posts (that’s a fun one to type into Search, practically all you get is 95 pages of “obsessions” with the genres, personal ideas, etc). In that post, you noted how difficult it was to reconcile spoken dialogue with visual evidence, as well as taking good note of the fact that a civilization should still be able to perform technological feats even if that feat was only depicted once on screen.

I’m genuinely curious to know how you all reconcile differences such as these, and also how you treat the dialogue if there actually is no visual evidence. In “Obsession” we never actually see a mere ounce of antimatter ripping away Tycho’s atmosphere and sending shock waves through the solar system strong enough to shake a starship. But we saw Enterprise leave orbit before detonation, we hear the dialogue’s tension and we see the transporter room in full “shaky cam” mode, so it still looks like it actually happened. In TNG, an ounce of antimatter doesn’t appear to go nearly as far. Did this explosion occur as it was depicted on-screen (in dialogue and shaky-cam), or not because we didn’t actually see it happen? And if it happened, is this the same “kind” of antimatter as what we’re dealing with in TNG, or something completely different? Not being a physicist, I had genuinely always believed an ounce of antimatter to be capable of this kind of destruction, until I read this site and found people using Einstein’s classic equation in their calculations of antimatter output.

[Stofsk]

As I read all your responses, my thoughts were certainly brought into focus. What I was at first lamenting on was the quality of the shows’ portrayal over the years, and how it would be if you were standing on each ship listening to what’s going on: Kirk’s Enterprise ( “Dude, did you hear what he just said? Their deflectors have got to be extending at least a million miles into space in front of them!”) vs. the Enterprise-D (“Dude, did you understand anything that engineer just said over the intercom?” “No, sounded like a lot of technobabble bull to me.”). Star Trek certainly took 73 years worth of step-backs in the spin-offs, and when I read posts here about people who still haven’t seen TOS, I just want to tell them they’re really missing out.

It amazes me how TOS still stands as the greatest. Even in the goofier episodes.

Sela, your points are well-taken. I should have said “What we see and hear”. I don’t have any desire to subvert board members’ purpose here, only to seek clarification on how you interpret your raw data, because it’s entertaining to read here how current scientific laws and equations are applied to what is seen on screen, and in turn used in debates. To me, the TOS depiction certainly seemed much more technologically advanced than TNG, the politics and economics much more realistic, and its starship crews much more professional and capable in their conduct. But a lot of TOS technology was depicted only in dialogue and “shaky cam”, because they didn’t have the money for effects shots to actually show it. It’s easy to be a more advanced civilization in expository dialogue. First, I agree with you that visual evidence is paramount, but if it is not available, what do you do?

I don't see this as a problem at all. I think this site's understanding of 'suspension of disbelief' is ass-backwards. At various times you will find something that contradicts spoken dialogue. Let's take the infamous TNG example of 'Darmok' when Commander Riker orders Worf to fire the phasers, and we cut to a visual effects shot and the Enterprise fires phasers from it's forward photon torpedo tube. That's clearly a special effects mistake. There is no question about it. There is no possible rationalisation for it. You can't go 'lol for whatever reason, the crew of the Enterprise installed a phaser emitter there just for shits and giggles' because that's even more retarded. But if visual evidence is king then what the hell are you supposed to? Make up retarded justifications? Apparently so, because a similar visual effects glitch in Star Wars leads people to seriously think turbolasers are invisible but have a visible 'tracer' effect (which is the glowy bit we see onscreen) because there was like one instance where a Star Destroyer in ESB shot an asteroid and it blew up a couple frames before the visible turbolaser bolt hit it.

Yet the same standard's not set for spoken dialogue. Out of universe we know that someone involved in the visual effects studio made a mistake, but we rationalise it as best we can with an in-universe explanation. Yet maybe the writer of the script made a mistake, but we don't bother rationalising it at all for the characters, we just go 'lol Data is a dummy' or 'Spock's an idiot'. The ironic thing is, true suspension of disbelief relates to both types of mistake. True suspension of disbelief is about telling the audience 'lol what you see is make-believe but just bear with us and enjoy it' and if anything contradicts that you disbelief can't be suspended enough to enjoy the story. So when Data messes up a scientific term which an android with an encyclopedic mind ought not to have messed up, which is part of the suspension of disbelief agreement we the audience have with the creators of the show, we get pulled out of the episode. Similarly, when the Enterprise fires its phasers out of its photorp launcher, we get pulled out of the episode. A sensible viewer will immediately recognise that that's a flaw, an out-of-universe mistake, and treat the scene accordingly. Note though that visual evidence is only more important in the sense that it is far quicker to recognise an error than spoken dialogue (which can sometimes be wrong but in a subtle way).

Second, if technology is accepted as depicted in TOS, how do you reconcile it if it takes a step back in TNG?

Simple solution. Treat TOS as separate from TNG.

Well ok perhaps it's not a simple solution, because a lot of what happens in TNG references TOS and there is an interconnectedness between all the shows. But then the Star Trek canon has always been fluid, it's never been set in stone. So really, why not just simply treat it in isolation? TOS depicted far greater speeds for its warp engines than TNG and VOY did. In 'That Which Survives' the Enterprise at warp 8 covers 1000 light years in about half a day. Gee, I bet the crew of Voyager wished they had those engines! Now the hyper-inclusionist obsessive will have a brain meltdown over this. How can the Enterprise of some 80 years or thereabouts have better tech than Voyager, which was state-of-the-art for its time? There is no good answer to this. Out of universe its obvious that the people involved in making TNG, DS9 and VOY either didn't notice these things or they flat out ignored them because if they didn't the entire premise for their episodes would be jeopardised (in the case of Voyager, the entire premise of the show would be negated if they could simply fly back to the Federation in maybe a couple month's time at most).

In a similar way, how do we reconcile clear anachronistic technology which was state-of-the-art in the 60s but which have been supplanted entirely in the modern world? In TOS, computers ran on tapes (which looked like flat pieces of card or squarish objects, so perhaps it was microscopic tape which I can see easily being extrapolated in a 1960s viewpoint as being 'really really advanced tape technology'). Do we as a modern audience have to reconcile that? After all, we're willingly suspending our disbelief with what we see already. Spock's an alien hybrid, the Enterprise can go faster than light, they have antimatter engines and teleporters, but things like 'record tapes' are dealbreakers? Of course not. There comes a point when you have to actually stop analysing something because it confronts your capacity to enjoy it. I mean TOS had their female officers wear miniskirts, no matter how much I might personally appreciate that I can readily admit it's not very practical for ship's personnel to wear that sort of attire. But lol, it was the 60s.

Stofsk, I was hoping you would appear. I enjoyed reading your debate posts at “Mass Effect vs. Federation” while searching for the TOS episode “Obsession” in past posts (that’s a fun one to type into Search, practically all you get is 95 pages of “obsessions” with the genres, personal ideas, etc). In that post, you noted how difficult it was to reconcile spoken dialogue with visual evidence, as well as taking good note of the fact that a civilization should still be able to perform technological feats even if that feat was only depicted once on screen.

haha man what a trainwreck of a thread that was

I remember defending TOS by saying it's one of the few shows where there is no adversarial relationship between the spoken dialogue and the visual effects. For example Checkov will say there's a ship 200,000 kilometres away, and Kirk will go let's take a look, and the viewscreen will magnify and you'll see the ship. In TNG, both ships would be like a stone's throw away from each other, but in TOS you would only ever see the ship on the viewscreen, so the dialogue matches the visual effects.

But yeah, just because you see something once doesn't mean it's gone and forgotten by next week. Interestingly, this occurred more frequently in TNG than it did in TOS, but TOS is not innocent either. 'Patterns of Force' had Kirk and Spock injected with a subcutaneous transmitter and it was agreed that they would be beamed up with a set time limit if they missed their communications check-in with the ship. This was never repeated ever again in the show, even when it would have made sense. (one wonders why they didn't have the same transmitter implanted for their trip to the planet with the Romans just a few episodes later)

I’m genuinely curious to know how you all reconcile differences such as these, and also how you treat the dialogue if there actually is no visual evidence.

Ah but dialogue is evidence as well. The problem comes from when there is a contradiction, but as I said above, there is a cognitive disconnect on this board about visual contradictions and spoken contradictions. If a character makes a mistake people will rush to bag the character, particularly if its a Star Trek character. lol Data is a dummy etc. I would just say this is a clear example of bias. Data is a puppet, as are all the characters. You're watching and hearing someone else's words, that of the screenwriter. So when Data makes a mistake, who is at fault? The problem is if you go with an in-universe explanation you have to conclude Data is fallible. The problem is this contradicts the very premise of the character. Can a walking, talking encyclopedia get such a basic and essential term wrong? A more hilarious example is Data (or was it Wesley?) once said he never speaks in contractions, yet he does all the time (there's plenty of videos on youtube which catalogues all the various contradictions and mistakes in Star Trek about these sort of things!). So what do you do? The in-universe ONLY viewpoint has no real choice other than to conclude we're watching retards. Except they're obviously not supposed to be, we're talking about officers onboard the mighty flagship of the Federation, everyone is serious and earnest and sincere, so ironically that 'super SDN suspension of disbelief' angle fails at what it's supposed to do.

At some point we have to accept the characters are basically being truthful with us. So whatever they say still matters. Sometimes you have to make some mental gymnastics to properly account for contradictions. For example, in TOS Kirk complements his crew by saying 'You've earned your pay for the week!' and in 'The Trouble With Tribbles' it was said they used credits as currency (witness the haggling Cyrano Jones does with the Barkeeper over what price the latter would buy the tribble). Yet in Star Trek IV Gillian makes a wry comment to Kirk as they get up to leave the restaurant 'I suppose you boys in the 23rd century don't have money?' and Kirk protests 'Well we don't!' Of course, dialogue is highly interpretative! Is Kirk being literal - they literally don't have any money? If so then it's a clear contradiction with the previous examples. Or maybe, just maybe, he was joking with her, and we're supposed to laugh. And what he said was technically true - Federation credits aren't currency in 20th century America anyway! And besides, the Federation is post-scarcity or near to it - energy generation is cheap, material needs are met, so things like money take on a different meaning. Just because they have 'credits' and 'earn a pay' doesn't have to mean the exact same thing we understand them to be.

In “Obsession” we never actually see a mere ounce of antimatter ripping away Tycho’s atmosphere and sending shock waves through the solar system strong enough to shake a starship. But we saw Enterprise leave orbit before detonation, we hear the dialogue’s tension and we see the transporter room in full “shaky cam” mode, so it still looks like it actually happened. In TNG, an ounce of antimatter doesn’t appear to go nearly as far. Did this explosion occur as it was depicted on-screen (in dialogue and shaky-cam), or not because we didn’t actually see it happen? And if it happened, is this the same “kind” of antimatter as what we’re dealing with in TNG, or something completely different? Not being a physicist, I had genuinely always believed an ounce of antimatter to be capable of this kind of destruction, until I read this site and found people using Einstein’s classic equation in their calculations of antimatter output.

'Obession' is weird because it contradicts later canon by showing the photon torpedoes being useless against the cloud creature. Photon torpedoes are now known to be antimatter warheads. So really the photorps should have worked. And yeah if they only used an ounce of antimatter, there shouldn't have been that huge of an effect on the Enterprise in orbit. But photorps (and warp engines, and various other things) are retconned in later series as different writers bring their own ideas to the table. Some of these ideas are better, some of them are worse. And sometimes you have contemporaneous episodes and movies which contradict each other! By the time of TNG it was firmly settled that photorps were antimatter warheads; then Nick Meyer did Star Trek VI and photorps acted like cannon balls! So yeah. Damn these crazy Star Trek writers!

('Obession' also called the 'kill setting' on a phaser the 'disrupt setting' which isn't a terrible contradiction, especially since it's never repeated anywhere else in TOS, but I found it interesting to note that it may be the more technical setting whereas calling it the kill setting is the more slang or functional wording, as getting hit by a phaser set to disrupt will kill you)

I would actually love to get my hands on whatever writer's bible existed for Star Trek writers at the time. I'd love to know what their ideas were for photon torpedoes were, because it seems obvious they were meant to be something different. I think Memory Alpha had something on that though.

[Temujin]

I would actually love to get my hands on whatever writer's bible existed for Star Trek writers at the time. I'd love to know what their ideas were for photon torpedoes were, because it seems obvious they were meant to be something different. I think Memory Alpha had something on that though.

• The Making of Star Trek gave this description of the photon torpedo: "...photon torpedoes, which are energy pods of matter and anti-matter contained and held temporarily separated in a magno-photon force field. These can be used as torpedoes or depth charges, and can be set with electrochemical, proximity, and a variety of other fuses. Photon torpedoes can be fired directly at a target, laid out as a minefield, or scattered in an attacker's path as depth charges." (pg. 194)
  
  The idea that the photon torpedoes themselves were a physical missile-like casing was never confirmed on-screen for the Enterprise of the original series. The idea of distinct "launchers" (or "tubes") for the torpedoes was first introduced in "The Changeling", as torpedo number 2 was fired instead of just a torpedo bank being discharged. Even as late as Star Trek: The Motion Picture, Andrew Probert did not envision the photon torpedo to be a capsule, as he says in his 2005 Trekplace interview: "I envisioned them as what we saw during the TV era, they were glowing globs of plasma or some sort of energy. They weren't giant capsules. I envision them as big, glowy, dangerous blobs of... scariness."

This kind of fits with how they are portrayed in Starfleet Battles, which of course was based as much as possible on TOS cannon.

[TOSDOC]

I was just writing about “The Making of Star Trek” by Stephen E. Whitfield and Gene Roddenberry (Del Rey, 1986), and Temujin beat me to it. I think my copy went out with a yard sale by mistake (%^&$%^&$^!) but I always thought of it as the real deal because it came straight from Roddenberry’s mouth. I really need to find another copy of that book.

'Obession' is weird because it contradicts later canon by showing the photon torpedoes being useless against the cloud creature. Photon torpedoes are now known to be antimatter warheads. So really the photorps should have worked.

As far as the vampire cloud and the photorps not working when they should have, I have an elegant solution for you. I just can’t prove it.
The vampire cloud is an inter-phasic creature, able to be “elsewhere” (as Spock said) while space-based weapons were fired at it. My theory is that the creature couldn’t use its inter-phasic abilities while feeding, so a planet-side antimatter device would work against it as long as it was detonated while the creature had begun to feed. Then it couldn't save itself.

Thanks for the rest of your post, Stofsk, that really helps my understanding here!

[SeaTrooper]

• The Making of Star Trek gave this description of the photon torpedo: "...photon torpedoes, which are energy pods of matter and anti-matter contained and held temporarily separated in a magno-photon force field. These can be used as torpedoes or depth charges, and can be set with electrochemical, proximity, and a variety of other fuses. Photon torpedoes can be fired directly at a target, laid out as a minefield, or scattered in an attacker's path as depth charges." (pg. 194)
  
  The idea that the photon torpedoes themselves were a physical missile-like casing was never confirmed on-screen for the Enterprise of the original series. The idea of distinct "launchers" (or "tubes") for the torpedoes was first introduced in "The Changeling", as torpedo number 2 was fired instead of just a torpedo bank being discharged. Even as late as Star Trek: The Motion Picture, Andrew Probert did not envision the photon torpedo to be a capsule, as he says in his 2005 Trekplace interview: "I envisioned them as what we saw during the TV era, they were glowing globs of plasma or some sort of energy. They weren't giant capsules. I envision them as big, glowy, dangerous blobs of... scariness."

This kind of fits with how they are portrayed in Starfleet Battles, which of course was based as much as possible on TOS cannon.

Yeah, and where it screwed them around in the later series (TNG and VOY especially) was that by having solid, physical casings for PTs, they also risked running out. Had they stuck with the big, glowy blobs of scariness, then they could have treated them as effectively infinite for a given battle.

Of course, then the writers would have lacked an occasionally necessary plot device (sigh)

[Temujin]

I'm personally kind of mixed on the issue. Having physical casings make sense if they are to work as described here:

The Making of Star Trek gave this description of the photon torpedo: "...photon torpedoes, which are energy pods of matter and anti-matter contained and held temporarily separated in a magno-photon force field. These can be used as torpedoes or depth charges, and can be set with electrochemical, proximity, and a variety of other fuses. Photon torpedoes can be fired directly at a target, laid out as a minefield, or scattered in an attacker's path as depth charges." (pg. 194)

And while big, glowy, dangerous blobs of scariness do have a certain appeal; I worry it risks the same problems that accompany the plasma weapons.