Memory Alpha

Talk:Advanced long-range torpedo

Back to page

Revision as of 14:19, January 20, 2014 by Cid Highwind (Talk | contribs)

39,338pages on
this wiki


They were equipped with an unknown propulsion device that had the potential to severely damage the warp core of a Federation starship.

We don't state unknowns, and generally this line isn't true, since the propulsion system of the torpedos was only unscannable because those torpedos were intended to hide the bodies inside, not because the design itself had an unknown drive. Scotty also just didn't want an unknown right next to the warp core, because unknowns could potential be anything, including something that could damage the core. - Archduk3 19:45, June 5, 2013 (UTC)


Should this article be renamed to either Advanced long-range torpedo, since that's what they were actually called by Sulu in the film: "If you do not surrender to them immediately, I will unleash the entire payload of advanced long-range torpedoes currently locked on to your location." in his communication to Harrison. Or, another name candidate would be PHOT1093 that was the model id label on every torpedo. I don't think we should use these descriptive names if there are actual canonical name candidates we can use instead. --Pseudohuman (talk) 22:02, June 5, 2013 (UTC)

I agree. - Archduk3 06:55, June 6, 2013 (UTC)

If anyone has high quality images from the film, I noticed that there was a file open on Harwoods computer just before he blows up Section 31 London, it has a legible paragraph of text under the title "WEAPONS SUMMARY" that seems to begin with the word "Stealth.." [1] Just wondering if it's about these torpedoes or the weapons of the Vengeance. or what.. --Pseudohuman (talk) 17:18, June 6, 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. It is what Sulu refers to them as in his message. Marcus' description of them is somewhat vague at best when he calls them a "stealth torpedo." Kyle C. Haight (talk) 05:35, June 10, 2013 (UTC)

The Marcus dialogue was: "As part of our defensive strategy, thirty-one developed a new photon torpedo. Long-range and untraceable. It would be invisible to Klingon sensors." --Pseudohuman (talk) 12:13, June 10, 2013 (UTC)

I think "Long-range photon torpedo" would be better. - Mitchz95 (talk) 16:52, June 15, 2013 (UTC)

Maybe, but at this point I would say that let's wait for the script, blu-ray and reference books to come in, and see if there was some more specific official name given for this model of torpedoes. --Pseudohuman (talk) 03:30, June 21, 2013 (UTC)

Display graphic info

There's a bunch of info here from a display graphic that was seen at poor Harewood's desktop monitor just before he died. Call me dense, but how exactly do we know that that summary referred to these specific torpedoes? There doesn't seem to be a weapon name on that screen, nor does the accompanying graphic correspond to any part of the torpedo we've seen. And it's hardly a stretch that a weapons research facility might have more then one type of torpedo under development. The text might fit well with the torpedo, but that hardly seems conclusive enough. -- Capricorn (talk) 14:36, September 9, 2013 (UTC)

You are absolutely right. Moved it to bg. If anyone spots a comment from a production source that the summary was about the torpedoes, let us know. --Pseudohuman (talk) 18:51, September 9, 2013 (UTC)

Rename II

Mark VI photon torpedo graphic

Unaltered graphic, should be cropped later

Transporter Control System graphic

The transporter display locked onto the torpedoes

There is a display graphic which IDs this as a "Photon Torpedo, Mark VI". As graphic also confirms the Enterprise is a Constitution-class. Looks like the graphic was designed with MA in mind. There's also the transporter display graphic which contains several other ID like information. - Archduk3 23:59, September 30, 2013 (UTC)

Oppose. I dont support a name change, as the torpedo was also referred to as "class 12 photon torpedo" in the interior security screen of the torpedo, and CVN-65 Mod.PHO 453 on the detonator processor access panel. Mark VI and CL 365-A photon torpedo on those computer screens. The torpedo casings have the prominent marking as PHOT1093. So there are at least five candidates of what "the official classification" could be, or perhapes it is all of them and the torpedo is a "Type 1093 Class 12 Mark VI Type CVN-65 Model 456 Class 365-A photon torpedo" for example. :D I'm fine with "advanced long-range torpedo" as that is what they were called in dialogue and probably what any reader of MA will look for. --Pseudohuman (talk) 07:29, October 1, 2013 (UTC)
Comment There's no reason to lose sight of the forest through the trees. Some of those designations are a lot less likely to be the actual name then others. For example, if the film only offered us "Photon Torpedo, Mark VI" and "CVN-65 Mod.PHO 453" then I think there would be little discussion that the former should be the name and the latter is just a serial number (and a homage too, it seems). My point being, its not necessarily because there's a lot of potential candidates that there can't be still one that seems to be the right one. I think the only two real contenders are the "Photon Torpedo, Mark VI" that Archduk3 uncovered, and "class 12 photon torpedo". Can I just ask you to clarify though, Pseudohuman, was the latter really fully on-screen? Because I've been looking for it and the best I find is "Class 12 Photo..." cut off. Not that I doubt you, (you clearly know your stuff better then me), but a screenshot would be usefull I guess. In any case, "Advanced long-range torpedo" is clearly a general term, so I don't think we should stop being on the lookout for a "real" name, even if this particular discussion comes to nothing. -- Capricorn (talk) 11:54, October 1, 2013 (UTC)
That is it. Another reason not to name this page as "Mark VI photon torpedo" is that there is a completely different type of photon torpedo with the exact same mark-classification in the prime universe. Also we shouldn't have to be in a position to decide which of the several class, type, model and mark designations attached to this weapon is "the real name" of the torpedo for the simple reason that it requires unnecessary speculation on our part and any decision would give the page a misleading title if we raise one of the possibilities above the rest, since we don't have a clear statement from a production source which of these/or what combination of these did they intend to be the real name. Could we wait for a script or other bg material to surface before making any decisions? While adv long-range torp is a general term there are no other torpedoes that have been given the same description, so IMO there isn't a problem with it at the moment that requires this kind of disambiguation. --Pseudohuman (talk) 13:03, October 1, 2013 (UTC)
Just a very short response, but I wasn't advocating speculation, merely saying that it might potentially be possible to eliminate enough of those suggested names trough simple common sense that only one remains which can reasonably be supported. Just my two cents though, I realize its a bit of an unconventional argument. -- Capricorn (talk) 15:34, October 1, 2013 (UTC)


300 000 km explosive range seem to be... well, a little far fetched. It would require a 100 000 000 teraton explosion to achieve widespread destruction radius of 300 000 km (by comparison - impact of dino-killer asteroid produced only 100 teraton explosion, and the largest nuke ever tested (the RDS-220) achived only the yield of 57 megatons (thats about 0,000057 teratons of TNT). By comparison, any explosion rated at 1 000 000 000 megatons (and thats only 1 000 teratons) yield or higher are considered to be global extinction event for an Earth-type planet.
This would place a 100 000 000 teraton bomb's effect as a clear exterminatus-type event. And that's where the problem lies - no one ever mentioned of imposing General Order 24 on Kronos, only about killing "John Harrison" hiding in non-populated area on Kronos. Also - you woud not need to fire 72 exterminatus-class munitions to destroy just one man - a single warhead would sterilize a planet - but Sulu was going to fire all 72 torpedoes in his possession.... So - the question is - could we trust these specifications as accurate, because all other evidence from the movie disprove such yield. --Terran Ghost (talk) 23:15, January 19, 2014 (UTC)

Don't talk to us, talk to the people who put it in the film. That's all we can go by. The article states that figure was seen on a graphic. 31dot (talk) 00:52, January 20, 2014 (UTC)

The studio just won't bother answering us, I'm afraid. However, may be such inconsistency is worth noting? Since it contradict virtually everything connected with these torpedoes that was in the movie. First of all, consigning several billion living beings to oblivion to execute just one terrorist would be a definite overkill for peacekeeping and exploratory force that is Starfleet, and well, since Spock decried putting even one criminal to death without a fair trial, he would definetely object imposing Gen.order-24 on Kronos. Second - all the words about Khan hiding in non-populated province would be also an academic distinction, when you are going to kill a planet for good. --Terran Ghost (talk) 01:26, January 20, 2014 (UTC)

It is a nitpick unless there is some source stating it is indeed a contradiction or otherwise commenting on this. We aren't given a full understanding of technology and how it works or is analyzed in the film. 31dot (talk) 02:40, January 20, 2014 (UTC)
Indeed. As a side note, in the novelization, and possibly in some version of the script on which the novelization is based on, they speculate that the torpedoes might be planet killers, before they open one up. --Pseudohuman (talk) 11:22, January 20, 2014 (UTC)
Well, calculating the yield is speculation and shouldn't be added to the article - but it is also an unnecessary detour: If the explosion is said to have a radius of much more than the biggest planet in our solar system and about half of that of the sun itself, then that in itself is crazy enough already to perhaps be notable. Throw in the fact that those torpedoes were later armed and did explode in explosions that were small compared to the size of the ship they exploded on, then at least noting that wouldn't really be original research but just a valid observation made by watching the movie. -- Cid Highwind (talk) 11:29, January 20, 2014 (UTC)
The Vengeance might have contained the explosions to a small degree, as it was an armored ship designed for combat. 31dot (talk) 12:13, January 20, 2014 (UTC)
But if we want to report what we see, and not what we think might be the case, then not reporting a difference in listed and shown explosion sizes based on some speculation wouldn't be a good idea either. That aside, if we want to speculate, then we would have to take into account that shielding typically works the other way around - to prevent an outside explosion to get inside, not to prevent a huge inside explosion to leak into the vastness of empty space. ;) -- Cid Highwind (talk) 12:20, January 20, 2014 (UTC)
As you say, however, any note should not include calculations or math(which is what really drew me to argue against this). 31dot (talk) 13:12, January 20, 2014 (UTC)
It's also well established that photonic/photon torpedoes have a variable yield. And we know that the torpedoes were shielded from scans, so the information we saw was presumably just the maximum yield statistics information from the Vengeance computer database. In any case there are a lot of possibilities in this. We know from "The Omega Directive" that a 54 isoton gravimetric charge can blow up a small planet, so the range isn't that surprising, considering this is a six times heavier weapon. Who knows maybe Marcus just set the torpedoes to detonate with a smaller yeld, only enough to take out a city, while they could have been used to destroy the whole Klingon star system, because he wanted there to be Klingons alive after the explosion to find and attack the Enterprise, so he would have an excuse to start the war. --Pseudohuman (talk) 14:09, January 20, 2014 (UTC)
All of that is speculation that can explain the visible differences - but, again, we shouldn't add that speculation to the article but still note the difference. Let the readers beware. I will add a sentence about that now. -- Cid Highwind (talk) 14:19, January 20, 2014 (UTC)

Around Wikia's network

Random Wiki