That rifle is clearly based on the phase pistols from ENT. So which is more advanced? ENT or TOS? You can't say how unadvanced ENT looks and then say the weapon clearly designed as a direct follow-on to that tech is too advanced! Aside from that, notice how the DSC rifle has a much larger emitter than the TOS weapon, even though the TOS weapon fires a beam whereas so far every DSC phaser has fired bolts?
Also, Springfield v M16 is a false equivalency: a) the Springfield was primarily used as a sniper rifle, whereas the M16 is an assault rifle. Even modern day sniper rifles are much longer than assault rifles; b) the DSC rifle is more akin to a carbine than a full-size battle rifle, so a comparison to the M4 would be more apt.
A normie goes "Oh, what's this?"
An otaku goes "UwU, what's this?"
A furry goes "OwO, what's this?"
A werewolf goes "Awoo, what's this?"
"It's nothing personal, I just don't feel like I've gotten to know a person until I've sniffed their crotch." "We said 'no' to Mr. Curiosity. We're not home. Curiosity is not welcome, it is not to be invited in. Curiosity...is bad. It gets you in trouble, it gets you killed, and more importantly...it makes you poor!"
Passion and Serenity are one.
I gain power by understanding both.
In the chaos of their battle, I bring order.
I am a shadow, darkness born from light.
The Force is united within me.
Any time you preface an argument with, "Looks more advanced," you have failed to make you argument.
What it looks like to you or me is not relevant to technological development. Put any modern PC in the same room with Univac and tell me which 'looks' more powerful? You and I know Univac has trouble with long-division, but that room full of magnetic tapes and vacuum tubes sure does look like a technological marvel, (which it was in its day.)
Another example: a plow. The old one-share, mule drawn plow looks primitive compared to the modern technical machines used in today's farming. They didn't break down in such a way that Average Joe couldn't fix them, they didn't require fuel, or a supply infrastructure to maintain them, they didn't need special parts ordered from Germany or Japan, to be installed by factory-certified technicians. A guy, a mule, and a plow could work forty acres of land in perpetuity, even if the entire world died off and they were the only ones left.
Sometimes simpler is better, especially in survival gear. Why do you think the US Army still uses Ma Deuce? There are certainly more modern looking weapons out there, aren't there? (And which one of those looks more like this?
let's not be invoking any pinocchios here by calling discovery's writers 'good'
But they are! Maybe you can't see it because you don't like the story they told overall, but they did a lot of things really well. They also made a few things not so great, of course. But I'd say the entire plotline behind Voq/Tyler and Lorca's secret was well devised. They put in hints for the twists so that smart viewers could figure them out, or at least suspect that something is up, just from watching the show and being familiar with the franchise.
So...thing so bloody obvious that people with a brain could figure it out the moment they meet the character is good writing. Okay now. And people wonder why I have such a disdain for fans of essteedee.
I don't believe that it's so bloody obvious at all, and I think most viewers were surprised and didn't see that twist coming. Because everyone of my co-workers that watched it didn't suspect that. I am fairly certain they have a brain. Most of them of course hadn't followed the reddit discussions I followed, or heard about Frakes mentioning a "Mirror Universe" episode, and also didn't catch the amusing social media background stuff with the real "Javid Iqba"
Star Trek Online Advancement: You start with lowbie gear, you end with Lobi gear.
One could say the exact same thing about the ENT MACO rifle (and I will concede there is a case to be argued they based the DSC rifle off the wrong ENT weapon, since there was a Starfleet Phase Rifle in the first 2 seasons of ENT which was clearly resemblent of the TOS weapon). Could the fragility maybe be down to, oh I don't know, one being made from plywood and the other made from vacuformed plastic? If you gave that design to a prop maker nowadays, they would vacuform it, paint it with either gloss paint or varnish the matt/satin paint to make it look like it was metal, and I guarantee you it would look a heck of a lot more robust than the 1960s article (look at the ENT Type 3). Now, onto your point about tech development. Compare the SA80 (UK battle rifle) with its immediate predecessor, the L1A1 (SLR). Completely different design philosophy. The L1A1 was introduced in 1954, and the SA80 began design work in 1969 (being introduced in 1987). In fact, the L1A1 was still being produced until 1985! (The same year the SA80 entered production).
Two things: this was a complete change in British theory on how an assault rifle should be designed, seeing the adoption of the 'Bullpup' concept already in use by Belgian and French forces. Two: yes, I will concede that a large reason for this was British MoD parsimony. That doesn't affect the point: the Federation doesn't go around starting wars. It is entirely reasonable to argue that it took 100 years for them to revise the design of small arms, just as Federation ship design didn't change much between TMP and the launch of the Galaxy Class (a period of, again, 100 years). In fact, the US Army still uses the M16 and M4 as the basic firearm for its forces (M4 being the standard carbine, and M16 the standard full-size battle rifle), designs which are almost 50 years old by this point, because they work. And the US has far more impetus for military design, etc. than the Federation at the time of DSC.
As for the DSC rifle being more powerful...what? To my knowledge, the only time we see the Type 3 being used in TOS is against Gary Mitchell, who was essentially a god-like figure with mental control over matter at that point. Unless a Type 3 was used in The Cage against the Talosian base (I remember them using laser pistols and the ship phasers, but not a rifle), but even then, as I say, it withstood the firepower from a starship and was revealed to be a mental illusion (the firepower of the phasers had actually blown away the hillside, the Talosians just pretended it didn't). Other than those 2(?) cases, I don't remember phaser rifles ever being used in TOS.
Now, a few points on the ENT rifles:
1) The rifle the DSC weapon is based on is the MACO rifle, which after thinking about it for a few hours, I'm not sure was even a Phase Rifle: it might have been a plasma rifle. It shares similarities with the plasma pistol Archer uses in Broken Bow. The DSC rifle has also had the MACO-style emitter swapped with the Starfleet Phase Pistol emitter housing.
2) The Starfleet Phase rifle used in ENT can be seen in several shots of Enterprise's Armoury. It's clearly based on the TOS example, right down to the long emitter stalk and the bulky module towards the back, but is straight metal grey and has been revised for a C21st audience. And yes, I do believe it was vacuformed, not made of wood.
3) Given Phase weaponry was new at ENT's launch, it is probably fair to say that the Phase Rifles were newer designs than the MACO equivalent.
4) As such, the DSC rifle should really be based on this weapon, not the MACO one or the Phase pistol (especially since DSC Type 2s are based on the TOS design, though this could be new technology that hasn't been applied to the rifles yet).
5) So is this a complete goof? Well...
5a) ...the MACO rifle is certainly the one more associated with the concept of an ENT phaser rifle, so it is the one the audience would most associate with the concept if it were to be based on ENT.
5b) ...every time an NX-01 crewman uses a rifle after the MACO contingent gets assigned there, they're using the MACO weapon. Why? A few practical reasons: it's much shorter and has a foregrip - more like a carbine than a full length rifle - which makes it more mobile on a starship; it's also a less advanced design, which means its a much more reliable design almost by default - every crewman on the NX-01 trained on plasma weapons, because Phase weapons were brand-spanking-new technology.
BUT
5c) This doesn't explain why apparently the 2150s Phase Rifle design got buried in favour of development of the MACO plasma rifle design until 2268 (at the latest), when Starfleet suddenly dredged up a 100-year-old design that went nowhere, only to develop a different design in the 2370s that seemingly went back to the basic characteristics of the 2250s design.
let's not be invoking any pinocchios here by calling discovery's writers 'good'
But they are! Maybe you can't see it because you don't like the story they told overall, but they did a lot of things really well. They also made a few things not so great, of course. But I'd say the entire plotline behind Voq/Tyler and Lorca's secret was well devised. They put in hints for the twists so that smart viewers could figure them out, or at least suspect that something is up, just from watching the show and being familiar with the franchise.
So...thing so bloody obvious that people with a brain could figure it out the moment they meet the character is good writing. Okay now. And people wonder why I have such a disdain for fans of essteedee.
I don't believe that it's so bloody obvious at all, and I think most viewers were surprised and didn't see that twist coming. Because everyone of my co-workers that watched it didn't suspect that. I am fairly certain they have a brain. Most of them of course hadn't followed the reddit discussions I followed, or heard about Frakes mentioning a "Mirror Universe" episode, and also didn't catch the amusing social media background stuff with the real "Javid Iqba"
This. Not all of us read forums or social media posts. In fact, some of us specifically avoided spoilers for the show. In the context of the show itself, it was not obvious Lorca was an MU agent. It was obvious he was a renegade, and it was pretty predictable he'd go over the edge (especially when we see him mess with the Spore Drive coordinates), but I don't think his origins could be considered obvious until at the earliest the end of the previous episode to the MU arc (which was stupid).
And don't mention the photosensitive eyes thing! *twitch* *twitch*
One could say the exact same thing about the ENT MACO rifle (and I will concede there is a case to be argued they based the DSC rifle off the wrong ENT weapon, since there was a Starfleet Phase Rifle in the first 2 seasons of ENT which was clearly resemblent of the TOS weapon). Could the fragility maybe be down to, oh I don't know, one being made from plywood and the other made from vacuformed plastic? If you gave that design to a prop maker nowadays, they would vacuform it, paint it with either gloss paint or varnish the matt/satin paint to make it look like it was metal, and I guarantee you it would look a heck of a lot more robust than the 1960s article (look at the ENT Type 3). Now, onto your point about tech development. Compare the SA80 (UK battle rifle) with its immediate predecessor, the L1A1 (SLR). Completely different design philosophy. The L1A1 was introduced in 1954, and the SA80 began design work in 1969 (being introduced in 1987). In fact, the L1A1 was still being produced until 1985! (The same year the SA80 entered production).
Two things: this was a complete change in British theory on how an assault rifle should be designed, seeing the adoption of the 'Bullpup' concept already in use by Belgian and French forces. Two: yes, I will concede that a large reason for this was British MoD parsimony. That doesn't affect the point: the Federation doesn't go around starting wars. It is entirely reasonable to argue that it took 100 years for them to revise the design of small arms, just as Federation ship design didn't change much between TMP and the launch of the Galaxy Class (a period of, again, 100 years). In fact, the US Army still uses the M16 and M4 as the basic firearm for its forces (M4 being the standard carbine, and M16 the standard full-size battle rifle), designs which are almost 50 years old by this point, because they work. And the US has far more impetus for military design, etc. than the Federation at the time of DSC.
As for the DSC rifle being more powerful...what? To my knowledge, the only time we see the Type 3 being used in TOS is against Gary Mitchell, who was essentially a god-like figure with mental control over matter at that point. Unless a Type 3 was used in The Cage against the Talosian base (I remember them using laser pistols and the ship phasers, but not a rifle), but even then, as I say, it withstood the firepower from a starship and was revealed to be a mental illusion (the firepower of the phasers had actually blown away the hillside, the Talosians just pretended it didn't). Other than those 2(?) cases, I don't remember phaser rifles ever being used in TOS.
Now, a few points on the ENT rifles:
1) The rifle the DSC weapon is based on is the MACO rifle, which after thinking about it for a few hours, I'm not sure was even a Phase Rifle: it might have been a plasma rifle. It shares similarities with the plasma pistol Archer uses in Broken Bow. The DSC rifle has also had the MACO-style emitter swapped with the Starfleet Phase Pistol emitter housing.
2) The Starfleet Phase rifle used in ENT can be seen in several shots of Enterprise's Armoury. It's clearly based on the TOS example, right down to the long emitter stalk and the bulky module towards the back, but is straight metal grey and has been revised for a C21st audience. And yes, I do believe it was vacuformed, not made of wood.
3) Given Phase weaponry was new at ENT's launch, it is probably fair to say that the Phase Rifles were newer designs than the MACO equivalent.
4) As such, the DSC rifle should really be based on this weapon, not the MACO one or the Phase pistol (especially since DSC Type 2s are based on the TOS design, though this could be new technology that hasn't been applied to the rifles yet).
5) So is this a complete goof? Well...
5a) ...the MACO rifle is certainly the one more associated with the concept of an ENT phaser rifle, so it is the one the audience would most associate with the concept if it were to be based on ENT.
5b) ...every time an NX-01 crewman uses a rifle after the MACO contingent gets assigned there, they're using the MACO weapon. Why? A few practical reasons: it's much shorter and has a foregrip - more like a carbine than a full length rifle - which makes it more mobile on a starship; it's also a less advanced design, which means its a much more reliable design almost by default - every crewman on the NX-01 trained on plasma weapons, because Phase weapons were brand-spanking-new technology.
BUT
5c) This doesn't explain why apparently the 2150s Phase Rifle design got buried in favour of development of the MACO plasma rifle design until 2268 (at the latest), when Starfleet suddenly dredged up a 100-year-old design that went nowhere, only to develop a different design in the 2370s that seemingly went back to the basic characteristics of the 2250s design.
Correction: Having done some checking, neither the Starfleet or MACO rifles were Phase Rifles - both were plasma 'pulse' rifles from what I can tell. Which only raises more questions on not only DSC's choice of prop design, but also on ENT's design (the MACO rifle is aesthetically consistent with Archer's Starfleet-issue Plasma pistol, the Starfleet plasma rifle isn't).
In the 1980s when I served on a US Navy Warship we had the single most modern naval rifles devised at the time on the ship. For small arms we still used the M-14 and the M-1911.
We weren't a troop carrier!
Why would a ship that might be called upon once in its life to repel boarders need the 'most modern' hand weapons? That's where you send the old stuff in the armory. You put the new stuff on the point of the spear.
That said, you cannot tell how modern something is by looking at it!
A WW2 era fragmentation grenade looks a lot more dangerous, deadly, and modern than a 1980s era flash-bang. Heck, if I wanted to make something explode, I'd still prefer the old-fashioned frag, but if my objective is to capture live prisoners, well, the frag is the wrong weapon.
Two competing technologies can exist side by side. For example, the Mauser, one of the finest field rifles ever developed, was employed by almost everyone in WW2. It was a bolt action. Germany had the MP18 submachinegun, the FG42 Light Machine Gun, the MKb42, (grandpappy to the AK 47,) the MP35, and a host of other weapons with much higher rates of fire. So why did so many troops go to war with a bolt action rifle?
Two reasons: It was tough to break and easy to repair. It also helped to force the trooper to re-aim between shots, conserved on ammo use, and could be used as a melee weapon whether equipped with a bayonet or not. The K98k, (a refinement of the rifle designed in the 1860s!) was accurate at long range, lethal, and unsurpassed by any weapon fielded by any army in effectiveness.
Yes, Garand lovers, the old Mauser was superior to the M1 in almost every way but rate of fire. And in that it could be considered superior because the 200 or so rounds a soldier could carry would last longer if on can't burn through a clip in six seconds. When rate of fire became an issue, though, the M1 was the way to go.
one clearly shares NO engineering with the other with those, and the "Newer" one (circa 2260's) is visibly more fragile, bulkier, and has been SHOWN to be less powerful than the one from the 2250s.
AHAHAHAAHAHA!!!! This is hilarious, since the 2260's model you're ranting about was seen in only one episode of TOS despite being an iconic design. And in that episode most of the time it was being used for this:
Yeah... I'm pretty sure that even the main guns on the Enterprise wouldn't have had much effect on Gary Mitchell at that point....
LOL! That episode also graced us with the "Shatner Chop"... which is more powerful than the laser gun.
You have won the internet for the day with this! While i dont really like Discovery, the the phaser argument is silly. Of course the Disco weapons are less advanced. They fire a pew pew bolt which as far as we have seen makes a nice hole in the target. The TOS weapons fire a beam which vaporizes, can stun multiple targets, heat rocks, etc.
which doesn't work unless Starfleet hit a situation where they could no longer mass produce the superior weapon and had to rely on ersatz equipment by Kirk's (and Pike's) day.
That or you're making invalid assumptions about the way their design philosophy works. What you seem to be missing is that in TOS Kirk's hand phaser was as powerful as the rifles used in Discovery. That rifle Kirk used vs Mitchell wasn't analogous to an M4 or some other mass-produced weapon issued to ground troops. No, it was more akin to a .50 cal machine gun in the way that Starfleet used it.
It looks impractical to you because you don't understand it's purpose. It's not meant to be used on a daily basis with minimal training.
Oh, also Starfleet personnel routinely use energy pistols for non-combat functions. The designs used by Starfleet have energy settings that make them a functional substitute for welding and cutting torches, etc...
The whole problem with the "this looks more advanced than that" when it comes to rifle design is - Trek is supposed to be in our future. If there are objectice criteria that makes a TOS or DSC rifle worse or better than the other, these objective criteria should also say that both are better than what we have now. We can probably say that in terms of firepower and flexibility, but in terms of usability or practicality, it often can't. The TOS Phaser Rifle just lacks any smoothness and none of its visual or ergonomical features seem to be necessary to achieve ifs firepower or flexibility. So what it really does is - it looks obsolete to our contemporary weapons, and that's why we feel it's "obsolete".
And that's the reason why outside of a particular one-off nostalgia episode, Star Trek will likely never go back to recreating TOS designs accurately. They will certainly try to reuse any still futuristic looking design features that evoke the TOS feelings, but they will never allow it to look thatobsolete to the viewer. Regardless of whether some people think it's critical to really feel like it is part of their"head canon" of Star Trek - the target audience is not limited to "old" fans of the franchise.
Star Trek Online Advancement: You start with lowbie gear, you end with Lobi gear.
The problem is..if you make a prequel to something..it has to somewhat match up to what your trying to preceed, regardless of the show, for example the uniforms, you can't see how they would move from the DISCO ones to origional trek ones (or at least something resembling it ) no skirts on the female DISCO uniforms for one is an example.
The spore Drive..okay I can kinda understand to a certian degree, the Federation has dabbled in various new ways to ravel, transwarp with the Excelsior project, artificial wormholes as theorised by Dax's exwife
The ship designs, you'd think we'd see them looking somewhat like TOS..maybe TOS versions of the Miranda class, Oberth and Constellation for example or similar styles (hell the ships in Agents of Yesteryear were very well done ) The ships look more like they were designed by the same people who did the Vengence in the Kelvin timeline.
The thing is, the gaps between ENT to TOS to TNG are actually handy..means you can say anything happened without needing to show it...doing shows like DICSO to fill in all the gaps seems crazy, why not move forward where you can go as crazy as you like with technology, more freedom to tell a story
The DISCO Klingons look like they are to the traditional Klingons as the Remans are to the Romulans
I think when you consider the Orville was only made after CBS refused to let him do a Star Trek series..and the fact is ..take the comedy out.or at least lessen it and you have a show that you could easily see as a Star Trek series and plays out like one..looks like one..more than the official trek is doig..not to mention Seth is a star trek fanboy and is friends with so many ex trek people.you have to wonder what he would have done with the franchise..i think the fact they were relased at roughly the same time kinda have made some think when a parody is more ike the real thing..than the real thing..somethings wrong
I think when you consider the Orville was only made after CBS refused to let him do a Star Trek series..and the fact is ..take the comedy out.or at least lessen it and you have a show that you could easily see as a Star Trek series and plays out like one..looks like one..more than the official trek is doig..not to mention Seth is a star trek fanboy and is friends with so many ex trek people.you have to wonder what he would have done with the franchise..i think the fact they were relased at roughly the same time kinda have made some think when a parody is more ike the real thing..than the real thing..somethings wrong
And hopefully future Star Trek series takes this into consideration. It seems like Discovery is relying on the nostalgia of TOS without realizing why Star Trek fans liked TOS. The Orville is far closer to what TOS would have been if it was released 50 years later instead of when it originally aired.
TMP-is quite a while down that road-it's the future from that setting that was established.
It was two and a half years later. Stated explicitly in dialog.
point being LATER as opposed to claiming to be EARLIER.
just one example:
is supposed to be older than
??
IOW the more compact and powerful weapon is supposed to be less advanced?
mind that those two items were concurrent-that is, from exactly the same era.
The reasonable person standard isn't tested on the basis of maker commentary, it's when you sit them down, they watch both shows, and you ask them afterward which one came after the other in continuity based on what they see on the screen.
"Enterprise" looked more primitive, but TOS, in spite of poorer special effects? well, it also looks like an earlier era than Discovery to a first-time Trek viewer who doesn't have memories of Enterprise.
It's like comparing a Springfield 1903 with an M-16, then claiming the M-16 came first.
one clearly shares NO engineering with the other with those, and the "Newer" one (circa 2260's) is visibly more fragile, bulkier, and has been SHOWN to be less powerful than the one from the 2250s.
AHAHAHAAHAHA!!!! This is hilarious, since the 2260's model you're ranting about was seen in only one episode of TOS despite being an iconic design. And in that episode most of the time it was being used for this:
Yeah... I'm pretty sure that even the main guns on the Enterprise wouldn't have had much effect on Gary Mitchell at that point....
I like the tos rifle....it's simple and sleek, just rotate the middle for a setting, point and shoot. The Disco rifle looks too MACO (then again, they so seem to champion Enterprise as much as possible, more than TOS, here). Only thing they did okay with was the pistols and the computer tapes.
DSC is not visually consistent with TOS. It's the creator's intention, the things are not supposed to be related. DSC does not become TOS, neither does it retcon anything. We have clear statements regarding that. They changed the looks bevause they wanted to, not to close gaps or illustrate evolution.
^ Memory Alpha.org is not canon. It's a open wiki with arbitrary rules. Only what can be cited from an episode is. ^
"No. Men do not roar. Women roar. Then they hurl heavy objects... and claw at you." -Worf, son of Mogh
"A filthy, mangy beast, but in its bony breast beat the heart of a warrior" - "faithful" (...) "but ever-ready to follow the call of the wild." - Martok, about a Targ
"That pig smelled horrid. A sweet-sour, extremely pungent odor. I showered and showered, and it took me a week to get rid of it!" - Robert Justman, appreciating Emmy-Lou
which doesn't work unless Starfleet hit a situation where they could no longer mass produce the superior weapon and had to rely on ersatz equipment by Kirk's (and Pike's) day.
That or you're making invalid assumptions about the way their design philosophy works. What you seem to be missing is that in TOS Kirk's hand phaser was as powerful as the rifles used in Discovery. That rifle Kirk used vs Mitchell wasn't analogous to an M4 or some other mass-produced weapon issued to ground troops. No, it was more akin to a .50 cal machine gun in the way that Starfleet used it.
It looks impractical to you because you don't understand it's purpose. It's not meant to be used on a daily basis with minimal training.
Oh, also Starfleet personnel routinely use energy pistols for non-combat functions. The designs used by Starfleet have energy settings that make them a functional substitute for welding and cutting torches, etc...
the point is, the US Navy kept the obsolete rifles in inventory specifically because of a single function, one that REQUIRED them to be bigger and bulkier than the more modern rifle, there's no similar or even equivalent reason that would apply here. and yes, Hand phasers have multiple tool uses-because they're more compact and only require one hand to operate, but see, a longer, less weildy cutting torch is less useful than the shorter, more compact one, so unless you can come up with a reason, it still stands-the Disco weapon is a purpose-built WEAPON and it's shorter, less unwieldy, with fewer working bits exposed and a better sight line and sight radius, than the TOS version that is supposed to come later.
and in practice, fills the same role-I've watched that episode more times than can easily be counted, it was racked like a rifle, issued like a rifle, and used like a rifle.
Here's one plausible reason why the TOS rifle would be bulkier at the back and spindlier at the front: thermodynamics. DSC's MACO-derived rifle fires pulses - the TOS rifle fires a beam. Beams are more difficult to generate technically because they generate a lot more heat than pulses. This might explain why the emitter stalk on the TOS type 3 is so long: more surface area = more cooling. Now, ergonomic constraints which limit the length of the rifle to what a human can practically carry mean that all the other integral equipment (power pack, etc) has to be moved into a smaller package at the back to clear the very hot emitter stalk when in use. A pulse rifle doesn't have to deal with this so much, because the weapon can cool in between shots, so the design can be more balanced.
It looks different because it needs to be designed differently to meet different technical challenges. The difference between beams and pulses tends to get overlooked a fair bit in sci-Fi, but it is a major technical distinction. Pulse weapons are easier in the respect that they are easier to cool. Beam weapons are harder in that they require constant cooling when in use, similar to an early machine gun, but they're also more useful because they can be used as cutting torches, track easier, etc.
which doesn't work unless Starfleet hit a situation where they could no longer mass produce the superior weapon and had to rely on ersatz equipment by Kirk's (and Pike's) day.
That or you're making invalid assumptions about the way their design philosophy works. What you seem to be missing is that in TOS Kirk's hand phaser was as powerful as the rifles used in Discovery. That rifle Kirk used vs Mitchell wasn't analogous to an M4 or some other mass-produced weapon issued to ground troops. No, it was more akin to a .50 cal machine gun in the way that Starfleet used it.
It looks impractical to you because you don't understand it's purpose. It's not meant to be used on a daily basis with minimal training.
Oh, also Starfleet personnel routinely use energy pistols for non-combat functions. The designs used by Starfleet have energy settings that make them a functional substitute for welding and cutting torches, etc...
the point is, the US Navy kept the obsolete rifles in inventory specifically because of a single function, one that REQUIRED them to be bigger and bulkier than the more modern rifle, there's no similar or even equivalent reason that would apply here. and yes, Hand phasers have multiple tool uses-because they're more compact and only require one hand to operate, but see, a longer, less weildy cutting torch is less useful than the shorter, more compact one, so unless you can come up with a reason, it still stands-the Disco weapon is a purpose-built WEAPON and it's shorter, less unwieldy, with fewer working bits exposed and a better sight line and sight radius, than the TOS version that is supposed to come later.
and in practice, fills the same role-I've watched that episode more times than can easily be counted, it was racked like a rifle, issued like a rifle, and used like a rifle.
Actually, they used them because there were millions of them in storage, with billions of rounds of ammunition, and they didn't need to buy new ones when those old .30cal weapons were perfectly adequate for the job of ship security.
As for the TOS rifle compared to the Disco weapon, my instincts say it is just a different prop department doing their thing. The weapons aren't supposed to be related in any way. But my headcanon is, one is an assault weapon similar to the carbines which use pistol ammunition and the other is an anti-tank rifle.
One is made for close quarters combat, and the other for long range combat. It's that simple. Also: of the two, the TOS rifle appears to be more versatile, in that it can be used for something other than putting holes in people. It can cut obstructions, it can be used as a target painter, it can be used against vehicles or buildings, and it can be used on personnel, (unless your target is Gary Mitchel.)
All weapons are not created equally, and for a dedicated combat unit the weapon of choice isn't going to be the same as a weapon kept handy for emergencies, especially when you don't know exactly what the emergency is going to be.
LOL! That episode also graced us with the "Shatner Chop"... which is more powerful than the laser gun.
Well, compared to real world lasers at the time of TOS, it might actually be justified.
It's really a common trope in fantasy and sci-fi that somehow, good old fisticuffs and the occasional sword are better than advanced firearms or energy weapons in engaging superior foes.
Like in Pacific Rim and probably a ton of "mecha" in general. And in space, slow-speed ramming often works better than advanced weapons like anti-matter torpedoes as well.
Star Trek Online Advancement: You start with lowbie gear, you end with Lobi gear.
Comments
Also, Springfield v M16 is a false equivalency: a) the Springfield was primarily used as a sniper rifle, whereas the M16 is an assault rifle. Even modern day sniper rifles are much longer than assault rifles; b) the DSC rifle is more akin to a carbine than a full-size battle rifle, so a comparison to the M4 would be more apt.
Trials of Blood and Fire
Moving On Parts 1-3 - Part 4
In Cold Blood
#LegalizeAwoo
A normie goes "Oh, what's this?"
An otaku goes "UwU, what's this?"
A furry goes "OwO, what's this?"
A werewolf goes "Awoo, what's this?"
"It's nothing personal, I just don't feel like I've gotten to know a person until I've sniffed their crotch."
"We said 'no' to Mr. Curiosity. We're not home. Curiosity is not welcome, it is not to be invited in. Curiosity...is bad. It gets you in trouble, it gets you killed, and more importantly...it makes you poor!"
What it looks like to you or me is not relevant to technological development. Put any modern PC in the same room with Univac and tell me which 'looks' more powerful? You and I know Univac has trouble with long-division, but that room full of magnetic tapes and vacuum tubes sure does look like a technological marvel, (which it was in its day.)
Another example: a plow. The old one-share, mule drawn plow looks primitive compared to the modern technical machines used in today's farming. They didn't break down in such a way that Average Joe couldn't fix them, they didn't require fuel, or a supply infrastructure to maintain them, they didn't need special parts ordered from Germany or Japan, to be installed by factory-certified technicians. A guy, a mule, and a plow could work forty acres of land in perpetuity, even if the entire world died off and they were the only ones left.
Sometimes simpler is better, especially in survival gear. Why do you think the US Army still uses Ma Deuce? There are certainly more modern looking weapons out there, aren't there? (And which one of those looks more like this?
Two things: this was a complete change in British theory on how an assault rifle should be designed, seeing the adoption of the 'Bullpup' concept already in use by Belgian and French forces. Two: yes, I will concede that a large reason for this was British MoD parsimony. That doesn't affect the point: the Federation doesn't go around starting wars. It is entirely reasonable to argue that it took 100 years for them to revise the design of small arms, just as Federation ship design didn't change much between TMP and the launch of the Galaxy Class (a period of, again, 100 years). In fact, the US Army still uses the M16 and M4 as the basic firearm for its forces (M4 being the standard carbine, and M16 the standard full-size battle rifle), designs which are almost 50 years old by this point, because they work. And the US has far more impetus for military design, etc. than the Federation at the time of DSC.
As for the DSC rifle being more powerful...what? To my knowledge, the only time we see the Type 3 being used in TOS is against Gary Mitchell, who was essentially a god-like figure with mental control over matter at that point. Unless a Type 3 was used in The Cage against the Talosian base (I remember them using laser pistols and the ship phasers, but not a rifle), but even then, as I say, it withstood the firepower from a starship and was revealed to be a mental illusion (the firepower of the phasers had actually blown away the hillside, the Talosians just pretended it didn't). Other than those 2(?) cases, I don't remember phaser rifles ever being used in TOS.
Now, a few points on the ENT rifles:
1) The rifle the DSC weapon is based on is the MACO rifle, which after thinking about it for a few hours, I'm not sure was even a Phase Rifle: it might have been a plasma rifle. It shares similarities with the plasma pistol Archer uses in Broken Bow. The DSC rifle has also had the MACO-style emitter swapped with the Starfleet Phase Pistol emitter housing.
2) The Starfleet Phase rifle used in ENT can be seen in several shots of Enterprise's Armoury. It's clearly based on the TOS example, right down to the long emitter stalk and the bulky module towards the back, but is straight metal grey and has been revised for a C21st audience. And yes, I do believe it was vacuformed, not made of wood.
3) Given Phase weaponry was new at ENT's launch, it is probably fair to say that the Phase Rifles were newer designs than the MACO equivalent.
4) As such, the DSC rifle should really be based on this weapon, not the MACO one or the Phase pistol (especially since DSC Type 2s are based on the TOS design, though this could be new technology that hasn't been applied to the rifles yet).
5) So is this a complete goof? Well...
5a) ...the MACO rifle is certainly the one more associated with the concept of an ENT phaser rifle, so it is the one the audience would most associate with the concept if it were to be based on ENT.
5b) ...every time an NX-01 crewman uses a rifle after the MACO contingent gets assigned there, they're using the MACO weapon. Why? A few practical reasons: it's much shorter and has a foregrip - more like a carbine than a full length rifle - which makes it more mobile on a starship; it's also a less advanced design, which means its a much more reliable design almost by default - every crewman on the NX-01 trained on plasma weapons, because Phase weapons were brand-spanking-new technology.
BUT
5c) This doesn't explain why apparently the 2150s Phase Rifle design got buried in favour of development of the MACO plasma rifle design until 2268 (at the latest), when Starfleet suddenly dredged up a 100-year-old design that went nowhere, only to develop a different design in the 2370s that seemingly went back to the basic characteristics of the 2250s design.
Trials of Blood and Fire
Moving On Parts 1-3 - Part 4
In Cold Blood
This. Not all of us read forums or social media posts. In fact, some of us specifically avoided spoilers for the show. In the context of the show itself, it was not obvious Lorca was an MU agent. It was obvious he was a renegade, and it was pretty predictable he'd go over the edge (especially when we see him mess with the Spore Drive coordinates), but I don't think his origins could be considered obvious until at the earliest the end of the previous episode to the MU arc (which was stupid).
And don't mention the photosensitive eyes thing! *twitch* *twitch*
Trials of Blood and Fire
Moving On Parts 1-3 - Part 4
In Cold Blood
Correction: Having done some checking, neither the Starfleet or MACO rifles were Phase Rifles - both were plasma 'pulse' rifles from what I can tell. Which only raises more questions on not only DSC's choice of prop design, but also on ENT's design (the MACO rifle is aesthetically consistent with Archer's Starfleet-issue Plasma pistol, the Starfleet plasma rifle isn't).
Trials of Blood and Fire
Moving On Parts 1-3 - Part 4
In Cold Blood
We weren't a troop carrier!
Why would a ship that might be called upon once in its life to repel boarders need the 'most modern' hand weapons? That's where you send the old stuff in the armory. You put the new stuff on the point of the spear.
That said, you cannot tell how modern something is by looking at it!
A WW2 era fragmentation grenade looks a lot more dangerous, deadly, and modern than a 1980s era flash-bang. Heck, if I wanted to make something explode, I'd still prefer the old-fashioned frag, but if my objective is to capture live prisoners, well, the frag is the wrong weapon.
Two competing technologies can exist side by side. For example, the Mauser, one of the finest field rifles ever developed, was employed by almost everyone in WW2. It was a bolt action. Germany had the MP18 submachinegun, the FG42 Light Machine Gun, the MKb42, (grandpappy to the AK 47,) the MP35, and a host of other weapons with much higher rates of fire. So why did so many troops go to war with a bolt action rifle?
Two reasons: It was tough to break and easy to repair. It also helped to force the trooper to re-aim between shots, conserved on ammo use, and could be used as a melee weapon whether equipped with a bayonet or not. The K98k, (a refinement of the rifle designed in the 1860s!) was accurate at long range, lethal, and unsurpassed by any weapon fielded by any army in effectiveness.
Yes, Garand lovers, the old Mauser was superior to the M1 in almost every way but rate of fire. And in that it could be considered superior because the 200 or so rounds a soldier could carry would last longer if on can't burn through a clip in six seconds. When rate of fire became an issue, though, the M1 was the way to go.
Newer doesn't always mean better.
Yeah... I'm pretty sure that even the main guns on the Enterprise wouldn't have had much effect on Gary Mitchell at that point....
My character Tsin'xing
You have won the internet for the day with this! While i dont really like Discovery, the the phaser argument is silly. Of course the Disco weapons are less advanced. They fire a pew pew bolt which as far as we have seen makes a nice hole in the target. The TOS weapons fire a beam which vaporizes, can stun multiple targets, heat rocks, etc.
original join date 2010
Member: Team Trekyards. Visit Trekyards today!
It looks impractical to you because you don't understand it's purpose. It's not meant to be used on a daily basis with minimal training.
Oh, also Starfleet personnel routinely use energy pistols for non-combat functions. The designs used by Starfleet have energy settings that make them a functional substitute for welding and cutting torches, etc...
My character Tsin'xing
And that's the reason why outside of a particular one-off nostalgia episode, Star Trek will likely never go back to recreating TOS designs accurately. They will certainly try to reuse any still futuristic looking design features that evoke the TOS feelings, but they will never allow it to look thatobsolete to the viewer. Regardless of whether some people think it's critical to really feel like it is part of their"head canon" of Star Trek - the target audience is not limited to "old" fans of the franchise.
The spore Drive..okay I can kinda understand to a certian degree, the Federation has dabbled in various new ways to ravel, transwarp with the Excelsior project, artificial wormholes as theorised by Dax's exwife
The ship designs, you'd think we'd see them looking somewhat like TOS..maybe TOS versions of the Miranda class, Oberth and Constellation for example or similar styles (hell the ships in Agents of Yesteryear were very well done ) The ships look more like they were designed by the same people who did the Vengence in the Kelvin timeline.
The thing is, the gaps between ENT to TOS to TNG are actually handy..means you can say anything happened without needing to show it...doing shows like DICSO to fill in all the gaps seems crazy, why not move forward where you can go as crazy as you like with technology, more freedom to tell a story
The DISCO Klingons look like they are to the traditional Klingons as the Remans are to the Romulans
I think when you consider the Orville was only made after CBS refused to let him do a Star Trek series..and the fact is ..take the comedy out.or at least lessen it and you have a show that you could easily see as a Star Trek series and plays out like one..looks like one..more than the official trek is doig..not to mention Seth is a star trek fanboy and is friends with so many ex trek people.you have to wonder what he would have done with the franchise..i think the fact they were relased at roughly the same time kinda have made some think when a parody is more ike the real thing..than the real thing..somethings wrong
And hopefully future Star Trek series takes this into consideration. It seems like Discovery is relying on the nostalgia of TOS without realizing why Star Trek fans liked TOS. The Orville is far closer to what TOS would have been if it was released 50 years later instead of when it originally aired.
~swipes the tos rifle~ YOINK!
I like the tos rifle....it's simple and sleek, just rotate the middle for a setting, point and shoot. The Disco rifle looks too MACO (then again, they so seem to champion Enterprise as much as possible, more than TOS, here). Only thing they did okay with was the pistols and the computer tapes.
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
Here's one plausible reason why the TOS rifle would be bulkier at the back and spindlier at the front: thermodynamics. DSC's MACO-derived rifle fires pulses - the TOS rifle fires a beam. Beams are more difficult to generate technically because they generate a lot more heat than pulses. This might explain why the emitter stalk on the TOS type 3 is so long: more surface area = more cooling. Now, ergonomic constraints which limit the length of the rifle to what a human can practically carry mean that all the other integral equipment (power pack, etc) has to be moved into a smaller package at the back to clear the very hot emitter stalk when in use. A pulse rifle doesn't have to deal with this so much, because the weapon can cool in between shots, so the design can be more balanced.
It looks different because it needs to be designed differently to meet different technical challenges. The difference between beams and pulses tends to get overlooked a fair bit in sci-Fi, but it is a major technical distinction. Pulse weapons are easier in the respect that they are easier to cool. Beam weapons are harder in that they require constant cooling when in use, similar to an early machine gun, but they're also more useful because they can be used as cutting torches, track easier, etc.
Trials of Blood and Fire
Moving On Parts 1-3 - Part 4
In Cold Blood
Actually, they used them because there were millions of them in storage, with billions of rounds of ammunition, and they didn't need to buy new ones when those old .30cal weapons were perfectly adequate for the job of ship security.
As for the TOS rifle compared to the Disco weapon, my instincts say it is just a different prop department doing their thing. The weapons aren't supposed to be related in any way. But my headcanon is, one is an assault weapon similar to the carbines which use pistol ammunition and the other is an anti-tank rifle.
One is made for close quarters combat, and the other for long range combat. It's that simple. Also: of the two, the TOS rifle appears to be more versatile, in that it can be used for something other than putting holes in people. It can cut obstructions, it can be used as a target painter, it can be used against vehicles or buildings, and it can be used on personnel, (unless your target is Gary Mitchel.)
All weapons are not created equally, and for a dedicated combat unit the weapon of choice isn't going to be the same as a weapon kept handy for emergencies, especially when you don't know exactly what the emergency is going to be.
Well, compared to real world lasers at the time of TOS, it might actually be justified.
It's really a common trope in fantasy and sci-fi that somehow, good old fisticuffs and the occasional sword are better than advanced firearms or energy weapons in engaging superior foes.
Like in Pacific Rim and probably a ton of "mecha" in general. And in space, slow-speed ramming often works better than advanced weapons like anti-matter torpedoes as well.