RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 137,889
Posts: 5,329,977
Members: 24,557
Currently online: 546
Newest member: Mgroup Video

TrekToday headlines

Retro Review: Inquisition
By: Michelle on Jul 12

Cubify Star Trek 3DMe Mini Figurines
By: T'Bonz on Jul 11

Latest Official Starships Collection Ships
By: T'Bonz on Jul 10

Seven of Nine Bobble Head
By: T'Bonz on Jul 9

Pegg The Prankster
By: T'Bonz on Jul 9

More Trek Stars Join Unbelievable!!!!!
By: T'Bonz on Jul 8

Star Trek #35 Preview
By: T'Bonz on Jul 8

New ThinkGeek Trek Apparel
By: T'Bonz on Jul 7

Star Trek Movie Prop Auction
By: T'Bonz on Jul 7

Drexler: NX Engineering Room Construction
By: T'Bonz on Jul 7


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 September 3 2012, 01:45 PM   #31
Timo
Admiral
 
Re: Why the lack of personal protection?

I'd think a device designed to contain air would be very good at resisting gradual, evenly spread pressure, even fairly high pressure. Not so good at resisting sharp piercing pressure...

Whether the belts do zip against phasers in "Beyond" is somewhat debatable. People being shot at are all in considerable pain, it seems - which is the aim of the creature controlling the phasers (or whatever those beams are). But Kirk resists the beams just as well after removing the belt, if not better.

..Yes, the animation is again wildly inconsistent on whether Kirk has his belt on or not. But he makes a great show of removing it and placing it on the control console, in an apparent gesture of surrender, so we are supposed to believe he indeed ceases to wear a belt at that point. And the yellow glow around him at beam impacts is probably due to the beam, rather than the belt...

Timo Saloniemi
Timo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 3 2012, 03:58 PM   #32
CorporalCaptain
Vice Admiral
 
CorporalCaptain's Avatar
 
Location: Kentucky
Re: Why the lack of personal protection?

Timo wrote: View Post
I'd think a device designed to contain air would be very good at resisting gradual, evenly spread pressure, even fairly high pressure. Not so good at resisting sharp piercing pressure...

Whether the belts do zip against phasers in "Beyond" is somewhat debatable. People being shot at are all in considerable pain, it seems - which is the aim of the creature controlling the phasers (or whatever those beams are). But Kirk resists the beams just as well after removing the belt, if not better.

..Yes, the animation is again wildly inconsistent on whether Kirk has his belt on or not. But he makes a great show of removing it and placing it on the control console, in an apparent gesture of surrender, so we are supposed to believe he indeed ceases to wear a belt at that point. And the yellow glow around him at beam impacts is probably due to the beam, rather than the belt...

Timo Saloniemi
He's put one hand on the belt that he left on the console to short it out, so I'd say the yellow glow is from the belt.
__________________
John
CorporalCaptain is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 3 2012, 10:01 PM   #33
Go Go L
Ensign
 
Re: Why the lack of personal protection?

I think for the most part, the uniforms were fine. You wouldn't want to meet "explorers" visiting earth for the first time wearing armor. When going into battle, then they need to be much better equiped like TMP. It'd be a pain to wear armor all the time like the Klingons, and probably send the wrong message unless it was discreet and effective.
Go Go L is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 7 2012, 09:52 AM   #34
Brainsucker
Lieutenant Commander
 
Re: Why the lack of personal protection?

Well, protection is one thing, but wearing T-shirt, trousers, and office shoes on an away mission or war is just... (see DS9)

In a diplomatic mission, it is acceptable if they wears the usual uniform plus hand gun for self protection though.
Brainsucker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 7 2012, 10:57 AM   #35
Timo
Admiral
 
Re: Why the lack of personal protection?

It's very seldom that a landing party really expects to get into a firefight, though.

And being armored against an unexpected attack isn't really worth it: if somebody really bothers to ambush a Starfleet landing party, they'll be sure to prepare well enough that the attack will succeed, quite regardless of whether our heroes beam down in t-shirts or in a main battle tank. The true defense of a landing party is its ability to posthumously vaporize a continent... Nobody really dares attack even a naked Starfleet officer when knowing that this will cost him his entire civilization.

So that basically leaves just two scenarios where donning heavy armor makes any sense:

1) the landing party will engage in an infantry attack
2) the landing party will face savages who have no idea who they are up against - which means they will attack with things like spears, axes and sharpened avocados, as higher tech would imply knowledge of opposition

And the first scenario might never take place. Perhaps there exists no infantry action in the Trek universe? We never see it happen, after all: the closest we come is a desperate impromptu defense of an installation by a stranded starship crew against forces from a similarly downed enemy vessel, in "Siege of AR-558" and "The Ship".

Whether light body armor or forcefield belts/harnesses are a good idea in the second scenario... Difficult to say. The already discussed futuristic riot shields of ST5:TFF might be the more usual approach. But it seems that whenever our TOS heroes deliberately engage savage natives, they do so in the course of a mission where they try to hide their outer space origin and nature. Any protection would have to be of a concealable type, then, akin to the tiny Type 1 phasers.

Timo Saloniemi
Timo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 7 2012, 05:09 PM   #36
Crazy Eddie
Rear Admiral
 
Crazy Eddie's Avatar
 
Location: I'm in your ___, ___ing your ___
Re: Why the lack of personal protection?

Brainsucker wrote: View Post
Well, protection is one thing, but wearing T-shirt, trousers, and office shoes on an away mission or war is just... (see DS9)

In a diplomatic mission, it is acceptable if they wears the usual uniform plus hand gun for self protection though.
In early TOS and again in the movies, away teams beamed down with field jackets and equipment packs. Tad more realistic that way (at least, for peacetime).
__________________
The Complete Illustrated Guide to Starfleet - Online Now!
Crazy Eddie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 7 2012, 05:19 PM   #37
Timo
Admiral
 
Re: Why the lack of personal protection?

I'm not sure I see the "realism" of wearing a jacket. I mean, it's just a specific shape of clothing, traditional to a certain culture; what they normally wear could be just as functional in every respect. It's not even as if the jackets would cover bits that aren't otherwise covered (except in the case of those cold weather costumes from ENT and VOY, which at least have proper hoods - Saavik and David Marcus sure could have used those in ST3!).

Timo Saloniemi
Timo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 7 2012, 05:42 PM   #38
CorporalCaptain
Vice Admiral
 
CorporalCaptain's Avatar
 
Location: Kentucky
Re: Why the lack of personal protection?

I doubt that Mr. Hendorff would have objected to another layer of clothing at the very least.
__________________
John
CorporalCaptain is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 7 2012, 06:26 PM   #39
Crazy Eddie
Rear Admiral
 
Crazy Eddie's Avatar
 
Location: I'm in your ___, ___ing your ___
Re: Why the lack of personal protection?

Timo wrote: View Post
I'm not sure I see the "realism" of wearing a jacket. I mean, it's just a specific shape of clothing, traditional to a certain culture
It's actually become sort of universal among the armed forces of the world, especially forces that expect to fight in cold climates. Even the Chinese navy wear jackets in the winter.
__________________
The Complete Illustrated Guide to Starfleet - Online Now!
Crazy Eddie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 7 2012, 07:02 PM   #40
Timo
Admiral
 
Re: Why the lack of personal protection?

...I'm including all of Earth's sub-cultures here, really. No reason for other humanoids to wear clothing of that particular shape.

Although the older styles of traditional fighting garb really differed quite a bit from the Star Trek style hip- or waist-length jacket. Ankle-length cold weather protection has been far more common (and effective!) overall, and hot weather protection varies wildly before the era of global standardization - chiefly driven by whimsical reasons of commercial or even popular culture origin (gotta look American!).

The main and original objection I have is to the continuation of layered clothing in any culture for the Trek 23rd century, though. It seems too low-tech, in a context where high tech would probably be passive and reliable and in every sense preferable to low tech.

Timo Saloniemi
Timo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 9 2012, 12:33 AM   #41
Crazy Eddie
Rear Admiral
 
Crazy Eddie's Avatar
 
Location: I'm in your ___, ___ing your ___
Re: Why the lack of personal protection?

Timo wrote: View Post
...I'm including all of Earth's sub-cultures here, really. No reason for other humanoids to wear clothing of that particular shape.
Form follows function. Vulcan science officers may be partial to catsuits, but their special forces people wear jackets just like everyone else. So do the Andorians, as it happens.

The main and original objection I have is to the continuation of layered clothing in any culture for the Trek 23rd century, though. It seems too low-tech, in a context where high tech would probably be passive and reliable and in every sense preferable to low tech.
Except that the high tech solution is subject to random plot devices that render it somehow useless. Imagine if your personal forcefield was designed to also provide thermal insulation in cold weather, but suddenly rendered inoperable by some sort of [tech] field on the planet surface. In that case, it's just an excuse not to wear a jacket so you can have a really bad "OMG It's freezing down here!" subplot.

More to the point: along with an extra layer of clothing comes an extra layer of POCKETS. It's easy to underestimate how much difference a few extra pockets can make.
__________________
The Complete Illustrated Guide to Starfleet - Online Now!
Crazy Eddie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 10 2012, 11:43 AM   #42
Timo
Admiral
 
Re: Why the lack of personal protection?

Vulcan science officers may be partial to catsuits, but their special forces people wear jackets just like everyone else. So do the Andorians, as it happens.
And that's the thing I find so unrealistic. But it's something I have to live with, even if it's not sufficiently futuristic to my tastes.

Except that the high tech solution is subject to random plot devices that render it somehow useless.
Which is another highly unrealistic aspect of Trek. In reality, it's more typical for high tech render low tech useless (say, through the use of armor that cannot be pierced by primitive weapons ).

More to the point: along with an extra layer of clothing comes an extra layer of POCKETS.
...Making the lower layer inaccessible.

In any case, the TNG uniforms appear capable of sprouting pockets wherever and whenever needed. Yeah, the quasi-polatronic jammatron beam of the Weirdomites might neutralize that technology, making Torres drop her hammer on her toes at an awkward moment - but somehow I don't see the Trek writers bothering.

Timo Saloniemi
Timo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 10 2012, 07:33 PM   #43
Crazy Eddie
Rear Admiral
 
Crazy Eddie's Avatar
 
Location: I'm in your ___, ___ing your ___
Re: Why the lack of personal protection?

Timo wrote: View Post
Except that the high tech solution is subject to random plot devices that render it somehow useless.
Which is another highly unrealistic aspect of Trek. In reality, it's more typical for high tech render low tech useless (say, through the use of armor that cannot be pierced by primitive weapons ).
Yep.


More to the point: along with an extra layer of clothing comes an extra layer of POCKETS.
...Making the lower layer inaccessible.
I could only hope so.





In any case, the TNG uniforms appear capable of sprouting pockets wherever and whenever needed. Yeah, the quasi-polatronic jammatron beam of the Weirdomites might neutralize that technology, making Torres drop her hammer on her toes at an awkward moment - but somehow I don't see the Trek writers bothering.
Then it is probably fortunate that Voyager did not attempt to stretch into an eighth season.
__________________
The Complete Illustrated Guide to Starfleet - Online Now!
Crazy Eddie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 11 2012, 07:39 AM   #44
Timo
Admiral
 
Re: Why the lack of personal protection?

...But the problem would have disappeared by then, as the level of 24th century technology would have kept on dropping steadily, until the ship was flying on rocket thrust, replicators worked by microwaving preprepared meals, and the only way to carry a hammer would have been to sling it on a loose-fitting tool vest / jacket combo...

Timo Saloniemi
Timo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 11 2012, 06:45 PM   #45
Crazy Eddie
Rear Admiral
 
Crazy Eddie's Avatar
 
Location: I'm in your ___, ___ing your ___
Re: Why the lack of personal protection?

You never actually WATCHED Voyager, did you?
__________________
The Complete Illustrated Guide to Starfleet - Online Now!
Crazy Eddie 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 08:35 AM.

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