From: runyan@cup.hp.com (Mark Runyan)
Subject: Re: Cloaking device and the Fed.
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 18:33:02 GMT
Organization: HP, Cupertino, CA, USA
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3

tomcat@cwis.unomaha.edu (Jeffrey S. Jo) writes:
>	I remember someone had asked this before a while back.  The reponse
>went something like this:
>	The Federation has the ability to use the cloaking device, ...

no_cloak_list ----------------------------------------------------------------
This is an old question.  
The current (2-28-92) list of rationalizations:

1. Who says we don't have cloaking?  Just because they haven't used it
   doesn't mean they don't have it.  (see 8 & 5 below) (See also 16 :-)

2. Why should the Federation chose to use cloaking?  It is expensive in
   energy, and it leaves you at an extreme disadvantage if you are tracked.
   (see 6 below)

3. Cloaking shields don't work with Federation warp technology.

4. FASA history explains that it was tried but found unacceptable.  
   (see 6 & 16 below)

5. Cloaking just isn't the Star Fleet Way.

6. "Cloaking just isn't PRACTICAL for the energy/mass ratio of a
   Galaxy class ship.  Under current technology, of course.....(sorta like
   asking why we don't have nuclear powered Stealth fighters.....)"
   (to quote Roger Tang)

7. "It is not esthetically pleasing for the viewer to be treated to a
   TV screen full of stars whizzing by without the Enterprise planted
   squarely in the middle.  Or worse, a TV screen full of stars just
   standing in place while SFX for the Enterprise roaring by are
   played in the background."
   (to quote Tony Nardo)

8. Cloaking isn't foolproof (i.e. you can be tracked and you leave
   indications that you are cloaked all about) and it leaves you at
   a disadvantage if someone catches you that way (i.e. you can't
   fire your weapons while cloaked).  (see 11 below)

9. "The second reason is in the nature of the Enterprise.  It is, first
   and foremost, a science vessel.  Possession of a cloak would be a
   uniquely military function -- contrary to the design intent."
   (to quote Jason Steck)

10. "Obviously the Feds have some type of cloaking device. ...
    So why don't the ships have and/or use the technology?  I think the 
    answer lies in the real world and not the fictional world of ST.   ...
    It would be too much of a crutch for plot resolution in far too many 
    episodes."   (see 7 above)
    (to quote Tom Kuchar)

11. "The answer I like to use is that they do.  It can be used to go unseen
     around non-technologically advanced peoples...It can't be used in space,
     however, because the Romulans have worked on their sensors to pick up 
     Fed-Cloaked ships. ... They did, and the Feds couldn't figure out the 
     device, so the Romulans still have the Cloaking superiority."
      (To quote Larry Diamond)

12. "Cloaking is probably dangerous (even if only slightly).  Klingon and
     Romulan 'acceptable losses' are probably higher than Starfleet's.
    [... based on novels/FASA stuff/my own conjecture]" (see 2 & 4 above).
     (To quote Christopher Davis)

13. "The canonical answer to why there are no cloaking devices on board
     any Federation ship.  They've found that cloaking devices don't
     work with the geometry of the starships shape.  It has to do with
     where the Deflector Emitters are on the hull relative to each other
     and does not allow for that kind of field manipulation."
     (Baycon '90 PANEL Discussion - Rick Sternbach, Mike Okuda as reported
      by Alan Takahashi)
       (see 4 above)

14. "Why doesn't STTNG allow Federation use of cloaking technology anyway?
     (Well, they CAN...after all, it's only a TV show!!)  The real world
     reason is that it's one of the facets that make the Romulans 
     different from the Federation.  Also the fact that any resultant
     space battles/warp maneuvers would be boring to watch."
     (More from Baycon '90 PANEL Discussion - Rick Sternbach, Mike Okuda as
      reported by Alan Takahashi).
        (See 7 above)

15. "Richard Arnold was asked at a convention why the Enterprise doesn't
     have a cloaking device.  His response was that it was too militaristic,
     i.e., having a cloak would indicate that the Enterprise was anticipating
     a fight, which is a military way of thinking and hence inappropriate.
     So this can be accepted as the "official" Star Trek line."
     (To quote Peter A. David)
	(see 9 above)

16.  "They DO have a cloaking device, but there's a problem, they only
     have one.  When Kirk returned the Romulan cloaking device to the
     Federation, they quickly turned it over to the scientists to
     decipher how it works and develop one that will work for us.  In
     the process, they had to gut the Romulan device for parts.
     Anyways, the fateful day approached, and they brought in a lot of
     top brass to witness the first powering of the Federation Cloaking
     Device.  There was a hushed expectation...  And the switch was
     flipped.  To their amazement and delight, the cloaking device
     worked!  And promptly disappeared.  To this day they're still
     trying to find the cloaked off switch.  They know it's in the
     lab...  Somewhere..."
     (To quote Robert J. Granvin)
     (see also 1 above :-)

17. "'No Useful Spinoff Technologies' This one is on the thinest ground
    here, since the script writers could easily be writing a
    counter-example right now.  However, to examine what GR has stated
    is Star Fleet's mission (in terms of 20th Century USA, I think of a
    merging of DARPA, NSF, and NIH), cloaking devices do not have a
    crucial role in emerging Federation Technologies."
    (To quote A.J. Madison)

18. "By treaty, through which the Klingon Empire allied itself with the
    Federation, the Federation agreed not to maintain any cloaking devices
    while allowing Klingons theirs.  Won't stop use of 'em by the Feds
    when they're needed, but it might explain why, in such a delicate
    situation, the Feds went to Kling...."
    (To quote Roger Tang)

19. When asked "Why doesn't the Enterprise ever cloak?", Patrick Stewart
    at Vulkon in Atlanta in 1992 answered "Well... how shall I put it in
    terms you can understand?  It's a technical thing really."  Patrick
    rubs his forehead in serious contemplation and continues, "Put 
    simply, we don't have a cloak button!  I've looked all over the
    bridge and nowhere can I find a single button that says `Cloak'!"
    (To quote Sean P. Ormond)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech