RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 139,771
Posts: 5,434,208
Members: 24,840
Currently online: 599
Newest member: Reece101

TrekToday headlines

Trek Comics Sneak Peek
By: T'Bonz on Sep 23

German Volkswagen Campaign Features Trek Actors
By: T'Bonz on Sep 23

Shatner And Nimoy In Trek 3?
By: T'Bonz on Sep 23

The Art of John Alvin Book Review
By: T'Bonz on Sep 23

Episode Four of The Red Shirt Diaries
By: T'Bonz on Sep 22

Star Trek: The Compendium Review
By: T'Bonz on Sep 22

Orci Drops Rangers Project
By: T'Bonz on Sep 22

Retro Review: Image in the Sand
By: Michelle on Sep 20

Star Trek: Shadows Of Tyranny Casting Call
By: T'Bonz on Sep 19

USS Vengeance And More Starship Collection Ships
By: T'Bonz on Sep 19


Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.


Go Back   The Trek BBS > Misc. Star Trek > Trek Tech

Trek Tech Pass me the quantum flux regulator, will you?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old August 27 2012, 07:26 PM   #1
flamewolf393
Cadet
 
Why the lack of personal protection?

I have seen nearly every episode (other than enterprise and some ds9), and except in very rare cases (such as the borg) there has never been any kind of personal protection, either personal shields or even body armor. Given the number of wounds and deaths we see in any kind of ground battle, it seems strange that everyone runs around in flimsy cloth uniforms. Why has this never been an issue?

In fact, when I think about it there is really very little personnel scale tech at all.
flamewolf393 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 27 2012, 08:07 PM   #2
C.E. Evans
Vice Admiral
 
C.E. Evans's Avatar
 
Location: Saint Louis (aka Defiance)
Re: Why the lack of personal protection?

I think body armor can only do so much against certain kinds of weapons (such as disruptors at their highest setting--which can probably vaporize both you and your armor). It could also be that there are limits to personal forcefields (they may interfere with transporters perhaps). In such instances, it could be that the technology is probably there, but hasn't been perfected yet for general usage. Maybe in the 25th-Century...

But that isn't to say that Starfleet security/combat personnel shouldn't be wearing some sort of protective gear, though (like they did in TMP). If nothing else, Starfleet crews still frequently encounter civilizations using bladed weapons or even old-fashioned "slugthrowers" at times, and body armor would be definitely handy in those instances, IMO.
__________________
"Everybody wants to rule the world..."
C.E. Evans is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 27 2012, 08:22 PM   #3
Timo
Admiral
 
Re: Why the lack of personal protection?

We know that the types of protection we have witnessed worn all have serious shortcomings.

Personal forcefields simply don't appear to be technologically feasible. TAS has the belt-projected "life support fields", but those are incapable of stopping a phaser at stun ("Slaver Weapon"), and offer little protection even at fisticuffs ("Pirates of Orion"). TNG shows Worf rigging a comparable field that can barely stop a few low-speed bullets before frizzing out. And when the Borg Drones appear, their phaser-proof fields impress the heck out of our heroes.

Body armor as worn by Klingons has been shown to be vulnerable to disruptors and phasers (a single shot always takes out the warrior), but also to knives and swords (again, a single stab easily penetrates, with fatal results). The same is true of TNG spacesuits (ST:FC), and supposedly of their predecessors as well. It doesn't seem as if these things could stop bullets, either - simulated Klingons fell to simulated WWII bullets in VOY "Killing Game".

Now, it does seem as if 23rd or 24th century technology ought to be able to come up with armor or forcefields that can stop a dagger or a sword. I mean, even medieval chainmail achieved that much on occasion! Stopping of bullets might be physically impossible with mere armor, though (or we'd have done it today already), and perhaps not worth doing with forcefields (because the enemy would just whip out the disruptors if the slugthrowers failed).

But what is that Klingon armor good for? It doesn't stop beam weapons, it doesn't stop edged weapons, it doesn't stop bullets. Heck, there are episodes of DS9 where a fist driven in an armored stomach makes a Klingon fold in two! Are those thickly padded vests intended to be flotation devices? And if so, what about the comparable TMP Starfleet "armor"?

Timo Saloniemi
Timo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 27 2012, 09:46 PM   #4
Unicron
Continuity Spackle
 
Unicron's Avatar
 
Location: Cybertron
Send a message via ICQ to Unicron
Re: Why the lack of personal protection?

They watched Star Wars and saw how effective stormtrooper armor is.
__________________

"My dream is to eat candy and poop emeralds. I'm halfway successful."


Catbert, Evil Director of Human Resources
Unicron is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 27 2012, 09:59 PM   #5
scotpens
Vice Admiral
 
scotpens's Avatar
 
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Re: Why the lack of personal protection?

Timo wrote: View Post
Stopping of bullets might be physically impossible with mere armor, though (or we'd have done it today already) . . .
Uh, we have done it today. Ever hear of Kevlar vests? Okay, they don't deflect or disintegrate bullets, but they'll stop a bullet from penetrating the body.
__________________
“All the universe or nothingness. Which shall it be, Passworthy? Which shall it be?”
scotpens is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 27 2012, 10:05 PM   #6
flamewolf393
Cadet
 
Re: Why the lack of personal protection?

It seems to me that if nothing else they could always have a plated or metal threaded outfit/armor that they could polarize like they did in enterprise before the invention of shields. That would provide at least some dispersion effect and increase the chances of survival. It might only last for one or two hits, or have a vulnerable battery pack but still a lot better than nothing.
flamewolf393 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 27 2012, 10:09 PM   #7
C.E. Evans
Vice Admiral
 
C.E. Evans's Avatar
 
Location: Saint Louis (aka Defiance)
Re: Why the lack of personal protection?

^^^
It could be that polarized clothing could be very difficult to move around in.
__________________
"Everybody wants to rule the world..."
C.E. Evans is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 27 2012, 10:30 PM   #8
SchwEnt
Fleet Captain
 
Re: Why the lack of personal protection?

Well, as mentioned, security officers got body armor and helmets in TMP and they were seen wearing it later on in TWOK and TSFS. I've read some opinions that it looked silly or maybe folks just didn't like it. What can you do? Can't please all the people all of the time.

Incidentally, the movies brought about many such changes. Security uniforms included armor and helmets, engineering uniforms included rad suits and protection, landing parties got jackets, and so on.

Once TNG era started, it went back to one type of uniform for all crewmembers, no matter the duty station or posting.

I know, movie versus TV budget and all that. But still.
SchwEnt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 27 2012, 10:36 PM   #9
Deks
Rear Admiral
 
Re: Why the lack of personal protection?

Worf created a makeshift personal forcefield with 2 commbadges.
The only reason it lasted a few seconds was the power supply.

Alternatively, personal forcefields were mentioned in Ds9 (just never used/conveniently forgotten).

Trek writers effectively dumbed down Trek itself to the levels where it became late 20th century/early 21st century in space.
They also retained A LOT of things we have today and moved away from a lot of which Roddenberry established in order to make the show 'relate-able' (which was utterly idiotic and unrealistic for Trek, not to mention real life itself).

Another example of personal forcefields was in TNG where the away team used wrist bands to protect themselves from effects of the frozen time on Enterprise-D.
Voyager also used similar devices to push subspace fractures, and later on Seska used one to create a personal field to protect her from the radiation as she retrieved the console which exploded onboard a Kazon ship.
__________________
We are who we choose to be but also have predefined aspects of our personalities we are born with, and make art that defines us.
Deks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 28 2012, 12:54 AM   #10
Herkimer Jitty
Rear Admiral
 
Herkimer Jitty's Avatar
 
Location: Dayglow, New California Republic
Send a message via Windows Live Messenger to Herkimer Jitty
Re: Why the lack of personal protection?

Let's remember, body protection isn't around just to protect against gunshots. Helmets on a modern battlefield are useful at protecting your head from shrapnel. On a more basic level, you can fall down, hit your head on a rock, and not crack your own skull open. Similarly, this would be a great argument for away teams to wear knee and elbow padding. Protective eyewear would be a must as well, seeing as lotsa UV can be very un-bueno for the ol' mk 1 eyeball. If I were in Starfleet, I'd probably vouch for better footwear as well. What they've got is ok for a day at the office, but its got an awful tread, and you'd get all kinds of soil, foreign stuff, and moisture over the top cause they're so short.

It's not just fights. Starfleet's really not so well equipped for a long-term stay in any environment that isn't SoCal Temperate. If I don't slip on a rock and give myself a concussion, I'm going to trudge through mud for a few hours and get trenchfoot. Joy of joys.

Effectiveness of armored vests/body pieces against phasers and disruptors is debatable... made complicated by the fact that we really haven't seen such armor in use by Starfleet. But the Federation has encountered people who are resistant to small arms, either through biology, cybernetic augmentation, or external gear. (The Hunter guys from DS9, the Borg, there's more, but I don't quite recall). I'll bet that the Federation can reverse-engineer that kind of stuff, eventually.

However, even if body armor is infeasible at the moment, I can't see Starfleet not wanting to protect its people in a fight. Maybe little deployable theater shields or something?
__________________
STAR TREK: 1965-1965½, 1966-1969, Jan. 21-23 1972, 1979-2005, 2009-?
Herkimer Jitty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 28 2012, 01:07 AM   #11
shivkala
Rear Admiral
 
shivkala's Avatar
 
Location: Patrolling Sector 2814
Re: Why the lack of personal protection?

I remember an early issue of the 1989 Star Trek comic book from DC, written by Peter David. Ensign Fouton was working on a phaser-proof body armor. He was successful, after a fashion, when during a test, it did withstand a phaser on disintegrate. Unfortunately, the mannequin wearing the armor was disintegrated, though.

Herkimer Jitty wrote: View Post
It's not just fights. Starfleet's really not so well equipped for a long-term stay in any environment that isn't SoCal Temperate. If I don't slip on a rock and give myself a concussion, I'm going to trudge through mud for a few hours and get trenchfoot. Joy of joys.
That's one of the reasons I loved the field jacket from Star Trek II so much. In addition to having pockets to hold gear, they also looked rather warm. It made sense for an away team to have such heavy and functional jackets.
__________________
"When I reach for the edge of the universe, I do it knowing that along some paths of cosmic discovery, there are times when, at least for now, one must be content to love the questions themselves." --Neil deGrasse Tyson
shivkala is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 28 2012, 01:10 AM   #12
SchwEnt
Fleet Captain
 
Re: Why the lack of personal protection?

We can also speculate about the security armor. It needn't be strictly our-world equivalent of Kevlar protection against blunt force impacts or projectile damage.

Star Fleet armor may have some energy dissipation effect, providing protection against directed-energy weapons. It may have forcefield properties as well. Who knows what else?

I don't know sometimes. People complain about the crew flying all over the bridge. Then we see lap restraints built into the seats to address the problem. And then we don't see the lap restraints again.

People complain about the redshirt deaths. Then we see armor and helmets to help alleviate the rampant redshirt bloodshed. And then we don't see the armor again.
SchwEnt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 28 2012, 01:13 AM   #13
Herkimer Jitty
Rear Admiral
 
Herkimer Jitty's Avatar
 
Location: Dayglow, New California Republic
Send a message via Windows Live Messenger to Herkimer Jitty
Re: Why the lack of personal protection?

Budget cuts. Had to get rid of lapbelts and body armor to keep affording your bonuses and the yearly Christmas Party.
__________________
STAR TREK: 1965-1965½, 1966-1969, Jan. 21-23 1972, 1979-2005, 2009-?
Herkimer Jitty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 28 2012, 02:17 AM   #14
Silversmok3
Commander
 
Silversmok3's Avatar
 
Re: Why the lack of personal protection?

The problem with body armor is that it exacts a toll on the user. The more effective the armor, the harder it is for the wearer to adapt. Kevlar body armor weighs a lot and is far from breathable, so spending 8 hours wearing a 20lb vest can get quite tiring. Body armor capable of stopping rifle fire is oppressively heavy to wear, and a careful shooter can still exact a lethal injury by aiming for the head , groin,or armpit.

In the Trek verse of things, the situation is compounded because of the power requirements of an energy field. Making a nifty Stargate-type Goa'ould personal energy field means building a power source small enough to be portable, which would be tantamount to running around with a small power plant attached to your belt. I'd hate to be that guy if the power cell is damaged in battle -or if it overloads and goes boom!
__________________
There is a time for everything, and a season for every activity under Heaven:A time to heal, A time to break down, and a time to build up.
-Ecclesiastes 3:3
Silversmok3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 28 2012, 02:28 AM   #15
Herkimer Jitty
Rear Admiral
 
Herkimer Jitty's Avatar
 
Location: Dayglow, New California Republic
Send a message via Windows Live Messenger to Herkimer Jitty
Re: Why the lack of personal protection?

No worse than the power source you'd need to fire a phaser beam, I'd wager.
__________________
STAR TREK: 1965-1965½, 1966-1969, Jan. 21-23 1972, 1979-2005, 2009-?
Herkimer Jitty is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:27 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.